G Huxley

Yes I would describe Hillary as a Neocon in a flash. Also Libya, Syria etc. etc. etc. GWB was both a Theocon like Ashcroft etc., and a Neocon. The Neocons were quite content to gain the backing of the Theocons as a means of continuing their power.

Remember his Axis of Evil? AKA the Neocon hitlist?

If George W. Bush wasn't/isn't a neocon then no one is a Neocon. By comparing Stockwell Day to Bush you're making the best case possible that Day is a neocon. In fact is Day was heavily involved in getting Southern Baptist evolution denying schools into Alberta, which was an importation from the Neocon movement in the States which had heavy endorsement from the Southern Baptists (Bush claimed to have converted to them). The Socreds were far righters too and weren't really 'conservatives.' I can understand why he rejected them too. If only Hindenburg and Von Papen had done the same in their time. There's a difference from the far right/radical right and conservatism.

Well thanks for that Derek! And thanks for reminding that the neocon movement itself has it's predecessors/antecessors. "Absolutely not. Clark rejected the conservative movement in its entirety, and he did not join the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance. " -Bryan Well logically the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance aren't conservatives. Conservative Grandpa Clark wasn't going to join that gang of upstart hooligans. And would you? Their Prime Ministerial candidate for that party Stockwell Day is on the record for stating that mankind cohabited with dinosaurs and faked that he had a degree from the University of Victoria. If I was a real conservative like Clark frankly I'd be completely embarassed by those buffoons and offended/appalled that they'd ask his party to join them.

Since Clark's party, which identified itself as conservative as well as progressive combined with the Reform party to create the Conservative party Clark can be considered a grandfather of the party. So to call him not a conservative is totally absurd.

Bush/Cheney2004 my definition is pretty universally obvious. If people dislike it it is more out of the fact that they want to obscure the fact that this ideology is common in Canada.

Bryan: I never said that Clark was a Conservative Party Member, I said that he was a conservative. His party were called The Progressive Conservatives. Thus he identified as a conservative. Graham: Thanks for also saying that you accurately consider Harper to be a Neocon. Re: Neoliberalism and Neoconservativism. I said there is a difference, but ultimately Neoliberals and Neoconservatives push the same global economic agenda and Neoliberals also use military force to advance that agenda e.g. Tony Blair, and the other instances mentioned and that's why the movements aren't all that different.

We already established earlier that there isn't much difference between Neoconservative and Neoliberal, but Canada didn't go along under Chretien with the US' wars of aggression on Iraq, and Libya and that separates them from the Neocons in Canada.

Canada doesn't have to rule the globe militarily. It just has to play Mussolini to the US' Hitler as the Canadian branch of the neoconservative movement has done.

Bush/Cheney2004 The current Canadian conservative movement came to power on the wings of the American neoconservative movement during the Bush years and have continually emulated the American Neoconservatives in pretty much all their policies. Countries have parallel political movements all the time. I don't know why this would surprise you. For instance Spain's political party in the 1940s had the same basic ideology as neighbouring Portugal's during the same period.

Ask Charles he used to call himself a neocon. I guess his posts should have been deleted back then for using a political label. Now that he doesn't use the term/identify with it no one is allowed to use it.

" It IS us vs them, insofar as Islamic terrorists go." See that's exactly how the neocons including the Conservatives want it to be. The Crusades all over again. But as they say only the Sith think in absolutes. It's this Us Vs. Them Crusader mentality which wasn't working for Harper prior to the attacks, nor is it being particularly effective since the novelty and shock of it shot his poll numbers up temporarily before they began to subside again when the initial reaction's effects wore off. "Yeah, that's crap, and nobody sane believes it." Not true others agree with me. Many sane people have agreed with me on this. In fact the majority I've discussed it with. Here is a topical post 10 months ago where one such person agreed with me: http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,1013905,1013928#msg-1013928

"Instead of using neocon or other neos, why not say far-right, far-left ,would there be a difference?" There would be a difference. Although Neocons are far right, not all far right people are neocons (e.g. libertarians etc.)

"I am not against labels. I wish to encourage you to express clarity over the labels you chose such that your reader does not misunderstand." My post was perfectly clear. If the poster didn't understand they could have said so. Instead you just deleted my post because you personally didn't like to see the term Neocon as opposed to the numerous other political labels that are used daily here. Even despite that the majority so far agree with my definition in your poll, the poll itself is an absurdity. There is no full consensus in politics especially in regards to the definition/meaning of labels, spectrums etc. so the idea that everyone must agree to the definition of a label is a strawman. If someone wants to use a political label they don't have to have my agreement in their meaning/definition to use it and vice versa. Language doesn't work that way.

OK this is simply censorship. I can't even post my thoughts here and defend myself and the injustices towards me here without my posts getting deleted like I was living in a totalitarian regime or something. Unbelievable. This is what you'd expect in China, not in Canada. The reason you don't want my post here to see the light of day is because it makes clear the abuse of power by the 'moderation' here.

