Skip to comments.Reason #985-B To Think Ron Paul Sucks
Posted on 12/06/2011 9:24:46 AM PST by Absolutely Nobama
There are many reasons to think Ron Paul is a bottom feeder. He refuses to support a Constitutional amendment to protect normal, heterosexual marriage. He voted to turn the United States military into a San Francisco bath house by repealing DADT. He wants to see drugs and prostitution legalized. He thinks Islamo-Nazi Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He surrounds himself with lunatics like Cindy Sheehan's love slave, Screwy Lewy Rockwell. In general, there isn't a sewer RuPaul (H/T: Mark Levin) isn't too proud to hunt for food in.
Then, there's this. From CBS News:
"Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the 'ground zero mosque.'
In a statement decrying 'demagogy' around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.'
'Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be 'sensitive' requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from 'ground zero,' Paul continues.
He goes on to argue that 'the neo-conservatives' who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia...never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."
Yes, I know this is old news. No, I'm not breaking any new ground here. However, since Ol' Ru is running for President, this crap should be revisited. (Even Howard "YEAAAAAAAAH!" Dean thought this was a bad idea.)
I don't want to get involved in the technical legalities about whether or not this House of Hatred should or should not be built, since the developers don't seem to have the money for Lincoln Logs, let alone building a gazillion dollar insult. That was beaten to death last year and I don't feel like rehashing it. What I want to focus on is RuPaul's detestable attitude on the matter. (Which is eerirly similiar to Chariman Obama's and Nazi Pelosi's detestable attitude on the matter.)
The above snippet shows, once again, that RuPaul is NOT a Conservative, regardless of what his drug addict followers claim. He's basically an anarchist, and this little episode proves it.
Now, before we get started, I think it's appropriate to explain what I mean by anarchist. I'm not talking in this sense of a bomb-thowing V For Vendetta type. I'm talking about someone who believes they have the right to do what they please when they feel like doing it. That's what RuPaul is advocating here. This has nothing to do with "neo-conservative" war mongering or the religious rights of Muslims. (This is a bare-bones explanation of RuPaul's mentor Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, which basically states that society should allow individuals to do as they please as long as they can afford to do so.)
A Conservative doesn't believe in any of the above nonsense. A Conservative is a staunch defender of the individual and his rights, but the Conservative also believes in common sense and morality. For example, a Conservative would defend a bar owner's right to allow smoking in his bar, but a Conservative would fight tooth and nail to stop a strip club from opening next to an elementary school or a church. The Conservative fights for limited government, but never for anarchy. The Conservative also believes that while the individual has rights and those rights should be defended at all costs, the individual should use those rights in a responsible manner. In other words, the Conserative may very well want to give the social finger to the driver of a Smart Car with a "Obama 2012" bumper sticker, but he doesn't because he believes in a polite moral society.
Ladies and gentlemen, yes there's a fine line that often gets blurred when it comes to our rights, and I don't claim to have all the answers. But I will tell you this, I sure do understand our rights better than Ron Paul does.
Hey, that’s right!
I smell another controversy-inducing blog coming on....stay tuned....
That is not at all what I said, but if that is what you wish to infer, you are free to do so. I believe MSNBC has another opening for a spinster.
Your reply makes very little sense.
Homosexuals in the military is a federal issue.
And the fedgov has no come down firmly on the pro-fag agenda in every conceivable way. What can states do at this point? Ideas?
And fag marriage in one state will eventually be forced on all the others via “full faith and credit” if something is not done on the fed levl.
you have no clue what so ever what you’re talking about.
You’re more liberal than most Dems when it comes to homosexuality, marriage, military, etc
States which have voted on this have proved this time and time again that they want what we have had for hundreds of years and it worked
what you want is total anarchy, do what ever you want and then shout freedom, you even think you have the freedom to say what ever you want on this conservative website which you do not.
You’re nothing but a liberal troll pusi9nhg your liberal homosexual , cross dressing views and therefore why not piss off and for your info I served too and seen pals die so don’t even bring that up again but I’ll guess you have not .
He...didn’t make it, LJ. He got the ol’ zot.
I care because we live in close quarters, we have to share sleeping bags in Arctic and mountain survival training, we share showers.
I and I know of not one pals who I served with or is still serving who wants homosexuals in the military though I did serve in a combat unit on a cook or a desk jockey thousands of miles away form a war zone
Well, homos in the military means so little to do that you still think RPaul is a great candidate, so obviously it doesn’t matter to you very much, one way or the other.
Plenty more to go, plus on the other thread that could use a little positive energy, if you get my drift...
The Ron Paul Factor (Why he’s surging even as others are stagnant or stumbling)
National Review ^ | 12/06/2011 | Robert Costa
Homosexuals in the military is a federal issue.
Read the Constitution much? Ever? Point me to where a standing army, other than at the state level, is authorized. And before you jump to conclusions: I spent 12 years in uniform.
that’s the problem.
Why on earth do libertarians think they should be having their candidates running on our ticket, why come on conservative websites?
We do not want liberal policies like they do.
They want drugs legal and sell it anywhere without Govt telling them but when asked if they have a problem with a crack house next to a school they shut up
When they say they want freedom and not morals they are then asked can we get rid of incest, can fathers marry their daughters, brothers marry their sisters, men marry pigs, and dogs, get rid of the sex age law they don’;t answer .
They like to shout freedom etc but when you go more in detail their kind of freedom is very different to how conservatives want it.
So again why on earth do libertarians think it’s great to run on our ticket and then dictate to us conservatives on a conservative site their liberal views.
