Thread: Ron Paul Wins by Double Digits with Religious Voters in Zog

I think the term 'neo-con', as used in my preceding post, could and should be defined as the globalist elite cabal currently in charge of the US Government, actively promoting a 'one-world' POV in which commerce takes precedence over sovereignty, nation-building trumps a non-interventionist foreign policy and individual rights and liberty are considered enemies of the State.

Look to Rove, Cheney, Bush, Rockefeller, et al as living examples.

MW
thanks for the extra extra
The New Media Journal.us

Do you have a nother link to the nettalkworld radio those links dont seem to be working

MW- I have to laugh.

The SAME propaganda you use to dissuade the word "neo-con" is EXACTLY what this author does. So hilarious. So you pick an article, written by a globlist, who coincidently bashes Ron Paul in his article. The only true conservative, and this doofus (the writer) associates a liberal idealogy to Paul. Hilarious. Uhmm, numbnuts(the writer), neo-cons sprouted from the left, and in many cases - the extreme left.

Another dopey writer who "still" is using the word isolationist. MW, C'mon, that article is absolutely garbage. And you post it as some sort of rebuttal against the word "neo-con". Wow. hilarious.

MW. "IF" you are gonna post something definitive, please try to use sources that are not actually written by those who are infact neo-cons themselves.
http://www.jb-williams.com/

This guy is a hack. Shame on you MW for posting an article by this guy with a clear agenda. hahhahaah..

What I have to laugh at is that NEOCONS are infact Liberals who could accomplish more on the right than the left. Many republicans "believe" that neo-cons are republican, they are not. One only needs to look at our government, which has - as Ron Paul mentioned, has been hijacked by these special interests. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Look at our government. It is NOT conservative. WAR, FOREIGN NATION BUILDING, HUGE DEBT, OPEN BORDERS, HUGE GOVERNMENT... and more govt everyday. This is NOT conservative, this is LIBERAL. There is NOTHING conservative about it. Neo-cons are just liberals who want war. If you think otherwise, all you have to do is examine the policy for the last 10 years. I mean, its all right there.


************

POLITICS: What Is a Neo-Conservative Anyway?
Commentary - By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (IPS) - With all the attention paid to neo-conservatives in the global media today, one would think that a standard definition of the term would exist. Yet, despite their now being credited with a virtual takeover of U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush, a common understanding of 'neo-cons' remains elusive.

A brief description of their basic tenets and origin can help distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory; namely, the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson.

As neo-con godfather Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a ''liberal who was mugged by reality''. True to that description, neo-cons generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organisational skills and ideological zeal.

Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, 'Commentary', is published by the American Jewish Committee. But at the same time, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the U.S. Jewish community, as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign-policy views.

Neo-conservative foreign-policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the New Left of the 1960s, fears over a return to U.S. isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbours in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but its key principles have remained the same.

They begin with the basic foreign-policy realism found in the pessimistic views of human nature and international diplomacy of the English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, which neo-cons share with most U.S. practitioners: ''the condition of man (in a state of nature) ... is a condition of war of everyone against everyoneâ€

I refer to Neo cons as a fake conservative. For Example, bush says he is a "Christian" yet he bears no fruit as a Christian. Christians are usually associated with being conservative. Our Government has grown under Bush not reduced as has been spending and so on.

Sounds like there is many new means to the words globalism, Isolationist and now neo-con. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... A Black cat is bad luck if it crosses your path, but what about the family that owns it.
Seems like even saying CFR these days gets at least two opinions.

I guess my Question is
which one is right ?

And,
At this point who is to say which one is right.

BrightNail, I think you assume way too much behind my reasoning for posting the article. My sole purpose behind posting it was to point out that there are various opinions on what a "neo-con" really is. Personally, I think it's a very over utilized word that is not clearly defined, grasped, or understood by the masses. In other words, it's an extremely vague word without precise meaning. Furthermore, I thought I'd let those calling other ALIPAC members neo-cons know that it is considered a derogatory term. I'm a firm believer in not labeling my fellow ALIPAC "compadres" using derogatory terminology. Have I ever called you anything but a Paul supporter? Nope, I haven't - nor do I intend on doing so - no matter how much you tempt me.

Now, I don't profess to be perfect. If I see a troll attempt to slip in among our community - I'll definitely identify him as such.

jp wrote:

I refer to Neo cons as a fake conservative.

Well, at least I know you're not talking about me because I consider myself about as conservative as they come.

MW. I may disagree with you at times, but rest assured I will not make personal attacks.

I fully support the Constitution Party. We no longer have a true conservative party as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail, I think you assume way too much behind my reasoning for posting the article. My sole purpose behind posting it was to point out that there are various opinions on what a "neo-con" really is. Personally, I think it's a very over utilized word that is not clearly defined, grasped, or understood by the masses. In other words, it's an extremely vague word without precise meaning. Furthermore, I thought I'd let those calling other ALIPAC members neo-cons know that it is considered a derogatory term. I'm a firm believer in not labeling my fellow ALIPAC "compadres" using derogatory terminology. Have I ever called you anything but a Paul supporter? Nope, I haven't - nor do I intend on doing so - no matter how much you tempt me.

Now, I don't profess to be perfect. If I see a troll attempt to slip in among our community - I'll definitely identify him as such.

jp wrote:

I refer to Neo cons as a fake conservative.

Well, at least I know you're not talking about me because I consider myself about as conservative as they come.

Okay. This is where you and I have issues. You post articles that are clearly biased and then you say "I am just showing there is another point". But THAT point was a hit piece. See, my posting didn't smear Tancredo or Hunter, yet to show another view 'you show an article that is very biased and tries to smear Ron Paul'. So, your tactics are rather telling behind the guise of "just giving information'.

Also, why on earth would post an article that, in your eyes, shows that neo-con is a derogatory term YET the author smears and diminished someone IN THERE absolution of the term? Does that make sense?

I don't know. I find that "in the search for truth" much of poeple posts seem to try and do a hatchet job in the name of this truth.

BrightNail wrote:

Okay. This is where you and I have issues. You post articles that are clearly biased and then you say "I am just showing there is another point". But THAT point was a hit piece. See, my posting didn't smear Tancredo or Hunter, yet to show another view 'you show an article that is very biased and tries to smear Ron Paul'. So, your tactics are rather telling behind the guise of "just giving information'.

Also, why on earth would post an article that, in your eyes, shows that neo-con is a derogatory term YET the author smears and diminished someone IN THERE absolution of the term? Does that make sense?

I don't know. I find that "in the search for truth" much of poeple posts seem to try and do a hatchet job in the name of this truth.

Geez, give it a break, BrightNail. Would you like for me to seek your approval before posting any article that has Paul's name in it? When I decide to post an article to make a point, I'm not going to post 4 or 5 different excerpts from the same article just so Paul's name doesn't appear in the post. Even if I were to do that, I'd still have to link the article. IMO, your argument is without merit and has no real substance.

Jp wrote:

MW. I may disagree with you at times, but rest assured I will not make personal attacks.

I know that's not your style, and I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by MW

Geez, give it a break, BrightNail. Would you like for me to seek your approval before posting any article that has Paul's name in it? When I decide to post an article to make a point, ...:

MW, you seem to have the tendency to ONLY post articles that smear. It would be unique if you didn't. That is why I have such issue with you. You can't promote your own agenda without smearing another. Then you have the bad manners to come off has the misunderstood do-gooder.

I certainly do not require you to check with me, and as such - I will call you out on your antics when I feel it is appropriate.