Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by mnehring
I'll answer that when you tell me if you've stopped beating your wife.
Paul was reacting to the presence of a cross in Huckabee's ad. The ad had nothing to do with politics, but was a video Christmas card. That's the context, and any dancing around it is just more horse hockey from the Ministry of Silly Explanations.
When I hear Paul say this same stuff about the Religious Left, then I'll take him seriously. Oh wait, I won't because he's an Al Qaeda enabler, but at least he'd be shooting in the right direction on this issue.
You're correct that those things are way over the line (and I was criticizing Paul's reaction, not yours) but the Wicked Witch and her flying monkey competitors on the Dem side have been saying that stuff and more for months or years now on virtually every policy subject. They even held a religiously themed debate sponsored by Sojourners. Maybe I missed it because I'm not in the Al Qaeda enabler's club, but I don't remember Ron Paul calling them fascists, and I'm pretty sure the press would have reported it if he did. Instead, he waits until Huckabee does an ad that has no political content.
Oh...still waiting for Paul to use his Sinclair Lewis on Hillary's "I'm giving you government run health care as a present to celebrate the birth of our Savior" ad, but I ain't holdin' my breath while I'm doing it.
“RonPaul knows more about the Constitution than anybody alive,”
Is that so?
What school did he get his SJD in Constitutional Law from?
“That wasn’t the Ron Paul conclusion”
Then WHY did he say it?
Enjoy the ride.
Now it's time to hear from two great Americans reagrding Prawn Paul:
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." --President Abraham Lincoln
"Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" --Jim Robinson, 09/30/07
“Bringing the troops home gives us so many more options.
Family of the military get their troops back, and we prevent something like 9/11 from happening again.”
Really General?
Care to elaborate as to HOW it gives us more options and will prevent another 9/11?
Aren’t you special.
No. Actually by the time Fox and Friends (of Rudi) got around to asking him about real issues after wasting most of the time pressing him for an opinion about another candidate's Christmas ad, (and then drawing erroneous conclusions from his response) the format they chose was a word association. "In one word respond to the following..."
It reminded me of the moderator in the Iowa debate when she asked for a show of hands. Just stupid.
“And maybe the so-called WOT is simply a farce that is not accomplishing what Americans want it to, destroying Islamic facism, but has another goal, nation building and globalization.”
I see you have been reading the anti-American conspiracy nut bile over at alex jones’ website again.
“Why hasn’t the greatest exporter of terrorism, Iran, been hit?”
Just because it hasn’t been done yet doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen.
“Why is the Bush administration siding with the PA against Israel?”
Another nutty claim.
“Ron Paul is for U.S. sovereignty, not sacrificing it to create a New World Order under the guise of fighting a war against terrorists.”
Because he isn’t going to fight ANY wars.
He’s going to roll over and do his best to appease the terrorists
He thinks that if we just drop everything, turn our backs, tuck tail and run that we’ll be secure.
And speaking of sovereignty, he supports the NAFTA super highway.
Things are really getting desperate for the anti-Ron Paul zealots.”
So now anytime someone tells the truth about your pet retard, it’s a smear?
God you people sound more and more like clintonistas braying about “politics of personal destruction” every time someone called him a liar, draft dodger, or adulterer.
“The statement doesn’t need defending, in context, it speaks for itself.”
Yet with every post you paultards say it was taken out of context.
That it’s just another smear.
Etc.
Etc.
This "neoconservative" would abolish the UN outright and would abolish GATT, NAFTA, WTO and each and every other sovereignty sapping international or "globalist" or diployak product that would interfere with the US waging war whenever the US deems it desirable for whatever reason the US deems it desirable with a very strong military equipped with a very ample supply of the best weapons devisable by human ingenuity and the iron will to use such weaponry as a threat or as an enemy exterminating reality.
I have chosen on this website to avoid unnecessary arguments with my reformation-minded brethren or those who do not claim to be Catholic. That makes me politically practical in the effort to weld a maximum coalition of actual (not "paleo") conservatives. You may know how to access old posts by the name of the poster. If so, search the flame wars between actual Catholics and the SSPX excommunicated schismatics who pose as Catholic and you will find that I care quite a bit about the good name of Catholic as I do about the good name of conservative. In fact, these controversies are quite similar to one another except that there is no conservative pope who is entitled to command obedience from Catholics at least.
In any event, paleoPaulie and his love slaves are not conservatives, not patriots and are not enemies of organized Islamofascism which is the USA's enemy at the moment. Accordingly, he will be crushed in the caucuses and primaries. As a pal of Don Black and Stormfront and a target of their funding, paleoPaulie has some gilt-edged nerve whining about fascism at all.
Yes.
“it’s because he believes that he is so far to the right, that he often ends up going full circle and ends up on the far left. And this is a perfect example of it.”
Exactly.
Someone on here pointed out that a true political spectrum scale shoul be more of a circle instead of the straight line thats typically used by the left and paulbots.
No. It will be wrapped in a crescent and slashed by a machete.
“The Ron Paul Ministry of Silly Explanations stays very busy. ;-)”
ROFL
Good one.
“Even Paul never said we had to “reach out” to our enemies.”
That’s because it will be hard to reach out when we’re in full retreat.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
Second, have any of your list EVER militantly supported American war efforts. A number of them are too obscure to know for sure.
