View From The Porch
Verbatim Post
Verbatim Post
...but I voted for Rick Santorum, so I can't hear it.
Seriously, Iowa? Seriously? Y'all liked ol' Rearrange-the-Deck-Chairs Rick? Fantastic. We'll be living in yurts, warming our hands over dreary little fires of worthless dollar bills, sending our children to Chinese slave labor camps to pay the national debt, but at least them homos won't be able to get married. The guy with the gross name is more concerned about birth certificates and marriage licenses than stock certificates and business licenses.
In second place we have Obama with an only slightly worse tan. If you vote for Obama, you're voting for a guy who hates guns and loves socialized medicine, whereas if you vote for Romney, you're voting for a guy who loves socialized medicine and hates guns.
In third place, we have the guy who is rapidly becoming the most, if not only, palatable GOP candidate to me, which says more about the rest of the field than it does about Ron Paul. At least his campaign seems to revolve around laws he wants to see repealed rather than ones he wants to see passed. People are yelling that he wants to dismantle the federal government and pull all our troops back to a defensive posture (as though these are bad things) but we're only voting for president here, not priest-king. He's not going to be able to unilaterally do a lot of the things people are afraid he will.
A president can want a lot of stuff, but is lucky to see a tiny fraction of his wishes come true. At least I can find a tiny fraction of Ron's dreams that I wouldn't mind seeing come true myself. We've had both the Legislative and Executive branches pulling on the same end of the rope in the game of Government Growth Tug-o'-War for almost a quarter century. Why not let one guy pull on the other end for a couple years and see what happens? I doubt it'll make much of a difference, but let's at least try flapping our arms a little before we hit bottom. What can it hurt?
C'mon, y'all; let the wookie win.
Seriously, Iowa? Seriously? Y'all liked ol' Rearrange-the-Deck-Chairs Rick? Fantastic. We'll be living in yurts, warming our hands over dreary little fires of worthless dollar bills, sending our children to Chinese slave labor camps to pay the national debt, but at least them homos won't be able to get married. The guy with the gross name is more concerned about birth certificates and marriage licenses than stock certificates and business licenses.
In second place we have Obama with an only slightly worse tan. If you vote for Obama, you're voting for a guy who hates guns and loves socialized medicine, whereas if you vote for Romney, you're voting for a guy who loves socialized medicine and hates guns.
In third place, we have the guy who is rapidly becoming the most, if not only, palatable GOP candidate to me, which says more about the rest of the field than it does about Ron Paul. At least his campaign seems to revolve around laws he wants to see repealed rather than ones he wants to see passed. People are yelling that he wants to dismantle the federal government and pull all our troops back to a defensive posture (as though these are bad things) but we're only voting for president here, not priest-king. He's not going to be able to unilaterally do a lot of the things people are afraid he will.
A president can want a lot of stuff, but is lucky to see a tiny fraction of his wishes come true. At least I can find a tiny fraction of Ron's dreams that I wouldn't mind seeing come true myself. We've had both the Legislative and Executive branches pulling on the same end of the rope in the game of Government Growth Tug-o'-War for almost a quarter century. Why not let one guy pull on the other end for a couple years and see what happens? I doubt it'll make much of a difference, but let's at least try flapping our arms a little before we hit bottom. What can it hurt?
C'mon, y'all; let the wookie win.
Good expression of the widespread, deeply seated frustration across Conservaland over our pathetic choices. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Santorum's "gross name" goes, the gross definition was made up by gay journalist Dan Savage in 2003 because he was irritated by Santorum's socially conservative stance on marriage and family. He created the definition, and then created and publicized a website that trumpeted the made-up definition: libel, pure and simple.
Here's the whole story: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/172069/how-is-rick-santorums-google-bomb-holding-up-now-that-hes-surging-in-the-polls/
Whether Santorum is your guy or not (he's not mine) let's not play into Dan Savage's hands by giving free publicity to his attempt to destroy this man's good name.
Thanks for the link and he's not mine either as I'm in the Ron Paul camp and have been since 2008.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who notices that all the so-called "front-runners" are essentially clones?
ReplyDeleteI'm also really digging the way *ALL* of the so-called "conservative talk" monkeys (possible exception: Andrew Wilkow) are not only viciously attacking RP but his supporters as well?
We all know Hannity's a shill, but I really expected better from Levin. The only way Paul supporters could get on with him was to lie to the call-screener, which he instantly used to discredit them further...
In short, the mantra across *ALL* media - if they acknowledge RP at all - seems to be "He's a racist nutbag and if you support him you have to be a racist nutbag too.
On that note -- can anyone point me to a *FULL* archive of these infamous "newsletters"? I've seen the excerpts speaking harshly of someone who happened to be a "civil rights activist" but the "attack" didn't mention her race or her "work" -- have the republitards jumped on the "anything bad said about any non-white is racism" bandwagon too, now??
Or - rather - is such criticism reserved for RP?
Regardless - seeing their desperation evidenced makes me all the more solid a RP supporter - something I'd not have been otherwise!
And I *KNOW* I am not alone!
KEEP IT COMING, guys!!!
There are only a few comments over the many years that they brought up, so just trolling I believe. He's the only hope, otherwise it's the same old, same old. Levin has lost it.
ReplyDeleteLost it? Naaah -- he's just "in the bag" like the rest of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't really believe ANY of them are honest any more. ALL are under the thumb of TPTB. Even the "madmad" Alex-Jones I believe only exists by their blessing - and they make sure HE says enough crazy-crap so that when he DOES speak the truth, he's discredited.
Heck, they're using him NOW to discredit RP!
:)
ReplyDeleteI was never a Ron Paul supporter in the past and considered him to be a bit of a loon even though some of his core convictions I shared. His views on foreign policy bothered me but I have become more accepting of them in general as I have begun to realize that I had swallowed the neo-con, imperialistic, we are the world's police corp blue pill.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Wilkow I catch at times during the mid day on patriot radio but I tune into Mike Church every morning on my way to work. Church does a great job of presenting and defending Ron Paul's viewpoints and points out that it is not Ron Paul's message that is lacking but his explanations of and defenses of his message that lack at times. At least Ron Paul's message has not change over the years and at least he presents an honest understanding of the Constitution and the oath he has taken.
Well said.
ReplyDelete