You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.
Posted on 07/01/2008 2:19:51 PM PDT by mnehring
According to Ron Paul Henchman and alleged erstwhile ghostwriter Lew Rockwell (broke link, Lew Rockwell not welcome on Free Republic), you can blame Dicky Flatt’s buddy, Phil Gramm: …I was involved in that campaign, when Reagan broke his moronic “11th Commandment” to speak ill of fellow Republican Ron Paul, and such figures as Karl Rove and Paul Weyrich conspired to wage a very nasty campaign against Ron. In true Republican dirty-tricks fashion, Ron’s campaign office was even burglarized and his mailing list and other documents stolen. The power-elite had annointed (sic) the Philster, and would brook no grassroots opposition. Ron, of course, ran a hard and heroic campaign, complete with brilliant antiwar ads.
Wow! Bush’s Brain was controlling the party way back then? It also seems a bit ironic for Rockwell to call Reagan’s 11th Commandment “moronic” then whine about him breaking it. Then Llewellyn all but states it was Rove and Weyrich that broke into Paul’s campaign office, a pretty bold claim. And what war was Paul running anti-war ads against in 1984?
The Rockster was responding to comments made by Spencer J. Hahn on why he can never forgive Gramm for stealing Ron Paul’s chance of serving in the Senate alongside Barry Goldwater: Let us not forget that it was that Democrat turncoat, Phil Gramm, who defeated Ron Paul in the 1984 Republican Senate primary. Had Ron Paul won the primary, he would have won the general election, and become the true conscience of the Senate. I often wonder what would have been if Ron Paul had been in the Senate to filibuster every unconstitutional bill. He almost certainly would have been a presidential candidate (as Gramm was in 1996), and likely would have been taken more seriously by the MSM.
So there you have it, folks. The reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously is because Phil Gramm beat him in the primary in 1984. Oh, and Halliburton.
I thought Libertarians were all about personal responsibility?
2. As to that minority claim, I'll spot you Bob ACLU Abortionlover Barr, paleoPaulie the all purpose quisling, fraud and Al Qaeda Answer Man, and Chuck (who on earth is he???) Baldwin and all the votes gathered by them as party nominees of whatever party and McCain will get a very high multiple of all of their combined vote. He will also beat Obamanation and the SDS reunion of Mark Rudd, Bill Ayres, Bernardine the Radical Queen, Michael Klonsky and Tom Hayden.
3. Are you an actual pastor? Do people actually attend your church and put real money in the collection plate? America, it's a great country and you are one more proof along with Alex Jones and Ron Paul that it takes all kinds.
Newbie, your early career here is not promising.
If you will take paleoPaulie, you can have him. Just remember, you can’t have him as POTUS. Americans are a lot smarter than that.
You're officially a dork.
"Paleos" should at least learn what conservatism is before posing as though they were/are conservatives on the internet.
Will you support Bob Barr who drags his paramours to abortion mills or will you be voting to prevent Obama from putting Mark Rudd, Tom Hayden, Bernardine Doehrn, William Ayres and Michael Knlonsky in charge of this country. Do you even know who those five are and what they have done?
Your post does not constitute much of a try. In any event: No cigar!
You statement that you don’t care much for your career here is the earliest inkling of a wisdom hitherto absent in your posts.
#206: Knlonsky = Klonsky
You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.
Conservatism: Economics of von Mises and von Hayek; military attitude, posture and accomplishment of George S. Patton, Jr., rather than of Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul; on abortion and lavenderism posing as "marriage," see Mother Teresa, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Yehuda Levin, Jerry Falwell, Jill Stanek, John Ashcroft, et al., and not Kate Michelman, or Margaret Sanger or Planned Barrenhood or NARAL and not "libertarian" "do nothing" Paulie who effectively is also a pacifist in the war against the unborn, says the right thing sometimes but always opposes DOING the right thing; on guns, Larry Pratt and Wayne LaPierre and the late Charlton Heston and not Janet Reno, Slick Willie or Obamamessiah; generally Bill Buckley, Frank Meyer, Will Herberg, James Burnham, Mike Pence, Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, John East, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity and NOT Chuck Hagel, paleoPaulie, Weepy Walter Jones, John Duncan, John Warner, Christy Todd Whitman, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. and their ilk.
"Paleo""conservatives": peacecreepism, worship of their own stock portfolios, a truly strange "blood and soilism." See Tom Fleming of the Rockford Institute, Llewellyn Rockwell who takes Ludwig von Mises name in vain but fools no one, lavender queen Justin(e) Raimondo of antiwar.com and, sad to say, often Pat Buchanan who was once an actual conservative but has jumped over to the dark and anti-American side. There is often, if not always, an allergy to Israel and a very ignorant habit of trying to promote "paleo""conservatism" by mislabeling conservatives as "neo-conservatives." I am ordinarily not a fan of David Frum but in April of 2005 (I believe) he did a magnificent job explaining the rise (however minor) of "paleo""cons" when the eccentric dimwits finally figured out in about 1986 that they were NOT going to be credentialed in Reagan's administration and were regarded as equivalent to Uncle Teddy in Arsenic and Old Lace.
