Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

[Johny Joe Hold]

I've been asked by some Republican Party people to endorse a candidate in the upcoming Iowa Primary Caucus. I'm not endorsing, but giving a warning.

Don't vote for Ron Paul. I think a lot of our fellow Christians in Iowa don't know Paul believes we should pull our troops from areas of the world where we are now fighting and killing Muslims.

This is wrong. We should be sending more troops with guns to Muslim countries, not fewer.

The fact is, Ron Paul is exactly like George McGovern, a candidate for President in the 60' and 70's. Backing the McGovern-like Ron Paul will return us to the period of peace, free love, psychedelic rock music and legalized cannabis.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ron-pauls-foreign-policy-in-question-former-aide-speaks-out-65751/

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

I have carefully read the platform for Ron Paul, as well as those of all he Republican candidates (I don't need to read the Democratic ones; I know what they will say), and I couldn't help but notice that there was not a single mention of the Lubertarian's stance on sodomy and false idols. If he won't even be honest about his perverse views, how can we launch an effective smear campaign against him?

It is obvious from the pattern that the rest of his platform assumes, that Ron Paul is in favor of sodomy and the worshiping of false idols, though I imagine he would obfuscate the issue if directly questioned. His staunch liberal attitude towards social issues of every kind means he fails to discriminate between right and wrong, between God's will and Satan's will, between conservative and liberal, between Americanism and Terrorism. If Ron Paul cannot confess with his proud lips that sodomy and idolatry are profane evils, how can we trust him to confess it with his heart?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

It is obvious from the pattern that the rest of his platform assumes, that Ron Paul is in favor of sodomy and the worshiping of false idols, though I imagine he would obfuscate the issue if directly questioned.

I can't help but notice he has not demanded the banning of the Catholic Cult and the confiscation of all their property in the country to pay off the debts run up by Catholic Congressmen.

[WWJDnow]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

To be fair, Paul does want to get rid of welfare and Social Security and Medicare and other programs that support people just sitting on their lazy behinds, so it's not all bad. But I can't support a candidate who doesn't talk about gays going to Hell or understand that it's America's God-given responsibility to remove Islam from the face of the Earth.

Michelle Bachman is still my candidate (Bachman/Perry is my dream ticket), but Newt is starting to grow on me. Sure, he was a philanderer who, like the evil Democrat John Edwards screwed around while his wife was dying of cancer, but I think that Newt has reformed his ways and won't be tempted by any more whores of Babylon.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

Michelle Bachman is still my candidate (Bachman/Perry is my dream ticket), but Newt is starting to grow on me. Sure, he was a philanderer who, like the evil Democrat John Edwards screwed around while his wife was dying of cancer, but I think that Newt has reformed his ways and won't be tempted by any more whores of Babylon.

Except the one:

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

I've been asked by some Republican Party people to endorse a candidate in the upcoming Iowa Primary Caucus. I'm not endorsing, but giving a warning.

Don't vote for Ron Paul. I think a lot of our fellow Christians in Iowa don't know Paul believes we should pull our troops from areas of the world where we are now fighting and killing Muslims.

This is wrong. We should be sending more troops with guns to Muslim countries, not fewer.

The fact is, Ron Paul is exactly like George McGovern, a candidate for President in the 60' and 70's. Backing the McGovern-like Ron Paul will return us to the period of peace, free love, psychedelic rock music and legalized cannabis.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ro...aks-out-65751/

We don't endorse until Jesus whispers it in my True Christian(tm) ear.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

To be fair, Paul does want to get rid of welfare and Social Security and Medicare and other programs that support people just sitting on their lazy behinds, so it's not all bad. But I can't support a candidate who doesn't talk about gays going to Hell or understand that it's America's God-given responsibility to remove Islam from the face of the Earth.

Michelle Bachman is still my candidate (Bachman/Perry is my dream ticket), but Newt is starting to grow on me. Sure, he was a philanderer who, like the evil Democrat John Edwards screwed around while his wife was dying of cancer, but I think that Newt has reformed his ways and won't be tempted by any more whores of Babylon.

