Posted on 12/24/2011 6:14:24 AM PST by Kaslin
This Ron Paul decision is getting easy for me. I look around at the liberals that are starting to go for Paul and I know something’s wrong. Andrew Sullivan is on the Paul band wagon, along with Radley Balko. Those guys come from the left! They are not libertarian.
Paul thinks of Bardley manning as a hero and patriot!
Which doesn't say much for Romney because I think Paul is a senile appeasing quasi-rational coot.
But we still got Perry, Newt, Santorum, Michele (who I really don't like all that much but at least she's not senile), and even Huntsman.
Mark Steyn said: “So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid, half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out in the planet. And that’s why this is so pathetic. This is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced. And at its darkest side, it meets the left coming round the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”
That’s gonna leave a mark......
I find it troubling that Paul does not denounce the notion 9/11 was an inside job. His response here is “bigger fish to fry,” so maybe he does not ascribe much credibility to truthers in the first place? No other candidate on the GOP side has been more consistently dedicated to smaller government.
People seem to confuse the fact that the 9/11 attacks were motiviated by our foregin policy with the notion we took it upon ourselves to make Muslims look bad; planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks ourselves. Painful as it is, the former is not an unreasonable fact to acknowledge. The latter is preposterous.
I have yet to hear Ron Paul patently say the USA planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, but have neard many people make that inference by virtue of Paul’s consistent, anti-fed statements. I don’t think he would have a problem with a smaller, highly trained military that would have castrated Atta and his buddies before they even crossed our border.
While it is true that when one votes, he votes for everything the candidate represents, never in this life will we enjoy a candidate who subsumes into principle all that is good. I’ve had to hold my nose in every election in my lifetime except Ronald Reagan.
He might be more than an enabler of the truthers –he might believe as many of them do that the American government brought down the Towers a decade ago killing 3,000 Americans. Or perhaps he believes the Jews did it, or the Bilderbergers.
I think I speak for all FReepers when I say the Federal Government is beyond mistrust. We should trust everything they tell us. They are telling us the truth all the time about everything.
I think I speak for all FReepers when I say that it is probably Al-Qaeda that just said they are going to target American citizens for indefinite internment in Gitmo. I think it is Al-Qaeda that is now considering ceonsoring the Internet. I think Al-Qaeda is working with central bankers to destroy the dollar. I think Al-Qaeda robs us daily with the income tax. I think Al-Qaeda recently wanted to saddle us with a C02 tax for fixing global warming. I think Al-Qaeda wants to restrict access to firearms. I think Al-Qaeda is ramming abortion down our throats. I think Al-Qaeda is supporting the homosexual agenda.
And the American government is fighting all those things because they are so pure.
Checkmate.
When did it become to “conservative” to blindly swallow what the federal government was spewing?
Lemmings. All lemmings.
This is not a binary choice: either believe on the one hand that the government has never engaged in any activity that contravenes the Constitution on the other hand that it plotted and planned 9/11.
It is quite possible to understand that the government is capable of wrongdoing without accepting that it is responsible for the greatest perfidy imaginable.
You need to work on your clarity of thinking.
To me Rick Perry is the only real choice. OK he botched the immigration issue, but he’s rock solid on everything else. I remember going to a Tea Party rally on April 15th 2009. I’d never been to a political rally in my life. I remember how down and sad the peoples faces looked as I got to the rally. One of the first things announced at the rally was that Rick Perry was talking about Texas leaving the union, and how he supported the Tea Party. It was a lonely position then, but he stood up.
If nothing else, those who despise Paul’s advocacy for non-interventionism, tacitly admit 1.) we are incapable of defending ourselves and our own borders and 2.) we do not have enough in the way of natural/human resurces to sustain a superior standard of living. At the same time, I don’t believe Paul is against trading with other nations.
The conflicting views between interventionists and non-interventists stem from the distinction between universal principles as embodied, expressed, and practiced from our Constitution, and finite borders where those principles may or may not hold sway.
Is there some reason the priciples that make our country unique and prosperous should not be applied globally? In principle, no, but practically speaking, there really are people who prefer slavery to freedom. They need somewhere else to live, and they have it. Let them have it. Buy their baskets. Buy their oil.
I'm starting to warm to Newt but Perry is still my guy by far.
well, the more left you go philosophically leads to anarchy, which in a sense, is the smallest possible government. IMHO, lefties like Obama and Clinton think they are for the values of the lefty anarchist types, but are just closet Stalinist/Statist/Feudalists. I also think The Clintons know this, but Obama is too effin stupid to, so he flails about on his strings, held by whomever feeds his ego.
It is one thing to read these conspiracy theories it is very unsettling to actually have them explained to you face to face by an adherent who appears to be a rational person.
The last individual I had talked too had such wild opinions, such as the Jews were behind the selection of the "POPE"(see the black smoke white smoke conspiracy.)The Jews had influenced the Papal election because they would expose the Cardinals as child molesters if the vote didn't go there way.
On 9-11-It was a Jewish plot. I asked how could the Jews get those Muslims to participate, and lose their lives? He said the Muslims weren't involved it was a phony story. Also he believed in the controlled demolition of the 3rd building.
Finally out of desperation I asked him if he was going to vote for Obama. He said "Hell no! Obama is a communist. I am voting for Ron Paul, he tells it like it is. -Tom
Those are two bad choices but I would come to the same conclusion as you have. I just have very little confidence that romney would work to reverse zero’s socialist policies at the EPA, healthcare, and as it pertains to overall spending. romney cannot even admit that zero is a socialist and does not seem to want to attack zero.
 Hmmmm? If the government taxes the CO2 then could they also be responsible for 9/11? MC, you're a genius!/sarc |
|
17½ posted on 12/24/2011 11:12:09 AM EST by Truther Monkey ("Order was restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."--Ron Paul)
|
If you want off my ping list get over it!
Same here - Paul's a lunatic in a lot of areas, but at least he is serious about fiscal responsibility. His overt lack of willingness to spank the bad guys around the globe is at least a known quantity and he'd be ridden out on a rail if he allowed us to be attacked and failed to respond. Mitt would likely take ineffectual actions or try Obama's supposed "strategy" and try to "reason" with our enemies.
LOL funny . The presidential candidate is not going to be our choice. It is whom every the Republicans want us to pick!!
(Mrs)T
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.