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.
No, that’s not what I said at all. My main argument is this: Just because one has the right to do something, doesn’t always mean they should do it. Again, that’s where morality comes into play.
Government has a part to play in this. That’s why we have laws against murder, theft, polygamy, etc.
Now does this mean I believe government should be running our lives ? Of course not. But there must be a line that can’t be crossed.
Eliminating the US Dept of Education would go a long wayus towards undoing the damage the LGBT lobby has done.
I don’t think you or Ron Paul come close to understanding the true nature of our unalienable rights or of their source or you wouldn’t have such a cavalier attitude toward disregarding or waiving them. Our unalienable rights come directly from God!! Government simply does not have the constitutional authority or legal power to abridge, curtail or deny them.
NOTICE:
Do not come out pushing for the warm and fuzzy “gay rights” agenda on FR. The gay agenda is a full frontal attack on our God-given, first amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—free of government intrusion, intervention or bullying!! These constitution hating, liberty hating, God hating yahoos would ban the bible and jail preachers for speaking out about their sinful perversions! Their agenda includes thought crimes and hate crimes for speaking out against homosexualism. Includes making outrageous demands on employers, schools, churches, the military, even private associations like the Boy Scouts to accept their evil godless perversions and repugnant and unwholesome, unhealthy lifestyles. They’d like to be free to prey on our youth both physically and mentally in our schools, churches, playgrounds, scout clubs, movies, TV, books, magazines, etc., and to employ the cover of government to enforce their demands against OUR rights and freedoms. And this under the banner of constitutional rights? Give me a break! This does not square with the Founders concept of Liberty, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence and I sincerely doubt it represents the true will of God!!
Not even close!!
Their extra-constitutional group “gay rights” end where my individual God-given unalienable rights begin!!
You can pry my bible, my gun, my keyboard, my Liberty and my unalienable rights from my cold dead fingers!!
Ron Paul supporters (or anyone else) who push this evil anti-constitutional “gay rights” crap on FR will no longer be freepers. And that is a guaranfreepingteed fact!!
To hell with Ron Paul and his idiotic unconstitutional gay rights advocacy and his idiotic hard on against Israel!!
Ron Paul and his legions of flaming paultard spam monkeys can KMA!!
My cousin is a gay man living with another gay man for 40 years. He votes Republican/conservative, as does his partner. I have several extended family friends who are gay--very private people. I am proud to call them close friends/family--so shoot me.
I have no agenda, just the opposite; am just stating I do not make that my main issue in casting a vote or whether I would support Mr. Paul or not. I am undecided. I have absolutely no clue at this point.
You say: "Homosexuals will say one thing to your face, and then when they are with their 'partners' they behave completely different."
Then you must know a gay couple[s]very well to say that? ;)
I believe it is up to the church to decide on whom they marriage in a church ceremony. You also might like to know the family member and partner in comment is against "gay marriage". But you have the stereotype down as you want to believe it. He often jokes about it. Legally they have wills, and to say you cannot visit a gay partner as a next of kin is also wrong he says having had that experience when one of them was very ill.
I see you notified Jim
I am just a guest in Jim's home, agreed. And I believe over the many years I have been a good & courteous guest and contributor.
Have a good day.. Darksheare. Will stay clear of your posts from now on.
May be, but what kind of "thing"? He is also one of the five Republicans to vote for repealing DADT, and he specifically and vocally for homosexuals in the military.
So he is a "real thing" but a thing that is not for Constiutitonal principles.
On the money, Boss! On the money!
LOL.
You try to claim homosexuality is okay, then you run away when called on it.
See post 43 by the way.
Agreed whole heartedly.
I totally disagree with pushing the homosexual agenda.
However, I completely agree with FREEDOM!
Do what you will, but I choose FREEDOM!
I served my country and my brothers died by my side for freedom, NOT for thought police!
I will continue to post here at the Free Republic because I believe in FREEDOM!
So fags in the military and a mosque at Ground Zero are fine with you?
As I said earlier.
Have a good day.
:)
FTD
What headquarters would that be? I’m curious.
Many of us do NOT have homosexual (”gay” means happy and carefree) relatives, associates or friends.
Homosexuals overwhelming vote liberal/Dem.
Since the sum total of homosexuals is roughly 2% at most, why pander to a teensy minority of mentally ill sex perverts who want to deprives the rest of us of our freedom of speech, religion and association, plus ruin the military? Doesn’t make sense to me! But apparently it does to RPaul.
And that little faux folksy drivel you just posted makes no sense whatsoever. Does one need to smoke some weed first to “grok” it?
Conservatism 101:
The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morals. It was NEVER founded as the Land of Do As You Please.
Turning a blind eye to the evil (yes, evil) gay agenda in the name of freedom is just as bad as promoting it.
Gov’t should, in NO way, have anything to do in marriage (pro or con). Want DADT back, get your Congress-critter on the horn. Drugs? I don't see anything in my copy of the Constitution that gave them that power.
Dr. Paul has been the only one to bring up the Constitution time and again. All the others in the field offer platitudes (so far?)
Hit me up when the Republicans CUT gov’t (I hold no hope the Dems would even THINK about do so).
Until then, I'll be voting as closely Libertarian as possible. I'm tired of the lesser of 2 evils, you still get bent over...One just gives you a decent reach-around for the effort.
Ah, but YOU tried to imply that I am homosexual in your post.
AND you DID try to claim homosexuality is conservative.
That is the gist of what you were saying in post 19
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2816719/posts?page=19#19
And you didn’t help yourself with post 44.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2816719/posts?page=44#44
What’s wrong, don’t like being called to the floor on supporting homosexuals?
If you can’t say it in forum, don’t send FReepmails.
Deleted, unread.
There never has been to my knowledge a federal law against sodomy aka homosexual acts. BUT - the fedgov didn’t prevent states from having such laws.
Second, being a homosexual used to be considered a security risk and so certain jobs were not open to homosexuals, and that is as it should be, just as certain jobs should be open to bestiality practitioners or heroin addicts or kleptomaniacs.
The straw man of “cameras in every bedroom” is ridiculous. For one thing, if homosexuals kept their private life private no one would know or thus care. But that horse left the bard about 3 decades ago.
There were already “fags in the military” before the repeal of DADT. What do you think, there were no closeted gays serving?
About the mosque, I personally think it is not a good idea to put a mosque near Ground Zero. However, does that mean it is illegal? Does that mean the Federal government has the authority to tell people where they can or cannot worship? I don’t think so.
If anything, I would agree that the local government should be able to decide this. After all, the local govt is made up of the local citizens.
Why would anyone who is a proponent of constitutionally limited government want an intrusive govt?
Just like Thomas Jefferson said, I would much rather deal with the problems associated with too much liberty than the problems associated with too little. Wouldn’t you?
Are you not aware of the fact that RPaul was one of the 5 Repub Congressmen to vote for the repeal of DADT? He’s been quoted directly of saying he’s perfectly happy with homosexuals in the military. That is using federal power to enforce the homosexual agenda, contrary to what you said above.
How are you RPaul voting for homosexuals in the military? Even though the majority of men and women serving, as well as military experts, do not want homosexuals serving?
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.