They Are Not Conservatives

I wish people would stop swapping the terms neo-con and conservative.
There is nothing conservative about the neo-con's belief system.
Conservatives believe in a small, non-invasive, Constitutional, system where the States and individuals have the lion's share of the power, taxes are low and freedom is important to all, war is a last resort.
Neo-cons believe in none of this.
BushCo. Ann Coulter, Fox, and the current Republican movement are not Conservative, they are neo-cons.

[deadbeater]

With stress on the 'cons'.

Exaclty.

[Ibby]

But that's what the term has become, now. The 'neo' has been dropped by convention under this regime.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Conservatives went out with sword fighting and knickers. Liberals is a joke too. They are both in the same league with evil, everyone has their own perception of what constitutes the working description.

Sure I believe in a "small, non-invasive, Constitutional, system". Small enough that it doesn't fuck with me, but big enough to keep you from annoying me. Thanks to the current state of affairs, don't expect low taxes for the next,....oh, say millennium.

The states allowed the Federal Government to become omnipotent when they sold their soul for handouts. There were enough states getting more out than they put in, to form a voting bloc that kept the ball rolling to a point where the states can't bitch about anything, without the threat of bankruptcy by losing the Federal teat.

Then of course, the military-industrial monster, Ike warned us about, snatched the Federal Government away from us, so you can label yourself anything you want... it doesn't matter. When you ask people which programs they want cut, in order to shrink the Fed, they choose everything they don't benefit from.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The states allowed the Federal Government to become omnipotent when they sold their soul for handouts. There were enough states getting more out than they put in, to form a voting bloc ...

For the most part, ironically, the red states...

[WabUfvot5]

Par for the course with current neocons. Say one thing while doing the complete opposite. They say conservative while they are against state rights, smaller gov, etc, etc.

Exactly... it bothers me that they call themselves something that I am (I feel that most of my beliefs are conservative as a Libertarian and someone who is a staunch Contitutionalists) and then represent themselves as they do.
Now, when someone asks what my political standing is, I don't know what to say. I can't tell them the truth because when I tell them that I am a Conservative, as part of my description of a Constitutional Libertarian (you have to explain it) they see neocon in their head and they are WRONG. It is screwed-up.
It is as if you were gay and all the neo-Nazis suddenly started calling themselves fags for no damn reason at all.

[WabUfvot5]

I avoid using political labels when talking to others. It's far easier to dismiss a label than it is to dismiss an idea. They are intended to further divide and retard rational debate IMO.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

I avoid using political labels when talking to others. It's far easier to dismiss a label than it is to dismiss an idea. They are intended to further divide and retard rational debate IMO.

It is called a sound byte. Soundbytes promoted among the lesser educated becomes fact - proof of an ultimate conclusion. Why did we know Saddam had WMDs? Soundbytes.

A perfect example are fools (no other way to describe such people and still be honest) who say if we don't stop them there, then "they" will come here. Notice what the fool does. Somehow the fool conveniently forgets to define "they". "They" is a perfect example of soundbyte science. "They" clearly proves a threat exists - just like Saddam's WMDs. Propaganda promoted by soundbytes used so that fools can deny lessons from Nam and a Domino Theory.

It is not the political label that is a problem. Problem is that mental midget supporters among us don't have a clue beyond that soundbyte. For example, only a fool would reason that "if we don't stop them there, then we must fight them here". Classic reasoning justified by soundbyte myths. Using the label as if science proof – that is the problem.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Perhaps when tw can spell soundbite in a way that is not only correct, but non-obscurantist, he might be taken more seriously than he is.

And of course, the anti-patriot cast of his thinking causes him to utter trash like "only a fool would reason that 'if we don't stop them there, then we must fight them here'." If only he can lie to Americans enough, we might be conquered, which is clearly what tw will never admit to wanting subconsciously the way some people want food. Meanwhile, if we win there, they can't fight us here. Stands to reason -- the reason tw monomaniacally seeks to deprive us of.

Stupid, tw. Do you imagine yourself cleverly concealed? Do you think the rest of us are as stuck in the Sixties as yourself? You're a moron, boy, and will remain so due to your mental and emotional defects, compounded by your communism. Your way crashed of its internal contradictions. If my mind worked as badly as yours did, I'd cure it quietly with a pistol.

Having actually read a bit of neocon thinking, in primary sources, I'd say it's something not at all close to what you all are describing. The idea that a democracy prospers best in a world full of other democracies is not only just horse sense, but empirically proven by First World experience: democracies have no motivation to make major trouble for other democracies and numerous internal political constraints against making trouble anyway.

And contrariwise, who is it that democracies get into shooting wars with? Un-democracies, all the time. Not to say they can't -- the 1969 Soccer War between El Salvador and Honduras was between a pair of sort-of-democratic republics -- but the way to bet is the other way. Contrast that with the behavior of the non-democracies, with fewer political constraints against intemperate policies and actions.

Rkzen, if you'd like to point out the overweening parts of PNAC that you feel are out of consonance with conservative principles as you understand them, I should be interested to look at them also.

I recommend The Neocon Reader for primary-source material from the neoconservative "movement" -- it's too inchoate to use that term without quotes. It has more in common with a herd of cats.

One of many hits on Soccer War. Seems it should do.

What is stated is often very confusing because, IMO, they want to sound conservative.
That is the most logical reason for it, that and most of them are nuts and megalomaniacs.
However, their actions are pure neocon, large govt, more taxes, police state.