Brimelow is the immigrant hypocrite (from the UK and his wife from Canada) who wrote that he was dedicated to the notion that when his tow-headed ten-year-old turned sixty in about 2050, he wanted him living in a blond, blue-eyed America that looks like his ten-year-old. Can you spell u-p-p-i-t-y r-a-c-i-s-t who can return to England if he is so dissatisfied here and thinks he has some business rejecting Hispanics who have been here longer than have the Brits????
Patrick Buchanan is one I have voted for a couple of times. I agree with him on taxes and tariffs and social conservatism. I once heard a brilliant speech on foreign policy that he delivered on C-SPAN to the DAR (pinch hitting for Quayle), a tour de force that was right in most respects. That was then. This is now and PJB is under the influence of Justin(e) Raimondo the lavender queen and paleo foreign minister and proprietor of the despicable antiwar.com. Since last I voted for him, we have had PJB the scientist who has concluded that the Holocaust could not have occurred since a trainload of passengers in a tunnel for several hours did not die of carbon monoxide poisoning. He has opined that the Commonwealth of Virginia would be worse off with an influx of Zulus (pro-Western, capitalistic, moral warriors, see the movie or read the speeches of Mengistu Buthelezi) than with an influx of Brits. I am 1/4 Brit and not at all Zulu but even I don't believe that. Bill Buckley cleared him of the charge of anti-Semitism but it was not an easy task. Pat likes sensationalism for its own sake. He did not come up in the conservative movement but through the patronage of Nixon, like Kevin Phillips. Pat, like Reagan, would be a great guy to have dinner and a few hours or a weekend of good conversation with but, politically, he is generally unhinged nowadays. He does get credit for zipping his lip after we opened the Iraq War. Unlike the paleopipsqueak, PJB knows better than to engage in treasonous weasel behavior. He is socially acceptable as most paleos are not.
I know Tom Fleming. I endured his "real American history" course for two years because I had enrolled a kid in it. He is probably a lot better fellow than he would like to admit or have anyone know. His eccentricity is a hallmark of the paleos. The first year of his course (available on tape from the Rockford Institute) I would generally recommend to any conservative and any other patriot. He is apparently a descendant of George Rogers Clark. He is a very faithful convert to Catholicism, if only he would convert to support of the military and to support of US foreign policy of an interventionist sort, but alas it is not likely to be. He shares your apparent notion that labor unions are communist institutions. The second year of his course runs off the rails. He loses it completely over the Progressive Movement (not to be confused with those communists who use the term today). If he is not a pacifist in this era, he will do until the real thing comes along. He has an ambition of retiring to Serbia as an authentic little unspoiled culture for unfathomable reasons and visits Serbia regularly. He admires the classics and teaches them (like Russell Kirk). He was very resentful of Slick Willie's Yugoslavian efforts (but I have to admit that I was at least skeptical too without mouthing off about it). He does not vote which he ought to recommend to other paleos. He admired Sam Francis, about whom more below but that is no recommendation. He is at enmity with Fr. Neuhaus and that diminishes Fleming. The Institute had a distinguished old fellow who had participated in the D-Day landing come and talk about it to the students. Only after the old guy had finished his very interesting presentation did his memory as to why he was invited kick in. He called everyone back to say that he had stepped on some soldier's detached genitals on the beach and he had forgotten that he was supposed to include that in his presentation. Abbie Hoffman, call your office!
Richard Weaver is long dead. I won't presume to speak for him and I confess I have not read Ideas Have Consequences or anything else by him. I know who he was. Most of my old friends who had read him thought a great deal of him. Getting his books is not as easy now as once it was. I would recommend him sight unseen and books unread as a second-hand endorsement.
I am quite unacquainted with Peter Hitchens, William S. Lind, Steve Sailer and Clyde Wilson and that condition is likely to continue. Scott McConnell used to have a real job at the NY Daily News before he fell in with the paleos. No one I know pays him much attention since he went native. I know a few people who read Chronicles since it is published here but none who read "The American 'Conservative'." Why should they? These are strictly third rate publications. Paul Craig Roberts may have been accidentally credentialed under Reagan but went nuts thereafter. Charley Reese???? Really!
The late Sam Francis who died while editing some Missouri based newsrag for the Conservative Citizens' Council (maiden name was the White Citizens' Councils of Mississippi) was an atheist who Buchanan slipped in as a columnist for the Wanderer. Francis had been fired by the Washington Times for addressing some neo-nazi national convention (American Renaissance??) He was probably a fan of Don Black and Stormfront and Willis Carto and vice versa.
I won't try Nisbet for lack of familiarity.
Russell Kirk was a dear old man and, on matters cultural, cleverly and wisely insightful. On matters political, he was hardly Mr. Excitement. For scholars and people who care about their children's education (and their own?), Kirk wrote and said a lot worth writing and saying. Enemies of the Permanent Things was great. OTOH, he was keeping the cultural patient alive while the New Right was performing deep surgery (by analogy to Dr. Zhivago's observation to KGB brother Yevgraf Zhivago). Fleming and other paleos could learn a lot from Kirk's approach and get the hell out of the way politically and shed their nuttier ideas.
Whatever you may suppose and whatever their value, Nisbet, Weaver and Kirk are not THE three key intellectuals of post-war conservatism. Weaver died too young by far. Nisbet had far too little impact. Kirk, maybe, maybe. Best of the group. He also converted to Catholicism at the end which is always a plus in my estimation, however biased I may be.
Mr. Silverback: Thanks, neighbor! Merry Christmas, whether the paleopeacecreeps like it or not!
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.