You Might Be A Paultard If....

(With all due apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)




.....You've memorized Ron Paul's economic platform, but your supervisor doesn't think you're ready to man the shake machine yet.

.....You fail a remedial history class at the local vo-tech when every one of your answers on the final exam is "Ron Paul".

.....Your mother calls down to your basement "apartment" to tell you that dinner is ready and you scream back, "I'll eat when I'm ready, you Zionist pig! What's the matter, don't you believe in freedom ?"

.....You think bong water is an acceptable alternative to aftershave.

.....You like to tell people that you're the product of Screwy Lewy Rockwell and Cindy Sheehan's trysts.

.....Your every sentence begins with "Only Ron Paul...." and "Ron Paul is the only....."

.....Code Pinko kicks you out of a rally for being a wuss.

.....You throw darts at a picture of Abraham Lincoln.

.....Your head spins around and you spit pea soup when you're within five feet of a synagogue.

.....You know what Ron Paul's first words were, but you can't remember where you left that last hit of heroin.

.....You're dumb enough to call Mark Levin's show and start a sentence with "Only Ron Paul..." and "Ron Paul is the only...." (Yes, this rates two mentions! It's as annoying as it is intellectualy lazy!)


.....You think burqas are sexy.

Reason # 985-B To Think Ron Paul Sucks

There are many reasons to think Ron Paul is a bottom feeder. He refuses to support a Constitutional amendment to protect normal, heterosexual marriage. He voted to turn the United States military into a San Francisco bath house by repealing DADT. He wants to see drugs and prostitution legalized. He thinks Islamo-Nazi Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He surrounds himself with anarchists like Cindy Sheehan's love slave, Screwy Lewy Rockwell. In general, there isn't a sewer RuPaul (H/T: Mark Levin) isn't too proud to hunt for food in.


Then, there's this. From CBS News:

***********************************

"Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the 'ground zero mosque.'

In a statement decrying 'demagogy' around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."

'Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be 'sensitive' requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from 'ground zero,' Paul continues.

He goes on to argue that 'the neo-conservatives' who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia...never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html


************************************

Yes, I know this is old news. No, I'm not breaking any new ground here. However, since Ol' Ru is running for President, this crap should be revisited. (Even Howard "YEAAAAAAAAH!" Dean thought this was a bad idea.)

I don't want to get involved in the technical legalities about whether or not this House of Hatred should or should not be built, since the developers don't seem to have the money for Lincoln Logs, let alone building a gazillion dollar insult. That was beaten to death last year and I don't feel like rehashing it. What I want to focus on is RuPaul's detestable attitude on the matter. (Which is eerirly similiar to Chariman Obama's and Nazi Pelosi's detestable attitude on the matter.)

The above snippet shows, once again, that RuPaul is NOT a Conservative, regardless of what his drug addict followers claim. He's basically an anarchist, and this little episode proves it.

Now, before we get started, I think it's appropriate to explain what I mean by anarchist. I'm not talking in this sense of a bomb-thowing V For Vendetta type. I'm talking about someone who believes they have the right to do what they please when they feel like doing it. That's what RuPaul is advocating here. This has nothing to do with "neo-conservative" war mongering or the religious rights of Muslims. (This is a bare-bones explanation of  RuPaul's mentor Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, which basically states that society should allow individuals to do as they please as long as they can afford to do so.)

A Conservative doesn't believe in any of the above nonsense. A Conservative is a staunch defender of the individual and his rights, but the Conservative also believes in common sense and morality. For example, a Conservative would defend a bar owner's right to allow smoking in his bar, but a Conservative would fight tooth and nail to stop a strip club from opening next to an elementary school or a church. The Conservative fights for limited government, but never for anarchy. The Conservative also believes that while the individual has rights and those rights should be defended at all costs, the individual should use those rights in a responsible manner. In other words, the Conserative may very well want to give the social finger to the driver of a Smart Car with a "Obama 2012" bumper sticker, but he doesn't because he believes in a polite moral society.

Ladies and gentlemen, yes there's a fine line that often gets blurred when it comes to our rights, and I don't claim to have all the answers. But I will tell you this, I sure do understand them better than Ron Paul does.

Are These Conservative Statements ? I Report, You Use Your Common Sense.

One of my many, many pet peeves is the following statement, which is often said by some Paultard stoned out of his mind on some drug or another: "Ron Paul is the only Conservative running for President!" To me, this is is like fingernails on a chalkboard or watching the latest offering from the FOX Neocon Channel (FNC).

Let's take a look at some of RuPaul's (H/T: Mark Levin) "Conservative" thoughts. Let's put this moronic theory to the test, shall we ?


***********************************

"I don't think it's very good sign for civilization to still be invoking the death penalty. . . .

If you believe in the death penalty, what I really object to is the doctors participating in torture, and doctors who are there to make it smooth and sweet.

'Oh, let's put him to sleep.' If it's a death penalty, do it on Times Square, see 'em get their head chopped off and see how all the people, see how much they like it, make 'em look at it. I think it's uncivilized."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/274807/the-death-penalty-i-think-its-uncivilized?SESSfdf0ee00c1e0052deac90b8b68f883a7=google&page=full


***********************************

"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

***********************************

"I would like to express my concerns over the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and my opposition to it being brought to the Floor for a vote. Let us be clear on one critical matter: the sanctions against Iran mandated by this legislation are definite steps toward a US attack on Iran. They will also, if actually applied, severely disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, thereby harming our national security.

I am surprised and disturbed that the committee viewed this aggressive legislation to be so bipartisan and uncontroversial that a recorded vote was not even called.

Some may argue that we are pursuing sanctions so as to avoid war with Iran, but recent history teaches us otherwise. For how many years were sanctions placed on Iraq while we were told they were necessary to avoid war? Thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered and died under US sanctions and still the US invaded, further destroying the country. Are we safer after spending a trillion dollars or more to destroy Iraq and then rebuild it?

These new sanctions against Iran increasingly target other countries that seek to trade with Iran. The legislation will severely punish foreign companies or foreign subsidiaries of US companies if they do not submit to the US trade embargo on Iran. Some 15 years after the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 failed to bring Iran to its knees, it is now to be US foreign policy to threaten foreign countries and companies. "


http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul777.html


***********************************

"Ten years ago, shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on U.S. soil, taking nearly 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorists that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe.

This is ironic and sad considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are – a free prosperous people – that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win. Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the 9/11 attacks, and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism, is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life, neither is it our religion or our wealth – rather it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometown, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much."


http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul764.html


***********************************


Ladies and gentlemen, is this even remotely Conservative thought ? For that matter, is this even American thought ? Would William F. Buckley have written the above crap ? Would Ronald Reagan have spewed the above filth from his mouth ? Would Barry Goldwater have blamed the United States for 9/11 ?  Absolutely not.


Folks, the bottom line is this: Our beloved Republic is on the brink of utter disaster. There are God knows how many Islamo-Nazis who want to slaughter every man, woman, and child in America who refuses to submit their will to Allah. We have the neo-Marxist left becoming more and more violent by the day. Yes, a great deal of our problems are economic in nature, and yes, RuPaul is occasionally right about what to do about them. However, Conservatism is more than chanting "smaller government and lower taxes" like an automaton. It's a mindset that also includes a belief in justice, a belief in family, and defending the nation.