See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul
Source:
townhall.com
URL Source: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ ... ervative_case_against_ron_paul
Published: Jun 15, 2007
Author: John Hawkins
Post Date: 2007-06-15 13:14:23 by can of corn
Keywords: None
Views: 394
Comments: 33
Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy! #1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues. #2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008. #3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done. #4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues. Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." ..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said. ...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks. "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote." Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul. #5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy). #6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties. #7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same. #8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here." #9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election. Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: can of corn (#0)
Wow. Another can of bullshit about Ron Paul. I've got some free time, so I'll just dissect this awful bit of Giuliani spam for kicks. No references, no cheating, just right off the top of my head: Can of Crap's first bullet point (He recognizes that the Republican base rank and file cannot read without numbers and outlines and headings and stuff) #1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: Errrm... No. He's a libertarian conservative. He is opposed to abortion rights (libertarians support them) he's opposed to gay marriage (libertarians favor free marriage for all) he's against open borders (libertarians favor them) and he's got other conservative credentials that outweigh and compete with his natural libertarian inclination. The problem here is that the writer doesn't know the difference between being a conservative and a state- worshipping fascist, and he's quite right that RP is no fascist. "In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress..." Okay, this is just bullshit. He consistently gets noted as the most conservative member of congress. Again, the writer confuses toting the party's fascist baggage for being conservative. "#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy (theory) sic: ... Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories ..." That "conspiracy theory" shit won't wash here. Folks are aware of the trade deals entered into since Nafta and the trucking deals and the hub planned for mexican trucks in middle America. It ain't a conspiracy theory, its a fact that you don't want to see the light of day if you are an establishment neocon apparatchik. Like the writer of this drivel. #3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement,"... He hasn't been "flirting" with anyone. He's stated clearly and publicly that the government's conspiracy theory is the one he's willing to adopt. With that flimsy theory taken as a given, he's called for examination of the causes of 9- 11 BEYOND the ridiculous "they hate us 'cause we free" pablum that is spoonfed the public by the neocon apparatchiks. Or, in your view, he's too smart and honest to be a Republican. On that score you may be right. "#4) Ron Paul's racial views ..." Oh for Pete's sake. You think Ron Paul is a racist? This is just the typical underhanded ad hominem attack we've come to expect from the GOP insiders and Giuliani. And you delivered. "Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." A: This is true. If you've ever been robbed by any teen-age male they are rocket-fast, and just about every olympic sprinter who's won a medal in the last fifty years is black. Is this an insult to blacks? "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said." Anyone not out to do a hit piece on Ron Paul would recognize that this is a criticism of the criminal justice system and the statistical analysis given of DC at the time. He's not literally saying all the blacks in DC are criminals, he's saying that the eff'd up way the DC police handled their cases would lead you to that conclusion. "RP: "...black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." It is a bit ironic that a so-called "conservative" would be critical of this statement, that some kids are so bad that they should be treated as adults. This is a very conservative position. The "black" part of the comment was in the context in which the statement was made, appropriate, as the discussion was in regard to black street gangs and the treatment of the offenders therein as adults. "#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating:" LOL. As opposed to Bush supporters who are known for their soothing and respectful way of dealing with others. "for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together." (it annoys the writer to see someone thinking independently, apparently) "It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul" Ah yes, the "spammers support Paul" line you got from FOX News. It's funny that you find people reading about him, educating themselves, learning his positions and coming to support him "annoying", but you don't find it annoying to hear the same old dry parroted talking points repeated ad nauseum from the talking heads on FOX to the White House to Rush Pillbox to Sean Hannazi to Mann Coulter. You parrot them yourself, and think you're being original. (which is, I must admit, NOT a novel strategy). #6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. This point reflects such a lack of understanding of history that it doesn't bear refutation. Suffice it to say that it was Wilson's interventionism that lead to the Balfour Declaration, the Versailles Treaty and nearly endless mischief since. And RP is NOT an isolationist. He's a non-interventionist. The fact that you can't tell the difference between trading fairly and vigorously with the world and building military bases all over it demonstrates again, the simple stupidity of this view. #7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Okay, just the fact that you use "cut and run" in a point demonstrates that you are little more than a parrot. As for the rest of it, some 70% of Americans want us to leave Iraq right now. How is this an electoral liability? Oh. It isn't. It will actually divide the anti-war base and might actually get a Republican in the White House in '08. This should be a positive, unless you have a vested interest in continuing this abortion of a war launched by our idiot-in-chief. "#8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al- Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11," Okay, so we know whose team you are on, Mr. Giuliani supporter. If this clumsy, deceitful and idiotic piece is an example of Giuliani's foray into the internet, you'd better sharpen your pens. This is drivel that internet folks can shred easily. "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda." No, you fucktard. He didn't use those "other words". He said what he said and get a clue. It is TRUE. