Ron Paul, Dr. No-body, beats Rudy and Fred--again
- Thread starter nate45
- Start date
- Status
I don't see any such talk at all. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe I've ever heard a single RP supporter claim confidence that RP would get the GOP nomination. Sure, people discuss how Paul is raising a lot of money and how he's beating Thompson and Rudy in the primaries (in spite of obvious media bias), but my opinion is that his supporters are just gratified to see that the message is reaching an increasing number of people.Double Naught Spy said:
If Paul ran as an independent, then he might have a chance. But for now, I'm just hoping he continues to spread his message, which is bigger than he is.
Yeah, and like W. has been good for the country. I voted for him in 2000 and have regretted it ever since.Oh, like Ross Perot and his spoiling of the Bush Clinton election. That was truly good for the country.
If Americans continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, then they're going to get evil, and they deserve it. It's just that simple. People who are willing to vote their rights away more slowly do not deserve freedom any more than people who are willing to vote their rights away quickly. And it just so happens that the GOP is every bit as hostile to American rights and values as the Democrats -- just in different ways.
Not necessarily. But even if this is the case, maybe "worse is better." Maybe a universal gun ban will wake people up and realize that it's the US government, not al Qaeda or some Middle Eastern country, that poses a threat to our freedom and our way of life. If people give up their guns in such a ban, then that will mean they're too cowardly to deserve them, anyway! See how neatly that works? People have the rights they're willing to fight for, not those they're willing to beg for.
The rights we retain do not depend on the Supreme Court, legal interpretations, or legislation passed. They only depend on where we, as freedom-loving gun owners, are willing to draw the line. In the real world might makes right, and government force can do anything unless it is resisted by countervailing force.
The Second Amendment, and the Constitution in general, cannot enforce itself. The government has police to enforce its laws. Who is enforcing the Constitution? That's the job of We The People. Force is a last resort, but once the Rubicon is crossed and the government tries to disarm us of combat-capable weapons, then all bets are off. If gun owners don't take this attitude, then there is NO point in having a Second Amendment anyway.
This is an indictment of the American sheeple, not the candidates who send the messages. Hopefully Paul's message of freedom, Constitutionally-limited government, and fiscal conservatism will have some sticking power. Hopefully enough people will decide that enough is enough of the same old same-old.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I don't know if RP has had more or less exposure than the other non-performing candidates, but if the RP people want to bask in the warm glow of following the top performing of the lower end of the loser candidates caste, then all I can say is that I am glad they can be so easily entertained.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
samoand wrote:
You're post is just another personal attack from another Ron Paul supporter trying to get a thread locked.
Sad that some of you folks have to resort to this.
Is there really so little in Ron Paul's message that can be defended on its merits?
And, you might wish to look back at my posts. I have taken pains to phrase any characterization of the Paul supporters by using the phrases: "many" or "some."
Think about that.
First, in answer to your allegations of lying, here are a few examples of what I consider to be name calling coming From some of the Ron Paul supporters: (I found these after abot 20 sec. of searching).
- Steelcore wrote:
- Rogueone wrote:
And, the best summary I've seen about the Ron Paul Paul supporters here on TFL:
Antipitas wrote:
You're post is just another personal attack from another Ron Paul supporter trying to get a thread locked.
Sad that some of you folks have to resort to this.
Is there really so little in Ron Paul's message that can be defended on its merits?
And, you might wish to look back at my posts. I have taken pains to phrase any characterization of the Paul supporters by using the phrases: "many" or "some."
Think about that.
First, in answer to your allegations of lying, here are a few examples of what I consider to be name calling coming From some of the Ron Paul supporters: (I found these after abot 20 sec. of searching).
- Steelcore wrote:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275752
- Rogueone wrote:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275752
And, the best summary I've seen about the Ron Paul Paul supporters here on TFL:
Antipitas wrote:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275752
Last edited:
I tried to get into a discussion about this with you earlier in this thread, but you didn't answer my questions. Let me repost them here:cool hand luke said:
SteelCore said:
Please note that the above definition of "paleoconservatism" is not just something I invented. It's a reflection of an ideology that long predates neoconservatism and still has its proponents, although it has become marginalized in the GOP since the takeover of the neocons.
