Posted on 01/14/2012 7:27:09 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama
When one chooses to waste his valuable time on God's green (and not to mention cooling) earth by speaking to a Paultard, without fail, the following words will be spoken or typed:
"Only Ron Paul....."
"Ron Paul is the only....."
The above lines are usually followed with an absurd claim, like "Only Ron Paul understands the Constitution!" or "Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can break Wayne Gretzky's scoring records while teaching Gordon Ramsay how to cook!". (Some of the more hardcore cultists would never take their political savior's name in vain and only refer to the old Jew hater as "Dr. Paul". Yes, that's as creepy as it sounds.)Usually, this is always my cue to go into Verbal Assault Mode. To me, nonsensical rambling like this is like Wolverine's claws against Glenn Beck's chalkboard at its best and narcotics-induced insanity at its worst. I can tolerate a whole lot of things, but attempts by a mental deficient to spread vapid propaganda are not among them.
However, today is different. Today, I'm feeling intellectually lazy. In fact, I feel so intellectually lazy that I'm going to lower myself and use Paultardspeak. Ready ? Here we go:
•Only Ron Paul is mentally ill enough to think Iran should have nuclear weapons.
•Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
•Only Ron Paul thinks traditional marriage shouldn't be defended by a Constitutional amendment.
•Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that thinks 9/11 was America's fault.
•Only Ron Paul thinks anarchist (and Cindy Sheehan's main squeeze) Screwy Lewy Rockwell is a genius.
•Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who teamed up with the detestable Bawney Fwank to gut the military under the direction of Reichsfuhrer $oros's Progressivevik minions.
•Only Ron Paul thinks legalizing heroin and prostitution are Conservative values.
•Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who's as vile as Mitt Commie and former Obama sycophant Jon Huntsman.
•Only Ron Paul is willing to be seen with Space Man Dennis Kucinich in public.
•Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who would not have gone to war with Nazi Germany to "save the Jews".
•Only Ron Paul thinks accepting money from Stormfront is a good idea.
•Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that had his own moonbat newsletter that claimed Mossad bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and the federal government created the AIDS virus.
********************
Your move, Paultards....No, really. It's your move. Put down the bongs already.
:)
‘You’re kidding, right ?”
Kidding? about what? What makes you think I’m kidding?
No, I’m not kidding. I think you need to give me a serious answer to my questions. And I think you need to give serious consideration to your position in these discussions.
It appears to me that you lack any kind of epistemological self-consciousness about your arguments, and that’s why you resort to ad hominem arguments and loaded terms rather than rational arguments.
There needs to be a poster of Ron Paul...
using the great words in “Lemony Snickets”...,
“Mayor of Crazy Town”
No, I’m NOT voting for a crackpot who thinks 9/11 is America’s fault. No, I’m NOT voting for a Jew hater who wishes Israel never existed. No, there’s no way I’m voting for someone who teams up with Code Pinko and George $oros.
What’s so difficult to understand ?
You know it!
Why don’t you answer my questions instead of just repeating the same assertions without any evidence, proof, or argument?
What’s so difficult to understand is why you think ad hominem arguments and loaded terms constitute argument? We can discuss all these allegations, but not until we agree on a standard to judge by and an assurance that arguments will be taken seriously. Otherwise we are just wasting time.
It’s fun to spar with you over these issues, but at some point we have to stop sparring and get down to good, hard, arguments. I’m ready whenever you are, but not until we come to some agreement about the terms of the debate.
What’s to discuss ? Ron Paul’s newsletters say it all, don’t they ?
Well, there are more cultfollowers, so..... Maybe numbers outweigh the leader? If they were on a balance scale?
“What’s to discuss ? Ron Paul’s newsletters say it all, don’t they ?”
I don’t know. What do they say? and how does that apply? Name something specific, so that we will have something to discuss.
It’s a vicious cycle of lib-ism and homosexual agenda pushing, that’s for sure.
Newsletters written and signed by Ron Paul were sent out to (I have no idea how how many) people, for decades, and they weren’t free. He made no doubt a goodly sum of money.
Now he claims that not only did he not write them, he didn’t even freaking read them, and is therefore not responsible for any content!
So, there are one of two choices possible:
1. He lied when he signed his name to them as though he wrote them, thus scamming people who thought (as well they might!) that they were receiving Ron Paul’s Newsletter, which he now claims was entirely written by others.
Or
2. He’s lying now, because he wants to disavow the strange content.
Which is he lying about? He has to be lying one way or another.
Ron Paul will get the Pat Buchanan treatment and cast out of the convention—He will bolt the Party in a huff and go 3rd Party—Its all in the fix to get Obama elected to a second term.
I think many of his followers come from broken homes with no father, and they yearn for a kindly grandfather/father figure who promises them a utopia. The drugs don’t help with rational thinking, either.
Ok, let’s discuss how RuPaul thinks Mossad bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
That’s the nightmare scenario to be sure.
I am sure Paul is running as a spoiler, either to get Romney the nomination, or the 3rd party thing.
“Your move, Paultards”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944714/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0&feature=youtu.be
Sounds like fraud to me.
TIElniff, which is it? Is he lying now that he never wrote or even read the newsletters sent out for years (and not for free!!!) with his name on them, or was he lying then and the newsletters that people paid for thinking they were written by him really written by someone else?
There is no third alternative explanation; other than he is going senile and doesn’t know what he’s saying and has lost his memory.
I’m perfectly willing to hold Ron Paul responsible for that which was published under his name, whatever he says now about it.
I once heard Barry Goldwater at a rally in Austin, Texas, probably about 1962 or 63. He was questioned about some conflict in the things he had written over the year. His answer was: “Oh, hell, I’ve got ghost writers all over the place.” He didn’t apologize for the contradictions.
And I don’t think Ron Paul should either. So, he’s probably lying when he says he didn’t read them, but he IS responsible for their content.
Now. If you will spell out the content you object to, then we can discuss that content. But until you do spell out that content, we’re only talking about allegations and innuendos.
As to Ron Paul’s lying: On a scale of 1 to 10 of the seriousness of the lies politicians tell, this is probably a 1 compared to the lies of Obama, Romney, Newt, Santorim, Cain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Teddy Kennedy, or Barney Frank. That doesn’t make it right, but it does put it in perspective.
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.