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.
This thread looks as though it might have the potential to be a bugzapper...
Have you seen this thread yet?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2816649/posts?page=1
The Ron Paul Factor (Why he’s surging even as others are stagnant or stumbling)
National Review ^ | 12/06/2011 | Robert Costa
Michele Bachmann.
Do you think she is on any of the candidates VP list?
I like Bachmann..she can do what any of the others could do in that seat with much class and dignity. She just is not taken seriously enough-perhaps the old boy “thinking” network still rules? and who runs the media?
Ann Coulter appears in the Romney camp. Perhaps she sees better odds for taking a grand slam.
Rush does seem to always speak well of Bachmann.
Pushing the homosexual agenda is not pushing freedom. It’s antithetical to freedom!! It’s using government to force their unwanted perversions on a formerly free people!!
Take that crap elsewhere!!
If pushing the homosexual agenda is FREEDOM to you then you are an idiot.
Yes.
Is that carbon dust on my shirt?
Some furnaces I know to stay away from.
;-)
This strawman of pretending that conservatives want federal laws about everything is getting extremely tiresome. I would say that what conservatives want is to have the fedgov butt out of states being able to make the laws they see fit to make.
I didn’t push the homosexual agenda. Never have and never will. So, quit saying that because it’s making you seem like an idiot to me.
Do you agree with RPaul that homosexuals in the military is fine and good and acceptable, or not?
“Until then, I’ll be voting as closely Libertarian as possible.”
Why are you here, then ? This is a CONSERVATIVE site, not a liberaltarian site.
Anyhoo, the federal government does have the power to outlaw drugs, especially when they’re smuggled across the border and cross state lines.
“Dr. Paul has been the only one to bring up the Constitution time and again.”
Too bad Dr. Demento has no clue what it means.
Just drawing a well-defined line in the sand for would be paultard spammers.
You did not answer.
Are you fine with the repeal of DADT and therefore open homosexuals in the military, or not?
Yes or no.
My viewopoint, which unlike you, I am not scared to detail, is that homosexuals should NOT be in the military, and DADT was a nasty compromise, and it actually should have been repealed, and replaced with the previous “NO homosexuals in the military and YES we will ask”.
...No, my "limited" Libertarian POV is that it's not my business to regulate morality for everyone except myself. The fact that I don't condemn somethings doesn't necessarily mean I condone them. If I try to stop someone with a gun to their head from snuffing them self, I might get shot. My life is more important to me than his in this situation.
...If we were to debate each issue instead of a blanket trashing of "ANY" candidate on this forum, We might find we agree on some things. The reason I usually stay off these threads is the lack of discourse. Too many here use the same shout down tactics that progressives use. I don't have the time or patience for that crap.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
“Preventative wars”?!? It’s not preventative when they attack first, Dr. Kooks.
Where do you draw the line? Bestiality? Prostitution? Necrophilia? Incest? Polygamy? Polyandry? What about the age of consent, many people want to lower it or do away with altogether? Just what is too odious that you want it illegal? Or is it "all good" as long as you aren't personally bothered by it, say in your front yard?
I don’t care about VP lists, nor will I shill for ANY political candidate.
So, someone who supports a candidate other than the one you support is a “pautard”?
Please to not reply to my posts. It’s a waste of my time.
GOod, I was just thinking about pinging it!
But there haven’t been any zots yet.
whine....
I have to run to the post office. Hope there’s some excitiment while I’m gone. Problem is that they refuse to answer direct questions. Freaking deceitful they are.
That thread will go nuclear. Jim has had enough of the RuPaulista SS and I can’t say I blame him. Enough is enough.
For the gazillionth time this week:
THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE SITE, NOT A LIBERALTARIAN SITE!
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.