Bloomberg would pull from the Dems far more than the Republicans
Possibly, but I see him cutting into constituencies from both parties.
Bloomberg would pull from the Dems far more than the Republicans
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:Uh, sure, so then why do we get the threads and the RP supporters who talk about how much money RP is raising or how he has beaten other non-performing candidates such as in the OP? For people who know he won't win, y'all sure talk a lot about how much he is winning (even if it is trivial), like it matters.
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.Nevertheless, my attitude, and undoubtedly that of other RP supporters, is that it's better to fight for what's right and lose than it is to just surrender without even trying.
Besides, I think Paul's candidacy is important even if he doesn't win. He's sending a message that this country badly needs to hear.
Also, I don't believe RP has 100% ruled out running as an independent.
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.I think RP running as an independent would be a sure way to get Obama or Hillary in the White House.
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.Funny thing about those messages that candidates deliver that their supporters think the country needs to hear, but the candidates never reach office...their messages die very quickly from memory...almost as if they had never said them at all.
The reason RP's coming in ahead of Thompson and Gulliani is significant is that both candidates have had alot more media exposure than Paul, most of it free.
Patently false. Since the start of the election Paul has gotten just as much media exposure asn any of the other candidates. He's been in all but one national debate. He's had numerous interviews on all of the cable news stations, and even had an entire program just devoted to interviewing him.
two statements, two lies. I'm a supporter and I challenge you to find a single RP-related post by me using this term. As for name calling - you personally should be very, very quiet.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275752Gun owners who support another GOP candidate over Ron Paul care more about the US government continuing to fight wars overseas than about freedom and the Constitution here at home.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275752I would have thought Facism more than anything, considering the amount big business is affecting what we hear, what we see, and which politicians get the money to fund these crazy electionsThe GOP mainstream is now all about pro-war, big government liberalism (i.e., neoconservatism)
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275752As I see it, the major problem with many Ron Paul supporters is that this is exactly the way they come across to others. There is a reason those that don't see Ron Paul as some sort of savior call some of you, "Fanatics." Could it be that that is how some of you behave?
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:Is there really so little in Ron Paul's message that can be defended on the facts?
SteelCore said:You say you're a paleocon, like I am. That means you believe in small, unintrusive government; no foreign intervention except when clearly necessary to protect the US; US troops out of Iraq; a republic, not an empire; sealed US borders; and above all, rigid adherence to the Constitution.
Which candidate besides Ron Paul has a similar position? Which candidate do you favor, and why?
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
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.I've yet to hear a Ron Paul supporter make an argument in his favor without using the term "neo-con" to insult any Republican who doesn't support Paul.
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.
Responding to a PM in public is poor form NO MATTER what the content.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, referring to someone as a "neocon" is not calling him a name. Neo conservatism is a recognized ideology that is different from traditional conservatism (a.k.a. "paleoconservatism") in some key ways:
(1) Strong support for overseas intervention, especially where Israel's interests are at stake (this is the sine qua non of neoconservatism)
(2) Less distrust (and often advocacy) of big government at home
(3) More leftist on social issues (e.g., gun control, immigration)
And you responded to a response to a PM. And, in this post, I... aaaaahhh!!!You realize that you are indirectly responding to a PM publicly by making that statement?
It seems ironic.
You realize that you are indirectly responding to a PM publicly by making that statement?
It seems ironic.
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: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.
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.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.
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.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'.
I hope my above explanations clarify things somewhat.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........
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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."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.
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.