Wow I forgot Keith Olbermann has such serious anger issues

Well, when you outrageously publicly invite our enemies to interfere in the election by illegally hacking your opponent and releasing the stolen documents, our enemies do it, and you publicly thank them for it (as I recall he actually said 'the Russians have just handed us the election' when the emails were released) and reward them with placating policy and Putin friendly appointments...that's treason is it not?

It is surprising that some patriot hasn't shot the person who did that....yet. Right wing nutbags are shooting up pizza places over ridiculous child slavery stories....where are the armed, outraged, ex-military, anti-Russian patriots with nothing to loose? They don't even have to be total nutjobs, this outrage is real, clear, and dangerous.
(To be perfectly clear, I'm not advocating shooting anyone, I'm just surprised it hasn't happened.)

I'm intrigued to hear you say this. To me it looks more like the neoliberal elite lashing out because Trump won and now they want to make his life as difficult as possible. They especially don't want someone to go making peace with Russia, perish the thought. They must have an enemy to make wars with, or else how else will they make those juicy profits?

There's no proof Russia did it, but even if they did it was the contents of the e-mails that was the problem not the hack. Members of the RNC got hacked too but no one cares because their emails were so boring.

Do you get your info from, faux or Trump?
I'm...wow...where to start?
"Neo-liberals" are anti war, so positive peaceful relations are what they're after, not illegal collusion and absolute capitulation to our (and our allies') detriment. The 'neoliberals' didn't even use the military to protect the Ukraine, even though we are bound to do so by treaties.
War profiteering companies are almost 100% owned and run by neocons, not liberals.

There is proof, publicly released proof. There is not yet a completed report submitted to congress, those take time to put together, verify, edit, recertify, sign off, and submit. 17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have plenty of 'proof', some hackers have gone on record as working on this project for the Russians at their direction, the methods and programs used have easily identified 'fingerprints' from previous Russian hacks.

The contents of the emails were completely innocuous, with absolutely no smoking gun. If you think differently, I think you've been duped by the fake news industry.
'No one cares' about the RNC emails because the Russians didn't release them, they weren't trying to hurt Trump, he's their dream president, a moron under their thumb that doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy, much less how to practice it. (That no one cares is totally not true, btw, I care...I even care that they were hacked, but I care far more that they were protected and helped repeatedly by a foreign nation they invited to illegally become involved in our election with the clearly stated intention of skewing our election for their benefit).
Sweet zombie Jesus, if Clinton had won after asking a national enemy to illicitly and illegally help her like Trump did, the right would be inconsolable and frothing at the mouth calling for revolution and blood.

Oops! Today they (the nsa, the director of national intelligence, the cia, and the doj, combined) released proof that not only did the Russians hack multiple American targets, but Putin was directly involved in choosing what to release and how, all in an effort to damage our election process and elect Trump as a way to weaken America and our ties with allies.
D'oh!

Neoliberals are not necessarily pro war. Neoliberalism is however the dominant political and social force of our time, and it's focus on profits without regard to humanity and a desire to expand in to every nation to "open new markets" makes war in some cases an inevitability. Conveniently these wars are very profitable too.

Here's the public evidence Russia hacked the DNC – It's not enough
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

You have drunk the coolaid.

The people you describe are neoconservatives, not neoliberals.

Wars are profitable for the military industrial complex, which is almost entirely populated by the right...be they neocons or just cons.

Liberals and neoliberals want to open new markets so they can regulate them (ostensibly to help workers and the environment) not just to profit from them, although they want that too.

There's more...coming soon to the interwebs, but jointly announced today by the CIA, DOJ, NSA, and the director of national intelligence. It's no longer innuendo and claims by people paid to make claims. We may never know most sources, because they are our spies and diplomats, but it seems they have evidentiary proof, not just likelihoods and claims.
Hide and watch. ;-)

I think we may have slightly different terminology.

Neoliberalism is a term I take to mean something much wider, nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism as you would see it (I'm presuming you're American?). It encompasses neoconservatism to mean a purist laissez faire globalist capitalism that seeks to maximize profit without regard to such human weaknesses as morality or emotion as far as is possible and that uses politics as a means to that end or if that fails coercion or worse.

No, I'm not a huge fan of it.

@newtboy

not to butt my nose in...
ah who am i kidding..of course i am going to butt my nose in.

you and space are getting caught up on definitions.
neo-conservative which is a fairly new political philosophy from the 1960's by irving kristol,whose name you may recognize as bill-the bloody- kristol (weekly standard) father.

prior to neoconservatism was.../drum roll
neoliberalism.

the fundamental difference is what you alluded to newt,but in my opinion were far too gracious in your definition.
while neoconservatism is far more hawkish,seeing american and "manifest destiny" as her right,and being a global power has a right to use that power to serve her interests,even if that be way of military force.the ultimate goal is to spread american excellence to the world in the form of markets.we sell our awesome and they buy,and we extract what we need for our interests a.k.a business baby.

neoliberalism may be more "dovish" but the goals are the same:political and financial dominance.

and the results are very similar as well.
so while neoliberalism may use economic hitmen,the IMF and the GTO to impose the will of american buisiness,and the neoconservatives may rely on the military heavily..

countries are still stripped of their resources,their labor exploited and a starbucks on every corner.their sovereignty is more a suggestion than an actual respective entity.

both philosophies are abhorrent and destructive and cause incredible suffering....and death.

i am super high right now,so if i misread your guys conflict..please forgive.
if i read it right and helped..
you are welcome!

Ok, I am ignorant of this term then. I thought it was a term for the newer semisocialist liberals that Faux and Trump railed against. Sorry for my confusion.
From your definition, no, I'm not a fan either.

Here's a few articles on today's report from the nsa, doj, cia, and director of national intelligence directly tying Putin and the Russians to the hacks, but sadly I can't find the report itself.....

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/14/putin-involved-election-hack/95453054/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/will-congress-investigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign

...no smoking gun shown publicly yet, but by using the intelligence term "high confidence" they are certainly indicating they have one, or more than one.

No. There isn't a Russian coup. There is a corporate coup. And corporations are very good at misdirection.

I'm waiting for actual evidence. Anyone?

I assume it's coming....maybe?

That's perfectly ok I've got in to several heated debates about this with Americans recently, and this may explain why. Has the term neoliberal has been re branded to mean something else over there?

The most worrying thing for me is how effective it has been, they form the leadership of most countries around the world now, most of the media, Hillary Clinton and even Obama.

Some prominent and notably not neoliberals are Donald Trump and Russia.

Moving this video to RFlagg's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I had not heard the term except from a few talking heads on tv that seem to have made the same mistake about what it means that I did. Not so much a rebranding, it's just not used (that I hear).
I think I prefer neoliberal to neocon. Their goals seem similar, profit, but the neocon methods are far more draconian (that's not to say that the neolib methods you describe are good).

Today the FBI added their public support for the conclusions the other agencies expressed.