You know, I am totally beginning to see why the World is turning more and more Liberal everyday….

I happen to enjoy going over to NewsWithViews.com and reading the columns, especially those by Paul Proctor he and I are quite alike, in more ways than one.

However, I happen across this article of Alan Stang defending Ron Paul. While the article might be decent in substance, it discredits itself with things like this:

Quote:

So who is James Kirchick? If you google him, you will find one reference to him as a “dishonest sack of s–t.” Since this is a high-class site and many of my readers are exquisitely genteel Christian ladies, we of course shun such terminology.

and then, not even a whole paragraph later, he says:

“Jamie” Kirchick is also a militant faggot and therefore deranged. No doubt this helps explain why his tone is so nasty.

That my friends was about the time that I jumped off the bus, when it came to this article.

Let's see here, where do I start??!?!?! WOW!

1. Allan Stang says in one sentence that he doesn't use foul language, than turns around and uses a filthy derogatory term for a Homosexual. Not only is this Hypocritical, but it also shows a great deal of bias.
2. Allan Stang makes the case that because the Editor of The New Republic is gay, he is unable to present factual information, that in itself is slander and absolutely ignorant. It just so happens that I, myself, found many of these newsletters on the Internet, independently. and I am not gay, what does that make me Allan? Hmmmmm?
3. The fact that Allan Stang and rest of his Mentally depraved friends cannot ignore is the fact that Ron Paul's NAME appeared on every one of these newsletters, how could Ron Paul, who helped fund these newsletters not know what was being printed in these newsletters? It just doesn't make sense. Anyone that thinks other than this, is ether, 1.) A Ron Paul Supporter and is trying to use diversion tactics to cover up Ron Paul's Past. 2.) Overly Stupid.
4. Allan Stang does not cite the reference where someone called James Kirchick a "Lying stock of s–t". Which tends to make me believe that he was possibly embellishing the truth or dare I say it? *GASP!* Lying.

While I can commend a man for wanting to defend a Presidential candidate like Ron Paul, he's got the varnish of a classic Pelo-Conservative. But if and when, you begin to remove the varnish and cut through the obfuscation, you begin to see a disturbing picture that frankly scares me and many other Conservatives. I'm sorry that Allan Stang doesn't see that.

Crossposted from my Other Blog