For the past decade we've had to put up w/ the term "neo-cons"...an ill-defined rebuke for many of the leaders of the GOP, largely during the Bush era.

Unfortunately this term was used by those on the left andright, to denounce members of the GOP they didn't like. Some criticisms were probably founded, like the lack of fiscal restraint shown. Others, such as the "chickenhawk" label were completely wrong, especially for a guy like Rumsfeld.

Anyway, what's ironic is that the big change was not w/ the country's conservatives (who did generally want limited gov't and free enterprise) but rather with the country's Liberals. Read Democratic Underground sometime, or listn to the MSM...what you get is a fervant intolerance expressed with a rabid, violent desire to censor free speech, destroy individual liberties, and control the thoughts of citizens (well residents anyway).

Compare this with a read of Camille Paglia's column at Salon zine sometime. This is a woman who has every traditional lib credential in the book: gay, feminist, PhD from Yale...and she's NOTHING like today's liberals. Actually she frequently criticizes these neo-liberals, exposing them for the fascists that they truly are.

So, I propose the new term of the era as "Neo-lib". No, it's not really all that clever or original. Yes, it's essentially equivalent to "fascist," "Stalinst," or even an accurate use of "Nazi."

Gone are the days of the US liberals who wanted less government and more individual freedom. Gone are the progressives who wanted to see the common man succeed, and excel past humble roots. Gone are the liberals who read philosophy and defended concrete rules of justice.

Neo-libs applies to every AGW advocate who turns his brain off to real science, every Obamaphile who forgets that we're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It applies to every Federal/Supreme Court judge who turns over convictions of violent, predatory criminals in the name of social justice. It applies to every public school supporter who celebrates millions of ignorant, illiterate, worthless automatons graduate each year. And it applies to every big government health care supporter who wants equal health care that degrade to the level of the Clara Barton era, yet cost 1000x as much.

(10-21-2009 09:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  For the past decade we've had to put up w/ the term "neo-cons"...an ill-defined rebuke for many of the leaders of the GOP, largely during the Bush era.

Unfortunately this term was used by those on the left andright, to denounce members of the GOP they didn't like. Some criticisms were probably founded, like the lack of fiscal restraint shown. Others, such as the "chickenhawk" label were completely wrong, especially for a guy like Rumsfeld.

Anyway, what's ironic is that the big change was not w/ the country's conservatives (who did generally want limited gov't and free enterprise) but rather with the country's Liberals. Read Democratic Underground sometime, or listn to the MSM...what you get is a fervant intolerance expressed with a rabid, violent desire to censor free speech, destroy individual liberties, and control the thoughts of citizens (well residents anyway).

Compare this with a read of Camille Paglia's column at Salon zine sometime. This is a woman who has every traditional lib credential in the book: gay, feminist, PhD from Yale...and she's NOTHING like today's liberals. Actually she frequently criticizes these neo-liberals, exposing them for the fascists that they truly are.

So, I propose the new term of the era as "Neo-lib". No, it's not really all that clever or original. Yes, it's essentially equivalent to "fascist," "Stalinst," or even an accurate use of "Nazi."

Gone are the days of the US liberals who wanted less government and more individual freedom. Gone are the progressives who wanted to see the common man succeed, and excel past humble roots. Gone are the liberals who read philosophy and defended concrete rules of justice.

Neo-libs applies to every AGW advocate who turns his brain off to real science, every Obamaphile who forgets that we're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It applies to every Federal/Supreme Court judge who turns over convictions of violent, predatory criminals in the name of social justice. It applies to every public school supporter who celebrates millions of ignorant, illiterate, worthless automatons graduate each year. And it applies to every big government health care supporter who wants equal health care that degrade to the level of the Clara Barton era, yet cost 1000x as much.

Man, I have to say you certainly are a wacko. I mean that in the nicest way though.

Btw, who wrote that piece Dr. Dolittle? I am quite sure it wasn't you.

Neo-Liberal is already taken. It pretty much means the same thing as neocon - i.e. free market advocates - but without any implications as to the military. But, why would you choose a vacuous term as a model?

the military part of its isn't really, 'neo', is the thing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm...634.column

Quote:From our earliest days, Americans have supported the promotion of democracy around the world, often by force and without undue heed to international institutions. William Henry Seward, a founder of the Republican Party and Lincoln's secretary of State, argued that it was America's mission to lead the way "to the universal restoration of power to the governed." A generation earlier, statesman Henry Clay championed the idea that America had the "duty to share with the rest of mankind this most precious gift" of liberty. Both world wars, Korea and Vietnam would be inconceivable without accounting for America's dedication to the promotion and defense of democracy.

Kagan traces such sentiments to the dawn of the republic. The founders, he writes, saw the U.S. as a " 'Hercules in a cradle' ... because its beliefs, which liberated human potential and made possible a transcendent greatness, would capture the imagination and the following of all humanity."

One of the many bad legacies FDR left us, was his unwillingness to correct the isolationist narrative created after WW1 leading into WW2, instead he just made a simple argument after Pearl Harbor: "That was then, but its a more complex world today..."

btw, Neo-Con just got mainstreamed in recent years as a household terms. It has been used against Conservatives for decades now.

Case in Point, the Anarchist wing of Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard in his 1983 article titled: Ronald Reagan, Warmonger

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html

Quote:Cap Weinberger of Bechtel Corporation and the Defense Department; and neo-conservative hatchet-lady and political scientist Jeane Kirkpatrick, whose contribution to political theory was to distinguish between "good" authoritarian and "bad" totalitarian torture.

Rothbard of course was allied with the New Left, which is still the case over at Rockwell/Ron Paul land. Only difference now is they've taken the "neo-con" smear of the Left and made it their own, after deciding it better for them to take over the GOP rather than the 3rd party route. They will do this by any means necessary, no lie, deception, half-truth is out of bounds for their rhetorical ammunition.

Well I went to and support public schools so I guess I'm your neo-liberal. I realize that not a lot of people have the time nor money to homeschool or private school.

Antidisestablishmentfacsism = liberals