Actual neoconservatives were normally refugees from the Demonrat Party who fled to the GOP when the reds took over the Democrat Party under the likes of McGovern and have kept it ever since. See the recent book: Why Democrats Are Blue. Many (most?) are now dead: Alexander Bickel, Sidney Hook, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Some are still living but verrry old: Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Donald Kagan. They were stalwart activists in the Great Society regime of Lyndon Johnson but loved this country far more than they loved socialism as they aged. They will all be dead all too soon. We will probably not see their like again but they did a magnificent job on behalf of freedom from the USSR. Pathological hatred of the actual "neo-conservatives" always seems to smell like anti-Semitism and all too often not without reasons. That is not aimed at you but at the Sam Francis types and many other paleopropagandists.
As to your claim of neither neo-conservatism nor "paleo-conservatism" being conservative, you are batting .500. The "paleos" are far better described as anti-American eccentrics. On the other hand, you have a verrrry long way to go to prove yourself other than a paleo. Detailed proof??? I did not think so.
Oh yeah. You never answered my question the other day. Are you a fan of Fred Thompson?
Now, let's hear the proof that you are not a "paleo" "conservative" not just the repeated mantra without evidence.
Because I'm a loserdopian. I think the federal War on Drugs is an abomonation, I favor governments not intervening in trade, I really don't care about gays, and I think these people who try to use the force of the government to push their morals are dopes. Paleocons disagree with me on all of these things. The neo's disagree with me on the WoD and trade thing as well. That's why I think they're all a bunch of non-conservative pantywastes.
Another bastion of "paleowhateverism" is the Llewellyn Rockwell axis of the Llewellyn Rockwell Institute and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (von Mises would certainly sue to restrain their use of his name if he were still alive). Again, we have pretensions of Catholicism, coupled with paleopeacecreepism and loserdopianism as you put it.
Then there is the website of the despicable lavender queen and blatantly antisemitic Jewish (by ancestry) "foreign minister" of the "paleos" Justin(e) Raimondo, known as antiwar.com. If anyone doubts the despicability of that website and its proprietor, each such person should please access antiwar.com and decide for him or herself.
The WOD is an abomination??? I used to think that way too when I was a Libertarian Party state officer and before I grew up. Likewise as to not prosecuting and suppressing drugs, homosexuality or even abortion. I read Roe vs. Wade when it was handed down and I was in law school. I wanted to know what the SCOTUS justices had figured out as a constitutional reason for letting abortions occur without interference by government (since I was generally libertarian and favored convincing people). Read it yourself and see what colossal and homicidal whores those SCOTUS justices led by Blackmun were.
In more recent years, I have married and had several children of my own. Therefore, the world does not end when I die. I have a responsibility to my progeny to improve the situation. The desire of many of my friends of old to do recreational drugs is certainly no constitutional mandate. The desire of Adam to canoodle Steve likewise, whatever SCOTUS may say. The desire of anyone to murder any more babies likewise.
The "paleos" who have noticed the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution mostly disagree with you on "free" trade. In this they are joined by actual conservatives, and by the octogenarian actual "neo-conservatives" and by the overwhelming majority of Americans. If this WTO and GATT business is not repudiated reasonably promptly, you can probably look forward to our social and economic elites being crushed by popular political rebellion and realignment of political coalitions that will not, charitably speaking, be beneficial to loserdopianism. If that occurs, you will likely be looking for a new country to live in. Alternatively, there is always the process of growing up and getting beyond thinking that the world exists to suit you.
That term in your last sentence is pantywaist as in paleo"cons," Neville Chamberlain, paleoPaulie, Weepy Walter Jones, Dennis Cuckoocinich, peace creeps generally, etc. And, as to conservative as a term, you apparently would not know its meaning if it jumped and bit you, which it might well do.
I suspect that you are a lot younger than I am, that you are not married, not a parent, and that you really don't think these things through as much as you imagine that you do. If any of those suspicions are wrong, then I would imagine that you are uncommonly lacking in wisdom.
In my experience, those who seek to resist government enforcement of morality are usually people hoping such enforcement will not reach them on whatever their own vices may be. In earlier and better times, La Rouchefoucald observed that: Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. It is more evident with each passing day that vice has become sufficiently brazen to pay a lot less of such tribute to virtue. We are not better for that fact. Bank robbers are not crazy about laws against their activity. Likewise Marxists object to the protection of property and describe property itself as "theft." Conservatives will not be deterred by the objections of the perps and will enforce the law.
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.