Posted on 03/16/2009 7:48:46 AM PDT by Liz
?Id highlight the deciding difference that GWB was going after islamist terrorists, while Clinton was not.
Yes. Seems strange how that distinction seems to blur in many minds... Thanks.
Perhaps a Venn diagram could be helpful.
Except me, of course.
Probably not the inventor of the term, either.
>> Some folks here think definitions can change. How say you?
Sure. But, it is encumbent on the writer to be absolutely clear as to which definition he ascribes — particularly when there are multiple definitions of the same term or when the definition is a moving target (as it seems to be in the case of the term “neocon”).
My assertion was not that definitions are static — it was to question which definition we were using.
SnakeDoc
But yet, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the meanings of words continue to change. Be sure and tell the person, the next time you're asked, that you had a gay time at the event.
Taking that "logic" to its natural conclusion, our Constitution is hopelessly out of date, and the meaning of it has utterly changed, so we might as well ignore it completely
In the future I'll be sure not to use the word logic and Designer in the same sentence.
You and the socialists have a lot in common. Did you get that job that you applied for in the Obommer administration?
Do you only stop shooting yourself in the foot to reload? Do you only stop talking long enough to change feet? Your profound superiority complex must be a difficult burden for you to bear.
Why bother, you've already provided us with the last word on the subject. You schooled us well so there is no need to carry the debate any further you paleo dinosaur.
In other words, if they use the term “neo-con” and agree with you they are not anti-semite.....but if they disagree with you they are anti-semite. Right.....
You need to turn off the Inane Argument. It’s boring.
That's because different people have different definitions, often contradictory.
To some old-style conservatives, a "neocon" is somebody who wants a party which is essentially Democrat but also energetic in protecting Israel's interests.
Obaman's sex life is about to improve greatly---as Kristol, Frum and the RINO-eos line up for a turn under Obama's desk.
Pukeneos giving the Nation just what it needs---another Democrat Party. They have given RNC's Steele his marching orders----"weaken the party's pro-life principles........or else." The pukeneos have a lot at stake---they are getting $paid handsomely to $squat in the Repub Party......pocketing $big bonuses to religiously cleanse the party of the so/cons the pukes despise.
Puke Billy Kristol blows whichever way the Beltway Winds are blowing. Kristol went from Moynihan's staff to Quayle's, from The Weekly Standard to the NYT, from Bush to Giuliani to McCain. And the crumbum is still as secretive as ever....spewing blue-blood beltway Republicanism, and smirkingly kicking conservatives to the curb.
================================================
And now------The Winner of the 2008 Best Election Night Performance Award in the category of:
"Neos Know Nothing About this Republican Disaster."
Billy Kristol (McC campaign mastermind)
"Thank you very much. But I could not have done it without the help of all the
punkeos--David Frum, Michael Gerson, David Brooks, Richard Perle.....and
my Dearest Daddy."
"Sniffle---my Dearest Daddy (who was Giuliani's foreign policy advisor) said,
"The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism is.....to convert the
Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their
respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to
governing a modern democracy."
"Sob."
"I especially want to thank punkneo Douglas Feith for faking documents on his
home computer so we punkneos could dupe the president."
"Without Doug we would not have been able to transfer trillions of US dollars
into the Mideast, into the pockets of war profiteers, which enabled Richard Perle
to startup an oil business in Iraq with his cut."
Kristol smirked: "Making Iraq safe for Perle's oil business with US tax dollars was truly a noble punkneo effort."
The failed Neo-Con experiment to elect a Liberal Republican for President had nothing to do with Jews as far as I can tell. If anything, McCain had weak policies on fighting terrorism.
Dismissing Neo-Cons as meaning Jews is the kind of garbage twits like Head McCain Cheeleader Michael Medved use to feel superior. It’s spineless straw man garbage.
I agree that your argument is inane. I’ll be more than happy to turn it off.
Some people have a vision of American "leadership" as meaning that the US gets to spend its wealth being the world's policeman and social worker, operating without any thought of compensation, while the rest of the world gets a free ride to enjoy the benefits of what American soldiers and taxpayers provide.
But you won’t because you need it too much
I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, there are those within the GOP who would like to silence those holding socially conservative positions. They don't tend to argue about those other positions - for the most part they agree with them (except, of course the truthers and the like). But they want the so-con issues shut down.
Some people would have no problem with China being the driving force for the direction of the world in the 21st century.
Yes, I envy "my candidate" not frequenting America's #1 Truther, Alex Jones.
Who has been on Alex Jones more, Ron Paul, or Cindy Sheehan?
I would not like China being in charge, precisely because China would be very good at looking out for China. When China does something on the world stage, they tend to perform actions that create a political or economic return to China.
Meanwhile, the US does actions that cost the US loads of money and lives, but which do not provide any return to the US economy. The problem with selfless altruism is that, if carried too far, you eventually run out of funds. Visualize a woman who spends all her days running a charity for Africa but neglects her own home and children.
I would have been happier if, after we eliminated Saddam, we decided to make Iraq pay the cost of the operation in oil.
What is the difference?
Crim, you ought to be lashed to an outbound freighter, sent to the middle of the Atlantic and have your Grand Old Party papers permanently pulled, for bringing such an abrupt halt to an otherwise useless thread.
On the other hand , I’m a neocon (new conservative), former liberal mugged by reality, and am hoping to be left alone by those who would do the lashing.
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.