Posted on 03/09/2013 6:15:57 PM PST by RaceBannon
What makes you believe low information voters read?
It is a sad day when our own side depends on half truths, innuendo, distortions, personal biases, and out of context quotes to smear someone who doesn’t deserve this kind of smear.
I am a Dan Greenfield fan, but this is just so over the top it’s heartreaking.
In order to understand Rand Paul’s vote for hagel, you have to know what went before when his ‘betters’ in the party deserted him when he tried to STOP cloture. But I suppose some people have the new hillary mindset. You know. What difference does it make.
Or when he tried to stop delivery of F-16s to the brotherhood. Or his vote AGAINST brennan. Or his entire trip to Israel. Or...
But I digress.
Rand Paul is no more the senator from al qaeda than the man in the moon, and this is a remarkably innaccurate portrait by a man, just a fallible man, who believes that Rand Paul is an anti-semite and anti-Israel. Whatever you hear about Rand Paul from Dan Greenfield comes through that lens and it’s a shame because it simply is not true.
Placemark for careful reading tomorrow.
I do not trust Rand Paul. He seems to have some good ideas, and some spunk. But he voted for Hagel. And wants “softening” on immigration and fag rights. I’ve been too sick to read much lately, too much going on for me to keep track of everything I want to.
So you agree with Van Jones?
Or CODE PINK?
How about the upcoming DAVID DUKE endorsement?
You DU trolls are sure weird...
FOR LEGAL DOPE!
FOR LEGAL HOOKERS!
FOR LEGAL DRUGS!
STOP DEFENDING OURSELVES AGAINST ISLAMONAZIS!
FOR RAND PAUL!
Lew ROckwell’s site trashed me for the LIEberman freep in 2000, too
Until the last election cycle, all libertarians were interested in was legal dope, legal hookers, and legal sex at any age
THINGS I WISH I HAD SAID
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.
What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of “non-interference.” However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.
Libertarians think they may advance the cause of “social liberalism” simultaneously with “fiscal conservatism;” but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.
Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
-— Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? “Give us bread and circuses!”
Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.
Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nation’s economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.
SoConPubbie:
Thanks for your reply, and compliment. Visit me at “In Forum” anytime, to chuckle at this old graewoulf.
#:o)
__________________
ALL:
What follows is a long-winded background on why I think that:
1.) it is nearly impossible for a Republican Politician to win a Presidential Election when the Liberal Agenda Media chooses to oppose all good done and promote ANY bad done by that same Republican Politician;
2.) We Conservatives unwittingly tend to mimic the attack style of the Liberal Agenda Media.
I have watched the Liberals deflect the facts of an assertion, and it goes something like this:
Anchor: “RINO A made the statement yesterday that Democrat A supports more Federal Spending on Program Party-Time. What is your opinion, Democrat A, on spending more taxpayer dollars when so many Americans are without jobs?”
[ Note: The low information voter will only pick out topics that he/she is interested in, and ignore the rest as “just politics as usual.” ]
[ Note: Democrats know that the average human can only focus on 3 topics, and thus tries to add at least 3 variables to each topic, plus add at least 3 more new topics. Thus, with each facetime answer the opportunity is to keep on adding variables, anecdotes, and new topics. The over riding rule is to repeat the MAIN LIES as convincingly and as often as possible before the commercial break. ]
(Back to the studio): Democrat A: “ Well, I want to thank my good BIPARTISAN friend Republican A for choosing to raise this important issue to the attention of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
“This INVESTMENT in the goodwill and happiness of the HARDWORKING Federal WORKERS in these HARD TIMES who have devoted their lives to living a continuous life of Party Time are providing a unique service our GREAT NATION’S TEACHERS, STUDENTS, and especially to those what have been thrown out of work by the RECKLESS POLICIES of the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.
“Of course, there will always be a few that will say that it was not BUSH’S FAULT, but most REASONABLE people will AGREE that people who say that it was not BUSH’S FAULT are known to be on the EXTREME end of a dying Conservative culture of FAILURE, after FAILURE, after FAILURE.
“One has only to look at the recent Presidential elections to determine THE AMERICAN PEOPLE know that this worst economy since THE GREAT DEPRESSION was ALL BUSH’S FAULT.”
______________
Etc, etc, etc. You can count the new variables and new topics for yourself, but the point is that when the low information voter surfs to the next channel at the commercial break, he/she is only thinking about how much he/she hates Bush, how they agree with the American People, and who does RINO A, a good bipartisan friend of smiling Democrat A, think he is to deny spending somebody else’s tax dollars on Federal Program Party Time!
