"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "MnMikew"
In short, you're not going to answer my question but are going to
defer the answer by striking back with your own less
precisely-defined
notion of a neo-conservative.
SOP for Bryant. When confronted with a question he can't or dosen't
want to
answer, he iqnores you.
You need to read. I think I've done a fairly good job of defining
neo-cons over
the past 12 hours. Far more effort than you've put into defining
what's meant
by the phrase "liberal."
In the interest of good will, peace and world harmony, I was going to
move on from this discussion. But I just can't now. Here's you on
neo-con: "Neo is a prefix meaning 'near.'" So you think you're doing
"fairly good job of defining neo-cons" when you don't even know what
the blankety blank word literally means? It does -not- refer to "near
conservatives." It primarily refers, once again, to a group of former
liberals (the political writer Norman Podhoretz, for one) who began to
reassess their positions in the '70s and '80s and became "new
conservatives." The word has since been expanded to include certain
others who have been strongly influenced by those individuals. I
really wouldn't have belabored this if you didn't seem so firmly
convinced that you have a grip on this when you don't.