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we've been fucking around in their back yard for nearly sixty years. Idiots like you and Bush and Cheney think they can continue to fuck around in the Middle East without any consequences. "This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger ..." No. "They hate us for our fweedoms" is the sort of facile comment we've come to expect. But it comes from the likes of YOU, the obedient fascist right, not the wacky left. "If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here." Heh. We were attacked by Saudis and we attacked Iraqis in reply. We've already seen foolish thinking, but it's been from your posse. The fact that you don't see the almost deliberate-looking irony in this point is what's funny. "#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party..." Then why does he have you pissing down your leg? "Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities...." That's odd. Because just the other day you posted a can of cornholing that said he was for open borders style immigration. Odd how your position is evolving. Maybe in a few weeks you'll be able to pen a credible hatchet job on Ron Paul with a lot of feedback. But this ain't even close. You've misjudged your audience by quite a long shot. The days when you could have an impact with empty slogans like "war on terror" "cut and run" "hate us cause we're free" "liberal extremists" and all that crap are OVER. People are smarter than you think, and we're educating ourselves and coming around. If you want to do a hatchet job on RP in a place where this crap is effective, try posting it at Free Republic. There are still a couple of diehards there. As for the rest of us, we've wised up. That shit don't sell.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Thanks for this one. Nice job blowing Hawkins' pantload outta the water.
Translation: Even though the Republican Establishment and media are doing everything they can to ignore Ron Paul, he continues to gain grassroots support, so now we must address this issue. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. Translation: Paul does not support an unbridled, irresponsible imperial foreign policy. He also does not support torture or the Patriot Act and he has never voted for a tax increase. Oh, and unlike Rudy McRomney, he is truly pro-life, pro-First Amendment and pro-Second Amendment. Of course these positions put him at odds with the "conservatives" in the GOP, I suppose. #2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008. #3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done. Translation: Ron Paul represents the views of millions of Americans whose voices have been lost in a sea of corporatism, unbridled illegal immigration, the constant fear of terrorism, and the selling of jobs overseas. Thus, CLEARLY he is a kook, an extremist, dangerous to the GOP, etc. Yawn. Heard all this before. Been there, done that. ...Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet- footed they can be." Boy, ain't that the truth! #5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy). This piece is titled "The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul." So because a few of his supporters are "annoying" (more like "enthusiastic"), that makes Paul not a conservative? Ok, sure. #6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties. Haha! Is the GOP still in denial about so-called "isolationism"? For Pete's sake, the foreign policy of the mainstream GOP has failed miserably! Probably 70% of the country now disagrees with GOP foreign policy, and they expect to carry this issue to victory next November? Good luck with that! Besides, when did an unbridled, unrestrained, budget munching foreign policy become a "conservative" position? What are they trying to "conserve", other than perhaps their oil cronies' wallets? #8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al- Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. Another lie by Mr. Hawkins. Paul destroyed Guiliani in that exchange, and the post-debate polls showed it. If Americans want to become embedded in war for the next 50 years under constant Faux Snooze "Terror Alert Elevated" warnings, then by all means continue to follow the path of Jorge Rudy McRomney. The Republican Party is a sinking ship if it continues to follow this path. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election. The opposite is actually true. This election has been rigged to set up a Hillary presidency. Many Americans are looking for a maverick candidate; someone to shake up the system a bit. Rudy McRomney and the other losers in the GOP field are GUARANTEED LOSERS to the Democrats. People are so fed up with the Republican Party that they will vote for just about ANY Democrat, even Hillary or Obama. Michael Dukakis, Geraldine Ferraro and Walter Mondale would defeat Rudy McRomney this election cycle. Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Um, like, yeah? And, like, aren't those all true conservative principles? The GOP, as pathetic as it is, had better wake up and smell the roses because "The Fix is in" and every Republican sans Ron Paul WILL lose to any Democratic nominee. Paul offers the alternative that Americans hunger for; a return to the principles and values that brought so many people into the fray of the Republican Party during the Reagan landslides. So, Mr. Hawkins, a Paul candidacy is the only way to regain all those disenchanted Americans who have abandoned your party. In fact, it is the only way that the GOP can regain its prominence. Otherwise, you're on a sinking ship. And if the ship's going down anyway, why not have a little fun in the process with Captain Ron Paul? As The Grateful Dead sing, "I might be going to Hell in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying the ride."
This is the same incoherent anti-Ron Paul line they've been spewing at Free Republic. If you think RP is wrong on this, then you must believe that Osama and crew simply picked the US as a terrorism target at random.
