I've got hundreds of posts on FreeRepublic. Find the "zionist lobby" posts of mine if you're going to continue to call me anti-semitic.
Of all the things going on in the world, why post a loony-tunes, conspiratorial screed?
Because there are points in here I think are worthy of discussion: Is the Republican Party now a globalist party as the writer contends? Do conservatives intend to leave the party if the Republicans continue with what seems to be a globalist agenda? Are Tancredo, Hunter and Paul the only conservatives in the race, as the writer contends?
Go back and look at my first post on this thread, these are the two issues I pulled out because these were my focus.
I'm not very familiar with the European parties this guy talks about, and while I know Le Pen in France is anti-semitic (I was under the impression most of the French are), that never entered into my consideration when I posted this article. Since the immigration deal was struck, a lot of people have been saying they're done with the Republican party. That hardly makes them anti-semites.
You drove the nail even harder when you posted Ron Paul campaign ad transcripts, in toto, verbatim.
I absolutely support Ron Paul on his domestic policies, and among conservatives, I'm not alone there. Prior to Paul coming out with his anti-war stance, Paul was a hero to many conservatives on this forum. For his firm stance on the federal government abiding by the Constitution, he remains one of the few decent politicians in my opinion. What is it exactly about the Constitution that you don't support?
You didn't come into this thread until post 120. By then, I'd already made clear my position on Paul. I disagree with him in his positions on the WOT. I'd said that before you ever started your nasty diatribe against me. But Paul's opinions on domestic issues are grounded in the Constitution and mainstream conservative principles. As you well know I posted those three pieces straight from his website to give you an opportunity to show how he's a kook and on the fringe. You haven't touched it, you know those principles are conservative, you know they're not "fringe" positions so you just ignore it.
Though I do suspect they are positions you can't support. I think you're a globalist, and I think you find no fault in the current size and scope of the federal government.
You attacked me personally, over and over again, without the least bit of evidence to support your absurd claims. I have a long posting history that's easily accessible. If I am what you say I am, then use my words to prove it.
Otherwise, apologize.
A does not lead to B here, and is representative of the tack you’ve taken throughout. Any attempt to follow the logic of that statement takes one to an immediate dead end.
Ron Paul is a 9-11 Truther. A ‘decent politician’ is not one who believes the attacks on our country by Islamic extremists were part of a vast US governmental conspiracy. By doing so, he immediately discredits himself and all those who support him, in whole or in part. The BNP in Britain is a bastion of neo-facists. The author of the article you posted wouldn’t know a conservative from a carrot. Endorse the author’s views and you make yourself suspect as a fellow-traveler, in the very least.
I won’t go tit-for-tat with a conspiracy theorist. It’s like arguing with a neo-confederate about ‘The War of Northern Aggression’. What I will do, as I have done, is call you and others like you out and force you to defend your position with something approaching rational discourse. Admittedly, it is difficult to remain emotionally detached when dealing with someone holding paranoid, deranged, and/or repugnant ideas, but I don’t apologize for that, either. One should get angry when dealing with defenders of 9-11 conspiracy theories, for example. One should make such people objects of unbridled ridicule and sarcasm. Such people should know the derisive laughter they hear when leaving a room is at them, not with them.
It’s been fun.