"Well ... Bye!"
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.
We’re getting paid? When can I expect my check? lol
Frankly, Paul does have some good thoughts about the Fed. However, those thoughts are completely smothered by his foreign policy.............which would get us all killed.
jd777 is no longer with us.....He ran into the buzzsaw known as Jim Robinson and was zot. Off to Paultard heaven where there are no “Zionist conspirators”.
“Frankly, Paul does have some good thoughts about the Fed.”
Broken clocks.....you know the rest. I hate (Yes PMSNBC, I said “hate”. Cry me a river.)that saying with a passion, but it fits Paul like a glove.
Back in the Old Country, we called that “populism”.
Also, back in the Old Country, we called RuPaul a moron.
The Old Country I’m referring to is the USA under Reagan.
Oh, I'm sure we'll see about 3,493 more Ron Paul vanities of yours before the primary cycle is over. It's like meth addiction for you.
Oh, Lord, even you're drinking the Eternal Vigilance Kool-Ade on this? Before you get into bed with that crowd, you should know that they smeared the crap out of a good pro-life man like Herman Cain with that nonsense.
Well, I guess Jim took you at your word. 'Cause when Jim says "Bye" it's pretty final. I suspect you know that now. Now, it's my turn...
The EV argument and the Paul argument are very similar, just two sides of the coin. Both claim the issue is there way or no way. EV says it is national only and if you don’t buy that, you aren’t pro life. Paul says that state’s rights trump individual rights and it is up to the states to determine that and that it isn’t a national issue. Both are defining their position by that.
This is different than what many candidates say in regards to the state strategy. They aren’t going either extreme, they are discussing what is strategically most efficient.
I’ve had many knock downs w/ EV over this one. There is a difference between using a state-by-state strategy for efficiently ending the practice and, doing like Paul says, saying that State’s rights trump individual rights.
Excellent reply. Thanks. I have read the claims that Paul is is the king of earmarks. Where is that documented?
Strong on invective and provocative language. Poor on logic and reason. Rant grade: C-.
The annual pig book by citizens against government waste is a good start.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/
At that, almost every year he makes news with the massive amount he requests. For example, fiscal year 2010, over Three Hundred Million.
Wow, I didn’t know the two were diametrically opposed; you learn something new everyday /s When the GOP again starts supporting liberty and freedom, then I’ll be sure to give ‘em the vote. Don’t piss on my leg telling me it’s raining.
And I’ll concede on one part of your ‘gov’t power’ screed: national borders. Otherwise, they have (or should I say SHOULD) no say what crosses between the states. Unless, that is, the verbiage of the Constitution has changed somewhere along the lines. Or would that be another ‘between the lines’ ruling from the ‘illustrious’ USSC (talking about a body who has no idea what it means)?
Keep up the one party rule (Boehner?...Boehner?? anyone??), I for one am refusing to play the game anymore.
Excellent work, TOL!
Thanks!
You spoiled the surprise.
*LOL*
Many of the pro-homo trolls that push the agenda here have no idea the quality of the people they are backing.
When they see the todler fetish gear and the.. er... festivities at the Folsom Fair, they usually freak out.
Ah yes.. OWK.
OWK was “One Who Knows”, He pretended to be a conservative.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:owk/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
Got the zot on an unreleated thread.
But, if there was a thread about homosexuals, you could count on OWK to come flouncing in with his chartreuse handbag to knock and insult everyone and then imply all the rest of us were homos.
I pulled his own stunt back on him one day and he responded with “nice, where’d you learn that” and I told him he should know as he did that to others.
I don’t remember him either, and for that I am glad. What a vile human being.
He was more subtle about it than the current crop of trolls.
He, like the Paultards, was also for legalizing drugs.
Be glad you never ran across him.
He was one of the earliest pro-homo trolls I can recall.
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!!
I couldn't agree more with each word above. The most troubling aspect of today's political climate is how much government intervention is being called for on both sides, albeit different causes. I have stated before and will state again that opposing federal government interference on an issue is not the same as accepting or supporting the issue, I just want the government out - we can deal with everything much more effectively at the state and local level. To me, that is the pillar of Constitutional Conservatism, yet I frequently find myself alone in justifying that position.
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.