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.
What does your political philosophy say about the government forcing either by law or judicial decision homosexuals in the military? Or homosexuality taught in public schools? Or legalizing "gay pride" parades? Or forcing everyone to tolerate and say nothing critical of acting out homosexuals in the public sphere?
Don't these issues fall under the aegis of "political philiosphy?
Which comment were you linking to? There are a lot of deleted ones.
I had a teacher who liked banal and nauseating ‘writers’.
The worse the writer, the happier the teacher was.
No, you didn’t miss anything except having to write a report on how Hemingway’s ‘work’ was significant to current events.
*puke*
Yes, our teachers loved to give us an assignment and include a pre-ordained conclusion for us.
Needless to say, since I didn’t care for the Master of Banal Writing, I got a failing grade on that assignment.
Hemingway is to good writing what Ralph Bakshi is to good animation.
Interesting.
Kurt Evans and a certain triple 7 handle were in there as well.
Kurt Evans was pushing support for homosexuals in this Conservative forum recently.
He is no longer with us in forum.
He thought he was being clever.
Let’s expand, shall we?....
Conservatism 102:
The United States of America was founded on a legal document between the People and their Government (both State and Federal), the Constitution. Whereas, we are a nation of LAWS, not of MEN (nor their ideals).
THIS MEANS:
— Unless the power used was expressly granted by said document, is does NOT exist.
— All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
RE your 3 bullets:
1) Marriage is an institution of the church and God. Civil Unions != marriage, but DO == contracts (works for me), but don’t intrude one into the other.
2) I own me and my body/labor, piss off otherwise.
3) Implanted fertilized egg == new PERSON (its genetics are its own). Abortion is murder and no matter which way it goes w/ the law, I shouldn’t have to fund ‘em (see #2)
Just cause it gets your panties in a wad, doesn’t make it right nor legal. Get the gov’t and the busy-bodies the hell out of 90+% of what it’s nose is in and we can banter on the last 10% (and that goes at the local level as well. If the law(s) were made in a extortionist manor from the Fed, they should be repealed or re-voted upon).
As a Libertarian on a (sometimes hostile) Conservative site, I have yet to see ANYONE step up to the plate to ‘be the solution’, let alone BE Conservative. Talking platitudes mean sh!t if there’s no follow through, and I haven’t seen ONE department dismantled yet.
#362
I guess my “photographic memory” didn’t work on the post number!
LOL!
ROTLFOL! I had skipped HG’s comment. Only weirdos call a homosexual a “gay man”. In line with that comment, one should call them Nature’s Noblemen.
(Could one thing in common he has with his namesake is the writing of...fiction?)
The military, in my humble opinion, has two main "jobs," if you will: (1) in times of peace, to make potential enemies too intimidated to mess with us, (2) in times of war, to kill the enemy as expeditiously and efficiently in order to triumph. Again, anything, in my opinion, that prevents the military from doing those two things is a distraction.
I've never seen combat, so I do not know if there is anything inherent in combat that prevents a gay man or woman from doing his or her duty in combat. Like I've said on another thread, I know, personally, a former USN swift boat officer and graduate of USNA who performed so admirably in combat that he was awarded numerous medals for his bravery and heroism under fire. He's passed on now, but he was a gay man. Anecdotal evidence? Sure. But I cannot discount what I know to be true: He was an officer. He was a combat veteran. He was a legitimate combat hero. And he was a gay man. Honestly, man, make of it what you will, but those are the iron-clad facts.
Now, I do know something about serving in the military in peace time. I do know the importance of unit cohesion. I do know what it's like to serve in less-than-ideal conditions for long periods of time with the same group of idiots day in, day out, etc., without a break. I do know that in order to do all this effectively, efficiently, and pleasantly (as much as possible), a unit has to be able to--for lack of a better way to put it--josh around with each other, poke fun at each other, give and take barbs and insults, etc. In other words, to act like a typical Irish-American family.
And I do know that the gays, in general, tend to have a chip on their shoulder. And I do know that this chip on their shoulder often makes them the "pebble in the shoe" . . . you can't mess with them. You can't josh with them. You can't goof around with them. It only takes one person of this nature--gay or not, quite frankly--to destroy a unit's esprit de corps. I have literally seen it happen, although not with a gay guy, but with a woman (and you can draw your own conclusions there).
So there you go. That's what I "know" about gays in the military. I was only ever a JO and I never saw combat. I'll defer to the admirals and generals who have. It's their blood on the line, and the blood of the men and women beneath them. They don't shed that blood lightly.
I am flat out against sexuality being "taught" in schools. That's my job as a parent. The job of a school is to teach my kids literature, science, math, history, etc. Period. About the enforcement of "political correctness" I am dead set against it; I come from a family where ragging on each other in good fun was and is and will always be a cherished sport.
So there you go. If those stances make me a political enemy of yours, I'm sorry for it, but so be it.
“I’ve never seen combat, so I do not know if there is anything inherent in combat that prevents a gay man or woman from doing his or her duty in combat........Now, I do know something about serving in the military in peace time. I do know the importance of unit cohesion. I do know what it’s like to serve in less-than-ideal conditions for long periods of time with the same group of idiots day in, day out, etc., without a break. I do know that in order to do all this effectively, efficiently, and pleasantly (as much as possible), a unit has to be able to—for lack of a better way to put it—josh around with each other, poke fun at each other, give and take barbs and insults, etc. In other words, to act like a typical Irish-American family.
And I do know that the gays, in general, tend to have a chip on their shoulder. And I do know that this chip on their shoulder often makes them the ‘pebble in the shoe’ . . . you can’t mess with them. You can’t josh with them. You can’t goof around with them. It only takes one person of this nature—gay or not, quite frankly—to destroy a unit’s esprit de corps.”
Watching left-leaning RINO pseudo-intellectuals contradict themselves is more fun than human being should allowed to have. (H/T: El Rushbo)
Oh, brother. I'm not contradicting myself at all, just merely recounting some observations I've made out there. Heaven forbid someone try to inject a little honesty and observation into one of these threads.
Merry Christmas, Absolutely Nobama.
And Beat Army while you're at it. Here's a nice read about the Army/Navy game for you if you're interested. Some of these guys will be in harm's way in the near future on our behalf.
“Heaven forbid someone try to inject a little honesty and observation into one of these threads.”
No, you’re attempting to push an agenda that’s unholy and immoral. There is no excuse for that. None whatsoever.
100% incorrect. I'm "pushing" no agenda whatsoever.
What to speak of the other problems homosexuals cause - sexual assault, rape, openly being sexual with each other in public, more prone to violence, favoritism due to sexual favors, higher rates of drug use and so on. And all these have happened under DADT, it’s going to get much worse now. I posted a list of FR numerous times of articles here on FR detailing from military experts why homosexuals are very destructive to morale, unit cohesion and military readiness. Anyone who thinks they are no problem IS the problem.
Agreed.
Like I said, I am happy to defer to the experts here. As long as our military is the greatest military on planet Earth, I'm happy. How they see to making it so is not my area of expertise.
The bible teaches homosexuality is wrong, but don’t you think you should have at least read the email?
I have homosexuals among people I care about. Disagree with that part of them but despite that they are quality people. Hate the sin but love the sinner!
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3106822/posts?page=59#59
You sure like digging up old dead threads pal.
No. If you can't say it on the forum, don't say it.
Why are you resurrecting an old thread?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2816719/posts?page=56#56
And just like I said to the other poster whom you are pretending to be.
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.