Posted on 01/09/2008 8:54:49 AM PST by connell
Leave. Just go.
Mr. Paul, you are NOT a Republican. You may have views that intersect with some aspects of the Republican platform. That does NOT make you a Republican.
The Republican Party is a big tent movement. We don't apply nearly the same strictness when it comes to tests of ideological purity as the Democrats do, but we still have some standards. And you, sir, do not even come close to meeting them.
People who blame America for the acts of war made against it are not Republicans.
People who think that we blew up our own buildings on 9/11...or who hint that we might have...or who attract the support of people with such beliefs...are not Republicans.
People who may be receiving secret funding from George Soros...and who certainly receive energy and succor from radical leftists...are not Republicans.
People who have become the darling of, and the recipient of support from, America's neo-Nazis and white supremacists---and who refuse to openly repudiate that support---are not Republicans.
And people who publish racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American newsletters...are not Republicans.
Oh, and your protestations of innocence regarding this racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American newsletter to which you attached your name are absurd. As Jonah Goldberg said yesterday on the Michael Medved show, if...
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
Run Paul could be president of the moonbat party and Kucinich could be vice president.
The thread is about Ron Paul and why (according to the author) he should leave the Republican Party. The articles uses data that implies he may be a racist and antisemitic to bolster that argument.
That implication has nothing to do with partisan politics, nor does it have anything to do with Republican political philosophy. It DOES have to do with what I referred to as the 'seedy underbelly of human existence'. Thus the implication that Ron Paul is more Republican than other candidates can be seen to imply that Republicans by definition are racist and antisemitic.
If you want to leave that implication on the table, then I question your Republican credentials.
Question them all you want. I am a republican. I owe no allegiance or support to the Republican Party beyond the degree to which they share that philosophy. Party names don't mean squat.
That will be the only good thing about a Rudy nomination, sneering at these party hacks as I sit out or vote 3rd party.
Rudy is a globalist.
“We have to be very careful here. We’re discussing the seedy underbelly of human existence. The last thing we should want to have happen is the implication that through his Republicanism, any individual’s penchant for racism or antisemitism lends credence to Republican acceptance.”
I’m a Jew who doesn’t think he’s an antisemite.
Bush I have my doubts about! After all, look at how he kowtows to the Pali terrorists.
Paul is no racist either.
I guess now The New Republic is the paper of note for RINO followers.
You may be right, but my gut feeling is that if Paul is getting support from the left wing nutroots, Soros money is there.
“One guy even said that Paul supporters were a cancer upon the GOP that needed to be cut ou”
That’s nothing.
One told another poster his son should be shot for treason for supporting Paul!
Then why call yourself a Republican? Ron Paul himself is more libertarian than Republican. Why don't you both be honest with yourselves, and us, and state what you really are?
Since party names don't mean squat, what's wrong with admitting you are a libertarian?
You so easily call someone who disagrees with you a RINO, yet you have no idea what that person's beliefs are.
I have never been, nor ever will be a RINO. I believe in small government, countering illegal immigration, am pro-life, and will never accept marriage between two males or two women. I am 64 years old and have been a voting Republican all my adult life. But because I don't accept Ron Paul as a viable candidate I'm called a RINO by you. So much you know.
Take your attacks and shove them up your you-know-what. They're infantile and laughable.
I wish all of that would fit into my tagline :)
I didn't call myself a Republican. The political philosophy of "republicanism" is the belief in and support of a republican form of government, not a belief in and support of the platform and policies of the Republican Party. They are not the same thing, and seem to be becoming increasingly quite different.
Which is exactly what I’ve said for months around here - Republicans need Paul voters. Paul voters do NOT need Republicans.
It would behoove the establishment to make nice.
Well, actually he doesn’t, but don’t let the truth stand in the way of your capitalized rant.
Fred D. Thompson. Not Rudy, not Prawn Pawl.
I didn't call myself a Republican.
Well you did, but admittedly in the broader sense. But this just goes back to my question. Since the Republican platform and policies as set forth are disagreeable to you, why don't you call yourself a libertarian? Answer me that.
Dr. Paul a) isn’t a racist and b) didn’t write any of the things that are being attributed to him.
Why must Paul-bashers lie about him? Is it too difficult to discuss his actual stance on actual issues?
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.