English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Here's what they are if you don't know:
Neocons(Bush and McCain)-Respect the U.N., want to police the world, think economically and globally, more government, more spending, pure capitalists, but disregard the border, send jobs oversees, support Wal-Mart and big business, Christian but more secular, Cold Warish attitude, etc.

Palecons(Ron Paul, Romney, Tancredo)-Don't like the U.N., anti war for the most part, stronger border advocates(all we need to do is secure border,not invade other countries), less government, less spending, low taxes, think socially and internally, decently capitalist, keep American jobs, support Mom and Pop businesses, Christian, realistic attitude, etc.

2007-08-25 15:35:05 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Okay, okay. Maybe Romney is a mix. He still wants strong border security whereas neocons don't. So he is a mix.

2007-08-25 15:49:49 · update #1

6 answers

I dont know. I dont like the UN, not anti-war if the war is necessary, less govt, efficient spending, keep American jobs. So, I guess Im palecon mostly. I obviously have opinions on the different issues.

2007-08-25 15:42:38 · answer #1 · answered by Daniel 6 · 0 0

I am a conservative and do not accept the definitions of Neo or Paleo conservatism. There is only conservatism. One either is a conservative or you are something else. President Bush, John McCain cannot be described as conservative. President Bush is too moderate and even liberal in important areas to be considered a conservative. McCain is your typical "republican bashing" moderate that made him a media darling for years. The McCain Feingold anti-free speech bill is proof of his lack of understanding or acceptance of conservatism.

While it is true that few people are truly 100% cconservative before you can wear that mantle you must be at least 80% or better. On critical core values you must be nearly 100%.

The last real conservative was Ronald Reagan. I realize that many of todays YA participants are too young to have memories of that era but it was awesome. America loved the guy. He carried nearly every state in the Union the first time he ran and came even closer the second time.

It is an interesting fact that is rarely even noticed anymore. We are constantly being told how liberal America is yet when was the last time you even heard a candidate call himself/herself a liberal? Reagan called himself a conservative. He made no bones about it. He was elected by a landslide. When did this ever happen with a liberal?

Something to think about.

.

2007-08-25 23:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2 0

Guess I'd be a paleocon by that definition...but Romney isn't! He socialized health care in Massachusetts....

"Our plan would cost the poorest eligible families only about $2 per week in premiums," Romney said. "The more you earn, the more you pay."

2007-08-25 22:45:39 · answer #3 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 0 0

haha you say Romney stands for the little guy? The mom and pops? lmao! He is worth around $250 million from big business...from foreign and domestic investments, thats pretty "pro-America"

"Among the investments sold by trustee R. Bradford Malt were holdings in companies known to have interests with Iran, including French and Italian oil companies. Romney earlier this year called for state pension systems to divest themselves of Iran-related stocks."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_el_pr/romney_wealth

2007-08-25 22:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by Petey V3.3 3 · 1 1

Liberals are you a
Neoliberal,
Ordoliberal,
Paleoliberal,
or
Social liberal

2007-08-25 22:57:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

so are you a Libtard or a TardLib?

I would say a Libtard.

2007-08-25 22:51:29 · answer #6 · answered by Samm 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers