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.
Great minds think alike, FRiend!
[ Our rights do not always make you warm and fuzzy. ]
Indeed, if you want a federal ban on Homosexuality how inthe heck are you going to enforce it without trampling on all sorts of other rights? Would the Department of Homeland security require everyone put a camera over their beds and in every rooms of their house so they can monitor everyone?
It is a double edged sword. I don’t think this should be a federal issue, I say leave it up to the states and local municipalities.
Wanting to ban consensual behavior between two adults on a federal level opens all sorts of pandora boxes concerning how much power you would be handing over to the feds.
As much as I find certain behaviors disgusting, asking the federal government to play Morality police never works as we found out during alcohol prohibition.
And that’s just one reason out of many.
That is one of the most ill-informed conclusions I have ever read. Ron Paul does not view it as the Federal Governement's place to dictate either morality or control personal behavior. I agree with this view. I am adamantly opposed to homosexuality, but I don't think it is the place of a Federal Government to say such. At the state level - Great, I'm all for it.
True Constitutional Conservatism, to me, is largely libertarian: less government, more freedoms. I tend to agree with Paul in this philosophy. I don't believe Paul wants to legalize drugs or prostitution or immoral behavior for the sake of allowing them to proliferate within our society. He wants the government the hell out of these decisions, thereby allowing states, communities and families to determine the correct course of action for themselves. What is wrong with that?
I am hanging out in Newt's corner, for now. I feel that Ron Paul has the best chance of resolving our fiscal nightmare. I also tend to grow a bit more libertarian (or Constitutionally Conservative) as I grow older. To me, Constitutional Conservatism is, by nature, largely Libertarian. Perhaps we all need to remember that.
And how do we know you’re not a paid Paulbot ?
Newsflash for you: RuPaul is not God. He can be criticized like anyone else.
No one is calling for a federal ban on homosexuality, but RuPaul’s pro-gay “rights” stand is not Conservative.
Really?
He voted to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the uniform.
He also said that heterosexuals cause more problems than homosexuals.
YOU are uninformed.
Ron Paul supports homosexuality in the uniform.
Those of us who serve are not happy with that and how it went down.
If you truly believe what homosexuals tell you, you are more of a fool than anyone I have met yet.
Homosexuals will say one thing to your face, and then when they are with their 'partners' they behave completely different.
If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-Constitution and you'll get the zot from FR!
FR is not the place to be pushing, supporting, or apologizing for homosexuality.
Courtesy ping to the Boss since I quoted him.
“I don’t believe Paul wants to legalize drugs or prostitution or immoral behavior for the sake of allowing them to proliferate within our society.”
Maybe not, but the results would be the same. The US would turn into Amsterdam.
Conservatism is not libertarianism.
What determines Conservatism anymore? Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative, Constitutionally Conservative, All three? This is what we must determine if we are to put up a unified front. I don't know what the correct answer is for all of us, but I know what the correct answer is for me as I sit here and watch this great nation destroyed by an elitist federal government and a Federal Reserve that is beyond reproach.
Seeking the answer takes me back to the Constitution. I want government out of my personal decisions: what to eat, whether I may purchase firearms, where and how I can travel, what house I can build and where, the list is endless. Our endless parade of taxes and surcharges are killing us - all in the name of paying for an ever growing and ever stiffling government. Enough! The Constitution set forth the limits of government and for me, that is where the line is drawn.
Seeking to increase government intrusion on personal or states' rights in the name of morality or otherwise is by definition un-Constitutional. I want these decisions handled at the state, local or family level. I don't want the government to demand that all citizens own a firearm anymore than I want a government that says we cannot. The slippery slope was reached long ago when we moved away from Constitutional limits. The definiation of freedom for all will likely include accepting someone's right to engage in an act that we personally do not support. Does our right to end such acts supercede another's right to engage in them?
And if Bush[a product from the Right] and Obama were playing a hand of poker; sad to say, I am afraid Mr. Bush would lose.
However, I believe anyone could under normal circumstances-here are the rules, no hitting below the belt etc-could beat Obama as when they get to the debates "under the rules of debate" Obama loses. When gloves are off, let the games really begin, the dirty game of politics-the Left will pull out all of the stops, as Pelosi has threatened to do with Newt, whether legal or not. Republicans call foul! Once it's put out there to be heard, there is no taking it back. Fiction turns to face. Debates are forgotten.
Remember, Newt used to be in the "dust"..Herman Cain unfortunately became dust--your point is?
Is this when the Palin supporters shout, "Sarah said she would run if there were no good candidates"?
How does The Donald play into the equation? Newt runs to meet with Trump, as did Palin, and even Hannity says he is honored to have Trump in interviews others can't get. Even Michele Bachmann says Trump would make the candidate list for her VP. Rush runs off to play golf with Trump.
Who seems to be holding the power here?
Ok - are you a voter? who are you supporting?
Are these tough questions?
Michele Bachmann.
Again, I’m not a shill. You can say whatever you want about her. I’m never going to convince you and you’re never going to convince me.
Conservatism 101:
The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. It was not founded on secular humanist values.
“Does our right to end such acts supercede another’s right to engage in them?”
That’s where morality comes in.
Thanks for stating a position. But I don’t feel any need to smear Michelle.
I, for one, am quite bitter about the Cain debacle.
Conservatism is not libertarianism.
So, what you are saying is that we must pass federal laws to protect ourselves and society from ourselves as we are incapable of making informed personal decisions or guiding ourselves at the state and local level?!? Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama would be so very proud of you. That is, afterall, the same argument they have been shovelling down our throats.
I never stated Conservatism and Libertarianism were identical. Constitutional Conservatism does share A LOT of the same views as Libertarianism. Perhaps small government, pro Constitional, pro-personal freedoms (including firearms), low tax, pro-property rights, pro-capitalism, and pro-personal responsibility viewpoint is not Conservative enough anymore. I guess, I never got the memo!
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
~Thomas Jefferson
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.