Republicans: Do you support neoconservatism?

[Zen-like Todd]

Neocons are who destroyed the party. They are the ones pulling the strings of the puppet known as Bush. Among other neocon stances, they believe in maintaining the American empire at all costs, foreign and national. The Iraq war is a huge neocon cause. The idea of invading another sovereign nation for absolutely no just or moral reason is a neocon principle. America policing the world. :puke:

I used to root for the GOP but no longer. They are the party of conservatives no longer. To think, they used to fight big government and deficit spending. Now they're no better than liberals and Dems.

I'm an Indepedent from here on out.

Boogedy Boogedy.

[IHOPSkins]

I know. Misread your post.

I'm an idiot.

But at least I'm right some of the time.

Unlike Bill Kristol.

Nice recovery :applause:

[skinfan133]

Meh. Even if you're being simplistic, you left out the evangelical base.

yea, but I said Iron triangle, not steel square

evangelicals, in my opinion, are dangerous. politics and religion should only mix under certaint circumstances. they're socially conservative, not fiscally or governmentally. and social conservatism is not an ideology of governance

[Smoot Point Really]

I have less of a problem with what I hear from actual neo-conservatives than I do with what I hear from people who use the term "neocon" derisively.

[Smoot Point Really]

BTW, if Pat Buchanan is an "old Conservative", sign me up as a "Neo-Conservative".

[twa]

BTW, if Pat Buchanan is an "old Conservative", sign me up as a "Neo-Conservative".

He's a Paleo-con and a fiscal conservative in my book,which makes him right about half the time.

[Burgold]

I do think that Democrats try to use the word "neocon" exactly the way that Republicans try to use the word "liberal" Both sides try to make them into cuss words. Personally, I think that liberalism is a good thing. Historically, it has brought tremendous positive changes to this country.

I'm not exactly sure what a "neocon' truly is. I do know that Republicans seem to be backing away from the term, much like Democrats backed away from Liberal in the early 00's. I think that that is the more important statement in a way. Republicans and Conservatives are in part rejecting what has failed and that's to the good. The heart of Conservatism, like the heart of Liberalism is a good thing. We need both at different times.

Right now, Conservatism has gone down a dark road and many elected "conservatives" or "neo-conservatives" are charlatains.

[Special K]

Wow, didn't see this thread until now (I've been busy slinging campaign mud).

Anyway, on to this thread's topic...WTF is a Neoconservative? There's no true definition of a "Neoconservative." Pretty sure this is a term used largely by liberals who dislike anything conservative.

That being said, I am not happy with the current state of the Republican party, especially with regards to their liberal spending policies.

[Oldskool]

Things that Neocons do to hurt the nation and the world itself.

Neocons caused the stock market to fall

Neocons caused the housing futures to plummet

Neocons shot a laser into the ozone and caused global warming

Neocons club baby seals and use their pelts to wipe their pasty white asses.

Neocons created nano bots that cause cavities, thereby increasing the value of their shares in toothpaste companies.

Beware of the NeoCon!

[expensivegift]

BTW, if Pat Buchanan is an "old Conservative", sign me up as a "Neo-Conservative".

Before your post I was ready to think Buchanan was in line with the Republicans but his views are very different and quite interesting. According to wiki his views are in line with Paleoconservatism.

Here's some of his views I found interesting.

Russia: Offer EU membership instead of encirclement

Wounded and amputated, bereft of its cubs, the Russian bear should not be provoked. Rather than encircling Russia, let us enlarge Russia’s stake in peace. Bringing Russia into the European Union would be a far wiser guarantee of Europe’s security than a threat to go to war to defend their frontiers. By moving NATO onto Mother Russia’s front porch, we are driving her into the arms of Beijing and creating a hostile alliance it is in our vital interest to prevent.

