Actually I just want some understandable, coherent definition which I can use to understand the "neocon" folk tales/morality melodramas being thought up by people like you (i.e. "neocons never left liberalism behind. it makes sense that most are Jews". etc.)
I have already stated that political definitions seem subject to quite a bit of change over the span of a short period of time.I have already stated that political definitions seem subject to quite a bit of change over the span of a short period of time.
And I already agreed with you but that's no excuse for you not to reveal your definition of a term which you're repeatedly using. Unless perhaps your definition is continually changing as you use it? That would certainly explain why you have such a hard time putting it into clear terms....
By your logic no one should criticize the political parties because there does not seem to be a political philosophy behind them.
I haven't said this or anything like it.
One cannot make sweeping generalizations about republicans or democrats because a handy google search will produce a speech by a member of either party which contradicts any of the original criticism.
No, one could make generalizations (though perhaps not "sweeping" ones) about Republicans or Democrats, as long as they were accurate. For example, a numerical survey of Republicans might (although it might not, I can't say for sure) statistically indicate that a probable majority of Republicans seek lower income taxes. If this were the case, then the generalization "Republicans tend to be people who seek lower income taxes" would be reasonably justified. One or a small number of exceptions wouldn't necessarily invalidate that generalization; you'd need a large number of exceptions (for example: I found that all the Neocon Founder examples you listed (all two of them) were exceptions to your claim that "the Neocon Founders were conservative on foreign policy and nothing else", which, I submit, really tends to cast doubt on that claim of yours).
See, if you want to support a statement like "neocons never left their liberalism behind", you have to show that it's true by doing the same thing: you have to make some kind of survey of (people whom you think are) "neocons" and then show that some majority of those people "never left their liberalism behind", in some sense.
And obviously to do that, a non-trivial step along the way is to make that list of - or, equivalently, define accurately - who you think are "neocons".
As I've asked you to do about umpteen times now.
So you see, all I've been doing is asking you to do something perfectly reasonable which would be expected in any other similar political discussion: define your terms and substantiate your claims. Until/unless you do that, you're just tellin' weird morality-folk tales starring these vague shady characters "the neocons" which reveal more about you and your proclivities than they do about anyone/anything else in the real world.
Okay. I made sweeping remarks. Sorry.
WHY DO YOU CATEGORIZE NEWT GINGRICH AS A "NEOCON"?