If someone slanders you on a thread, you're not hijacking it simply taking exception to the post.
If someone slanders you on a thread, you're not hijacking it simply taking exception to the post.
Ironically, my original post wasn't even entirely serious. I got sucked into a finger-pointing match -- my mistake -- and said things I should not have said. However, it was foolish to insist that the sweeping statement was true, and I should not have done so. I therefore retract the sweeping statement I made.
However.
While I did overreach when I made the comment, there are those who make the connections -- for example, equating neo-cons and Jews; or (as Ron Paul recently did), neo-cons and communists. And of course those who make the full connection.
In that vein, it is instructive to look at a Google search on the keywords neo con Israel jew.
You'll note that there are indeed a lot of nasty anti-semetic hits. There are also sites that discuss the issue in a less rabid form, but nevertheless make the same connection. Which is to say, there is a significant segment for whom "neo-con" does indeed mean "Jew", "Communist," or both. So my comment was not without some truth.
There are also those who, like our friend Jolly, toss "neo-con" around as an insult, and even as a tactic for stopping debate (I seem to recall being accused of much the same thing). Given the size of the audience that is receptive to the less wholesome nuances of "neo-con", let me suggest that those who would use the term in polite conversation might do well to reconsider, lest they be once again lumped in with the nice folks at stormfront.org.