I'm not Muslim.
No... the term neo-conservative is defined by a particular political agenda exemplified by the goals set by the PNAC.
Term's misleading, most you label as "neo-con" are not new to conservatism.
The way it's misused by the left is to describe a conservative who wants to americanize the planet. Slightly less of an emphasis on the social issues, more tolerance for governmental spending does not a neo prefix make.
If "neo-con" is liberalspeak, do you think, perhaps, the term "liberal" as it's tossed about by the right is "neo-con speak"?
Yes, when the right uses it as a perjorative label. He said he was a centrist, that's not centrist-speak.
There IS a conservative code....but, when the far left call Hillary Clinton a "neo-con" because of some of her votes, it has a diluting and disingenious effect.
Calling her a "communist" or "global socialist" is over the top, also, doesn't make it so.
There's a difference between "rhetoric", "spin", and "opinion".
You know, I don't really buy that. This is a predominantly conservative board. If you read from thread to thread, you will find one conservative poster after another agreeing with the others, posting when they can't give rep to each other b/c they've given each other too much, and generally giving each other the cybernetic high five.
It's not fun to read, that's it. Poster 1 says "a", Poster 2 says "not a", then someone else says "I agree with a". It's been said.
Qualify it.
I figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if we see eye to eye on many subjects, then why refrain from posting our agreement?
If you're on the left, he's in the mushy middle, that's not much common ground. Redundant if and when you do.
Also, just to respond to what you said about canned responses, when we say the other can "speak for" us, we don't mean that we post in the other's "voice" so to speak. It means that if you misconstrue something I say, it is more than likely that he would know that I meant something different and he might, on occasion, choose to clarify if it were on a subject that interests him or if he thinks something I've said has been unfairly mischaracterized. I might do the same if something he says is misconstrued. It's really not that twilight zone a thing nor is it particularly complex. Does that make sense?
You're still having to speak for him, that will only lead to trouble. You are interperting two viewpoints, at the minimum.
Glad I answered your question.
But he couldn't.
You ever read the conservative responses when a lib takes a position on a controversial subject? Just the way it is.
Depends on the board.
To be truthful, I like emoticons. They humanize posts, show a bit of sense of humor and deflect sometimes from things that might otherwise be harsher than they sound.
Well, I'm not on a stampede to ban them, I take them more as an emotional reaction, kind of too cutesy.
Or over- used:
Well, I'm not on a stampede to ban them,
I take them more an emotional reaction
, kind of too cutesy.
Now I'm irritating myself.
Have a nice day!
