No. Uh, I guess I should've explained (since you don't seem to realize) that there is a significant difference between the examples of "Republican" and "neoconservative" for this discussion.
"Republican" is a political party with a well-defined membership. It is not a political philosophy per se.
There is no political party called "the Neoconservative Party" or anything like that. It is (supposedly) some kind of political philosophy or ideology.
That's why to say "a neocon is someone who believes in neoconism" is circular, but "a Republican is a member of the Republican party" is not. There actually is a "Republican party" with a well-defined list of names who are "members" of it; there's no "neoconservative party" with a list of names of people who "believe in neoconservatism".
And that's why your current line of argument is messed up. You are mixing apples ("Republican" political party) with oranges ("neoconservative" which is not a party, but it supposedly a philosophy or ideology). I hope you understand now.
I asked what the Republican party stands for/believes and you do not know. You gave me a list of Republicans, but other than the name "Republican" there is nothing that they have in common?
There are probably a few things one can glean from all of the views of my examples which the people known as "Republicans" tend to have in common. I don't know with much certainty what those things might be, beyond the fact that I could make a few rough guesses. Nor does this have any bearing on our discussion.
I remind you that nowhere have I seriously made any sweeping generalizations or psychological theorizing about, or constructed any folk tales about, "the Republicans", as you have repeatedly with "the neocons". Again, if I had said something like "the Republicans want to smash your computer", you would be perfectly justified in seeking all this information (which Republicans? what's my definition of "Republican"? why does Ron Paul not fit my claim, isn't he a "Republican" or am I using the word differently?) from me and expecting me to be able to give reasonable answers. But as it stands you are mixing apples and oranges.
Once again: there is no political party called "Neoconservative". I'm just a little bit surprised you didn't know this ;-P
Some wag once said that the Socratic dialogue is not a game at which two can play.
I have no idea what that means.
Still waiting for your explanation for why you categorize Newt as a "neocon". Why do you keep avoiding or ignoring that question?
I seem to have an annoying habit of falling into discussions with certain bizarrely obtuse or stubborn Freepers in which I ask a straightforward question somewhere around post 30 and then can't for the life of me drag the damn answer out of him even after dozens of exchanges. What is it with Freepers who won't answer straightforward, perfectly fair questions? Do I have to shout it?
WHY DO YOU CATEGORIZE NEWT GINGRICH AS A "NEOCON"?
There. Did you see the question this time? Let me know,