Given that RP is at 4.8% in the latest RCP national average and 6% in Iowa, what part of zero do you need explained. You sound like a '72 college student deluded into believing that McGovern actually had a shot ...
Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by mnehring
YouTube video via Drudge- Ron Paul quote this morning on Fox and Friends- "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. "
I know of a very hard core liberal who is promoting Ron Paul, so I know he will pull some Dem votes. I’m actually surprised this liberal isn’t supporting Kucinich.
That said, you have identified several genuinely authoritarian movements. However, they are not really "Fascist." It is not helpful to use "Fascist" as interchangeable with any authoritarian Nationalist movement. That blurs very real distinctions. (It also should make Conservatives uncomfortable, as it is the methodology the Communists adopted to lump a broad spectrum of their enemies.)
But again, Paul's only real point is that in politics, things are not always as they seem, and one should be very careful of accepting professions of patriotism and faith, at face value, without a hard look at the issues and principles being advocated.
Did your mother teach you that shouting what you wanted was the way to prove a point?
You do not offer any basis for your claim. On the other hand, consider: Let The Second Phase Begin
Given that RP is at 4.8% in the latest RCP national average and 6% in Iowa, what part of zero do you need explained. You sound like a '72 college student deluded into believing that McGovern actually had a shot ...
Ping
See Let The Second Phase Begin.
Neither Rome nor an effective Presidential campaign is built in a day. Time will tell, of course, who will prevail.
William Flax
Fascism is already here, and it is wrapped in an Islamic flag, wearing an explosive device and carrying an assault weapon. *Note all the goose stepping and the Heil Hitler style salutes common to all the fascists of all time.
Only the man without discretion or wisdom fears the cross.
Paul's comments are an assault on all Christians not just Huckabee.
Your firing squad is circular.
That's funny every other time and in every other place when true fascism arrived, one of the first things it did was to deny "the cross".
What whackos and leftists fail to acknowledge or understand is that regardless of the size and strength of the "religious right", we who love America do not want to see it become a theocracy just as much as we wish to stay away from socialism/communism. We will police our own and hold their feet to the fire with just as much fervor as we would for any socialist liberal.
The reason being we are not "right wing" we are traditional Americans, we are what America has always been.
I am openly hostile to Ron Paul. Why??? Thanks for asking. I despise Ron Paul and the surrendermonkeyism and tin foil hat and tin ear and rank stupidity and license for which he stands.
I despise paleoPaulie's phony pretenses of being: 1) a patriot; 2) a "constitutionalist" (he knows as much about the constitution as he knows about war and its frequent necessity); 3) a fiscal conservative (packing tons of Galveston pork by earmark into appropriations bills which he then cosmetically opposes knowing his colleagues will send his pork to Galveston anyway in order to obtain their own); 4) a Christian and a loyal American while deriding the Cross and the flag as fascist symbolism; 5) that abortion is somehow not fit to be nationally prohibited a mere 35 years into Roe vs. Wade being crammed down our throats by SCOTUS; 6) supportive of actual marriage (the kind that is limited to one man and one woman) while simultaneously imagining that the central government has no role to play in thwarting make believe marriage of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court type between Adam and Steve or between Bertha the Butch and Gertude the Lipstick or among twelvesomes or involving household pets or space aliens.
As to libertoonians, I will respect them when they become respectable. Before that happens, they will need to abandon their support for baby killing, their support for lavenderism and other perversions. When I was young and foolish (probably before you were born), I was a state officer of a Libertarian Party organization. Then I grew up. They didn't. I did not leave the Libertarian Party. It left me by supporting perversion, babykilling and being weak on American military commitments, among other things. I don't have to join in such despicable commitments to oppose taxes and regulations of normal human activity of a moral sort. As a Catholic, I can not and shall not idly tolerate the do-nothingism of "libertarianism" as to babykilling and perversion.
I despise paleoPaulie for posing as a pro-lifer while resisting any attempt to nationally put an end to abortion.
I was being properly patronizing as I am in the first sentence of this post.
I certainly agree that homosexuality and other sexual perversions are old evils. That does not make them tolerable.
