Skip to comments.Is This Conservatism ?
Posted on 12/02/2011 4:25:27 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama
One of my many, many pet peeves is the following statement, which is often said by some Paultard stoned out of his mind on some drug or another: "Ron Paul is the only Conservative running for President!" To me, this is is like fingernails on a chalkboard or watching the latest offering from the FOX Neocon Channel (FNC).
Let's take a look at some of RuPaul's (H/T: Mark Levin) "Conservative" thoughts. Let's put this moronic theory to the test, shall we ?
"I don't think it's very good sign for civilization to still be invoking the death penalty. . . .
If you believe in the death penalty, what I really object to is the doctors participating in torture, and doctors who are there to make it smooth and sweet.
'Oh, let's put him to sleep.' If it's a death penalty, do it on Times Square, see 'em get their head chopped off and see how all the people, see how much they like it, make 'em look at it. I think it's uncivilized."
"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."
"I would like to express my concerns over the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and my opposition to it being brought to the Floor for a vote. Let us be clear on one critical matter: the sanctions against Iran mandated by this legislation are definite steps toward a US attack on Iran. They will also, if actually applied, severely disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, thereby harming our national security.
I am surprised and disturbed that the committee viewed this aggressive legislation to be so bipartisan and uncontroversial that a recorded vote was not even called.
Some may argue that we are pursuing sanctions so as to avoid war with Iran, but recent history teaches us otherwise. For how many years were sanctions placed on Iraq while we were told they were necessary to avoid war? Thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered and died under US sanctions and still the US invaded, further destroying the country. Are we safer after spending a trillion dollars or more to destroy Iraq and then rebuild it?
These new sanctions against Iran increasingly target other countries that seek to trade with Iran. The legislation will severely punish foreign companies or foreign subsidiaries of US companies if they do not submit to the US trade embargo on Iran. Some 15 years after the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 failed to bring Iran to its knees, it is now to be US foreign policy to threaten foreign countries and companies. "
"Ten years ago, shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on U.S. soil, taking nearly 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorists that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe.
This is ironic and sad considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are a free prosperous people that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win. Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the 9/11 attacks, and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism, is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life, neither is it our religion or our wealth rather it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometown, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much."
Ladies and gentlemen, is this even remotely Conservative thought ? For that matter, is this even American thought ? Would William F. Buckley have written the above crap ? Would Ronald Reagan have spewed the above filth from his mouth ? Would Barry Goldwater have blamed the United States for 9/11 ? Absolutely not.
Folks, the bottom line is this: Our beloved Republic is on the brink of utter disaster. There are God knows how many Islamo-Nazis who want to slaughter every man, woman, and child in America who refuses to submit their will to Allah. We have the neo-Marxist left becoming more and more violent by the day. Yes, a great deal of our problems are economic in nature, and yes, RuPaul is occasionally right about what to do about them. However, Conservatism is more than chanting "smaller government and lower taxes" like an automaton. It's a mindset that also includes a belief in justice, a belief in family, and defending the nation.
Paul is not a conservative he is a libertarian.
“Ron Paul is the only Conservative running for President!”
No whats worse is Romney being called the frontrunning Conservative...
At least Dr Ron Paul is pro-life...
Another non-conservative is Rick Santorum. Santorum supports subsidies for ethanol to prevent Global Warming, supports Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, supports earmarks for Amtrak, triangulated his position on abortion in 1990, repeatedly voted to raise the national debt, got funding for community block development programs and so on.
A libertarian that many in the LP can’t stand.
I’d be hard pressed to call Ron Paul pro-life. He supports the use of the abortion pill RU-486.
Got some links ? I’m not doubting you, I’m still undecided.
I know who I’m NOT voting for (Paul, Perry, Huntsman, and Romney the Commie) but at this point, I have no idea who I’m voting FOR.
LewRockwell is not a good source.
If I see Tokyo Rove and that stupid little white board one more time, I’m gonna scream.
I check them out here and there (What am I gonna do, watch PMSNBC ?) but I tune out after a few minutes.
Ron Paul is pro-choice for states on abortion. He thinks states' rights trump the unalienable right to life.
If a politician thought states' rights trumped your right to keep and bear arms, would you call them "pro-right to self-defense"? If they thought states could negate the First Amendment if they saw fit, would you call them "pro-free speech"?
Thanks, buddy. Much appreciated. I’ll dig into this stuff ASAP.
Please for clarification define conservatism
Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.
George Washington: Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
The Only Choice: 2008--2012
Are we going to play the game which entails selectively quoting the Founding Fathers, as the Paultards often do ?