More information on paleoconservatism (traditional conservatism):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative
http://www.amconmag.com/
http://www.vdare.com/
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
I saw your post. I chose not to respond because in essence, what you're asking me to do is prove that I'm a "real" conservative even though I don't support Ron Paul.
Sorry, but I really don't support any of the Republican candidates right now.
cool hand luke:
You wrote me a PM: "Grow up and get over yourself. Not every word written on the internet is about you personally."
First of all, there is absolutely nothing in this topic to make me need to resort to PM-s. I can discuss this and most other issues in civilized language and without making unjustified remarks; perhaps you should consider learning how to do this. I hope this explains why I respond in public.
I simply called your bluff. You said - and I quote -
As for name calling... Again, after some of the things that you said you may consider being quiet on the topic.
My point was very simple, really. You questioned intellectual capacity of RP, and I mentioned that he is endorsed by very bright minds, including at least one Nobel Prize winner (in economics) that I know of. There may be problems with RP as a president, but lack of intelligence and lack of understanding of our current situations is not one of them; words that you used for him are plain silly. "Paulits", or "Paulestinians", as thunderhawk called them (do you still want to talk about name calling?) are in a really good company. I'm not sure why it got you all revved up.
You wrote me a PM: "Grow up and get over yourself. Not every word written on the internet is about you personally."
First of all, there is absolutely nothing in this topic to make me need to resort to PM-s. I can discuss this and most other issues in civilized language and without making unjustified remarks; perhaps you should consider learning how to do this. I hope this explains why I respond in public.
I simply called your bluff. You said - and I quote -
This is not true, no matter what twist you put on it. An inaccuracy or an exaggeration made in the heat of the moment at best, or a deliberate lie at worst. I explained that I personally made some number of PR-related posts and never ever used the term. So, see - this is not about myself. I'm just an example of problems with your reasoning; I'm sure that there are others as well. I would, of course, give you benefit of doubt and blame it on the heat of the moment, except that for reasons that I don't fully understand you seem to persist and deny the obvious.
As for name calling... Again, after some of the things that you said you may consider being quiet on the topic.
My point was very simple, really. You questioned intellectual capacity of RP, and I mentioned that he is endorsed by very bright minds, including at least one Nobel Prize winner (in economics) that I know of. There may be problems with RP as a president, but lack of intelligence and lack of understanding of our current situations is not one of them; words that you used for him are plain silly. "Paulits", or "Paulestinians", as thunderhawk called them (do you still want to talk about name calling?) are in a really good company. I'm not sure why it got you all revved up.
Unregistered
Moderator
You realize that you are indirectly responding to a PM publicly by making that statement?
It seems ironic.
The term 'neoconservative' is a machination of political theorists, NOT a practiced, self-identifying political persuasion. Outside of political punditry or theorists, it isn't even a genuine political philosophy, it is a fabricated theoretical one and used almost exclusively in the pejorative rather then to identify a theoretical.
The so called 'sine qua non' or essential/fundamental attribute being international intervention there are few, if any, US conflicts or support of conflicts that couldn't be construed as this.
And to connect advocacy of big government and leftist social issues with conservatism is like connecting barking and walking on a leash with cats. If your political philosophy relates with such advocacy your a liberal, not a conservative or 'neo-conservative'.
If we are to accept the qualifiers above as a definition of neo-conservative then Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, etc. were all neo-cons.....I don't think so........
There exist Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans. Philosophy mixing party affiliations. I would agree that Bush is no conservative, at least not a very strict one. And I would think that most would agree that John Kennedy was more conservative then liberal.
All that said, 'neocon' is pejorative as it implies contempt or disapproval. Liberal Republican or Conservative Democrat would be more expressive if the intent isn't to be derogatory.
I think the use of the term neocon is analogous to the word ni**er in that if those recognizing each other as part of a common group use the word it's not taken as offensive, but used outside that group it is immediately considered highly offensive and is usually meant to be.
If you call someone neocon or that their 'neocon goggles' distort their view, or that support or nonsupport of an assertion or candidate is because all 'neocons' do or don't then it's clearly used as an ad hominem. To pull this 'it's a legit political ideology' line is like the kid saying 'ass' and when scolded claiming he meant the donkey not the insult.
