Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kubark said:
Wrong, again. The original definition of neo-con was and is “neoconservative.”
Click to expand...
The original definition of neoconservative is neoconservative? The definition was circular? I think that just proves estesbob’s point.
If you want to know what neoconservatism is the best place to start would be the writings of self-proclaimed neconservatives like Max Boot or the “godfather” of the movement Irving Kristol. Perhaps you should read what these self-proclaimed necons have to say about neconservatism if you wish to seriously educate yourself on the subject, estesbob. Read Max Boot’s Wall Street Journal essay “What the heck is a Neocon?” Or perhaps Irving Kristol’s 2003 essay “The Neoconservative Persuasion” would be of some help to your education, estesbob. Neconservative tutoring of “the Republican Party and American conservatism” is done thru publications they control: the Weekly Standard, Commentary, The New Republic, and National Review for example. Don’t listen to what I have to say about Neconservatism, estesbob. Take it from the mouths of self-proclaimed Neocons.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I’ve read every article mentioned here, and read the National Review every day. (I also read the Huffington Post daily, for balance.) And I can’t help noticing that you still haven’t actually defined “neoconservatism” in any remotely useful way. You seem to mean “foreign policy interventionists,” but – I assure you – the term “neocon” has had many, many other meanings besides. Look how Michael Harrington meant it when he coined the term.

I say this in a friendly manner, as someone inclined to vote for Rep. Paul in the GOP primary because he gets a lot right and not very much wrong – and the rest of the candidates just don’t measure up.
 
Wowbagger said:
The original definition of neoconservative is neoconservative? The definition was circular? I think that just proves estesbob’s point.

Interestingly, I’ve read every article mentioned here, and read the National Review every day. (I also read the Huffington Post daily, for balance.) And I can’t help noticing that you still haven’t actually defined “neoconservatism” in any remotely useful way. You seem to mean “foreign policy interventionists,” but – I assure you – the term “neocon” has had many, many other meanings besides. Look how Michael Harrington meant it when he coined the term.

I say this in a friendly manner, as someone inclined to vote for Rep. Paul in the GOP primary because he gets a lot right and not very much wrong – and the rest of the candidates just don’t measure up.
Click to expand...
  • Kubark was expanding neocon for understanding; Estesbob has spun a vast number of things, and never successfully answered corrections. 😃

    Seeing may be in the Eye of the Beholder, perhaps…🤓
 
estesbob said:
The original definition of neo-con was “Jew” Now it is “any conservative I dislike”
Click to expand...
Funny, some of the self-proclaimed “neo-cons” themselves have admitted they are ex-liberals! I find the term very misleading, but maybe we’re getting somewhere now (as confused as we are.)

Personally, I’ve never met a conservative I dislike. 😉 I am a conservative, but I am not a Republican because they are no longer synonymous. The “right” under the banner of their R party departed from core conservative values a long time ago. That’s why we keep contending we don’t see much difference in the two party system now as the GOP moves further and further left into the realm of PC, big government with more laws and fewer liberties, even bigger spending, endless war, and always, but always paying lip service to real conservatives concerned with pro-family values. (Someone needs to get the vote of the evangelicals, after all.) That is not to say that the committed pro-life pols (count them on one hand) do not identify with the Republican party.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

“Neocon” and other derrogetory terms. The rule of the forum is to post charitably and do not engage in name calling. Any time you use a term in a derrogetory way it is name calling. Any time you label someone with a label they would not place upon themselves, it is name calling.

We have and will suspend members who engage in name calling.

Send me a PM if you have any questions.
 
MMolloy said:
??? Do you always extrapolate/mischaracterize what people say? That’s right I forgot, the US government has never locked up it’s own citizens before because of specious reasons… Like what group you belong to… as if INDIVIDUALS can be guilty by belonging to a group.
Click to expand...
Still confused. So your answer is yes you feel the US government is activity acquiring land and assets to imprison the citizens of the US so the government can turn over control to the Bilderberg Group or some other outside control?
 
