Why are conservatives not upset that their party has been hijacked by Socialists?

Question

The Republican party is over-run with neo-cons such as Bush and Co.

Do you even know what neo-cons are?

Neo-con: (def) The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. Many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from Socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism.

These aren't the warm-fuzzy-idealists "let's take care of people" type, but the scary Stalin, New World Order type.

I though you conservatives hated socialists...why have you let them take over? They obviously weren't getting what they wanted from the Dems--so you went ahead and got rid of our trash for us and gave them front row seats at the White House.

Does it bother any of you that your party has been hijacked and infiltrated by lots of Stalinesque Socialists?

Or...are they just slow on catching on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

There is where I got my neo-con definition from...that is what it means, truth is often much more ironic than fiction.

Answer 1

Old-style Republicans SHOULD BE JOINING THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY, which is the closest to what "conservatism" used to mean.
As for neo-cons, Stalin is an apt comparison. Dictatorship IS their agenda.

Answer 2

There is no real conservative party today. There are those who are more or less liberal...but you left of the left wing loonies are still dragging down the nation. I find it amusing that your poster child John F Kennedy would be one of your NEOCON's by today's standards. Ooops...don't let that out.
I know you won't but go back and look at spending in your boys day...even with the Demo's holding all branches the money spent (as a percentage) on social programs will make you cry.

Today's Republicans are more conservative than the Democrats of today but today's Republicans are not yesterdays...we are all evolving.

It is funny how the Democrats take credit for all things associated with minority rights. I guess you forgot it was a Republican who freed the slaves. Ooops don't tell anyone...

So if a party has been taken over...LOOK TO THE CLINTONITES!!! You'll find your Commies.

Answer 3

They're not upset because they are not paying attention. They are existing in their little plastic bubbles in the land of make believe. They're the first people to call hippies and liberals socialists, when in fact maybe it's the neo-cons that don't really know what the word means.

Answer 4

Learn more about socialism. learn more about Stalin. Learn more about "new world order." You really should know more before you say things, or you just sound like an idiot trying to look smart.

You also have not explained why you think the conservative party has been hjacked by socialists. Do you even know what a socialist is? And how are they "Stalinesque." Are you just tacking on the name of some random communist? You think it makes you sound educated?

Answer 5

Why do you think that A) The neo-cons are the Stalin types, and B) That the liberals becoming neo-cons are taking over the party?

Answer 6

I think you're starting loose sight of your own word, making it mean thing it was never meant to mean.

Either that or it always meant what you say but then when you mistook its meaning before and applied it to Bush, you got confused and thought Bush must be a socialist.

In short, calling a person a socialist, neo-con, liberal doesn't make him one. His/her actions do. What socialist agenda has Bush fought for during his presidency? How is cutting taxes a part of the socialist agenda?

Answer 7

I hate to burst your bubble, but in fact it was neocons (led by Reagan) who ultimately brought an end to the Cold War, which makes your analogy highly ironic. But other than that, neocons are very different from the small government Republicans of yester-year. However, parties adapt all the time. Southern Democrats used to advocate segregation in the 1960s, but now they are the supporters of minority rights. This is called adapting to new societal norms.

Answer 8

large...Austingirl got here upon a dictionary. the subject inclusive of your argument is that the definition applies to Neo-Cons whilst "neoconservatism replaced into new". curiously you're no longer conscious of the assumption of Socialism. How come libs ***** approximately how GW purely cares with reference to the wealthy, and huge corporation, yet then spew crap approximately him being a socialist. Socialist demands the redistribution of wealth!? What till you get out of school (or intense college) and get into the real international. we will see how your heat-fuzzy ideals take a seat once you're paying taxes little woman.

Answer 9

Sister, what are you smoking? I don't know where you get your definition from, but it's as silly as you and your question are!

Socialism is alive and well in the Democratic party. Give a good listen to Hillary, Barak, Edwards and all the rest. All their messages are about government helping you from cradle to grave like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Socialism is for the weak and that's exactly how the Democratic party see you! But I bet you all for socialized medicine aren't you?

Answer 10

Even though you keep reposting the same thing - your logic is still based your misinterpretation and exaggeration of semi-fact.
Do you even know what socialism is? you obviously don;t have have a clue what a neo-con is.
A neo con is a person in the new conservative movement. Back to the limited government constitutionalism that our founders had in mind. Back to Reagan conservative ideas.

Glad to know Austin is still the San Francisco of Texas