SHRED
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-25-07 08:00 AM
Original message |
Can we stop using the word "neocon" now? |
|
I think that word give Republicans an out.
There is nothing "new" about the neocon agenda. Let's just simply identify them for who they are now...and they are "Republicans".
|
TechBear_Seattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-25-07 08:03 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I think "corporatist" would work |
|
The neo-cons are doing all they can to please their corporate masters. "Fascist" would be accurate. Or change the "con" in neo-con from conservative to just con: the agenda of the neo-cons is, after all, about thinking up new ways to steal, cheat, lie, grift and then get away without capture.
|
H2O Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-25-07 08:15 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Bad idea. Not all neocons are republicans, and most republicans aren't neocons.
|
Totally Committed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-25-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I agree, not all neo-cons are Republicans... |
|
neither are all "Corporatists". "Neo-Con" is no longer a "Party" thing, it's a "mindset" thing.
TC
|
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-25-07 08:17 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Trouble is the Neo-cons have members with a D behind their name as well. |
|
Just because you don't understand the word, and confuse it to mean Republican doesn't mean that other people are confused as to the meaning of the word.
Lincoln Chaffe was a Republican but he wasn't a Neo-Con.
Lieberman was and is a Neo-Con, as are some other Dems.
You have my permission to use any word to mean anything you want, but please don't try to limit my vocabulary just because you don't understand the definition of the word.
|
zabet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-25-07 08:25 AM
Response to Original message |
|
many of the Repubs are actually Plutocrats.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:19 PM
Response to Original message |