Neocon = Traitor

Regardless of the meaning, the use of name calling is childish. I always say that when you resort to name calling when "debating" you already lost the argument. there is only 1 situation where name calling right off the back does not count as childish, and that is when the resident troll, Col gene, is on his "blame Bush for everything" campaign.

Neocon means traitor to liberals. Conservatives call them grownups. I love how liberals scream that neocons don’t know what they are talking about. Neocons are mean, heartless, cruel people that don’t care about people. Neocons want to kill everyone. I hear this all the time on my other blogs and I see a bit here on JU as well.

Very true! I doubt one in 10 know what it means as they use it too frequently, and as an invective. I think they coined the term in retaliation for the stigma of being called a liberal.

It's really funny when people claim things like that about "neo-cons", but the "neo-cons" are not the ones who constantly bash their own country and President during a time of war.

Paladin: I don't think you understand what the term actually means. A neocon isn't a traitor to the liberal cause, they're a member of a specific offshoot of conservative philosophy which borrows heavily from classical liberalism but retains the moral dimension of the past.

George Bush isn't a neo-conservative because he used to be a liberal. He's a neoconservative because he preaches moral conservatism and an extremely radical liberal economic philosophy.

That's all there is to it. It's really not that hard.

As for its use as an invective it's no different to calling someone a socialist, communist, liberal or conservative. It's a label, sure, but labels only hold the power you give them.

I also find it funny and totally understand why it is used as an epithet by liberals. Neocon means traitor to liberals. Conservatives call them grownups. I love how liberals scream that neocons don’t know what they are talking about. Neocons are mean, heartless, cruel people that don’t care about people. Neocons want to kill everyone. I hear this all the time on my other blogs and I see a bit here on JU as well. Most conservatives don’t know, me included until I looked it up, that Catholics are also called neocon.

i'm not a liberal, much to the shagrin of some on here, but i use the term often. it refers to, at least the modern definition, to a political philosophy that i find flawed. i don't use it a s a racial slur, and the term was introduced to modern audiences at least, by bill kristol, who considers himself a leading "neocon."

it has become to carry the same unpopular connotation as "liberal" does to those on the right to the left, granted. but it isn't being used as anything to identify anyone's religion to the best of my knowledge. you seem to be the only one hyping that.

but the "neo-cons" are not the ones who constantly bash their own country and President during a time of war.

no, they only bash the majority of the country who doesn't support this war or the direction of the country. and the neocons bashed clinton plenty when he was engaged in bosnia et al...

no, they only bash the majority of the country who doesn't support this war or the direction of the country. and the neocons bashed clinton plenty when he was engaged in bosnia et al...

Right......

LOL...you want to seriously compare how conservatives complained about Bosnia to the hate-filled propaganda that comes from the left now.

I can't remember, how many "neo-cons" flew to countries that are enemeis of the United States and bashed Clinton?

i said bosnia et al (means "among other things" or "and everything else") and since there is still bashing going on, i stand by it.

i said bosnia et al (means "among other things" or "and everything else") and since there is still bashing going on, i stand by it.

Fair enough, but when has a conservative gone to a country say like.......Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and basically bashed their country when Clinton was in office?

Fair enough, but when has a conservative gone to a country say like.......Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and basically bashed their country when Clinton was in office?

well, considering that conservative philosophy has been traditionally more isolationist than anything, explain to me why one would go to a foreign place to make that case?

liberals on the other hand are more about "good relations with other nations" than the traditional conservatives. and criticizing a policy is not "bashing" necessarily. i'm sure we would disagree on what constitutes bashing and whatnot anyway, so i'll leave it at that. i wrote an article relating to this topic today, maybe you should read that instead...WWW Link

it is only the neoconservative movement that embraces involvement of most kinds that traditional conservatives reject. and even in that, they do it in a "america-uberalles" context.

conservatives do their "bashing" primarily on safe, us shores, in front of safe, gung-ho audiences. the religious conservatives do it in the churches and in their publications / broadcasts. etc, etc,,,

how many conservatives go to foreign lands to put down their host country?

in this "falt world" it really doesn't matter where the message comes from, or who the "live" audience (if any) is, does it?

is your premise that no american should ever criticize our nation? that's ridiculous and unamerican.

everyone bashes, that's the point...i guess you are not tired of it yet.