I for one believe we have enough resources in the private sector to dutifully remind gays they are going to hell. What we don't have at the moment is enough private resources to continue to kill mooselimbs ("The Religion of Peace") on a large scale – which we in the West here have been proudly doing since the 11th Century – and there is no indication that we should all of a sudden stop doing. If it's one thing that the early cathylick popes got right it was to launch the Crusades to kill this menace.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

I'm so glad I have you wise gentlemen here to learn from. I just wouldn't know who to vote for otherwise. I believe a wife's duty to her husband includes doubling the power of his vote so whoever the husband votes for, the wife naturally would vote for as well. Sadly, my husband is a poor deluded atheist and I'm afraid to vote for some Muslim Socialist who eats tender and beautiful white babies.


nom nom nom

[HTannor]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

I have carefully read the platform for Ron Paul, as well as those of all he Republican candidates (I don't need to read the Democratic ones; I know what they will say), and I couldn't help but notice that there was not a single mention of the Lubertarian's stance on sodomy and false idols. If he won't even be honest about his perverse views, how can we launch an effective smear campaign against him?

Brother Billy Bob, I completely agree with your astute analysis of that Texican's stance on the real issues of this campaign.

However, I am somewhat alarmed that you didn't explicitly condemn his lack of a policy on anal sex.

I certainly hope this oversight doesn't mean you are getting soft on this issue.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

Fortunately, we can rest in the knowledge that the Iowa caucuses provide exactly zero delegates to the national convention. Really! It's non-binding.

So if Ron Paul (lead with 22.7% in Iowa) or Mitt Romney (second at 21%) beat Newt Gingrinch (a strong third, 14.3%, from which he can easily rise) or Rick Perry (fourth, 12.0, also not too far behind, can easily make it up I bet!), it won't really matter.

In the national polls, who's leading? Why, it's Gingrich, with 27.6%, then Romney at 24.8%. Paul? Way down at a pathetic, weak, worthless 12.2%, from which he can never hope to rise, for third. And Perry's holding his own in fourth, with a 6.6% rock-solid core which will doubtless help him bring some serious game to the race by Super Tuesday.

Silly Paultards. They think just because only Romney and Paul got onto the ballot in Virginia that means that Gingrinch and Perry have no ground game, and are incompetent at something as basic as running a presidential campaign, thus having no business running for the office.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

Brother Billy Bob, I completely agree with your astute analysis of that Texican's stance on the real issues of this campaign.

However, I am somewhat alarmed that you didn't explicitly condemn his lack of a policy on anal sex.

I certainly hope this oversight doesn't mean you are getting soft on this issue.

Brother, I can never be soft with sodomy on my mind. I assure you that while I may have neglected to have anal sex on my tongue, I bore it in the forefront of my consciousness with great specificity.

Thank you for supporting the Anti-Sodomy Society, Judge Tannor.

[HTannor]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

Brother, I can never be soft with sodomy on my mind. I assure you that while I may have neglected to have anal sex on my tongue, I bore it in the forefront of my consciousness with great specificity.

Thank you for supporting the Anti-Sodomy Society, Judge Tannor.

You're quite welcome, Brother. It's reassuring you stand firm on the subject of anal sex.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

You're quite welcome, Brother. It's reassuring you stand firm on the subject of anal sex.

On the topics of anal sex and abortion, this Ron Paul and his supporters just don't understand what liberatarianism and conservative political thought is all about.

On these two issues, anal sex and abortion, instead of getting government, and these two major sources of sin, out of out lives, they want to expand both sin and government. They want to do this by leaving the two issues up to the States.

Leaving these up to 50 States means 50 times as much government. For a smaller government, we need to simply outlaw them once at the national government and then it's done. That's what is meant by smaller government.

Ron Smallmind is not our friend.

[HTannor]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

Leaving these up to 50 States means 50 times as much government. For a smaller government, we need to simply outlaw them once at the national government and then it's done. That's what is meant by smaller government.

How very right you are, Mr. Mayor.

This whole 50 state issue is quite troubling.

For instance, those hillbillies in Arkansas may well legalize anal sex with goats, pigs, and moonshiners.

Montana could well legalize sex with cows.

Wyoming will probably think sex with antelopes is okay.

Maine and lobsters makes my head hurt.

God™ only knows what Missouri will legalize.

And Mississippi? The mind boggles.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Iowans, Don't Vote for Hippie Beatnik Peacenik Ron Paul

As much as I disagree with Wrong Paul's lack of commitment to killing mooselimbs, as a practical matter I think his approach to anal sex is the correct one. I need not remind everyone that we have effectively eliminated anal sex at the local level here in Freehold, and I think that it is easier for condominium, town home, and community associations to accomplish this at the local level all over the country without having to wait for the Federal Government to act. It was also fortuitous that the majority of mormons wound up in Utah where we can keep an eye on them, and what few of them wander around the country knocking on doors has been effectively curtailed by homeowner associations banning together and passing rules against them (with the only remaining problem being keeping Romney from getting the nomination).