Posted on 03/24/2010 7:44:23 AM PDT by speciallybland
Ansel, I’m sorry you refuse to see the reality here. I’ve enlightened you several times and you’re choosing to willfully ignore and dismiss it. I’m very disappointed in you.
I’m trying to tell you that you haven’t enlightened me at all, you gave me personal opinions and want me to form somethiing concrete out of the strength of the expression of your feelings for those opinions, that doesn’t enlighten me at all.
Nope, because you are willfully refusing to see what I’ve stated here. You casually dismiss and ignore anything related to the family and their chosen candidates and noted positions, nevermind their fundraising network and what they stand for. Are you a supporter of the Paul family ? You don’t seem to be too bothered by them. A lot of us here are bothered, and it’s why we won’t support this Paleo-Libertarian hijacking of the KY Senate nomination.
LOL, No I don’t like Ron Paul at all, and have seen my anti Paul posts here quoted and attacked over at stormfront, the pro Paul crowd have hated me, even on this thread I mentioned Ron Paul in post 56, I wasn’t as hard on him as I can be, but you should have been able to make it out.
You haven’t given me any information, only a bunch of free standing words that are supposed to lead me to Pavlovian associations.
You don’t seem to be interested in what the state of Kentucky thinks of the two Republican candidates for Senate and why that might be impressive evidence that Rand is the better candidate than Trey, and that Palin and Forbes were right.
Then I shouldn’t have to explain to you what exactly is going on here if you oppose Ron Paul. This isn’t just some “innocent” race, this is a deliberate attempt for Paul to bequeath a high office to his kid, for whom he has no credentials or experience to run for. He has never won office before and all of a sudden just decided to run for this after having done precisely NOTHING for the KY GOP. Trey Grayson has already won statewide twice and has done a good job as Sec of State.
I do not think Junior Paul is the “better” candidate, because I think he carries enough baggage attached to his father, his father’s fundraising network (where do you think he’s getting his money from ? If his name were Joe Smith, you think he’d be rolling in moneybombs ?), and his seeking to hide the fact that he shares most of his father’s views on the issues, that he jeopardizes our hold on this seat in November. It’s called “connecting the dots.” His candidacy cannot stand on its own merits as a stand-alone individual, he is tied to his father 100%, and that has to be acknowledged. He wouldn’t be in this race were it not for him. In many instances, I oppose legacy candidacies, and this is one “legacy” that needs to be shot down without hesistation.
Again no facts, just an association and nothing real or concrete, I can’t work with that as it relates to the Kentucky Senate primary, by the way, I get the group treatment now as you ping a crowd?
The state knows Trey Grayson is what you are saying, that isn’t much of a defense for him losing 30 points and dropping to a distant second.
No facts ? What ? An association ? Yup. He’s got the stench of Paleo-Libertarian all over him. Yup. He’s got the 9/11 Truthers bankrolling him. Yup. He’s got his daddy trying to get him a Senate seat. Yup. Junior Paul is a 100% phony and danger to our national security. That’s what he is. If you don’t know what he is, you’re either being willfully naive, or you’re just lying to yourself. But don’t ask me to buy his bullcrap and the filth he’s showering Kentucky with. This is the same as the Slick Willardbot garbage with their execrable messiah, and I’m having none of it. I expected more out of you, but I’m sorry to see you’re using their same tactics. I’m backing Trey Grayson, the REAL Conservative candidate from KY. Paulbot trash can go screw themselves.
I don’t know why you are getting mad at me, I just haven’t seen anyone make a case or even try to, that refutes the status quo between those two in the Kentucky Senate primary in regards to the two candidates themselves. It looks to me like Kentucky can make this decision.
I don’t understand why people connect the 2 words (Jew & neocon). YES, I’m an anti-neocon, & as a strict constitutionist who believes in Original Intent, I’ll proudly shout it from the rooftops. But if you read my past comments, you will find that I am strongly pro-Israel. I may have said this in a previous posts, but I have been very critical of Bibi Netanyahu — not ‘cuz I am a left-winger who supports the Palestinians, but ‘cuz I think he hasn’t been TOUGH ENOUGH against them.
I guess I was basing that on something i had heard and given what i just read about the man, my opinion has changed. He is saying all the right things on all the right issues.
Diogenesis ranks pretty high up there, too.
No more freakin' RINOs.
He didn't say anything about Cheney being Jewish, unless you and Chris in AR use "internationist neocon" as your anti-Semitic code for Jews.
Not a surprise from RonPaul followers though.....
Sarah Palin endorsed Lindsey Graham too, and had SarahPAC send him a $1000 donation (I'd also mention her endorsement of RINO Lisa Murkowski in the primary, except you'd probably claim that was “special situation” too). Is the SC primary also a unique situation, or does it “prove” that Lindsey Graham is the best conservative candidate in SC?
