Posted on 01/29/2008 11:42:26 AM PST by mnehring
Ping to self for later amusement.
I've noticed that a couple of the worst, most offensive, spammy Paulies are missing. Perhaps their accounts were nuked and we can all agree to disagree more agreeably. :)
The host ends with a “Bush lied, kids died” rant.
He’s no different than the DU and KOS on this. Who are no different than Paul.
It’s this part of Paul’s views, national security, that remove him from serious consideration - not economics and taxes.
I guess banning dissent tends to have that effect. Congratulations to you and your brethren for all your hard work!
Just because we don’t bow down and worship his rhetoric and challenge his record doesn’t constitute a banning of dissent.
A second area where I would disagree with Romney's overall approach is his tendency to favor government directed solutions to social problems, as opposed to a laissez faire approach. A good example of this would be the mandatory health insurance he supported in Massachusetts. That state's program does not fall into the single payer system as exists in Canada and Britain, but it still is unwarranted governmental interference in what should entirely be a private sector matter. Anything government regulates becomes less efficient. When government controls a good or service, it becomes low quality, scarce, and sometimes rationed. Good examples include public education, roads and mass transit, and the post office.
Barry Goldwater and his conservative contemporaries were strongly opposed to Medicare and Medicaid. Modern, mainstream Republican thought has essentially accepted the New Deal and the Great Society, which is unfortunate in that it embeds a permanent welfare state, with the main difference between Republicans and Democrats being how much should be spent and from what social class should the revenues be drawn. Romney's errors in this area are no different than those of Gingrich, the Bushes, and others. Their arguments have been echoed by pro-big government, but anti-Marxist, politicians like Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck promoted old age pensions in Germany as a means of staving off outright socialism. While he may have succeeded in setting the Marxists back, the united German state he helped to establish was authoritarian and paternalistic, certainly not a model compatible with American conservatism as exemplified by Taft and Goldwater.
The issue that conservatives must confront is that of the dialectic that has driven American politics for over a century. Since the days of the Populists and the Progressives, the Left has promoted some new statist or socialist program (thesis). The Right initially fusses and condemns it (antithesis), but ultimately makes halfway steps toward the Left's goal (synthesis). A good example is the recent gun control legislation passed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. In this case, Congressional Republicans and the NRA compromised with hard core gun grabbers like Carolyn McCarthy to promote a less harsh bill than the one initially proposed. A sop was thrown in so that someone who is deemed mentally ill can have his firearms ownership rights restored if he is willing to spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees. The so-called conservatives entirely ignored the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. The dialectic worked again, at the expense of individual liberties and governmental restraint.
If Republicans follow their past patterns, as would Romney or any of the others, the dialectic will continue, and in 20 years, so-called conservatives will likely have accepted "gay marriage" and abortion on demand while perhaps trying to hold the line against bestiality and pederasty. And they will likely lose this battle as well. If this nation can ever be saved from its ongoing slide into government tyranny, a socialist economy, and moral depravity, true conservatives must return to the foundational principles underlying the Constitution. Romney, McCain, and the others are part of the problem, not the solution.
O of course, I’m positive he never did either. It was just paraphrasing the nuttery. :)
Not when our leaders won't even consider doing away with it, on principle.
But as usual the knee-jerk liberal wing of FR wants to engage in pre-teen girl giggling at Paul & rah-rah Flipper Romney rather than addressing the host's point. Mark asked Romney if he supported a 1% tax and Romney does not. It's obvious that Romney is not a fan of lower taxes, much less tax reform (and also free market health-care COUGH ROMNEYCARE COUGH) and is just another statist liberal Republican. Thanks for the clip, because that has cemented my decision to not vote for Romney in the general after considering holding my nose for him. He's an arrogant ass, and for him to disrespect another presidential candidate and lie about what he say seals the deal for me.
But the pro-homosexual rights, pro-universal healthcare blue blood who called an abortion audible scant weeks before declaring his presidential run is not a kook. Ooooohhhhkay....
You know what's bizarre? Watching FReepers fight to the death over which of the four candidates besides Paul is the least RINOish (but still a socialist). Now that's funny as Hell.
It starts off reasonably enough, but Romney starts to school host Tampa Bay 1040 WWBA host Mark Larsen and by extension Ron Paul on taxes and entitlements and you can feel the rails start to give way. When Romney has the audacity of hope to laugh at Paul for suggesting that the way to keep the nation secure is to jettison our intelligence agencies and blame ourselves when jihadists attack, well, the rails fly apart. Romney senses the madness and leaves the host to his rant. Turns out there was a Ronulan underneath the whole time. Now, lest anyone think that I’m advocating the current system, income tax and all, I’m not. I’m not a fan. But I don’t think Paul has the answers, and he comes off as a crotchety old man who is in over his head on every issue. He doesn’t even know who wrote his newsletter, or so he claims, so why should anyone believe him when he says what he says about taxes? Or foreign policy or anything else. If you’re not a racist yourself but you can’t manage to keep your personal newsletter from devolving into a racist cesspool, you can’t or won’t disavow the various miscreants who are publicly supporting you and you’re happy to accept donations on a day that your supporters chose to explicitly celebrate a long-dead terrorist, you ought not be handed the keys to the executive branch of the US government. Ever. Sorry. No number of discrete ideas that sound good on paper but would never survive Congress can overcome all that.
Is it a trendy anti-Paul thing that one must type out a stream-of-consciousness rant with no regard to basic grammar rules and run sentences on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on? Jesus Christ, talk about every stereotypical screw-up in posting this nonsense. Why are we not celebrating the true leftist getting raped down in Florida tonight?
Us Paultards and you Mittwits won tonight. Let's enjoy.
A lot of the anti-Paul race-baiting has cooled down around here too, for what it's worth.
That being said, I did, in fact, vote for Paul, knowing full well that he doesn't have an ice cube's chance in Hades to win the primary or the general. This was the only chance I had to cast a protest vote, but I will never vote for McCain! McCain-Feingold stripped free speech from the people. If he started on the first, he'll start on the second when he thinks it opportune.
The big-government, tax-and-spend Republicans are turning into a curse akin to the Rats. They're slowly turning to believe that the government has the right to restrict our rights and the BoR gives them that right.
I personally haven't gotten anybody banned, nor have I tried to.
If some of these people who did little more than act like rude jerks on here have been banned, they did so on their own. They likely annoyed a multitude of people.
I thought the Paul people were all about personal responsibility? And yet, you want to blame people who simply aren't cult members for getting obnoxious people banned. LOL
I suspect that one begat the other.
Either that, or it's a lull.
That's good. You must remain amused.
Laughter cures a lot of ills. :)
How can I take it as an attack as those are Malkin's words (I think, the article wasn't signed but it is her blog), not mine.
Que?
I was referring to Rudy. I have the day off today, so I was drinking in celebration and hardly even remember posting that. Yikes.
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.