This’ll probably get moved to MPSIMS, but I wanted you guys to see it first:
Gratuitous formating mine. My response:
I’'ll call her in the morning to see what she means by this. 
Ah. She’s a “normal.” A non-Doper. One who has not been around the block on SDMB political discussions. 
That was my first thought. I kind of felt weird pulling out the “cite”, and had to refrain from asking her to forward my message to those that were part of the carbon copy chain. Did I at least look intelligent and informed without looking like an asshole?
How’s he gonna “ban” nuclear weapons?
Neoconservative does not “basically mean people who hold extreme right wing policies.”
He’ll reduce the number of weapons in the U.S. Enduring Stockpile and/or shift weapons from the Active Service and Hedge Stockpile to Inactive Reserve status. There is also a good chance of quashing the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
Whether you think this is a good idea or not probably depends very strongly on your political orientation. If you are of the opinion that it is the moral authority of the United States to impose a Pax Americana on the world at large and view the nuclear arsenal as a means to that end, then you’ll certainly oppose a reduction in active armament. If, on the other hand, you think it behoves the United States to practice the anti-proliferation stance that it at least nominally preaches to developing nuclear powers, then reducing the Enduring Stockpile provides an example to others and allows the U.S. to gain the moral high ground over other mature nuclear weapon-capable nations like Russia, China, and France as well as developing nuclear powers like Pakistan, India, Israel, and provisionally Iran, North Korea, Japan, et cetera.
As for the o.p.'s question regarding whether he is an “asshole” by responding to the correspondant with informed analysis, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people approach a political/philosophical/sports issue under the assumption that the recipient will respond in agreement on the principle of basic civility and/or passivity, and react to contradiction by assuming contradiction to be an expression of jerkishness regardless (or perhaps even in proportion to) the degree of factuality in the statement. In short, most people don’t want to learn anything new; they want to have their pre-existing beliefs and prejudices reinforced, even if they are totally bug-nuttery, as with September 11 conspiracy theories. (An admin who distributed one of these at work regarded my point-by-point technical disembowelment of the alleged inconsistances–a pile of steaming bullshit–by refusing to ever speak with me, which solved one problem albeit not the one of her utter credulity.)
So yes, the o.p. is, on that basis, an asshole, particularly because he cites sources that undermine the entire argument and demonstrate logical fallacy in the original claims. If he really wanted to be a complete jackass, though, he’d delve into the game theory analysis that argues for nuclear weapons being almost entirely worthless in a post-Cold War multiple adversary environment. And if wanted to be a complete ass, he’d work in a few quotes from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb.
Stranger
You never know what them Moslems are capable of. It’s in the Corran.
Why was this bit of uselessness posted and what purpose does it serve?
WAG: “Oh noes, Obama is teh Muslim !!!1!!!” is another widely circulated right wing glurge email meme, such as that addressed by the OP.
I don’t see what’s so bad about what he’s saying either. I’m sure this has occurred to many others as well, but I can’t help but wonder if the US economy would be in such a bad place if it weren’t for this war.
I’ve also had the crazy idea that maybe the “government” is raising the cost of oil so that they can get the American people to support a plan to steal the oil from the middle east, so I suppose my ideas can be pretty far fetched, haha!
This morning…
Me (in jest): Mom, why’d you leave me an angry voicemail last night?
Mom: It wasn’t angry. Your dad and I just realized why it was always so hard to argue with you, though. You’re a good debater.
Although, I don’t think I was really debating, just explaining, but I guess that can be considered the same thing. And I’m sad Stranger thinks I’m an asshole. 
Can you help me sum it up more accurately and succinctly?
Neoconservatism is a political movement/tendency that emerged in the late 1970s (drawing heavily from disaffected leftist intellectuals, some of them former Communists or Trotskyists), and which is specifically concerned with an aggressive U.S. foreign and military policy – during the Cold War, to contain and roll back Soviet Communism; since then, to establish the U.S. as the world’s sole military hegemon and establish democracy and capitalism (heavy emphasis on the latter) throughout the world. Support for Israel is a keystone. Neoconservatism is an intellectual/academic/editorial/think-tank movement with no mass base but some mass appeal, as events of the past seven years have demonstrated. Neocons can be distinguished from theocons, whose might be sympathetic to them but whose social-conservative priorities are very different; paleocons such as Pat Buchanan, who are nativist, isolationist, and suspicious of Israel; libertarians, who hate biggummint in any form, including big-budget military spending, and don’t like the idea of America as an empire; and bizcons, who might have an opportunistic relationship with the neocons but who have no ideology as such other than whatever’s-good-for-business.