Puerto Rico: No statehood; eventual independence

The campaign to make Puerto Rico the 51st state must be defeated. Puerto Rico is a nation, with its own language, history, culture, and flag. To make this island a state means making America a bilingual nation and denying to Puerto Rican patriots and nationalists, forever, their right to join the family of nations. We cannot do that and remain true to or anticolonial heritage. Puerto Rico should forever retain the right of self-determination.

Quebec: Offer seceding provinces alliances or statehood

Canada has not been a security concern in this century. That is changing. Quebec may declare independence, and the Maritime and Western provinces could separate from Ottawa. Americans may profoundly regret a breakup of Canada, but we are not a disinterested party; Canada is the most important country on earth for us. Should it come apart, the US should offer trade agreements and security alliances to each successor state, and statehood itself, should any breakaway Canadian province wish it. Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.370 Oct 9, 1999

Shout out to the Libertarians

Kick UN out of US by 2001; use Marines to “help pack”

My friends, this to me is one of the great issues, now that the cold war is over, and it is whether America is going to remain forever independent and free, with liberty and justice in this country, as determined by us, Americans. Or whether this decision-making authority is going to go back to the United Nations and leave this country, and that is where a number of elitists want to take us. Let me tell you what I would do if I’m elected president. I will get the United States out of the World Trade Organization. I will get the United States out of the International Monetary Fund, and I will tell Kofi Annan, up at the U.N.: “Sir, your lease on Turtle Bay has run out. We want the United Nations out of the United States by year’s end. And if you’re having trouble leaving, we’ll send up 10,000 marines to help you pack.”

All US troops out of Europe by end of first term

We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage allies to pay for their own defense.

If elected, I will have all US troops home from Europe by the end of my first term. Certainly, sixty years after the end of World War II, and fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, is not too soon to get all US troops out of Europe and let Europeans provide and pay the cost of their own defense. If not now, when?

Practice “masterly inactivity,” not “entangling alliances”

America did very well in the 1800s, Buchanan argues in his book, because it avoided “entangling alliances,” wasting neither men nor treasure on foreign wars. It should not have fought Germany in 1917 (“no vital interest”), nor in the 1940s (“no threat”). If it wishes to remain the world’s pre-eminent power in the 21st century, it must give wide berth to the Kosovos, Somalias, and East Timors that constantly cry for attention. “Masterly inactivity” is the role Buchanan prefers for his country.

End foreign aid; withdraw from most of IMF

The World Bank will be privatized. Not one dime of the International Monetary Fund will go to prop up corrupt foreign regimes or countries hostile to the United States. Fifty years of foreign aid, an ancient relic of the cold war, will be brought to an end.

Shout out to the Democrats and other liberals

Avoid the democratist temptation of the internationalists

With the Cold War ending, we should look, too, with a cold eye on the international set, never at a loss for new ideas to divert US wealth and power into crusades and causes having little or nothing to do with the true national interest of the United States. High among these is the democratist temptation [free the world], the worship of democracy as a form of governance and the concomitant ambition to see all mankind embrace it, or explain why not. Like all idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process[political pragmatism] for a love of country. The true national interests of the United States are not to be found in some hegemonic and utopian world order. Bush holds global democracy as a goal. This is a formula for endless conflict. " Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p. 13-17&34-35 Sep 1, 2004

Interventionism is the incubator of terrorism

In the presidential campaign of 2000, we failed to make foreign policy the issue. But what I said then retains relevance:

How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution.... Have we not suffered enough--from Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam--not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on US soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire?America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.

This is an outdated quote by Buchanan. His views may have changed but I have to give something to the Republicans.

Give GOP credit for Reagan’s ending of the Cold War

Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by U.S. weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections - by Ronald Reagan’s contra army. Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

[Oldskool]

Pat Buchanan is not a neo-con or even in the mainstream of the Republican party right now.

He's more of what you saw as a southern white Democrat 50 years ago.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

He's more of what you saw as a southern white Democrat 50 years ago.

And that's not necessarily a good thing.

[Oldskool]

And that's not necessarily a good thing.