Let’s try this another way: Name one Founding Father who would have blamed the US for 9/11.
Sorry Gunny, but there is no way I’m voting for ANYONE who calls the US “imperialist”. That’s a slap at the men who died at Okinawa, Iwo Jima, The Frozen Chosin, Tet, and Fallujah.
God bless you for serving.
It is interesting that you ASSume that you know my thoughts.
conservatism means many things to many people.
Rather than answering the question you choose to attempt to insult me.
Lets start over, I agree that ABSOLUTELY NOBAMA.
That said who in the race at this time meets your definition of conservative?
A Conservative knows:
—the US Constitution means exactly what it says. The Constitution isn’t “living and breathing” and it is a charter of “negative liberties”, meaning that Constitution does not limit what the individual can do, it limits what government may do to the individual and states.
—freedom without individual liberty is impossible.
All Americans have the rights laid out by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Nothing less is needed. Nothing more is needed. Government didn’t grant us these rights, our Creator endowed them upon us. A Conservative also knows that since our rights come from our Creator, they can’t be taken away by man.
—The United States is a sovereign country that has the right to act as it sees fit on the world stage. A Conservative doesn’t believe that the United States has the responsibility to be the world’s policeman, but it reserves the right to defend itself from foreign enemies in any way it chooses. A Conservative believes that the United States may ally itself with any other nation and must live up to its treaties. A Conservative also believes that foreign nationals should have no say in American foreign policy.
the US economy must be free of the shackles of excessive government for two main reasons. The first reason is govenrment can only harm the national economy and the second reason is excessive government leads to crony capitalism, which is the anathema of the free market the Founders envisioned.
—human life begins at conception. There is no Constitutional right to murder the unborn.
The Founders did not intend for the First Amendment to limit religion. The First Amendment was written to protect religion from the intrigues of government.
—the United States was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation with Judeo-Christian values. It wasn’t founded as a secular nation by any stretch of the imagination.
—illegal aliens are criminals and should be treated as such.
—that all attempts to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle are poorly designed social experiments at best and fascist powergrabs at worst.
—the redistribution of wealth is wrong on many fronts. The government should have no say in who has what in legally gained property or wealth.
—the Second Amendment is in place not only to protect one’s self from criminals, but also to protect the individual from tyranny, from either invasion or the govenment.
—the government should be slashed back to its Constitutional limits. Too much of the bloated federal bureaucracy is unaffected by elections and is blatantly unconstitutional.
Bachmann comes close. Sarah Palin would have been ideal.
No one candidate is perfect, nor will they fit in any one pigeonhole. However, RuPaul, like Ricardo Perry, Mitt Commie, and Jon Huntsman (Don’t know who he is, don’t care who he is.) don’t even come close to my (or most Conservatives’) view of what a Conservative Republican is.
And the official Libertarian Party Platform is pro-legalization of ALL drugs, pro-porn (no holds barred), pro-legalized prostituion, and pro-every jot and tittle of the homo-agenda. Does RonPaul support those?
Oh, and Nobama - the author didn’t even mention that RonPaul officialy supports the repeal of DADT - he’s FINE with homosexuals in the military.
And, from what I’ve read, he thinks abortion should be a states’ rights issue.
Well thought out and concise definition, I agree with you on all but one point.
“The United States is a sovereign country that has the right to act as it sees fit on the world stage”. I believe that we have the right to defend ourselves at any time and with any means, but I don’t think we have the right to interject ourselves in other nations affairs unless there is a direct threat to our nation ie. Libya.
I can disagree with govt policy without dissing our troops.
I served and have nothing but the utmost respect for those who are serving now. That said we are at this time an imperialist nation.
Thank you for your definition.
“Oh, and Nobama - the author didnt even mention that RonPaul officialy supports the repeal of DADT - hes FINE with homosexuals in the military.”
Yes, you’re a gazillion percent right. How that Levy character forgot about RuPaul voting to turn the US military into a San Francisco bath house is beyond me.
That darn Levy! I’ll have a few words with him! :)
(Yes, Alan Levy and Absolutely Nobama are one and the same!)
Imperialism would mean that that the the United States seeks to conquer other countries for material gain. It’s been the exact opposite. The contries we “occupy” benefit from our presence. (Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc.) They have to spend much less on their militaries and the bases are an economic boon to them.
Please understand, I don’t believe in military adventurism. In fact at FR I wrote:
We Won. Yippee.
