Neocons....pls use the word properly?

Question

I hear/see this word used frequently to described pejoratively the conservative right wing agenda. The ppl that are using this word really do not have a grasp on what it really means..i do belive. For instance, I just answered a question referring to "Constitution Week" and if the neocons were going to celebrate it; it had a sarcastic tone. (what this has to with being a neocon is beyond me)

Neocons do not oppose the constitution...they have liberal views on domestic policy (which if anything would mean they support the constitution as a living a document) and conservative views on foriegn policy. This in anyway doesn't make them anti-constitutional.

Thank you for your time...this is more a rhetorical question so you need not answer unless if you would like to enlighten us more on the subject at hand. Or if you feel that I am incorrect in my understanding of the word. I always enjoy a good debate. :)

Answer 1

Don't you think that liberals use the word more as a derogatory description of a Republican? The technical meaning doesn't really interest the bashers. It's the same with the conservatives who call us 'libs' or, even worse, 'libtards'. I doubt that those people even know much about our liberal platform. It's like a free-for-all, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it and might not last in this forum until the next election! And, I do so love a good debate, but mostly it's just dumb questions with nasty answers. Getting boring!

Answer 2

You clearly don't have a clue as to what a neo-con is, let alone a Conservative.

The neo-con movement was started by college students in the 1950's who supported a borderless, single-economy, world government based on the Stalinist, Soviet model, until they noticed that the Soviets were virulently anti-semitic. At that point, they morphed into the Trotskyist movement that (with the help of Reagan, their backwoods, religious crackpot and disenfranchised Dixiecrat puppets) has co-opted the honorable title of "Conservative."

True Conservatives DO NOT support these people or this Administration's neo-con agenda and never will.

I suggest you spend a little time studying the history and agenda (neither of which were denied until recently) of the neo-cons (PNAC is a good place to start), as well as the writings and speeches of TRUE Conservatives (start with "Conscience of the Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, the speeches of Dirksen and the early writings of W.F. Buckley) before trying to represent the two, totally distinct, movements and agendas as a single entity.

Nowhere in true Conservatism will you find support for foreign adventurism, distribution of wealth to benefit a specific segment of society (see "prescription drug bill"), the elimination or suspension of individual liberties (under ANY circumstances or to ANY degree), abandonment of our sovereignty, deliberate and open attempts to eliminate the separation of powers or any of the other anti-American/anti-Patriotic steps taken or proposed by the neo-con thugs represented by this Admisinstration and the Republican Party in its present incarnation.

As far as the Constitution, I suggest you do a little more research there too. The neo-cons (represented by this Administration) have clearly and repeatedly assaulted every basic concept embodied in that document, with the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment.

As you didn't bring it up, I won't bother with the constant attacks against every one of our public institutions, though these attacks are clearly in direct conflict with basic Conservative principles.

.

Answer 3

Neocons have to be judged by what they actually do. The neocons in the Bush administration have supported Bush’s domestic policies which have included undermining or even discarding sections of the Bill of Rights. Their support of these unconstitutional measures further defines the term as it evolves in American politics.

The concept and definitions of political groups are not static and are not etched in stone.

Answer 4

the subject is consisting of your absurd thought or "suited" grammar. very few English audio gadget honestly pronounce the -ing word-ending as 3 distinctive sounds. quite, everyone who proclaims "-ing" as /i/-/n/-/g/ could sound like a remote places speaker. maximum American English audio gadget conflate the /-ng/ into one sound, and the expression of that sound is an /n/ (as in "son") or an /ng/ (as in "song). significant component: this is not a racial distinction, this is a dialectal and consequently close by/class-based distinction. city American whites do the comparable element, and suburban American whites do not. Deeper significant component: spelling is a myth, an ephemeral appeasement of the present team in means. "[L]eav[ing] out the final letter" is a farce created to augment the thought that Blacks are inferior. English spelling is a farce created over the final 2 hundred years as an attempt to regularise normative utilization. "deliver" become as quickly as spelt "scip," and there become no confusion there. Spelling is a descriptive vogue, not a prescriptive mandate. As sidebar trivialities: "oftentimes" wasn't stated with a /t/ sound after the /f/ until English-language lexicographers tried to connect the word "oftentimes" with its presumptive root "oft." the /of.ten/ pronunciation is pretentious and traditionally incorrect, on an identical time as the /of.fen/ pronunciation has historic forebears and historic justification. there are a lot of alternative words that are nicely suited the comparable profile, words that have been reinvented to in superb condition modern spelling conventions, yet to assume that anybody spelling is "maximum suitable" is a preposterous insult to the English language.

Answer 5

neocon was first coined in the sixties and was used to describe anti-establishment types like abby hoffman and tom hayden...it had NOTHING to do with republicans. however, like the term liberal, which once described heroes like george washington and thomas jefferson and now matches losers like john edwards and barack obama, neocon has morphed 180 degrees from its original meaning.

Answer 6

All that pejoratively means is expressing disapproval in some form.

Answer 7

how can I use it properly, I don't even know what it means.