No it isn't at all. It's reality Argus. You had to see how Harper was acting recklessly creating an us vs. them conflict like Bush did. Sure there's plausible deniability, but the fact is I said before the attacks were inevitable as I was correctly reading Harper: Harper is trying to get the Islamists riled up so that they attack Canada thus getting him re-elected as he pushes a protection racket so as to drive his poll numbers up. All his party has to get elected is fear and insecurity and that card doesn't work unless there are attacks on Canada. When the attack happened as expected given his bellicose rhetoric and actions his poll numbers immediately surged. His party went from trailing the liberals by about 10% in the polls to leading the polls and all the rise was attributed correctly by the pollsters due to Harper's talk about security and the need to take action. At that time the right wingers came out of the wood works and were saying that we need a leader like Harper to defend us. Despite there had only been a couple Islamist attacks on Canadian soil in memory and it was under Harper who cowered away in a closet while his defense minister tweeted about it. Harper is a criminal who has recklessly endangered and caused harm to our country for his own political benefit. Those who can't see through the charade are simply unwilling to open their eyes and see the obvious. The attacks were obviously a response to Harper's bellicose rhetoric and open involvement in the Middle East. I actually agree that Canada should back the Kurds and said so on this board way back, but we should have done it subtley not openly get Canada drawn into a conflict with the Islamists like Harper did which was guaranteed blowback.

OK Charles if you are against all labels. Let's be fair and consistent then. Ban the use of the word conservative, or liberal, or green or any other label. It's easy to read a person's politics by reading their posts. The previous poster in that thread said that Joe Clark isn't a conservative (despite Clark's having been a Conservative Prime Minister.) Why wasn't that person's posts banned for saying Clark wasn't a conservative despite actually having been a conservative PM of Canada??? Let's use logic here. Why would he say Joe Clark isn't a conservative? The answer is because Joe Clark in addition to his identification as a conservative identifies himself as a progressive, which is antithetical to the Neoconservative movement which has hijacked the conservative brand in North America and is opposed to political progressives or those who identify with political progressivism. Even Dieffenbaker associated with progressivism. Therefore it is obvious that the poster is a Neocon and his subsequent posts in favour of the current government which is based on the American Neoconservative movement also reveal his Neocon position. It's obvious logic that most people here I'm sure easily grasp. If the poster disagreed with my appraisal of his political orientation he could then have denied it and better elucidated his political position, but instead he didn't have a chance to defend himself as I didn't have a chance to call him on what I consider to have accurately been a gauge of his political position, just as he considered himself to have accurately gauged a former conservative Prime Minister of Canada's not being a conservative according to his opinion. And even despite that I didn't actually even call the poster a Neocon as claimed. It's easy to falsely claim that I did that after deleting my post so that the evidence is gone to the contrary. All I said is that the poster thinks that only neocons count as conservatives now, a logical deduction from his having called a former conservative Prime Minister not a conservative. That you are offended by my instance of mentioning a political label, and not by the other instances of same reveals your own bias. This is further revealed in that you yourself stated that you used to consider yourself a neocon, so the bias is obvious and certainly can't be said to be non-partisan or consistent. As for a definition of Neocon sure: A person belonging to the political movement known as neoconservatism, or those whose political stances are most often in emulation of or in agreement with that movement.

Yes Harper wanted the attack and his bellicose us vs. them statements and actions ensured it. Why did he want it and act so recklessly? The answer is obvious: to get re-elected. It was obvious that that was exactly what Harper was trying to get at the time and I said it at the time. The intention of Bill-C51 is not to protect from future attacks. It's to turn Canada down the road to authoritarianism like the Patriot Act did in the States. The idea of Bill-C51 is modelled on the Orwellian patriot act. Like the Patriot Act it was used to draw in the opposition party to be forced to sign on to it or look unpatriotic, just as Goering after the war stated was a surefire way of subverting Democracy. So the opposition parties signed onto it and looked foolish and weak to the electorate as intended. If he wanted to stop future attacks all he had to do is play it cool like previous Prime Ministers had done with success. Harper is a Machiavellian creep and traitor. He is willing to do harm to our country in order to get re-elected. He should be in a mental institute like his friends the Ford brothers rather than anywhere near power.

If you see a person's politics as being neocon politics why can't a person say it and call them on it? How about neoliberal?

Hello Libya, Syria, Iraq. "Peace means peace at home," Haven't had it either. The first domestic Islamist attacks in memory. Bil C-51 etc. "Order in the streets and in our culture. You must have missed the Vancouver Hockey riots or the 1 billion dollars spent on one day's 'security' to guard the G20. "Good government, meh, it's a pretty low bar to surpass the ones which came before them, but they manage it fairly easily." They sold off our resources to foreign countries, pushed free trade pacts which will screw us for years, suppressed scientists and science, and corruption is rife in Ottawa, many charges having been set, convictions found and trials under way.

Peace, we've been in multiple wars under the conservatives and had attacks domestically. Order look at all the trials going on. Good government, I"m not sure how you figure.

Maybe his surreal paranoia stems from the fact that Mugabe actually onced belong to a party called the NDP. "National Democratic Party." hehe http://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Democratic-Party-political-party-Zimbabwe

It must be quite a life to live in terror of the evil CBC. Thanks for reminding me of what I like about Canada.

"More money from more grassroots salt of the earth Americans and you might not have seen two terms of Obama." It was the grassroots which got Obama elected. Do you live in a glass bubble or something?

" You're right. People have no choice but to watch TV and radio. They are literally forced to watch and listen to both. Unlike newspapers and magazines. Or something." They aren't forced to watch TV or radio, but if they are listening and a political ad comes on then they hear it without having had a choice whether they wanted to listen to it or not.