[Allegra]

Do you see what all the Anti-Paul’s start with or just the people defending his overall positions (Note that I disagree with him on Iraq, for example)? The Anti-Pauls on this forum started the name calling a long time ago. If the words kook, traitor, looney and truther aren’t ALL mentioned within 10 posts, I’m usually disappointed. Generally the name calling by some on the Paul said, or people defending Paul to any degree, isn’t till far later if ever except for perhaps “Neo-Con” which is generally true.

That does not excuse somebody coming out and being rude and snotty to a poster who hasn't done all of that (well, not yet on this thread.)

And yes, I've been called "neocon," "statist," "warmonger," "big-government lover" and much, much worse by Paul supporters. All simply because I do not support Ron Paul.

Unfortunately, it is the sort of thing I have come to expect from the Paul crowd.

[rb22982]

Most people who are in favor of going to war all over the world are in fact neo-cons. Paleo-conservatives generally do not like to go to war for any reason unless directly attacked by said country (or immediate knowledge of upcoming attack). This goes back a long, long way in US history from before WWI and at the start of WWII. I don’t really consider that name calling anymore than calling you calling me a libertarian is. You are right though that in general name calling does little to further a cause or the debate in general and no it’s not excusable.