Actually, I was just projecting. 
A neoconservative is someone who holds that social welfare is bad but corporate welfare is good, the Laffer curve is a good basis for a sound fiscal policy, and the United States is the singular bastion of freedom on the planet. He also doesn’t tolerate being attacked by any swamp rabbits; if one of those suckers so much as hops in the water, he’ll apply the collective technological resources of the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, Department of Agriculture, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the United States Postal Service into a massive collective effort under the aegis of the newly formed “Swampland Strategic Defense Initiative”, assign it a budget larger than the gross national product of any three European nations, and task it with the mission of protecting the Brave Citizens of this Greatest Country On Earth, Indivisible, Under God, Et Cetera Ad Nauseam from the grave national and international threat posted by Swamp Rabbits, Swamp Gators, Swamp Snakes, Swamp Apes, et cetera.
Stranger
How are either of those different from “extreme right wing policies”?
It is possible to follow extreme right wing policies without being a neocon - for example the isolationists such as Buchanan.
Well, what Obama is claiming he will do is the usual naive-to-the-point-of-idiotic stuff that we have come to expect from the far left. He claims he is going to end “this war”, which I presume means the war in Iraq. (If he means Afghanistan, well, that would be something else.) IIRC, the junior Senator from Outer Space has declined to commit to removing US troops from Iraq for at least another five years, so I rather doubt we are going to be able to save any money on Iraq during Obama’s first term (presuming there is one). Another of his claims, that he is going to work for a nuclear-free world, is too vague to mean anything. If he means he is going to stop Iran from trying to develop nuclear weapons, well, either that has already happened under the current administration, or it hasn’t and Obama doesn’t give any concrete steps that he is going to take to bring it about (same for North Korea and the other Axis of Evil nations other than Libya, who has already agreed to divest themselves of WMD programs under Bush - they agreed a few days after the invasion of Iraq, no doubt coincidentally ).
Obama is going to reduce spending on missile defense. Again, presumably Obama is not dumb enough to be suggesting that we abandon tactical anti-missile systems, but is talking about SDI. That is a debatable position, at least, or at least not as out-and-out stupid as it seems. The idea of Russia not aiming missiles at us sounds nice and everything, but I wonder how long it takes to re-target them if things go south.
And he is going to cut “tens of billions” from defense spending and impose yet another layer of bureaucracy on military procurements. $200 hammer, anyone?
Overall, much of the sort of thing one might expect from someone with good intentions and no real experience. Think of him as a black peanut farmer and you won’t be far wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
To my mind, the hallmark of “neoconservative” as opposed to any other form of conservative is the adoption of what was traditionally a liberal notion of foreign intervention to support the creation of democratic and friendly governments abroad - a “Wilsonian” rather than “Jacksonian” foreign policy: Wilsonianism - Wikipedia
They don’t wear bedsheets or advocate global isolationism. They also pretend to be all about smaller government, just like “paleoconservatives”, but they actually mean small social and infrastructure services, but big military and government funded defense technology establisments.
Stranger
Neoconservatism is primarily a vision for US foreign policy; its core tenant is a belief that the US should aggressively and proactively promote the spread of liberal democracies in the world. It also supports globalization and the promotion of free trade. They reject realist and isolationist policies.
I don’t think you can find any specific domestic agenda that neoconservatism as an ideology embraces, though I think most neocons tend to be fairly liberal in terms of the welfare state and social policy. But my basic point is that when someone pictures a conservative who believes in “extreme right wing policies” they’re going to think of a paleoconservative or a religious conservative, not a neoconservative.
The point is that there is more than one kind of “extreme right wing policies,” just as there is more than one kind of right-wing politics.
See here.