Tigg said:
Personally, I’ve never met a conservative I dislike. 😉
Click to expand...
Me neither. I think that most conservative ideas are nonsense, but I always separate the person from the political stance, and there are many fine conservatives, especially on this Forum. Same with liberals - whether their brand of liberalism coincides with my own or not, I judge the individual for him or herself, not by the ideas they support. It’s a matter of Christian charity in either case. 👍
 
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
  • Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
  • Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Click to expand...
Source: ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

More of Ron Paul’s stance on the issues: ronpaul2012.com/the-issues
 
MMolloy said:
Why do you persist in misrepresenting the facts? Dr. Paul is running in the Republican Primary and will not be running as an Independent.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Paul apologists here on this forum who intend to vote for a man by writing his name in who isn’t going to be running in the General Election if he doesn’t get the nomination.
 
MMolloy said:
The Sanctity of Life Act for one… and it’s past time that Pro-Lifers learned a little more about our form of government and started using better tactics, like this bill that only requires a simple majority of both houses and the President’s signature: opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/text

If this bill was not left in committee by the Republicans while they had control of all three (the House, Senate and Presidency) we would already have Roe overturned.
Click to expand...
Has this bill got the support of major pro life groups like ALL? How will this wonderful piece of legislation not get struck down by the Courts? Congress has passed other good legislation in the past only to be struck down by the Courts.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Tell that to the Paul apologists here on this forum who intend to vote for a man by writing his name in who isn’t going to be running in the General Election if he doesn’t get the nomination.
Click to expand...
ITs either that or vote for a nominee that will pay lip service to the pro-life movement while doing nothing about the debt, deficit spending, the destructive policies of the Federal Reserve, or all these pointless wars against people who have no capacity to harm our sovereignty.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Has this bill got the support of major pro life groups like ALL? How will this wonderful piece of legislation not get struck down by the Courts? Congress has passed other good legislation in the past only to be struck down by the Courts.
Click to expand...
On what grounds would the courts strike down the Sanctity of Life Act? They cannot just strike down a law because they don’t like it.
 
Please actually read the whole poll before reacting to the nuanced statment I made:
  1. Among registered voters, Paul does 3rd best, that is true.
  2. Among adults, Paul does the best. He ties for first with Romney, but really wins because he holds Obama to a lower absolute number (this is important since undecided voters tend to break toward challenger)
  3. Paul is the only republican to do better among national adults than registered voters.
  4. Among registered voters, he ties for first with Romney among both independents and democrats.
 
Sorry ppeter, your logic just doesn’t hold up. Across a wide swath of polling, Paul does poorly in terms of standing for the Republican nomination and as a general election candidate. He has really never moved above his current position. The long term stability in his numbers suggests that he is neither gaining nor losing ground. His supporters are rock solid , but his appeal is limited. Rick Perry will be the nominee.
 
Rick Perry will be the nominee.
Click to expand...
Okay, Big Ro, so you don’t want to look at these numbers, and the potential Paul has in the general population that the other Republicans simply lack, but instead you want to drown them in “swaths” of numbers that show how great Perry is.

You do know that Texans don’t like Rick Perry very much, don’t you?

when asked about his popularity in Texas, Perry had this to say: “The prophet is generally not loved in their hometown.”

Do you ever allow yourself to wonder why?

Does it ever cross your mind that the US may tire of him much more quickly than TX has?
 
ppeter said:
Okay, Big Ro, so you don’t want to look at these numbers, and the potential Paul has in the general population that the other Republicans simply lack, but instead you want to drown them in “swaths” of numbers that show how great Perry is.

You do know that Texans don’t like Rick Perry very much, don’t you?

when asked about his popularity in Texas, Perry had this to say: “The prophet is generally not loved in their hometown.”

Do you ever allow yourself to wonder why?

Does it ever cross your mind that the US may tire of him much more quickly than TX has?
Click to expand...
Paul has yet to break out of single digits in any national poll of choices for the Republican nomination. all the poll you quoted shows is how terribly unpopular Obama is and even then Paul finishes third among Republican hopefuls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top