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.
Attacking the enemy in wartime is moral.
The “who cares what your sexual preference is” is nonsense because the men and women in uniform are now stuck with very close association with homosexuals even though the majority of those serving did NOT want to, thanks to Ron Paul and eveyrone else who voted to allow mentally ill sex perverts in the military!
Oh yeah...I’m scared to detail my opinion...LMAO
Like I said, it doesn’t matter what I think about DADT.
I served 6 long years in the US Army Infantry, and my position is that I follow the orders of the officers appointed over me.
There are gays in the military now, and there were gays before DADT was repealed.
Do you think the US military is weak now?
I dunno. I was hoping you knew, especially if there’s a check with my name on it waiting for me there.
Don’t want federal laws banning homosexuality.
I also do NOT want laws FORCING us to accept them or their perversions. I do NOT want hate crime laws for speaking out about their sinful, godless, immoral, unwholesome, unhealthy repugnant acts and lifestyles. I do NOT want laws banning preachers or the bible for speaking out against homosexualism. I do NOT want laws forcing us to accept homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals, transgenders, etc, into our businesses, our schools, our churches, our military, our scouting clubs, our associations, our society, etc, against our wishes. There is no authority in the constitution for the federal government to stick its nose into societal issues! In fact, it restricts them from doing so.
Using government FORCE to do this is NOT FREEDOM!! It’s TYRANNY!!
I hope not.
“Too many here use the same shout down tactics that progressives use. I don’t have the time or patience for that crap”
_____________________________________________________
It’s true. I am looking for honest debate.
I am searching for the truth.
When I get shouted down, it just pisses me off. How is that helpful to anyone’s cause?
If you’re going to push homosexuals in the military, go elsewhere to do it. It’s not appreciated and not wanted here. Continue doing so and we will part company.
Ron Paul would destroy this country if elected.
He will probably destroy it by diverting enough votes with a third party run.
I have been amazed that no one has mentioned that Saturday night Paul repeatedly advocated the Doctrine of Nullification.
I thought that issue was settled by the Civil War.
bye
Agreed 1000% Especially when it comes to telling private institutions who they MUST marry together like the situation is in England.
It is the heavy handed Nanny state crap that is forcing soverign individuals to think they are constantly guilty of “thought crimes” that should be thrown out.
Overwise we will end up like Canada and the UK and just thinking outside the “PC norm” will get you jail time....
The Paulbots will NEVER understand this.
It’s not my business to allow others to force their perverted lack of morality on me either.
Your made up homosexual rights stop where my very real unalienable rights begin!
Take your support for extra-constitutional “homosexual rights” elsewhere or suffer the zot!
Last warning.
I'm not making excuses for this vote. I would not have made the same decision. However, I'm not a single issue voter.
Oh yeah...I’m scared to detail my opinion...LMAO
Like I said, it doesn’t matter what I think about DADT.
I served 6 long years in the US Army Infantry, and my position is that I follow the orders of the officers appointed over me.
There are gays in the military now, and there were gays before DADT was repealed.
Do you think the US military is weak now?
So, you are too chicken to answer a simple question. I’ll try again:
Should homosexuals be allowed to serve openly in the military, a simple “YES” or a simple “NO”?
It’s really not complicated.
Paul should not be allowed to run on the GOP at all he is more liberal on certain social and international issues than most Dems.
Why he’s allowed to spew his liberal crap on our ticket is beyond me.
IOW, it’s no big deal to you, a small matter. Nothing, really. So homosexuals in the military is a non-issue to you. Got it.
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 can’t 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.
Yep.
Ron Paul is to Conservative like kitten is to pass rush specialist.
But, then there is that whole morality thing?!? Those federal laws are OK, right? The role of the federal government, as outlined by the Constitution, leaves these matters at the state level. Desiring to leave the federal government out of the issue is not the same as accepting it.
yea freedom
hey let mothers marry their daughters, men have 9 wives, get rid of the age for sex for those homosexuals to have sex wiht little boys, , what why not the boy aged 17 wants sex.
So much for the freedom you want.
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.