Neo-conservatives. Also known as "centrists". These are people who promote the ideology of the left, under the guise and platform of the right. If you look up neo-conservatism on Wikipedia, you can learn more. Suffice it to say, nation building, foreign aid, militarism, mercantilism, and big government spending and it's apparatus are not traditional Republican or conservative platforms. There have always been big government people but they are neither classic liberals (who were for civil rights) or classic conservatives (who believe in free markets, state's rights and deregulation). The sad thing is that most people today just accept that we need things like a department of energy or education, without even knowing what these departments do. Many Americans, after the end of the cold war, cannot identify the construction of a similar infrastructure and legal system as there was in the USSR. You've got a handful of candidates with some integrity and honesty, but they are on the fringes because that is not the message that they want sold to people. Classic Liberals like Gravel and Kucinich, and Classic Conservatives like Ron Paul and to a lesser degree Tancredo. Ron Paul has been the only one to tap into the discontent of the right and left, by sticking to the principles of Libertarianism, which accommodates the civil liberty bent of the left, with the fiscal and social conservatism of the right. All of your front runners, left and right are involved with the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a globalist oriented group. We're sold on Woodrow Wilson-esque ideas like "making the world safe for Democracy" with tax payer money, instead of making American prosperous and safe for the citizens. We're told that only the state can protect us from terrorists, and on the left, that only the state can provide adequate healthcare. Statism, where the government provides everything to the people (including which rights they have, and to what degree), was the domain of Trotsky and Marx.
Nah, he's not like you...standing by someone because alex jones tells you to. He's not like someone else here, who picks their candidate based upon forum popularity so he'll have people to back him up. I'm still going with Hucklebee, though I like Romney and Guiliani as well. If you care about national security and your country, most candidates "get it." If you want to see America dismantled, curl up in a ball waiting for attacks, and believe America is to blame for everything in the world...there's only one option in a candidate. And apparently those have spent all their time doing those things here, have latched onto him.
I think I've mentioned several times that I do not watch that there Fox News... You on the other hand do... You've mentioned them more times than I care to remember... Seems like an obsession to me. The same could be said of NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the list goes on... But then again, I don't get my opinions from watching news. Thank You..
Curious as to whom you feel is picking a candidate due to popularity?... Ghee I only know one person you continue that super lame attempt on 'just so happens you use it when you can't win an argument' I myself picked my candidate on the basis that he's the only one I can support at the moment. McCain my original pick has simply too many stances I can not agree with.
You predicted RP because I was already on record stating he was closest to my views. Seriously giving yourself more credit than you deserve. So because I'm against rape that makes me going with the popular side of things? Wow gtech you are lost, take your meds. If it was not for McCains view on immigration, and for backing up Bush on the war I would be voting for McCain, definitely not the 'popular' side. Gtech, next topic you wish to prove yourself to be a joke on?
I predicted RP because you spent a month defending him with a veracity that I've never seen a non-supporter defend anyone with. It was a given. I don't give myself credit for it. Anyone could have seen it. Not like it was some huge mystery! If you learn more about what you suffer from, you could try to counter it in your posts. Though this one is pretty tough to cover up
Again Gtech when did you get your degree to diagnose such things? I said over and over I more than likely would support him. It however is not support by simply proving someone incorrect when all they do is blindly attack one person over and over. You know like you're good at
It just frustrates the hell out of you that I not only predicted it, but time and again pointed out the actual support for a good solid month. The part I found the most rewarding was, when you would defend him in EVERY post, but then back track and say you didn't actually support him. If someone defended me like that, I'd sure think they were supporting me It's ok, I understand the disorder you suffer from. I know how important the last word is. You can have the last word again. I've taunted you enough this morning, had my fun, but I've got real work lined up that needs my attention! You might want to check with the official RP site to see how you are properly supposed to deal with all his past racial statements. Just a suggestion
GTech & Grim, you guys should get a room. Btw, it's a little disingenuous to claim that RP is the popular choice, when the person making that accusation has reminded us numerous times that Paul has no chance to win NH, and polls in the low single digits. How can an unpopular candidate, be the popular choice?
I believe Bill Clinton and John Kerry started off in the low single digits. But also like Ron Paul, Howard Dean had all this internet support and such but faded as quickly as he came about. So who knows.
Dean's campaign made massive strategic mistakes in Iowa that had nothing to do with being on or offline. As I've written before, Paul's support is not on the internet, it organizes on the internet. Significant difference.
Gtech I back Bush, hell I back Clinton when I feel the poster attacking them is incorrect. You appear to get off on attacking RP, it doesn't take much logic if I see someone being an asshole and incorrect about anyone I will attack those posts. That is not support, that is attacking shit posts, you know like you're good at. You did not 'predict' you claimed I supported him during a time I did not. I still was not sure on him, but it's good to know Gtech knows more about people than themselves. Yet again where did you get your degree to be a shrink? The person who knows more about people than themselves 'or thinks they do' would be closer to a narcissist BTW. But I know that's your catchy phrase you use when people do not agree with you, you've used it on more than one person on this forum. Gtech likes to have it 'both ways' you know those things he claims of others
It's a shame you can believe you see something in others, but not yourself. You have a different interpretation of "support" here. You believe that since you didn't specifically say you supported him, that the actual support you gave him in defending him is not support. It was. Why you don't have the ability to see this is beyond me. Well, it's not really beyond me. I actually understand it completely. I find it rather humorous. Projectionism again? They are both personality disorders. Neither exclusive of each other. Well, we know you like to have multiple positions on everything, even hookers! Guerilla did you good with that one, but he also assumes I was talking past this forum. In fact, I was directly talking about "popularity" on this forum. You know about "popularity" on this forum, right grim?
Ahh so by your twisted logic you can not correct a lie otherwise you 'support' the person. So when someone lies about Saddam for instance, it's best to leave the lie be, otherwise you're 'supporting' him. Great logic you have there Gtech, trully it is amazing. Yet again where did you get your degree to be a shrink oh mighty Gtech? Multiple positions that you can NEVER point out. Popularity that you can NEVER point out, makes for a great twist when you can't argue out of that wet paper bag though doesn't it
You've never corrected a lie, that I've seen. You've uttered a lot, but I expect that from you. One doesn't need a degree to see narcissism. Psych 101 would have been your first clue. I point them out often. All anyone has to do is follow along one of your tangents. You are for, against, support but don't support and create multiple positions all the time. It stems from from the personality disorders. Low self-esteem, afraid of taking a stand on something for being wrong. It's ok, grim, really. I understand.
Gtech might have a chance of winning an argument now as he's on ignore. Gtech I'm hoping you can get a victory now, come on hit me hard while I'm not looking. If you're going to do it now is the time