Difference between revisions of "Talk:Neoconservative"
(New page: What about William Buckley, et. al? ~~~~) |
(→Redirect: reply) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What about William Buckley, et. al? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:32, 23 December 2007 (EST) | What about William Buckley, et. al? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:32, 23 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Buckley started out as a [[conservative]] decades ago, but he allowed his publication [[National Review]] to become [[neoconservative]]. Buckley himself has not been a factor in the [[conservative]] movement for at least the last 20 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 23 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Okay, I wanted to add National Review to the list of neoconservative publications, but thought I'd run it by you first. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:45, 23 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: That's fine with me!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 23 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Hmm… == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Isn't the standard definition of "neoconservative" something along the lines of "an individual with a political alignment that advocates strong foreign policy and capitalism"? I know because neo-Nazis aren't very fond of them, being xenophobes. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 21:47, 26 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is this really the definition of neoconservatism? I always thought the neoconservative movement was a reaction to the radical liberalism of the 1960s etc., and emphasized a return to the traditional social values Americans had always held (hence, the "neo"). I'd never heard of liberals masquerading as conservatives counting as neocons.--[[User:Sandalphon|Sandalphon]] 22:43, 27 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Reversion == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I reverted some pro-neoconservative propaganda (which had at least one glaring mistake in it).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 29 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Redirect == | ||
| + | There are two of the same page here; [[neoconservative]] and [[neoconservatism]]. We should make one a redirect. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 22:30, 13 January 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Wow, that's an oversight. I wonder what the differences are between the articles. The better one should remain, and incorporate any extra material the other one has, I suppose!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 13 January 2009 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:10, January 14, 2009
What about William Buckley, et. al? DanH 23:32, 23 December 2007 (EST)
- Buckley started out as a conservative decades ago, but he allowed his publication National Review to become neoconservative. Buckley himself has not been a factor in the conservative movement for at least the last 20 years.--Aschlafly 23:41, 23 December 2007 (EST)
- Okay, I wanted to add National Review to the list of neoconservative publications, but thought I'd run it by you first. DanH 23:45, 23 December 2007 (EST)
- That's fine with me!--Aschlafly 23:45, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Hmm…
Isn't the standard definition of "neoconservative" something along the lines of "an individual with a political alignment that advocates strong foreign policy and capitalism"? I know because neo-Nazis aren't very fond of them, being xenophobes. --SimonA 21:47, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Is this really the definition of neoconservatism? I always thought the neoconservative movement was a reaction to the radical liberalism of the 1960s etc., and emphasized a return to the traditional social values Americans had always held (hence, the "neo"). I'd never heard of liberals masquerading as conservatives counting as neocons.--Sandalphon 22:43, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Reversion
I reverted some pro-neoconservative propaganda (which had at least one glaring mistake in it).--Aschlafly 23:06, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Redirect
There are two of the same page here; neoconservative and neoconservatism. We should make one a redirect. WesleySHello! 22:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)
- Wow, that's an oversight. I wonder what the differences are between the articles. The better one should remain, and incorporate any extra material the other one has, I suppose!--Andy Schlafly 23:10, 13 January 2009 (EST)