Paladin: I don't think you understand what the term actually means. A neocon isn't a traitor to the liberal cause, they're a member of a specific offshoot of conservative philosophy which borrows heavily from classical liberalism but retains the moral dimension of the past.[/quote] A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is "neoconservative." You see to be a neocon you have to be a liberal first. it has become to carry the same unpopular connotation as "liberal" does to those on the right to the left, granted. but it isn't being used as anything to identify anyone's religion to the best of my knowledge. you seem to be the only one hyping that. End of quote Wait a minute liberals were the terms used to describe President Lincoln and the Republican Party. The term was stolen by the Democrats because of the bad reputation they created as conservatives. Now that they have ruined that name they cry that they are being called names? A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet, or in the case of the neolibs a name stolen will still stink. [quote]and the neocons bashed clinton plenty when he was engaged in bosnia et al...

They had a right to bash him. They used to be liberals and know from the inside out what they are talking about. Either Mr. Clinton or Mr. Carter caused them to leave the liberals and join the conservatives. They had to be angry to do this and they are just venting thier anger.

I don't even consider it an insult. Tagging the prefix 'neo' onto conservative isn't any different than tagging it onto 'darwinism' or 'expressionism'. The only reason it is taken as an insult is because a lot of conservatives want to associate themselves with the icons of conservatism, and it makes them mad when they are distanced from such.

So it's really backwards from the gist of this blog. "Neo-con" isn't saying you're a traitor from liberalism, it's saying that you're a traitor from conservatism, and not even that really. It's just saying that your conservatism isn't the same as the philosophy your granddaddy sported. Nothing wrong with that.

They had a right to bash him. They used to be liberals and know from the inside out what they are talking about. Either Mr. Clinton or Mr. Carter caused them to leave the liberals and join the conservatives. They had to be angry to do this and they are just venting thier anger.

actually, the modern movement began in the 60's, well before clinton or carter.

and here's an actual definition....from the online dictionary...

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: "The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s" Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is your premise that no american should ever criticize our nation? that's ridiculous and unamerican.

I never made that premise.

An American has a right to criticize and complain, but they cross a line when they stand next to a leader of an enemy state and do it.

how many conservatives go to foreign lands to put down their host country? [/quote] I think you miss the point. It is not that conservatives put down host countries they visit. It is putting down the country of thier birth in other countries that is the no no. in this "falt world" it really doesn't matter where the message comes from, or who the "live" audience (if any) is, does it? End of quote Again the point is missed. Prior to Hanoi Jane going to another country and voicing oppostion to your own nation in a time of war was considered treason. This is why we have the saying that politics stopps at the waters edge. Outside we need to present a united front. Liberals now do what conservatives think of as treason by going outside our borders and oppose our leader during war. The last person to do something like that and was punished was Ambassador Kennedy when he openly supported Hitler against Great Briton. He was removed from his position. It seems that now if a person does such a treasonous act all they have to do is scream freedom of speech and it is supposed to go away. Please point out a conservative that has gone overseas and been critical of a President during a time of war. [quote]is your premise that no american should ever criticize our nation? that's ridiculous and unamerican

No one has made this assertion; for people that criticize the president within the borders of the US. When a person goes outside our borders and makes political statements that support the position of our enemy, that is not covered by freedom of speech it is treason. While inside our borders we are protected by the constitution with all the rights and freedoms. Once the person leaves the country they are no longer covered by the constitution because it only applies in our county. Our laws do not apply outside the nation why should the speech of an American who supports our enemy in a time of war be protected outside the reach of the constitution?

a person goes outside our borders and makes political statements that support the position of our enemy, that is not covered by freedom of speech it is treason

That is the definition. Tokyo Rose anyone?

  

so,,,a myth is your definition of treason? trumped up charges and being the victim of government pressure that made people lie under oath is your defintion?

from wikepedia...
The name is associated with Iva Toguri D'Aquino (born Ikuko Toguri, July 4, 1916, Los Angeles, California - died September 26, 2006, Chicago, Illinois). A U.S. citizen by birth who was visiting relatives including a sick aunt in Japan at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, she was unable to leave after the start of hostilities. She was subsequently treated as an enemy alien and refused a war ration card due to her refusal to renounce her American citizenship.[1] To support herself she took work at the Japanese radio show The Zero Hour [2] as a transcriber and later as an on air announcer named "Ann" (for "Announcer") and later "Orphan Ann".[1] Her producer was an Australian Army officer, Major Charles Cousens, who had pre-war broadcast experience and had been captured at the fall of Singapore. Cousens had been coerced to work on radio broadcasts,[1] as had his assistants, U.S. Army Captain Wallace "Ted" Ince and a Philippine Army Lieutenant, Normando Ildefonso "Norman" Reyes.

