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.
My apologies, jmc813. I mistook you for someone else. Mea culpa.
We are on the verge of a financial crisis which according to Mervyn King of The BoE, is possibly the worst in history.
We are approaching a moment of truth for our nation. Accordingly, at this time, I’m not interested in discussing Gay sex - with anyone.
But I guess you are.
:)
:)
**********************************
Agreed. Imho, he's everything that distinguishes a career politician. It would be funny that his followers think that he's the ultimate conservative, if it weren't so dangerous.
No, they are not ok. The federal government should butt the hell out! It’s none of their business and it’s unconstitutional for them to butt in. The constitution restricts the federal government powers only to the dozen and half functions enumerated in Article I Section 8 and reserves all others to the states and the people.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to forbid the states their right to defend the unborn, nor does the federal government have the authority to force “gay rights” onto our institutions, schools, churches, businesses, institutions, organizations or onto our society.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to support or subsidize or do the bidding of special interest groups like ACORN, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, LBGT, NARAL, or any other group—liberal or conservative. The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or have any say whatsoever regarding prayer in school, public prayer, religious displays, etc, whether public, private or even local or state government.
“The CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
And the fourteenth amendment has no say in the matter!
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The only real reason or need for so-called Right to Life or Defense of Marriage amendments would be to keep the federal government from unconstitutionally intruding on societal issues. Our moral society does not want legalized abortion or gay marriage. They’re being forced on us by corrupt liberal activist judges and unconstitutional acts.
Keep the feds OUT!!
That's because you can't see the big picture. Liberals marxists do though.
Absolutely.
I won’t quote you out of compassion, but what a pathetic response.
Please to not reply to my posts. It’s a waste of my time.
LOL - I guess this Paultard didn't know who was who around here.
Paultards seem to be crawling out of the woodwork lately.
They’re everywhere.
There are two sides of every coin, including the Conservative coin. On one side, there is economics, small government, and national defense. On the other side, there is morality.
Stopping the homosexual agenda and the cultural rot it brings with it is just as important as the economics. A strong economy won’t do us a whit of good if we degenerate into Sodom and Gamorrah as the left wants us to.
There are two sides of every coin, including the Conservative coin. On one side, there is economics, small government, and national defense. On the other side, there is morality.
Stopping the homosexual agenda and the cultural rot it brings with it is just as important as the economics. A strong economy won’t do us a whit of good if we degenerate into Sodom and Gamorrah as the left wants us to.
I just about broke one queers jaw when he put his hands on me in the late 70s. I have no use for that behavior.
What is more immoral than this horrendous
cold hand of debt you have placed on our children’s
Necks advocating this status quo bombs and bailouts?
What about the cultural rot of marital infidelity? You guys seem to be awfully silent on Gingrich, yet obsessed with gays. It's more than a little creepy.
So the unconstitutional assault by the homosexual agenda on our freedoms of speech, religion and association, as well as the demoralization of our military, mean nothing to you.
Good that it’s clear.
I think it’s called momentum, Allegra.
Mass times Velocity squared.
What is worse is having your child constantly assaulted with corrupt and deviant morals in school and the media and being forced to agree with it.
They have political pacs pushing infidelity in the political arena? Who knew?
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.