LWM: ... Bucky1 is still convinced Paleocons used to be Democrats and left the Democratic Party because the Democrats were racist. Of all the bizarre delusions I have come across on the internets, this has to be the oddest. Perhaps his confusion results from having failed to check the footnote. I don't think so. I think it comes from reading the bizarre nonsense about racism coming from Ron Paul. ...

Well, more codswallop; who knew you had so much in you?

You seem so full of hate that one wonders if you can read.

The phrase paleo-conservative ("old conservative") was originally a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder used in the 1980's to differentiate traditional conservatives from neoconservatives and Straussians, but LWM wants to claim that there were no conservatives in the Democratic Party in the 70s or 80s.

It seems that in his blind hate and rage at being told that millions of people who fit the description of paleo-conservative were in his precious Democratic Party. (politics is a dirty business after all)

He has further hinted that his hatred of Ron Paul and myself stems from being reminded that conservatism is a southern trait. He has called me names for days all due to his wanting me to use a different label. (odd, eh)

I gave him this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocon

Look at the various flavors of the people the term describes and notice that in the solid Democratic South there damn sure were conservatives.

" ... Paul Gottfried (and possibly Andrew F. Seabrook as well) is credited with coining the term in the late 20th century.[9] He says the word originally referred to various Americans, such as traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War.[10] It then began referring to the conservative opposition to neoconservatism. ..." (wikipedia)

Does LWM want to claim there were no traditional catholics in the Democratic Party? Wow!

Does LWM want to claim there were no agrarian Southerners in the Democratic Party? Wow!

Yes, two days of hate over codswallop.

... You seem to be confusing American Democrats with the complicated idea of promoting democracy around the world.

...

No, I think I know the difference. It is the neo-cons who seem to be spreading "freedom" and "democracy" at the point of a gun. The American Democrats are just watching from the sidelines for now.

Oh, and could you give a little context when quoting? I read that a famous wag once said (can not recall who) that he could find words to convict from a few lines of the writings of any man.

" ... While the redistribution from rich to poor will always play a prominent role everywhere, it would be a sociological blunder to assume that it will be the sole or even the predominant form of redistribution. After all, the 'permanently' rich and the 'permanently' poor are usually rich or poor for a reason. The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor typically dull, lazy, or both. It is not very likely that dullards, even if they make up a majority, will systematically outsmart and enrich themselves at the expense of a minority of bright and energetic individuals. Rather, most redistribution will take place within the group of the 'non-poor', and frequently it will actually be the better-off who succeed in having themselves subsidized by the worse-off. ..." (Hoppe)

It is the 'permanently poor' class that is talked about. And, yes I agree he could have mentioned the obvious fact that in some cases (as in this country) it is partially caused by racial discrimination. Past injustice. But, that does not explain the Appalachian poor. (white folk, they are)

He is trying to explain that equally opportunity will never yield equal results; this is not obvious to many modern Americans. It was "plain as the nose on your face" to the sharecroppers that were my grandparents. (early in their life, not always)