__________
Compare the above to ANY RINO who scares the “h e double toothpicks” out of a Liberal “Bipartisan” Federal Politician, and get your hip boots on because the offending RINO’s blood will be spilled very quickly.
Dan Greenfield did it with his false assumption article.
Ultra Left-Wing GOP Elite Pig McCain did it on the Senate floor as did fellow Left Wing GOP Elite Pig Graham.
The Liberal Agenda Media will play endless clips of Rand saying and voting for things that show Rand in a bad light.
All of this will be repeated until the chatter is no longer about the Filibuster, or what the Filibuster achieved, but what THE AMERICAN PEOPLE found to be the most shameful, repulsive and distasteful about anything that Rand has ever said or done.
__________
This is an old pattern for the Liberal Agenda Media, (LAM).
Back in the day, GWH Bush’s Veep was given a slip of paper with the word potato on it in the question that the school wanted him to ask. The Veep asked the question, and then corrected the student to the spelling on his slip of paper. [ Note: both spellings were correct.]
In a matter of weeks, when the LAM was through with the Veep Quayle, his future political career was over.
In contrast, Indonesian Citizen, Communist, Tyrant, financially incompetent, Benghazi-Coward B. Hussein Obama slept peacefully while his Libyan Federal Personnel were being butchered for 7 hours: with nary a peep out of the Liberal Agenda Media.
I understand the skepticism when ANY Republican stands with Code Pinkos or Van Jones, but bear in mind, getting criticism from Graham Cracker and McLoser is a sign you’re right.
Rand wasn’t defending Islamic terrorists here. He questioned (in light of an American citizen being killed overseas) whether the government could eliminate an American citizen on American soil under the same circumstances, with no due process. The answer he got was a characteristically weaselly response from Holder. With no clarity on what should have been an obvious no, Rand made it a public discussion by launching a traditional filibuster. He’s right on this.
You can whine that the only people we’re targeting are well-deserving scumbags like Anwar, but bear in mind that conservative groups and “anti-government” types were recently named as the biggest domestic threat in America. I don’t want a missile through my window, and even if the likelihood of that happening is 00000000.000001%, I want it to be classified now as unconstitutional. The sooner the better.
At present Rand Paul seems to be one of the only people saying what needs to be said.
As long as that is the case, he has my support.
What we need is to have more in the GOP saying the right things.
Where is everyone?
and bear in mind...it seems to be your favorite phrase...when left wing communist groups support you, like CODE PINK and Van Jones, and soon to come DAVID DUKE...then surely there is something wrong with you
The core of this debate that will divide the Tea Party is America’s role overseas. I hope the ad hominem, straw man, and guilt-by-association arguments will STOP and the debate can be genuine.
My 2 cents: we can’t afford to be the world’s policeman, nor do we have the moral obligation. Yes that strategy may stop a few attacks, but it’s not clear they won’t find other ways around that bankrupting, devastating strategy. Bring ALL the troops home and defend the homeland.
I guess you think it’s a good thing to support one of the guys who voted for the NDAA act...like father, like son, eh?
Guilt by association??
By a MAN WHO SUPPORTED NDAA??
His association was proven, not innuendo, he is NOT the patriotic man people claim!
When one believes they must always agree or disagree based on what the other side thinks, hypocrisy can be the only result.
I like Ben Carson but disagree with his belief that the 2nd amendment should be restricted.
I like Marco Rubio on most things but vehemently disagree with his pro amnesty stance.
I like Rand Paul but disagree with him on several things but won’t disagree with him for the sake of opposition.
I like the whole Ted Cruz political package most of all but I’m a big boy and know there will be things which I disagree with him on.
My rule of thumb with politicians is that if I agree with one politician all the time on every issue, one of us is lying. Either the politician is lying to me or I’m lying to myself.
Then there is the McCain / Graham category. They’re talking tough about getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi but I haven’t forgotten that they were the primary cheerleaders for getting involved in Libya’s internal mess. They have both left a trail of history that displays that same behavior on any number of issues. I call them “Uriah Heep republicans” after the weaselly, manipulative, grovelling Dickens character.
War is an expensive business and our founders made it clear that it should used sparingly lest it break us.
As far as drones are concerned, they have a role but push button killing has gotten to be far to easy with an expanding range of acceptable collateral damage. If we had killed Bin Laden and his entire family with a drone strike, I could accept the collateral deaths because they were intimately associated with him. On the other hand, if a drone kills a terrorist sitting in traffic....and everyone in traffic around him, you’re losing your moral high ground and very likely creating or solidifying opposition.
As for drone strikes on American soil, its insanity that its even up for discussion.
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.