Right
You're more a brain dead monkey.
Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."
The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."
Some already have, blaming him for 9/11 because he pulled American soldiers out of the Middle East.
You must have a strong stomach to stick around your Stormfront web site long enough to analyze all that. I looked at the first few posts there and saw that a lot of skinheads don’t think Ron Paul is one of their own.
You are trying to use the old guilt by association smear, even though there IS no association, it seems.
Can't conceivably be "my" Stormfront site. I don't support their candidate for the presidency.
You spent a lot of time there and you’ve posted the link several times without warning people where you were sending them.
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
Why would Salzberger and his henchmen and surrender monkeys at the New York Slimes go out of their way to devote a good portion of their Sunday magazine to a GOP candidate who A. Agrees with their Iraq War position and B. Has at the very least an uphill battle to get the GOP nomination?
That is a very good question.
I'm sure those misunderstood Islamists would however. If only we would not have made them so mad.
I wonder why it is, since Ron Paul has “no chance”, that so many on this forum feel the need to expend so much energy to see he doesn’t end up being the next president of the United States.
Like they turned on William F. Buckley in this thread.
Our conservative icons are more likely to be demonized on this site these days then the most leftist democrat is. This is how neo-conservatism is reshaping the G.O.P.
How can any decent human being who also happens to be a member of Freerepublic NOT see the insanity of propagating kook conspiracies?
When I find that I must repeat myself to yet another Paulistinian who comes along, I can still never understand just how bizarre this world can be.
It is not exclusive to sane or a Freeper. One can be both.
I think that this is not only my perception, but the perception of the majority of this forum, and those behind it.
Ron Paul is for smaller government...blah blah. That sentiment is shared by all here. What seperates the men from the girls is when you blame America, surround yourself with kook conpiracists, and propagate "Gulf of Tonkin" tin-foiled hat crap.
Take this junk somewhere else.
I have seen the phrase “paleo conservative” used as a form of derision in the forum lately.
Maybe, but at least I'm not a surrender monkey.
Right
You're more a brain dead monkey.
He is saying that libertarianism is the canvas which Conservatism is made from.
I'll bet you were pissed when Reagan bombed Libya eh? The Islamist loved us until Reagan bombed Libya right?
< /thick sarcastic laughter >
Ah, the wonderful sophmore year in high school!
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.