:paranoid: never said it was.

Trust me, if good ol' Pat was the dictator of the US I wouldn't be drinking from the same faucet as you.

I may even be deported :doh:

[twa]

And that's not necessarily a good thing.

I liked the old Dems,they still had balls.

[Oldskool]

I liked the old Dems,they still had balls.

Balls without brains is still not a good match. :laugh:

[twa]

Balls without brains is still not a good match. :laugh:

It beats none of both.

[Zen-like Todd]

It beats none of both.

Hmm... Jessica Alba would suggest otherwise.

[twa]

Hmm... Jessica Alba would suggest otherwise.

Good point. :laugh:

[luckydevil]

You know some of us actually do know what neoconservatism is and view it as a extremely dangerous movement. As far as republicans supporting neoconservatism, neoconservative foreign policy is conventual republican policy.

[expensivegift]

You know some of us actually do know what neoconservatism is and view it as a extremely dangerous movement. As far as republicans supporting neoconservatism, neoconservative foreign policy is conventual republican policy.

If pushed too far it can be dangerous. But it is beneficial for times like these when terrorism is still a threat. It has proved to be beneficial when the U.S.S.R. was still intact. Pacifism, Isolationism and especially Appeasement can be very dangerous to our security too. I'd also like to say that the U.S. should be taking steps to curb injustices such as what happened in Rwanda in the 90's or Sudan during this decade. The UN certainly won't do anything about it.

[Hubbs]

Wasn't the Dept of Homeland Security pushed on Bush by Dems?

Civil liberties are not be ignored,but they can become secondary to national security.

I am a Independent,but I'm sure most consider me a Neo-Con

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/

Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks. But Bush embraced the concept in June and used the issue effectively on the campaign trail this past fall, criticizing Democrats who differed with him over the issue of labor rights within the new department.

From my recollection, it was mainly spearheaded by Republicans. After all, they had control of Congress at the time - if the Republicans were against the idea, how would it have gotten through Congress? How would it have avoided a veto?

If it's the Dems, then, hey, chalk it up as yet another big-government expenditure from that side of the aisle.

[81artmonk]

Yes I do and no I don't. The new republicans have killed the party. It sounds cliche but we really need to go back the the reagan ideals.

[twa]

From my recollection, it was mainly spearheaded by Republicans. After all, they had control of Congress at the time - if the Republicans were against the idea, how would it have gotten through Congress? How would it have avoided a veto?

If it's the Dems, then, hey, chalk it up as yet another big-government expenditure from that side of the aisle.

No,it clearly was the Dems and they got support for it from other Congress critters because it showers money and creates new government posts to fill.

Bush saw the writing on the wall and went with it,much like Clinton on welfare reform.(a trend he continued with Federal spending)

[Burgold]

No,it clearly was the Dems and they got support for it from other Congress critters because it showers money and creates new government posts to fill.

Bush saw the writing on the wall and went with it,much like Clinton on welfare reform.(a trend he continued with Federal spending)

I think TWA is right. The Dems thought it up, because the failures of 9/11 were thought to be about miscommunication and an inability to coordinate. The Republicans actually resisted it for a while, but public pressure forced them into going for the DHS. Now, the execution of what has become DHS falls under the Republican flag. They developed and executed the idea, but the idea itself of unifying intelliegence and bringing it under one umbrella was the dems.

[twa]

I think TWA is right. The Dems thought it up, because the failures of 9/11 were thought to be about miscommunication and an inability to coordinate. The Republicans actually resisted it for a while, but public pressure forced them into going for the DHS. Now, the execution of what has become DHS falls under the Republican flag. They developed and executed the idea, but the idea itself of unifying intelliegence and bringing it under one umbrella was the dems.

No... the idea of sharing intelligence and agencies working together was a Bush plan...The Dems were pushing another monstrosity of a government gimme program,complete with unionized security.

So they compromised with a inefficient,overgrown money pit of a program

Bipartisanship at it's best