This is incorrect. Neoconservatism is a readily-identifiable movement, and the designation has been accepted even by many neocons themselves -- although they may frame its tenets slightly differently.Bruxley said:
Here's one of the most prominent neocons describing the movement:
"The Neoconservative Persuasion" by William Kristol
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
"Neocon" is only considered perjorative in the sense that non-liberals might consider the term "liberal" to be perjorative. Yet many liberals proudly identify as such.
Granted, many people have adopted neoconservatism without even realizing as much. But just because they don't realize that they're neocons and don't identify themselves as such doesn't mean they're not neocons.
For example, Giuliani is neocon to the core. He has a liberal record on almost every major social issue, and his sole "conservative" credential is his advocacy of belligerent foreign policy and (most likely) violating civil liberties at home in the name of increased security.
It's the motivation for the conflict that's important. I said, "especially where Israel's interests are at stake." Show me one of the key neocons (e.g., Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer) and I'll show you someone who is obsessively concerned with using the US to attack Middle Eastern nations that also just happen to be enemies of Israel. These people keep talking about how Iran's president is a "new Hitler" who will cause a "new Holocaust." It's positively absurd, yet they're trying to use such rhetoric to drag the US into yet another conflict to increase Israel's power.
I said, "more leftist on social issues." And that's exactly what neocons are in comparison to paleocons. As already stated, Giuliani is one example. Another is Charles Krauthammer, who is very pro-war but anti-gun as well.
I hope my above explanations clarify things somewhat.
If you're still not sure how neocons differ from paleocons, feel free to read some articles by neocon authors such as those I've already named. Then compare them to the writings of Pat Buchanan and others at places like this:
http://www.amconmag.com/
Obviously there is a great difference, and that's why it's important to make a distinction between neo- and paleo-cons.
I agree here, and I would also add that I'm not very satisfied with the two-dimensional liberal-conservative spectrum that most people use when discussing politics. I think that view is too simplistic, but I don't want to go off on too long a tangent discussing it here.
Again, I disagree, and so does William Kristol (see his article above). Neoconservatism is a well-defined political outlook. It's only perjorative if one feels that applying any label to those with whom one disagrees is perjorative. Obviously I'm not a fan of neoconservatism, so naturally if I say someone is a neocon, that means I don't approve of their views. I see nothing wrong with that.
If this is true, then perhaps it's because neocons want others to see them as the only authentic conservatives, when in fact they've usurped that position?
I'm sorry if anyone feels I'm personally attacking them, but I can only say so many times that it's not my intention. If I wanted to insult people, I could use far worse words than "neocon."
Nevertheless, I feel that neoconservatism is real, it exists, and it's hijacked the GOP and what is considered "mainstream conservatism" in America. The fact that Rudy Giuliani can be considered conservative at all while people were saying that Ron Paul should really have been running as a Democrat speaks volumes about this.
Unless someone were to SELF IDENTIFY as a 'neocon' then pinning that label on them based on your analysis of them and your deciding they are one, it is pejorative.
If you call someone a redneck for example, someone that self identifies as one may very well say 'damn right!' but someone that does not IS being insulted. And to say well you do live in a rural area, you do drive a truck, you do listen to country music, so whether you accept it or not your a redneck.
So don't be an ass. I of course don't mean ass in the pejorative but rather as stubborn. Most people recognize that the common trait of a donkey (ass) is it's stubbornness, and not to insult you. Your being an ass about pressing a label on someone that is perceived far more as insulting then generally identifying only works if you buy the reasoning that I just used for calling you an ass and that your being an ass.
I hope you see my point. I genuinely don't think your an ass or being an ass. I don't wish to insult you, just to point out that explaining (or attempting to anyway) that they shouldn't be insulted by the insulting term your wielding around doesn't change that it is insulting to people that don't SELF IDENTIFY with it. So, like it or not, it is pejorative. And let's be honest, you know it is. It's evident in your writing ability that your too smart to believe otherwise.
Try using the word ni**er I referenced above and explain that you meant it in a 'your my brother, I feel you' way and see how that turns out.....
