Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Republicans versus Republicans?

We need clarification. Over the past few days, there has been a lot of talk amongst this particular circle of bloggers over conservatives, neo-conservatives, and republicans. Fine, we can all agree that none of us like moderate or ‘cafeteria’ Republicans but I must admit, it is upsetting to see Republicans drawing lines with other Republicans when we should be focusing our attention on the dark side. Instead, we bicker like little children over certain things.


My first point is my blog name Neo-Con Tastic. I took this particular name in the midst of Mick Jagger and his "Sweet Neo-Con" song. The song attacks Bush and the Administration in all aspects of our current events (see my blog in Archives titled "NFL stands for Now Favoring Liberals). I am not a Neo-conservative. I don’t believe in Imperialism, nor in the Illuminati, nor the New World Order, nor "Big Government."

I am a conservative Republican that supports Bush and his ideals. I am a party line voter (except for Buchanan's unsuccessful Independent runs) but by no means does that make me a Neo-Conservative. I will say this; Buchanan in his new book Where the Right went Wrong points out how the Republican party has left their state’s rights roots and low taxes for more of a big government, big spending agenda, I agree. On the other hand, voting for people like Buchanan is quite frankly, a vote for a Democrat. Might as well vote for the Republican ticket. Dad29, DCS, and G, all of you fall privy to voting for Republicans even though they might be a slightly different Republican than you might like. I voted for Bush twice and never regretted that decision, Dad29 you felt differently. I recall you agreeing with the Iraqi invasion and then bad-mouthing it.

On that note, Dad29 makes many good points (see comments on DCS’s blog entitled "Boycott") about where the Neo-Conservative ideal was formed but then reiterates with a comparison of FDR. In my eyes, ‘Dad’29, I think you are erroneous in your remarks. For you to (basically) compare FDR to Bush is quite asinine. I do agree that Bush is dancing on the "Big Government" line but I feel he is forced to, especially now considering the Katrina tragedy. Otherwise, I’m comfortable with Bush’s decisions. You should know my views on commie FDR and how his mistakes were still being eliminated as lately as the Reagan Administration. FDR was no more than a communist disguised as a Democrat that let over 3000 people die so we could go to war, inevitably ending the Great Depression. Besides that FDR remark, your comments are airtight (notice how people rarely retort your comments but end up redirecting the battle - see DCS "Boycott" comments).

As far as Mr. Bush Rocks is concerned, I respect and appreciate all of you remarks. Your blog is definitely out there insofar as how you feel over other people, countries, etc. As a matter of fact, when I first read your blog, I thought you were a liberal mocking both conservatives and Republicans. Some of your comments were offensive, wrong, and extrapolated from lunacy. Every time someone said that they weren't a Neo-Con or didn't agree with you, you answered with the question, 'Oh, are you a liberal?' That is a mockery and insult. You and I have many different views but we have one objective in common: destroying the left. Bush Rocks, I’d be fine with you linking me to your site but understand that I am a Republican, Conservative, Catholic, and a Capitalist (also an avid poker player). Some people might think that that combination does not exist but here’s to yours truly. I also appreciate that you respect my views and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Feel free to correct me but as time progresses, everyone gains different perspectives and objectives in this tumultuous world of politics.


Bush Rocks! said...

Very good post and very well written. I guess you are right in the sense that we conservatives need to stick together. I won't bug you guys any more and go on my merry way.

As far as:

"Every time someone said that they weren't a Neo-Con or didn't agree with you, you answered with the question, 'Oh, are you a liberal?' That is a mockery and insult."

Sorry if I offended you but I get sick and tired of the Democrats who masquerade as Republicans like the DLCer's and other centrists who are Republican in name only.

My blog is new so I don't have a lot of posts on it yet. But I when I read other blogs I see how liberals talk to conservatives and how many of them pretend to be Republicans.

So I am sorry but I have a knee jerk reaction when someone disgrees with Bush and Neoconservative philosophy.

The reason being is that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are championing NeoConservative Ideals. To not support NeoConservative Ideals to me is the same as not supporting the President or the Republican Party because the Republican has (thank God) adopted NeoConservative Philosphy to provide guidance and direction politically.

