Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?
Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?
The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.
So, what is a 'neocon'? - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.
Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public's patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.
Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives.
Also in domestic policies, however, as the '60s unfolded into the '70s and '80s, they led the critique of overreaching in domestic social engineering, saying that we accept the post-New Deal role of the central government, but the accumulated powers thereof are being wielded in a way too confident and optimistic and hubristic, if you will.
If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?
Let's have a discussion about Hallitburton, Blackwater, XE, et al...Lefties are folks who have a single tool and want to solve every problem with that single tool. As they saying goes, "they have a hammer and see every problem as a nail."
Greater government is only a solution for things that government really is good at doing. Hitting people, killing things, blowing things up. Conservatives have no issue with government being used for those purposes.
For alternative problems, alternative solutions should apply.
If you want to make things, build things, do anything constructive, then government really isn't a good solution.
Well, if a private enterprise is better at doing government functions than the government, then have government do functions it really isn't meant for is even less of a good idea.
And if government is out doing all kinds of things it is not good at, then reducing it to its core competencies and getting it to do only the things it can do well, and not spending money where it shouldn't, would mean we could lower taxes.
If you're an Origi-Con then why do/did you sit so quietly by while the loud-mouths and fringers representing your ideology spew the BS about "no guv-ah-munt" all over the place?If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?
I am a CONSERVATIVE (don't really know what a "neocon" is) and I believe that BIG, unencumbered, smothering FEDERAL government is the problem, not government itself necessarily. Try to understand conservatism before you post such idiocy. No conservative believes in no government; these are the beliefs of an Anarchist.
Let's have a discussion about Hallitburton, Blackwater, XE, et al...
Well, if a private enterprise is better at doing government functions than the government, then have government do functions it really isn't meant for is even less of a good idea.
And if government is out doing all kinds of things it is not good at, then reducing it to its core competencies and getting it to do only the things it can do well, and not spending money where it shouldn't, would mean we could lower taxes.
so we should replace our military with mercs since we have done so poorly in recent wars?
I mean Iraq was doubted to take 6 months by Rumsfeild?
And Vietnam was a fiasco of a defeat and Bush went over and ran around in jammies with them.
Isn't that where he tried to go in a closet?
You guys do realize that under the true definition of Neo-Con this thread has a faulty premise, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoconservatismWikiPedia said:Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.[1][2][3] Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[4]
The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".[5][6] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[7] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[8] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[9][10] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[11]
The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[13][14] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
Ohhhh...NOW they want to pick and choose and ACT like they DIDN'T approve and support the Bush Regime over most of the last decade.Smaller govt.
Less taxes.
Privitization.
Thoase have all been both classic con and neo con mantras for 30 years.
They RE-ELECTED that destructive summamabatch for goodness sake.
Now they act as if they don't know what happened and didn't support it as it happened.
Case closed.
Damned "Born Again Fiscally-Responsible."
*SMH*
....
That's it, thaaat's it...NOW you're getting closer to accepting the DAMAGE that Herr Bush has done to this country.Ohhhh...NOW they want to pick and choose and ACT like they DIDN'T approve and support the Bush Regime over most of the last decade.Smaller govt.
Less taxes.
Privitization.
Thoase have all been both classic con and neo con mantras for 30 years.
They RE-ELECTED that destructive summamabatch for goodness sake.
Now they act as if they don't know what happened and didn't support it as it happened.
Case closed.
Damned "Born Again Fiscally-Responsible."
*SMH*
..
Enjoy your Bush bashing soapbox for the next three years. I'm designing an all-weather Obama soapbox for 2013.
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]WikiPedia said:Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.[1][2][3] Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[4]
The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".[5][6] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[7] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[8] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[9][10] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[11]
The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[13][14] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
