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.
Please, Dear God, tell me you're still in your teens.
OWK was very subtle about it.
He liked to imply that everyone on the thread was homo.
If questioned about it he got really defensive.
Sadly, his post history doesn’t let you go past February 2004.
He and I scrapped a couple times.
So homos in the military is fine with you, homos marrying each other is fine with you, homos adopting or fostering children is fine with you. And mandatory "sensitivity" training, discrimination and punishment for people not toeing the pro-homo agenda line, all fine and dandy. Oh, is pro-homo sex ed in public school okay too, K-12?
I find Absolutely Nobama’s presence on FR a wonderful fresh breeze of truth and no holds barred fighting spirit, which is exactly what is needed to try to turn this country around.
It’s not just Ronulans and their leader, since RPaul will never win and knows it. It’s the lies and crap that RPaul and his faithful handful believe the spew that need to be soundly defeated. And to top it all off, it’s good clean fun!
So you’re perfectly okay with homosexuals serving openly in the military?
Being given special protected rights?
What's with all the line breaks? Is this supposed to be poetry? It reminds me of a high school kid posting on Facebook.
I think he may have nodded off. He’s much older than we are, don’t you know. :)
Strong on invective and provocative language. Poor on logic and reason. Rant grade: C-.
When he got the same treatment he says this: "Please, Dear God, tell me you're still in your teens."
He came into this thread with nothing to add and nothing to say.
Your words, not mine. Politically, I’m far more concerned about the encroaching power of the state and the solidification of crony capitalism than I am with any homosexual agenda-type topics. I understand and respect your position on and interest in this area, but I’m just not going to engage you about it. It does not interest me at all.
So you have nothing to say in response to what I typed?
It's not that people support these things necessarily. It's just that normal people have better things to worry about than who's F'ing whom.
I, for one would rather concern myself with getting as many chicks as possible than having gay dudes on my mind 24/7. Priorities.
I dare you to look up The Folsom Street Fair.
It’s not in the closet, it’s in public.
They even had fetish gear for toddlers at the last several ‘episodes’.
I’m sorry you fail to understand what their aim is and what is at stake.
I was talking about the reasoning skills you displayed in that post, you knucklehead. Not very developed, those. So I figured you were still in your teens, and maybe still a bit uneducated. You're proving me right with every post. Surprise me and post something intelligent.
Post 271 shows lack of ideas, lack of subject, lack of anything useful to make it worth posting, yet you did.
Shall we discuss that instead?
You came into this thread with nothing to say, nothing to add, and have proven useless to any honest discussion.
Sorry if that ooffends you some.
Try having something worth saying next time.
So you're fine with Huge Fedgov forcing the homo-agenda on everyone. Got it!!!
I came to this thread to express an opinion and have some fun. And you sucked all the fun out of it.
Your words, not mine.
Goodbye, Darksheare. Have a wonderful life.
Why thank you, I do have a wonderful life.
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.