Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 2, 2007 18:16:55 GMT -6
It's been a mystery to me as to why the pseudo-Christian wing of the Republican Party hasn't enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul.
Ron Paul would seem the logical choice for evangelicals and born-again Christians. He's the most moral and truly Christian-like of the Republicans. He opposes abortion and gay marriage, but he opposes a Constitutional ban on either one.
And therein lies Paul's problem with pseudo-Christian idiot-ologues. They're don't advocate religious freedom or tolerance. They advocate in-tolerance of all religious beliefs but their own. They don't want "freedom" of religion. They want "freedom" to force their hate-filled beliefs on everyone else--at the point of a gun if necessary. They want a candidate with dictatorial leanings--like Bush. They want a leader who doesn't just share their beliefs, but who is willing to force them on everyone else as well.
If the Republican Party rank-and-file truly favored freedom & limited government, instead of a Corporatocratic-Theocratic Dictatorship, they'd nominate Ron Paul. If Republicans were more concerned about winning, and less with putting their pseudo-Christian hate idiot-ology into law, they'd nominate Ron Paul.
They want someone who believes the Constitution is nothing but a "G**D*** piece of paper." They want a President willing to ignore that "piece of paper," and any other legislation if necessary, to impose their pseudo-Christian hate on ALL Americans. They don't want legislative "protection." They want to remove protection from their opponents.
The Religious Right doesn't want a "Christian" President.
They want a pseudo-Christian Dictator. They want an autocrat.
They want a pseudo-Christian country. Not a free one. Not a democratic one.
For the pseudo-Christian Fascists, Paul just won't do. If he's not willing to shove his own personal beliefs down everyone's throat, what good is he?
Paul's got this "quaint, outdated," pre-9/11 obsession with "freedom." That just won't do. The Republican base hates freedom. After all, what good is winning an election--and winning control of government--if you can't tell the losers what to do, how to live, and punish them if they don't cooperate? (Isn't that the whole purpose of waterboarding? To make opponents say, believe, and do what they should? Wasn't that what Adolph Ghouliani was doing--when he claimed to have waterboarded American criminal suspects? )
Ron Paul would seem the logical choice for evangelicals and born-again Christians. He's the most moral and truly Christian-like of the Republicans. He opposes abortion and gay marriage, but he opposes a Constitutional ban on either one.
And therein lies Paul's problem with pseudo-Christian idiot-ologues. They're don't advocate religious freedom or tolerance. They advocate in-tolerance of all religious beliefs but their own. They don't want "freedom" of religion. They want "freedom" to force their hate-filled beliefs on everyone else--at the point of a gun if necessary. They want a candidate with dictatorial leanings--like Bush. They want a leader who doesn't just share their beliefs, but who is willing to force them on everyone else as well.
If the Republican Party rank-and-file truly favored freedom & limited government, instead of a Corporatocratic-Theocratic Dictatorship, they'd nominate Ron Paul. If Republicans were more concerned about winning, and less with putting their pseudo-Christian hate idiot-ology into law, they'd nominate Ron Paul.
They want someone who believes the Constitution is nothing but a "G**D*** piece of paper." They want a President willing to ignore that "piece of paper," and any other legislation if necessary, to impose their pseudo-Christian hate on ALL Americans. They don't want legislative "protection." They want to remove protection from their opponents.
The Religious Right doesn't want a "Christian" President.
They want a pseudo-Christian Dictator. They want an autocrat.
They want a pseudo-Christian country. Not a free one. Not a democratic one.
For the pseudo-Christian Fascists, Paul just won't do. If he's not willing to shove his own personal beliefs down everyone's throat, what good is he?
Paul's got this "quaint, outdated," pre-9/11 obsession with "freedom." That just won't do. The Republican base hates freedom. After all, what good is winning an election--and winning control of government--if you can't tell the losers what to do, how to live, and punish them if they don't cooperate? (Isn't that the whole purpose of waterboarding? To make opponents say, believe, and do what they should? Wasn't that what Adolph Ghouliani was doing--when he claimed to have waterboarded American criminal suspects? )