[UPDATE: scroll down for a nice illustration from the Lex!]
Senior Republican Political Analyst Charles Johnson has not endorsed any of the Republican candidates, though he has of course "un-dorsed" certain others, such as Mike Huckabee and every single one of the Democrats.
So here's a suggestion for you lizardoids and lizardettes. Read the following quotes and decide if this is someone you'd like to have in the White House:
Once again, President Clinton is using American troops to deflect attention from his record of lies, distortions, obstructions of justice and abuse of power.
Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference.
Liberty means free-market capitalism.
By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.
Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society.
Sound good so far? Here are some more:
You don’t have a right to a house, you don’t have a right to a job, you don’t have a right to medical care.
Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.
Birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation. . . . We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.
If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
Global warming is fear politics. Earth may be warming, but whether it is due to humans is disputed.
Pretty exciting stuff! And now, the clincher:
Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Saturday Night Special is a wonderful weapon. Because they should be legalized in every household, especially the inner city. Because, that's where the greatest amount of crime is.
Gun control is NOT the answer to our crime problem -- and not one of our Constitutional rights is up for "debate."
By now all you patriotic, freedom-loving, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-Christian, anti-immigration, diversity-hating Americans are probably asking yourselves: where do I sign up?!
Here.
For, you see, each of the snippets above is a gen-u-wine quote from Charles' latest bête noire, Ron Paul himself.
Perhaps the reason for Charles' jihad against Paul is the uncomfortable fact that but for one issue (the "war" on "terror"), his positions are indistinguishable from those of most lizards.
As for this blog, I can't speak for the others who post here, but my own personal opinion of Dr. Paul is nicely encapsulated here.
[Image: Lex]
12 comments:
I wonder how many lizards who regularly come here will suffer from a severe identity crisis after reading this..
You're not making it easy for them :D
LGF is primarily an anti-fascist/pro-moderate blog. Beyond that, its politics are pretty diverse. Some are hardcore conservative. Many are disillusioned liberals.
I would guess most will vote for Rudy, but given a choice between the Huckster, or Mitt or Ron Paul & Hillary, many "lizardoids" would vote for Hillary.
As for Ron Paul - the objection seems to be the behaviour (and allegiance) of his weirdo followers.
another try
-----------
LGF is primarily an anti-fascist/anti-extremist blog. That the thread that sees LGF attacking ultra-conservative Saudis, attacking Ahmadinejad, attacking other Islamofascists & terrorists, attacking Hugo Chavez, and attacking the BNP, stormfronters, vlaams and other neo-nazis.
Hating extremism, LGF and most of its members are centrist. Sure some members are hardcore conservative. Many others are disillusioned liberals.
Given a choice between the Huckster, or Mitt or Ron Paul & Hillary, many "lizardoids" would vote for Hillary.
As for Ron Paul - the objection seems to be the behaviour (and allegiance) of his weirdo followers.
Den tarthurdent, you forgot the part about calls for genocide against Arabs, threats of violence and murder towards whoever disagrees with them, and the constant libel of an entire religion and all its adherents.
Basically they hate whoever and whatever Chuckles tells them to, so it's less an anti-fascist blog than it is a hateful echo chamber.
And about Ron Paul.. Well, they really hate the guy himself. And your use of the word "objection" is good. Objection implies at least some sort of politeness.
So that's what one does with the diary option at Kos...I should check that out. OK, that's it, I must photoshop the football-as-RonPaul-blimp now, even if it comes out dreadful.
I agree with anon about the fact that there are many disillusioned liberals winding their way through LGF and similar sites, though not with much else. Many are still in a stupor it would seem.
As for anti-fascist, I always see attitudes towards gay rights as the canary in the coal mine, and though I don't have them saved up I have read enough commentary on LGF that is anti-LGBT enough to make me run for the hills. That, and the anti-Catholic/Orthodox Christian contingent is under strict control at LGF, very strict control, but it is there and sneaks out occasionally.
LMAO u worthless POS u and your fellow whackjob paulians are delusional and hypocrits ...America doesnt want or need your treasonous ass..and please dont breed that is if u actually fine time to crawl out of your parents basement...
Read the piece again....it's not pro Ron Paul, quite the opposite...
comment moderation is for blogs who cant win a debate sensorship at its finest....
