The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Depends on the issue
Depends on the issue
Both are largely interchangeable to me, but yeah, there are a few differences.
(Neo)libs tend to blow up when you point how racist many of them are, with the way they treat non-Whites like perpetual infants (except "Asians", who don't make up a large enough voting block to exploit).
Neocons typically seem to not like discussing FP in general, but it's mostly the Israel-first crowd that gets riled up over it. Convincing these folks that Israel is anything but flawless is *very* difficult, because so many base it around a religious upbringing.
Neolibs also tend to be extremely patronizing and elitist, while Neocons tend to believe that everyone (except (R) politicians, of course) is out to get them.
The main issue with both, to me, is that both groups often substitute facts for emotional rhetoric, and it's very difficult to get someone like that to ever admit they were wrong. Too much pride, I guess.
edit: typo
A signature used to be here!
Replies to this comment: