Tuesday, March 17, 2009

 

Ron Paul vs. Borat

Well not really, but it sounds the same (HT2LRC). What's funny is that if this had come out during the primaries, I think a lot more Republicans would've voted for Paul. I'm not saying that with pride, but I think a lot of older Republicans would say, "Heh this guy is old school" to hear Paul's judgmental but yet quaint use of "queer" instead of a much harsher term that a younger person would have used if searching for a pejorative statement.*

* And yes it occurs to me that I sound just like the people defending Bill Clinton for not using the n-word when he thought his mic was off and he ripped into Jesse Jackson. I am aware of my weakness for Ron Paul.



Comments:
If Jesse Jackson were holding up Bill Clinton in a dark alley then a derogatory term would be appropriate.

I can't really imagine Justin Raimondo being similarly disgusting to someone (but I know him only by reputation, so maybe he does this all the time; I'd like to think not).

The left is happy to live in a police state so long as immoral behavior can't be called that and people aren't allowed to disassociate from them/it and the destructive consequences.

Dr. Paul passes the "live-and-let-live" test precisely because he DOES defend the right of people to do things he disapproves of, but which don't directly impinge on him. The right and the left both largely fail this test.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
James,

I think you misunderstood me about Clinton. I don't remember the exact details, but Bill Clinton said some harsh things about Jesse Jackson when Clinton thought his mic was off. So then everyone was in a tizzy, and the Clinton apologists starting saying, "Hey, at least he didn't use the n-word. Doesn't that show what a great guy he is, since even when he thinks no one is looking he treated Jackson as a human, not in terms of race?"

(And yes kids, I sandpapered the rough edges from JR's post.)
 
BTW I had to delete James Redford's post. Not trying to be a prude but I am going to have enough headaches without people finding commenters leaving n-bombs here.
 
Supposedly, Obama was a viable candidate for the POTUS and Alan Keynes wasn't.
Now I read an article saying the gov. is trying to determine which businesses are viable to recieve stimulus money, or some such way of thinking.

I wonder just what does viable mean? Anointed? 1984 Orwellian stuff I guess.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]