RON PAUL 2008! Do you expect any better from http://townhall.com? Most of their writers double as the Bush administration's shills on Fox News when they aren't typing their johnny- one-note internet columns.
excellent rebut! welcome to 4, Vitamin Z. ;)
That kind of sums it up. Thanks for taking the time to trash his can.
Thanks. Looks like bluedog beat me to the punch, though!
In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. To be fair to Ron Paul, the author is being dishonest here or completely ignorant. Bin Laden himself explained that he began his attacks on America as a response to US foreign policy including keeping troops in Saudi Arabia and the aftermath of the first Gulf War.
I wonder what Kornhole's name is on FRaud? Proof he's a shill. He even uses their talking points because, as a shill, he is unable or unwilling to think for himself.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition because everyone in the mainstream republicrat party and can of corn wants to legalise cloning so they can bring karl marx and joseph stalin back and give them a lewninsky until thier stomackh is so full they have to get it pumped ? am i close ? You pack of jackasses wouldnt know what the american constitution says or means if god and jesus came down to earth and patted you on the back and said that right there is what i was saying in the bible itself. Get the hell to du you marxist prick. I'm sick of your bullshit and im damn tired of you posting ati rp storys just so you can get a few dollars from your master the cross dresser look i dont blame you i wouldnt wanto be tied up to a fence and whipped with a cat o nine tails like kunta kentay either but you backed your whore in the repugnantcrap primary so you have to obey his terms he laid out to you whenyou first signed on and he explained the rules of what would happen to you if you didnt get him a push in the polls after 3 debates after he started this crusade.Now you are going to haveto take your licks like a man and then quit his campiagn and back an american constitutionlist or move to china its your choice choose wisely
EXCELLENT REBUTTAL!
Ron Paul. President. Spread the Word.
BRAVO!!
Ron Paul. President. Spread the Word.
"They" are terrified by Ron Paul.
Ron Paul. President. Spread the Word.
The ONLY reason the Libertarians do so badly in elections is because the Republicrats have so throughly rigged the system. This falls under the heading of "dipped in shit, and slapped for stinking". Anyways, I don't know why the elites are even pretending to be worried about Ron Paul. We all know the system is totally rigged, and that only total corporate sockpuppets have any chance of being elected to any office, let alone the presidency. Then come November, all the good little sheeple trudge down to the rigged polls and vote for the corporate cocksucker of their choice. After all, that's the American way! Now wave that flag and try to not notice it was made in China, like everything else sold in this country.
#2. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
#3. To: can of corn (#0)
Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul.
#4. To: can of corn (#0)
Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
#5. To: can of corn (#0)
#6. To: rdwwww (#4)
#7. To: Vitamin Z (#3)
#8. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
Then why does he have you pissing down your leg?
#9. To: christine (#7)
excellent rebut! welcome to 4, Vitamin Z. ;)
#10. To: can of corn (#0)
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
#11. To: rdwwww (#4)
This is the same incoherent anti-Ron Paul line they've been spewing at Free Republic
#12. To: can of corn (#0)
I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul
#13. To: Vitamin Z (#3)
#14. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
#15. To: christine (#7)
#16. To: can of corn (#0)
Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988.
 | Capitalism is NOT an economic system, it's a RELIGION for ASSHOLES! |
#17. To: can of corn (#0) (Edited)
I thought Zip was gonna ban this Can of Crap. I put this idiot on bozo but it looks like I might still encounter an occasional plagiarized, Hannitized, shit screed, too embarrassing for publication even in a propaganda rag like the Limbaugh letter or Fusion. Frankly, I wouldn't care if Ron Paul was an escaped alien from area-51. The DEMS and REPS have so screwed this country down that anyone with a Constitutional approach is preferable to what we've had for 100 years. The Republicans and Democrats have either allowed Bush to enact presidential directives or legislated draconian measures themselves to build such a police state here in America that I would support Osama Bin Laden if he committed to the deconstruction of homo-land insecurity and the federal reserve which supplies the fake money to build all of this shit. The political divide in this country is re-shaping itself. The party line is fading because people from what is called left and right are meeting in the center, where Ron Paul can win. People are sick and tired of the D.C. stench put off by both parties. Republicans are telling their shrinks that they feel like a battered spouse because the Republican leadership has shit in their face for 6 years, while Democrats are getting a similar feeling having elected a new bunch of Dem liars that thusfar have been stronger supporters of Bush policies than Bush himself. Months into the presidential campaign the "spin team" of paid shit slingers and poopagada shills can't find any dirt on Ron Paul, can't dispute his voting record, can't harm his reputation by repeating his position on the Iraq fiasco, can't mention his disgust with the Federal Reserve and the IRS, can't get the mainstream radio jocks to do more than ignore Paul because his positions are the ones they're supposed to support but don't, can't mention his adherence to the constitution, and certainly can't mention that he is more constitutionally conservative than any of his opponents, are reduced to distributing transparent crap disguised as a Can of Corn. Listening to the talk radio morons of late it's obvious that the powers that be want one of the three top tier fake Republicans or Hillary to be the next President. [Oh GOD, if we don't win Hitlery will be president is their daily mantra.] No President in history has done more to destroy the core of this country than Bush. He's so bent on destroying shit that he's destroyed his own party. The article posted by Can of Porn is another "Republican" attack on Ron Paul. Use of terms like "Reaganesque sweep", "cut and run", "North American Union conspiracy", and inferences to the Ghouliani attack were probably written by bolshevik Michael Medved for disgustingly disingenous dipshits like Can of Corn to post on the internet. enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President The author then pulls out all the stops with the above statement. Considering the Bush Administration today, and Klinton's before him, enormous flaws appears to be what qualified them for president. Looks like the Republicans are crapping their pants to me.
Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
Bush 41 to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
#18. To: Elliott Jackalope (#16)
This statement should read ... Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most politicians because fascism or communism are their preferences. Then come November, all the good little sheeple trudge down to the rigged polls and vote for the corporate cocksucker of their choice. I have no argument with this statement ... I just wanted to see if you wouldn't mind being a little more descriptive next time, holding nothing back and tell us how you really feel.
Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans.
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
Bush 41 to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
#19. To: rdwwww (#4)
That is the worst conspiracy theory out there ... 9-11 was an inside job !!!
If you think RP is wrong on this, then you must believe that Osama and crew simply picked the US as a terrorism target at random.
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
Bush 41 to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
#20. To: can of corn (#1)
Stick that in your cornhole and ROTATE!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#21. To: can of corn (#3)
Stick that in your cornhole and ROTATE!
Scene #2
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#22. To: noone222, can of corn (#17)
Looks like the cornholer needs to stick this and ROTATE!
Looks like the Republicans are crapping their pants to me.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#23. To: BTP Holdings (#22)
Whomever he works for must think we need to waste more of our time. Where do they find these morons, the unemployment office or under bridges ?
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
Bush 41 to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
#24. To: noone222 (#23)
I was thinking more along the lines of what they dredged up from the cesspool out back.
Where do they find these morons, the unemployment office or under bridges ?
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#25. To: BTP Holdings (#24)
No shit !
cesspool
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
Bush 41 to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
#26. To: BTP Holdings (#24)
By the way, do you have any idea where these "fucktards" are coming from ???
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
Bush 41 to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
#27. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
Great post. You da man.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#28. To: can of corn (#0) (Edited)
You have posted irrefutable evidence that post-911 "conservatism" is certifiably insane. Arguing that Ron Paul is not conservative is like arguing that the sky is not blue. Your posting clearly demonstrates that today's "conservatives" are not conservative at all. They are dangerous radicals at war with freedom, our Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the birthright of every American. They conserve nothing but the lawless unchecked power of their delusional Dear- Leader-du-jour. Their reflexive fascism yields nothing good, but only tyranny, impoverishment, corruption, overt criminality, globe-wide wars and mass death.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#29. To: bluedogtxn, Vitamin Z (#1)
Well done! He still has nothing to say to either of you in reply. Don't expect one, he's clearly not here to explore the truth, he's probably a paid shill, here to spread disinfo, but he's not very good at it.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Ron Paul for President
#30. To: can of corn, christine (#0)
We need a title fix in aisle 3! Shouldn't this read: The Neo-Fascist Case Against Ron Paul?
Enemies of the Republic
#31. To: can of corn (#0)
In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. "In other words" my ass. With nothing but these two sentences one can see that Ron Paul didn't what this GOP propgandist claims he said. Personally, if I were forced to stoop this low, and to be this transparent in smearing someone, I would have opted to simply not to publish the article. I think we are seeing an interesting effect here: After years of defending obviously scummy scumbags, this GOP shill has lost all sense of pride and decency.
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
.
#32. To: can of corn (#0)
Woe to the person with the cajones to tell the truth, for the GOP propaganda machine will use it against them. Where did this shill come from anyway? Hayes Kansas? I would suggest that he spend a day hanging around Compton or Southeast DC. I'd be more inclined to listen to him after he had a little reality training.
...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
.
#33. To: noone222, christine (#26)
I'm not sure, but some of this stuff cornholer is posting is so old it has cobwebs on it. I think they are retread PSYOP people. Maybe a few are CluelessPussies. Those whackjobs are always a concern for their disruptive activities. Best thing we can do is keep banning them when they expose themselves. They all have the same MO from what I see. And they just keep lying even after you blow their shit away.
any idea where these "fucktards" are coming from ???
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest