Posted on 05/18/2010 4:51:19 PM PDT by Tribune7
Puss balls, ass licking, crack whores, bags of scum... you’re a charming cat. And a big hit with the ladies, I’m guessing.
So Paul never challenged Alex Jones on his lucrative lies about the 9/11 attacks is what you’re saying, when you cut through all the poetry and flowery prose. But he did take the time to appear several times on his show and boost his ratings and credibility. That’s what I thought.
BTW, did Rand Paul ever support or endorse any 9/11 truthers running for Congress?
Bags of slop now, too. Are you in the sanitation field? I mean in addition to your side job of writing children’s poetry, of course.
When and where did Ron Paul state that Islam would remain a threat even if we withdrew? You’re up on these things, obviously, so go ahead and give me that quote and straighten me out.
My degenerate and disgusting images you reference are really cleaned up compared to the disdain, disgust, and contempt I feel for a crowd of "leaders" who will mouth platitudes about small government, restrained spending, protection of liberties and state's rights just long enough to sucker in a new crowd. If I said what I really thought of them it would be a race between whether I got banned or God struck me dead at the keyboard. Sorry to be so insulting to your buddies, but my language is nothing compared to the vermin you support.
So Paul never challenged Alex Jones on his lucrative lies about the 9/11 attacks is what you’re saying,
Sure he did. When the subject came up and he was asked about it, he did. Alex Jones never brought up the topic, so it was never discussed on his show, but when people bring it up, Paul addressed it. I do realize that your standards of ethical purity have been refined to such a fever pitch from years as a bootlicker for the Republicans that you cannot conceive of him going on as a guest and not immediately squealing in disgusted outrage and stamping off in a fury, but we will just have to try and live with the shame of that moral stain. Pray for us, ok?
BTW, did Rand Paul ever support or endorse any 9/11 truthers running for Congress?>|
I don't know, to be frank. He may have supported none, or he may have supported as many of them as the RNC supported of serial lying thieves who get "conservative" just long enough to get back into office...., but that is just a guess.
Not quite. When Alex Jones calls for an interview, he's supposed to say "no" and not give the scumbag the time of day.
Simple, eh? I wonder why Ron and Rand Paul never thought of that. Obviously, they think Alex Jones is worth their time, in spite of the fact that he makes his living desecrating 9/11 victims and antagonizing their families with lies.
Which vermin are you referring to, Hemingway? You obviously got this RNC company man bit from somewhere... it certainly isn't some knee-jerk, prefab talking point that Paulbots use against anyone and everyone who opposes them. I'm confident that you've researched this thoroughly and you have an extensive list of RNC/RINO hackery that I've written here, so go ahead and produce it. One or two examples of it will be sufficient... I know you're pressed for time.
Alex Jones never brought up the topic, so it was never discussed on his show
Ah... I see. So as long as the filth and lies that Alex Jones peddles for a living aren't brough up when Ron and Rand come onto his show, he's perfectly sane and it's entirely reasonable and appropriate for them to be there. Got it.
I don't know, to be frank
If the answer was "yes", would you care? Seeing how little the Pauls' associations with the godfather of 9/11 truth bother you, I'm guessing not so much.
When it comes to "Most Evil Journalist Super-Villains", Alex Jones is gonna hafta get back-of-the-line behind the Communist Party apologists and sympathizers at the New York Times, alone. And the hundreds of millions of Communist victims that newspaper has so conveniently... papered over.
And yet, Conservatives will still give an interview to the New York Times, because... it helps get their message out in the public audience. Which is usually why a politician will give an interview to a journalist.
Right. so simple it is stupid. Don't give an interview with the NY Times because they praised Stalin. Don't give interview with WAPO because they backed the Khmer Rouge. Don't appear on CNN because the ex-wife of the founder who no longer owns the station is an abortion monger. Maybe that would be pure enough for you. Never appear in public with a dictator or fascist because that would "lend support." Just unbelievably dumb, because you want to get on the air to MAKE YOUR IDEAS KNOWN, not to avoid contamination. And people say RON PAUL has goofy ideas!!! My God, man!
Your weird claim that I have posted nothing but Paul-related posts. As just one example, what part of Sayonara, Ronnie James Dio had to do with Ron or Rand Paul?
And I am on record. I am unequivocally supporting his opponent in any and every race he ever runs in. I already spelled this out for you in no uncertain terms. But Paulists are notoriously thick. Next time maybe I'll try crayon and really big letters for you.
In supporting the victory of a Democratic Senator who will support the Obama agenda, you're supporting the advance of the Obama agenda just to beat Rand Paul.
And you call "Paul-bots" obsessive.
You're no Conservative, that's for certain.
I am just yanking your chain about being a company man. I don’t know and don’t care. You sound like a tape recorder of the standard RNC talking point crap about Ron Paul, but that may just mean you drink it down and burp like an obedient child, not that they pay you.
