Posted on 09/04/2007 11:50:38 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
The most popular political slur of our time is the term "neocon." Politically engaged people of several ideologies use the term regularly and although they mean different things when they use it, the term is always intended to be an insult, like the terms "neo-Nazi," and "fascist," also favorite slurs of the same ilk using "neocon." I was first called a “neocon” by known Democratic Socialists upset by my writings in favor of America’s founding principles, Life, individual Liberty and the right to pursue Happiness in a free market society where all things are possible through individual achievement and reward.
Since Democratic Socialists believe in and support Death not Life (abortion), a Greater Communal Good - not Individual Rights and the right to take from achievers via progressive taxation - not the right to live free, earn and retain wealth by the sweat of one’s own brow, I took the term “neocon” as a compliment.
(snip)
The hate mail I have received from Ron Paul supporters reads just like the hate mail I have always received from Marxists around the globe and across the aisle. It’s hate-filled overtly angry foul mouthed and threatening rhetoric that reads like it was written by anti-Semitic skin-heads on crack. I doubt that even Ron Paul would be proud of how his supporters behave…
(Excerpt) Read more at pcfreenews.com ...
Romney should be running as a Democrat or Independent too, IMHO.
Damn, there you go again, hitting their truth with the facts...
Gotta hate that...
What else can one expect from the StaliDems, than a smear campaign that turns into “re-education” pogroms?
Not this one. The whole point of the nation building is to keep those people from flooding our borders.
Do I qualify? Nah! I don’t even know what the hell “Neo-Con” means!
To quote the late, great Joey Ramone:
..If there's one thing that makes me sick it's when someone tries to hide behind politics..
Ron Paul can talk all day about how he has Constitutional reasons for voting against things like strengthened border security and preventing someone from taking a minor across State lines for an abortion, but the fact is, at the end of the day, his vote makes a difference if the borders are more secure or if abortions are reduced. His little speeches on his twisted view of the Constitution do nothing to end abortion or make us more secure. They are just words to appease Conservatives and hope they ignore his actual votes.
Is that supposed to be Jack Handy, Deep Thoughts or something?
Get yourself a bunch of back issues of Kristol's Weekly Standard publication, and look through them for either of the following:
1. An article or editorial in support of the Second Amendment; or
2. An article or editorial in favor of an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
For a publication that is supposedly "conservative," the lack of anything related to these two points is pretty remarkable.
The support of so many people in the neo-conservative movement for a Republican candidate like Rudy Giuliani pretty much says it all, don't you think?
Well...let self-described neoconservative leaders do it for you:
Irving Kristol (the Godfather of Neoconservatism) wrote a book entitled Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea. In it he described neoconservatism as:
It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group ... (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We ... accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.
In 1983, Kristol wrote:
A conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective.
Or take the words of Irving's son, Bill Kristol:
Are we willing to say that the country is worse off because of FDR or JFK or LBJ? I'm not willing to say that.
Irving Kristol again on neoconservatism:
Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked
You can call the prevailing philosophy of the Republican party in 2007 "neoconservatism"...or "mainstream conservatism"...it really doesn't matter what you call it...what it represents is something very different than what the Republican party through much of the 20th century represented.
Certainly, it does not represent a smaller federal government...with "conservative" Republicans at the helm from 2000-2006, we have seen a faster expansion of the federal welfare state than we have since the Great Society. Conservatives' (back to the Founding Fathers) old concerns about a warfare state with all its accompanying corruption and war profiteering and centralization of power is of little concern to conservatives today...and, again, I think that is the influence of neoconservatism.
My own definition of neoconservatism is a political philosophy that is based on, what Fred Barnes called "big government conservatism"...advocacy of modern-day New Deal-type domestic policies and an internationalist, interventionist foreign policy.
Do you know what bills those were? Thanks
I'd say that most neo-cons are for using the military to intervene in foreign countries where they pose a threat to the U.S. and then sticking around after wards to rebuild. I can understand the Paleo-cons isolationist attitude, but in today's world, I don't want to see a repeat of the Afghanistan fiasco where the Taliban & AQ filled the vacuum left by the retreating Russians. The biggest problem with nation-building is that we let the U.N. interfere. The U.N. needs to go. I'd love to see the U.N building in NYC torn down and a giant super WalMart with a mega-plex theater and a few Starbucks take it's place.
Also, I'm all for a double wall & trench along our southern border, not because I hate immigrants from the south, but because of the obvious security issues.
As far as the 2nd amendment goes, "Molon Laveh".
Proud to be a Neo-Con!!!
"The hate mail I have received from Ron Paul supporters reads just like the hate mail I have always received from Marxists around the globe and across the aisle."
Evidence of insanity, to be sure. I think you're a little confused about who's sanity is coming up short on the dipstick.
(1)Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005
(2)Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004
(3)Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003
(4)Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001
(5)Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999
No “neo” here, either. I want the Old Deal back.
After all, votes are what counts, rhetoric just puts more CO2 in the air. :->
Political realities on the ground have changed in the latter half of the 20th century. The American and global left shifted the center aided by several factors including demographics, perceptions of greed, and control over information. One can rail and one can complain, but the fact remains that sticking to one’s view in the face of change is a recipe for defeatat the polls. To win in any endeavor over the longer term one needs allies.
“Come now Mr. Williams, let’s see a sample shall we? “
Here is an example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863700/posts?page=166#151
In this example, a Ron Paul supporter (named billbears) labels me as an ‘imperialist’ for expressing support American efforts in Iraq. I tried questioning him on this term, but he was unwilling to explain his insult. And then after he tried to spew a bunch of anti-war BS, the coward runs and hides from debate.
How many of those bills claimed the New Deal “substantial effects” invocation of Commerce Clause athority to enact the legislation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.