Just for the record Runter, I don't consider McCain and Bush to be clones. McCain seems to have a brain, even if he does use it to formulate ideas I disagree with it.

So according to wikipedia a neo-con is someone who subscribes to mainstream conservative values, such as the free market approach, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values. Furthermore, this says they prefer an interventionist approach that seeds to defend national interests.

Which is what I believe is an accurate representation of the word, but what I don't understand is why that is such a dirty word these days.
I'm not a far right guy. I'm pretty liberal and moderate on most issues. I think given that definition a lot of us fall into "neo-conservative." I do believe in the free market, limited welfare, and I certainly reject socialist agenda.

Mainstream conservatism isn't far-right conservatism. So that's where I don't understand the 'liberal' use of the word these days.

It's a dirty word because of its association with the Bush administration and the Interventionist (Interventionism being frowned upon more and more these days) approach to foreign policy taken by neo-conservatives.

EDIT: Whether it should be a dirty word or not is another question entirely.

I have a few neo-conservative opinions myself, but above all else I am against interventionism as I believe it to be one of the biggest downfalls of nations in the past. I'm not trying to use it as a "dirty" word per-say, but it is certainly a distinction that should remove most neo-cons from their affiliation with the true conservatives.

I think the truth is most people frown upon even moderate conservatism.

We are, after all, bitter and trying to cling on to our guns and religion because of antipathy against people who aren't like us, and immigrants.

Interesting that you criticise people for taking John McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement out of context and then come out with this yourself.

That's not at all out of context.

If you want the full context here it is my friend.

While speaking with the Huffington Post:



There's a reason Mr Obama later apologized for these comments. Because they weren't out of context.

edit: Also, for the record, I support a ban on most weapons(or at least strong regulation of gun ownership). I don't, however, support claiming the reason middle and lower class people support their constitutional right to have guns, and for that matter their religious freedoms, is because they are out of work or bitter.

It was out of context because you failed to take the rest of his political views into account when you quoted him. That quote is often used to illustrate that Barack Obama is an enemy of working people and is "classist". He is Socialist-influenced, there's no doubt about it. From a Marxist perspective, that comment is not insulting. In fact, it's on par with Karl Marx's famous "religion is the opiate of the masses" comment. Obama's apology had nothing to do with the context in which the statement was taken, he apologised because the population took it poorly and it gave his opponents political ammunition against him, as you're demonstrating.

Did you mean, President Obama? (Sorry, I had too.)

That aside, just how far out of context was the 100 year quote taken? He said he would be fine with us staying in a hostile country, to "keep" an eye on them, forever. That is at least how I understand it…What he said was wrong no matter HOW you take it.


PS: Furthermore, how should I take his singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran" at a meeting of veterans? =P

I gave the full context of the 100 years quote. It was absolutely out of context. He NEVER claimed to want to fight a war for 100 years. He compared it to staying into Japan like we have for 60 already.



I kinda knew you'd be one of the kind pushing this ridiculous thing without knowing what was actually said. He never said he would be fine with us staying in a hostile country. He said if the country became peaceful we may be there for 50 or up to 100 years and went on to cite germany and japan. That's the fact of the matter. Obama's comments were not out of context because it's exactly what he said. Maybe he didn't mean it?

I think most liberals would have rathered us bomb bomb bomb Iraq instead of invading it. So I take that as a positive?

I'm not very informed when it comes to the liberal view but personally, I wouldn't have bombed OR invaded them. =)

The reason this is so ridiculous for you to compare to the 100 years comment is because you just said it himself. He's socialist-influenced, something that people don't like in this country by large, and he was speaking from a Marxist perspective. The fact that it was from a Marxist perspective is insulting. It is on par with Karl Marx's famous comment, 'religion is the opiate of the masses" and most of us don't think that was out of context either. McCain has never apologised for his "100 years" statement because there was nothing to apologise for. Anyone who actually listened to what he said generally aren't outraged by the idea of keeping troops in a peaceful country like Japan and Germany.

You wouldn't bomb a nuclear weapons facility in Iran if we had solid intelligence? Well, then I guess that would make you an isolationist.

I'll remind you that Obama has said similar things when it comes to bombing based on that sort of intelligence into foreign soil as opposed to invading.

I'll wait til he's actually president before I use that title.

I really don't see how speaking from a Marxist perspective can be considered insulting.

Obama's "apology" was actually an apology for poor wording, it was not a retraction of his views in any way.

I'm a non-interventionist, not an isolationist (there is a difference, albeit slight). And you asked if I would bomb a nuclear weapons facility in Iran if we had solid intelligence…well, solid intelligence that said what exactly? That the facility existed, or that it existed and was being used to build weapons to attack the United States? To be 100% honest, I've never been in the kind of position that would require decision making like that, and I never will be. I can't say what I would do either way.

One other thing I'd like to make clear is that I don't hold a personal grudge against Obama. I think I have legitimate concerns about the policies he wants to put into place. I would never go as far to say he is a bad man or unpatriotic. I think he's probably the kind of guy most of us wouldn't mind sitting down and having a drink with.

That being said, there's a lot of people I am friends with that I have absolutely competing views on how this country should be ran. I wouldn't vote for them for president, but that doesn't mean that I have some kind of hate towards them. And my views are certainly not racially motivated as some have claimed in the past.

As a concession to losing the election I do take pride that we now will have a black American now as our president. It's an accomplishment I only wish the republicans had beat them to.

You are right, I should have said President-Elect. It was a poor attempt at a joke either way.

Two things.

I'm not a very religious person, but–
Saying that religion is the opiate of the masses in itself is insulting to religion. Saying people cling on to religion because they are bitter or uneducated, or out of work–That's also insulting to religious people of all kinds. It cuts across political lines because there are people on all sides that were offended by that comment.

Second, Sure, it was a retraction. In that apology for poor wording he went on to say that he respected religion and that he respected peoples view on their right to own guns. That's clearly not what he said before even if he did apologize for his poor wording. (And yes, it was poor wording.)

It was poor wording on a poor idea. It made it sound terrible.

He's normally better at wording poor ideas to make them sound somewhat acceptable. Not this time.