Posted on 01/15/2012 1:27:57 AM PST by Mozilla
Is there any chance you could post this brilliance on this thread ?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2833124/posts
There are a couple of ‘Tards who need a little comeuppance!
BTTT!
“(”Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.”)
“That sounds a little kooky to me. Who do you support?”
One question at a time. What’s kooky about it? Explain.
;^)
It’s not just that I perceive Paul to be very naive about the world we live in. It’s also the racist, anti-Semitic, fringe nutjobs he associates with and lends currency to. He actually blames America for the attacks on 9/11 and hints the Truthers might be on to something. This guy is dangerous.
So if you make fun of some radical Islamist and one or some of them threaten to physically hurt you and your family, you’d be getting what you deserve?
"If you live in South Carolina and want to have some fun with these Paulbots here is what we do, ... Go online and buy or make your very own KKK robe, complete with hood (hood is important). Then get some Ron Paul signs or make your own. Follow Paul around South Carolina and be sure to get photographed by the media. Again, hoods are important. All can be Klansmen for Paul. Black, white, Jewish, Asian - those Paulbots will s**t a brick."
So, I stand by my statement - I have little sympathy for someone who calls for such actions. He is well within his rights to do so, but he also bears the responsibility for his words / actions. I also stand behind my comment that the reactions to the comments where typical overreaction by fringe elements. Threats are never justifed in such situations, but the lunatic fringe is always there - and the WILL act very predicatably to such statements.
If, OTOH, he had simply called Paul a crazed, truther, Jew hater, which is hard for Paul or his supporters to credibly deny, he would have my full support. But he did NOT merely criticise - he called for a concrete leftish smear attack against an opponent.
And - the taxpayer is now paying to investigate threats against and protect the idiot who posted such assassine comments - not Paul.
Deporting Muslims and preventing further immigration is fine because it would benefit future generations of Americans. Nuking Mecca would be harmful to our future generations.
Usually, the politicians who want to invade Muslims also want to invite them here.
BTW, I find it hard to believe that Chuck Baldwin is an islamophobe. He strikes me as the typical pro-islamic anti-Zionist.
Sigh...............
"If you live in South Carolina and want to have some fun with these Paulbots here is what we do," he wrote.
"Go online and buy or make your very own KKK robe, complete with hood (hood is important). Then get some Ron Paul signs or make your own. Follow Paul around South Carolina and be sure to get photographed by the media. Again, hoods are important. All can be Klansmen for Paul. Black, white, Jewish, Asian - those Paulbots will s**t a brick."
First, the term is CONJURE. Drink some coffee, or try a bowl of alphabet soup.
Second, I didn’t say anything about who you support: I said you were using moral equivocation, which is the favorite tool of the leftist and the “moderate” to excuse any bad behavior by a Dem and/or politically protected minority.
Regarding Wallace (who was an elected official and NOT a private citizen expressing political opinions, however stupid), his would-be assassin Arthur Bremer initially targeted Richard Nixon, then George McGovern, before settling on Wallace. That hardly sounds like he supported a single candidate, or for that matter a coherent political philosophy. Moreover, according to the Wikipedia entry on him, his diary included these statements:
“My country tis of thee land of sweet bigotry,” “Never say colored, say Negro, so here is a negro card,” “My blood is black,” “Cheer up Oswald,” “White collar, conservative, middle class, Republican, suburbanite robot,” “A Thundering of hooves and out of the western sky came the colored man,” and “If I live tomorrow then it will be a long time.”
Sounds to me like Bremer would be right at home with the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell/David Duke libertarians.
As much as it is tempting to pile on, I don’t think it’s wise to do so.
Paul definitely has some unsavory connections. But a lot of well-known conservatives have similar connections from their younger days.
The same could be said of prominent figures on the left. Sometimes people with curiosity and heterodox views cross paths with people who are extreme. It’s part of being an intellectual.
Paul’s attraction is that for all his flaws, he represents the libertarian wing of the GOP. This wing has been a prominent part of the GOP since the 1920s, and some of the most admired Republican historical figures, such as Robert Taft, Howard Buffett, Barry Goldwater, and even Ronald Reagan, aligned themselves with this ideology. Do you really want to drive anyone who disagrees with GWB/McCain/Romney out of the GOP?
Few people who are voting for Paul believe that he has a chance at winning the nomination. Speaking for myself only, if I take the personalities out of it, and juxtapose only the platforms, my views come closer to Paul than Romney.
As much as Paul’s isolationism is misguided, the full-throated support for nation-building by GWB, McCain, and now Romney is even more misguided. I do not think the lesson of 9/11 is that we need to build roads, hospitals and madrassahs in Afghanistan, and monitor elections there. The support of Al Q’aeda within Islam is not due to poverty or the lack of infrastructure or democratic institutions. It is due to the mullahocracy that our involvement in the Near East and Central Asia has done little to hinder.
If the GOP is convinced that nation-building is the correct foreign policy, why not simply nominate Hillary Clinton to run against Obama? She’ll be great for the crossover vote, and at least her health care plan in 2008 wasn’t as anti-freedom as Romneycare or Obamacare.
There are 400,000 of them out there!
If they believe for a second that Paulbots might give them a good fight ~ running gun battles perhaps? ~ they'll take that as a challenge.
Paulbots are a bit aggressive in their responses. Some people find Paulbots obnoxious.
Absolutely, have you seen this thread and/or Race Bannon’s compendium?
Paul has enough “unsavory” assocations and statements not just from the past but from the present to give colorful background to dozens of candidates. So you see Paul’s crazy and noxious associations and statements as intellectual curiosity. My,my.
And there are other people running besides Paul and Romenypuke, btw.
Absolutely, have you run into oblomov yet?
Oh, I should have read up the thread, you’re here.
It’s like an evil clown convention with free dope samples at the tables, isn’t it.
Under no circumstances did Ronald reagan align himself with libertarins who wanted:
legal dope
legal prostitution
legal heroin
lowering age of consent laws so adult homos could buggar younger boys
for you to defend your view by saying Reagan sided with libertarians is laughable
Reagan did align himself with a libertarian philosophy. I assume you’re familiar with his nominating speech for Goldwater, “A Time for Choosing”?
Adhering to libertarian principles does not mean that one wants to legalize prostitution or pederasty. It is anti-statism. I remember when anti-statism was the primary creed within the GOP, but now the GOP is just the US version of a European Christian Socialist party.
I find it ludicrous that so-called FReepers are accepting statements from the Southern Poverty Law Center at face value.
For example, Tom DiLorenzo was among their Rogue’s Gallery of “noxious associations”. Yet DiLorenzo’s articles have been posted many times on FR, and he has written for National Review and other conservative publications.
Shall we put him on the “ban from FR” list?
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.