As far as Alex Jones goes, I don’t think there is much of ANYONE Ron Paul would refuse to go on, because he believes strongly in the truth of his ideas and that it MATTERS if they are disseminated. I really do not see people linking Paul and the truther stuff because he went on Alex Jones. In fact, the only people I have heard bring it up are the freeper types like yourself who have to wipe foam off their mouths when they say the words “Ron Paul.” I just have to respond sometimes to see if you guys will actually spontaneously combust or something, the mindless hatred is so strong. Anyway, no. Him being on Alex Jones probably bothers him less than being in day to day contact with that sterling set of moral beings we call “Congress.” I think I would feel the same way.
I am off to bed. Got to go oppress the masses tomorrow.
Alex Jones isn't the New York Times, the Washington Post or CNN. He reaches a small handful of paranoid delusional kooks who no politican in their right mind would want to be asscoiated with... which is why no politican in their right mind goes there. Just the Pauls. And Cindy Sheehan, who I guess is considered something of a politician since she ran for Congress.
Using this logic, neither of you would take exception to Ron or Rand sitting down for an interview with, say, Stormfront, right? Maybe Rand can go and thank them for raising all that money for him. It's the least he can do.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. But I'm glad they're trying to manufacture Alex Jones talking points... at least someone, somewhere is beginning to realize it's a problem.
You're no Conservative, that's for certain.
In the bizarro world of Paulestine, where Obama's foreign policy passes for conservatism, I'm okay with that.
Defeating the enemies within is the most important objective. Otherwise, there is no opposition. This too has been explained to you. It didn't take. Oh well.
Right, so, we've established that you lied about that, like I said you had.
Your dishonesty therefore being a mutually acknowledged fact, we'll proceed.
You're no Conservative, that's for certain. ~~ In the bizarro world of Paulestine, where Obama's foreign policy passes for conservatism, I'm okay with that.
But you support Obama's foreign policy -- and his domestic policy. Because you support the election of Senators who advocate Obama's foreign policy -- and his domestic policy.
Defeating the enemies within is the most important objective. Otherwise, there is no opposition. This too has been explained to you. It didn't take. Oh well.
I'd say that those who openly advocate the election of Democrats, qualify pretty well as "The Enemy Within". Troll.
well it is a fact the United States is providing for the defense of almost all of Europe and half of asia and dozens of countries elsewhere, mostly so these governments can then spend money on social programs. THAT is not good.
A quick review of history will show the reason for defending Europe and Asia was containment of communism and was justified.
In the early 80s we had 16 divisions of army. Our military was cut drastically in Europe...and today it could be cut even more. Asia, in another matter, there is a serious threat to SKorea and China is a regional threat.
So, yeah there are more deep cuts that can come, but it isn’t quite the problem you think it is.
I'm sure to "Big Stick" Conservatives it sometimes feels like unilateral disarmament -- in times of extreme fiscal crisis, they're willing to look at Defense cuts to stave off national bankruptcy; but the liberals will defend every dime of their bloated Welfare budgets straight into economic hell.
KY people are “conservative” by nature, meaning cautious. They are not traditional political conservatives but support federal programs. It would be very easy for them to elevate the state attorney general to senator although I don’t think that’s been done recently, as TX did it in 2002. Look for the Demos to demonize Paul, and I hope he will fight back and stop the “reaching out” nonsense that is killing his party.
“He certainly didn’t stand his ground on Medved and that was with friendly questioning; he was all over the map. And Paul’s theory of 9/11/01 being an “inside job” fits right in with Jeremiah Wright and Charlie Sheen.”
Medved is a suspect pseudo conservative. Lying is a liberal tactic. Spreading false rumors is a liberal tactic. Ron Paul has stated over and over and over and over and over and over he DOES NOT believe 911 was an inside job. The question now is, what’s your motive for repeating this lie?
As long as we fight these kinda-sorta "wars" against the small fry, with rules of engagement that tie our military's hands, and the nations who are the source of Islamist insanity remain off limits (in fact we hold hands with and bow to their leaders), then we might as well not be at "war" at all.
We never had an anti-war movement of any consequence in this country until we started fighting these quasi-wars where the objective is to keep things somewhat damped down, while at the same time not offending the UN or the New York Times.
It most certainly does agitate them. So that is certainly amongst a host of motives. I believe they really don't need this, nor any excuse, since for them, any excuse will do. Islamist violence against infidels is imprinted into their DNA.
It's an historically indefensible position. Islamists have been attacking non-Islamists since they crawled out of the slime for one reason: the Satanic handbook delivered by their murderous prophet compels them to. They have a religious duty to be an existential threat to western civilization.
Well, it certainly is a defensible position. However, "they attack us because we are over there attacking them" is only part of the equation. The rest, I am convinced, is like you offer. They are guided by Satan's handbook requiring them to convert, enslave, and/or murder all infidels.
Well put, I completely agree.
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.