We also must lose the mentality that any third party candidate is going to be president any time before all of us here are dust. It's a nice try to just make Bush and Obama seem the same to bolster fringe candidates in the future. A large part of Bush's spending was on a just war, defending liberty. I'm not interested in putting a price tag on that. Secondly, social conservatism is far more important than fiscal conservatism. It's big perk if a politician/candidate is fiscally conservative but spending more money than I would like them too is quite forgivable if they align with me on social issue.
Regarding Ron Paul, he will never ever be president. Voting for him or anyone like him is a waste of a vote and makes you just as responsible for Obama's brand of liberals winning elections as people who actually voted for the liberals.
I have to presume this man actually believes what he says, as it is a rare man who openly issues a stream of such bald lies and expects to receive anything but ridicule.
He states: "It's a nice try to just make Bush and Obama seem the same to bolster fringe candidates in the future." "Fringe?" Really? Does this man contend that probity is only found in parties of large membership? If so, that's a formidable non sequitur, as parties of large membership have committed some of the greatest acts of genocide ever seen on Earth. Further, how is "fringe" calculated? The Libertarians, Socialists, Marxists, Greens, etc. all have millions of members, apiece, and Socialists, worldwide, vastly outnumber the ranks of American Republicans. When taken in a global view, the dumb American, Bible-beating, Country-Music, hayseed, war-lover is a kooky small faction that the rest of the world finds a danger to peace. "Fringe," indeed.
He continues: "A large part of Bush's spending was on a just war, defending liberty." And hot-air balloons are used to tunnel deep in the earth, right? This cannot be more spectacularly wrong. It's just an outright, bald-faced, lie. The wars are lies that have destroyed Liberty and our economy, have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad, have returned our troops to being indiscriminate murderers, and have made America an international war criminal and pariah.
In defense of murder and giving the world a perpetual vendetta against America, he says: "I'm not interested in putting a price tag on that." Well, you should be. Assuming that Muslims were responsible for 9/11, is the solution to box cutters on airplanes a three, four or five trillion-dollar perpetual war or hardened airplane cockpit doors, at a trillionth of the cost? Is the solution to Muslims with box cutters a multi-billion dollar Homeland Security Administration that has destroyed the last remnants of freedom or, again, those cheap cockpit doors? 9/11 was a convenient means to impose martial law on America, and, sadly, those suffering from Right Wing Authoritarianism have rallied behind this power grab to steal their neighbor's freedom in turning America into a closed society.
He's not finished: "Secondly, social conservatism is far more important than fiscal conservatism." "Social Conservatism" is one of History's great oxymorons. Social Conservatives are nothing more than hard-Left fascists who want a powerful government to force you to live as they choose. A Social Conservative is one of the world's most noxious and dangerous predators, and we'd all live happier and freer if they didn't exist.
He concludes his attack on Liberty by saying: "Regarding Ron Paul, he will never ever be president. Voting for him or anyone like him is a waste of a vote and makes you just as responsible for Obama's brand of liberals winning elections as people who actually voted for the liberals."
Kiddo, voting for a Republican is the truest a waste of a vote, as its a vote for a full-on police state. A vote for a Democrat is also a wasted vote, as their police state is just about as total as the Republicans'. If "Liberal" is synonymous with the size of government, then there is nothing more "Liberal" than a Republican.
Posts such as this confirm that a return to freedom in this country will not come by the aid of gun owners, and even more terrifyingly, this post confirms that gun owners will be among the first to defend the state's ability to keep its boot on your neck. If a freedom movement awakens in America, it will first have to fight off the gun owners before it can begin to unshackle itself from the state's chains.