[evilC]

>>>
Zio-cons is a stupid term (which I haven’t heard much before).
<<<

Probably because I made it up :). The description "neo-con" has been so abused that it is pretty much worthless now. I needed a term for a conservative who supports Israel (as opposed to a conservative who does not worry about Israel). Of course, using "neo" to describe a movement that is more than 40 years old is a bit stupid as well.

>>>
Presuming you consider Pat and Ron Paul conservatives
<<<

Yeah! I am a "big-tent" conservative :)


>>>
You’re still here.
<<<

And intend to stay.

[SJackson]

Probably because I made it up :). The description "neo-con" has been so abused that it is pretty much worthless now. I needed a term for a conservative who supports Israel (as opposed to a conservative who does not worry about Israel). Of course, using "neo" to describe a movement that is more than 40 years old is a bit stupid as well.

Presuming you mean an accurate, non-offensive term, you can’t. Israel isn’t an issue sufficiently detatched from other issues, other than to those for whom the “controversy” relates to the faith of Israel’s residents. If you oppose foreign aid, that’s not an “Israel” issue. Oppose foreign wars, that’s not about Israel. Support the Egyptioan-Saudi alliance, that’s not about Israel, it’s pro Arab.

I agree you about neocon, it’s now morphed to mean a Jew “foolish” enough to support Republicans. Also not a term worth defining.

Since you bring up neocons, earlier in the thread I’ve alluded to Pat’s memos to Nixon regarding the infeasibility of integration given negros 15 point I-Q deficit. Of course I was accused of making it, but if you believe me (and it’s easy to verify), Pat wasn’t completely certain. Who did he suggest the administration look into the issue?

Irving Kristol. Go figure.