The One and Only FRee Republic | 8/22/11 | Alan Levy
Posted on Monday, August 22, 2011 12:49:41 AM by Absolutely Nobama
As of this writing, Libyan dictator Mommar Qadaffi has flown the coup. The rebels have taken Tripoli and this stage of the Libyan Civil War is over, thanks to the United States, mostly.
In the coming days, Chairman Obama’s sycophants in the arrogant and lazy press are going to paint this as some sort of “great victory for Democracy”. Chris “I’ll Have Another Drink” Matthews (H/T Mark Levin) will get thrills up both his legs, rather than one. Rachel Maddcow will tell us tales about how our Dear Leader stood up to those pests Congress who kept insisting that the United States should concentrate on the two wars it’s already involved in. I’m sure Keith Olbermann will be doing his happy dance for all eight of Current TV’s viewers. Happy days have returned to the People’s Republic of Progressivakia! Seig heil, Fuhrer Obama! All hail Progressivakian Imperialism! Hope and Che for all! 2+2=5!
Now, let me be among the first to ask this very, very important question: Exactly what did we win ?
Sure, the victims of Pan Am 103 get some justice. I’m all for that. Mommar Qadaffiduck was a state sponsor of terror and a vile piece of excrement that the world doesn’t need in power. There’s no question that the world is .0000000000001% safer with Qadaffiduck not in power. But the answer to the question above is:
Nothing. We have won nothing.
Despite this “victory”, unemployment will still be at 9.2% for the foreseeable future. The housing market will still be dead. Gas prices will still be absurd. The stock market will still be as schizophrenic as Ron Paul’s cyberstormtroopers. American troops will still risking their lives in Iraq and Trashcanistan. Uncle Sam will still be drowning in red ink, and oh yes, the American people will still be oppressed by the Big Mommy Regime in Washington DC.
In other words, nothing will change, other than fact that America will be footing the bill for all kinds of goodies for the Libyan people. The American tax payer will be paying for roads, bridges, schools, and kinds of “shovel-ready projects” in Libya that they will never use or benefit from, much like in Iraq and Trashcanistan. (While I support the wars in both places, I do not support the way they are being fought. Either fight to win or don’t bother fighting. This winning “hearts and minds” crap is one of the big reasons The War on Terror is entering its 10th year. I don’t blame this on the brave men and women who are serving in those hell holes, I blame the squeamish politicians who are directing the war. Yeah, I know, I’m a heartless “neocon imperialist”. Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda.) The American taxpayer will have his taxes raised so his wealth can be redistributed to the “worthy” Libyans.
We won. Yippee.
It’s a very, very fine line.......
Aha, so you’re the author. RuPaul. Shudder....
Anyone who thinks faggots are good in the military is - well, I’m out of words today, fill in the blank....
Paul isn’t a conservative. He’s a libertarian.
Though they would like to blur the distinction.
Will I be banned if I fill in the blank in my reply ?
I didn’t invent the RuPaul thing. Mark Levin did. I just find it hilarious! Dunno why.
You got that right. No one else would vote for them otherwise.
"Name one Founding Father who would have
blamed the US for 9/11."
- established forward bases in foreign lands.
There, I fixed it for you.
Even though your original premise is incorrect.
Interesting. As a foreigner and a conservative with libertarian leanings, I find myself in agreement with all of that list (although I would add caveats to about half of them, I suspect mostly for clarification reasons - my terms of reference are not the same :) )
What do you think they were doing during “the expansion westwards?” The lands to the west were foreign at the time, were they not?
Paultards, Paulbots, Pauldrones, Paulheads, Paulbongs, Paulrollyourowns.
....Paulestinians, RuPaulista SS, Neolibs, gay “rights” activists.
My list sucks. Yours is better.
You would add caveats because you’re an individual, and that’s a-ok in my book, FRiend.
My premise is incorrect ? The Founders dind’t believe in defending the country ? Hmmmmm.....never heard that one before. Even Thomas Woods hasn’t created that alternate reality....
You are aware that that “foward bases” were not issue during the Founders’ time, correct ?
Libetarian “principles” have the same appeal that graphic comics have to 12 year old boys.
Hmmmm.....I could have some fun with this.....
paullywod place marker
Great answer! Thanks.
I love to share this with people - the best thing I’ve ever read on the subject of conservatism v. Ron Paul -
Absolutely - check out llandres link, he hates the head of the Ronulan cult too!
This article looked very familiar, and then, lo and behold, I find a chap named Alan Levy using the same Twitter avi commenting.....
LOL! This is a great article!
That Levy - he’s everywhere. Is he all-seeing, I wonder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.