That is why I get upset when "Republican" try to distance themselves from NeoConservatism. To me that sends up a warning flag that that particular person may not be a real Republican.

That is why I ask "what are you a liberal?" to try to smoke out any trolls and fake Republicans.

take care...

Neo-Con Tastic said...

By all means, come back and comment whenever you wish as I'll be frequenting your site.

Don't forget, we're both "right".

Dad29 said...


As to Iraq: the President made his decision, and I supported it, as you observe.

My concern with the Iraqi situation is succinct: we have to define "victory" and then achieve it--and then get the hell out of there.

I have yet to see a definition emerge from the Administration.

FDR, in his wildest dreams, NEVER would have dreamed of signing McCain-Feingold, nor the No Child Left Behind act--on the other hand, he would have applauded the Transportation Bill which Bush signed, not to mention the other Budget acts which are at the very least, irresponsible.

I don't believe that FDR was a communist, although I believe that he was betrayed by a number of them, whom he had appointed to various high-level positions, in ignorance. As to Pearl Harbor--that fight will go on forever. Maybe FDR did know; it is certain that he forced Japan's hand, but then the Japanese were ugly butchers who were chopping up China and had to be stopped somehow.

There's no question that "compassionate conservatism" is a mask for Big Gummint, and worse, that Big Gummint will increase the number and pervasiveness of the Gummint rent-seekers--Ike's "military-industrial complex" and others, such as the NEA, Big Energy, and the corporate-farm interests.

In other words, the 9th/10th Amendments will be completely erased in practice--helped along by GWB and the NeoCons.

I won't live long enough to regret it, but you may.

Dad29 said...

NeoCon--Bushie, Jr. likes you.

See DisCarSales comments....

He likes you! You have a pal!!

Neo-Con Tastic said...

"dad29, are you sure you are not a NeoCon? You sound like one. Too bad you are not." - Bush Rocks

So, where do I start? Let's try from the top.

1) Asking Bush to put a production goal on the war is the same idea of a timeline. Good call John Kerry, I mean Harry Reid, I mean Teddy "Glug Glug" Kennedy, I mean Dad29. Terrorists love timelines. Once we have reached our 'production date', the terrorists know when to start breeding again.

2) Sure FDR might not have signed the NCLB Act but he also would have fed money into the now defunct Stem Cell Research grant.

3) Also on that note, FDR ignore the US Ambassador, code-breakers, and spies which all shouted 'imminent confrontation.' Now, you justify our attack on Japan because of their handling of the Chinese, sort of like our modern day war... Did FDR give a timeline there?

4) FDR was a commie, hanging out with the USSR and feeling the pressures of the Great Depression, perfect "mask" (as you would put it) to create bigger governement agencies, and create jobs for all. Smells like Marxism.

5) By no means am I a neoconservative. Same team, same team. I am however, a compassionate conservative that believes democracy is the answer and we are the prophets.

Neo-Con Tastic said...

It's funny how I call FDR a commie and you call Bush a neocon. I could easily use your defense of FDR for my defense of Bush.

Sort of like that old saying, "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" (insert audible tongue noises here.)

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

I wash my hands...

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

Excuse me then NeoConTastic(per earlier phone conversation)... TOLERANCE for ridiculous views isn't wildly accepted or condoned at DCS home.

Dad29 said...

Neo: careful reading is helpful.

There is ZERO (nada, zip, no) reference to a "timeline" in my post on Iraq.

The specific language is: "...we have to define VICTORY...and get the hell out."

Sorry--I don't see a date or time requirement.

It is possible that FDR was a Commie--it's also possible that Abe Lincoln was re-running King George's war to preserve the Kingdom.

But it's not very likely.

Neo-Con Tastic said...

"TOLERANCE for ridiculous views isn't wildly accepted or condoned at DCS home."

DCS- Ouch! At least my opinions or ridiculous views, as you so eloquently put it, aren't regurgitated ramblings. I have both premise and educated opinions.

"There is ZERO (nada, zip, no) reference to a "timeline" in my post on Iraq."

Mr. 29- In my eyes, implication is just as bad as stating the obvious. Another mask. Let's just agree to disagree.

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

WHOM am I regurgitating?

You are tolerating his Nazi crap, that's just it.

'Nuff Said!