Comment moderation is there for a reason, the last time there wasn't any an LGF'er posted links to child porn.
PS It's censorship with a 'C'.
hellpig: To whom is your comment directed? Thus far no one (at least on this thread) has self-identified as a "Paulian."
I happen to think that the man is a complete fool, though my dislike of Paul stems from reasons that, I suspect, are diametrically opposed to yours.
I believe abortion should remain legal in all 50 states, and I believe in reasonable gun control; I believe the UN does more good than harm; I believe that man-made CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change; and I believe that government has a legitimate role to play in smoothing out the rough edges of the free-market economy.
Ron Paul believes none of these things. Therefore, I don't believe in Ron Paul.
So what do you think is worse: someone who likes Ron Paul, or someone who dislikes him for the wrong reasons?
I think I found one to trump everything else last night. Pamela/Atlas Shrugs doing a bikini VLOG as a Merry Christmas to the troops. In which she also says she'll endorse anyone for President who can beat "the Muslim". Yep, she says Obama is a Muslim. Part of some plot to take over or something. Good heavens, I can only hope she isn't serious, but I know that she is....and yes, that's me in the 'related videos' with my response. What can I say, my hand was forced.
"He went to a madrassa, his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim..."
Sounds like we need those racial purity laws back..oh wait, those weren't ours....what the hell kind of Kool-Aid were they serving in Brussels anyways?
I'm a conservative who posts here and I like Rudy, too. He scares the libs. That's good.
It's funny how many people seem to think the most important, if not the sole purpose of voting is to "piss off" their enemies, or to "make their heads explode".
There is more to life than spite, folks.
Oh, I think Charles Johnson will eventually turn against Rudolph Giuliani in a big way. Giuliani may be hawkish and he may have a vendetta, but that's a far cry from being an acid bath of hatred against Islam.
There is a clear difference between those who want victory against al-Qaeda and Khomeiniists and those who seek to foment genocide against all Muslims (and those who desire perpetual war).
Moderation and anti-extremism in politics is essentially a character issue. If a man is extreme and immoderate in his behavior and his rhetoric, he cannot possibly be moderate and anti-extremist. Whenever Charles Johnson doesn't have enough enemies, he creates new ones.
And when Charles Johnson finds out that he strongly disagrees with Rudolph Giuliani on some issue near and dear to the heart of the Lizard Prince, his rhetoric may make one wonder how anyone on his blog could have ever supported Giuliani in the past.
Remember the following slogan:
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
I must admit, I do agree with Paul on the "diversity movement" comment. In my experience, the whole "accept diversity" movement as a movement here in the U.S. does perpetuate racism as an unintended consequence, and many within the movement or just supporters of, have bought into rhetoric and ideals which are well-meaning but inadvertently bigoted.
I write frequently about this, though nothing recently, and I am not saying that the "embrace diversity" folks out there are intentionally racist or in any sense the same as out-right racist groups. They do, however, generally refuse to let people alone to just be themselves and be defined by their own ideas and actions, replacing the ideal of individuality with their notion that belonging to one group or another should be higher on the list.
I've met with my share of bigots on the right, and am in rather daily combat still with many of them. It just saddens me when people trying to be well-meaning and who could be great allies against bigotry instead try to just place me and other "minorities" in some sort of display cage. In fact, they almost always make me feel as if on display, and are rather insistent that my ideas must somehow stem from my ethnicity. The best way to "embrace diversity" (as the slogan goes) for me is to accept it on the deepest level, meaning that you aren't constantly thinking of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. when dealing with people.
Just my 2 cents. Also, a relative of mine who is on the Anglo-looking side but is gay wanted me to bring up the guy in college who gave him a ride home and in a goofy-ass display of "I want to be a tolerant guy"-ness this relative, "I just want you to know, I think of gays as people. I'm cool with people being gay". I know, I know, there are idiots everywhere, and aiming for an ideology of tolerance is preferable to aiming for this new rage for "ethnic cleansing" (shiver), but I don't think Paul was off on that comment (though I don't really know his views otherwise on minorities). I will, however, punch the next person who asks me how I feel about the whole "brown pride" movement as a "brown person". Seriously.
Post a Comment