See sources about those endorsements here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2327046/posts
http://www.gop12.com/2009/08/sarahpac-gives-money-to-graham-hatch.html
Ditto with Steve Forbes. I think Steve Forbes is a GREAT guy, I strongly supported Forbes in the 2000 primary. But did I hop aboard Rudy Giuliani's campaign because Steve Forbes endorsed him? No.
Did freepers dump Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter for Mitt Romney when Jim DeMint endorsed Romney? No.
Just because so-and-so prominent conservative official endorses a candidate does not prove that candidate is the best choice. People like DeMint, Palin, and Forbes deserve praise for being on the right side of decisive races like Hoffman vs. Scozzafava, but their opinion is not infallible. I believe their track record shows Grayson is stronger on social issues and national security than Rand Paul. Paul is better on economic issues. I'm going with the candidate who is best on 2 out of 3.
Grayson ain't a perfect candidate and has been on the wrong side of an issue or two, so there's nothing with criticizing when he's gone wobbly. The thing we question is the Paulbots constantly smearing him as a RINO socialist and Democrat sleeper cell. That's really going out on a limb. And yes, I think stumping for FDR in the 30s and 40s was just as bad as stumping for Clinton in ‘92.
That's why people like Field are striking back and calling Rand Paul ‘a clone of his dad,the stench of Paleo-Libertarian all over him, 9/11 Truthers bankrolling him,and is a danger to our national security’ , et. al.
Turnabout seems to be fair play.
Now I don't trust Rand Paul, but I don't think he'd be THAT bad. Ironically, Field's arguments against Paul are the precise ones I used against Bob Conley, last year's RAT candidate in SC. To this day, his supporters refused to acknowledge he was just as flawed as Lindsey Graham and was NOT the “true conservative” in the race. All of Field's criticisms of Rand Paul fit Bob Conley to a tee (google “Bob Conley Moneybomb” and look up who bankrolled his campaign):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/21520.html
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26443
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150171
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/65037
http://freeamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2022243:BlogPost:901
And if he was the “true conservative” in the race, it was certainly news to DemocratUnderground, MoveOn.org, and DailyKos, since they made it clear which candidate they were rooting for in that race and it wasn't “neocon warmonger Lindsey Graham”:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=177x1653
What this does show, is that like the KY primary, the SC general election featured two candidates who were running as conservatives but had some serious flaws in their background. Nobody is perfect and sometimes you just gotta accept there are no excellent choices on the ballot.
And again, ansel112, I think you'll find most Grayson supporters would be perfectly willing to vote for Rand Paul if he is the nominee. Why is the reverse not true? Paulbots “my way or the highway” tactics in primaries doesn't make them particularly popular around here.
Palin never endorsed Linsey Graham, you made that up, for one thing Graham is not even running for anything in 2010, or even during the future presidential race of 2012.
The $1000.00 donation in July of 2009 was related to the FCC compliance and activation for her new PAC and it helped win the final approval two weeks later from the FCC.
Seems you're the only one making things up, especially since I said "endorsed", as in past tense, and not "will endorse in 2010 in 2012"
Actually yes, she had to make a set number of quick donations, I don’t know why you think that being childish and ignorant with a sneer, is convincing evidence for who to support in the Kentucky Senate primary.
dj
prob in CT is some of the folk supportin’ Schiff are genuine libertarians, not Paulbots. If we go negative on Schiff, damages us with legitimate Libertarians & Constitutionalists.
primaries are bitter in minor parties like the CT GOP.
Well it didn’t have to be to Graham. Bad choice.
I don’t give much weight to endorsements, since hardly any endorsers always support the better candidate.
Palin’s support of McCain is understandable, tough spot for her, she’d be slimed by the media if she didn’t but they do that anyway obviously. Still it’s indefensible. She could swing it in his favor. Yuck.
-—————I don’t understand why people connect the 2 words (Jew & neocon).——————
Because originally, the word neocon was used as a codeword for jews.
The left always morphs words and phrazes and meanings.
——————as a strict constitutionist who believes in Original Intent————
You and me both.
But I find it ironic that you bring up original intent.
The “original intent” of the word “neocon” was a slam on jews. It’s new meaning came much later.
Ask yourself this:
How is it that Joe Lieberman is a neocon?
And take note of how long Lieberman has been being called a neocon.
-————you will find that I am strongly pro-Israel.—————
I’ll take your word for it.
Just know the history of the word neocon if you are to continue to use it. If you are comfortable with knowing that it used to be a slam on jews but now has a new meaning, then you should go right on ahead and keep using it.
If you don’t like the original meaning of “neocon”, then you’ll probably end up not using it.
He didn't say anything about Cheney being Jewish, unless you and Chris in AR use "internationist neocon" as your anti-Semitic code for Jews. --------------
He called Cheney a neocon, so clearly he *DID* call Cheney a jew; according to the word's original meaning.
However, I believe that ChrisInAR was not aware that the original meaning of the word neocon was a slam on jews. But anytime I see the word neocon used, I make it a point to bring up it's racist heritage.
All of us conservatives need to keep track of and never forget the morphing words of the left.
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.