(1) Well, let’s see: foreign wars, where to start, how about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, all of which were wars of choice (the crucial distinction) started by either Democratic or Republican presidents.
(2) By “neocon,” I am referring to that species of conservative (most of whom used to be Democrats) which believes in an aggressive and antagonistic foreign policy designed to promote “democracy” overseas.
(3) By “globalist,” I am referring to that species of conservative (or the “duty to protect” liberal, there being no essential difference on this issue) who is content to allow 11 million illegal aliens to invade the United States while the U.S. military has the South Korean border locked down airtight.
I am a pretty consistent nationalist: I don’t believe that the wars in Serbia, Vietnam, Libya, or Iraq were in our national interest, and I certainly don’t believe they are worth paying for either.
Goody for you. You learned to use a search engine. (I guess my schooling you the other day on the correct definition of “classical liberal” taught you a valuable lesson.
So now that you’ve defined the words right, how about using them in some adult context from now on instead of just throwing them around at every candidate not named Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul.
The neocon is a macho version of the “duty to protect” liberal.