No...Kittychow
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
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."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html
************************************
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.
Will someone please explain the difference between a conservative and a constitutionalist. You so called “conservatives” look to what for your beliefs? It sure isn’t the constitution.
The average Paultard lives in their parents' basement and spams the internet all day long. When Jim zots them they just sign up again.
This is why they seem to be everywhere but Paul never breaks 5% in the polls.
They were at their most amusing four years ago when they would steal bedsheets from their mothers, cover them with Paultard logos and hang them from overpasses.
No...Kittychow
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
And the birds are gathering...
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militias. POTUS cannot very well be C in C of an army that does not exist and there has always been an army since the beginning under the constitution.
I don’t know why I’m on the Ron Paul sucks ping list, but I’m glad on it! :D
I smell ozone.
Apparently you have no clue who you were talking to. But then again, Paultards never are very bright.
Sure, people who usually are self-declared Constitutionalists, generally support the Constitution in practice about as much as Fred Phelps who claims to be a Christian, actually supports Christian principles. They are like people going around telling you how smart they are or how cool they are, if you need to tell the world you are it, you aren't.
Or to put it simply,
Paul is to the Constitution as Fred Phelps is to the Bible.
He is 'retiring' the same way Barney Frank is, he is being redistricted out. He would have to compete outside his little safe haven if he had to run again. TX 14 is changing to not just be the Galveston/Friendswood area but also now cover more of Brazoria and Jefferson counties.
This is of course, if passed. The redistricting is being challenged by liberals who are getting judges involved so TX 14 may end up staying the same.. which would be funny if Paul does decide to run again if his district doesn't change after all.
Ah! I see. He’ll stay as long as the same clueless people can vote for him.
I’ve been punished for less. I’m serious. Back before the mods. Never, ever get in a flame war with the owner of the forum.
lj, please add me to your queer Agenda and Moral Absolutes ping list ;)
RE: LOL - I guess this Paultard didn’t know who was who around here.
Idiots, aka paultards, who have no idea who’s who are always so amusing.
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.
I don't think our views differ. I've encountered very little from you on this forum that I can say I disagree with. I've stated emphatically that I disagree with the DADT repeal. Homosexuality is a depraved sin that has no place in this nation.
I also think that an out of control and overbearing federal government has no place suing states for any damn thing. If the state decides to create law affecting their citizens, that is between those citizens and their state representatives - the federal gov't needs to get the hell out. I am leary of allowing the federal government to legislate anything other than specifically outlined Constitutionally assigned items. Sure, we are way down that slippery slope, but I think we are screwed if we don't find our way back to the top and reign in the out of control beast.
The homosexuals should have stayed in the closet or gone home with their dollies, makeup, and fru fru bags.
They don’t belong in the field with soldiers, period.
I’d like jd777 to show me where homosexuals have gotten each other pregnant by themselves without exterior help.
Maybe then his post 126 might have some vague reason to exist.
Yeah, and I was out.
*grumble grumble*
I guess jd777 thinks I’m a closeted homo since I “talk so much” about them. So I told him that pro-life people often talk a lot about abortion, etc.
He disappeared or got busy a while ago.
A zot often sort of clears the decks for a while.
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.