If I am ever going to duel with anyone here over Biblical exegesis, it probably won't be with you. Evangelicals and other Fundamentalists take their Scripture a lot more seriously than you probably do and I don't fight with them here over such things. I am not going to make an exception to that policy for you.
PaleoPaulie is Dr. Demento because he is, ummmm, demented. Also, I believe that fieldmarshaldj tagged him as such. PaleoPaulie arises from his midget status and the fact that he is one of those despicable "paleowhatevers." He is no conservative and I won't pretend that he or you are conservative. "PaleoPaulie" is a sort of compound noun and descriptive. El Run Paulie conflates his cowardly pretense of a foreign policy with the diminutive of his family name. "A noun is a name word."
Don't feel that the paleopipsqueak is being unfairly singled out. Edwards is "the Breck Girl." Her Hillaryness is Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist or the Hildebeast or Medusa. Barack Obama is simply "Hussein." The Senate Demonrat Leader is Dingy Harry. The Speaker is Nancy Facelift, etc. If paleoPaulie or any of these wants respect they can try the old-fashioned way by actually "earning it." They haven't. This is not gummint skewel self-esteem promotion. This is reality. Libertoonianism conflates what passes for libertarianism nowadays with its recent cartoon stick figure nature, killing innocent babies in the name of some faux "liberty" and favoring rump ranging as a "legalized" substitute for actual marriage.
RP is simple all right, simply wrong and simply embarrassing and simply hilarious and simply antiAmerican and simply antiwar and simply, well, libertoonian.
If you support paleoPaulie but do not call yourself a conservative, then you have taken the first step in the thousand mile journey to honest liberalism. Libertoonianism is NOT conservatism. Congratulations.
BTW, the Declaration of Independence was a remarkable document and a very desirable one which directly defied the Brit "rule of law" which also needed substantial revision more than it needed obedience. The Founding Fathers did what they had to do to establish liberty and a new rule of law.
The Constitutional Convention produced the Constitution in defiance of the rule of law of the Articles of Confederation by ignoring the requirements of the Articles for revision and regarding less than unanimity of the states to adopt the new constitution. So much for your "rule of law."
The likeminded Democrats who voted for Ronaldus Maximus agreed with HIM on most issues. When you suggest that they disagreed with "us", that begs the question of just who "us" might be. Since you typed that word "us," you apparently suggest that "paleowhatevers" are part of "us." They are not. They never were. They never will be. Although I became a conservative Republican as a teenager from a labor Democrat family because of a very misplaced regard for Barry M. Goldwater (who turned out to be an enthusiast for abortion and for legalization and tolerance of homosexual perversions and had been the husband of a first wife who spent thirty five years of her life as a Planned Barrenhood National Director, ending only with her death), I soon turned to Reagan and so did millions of those from Democrat backgrounds who fled the Demonrats when McGovern's reds took over or even earlier. Many of any us that includes me and others from such backgrounds differ very much from the "devil may care" social anarchists and peace creeps who think themselves paleo"conservative", a term unknown until about 1986 when the paleowhatevers finally figured out that they were NOT ready for prime time among adults and were NOT going to be credentialed under Ronaldus Maximus.
Nixon beat McGovern because Americans traditionally despise communists and peacecreeps. The Wallace voters were not available to McGoo because they particularly despised his elitist red supporters and the urban rioting of spoiled minority Mcgoo supporters and alternative lifestyle pervert supporters of McGoo and the contempt for returning veterans by McGoo's antiwar despicables and a wide variety of other antiAmerican antisocial cretins who were associated then with McGoo and more recently with paleoPaulie and the "paleos" as well. Nixon was the last gasp of spineless Ike's "Modern Republicanism" and he wasn't much like Ike was not much but, at least, he was no McGoo. Actually Ford was the last gasp but he was never elected outside of Grand Rapids.
Ike did run as the "cut and run" candidate in 1952, not that there was much of a choice since Adlai Stevenson was not exactly George Patton or Curt LeMay. Ike's wimpiness is one more reason why he was a poor excuse for a president, a poor excuse for a general and a poor excuse for a Republican. He opposed Joe McCarthy, defended Marshall, was eswentially a New Deal Demonrat by persuasion and, if you make pretenses of "paleoconservatism," you ought to be a bit bashful about praising Ike. Organized cheapskatism and other obsessive forms of materialism do not equate to conservatism. One of the few legitimate functions of government is national defense (warmaking as necessary and desirable). Military budgets are necessary. Conservatives (the actual kind) are more skeptical and should be as to welfare state spending and the expansion thereof.
