Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. Attacking the messenger again rather than supporting, with facts, your arguments. |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. The great supporter of the gray areas in between. Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant, you can't be a little pregnant it is physically impossible. |
#94
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
For a couple of good reasons.
1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. |
#95
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon? (Since you asked) Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or may not be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism. The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are either very good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies, defines its own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very wicked". All values are extreme in neoconservatism. The Commander in Chief (they seldom refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the American People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and abetting our rapidly increasing number of enemies. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, and others epitomize the voices of neoconservatism. It is a narrow minded and hateful, self congratulatory and autovindicated system of belief. However, before all four conservatives who will even bother to read this pick up the nearest flame-thrower and come back with the moral-equivalency excuses about liberals do this, this, and this....... Not all conservatives are neocons. There are a handful of traditional conservatives left in the world. The traditional conservatives are shocked at the current size of the federal government and the dismal state of government fiscal affairs. The traditional conservatives respect dissent, (recognizing that at times it is their own voices that will be those of dissent, rather than majority) and are not trapped by binary thinking. I have a very high regard for traditonal, thoughtful, contemplative, rational conservatives. The neo con says, "You're either with me, or against me!" The traditional conservative says, "We either agree, or we need to work out a solution that will be at least somewhat acceptable to all sides. It could be that neither of us is *absolutely* right, and that there is more truth in the middle than on either extreme." So, no. A neocon isn't somebody who "used to be a liberal but saw the light". (That's a fairly binary concept, that all people are either liberal or conservative, anyway). A neocon is a binary thinker who used to be a liberal, moderate, or traditional conservative but who has been blinded by the propaganda and bulldung. Not exactly the same thing. :-) (You asked) I am going to have to toss your definition by the side due to the fact that it is more a political diatribe than a definition of a word. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eoconservative Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective Because that an absurd definition, and doesn;t describe the assholes who are the current-day neocons, that's why. But nice try. |
#96
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. Attacking the messenger again rather than supporting, with facts, your arguments. Go pee up a rope, Poop. |
#97
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gould 0738 wrote:
For a couple of good reasons. 1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. Neocons...it's what's for lunch this fall. |
#98
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The great supporter of the gray areas in between. Either you are pregnant or
you are not pregnant, you can't be a little pregnant it is physically impossible. There is more to life than pregnancy. Here's a link supporting my assertion that neoconservatism is a belief system, not a resume' of previous political leanings. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030724.htm Here's a link to a point on the PNAC website where they run an article describing their group as the "primary advocacy group for neoconservatism". Once again, belief rather than previous political affiliation http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20040325.htm And finally, here is the political biography of William Kristol, a self-described neo conservative (wrote a book extolling the "neoconservative imagination") and one of the founders of the PNAC. No liberal priors, sorry: William Kristol William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the first Bush Administration. From 1985 to 1988, he served as chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Education William Bennett. Prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Kristol served on the faculty of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (1983-1985) and the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983). Mr. Kristol has published numerous articles and essays on topics including constitutional law, political philosophy, and public policy, and has co-edited several books, including The Neoconservative Imagination (with Christopher DeMuth, 1995), Educating the Prince: Essays in Honor of Harvey Mansfield (with Mark Blitz, 2000), Present Dangers (with Robert Kagan, 2000), Bush v. Go The Court Cases and the Commentary (with E. J. Dionne, Jr., 2001), and The Future is Now: American Confronts the New Genetics (with Eric Cohen, 2002). He is the co-author, with Lawrence Kaplan, of the best-selling book The War Over Iraq. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Channel. He serves on the boards of the Manhattan Institute, the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, and the Shalem Foundation. Mr. Kristol received both his A.B. (1973) and Ph.D. (1979) from Harvard University. Married with three children, he currently resides in bucolic McLean, Virginia. ************ Mr. Kristol would proably be very amused to learn that the dictionary won't let him be a neoconservative because he was never a liberal. |
#99
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. Attacking the messenger again rather than supporting, with facts, your arguments. Go pee up a rope, Poop. I see the ghost writer is off duty. |
#100
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gould,
It is unfortunate that you have chosen the path of feeding trolls, and posting off-topic. I always thought you had good input on boating related threads, but my rules, are my rules... *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/ "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... For a couple of good reasons. 1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|