RON PAUL 08!

It’s not selling out. Pandering to special interests based on abitrary gender/gender choice/race issues is no longer a luxury that Americans can afford.

That divisive crap has been killing us for far too long.

“No more Mr. Nice Faggot here, folks.”

A little self-dignity might help to ameliorate the rage.

And even if he met your demands to retain your support (which I doubt he ever had in the first place), there would still others for whom nothing short of a marathon self-flogging (a la ‘Dog’ the Bounty Hunter) would be enough to attain atonement for the sin of not being politically correct. I say good for Paul for not caving in to the PC police (whose ranks you apparently populate) on this.

“Bill Clinton repudiated Sister Soljah. George H.W. Bush repudiated David Duke. Pat Buchanan repudiated the white nationalists every time they backed him for his presidential runs. Why can’t Ron Paul?”

Let me get this straight, the fact that Paul doesn’t do something slimy career politicians Clinton and Bush did makes Paul unacceptable. Let’s just think about that one.

They’re willing to sell out gays, women, immigrants, urban residents, and others to predation by the state if it’s a “state’s rights” argument — solely to satisfy their gold-bug fetishes and other pet issues.

I’m glad that other libertarians are calling out this odious man’s odious campaign for the apologia for statism that it truly is.

His willingness to transform his campaign into a money machine — and worse, the idiotic stupor in his followers that blinds him to this obvious goal — is exceeded in awfulness only by the sheer lack of principle of his most angry followers.

I’ve tried to be nice to them. I’ve saved my criticism for his campaign. But after today, I’m going to start to point out the obvious.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who make “states’ rights” arguments for government oppression of citizens.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who are happy to trade off the rights of gays, or women, to get political advantage for themselves.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who will make common cause with neo-Nazis, racists, and insane morons like David Duke and Alex Jones, and defend them as though the criticism of them is without basis.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who will blatantly lie and claim, as part of their campaigns, that the “Libertarian Party endorses Ron Paul.”

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who are willing to bullyrag other libertarians into silence, or explain to them how their rights are “a narrow cross-section of civil rights” — as though they’re under obligation to sell out their own freedom to right-wing nuts in exchange for some gold-buggery.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who are willing to spam and relentlessly attack critics of their Holy God, without regard for the facts, with a singular mission of power for themselves.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who are willing to attack other libertarian (and Libertarian) candidates who are actually MORE libertarian than their own.

There’s something morally defective about “libertarians” who raise millions of dollars in campaign cash, but spend virtually none of it on the actual campaign. There’s something even more morally defective about refusing to commit to return the unspent money to contributors at the campaign’s end.

No more Mr. Nice Faggot here, folks. From now on, your immoral campaign will be pointed out for what it is. Your immoral friends, your blood money from nazis, racists and anti-Semites, your affiliations with crazy fringe groups in favor of state power being used to crush the “unworthy,” and your willingness to apologize for all of these betray your fundamental immorality.

You can scream, cry, attack me in public, spam the site until you’re green in the face, huff and puff and blow our collective houses down, but your cacophony of rage and bullying will not cover up your moral defectiveness *and* your lack of character, in teaming up with the lowest of the low and shrugging off your principles in order to get a little power for yourselves at others’ expense.

May your campaign fail brilliantly — as it already is. And may history forget you called yourselves “libertarians.”

Ron Paul is a moonbat, and his supporters are more like rabid little attack poodles than anything else…

Yesterday I ran a couple of anti Ron Paul stories as an experiment, and all of these so-called FREEDOM LOVERS sent me some of the nastiest comments imaginable, and I spent ALL of my life as a Marine or working in a law enforcement environment and I have heard it all, or thought I had…

The Paulies DEMANDED that I accept their stance and told me, TOLD ME, to STFU, in my own blog, not in one of theirs, not in a Ron Paul blog, in MY OWN BLOG, they sought to infringe on MY right to free speech…

Yea, neo-NAZI is a very good description of these moonbats…

Kudos to you…

It’s not where a candidate appears that is important. It’s what he says in the appearance. If he agrees with the agenda of every news outlet he appears on, then he is a panderer. If he simply and consistently speaks his message, then he should not be castigated for speaking the good message through a microphone owned by the objectionable.

Every one of these news outlets has been accused of having a hidden political agenda while masquerading as unbiased and “fair and balanced”.

Continued…

Shrugs, why? Because I shouldn’t send people there? They can find his link on their own easily enough. Or because I shouldn’t give him a link?

To avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. I’m sure you know that modern search engines work by creating associations between sites and you’ve stated several times that you don’t wish to associate yourself with Mr. Duke.

Aside from that, I merely pointed out the range of well known people that had left comments on our site. Although not as badly out of context as some newspapers are wont to do, it’s still a nice bit of twisting by Dan.

I have no hostility towards you, but I read it the same way Dan did. It was an odd place to mention a man with whom you do not wish to associate.