And why shouldn't people be labeled. They persist in labeling us right-wingers. (And I wear that label proudly).
Who said you have to support anyone you don't agree with?
My point is that the stupid label sometimes becomes more important than the ideology behind the label. I've seen it many times on FR. Watch someone disagree with someone else on some specific issue - especially about the Republican party - and the 'neo-conservative' label is too often instantly attached to that poster, like a mark of Cain. All discussion is supposed to cease; they've been 'marked' and labled. Case closed.
It neatly avoids real discussion and puts the recipient on the defensive - over a label. Very liberal-style tactic that I hate to see. It's tempting and routine in political discussions but not very useful.
'Neo-Conservative' can mean whatever the person using the label wants it to mean. A waste of time and a cheesy tactic, in my opinion. The left does this and we can do it back when it fits ('hypocrite' is usually accurate here) but to go back and forth playing the label game with other conservatives is rather pointless.
What I have found is that usually the poster labeled a neo-con (or something else) usually says something else that justifies the label (as have several on this thread).