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.
Good grief.
**********************************
Saying that makes you seem like an idiot to me.
***************************************
It's unbelievable. What incredible gall.
Pro life advocates talk about abortion a lot.
Your point?
Yeah, but they have forced their agenda on us. I don't like that one bit and now they want to allow bestiality.
But you’re not talking about abortions. Are you?
Do you have a point?
When I’m on a thread about abortion, I mention abortion a lot.
When I’m on a thread about child molestation and pedophilia, I mention child molestation and pedophilia a lot.
I run the Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes ping lists with wagglebee.
Your point, please? Make it clear.
Ushering in socialism demands the breakdown of society and morality. It works. Ask Stalin, Gramsci and Alinsky.
Ping!
From Wikipedia:
Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state.
Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[4] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[5][6][7]
Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term "libertarianism" is synonymous with Left anarchism.[8]
In other words, it ain’t Conservatism.
**************************
Correct. Imho, of course.
**But there haven’t been any zots yet.**
Just happened a little while ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~campsteveo/
Which candidate best exemplifies "moral absolutes" in your opinion?
Only one so far though. The rest of them refuse to answer any questions honestly and slink off to wait for another thread to break out (was gonna say break wind...).
Thanks for tolerating my posting malfunction! I’m really trying to preview, for my own good!
Still asking questions, but not answering them?
There are foolish posters who believe Ron Paul is conservative. He is not. He’s been a libertarian for years, only switching to Republican when he thought he could fool people with a different label. Leopards do not change their spots, just the letters behind their names.
Well, it certainly isn’t Ron Paul, he of the Repeal DADT infamy.
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.