If you call someone a redneck for example, someone that self identifies as one may very well say 'damn right!' but someone that does not IS being insulted. And to say well you do live in a rural area, you do drive a truck, you do listen to country music, so whether you accept it or not your a redneck.
So don't be an ass. I of course don't mean ass in the pejorative but rather as stubborn. Most people recognize that the common trait of a donkey (ass) is it's stubbornness, and not to insult you. Your being an ass about pressing a label on someone that is perceived far more as insulting then generally identifying only works if you buy the reasoning that I just used for calling you an ass and that your being an ass.
I hope you see my point. I genuinely don't think your an ass or being an ass. I don't wish to insult you, just to point out that explaining (or attempting to anyway) that they shouldn't be insulted by the insulting term your wielding around doesn't change that it is insulting to people that don't SELF IDENTIFY with it. So, like it or not, it is pejorative. And let's be honest, you know it is. It's evident in your writing ability that your too smart to believe otherwise.
Try using the word ni**er I referenced above and explain that you meant it in a 'your my brother, I feel you' way and see how that turns out.....
Bruxley: Didn't see such a rule, could you enlighten me with directions?
The other member didn't employ the feature to build bridges, there was no private information involved (name calling can hardly be called private information), and it wasn't because he wanted to explain his position in terms that are inappropriate for public forum. Basically, he employed it to add up to confrontation, with intent to upset. That's what I would call really poor form.
The other member didn't employ the feature to build bridges, there was no private information involved (name calling can hardly be called private information), and it wasn't because he wanted to explain his position in terms that are inappropriate for public forum. Basically, he employed it to add up to confrontation, with intent to upset. That's what I would call really poor form.
Bruxley: Can you then provide me with a substitute term for "neocon" that covers the three key features I mentioned (all rolled into one term)?
I still disagree with you that "neocon" is any more objectionable than "paleocon" (which, interestingly, may have originally been used in a disparaging way). But if you can come up with something better than "neocon" that also means "pro-war, pro-occupation, Israel-obsessed, pro-big government, and lukewarm on social conservatism," then I just might adopt it.
If someone here tells me that he's not a neocon, then I won't refer to him as one. I'm here to discuss issues, not offend people. But I cannot help but point out neoconservative policies where I see them. For example, stating a desire to force democracy on Middle Eastern nation X is PURE neoconservatism, and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Also, if you haven't already done so and are really interested in such things, I recommend that you read up on the history of neoconservatism and its roots in the teachings of Leo Strauss and Trotskyism. It really sheds a lot of light on the events of the past 10-20 years.
I still disagree with you that "neocon" is any more objectionable than "paleocon" (which, interestingly, may have originally been used in a disparaging way). But if you can come up with something better than "neocon" that also means "pro-war, pro-occupation, Israel-obsessed, pro-big government, and lukewarm on social conservatism," then I just might adopt it.
If someone here tells me that he's not a neocon, then I won't refer to him as one. I'm here to discuss issues, not offend people. But I cannot help but point out neoconservative policies where I see them. For example, stating a desire to force democracy on Middle Eastern nation X is PURE neoconservatism, and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Also, if you haven't already done so and are really interested in such things, I recommend that you read up on the history of neoconservatism and its roots in the teachings of Leo Strauss and Trotskyism. It really sheds a lot of light on the events of the past 10-20 years.
Stage2 said it. It's considered poor form and along the lines of baiting. Have it out in PM or do what I do. Just put those that seem reasonable and articulate on the boards but are hostile and/or juvenile in PMs on your ignore list. Cause then to either post what they want to say or leave it unsaid if they feel it wouldn't reflect well on them poorly in a post.
Either way, it's going to draw undesirable attention from a mod to call out a member in a post on something in a PM.
Another PM related act that is considered low brow is to claim in a post that your getting alot of support/agreement in PMs that isn't being posted. Kind of self serving as it's neither confirmable or refutable.
Like Stage2 said, PM is private, left that way is best practice.
Either way, it's going to draw undesirable attention from a mod to call out a member in a post on something in a PM.
Another PM related act that is considered low brow is to claim in a post that your getting alot of support/agreement in PMs that isn't being posted. Kind of self serving as it's neither confirmable or refutable.
Like Stage2 said, PM is private, left that way is best practice.
- Status