This vague statement doesn't answer my question. You mentioned 'the neocon dream'. What do you mean when you say 'the neocon dream'?
and fairly in favor of the war in Iraq, though not for the stated reasons
Perhaps you could elaborate on this statement.
Sarah Palin is not a Conservative.
I triple dog dare you, (that's right, I engaged in slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat), I triple dog dare you to post this as it's own thread, declaring that Palin isn't a conservative. And make sure you rant about 'neocons' in your post.
The "new conservatism" is the "kinder, gentler" conservatism of the Baker Moderates, which has moved to bastardize everything Conservative and turn it to it's own devices- The final outcome, to my reckoning, seems to be Globalism, but whatever it is, it has nothing at all to do with the Conservatism of Reagan.
Reagan Conservatism is all about principle- it is a pact between the lesser conservative factions to only vote for candidates who uphold the tenets of all three factions- That is what a big "C" Conservative is.
NeoConservatism seeks to change the very definitions by which Conservatives set their values by using the same names and proscribing different values to them, while denigrating those things which used to be the placeholders for those names.
Reaganite "Free Trade" has become protectionism, and "Free Trade" now means "Anything goes". Reagan's Trickle Down Economics and Raw Capitalism has become Keynesian Third Way Economics, And what was once solid support for the Constitution has become compromise and capitulation- To the point that our very sovereignty is being undermined. What was once the party of social justice, of God's own Law has largely become a compromise with multi-culturalism. And what was once the honorable ideal of lifting up our foe and fixing what we broke, has become... wait for it... interventionism just as our Libertarian friends have bemoaned.
[roamer_1:] and fairly in favor of the war in Iraq, though not for the stated reasons
Perhaps you could elaborate on this statement.
Simple strategy suggests that it is easier to kill the ragheads in a sandbox than it is to kill them on the rocky spines of the mountains of Afghanistan- A place which has broken the back of every army that has ever ventured there.
I am not in favor of the certain discrepancies which do exist within the greater WOT... Backing Muslims against the Serbs for instance- A monumental and asinine misfortune. Kosovo is the back door into Europe, and we are handing it to our enemies.
I triple dog dare you, (that's right, I engaged in slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat), I triple dog dare you to post this as it's own thread, declaring that Palin isn't a conservative. And make sure you rant about 'neocons' in your post.
I do not post threads, as I am not here long enough to mind one properly- But I have not been bashful about my position regarding Palin or NeoCons. I will offer you the very same question I have posted numerous times on Palin threads (and Jindal threads for that matter), having never been given a satisfactory reply:
By her RECORD, that is, what she has already done and already said, explain to me how Sarah Palin can unite the three pillars of Reagan Conservatism. It is my position that she cannot, and will defend against her based upon all three pillars, upon any of which she is too weak to stand as a conservative in her own right.
This is a very common question, and one which any Reaganite can be judged by forthwith.