Somehow I don't see paleoPaulie and the limp-wristed Kunbaya set threatening nukes credibly to end the Islamofascist use of terror. Why would anyone have thought Ike trustworthy to do so? He just wanted Kumbaya and whatnot with the Russkis during and after WWII and as president. He telegraphed Tito that we did not favor the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Andropov soon arrived as soviet "ambassador" to personally execute the leaders of the revolution. Peace! Peace! Peace! West Point was wasted on Ike. The story of the second half of the 20th Century in the GOP is the absolute rejection of Kumbaya and the assertion of manhood in foreign policy. Not yet perfect but ever more so.
Ronaldus Maximus finished the soviets and finished the job that Ike refused to begin.
If Ike was a decent president, it must have been as president of Columbia when Truman begged him to run as a Democrat for POTUS. It certainly wasn't as POTUS. It is understandable that JFK campaigned on the missile gap since Ike was untrustworthy in foreign and military policy. It was after JFK that the elitists in his party turned red.
If you close or starve the two nuclear sub makers (New London and Norfolk) to satisfy the beady-eyed Main Street bank poobahs of the limited imagination, green-eye shade, sleeve garter and counting house variety that you are refusing what you imagine to be waste in military spending, you send about 60,000 very skilled workers who make the best boomers and attack subs into unemploment and then to be dispersed in the economy as a whole. Then WHEN (not if) you need a new generation of subs both as nuke platforms and as enemy navy killers, they aren't coming back to the sub plants and you cannot just advertise for new help to replace all of them, especially after a several year hiatus. Likewise, helicopters, tanks and a LOT of other hardware.
Ike gets credit from me for the Interstate (National Defense) Highway System only.
We are a great nation and we ought to act like one.
I take it that the return of Democrat control of House and Senate in 1948 signaled a desire for socialism here if that's what Winston Chu5chill's defeat in England meant???
Any comparison of the paleocoward of Galveston with Ronaldus Maximus flies in the face of history. Paul has zero, zip, nada in credibility as a military leader. Reagan finished the USSR. It is the poloplaying elitist set who just wonder WHY we have to son Rutherford's homosexual compulsions and daughter Muffie's need for that fourth abortion and wonder WHY we would want Chatsworth to take up a rifle and fight for his country when he prefers tiddlywinks at the club.
PaleoPaulie is an antiAmerican, antiwar, social anarchist and therefore a despicable twerp. He is no Reagan. I was a state chairman for Reagan's challenge to feckless Ford. I cannot really say that Reagan was a friend of mine but I certainly did everything I could for him and would do it again. That's why I will do everything I can AGAINST paleoPaulie. If you won't recognize the ideological gulf that separates Ronaldus Maximus from paleoPaulie, I do.
Also, the soviets enthusiastically greeted Ike's discovery of a "military-industrial complex" and his perverted resistance to national defense. Wonder why?
BTW, it IS the GOP base that will crush the paleosurrenderman in just a few weeks. Tick, tick, tick....
That is a curious chronology of labor that you linked. It seems to ignore that little matter of the merger between the AFL and the CIO. Not that the paleos make distinctions in labor history that would notice little things like that.
That I did. I also tagged Romney as Precious Willard since everything that comes out of his mouth was treated by his sycophants as jewels of wisdom when it was closer to a toddler running around and throwing his dirty diaper in the holiday eggnog punchbowl. Hasn't quite caught on, though. :-P
#851 and 855
Just WOW!
Oh, is this what you call 'tinfoil?'
"...it reminds me of what Sinclair, uh, Lewis once said, he said ‘when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian, or implying that subtly."Ron Paul is a Christian, and likely more so than Huck.
Yes, that is tinfoil.. I personally believe when fascism comes, it will be wrapped in the same thing it always wraps itself in, a rEVOLution against the powers that be.
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.