After she indicated her refusal to broadcast anti-American propaganda, Toguri was assured by both of them that they would not write scripts having her say anything against the United States.[1] After the war, she was investigated and released when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps found no evidence against her. "Tokyo Rose" was actually a legend generated by allied military personnel for the amalgam of female broadcasters working for the Japanese government.[1] At no time did Toguri call herself "Tokyo Rose" during the war. Further, true to the word of the two prisoners of war that Toguri worked under, no anti allied propaganda was found in her broadcast.[1] However, upon her request to return to the United States to have her unborn child born on American soil,[1] the influential gossip columnist and radio host Walter Winchell lobbied against her. She was brought to the U.S., where she was charged and subsequently convicted of treason. [2] Prior to her being brought back to the U.S. for trial, her baby was born but died shortly after.[1]

In 1949, D'Aquino was convicted of one of eight counts of treason by the U.S. government.[3] She was given a sentence of 10 years and a $10,000 fine. After six years, she was released and moved to Chicago, Illinois, where Chicago Tribune reporter Ron Yates identified her. Yates later went on to discover that Kenkichi Oki and George Mitsushio, who delivered the most damaging testimony, lied under oath.[3] They stated they had been threatened by the FBI and U.S. occupation police and told what to say and what not to say just hours before the trial.[3] On January 19, 1977, she was pardoned by U.S. President Gerald Ford, who also restored her citizenship.[4] She died in a Chicago hospital, of natural causes, on September 26, 2006, at the age of 90. [5][6][2]

Not a myth. That she existed is not in doubt. That it was Iva Toguri D'Aquino is open to debate. You really dont know how to debate, and using an "open" source that is clearly a PR piece is hardly debunking the fact that Tokyo Rose was a real person. Or are you next going to deny the holocaust as well.

cmon...holocaust? low blows, trying to equate 2 irrelevant things as "if you believe 1, you must believe the other" crap and insults don't get you anywhere with me. i don't know how to debate? that might be one of the most amateurish, cheap shots i have ever seen...lmao


she definitely existed? that is hardly "not in doubt"...



and after this poor woman got convicted to a 10 year sentence now ya take the position and only got pardoned because others fessed up to framing her that it might not be her? lmfao!!!

next...

Not a myth. That she existed is not in doubt. That it was Iva Toguri D'Aquino is open to debate. You really dont know how to debate, and using an "open" source that is clearly a PR piece is hardly debunking the fact that Tokyo Rose was a real person. Or are you next going to deny the holocaust as well. cmon...holocaust? low blows, trying to equate 2 irrelevant things as "if you believe 1, you must believe the other" crap and insults don't get you anywhere with me. i don't know how to debate? that might be one of the most amateurish, cheap shots i have ever seen...lmao she definitely existed? that is hardly "not in doubt"... "Tokyo Rose" was actually a legend generated by allied military personnel for the amalgam of female broadcasters working for the Japanese government.[ and after this poor woman got convicted to a 10 year sentence now ya take the position and only got pardoned because others fessed up to framing her that it might not be her? lmfao!!! next...

You have "still" not proved "Tokyo Rose" did not exsist! The ONLY thing that you HAVE proved is that it was not "Iva Toguri D'Aquino ".

one more time,,,,



and you have shown absolutely nothing in 3 times this statement has been put on here that there is any evidence to the contrary.

stop with this "prove it" crap and the amateur lawyering...i did prove it.

dont like wikepedia as a source? how bout the FBI?

The problem for Aquino, though, was that “Tokyo Rose” was not an actual person, but the fabricated name given by soldiers to a series of American-speaking women who made propaganda broadcasts under different aliases.

WWW Link

son,,,ya better actually learn how to debate before ya go round accusing others...

next...

"There is no 'Tokyo Rose'; the name is strictly a GI invention. The name has been applied to at least two lilting Japanese voices on the Japanese radio. ... Government monitors listening in 24 hours a day have never heard the words 'Tokyo Rose' over a Japanese-controlled Far Eastern radio."

The U.S. Office of War Information, August 1945

1st off,,,thanks baker for another source. much appreciated.

2ndly,,,all you and the pundit guy have "proven" and shown is the overzealousness of the right wing to attack and attempt to vilify anyone who doesn't fall in line with them. thank you very much:)

As a 'phenomenon' there was a Japanese radio propaganda program that featured American POWs forced to give statements, misinformation, etc. It was a bad thing, no doubt. In terms of the phenomenon I agree that the "Tokyo Rose" thing is valid.

In terms of American politics, I think it is even worse, frankly, because it is from within. I have no problem with people debating the war, posing the REALITY of the war, etc. What I find traitorous and disgusting are people who purposely try to paint as bad a picture as possible, or even promote false impressions about the war in order to create a morale situation that brings about an end to it.

It's a fine line, sure. I think very few people have stepped over it, but some have in this war. Sadly, some were rewarded for it.