The Only Choice: 2008--2012
Semper Watching!
*****
Posted on 12/02/2011 4:25:27 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama
One of my many, many pet peeves is the following statement, which is often said by some Paultard stoned out of his mind on some drug or another: "Ron Paul is the only Conservative running for President!" To me, this is is like fingernails on a chalkboard or watching the latest offering from the FOX Neocon Channel (FNC).
Let's take a look at some of RuPaul's (H/T: Mark Levin) "Conservative" thoughts. Let's put this moronic theory to the test, shall we ?
***********************************
"I don't think it's very good sign for civilization to still be invoking the death penalty. . . .
If you believe in the death penalty, what I really object to is the doctors participating in torture, and doctors who are there to make it smooth and sweet.
'Oh, let's put him to sleep.' If it's a death penalty, do it on Times Square, see 'em get their head chopped off and see how all the people, see how much they like it, make 'em look at it. I think it's uncivilized."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/274807/the-death-penalty-i-think-its-uncivilized?SESSfdf0ee00c1e0052deac90b8b68f883a7=google&page=full
***********************************
"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
***********************************
"I would like to express my concerns over the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and my opposition to it being brought to the Floor for a vote. Let us be clear on one critical matter: the sanctions against Iran mandated by this legislation are definite steps toward a US attack on Iran. They will also, if actually applied, severely disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, thereby harming our national security.
I am surprised and disturbed that the committee viewed this aggressive legislation to be so bipartisan and uncontroversial that a recorded vote was not even called.
Some may argue that we are pursuing sanctions so as to avoid war with Iran, but recent history teaches us otherwise. For how many years were sanctions placed on Iraq while we were told they were necessary to avoid war? Thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered and died under US sanctions and still the US invaded, further destroying the country. Are we safer after spending a trillion dollars or more to destroy Iraq and then rebuild it?
These new sanctions against Iran increasingly target other countries that seek to trade with Iran. The legislation will severely punish foreign companies or foreign subsidiaries of US companies if they do not submit to the US trade embargo on Iran. Some 15 years after the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 failed to bring Iran to its knees, it is now to be US foreign policy to threaten foreign countries and companies. "
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul777.html
***********************************
"Ten years ago, shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on U.S. soil, taking nearly 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorists that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe.
This is ironic and sad considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are – a free prosperous people – that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win. Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the 9/11 attacks, and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism, is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life, neither is it our religion or our wealth – rather it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometown, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much."
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul764.html
***********************************
Ladies and gentlemen, is this even remotely Conservative thought ? For that matter, is this even American thought ? Would William F. Buckley have written the above crap ? Would Ronald Reagan have spewed the above filth from his mouth ? Would Barry Goldwater have blamed the United States for 9/11 ? Absolutely not.
Folks, the bottom line is this: Our beloved Republic is on the brink of utter disaster. There are God knows how many Islamo-Nazis who want to slaughter every man, woman, and child in America who refuses to submit their will to Allah. We have the neo-Marxist left becoming more and more violent by the day. Yes, a great deal of our problems are economic in nature, and yes, RuPaul is occasionally right about what to do about them. However, Conservatism is more than chanting "smaller government and lower taxes" like an automaton. It's a mindset that also includes a belief in justice, a belief in family, and defending the nation.
Paul is not a conservative he is a libertarian.
“Ron Paul is the only Conservative running for President!”
___________________________________________________
No whats worse is Romney being called the frontrunning Conservative...
At least Dr Ron Paul is pro-life...
Another non-conservative is Rick Santorum. Santorum supports subsidies for ethanol to prevent Global Warming, supports Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, supports earmarks for Amtrak, triangulated his position on abortion in 1990, repeatedly voted to raise the national debt, got funding for community block development programs and so on.
A libertarian that many in the LP can’t stand.
I’d be hard pressed to call Ron Paul pro-life. He supports the use of the abortion pill RU-486.
Interesting....
Got some links ? I’m not doubting you, I’m still undecided.
I know who I’m NOT voting for (Paul, Perry, Huntsman, and Romney the Commie) but at this point, I have no idea who I’m voting FOR.
Ping!
LewRockwell is not a good source.
If I see Tokyo Rove and that stupid little white board one more time, I’m gonna scream.
I check them out here and there (What am I gonna do, watch PMSNBC ?) but I tune out after a few minutes.
Ping!
Ron Paul is pro-choice for states on abortion. He thinks states' rights trump the unalienable right to life.
If a politician thought states' rights trumped your right to keep and bear arms, would you call them "pro-right to self-defense"? If they thought states could negate the First Amendment if they saw fit, would you call them "pro-free speech"?
Thanks, buddy. Much appreciated. I’ll dig into this stuff ASAP.
Please for clarification define conservatism
Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.
George Washington: Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
The Only Choice: 2008--2012
Semper Watching!
*****
Are we going to play the game which entails selectively quoting the Founding Fathers, as the Paultards often do ?
*SIGH*
Let’s try this another way: Name one Founding Father who would have blamed the US for 9/11.
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.