[ so where is the line then?
Shall we let two adults do what they want with each other, hey a mother can marry her daughter, no well why not a woman marrying 9 men at once.after all using your logic we cant enforce morals.
No there is a line, on one side anything goes which the left want and on the other side is marriage between a man and a woman. ]
The line is keeping the federal government from telling the individual states what laws they can and cannot make concerning such behavior.
I want the fedgov to stick to its Constitutionally mandated duties, and nothing else. BUT the fedgov has usurped powers belonging to the states and forced all manner of immorality (and tons of other socialist garbage) on the states in divers ways. Now states cannot even if they want to enact laws against fag this and fag that.
Homos in the miltary is not a states' right issue, the military is under the jurisdiction of the federal goverment. I think you know that.
homosexuals can have their sham marriage now, therefore they will now say states which have a law saying only man and woman should be overturned because they can fight and die but cannot get married.
It’s the feds which brought this law in, this insane law and why should my pals still serving and vets like me have to put up with sharing a sleeping bag with a homosexuals, share a shower, share a room etc?
Women are not forced to do this with men so why homosexuals?
Also do not tell me that the founding fathers would think it is alright for men to poke another mans crap hole and then say they are married then serve, along wiht men cross dressing and saying they are now a woman.
If the funding fathers knew this issue was to be about they most certainly would have put this into the constitution
no you miss the point again
If a state says mothers can marry their daughters then are you alright with that even though the people do not want it?
UT passes a law which makes marriage OK with 9 men and 1 wife , the people do not want it but hey .
Now look at those state which have homo marriage, the people did not vote on it
As for the feds , well look at the military yes I served and no we do not want it.
Do you want homosexual marriage?
Do you want the feds not telling where you can now sell your legal drugs, hey why not next to the school.
The feds are pushing homo agenda onto us and if you do not think that they are then I suggest you look at their next step which is they will get homosexuals saying they can serve but cannot marry thus overturn DOMA and yes they are trying to do that right now.
...I didn’t bring up the subject. I’m not pushing the agenda. I don’t engage in that behavior. I was against the repeal of DADT. And, I’m done talking about it.
They have NOTHING in common with conservatives.
No government can ban homosexuality.
I’ll tell you something right now: you talk about “homos” a lot.
Thank you, Jim.
Saying that makes you seem like an idiot to me.
It's unbelievable. What incredible gall.
Pro life advocates talk about abortion a lot.
Yeah, but they have forced their agenda on us. I don't like that one bit and now they want to allow bestiality.
But you’re not talking about abortions. Are you?
Do you have a point?
When I’m on a thread about abortion, I mention abortion a lot.
When I’m on a thread about child molestation and pedophilia, I mention child molestation and pedophilia a lot.
I run the Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes ping lists with wagglebee.
Your point, please? Make it clear.
Ushering in socialism demands the breakdown of society and morality. It works. Ask Stalin, Gramsci and Alinsky.
Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state.
Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.
Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term "libertarianism" is synonymous with Left anarchism.
In other words, it ain’t Conservatism.
Correct. Imho, of course.
**But there havent been any zots yet.**
Just happened a little while ago.
Which candidate best exemplifies "moral absolutes" in your opinion?
Only one so far though. The rest of them refuse to answer any questions honestly and slink off to wait for another thread to break out (was gonna say break wind...).
Thanks for tolerating my posting malfunction! I’m really trying to preview, for my own good!
Still asking questions, but not answering them?
There are foolish posters who believe Ron Paul is conservative. He is not. He’s been a libertarian for years, only switching to Republican when he thought he could fool people with a different label. Leopards do not change their spots, just the letters behind their names.
Well, it certainly isn’t Ron Paul, he of the Repeal DADT infamy.
My apologies, jmc813. I mistook you for someone else. Mea culpa.
We are on the verge of a financial crisis which according to Mervyn King of The BoE, is possibly the worst in history.
We are approaching a moment of truth for our nation. Accordingly, at this time, I’m not interested in discussing Gay sex - with anyone.
But I guess you are.
Agreed. Imho, he's everything that distinguishes a career politician. It would be funny that his followers think that he's the ultimate conservative, if it weren't so dangerous.
No, they are not ok. The federal government should butt the hell out! It’s none of their business and it’s unconstitutional for them to butt in. The constitution restricts the federal government powers only to the dozen and half functions enumerated in Article I Section 8 and reserves all others to the states and the people.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to forbid the states their right to defend the unborn, nor does the federal government have the authority to force “gay rights” onto our institutions, schools, churches, businesses, institutions, organizations or onto our society.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to support or subsidize or do the bidding of special interest groups like ACORN, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, LBGT, NARAL, or any other group—liberal or conservative. The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or have any say whatsoever regarding prayer in school, public prayer, religious displays, etc, whether public, private or even local or state government.
“The CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
And the fourteenth amendment has no say in the matter!
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The only real reason or need for so-called Right to Life or Defense of Marriage amendments would be to keep the federal government from unconstitutionally intruding on societal issues. Our moral society does not want legalized abortion or gay marriage. They’re being forced on us by corrupt liberal activist judges and unconstitutional acts.
Keep the feds OUT!!
That's because you can't see the big picture. Liberals marxists do though.
I won’t quote you out of compassion, but what a pathetic response.
Please to not reply to my posts. Its a waste of my time.
LOL - I guess this Paultard didn't know who was who around here.
Paultards seem to be crawling out of the woodwork lately.
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.