Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
The other day I was driving past a very busy Intersection in my neck of the woods and I noticed a Ron Paul Revolution sign had gone up. There were a couple more on the toll way that some farmer had put up. These were put there on private property by people that most likely were not paid to do so. That’s the way Ron Paul supporters are. They don’t have to be asked to do something for their candidate. They don’t have to be told to go out and campaign. They simply do what they can, or what they think needs to be done. Most are extremely enthusiastic about Ron Paul, and some would say they are too enthusiastic. Perhaps they are right and in some cases Ron Paul supporters get a little overbearing in their zeal, but that is to be expected. After all, when was the last time we saw an honest politician in this country? When was the last time a politician spoke of adhering to the constitution? Oh sure, they’ve always been there, lurking on the outside of the establishment, staring through the windows of the halls of power at two major parties like bums passing a mansion and longing for just a taste of the good life as the Democrats and Republicans pass laws making it harder and harder for them to ever get elected. This is the first time in a long time a major party candidate has come out with a message of hope and freedom and of smaller, limited, less intrusive government. It is a message that he backs up with his voting record. It is this message that has gotten his supporters so excited. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters might not have supported anyone in this campaign had Ron Paul decided not to run. No other candidate, either Republican or Democrat, espouses the principles Ron Paul supports. All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul. His candidacy has given many of us someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against. His candidacy has given many of us something to vote for other than the lesser of two evils.
Yet the enthusiasm and excitement expressed by Ron Paul’s supporters seems to have spawned a community of fellows vehemently opposed to Ron Paul. As I go through posts and read through blogs, it seems to me that many of these people are frightened by something. There’s something about their insistence, their passion about the "evil" of Ron Paul and the seemingly supernatural power of his “few” supporters to be able to hijack opinion polls, phone polls, and dominate Internet blogs, there’s something about the demeanor of these folks that suggests to my mind that they are terrified. There’s something even more disturbing about the way the mass media ignores or portrays him. All this has caused me to wonder, what are these Ron Paul detractors so frightened of? I have spent some time in the blogosphere in an effort to ascertain the answer to this question and to assuage their fear. Of course, I don’t expect to be able to convince everyone that there is nothing to fear from a Ron Paul victory, there are people who no matter how hard you argue, no matter how much reason you apply to the argument, will simply refuse to listen. They will not give up their beliefs. I hope to reach those who are on the fence, who are intrigued by Ron Paul’s ideas but are worried about all the negative rhetoric spewed forth by those afraid of real change.
One of the first things I notice about Ron Paul detractors is how often they call Ron Paul and his supporters names. To be fair, I’ve also seen Ron Paul supporters calling his detractors names, which I also think is wrong. As Ron Paul supporters, we should be able to recognize name calling for the juvenile practice it is and avoid that tactic. I know that’s hard to do when the mud starts flying. I realize that when someone insults you it is a natural tendency to insult them back, but we need to remember that name calling accomplishes nothing and serves only to inflame the emotions of those involved. We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots. Let them label us “crazy”, “conspiracy theorists” and whatever else they want to label us as. So what? Take a deep breath and let the name calling roll off your shoulders. It is more important to get Ron Paul’s message of personal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government out there. It is time for us to grow up. It is time for us to reclaim out freedoms, to demand them back, and in the process get our lives back, free from government intervention.
Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. They have addressed their fears and stated why they are against Ron Paul. I’d like to address some of these. One of the big ones is that he’s against abortion. This is true, Ron Paul is against abortion. More specifically, he believes it should not be a constitutional issue and that the individual states should be able to decide abortion laws. He is, after all, an ob/gyn and as such has his own personal opinion on the miracle of life. Still, this is an issue where he and I actually disagree. I see abortion as a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor and perhaps her family. Government should not be involved. But all this is beside the point. In my opinion, this country has far, far more important issues to worry about. And those who worry about women losing the right to an abortion, fear not. President Bush is also against abortions and he was not able to make them illegal in this country even with a Republican congress and a supreme court leaning his way.
Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is not so. Sure, he wants to bring our troops home from around the world. This is something he would actually have the power to do, should he become president. He wants to end our wars of aggression and bring the troops back home to protect our borders. Isn’t that what the military is for? Do we have to police the world? I don’t believe we should. I say it’s time we stopped trying to dictate to the world how to run their countries and remove the threat of force our military poses. I say it's time we stopped nation building. Just because he wants to bring the soldiers home does not mean he is an isolationist. He would still want to do business with the rest of the world. The difference is, he would not be doing business at the point of a gun, rather we would all be interacting on a voluntary basis. Sure, competition would increase, but fear not. I have faith in the American people. I think we can take on competition and come out ahead. We don’t need to force our will upon others in order to remain on top of the heap. We can lead by example and show the world that free markets are the way to improve the quality of everyone’s life. I believe that left to our own devices our ideas and innovations will help improve the world for all mankind.
I read one detractor claim that Ron Paul is racist. When I see the label “racist” used, I instantly question the author’s motive. When one uses such a name it seems to be an attempt to evoke emotion in the reader and cause one to instantly ostracize the subject on the basis that this person has an opinion that is so onerous as to be socially unacceptable. Now, I don’t know Ron Paul personally, so I can’t say for certain whether he is or isn’t a racist, but I can say that I seriously doubt it. Apparently, the claim that he is a racist came from some sort of newsletter that he sent out where one of his people made an unseemly comment that some interpreted as racist. Ron Paul apologized for the comment and fired the offending staffer. I would bet that just about everyone has said something at some point in time that could be considered racist. This does not make the person racist. As it is, Ron Paul has himself addressed this issue. Some of his thoughts on racism can be found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
I believe that fear is unfounded.
Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul’s stance on taxes and the Federal Reserve will lead to economic collapse. First off, why should a privately owned organization have a monopoly on our money when the constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” Why should our tax dollars go to pay the interest on trillions of dollars in loans when congress can order the creation of treasury notes interest free? Personally, I’m tired of seeing the value of the dollar shrink to nothing and I’d rather have a steady, stable currency that keeps its value as we had for hundreds of years before this fiat banking system took hold around the world. There might be a short period of adjustment in the economy if Ron Paul was able to implement such a change, but sound fiscal policy and the power of free, open markets would soon right the ship. Then there are those who would ask “What about the poor?” when income taxes are done away with. Well, not having to pay taxes will certainly give you more money in your pocket. You could give the extra money you’d have to some worthy charity that helps the poor. Private enterprises taking care of charity can certainly do a better job than any government organization or plan for wealth redistribution. Again, I have faith in the American people. We are, after all, perhaps the most generous nation in the world. You should not fear changing our money system, for sometimes change is for the best and often times it comes whether you plan it or not. It’s best if that change can be controlled rather than suddenly thrust upon us.
I could go on, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Try to remember, we are in the process of selecting a president here, not a dictator or a decider. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for a smaller government with the voting record to prove it. All the other candidates are for increasing the size of government and government’s power and control over you. Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, and any war of aggression. He is in favor of bringing our troops home to protect our borders. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Military Commissions Act. He does not believe we should engage in entangling alliances. He believes we should maintain our national sovereignty. And, should the citizens of the United States elect him as our next president, we would be sending a clear message to our politicians that we understand what freedom is and what it means and that we want to keep our freedoms and liberties rather than letting them die under the oppressive boots of a police state. We would also be sending a message that we appreciate honesty and openness in government and we will no longer tolerate the corruption that has plagued our government for decades now. Ron Paul should frighten no one, except maybe the establishment which has been feeding at the pig trough of political power for far too long.
In fairness you should note the Paul version of starve the government involves defaulting on our debt and stripping virtually all services. Perhaps we can maintain a small semblance of government and perhaps a military 20% of todays size.
He should have had a plan yesterday.
You're right that some other candidates don't have detailed plans. But they don't make the radical proposals Paul does.
As an example, I believe both Gingrich and Giuliani have advocated shrinking government by only replacing half the federal retirees through their term. That would have an impact, an I'm not that concerned that they may not have addressed a disparity in retirements in one area versus another.
I'm comfortable that a candidate advocating closing the Department of Education could formulate plans once in office. Obviously many functions might persist elsewhere.
There's extensive planning out there regarding a flat tax, or a fair tax, VATs, and federal sales tax; none mentioned in the Constitution.
Paul advocates a repeal of the "unconstitutional" income tax, amendments being unconstitutional by nature, with no replacement.
Essentially requiring a default on our debt and a virtual shutdown of all government functions. Much depends on whether or not Paul wishes to cease SS taxes and benefits immediately as well.
That's thoroughly irresponsible.
The lack of a plan doesn't surprise me.
Because it's a bunch of BS, I doubt Paul even belives it, he just knows his supporters, and tosses them fresh meat.
As a Congressman from Texas, he's an amusement, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he's an embarassment to the Party.
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything. Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
That's consistant with his worldview.
There's no ideological component to Islamic terror.
Mideast terror is a reaction to American abuses in the region.
They're doing nothing more than any patriot would do.
In this case killing Americans. But in their own, non-ideological self interest.
We'd do the same thing.
You forget the founders suicide bombing squads.
Johnnie, I'm not playing. I'm not shilling for Paul on this Forum. All I'm doing is stating a FACT. Paul has extensive grassroots support, across the Internet, at colleges and universities, and from independent and swing voters disgusted with the two-party establishment. Reports are coming out that he may wind up with $10 million dollars for the 3Q. How will the GOP establishment, and the posters here who oppose Paul vehemently, are going to deal with this?
BTW Johnnie, you should take your own advice, click on the link, read some of his stands on the issues and learn something.
(chuckle)
No big deal, he’s had his ‘moment’ and now rational thought is prevailing and he’s being ignored by the forum’s hosting debates.
Simply by telling the truth about L.Ron more often, more loudly, more vigorously.
Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
They better enjoy it, because that's as far as they're going to get.
Maybe.
LOL
Riiiiiiiiiight.
I’ll play again, though it’s instructive that you didn’t address any of the actual numbers.
Does the Income tax pay for roads? No, gas taxes do.
Actually gas taxes are siphoned off for other purposes, but OK, we’ll direct them to the roads as we should. Taxes on airline tickets too. As you know we’re dealing with a piddly amount of $
Does the Income tax pay for education? No, local levys and property taxes do.
Yes, the states may continue to function. Local taxes and local expenditures don’t appear in the Federal budget, which is what we’re discussing.
Does the Income tax pay for Social Security? No, Social Security taxes do…. Does the Income tax pay for Medicare? No, Medicare taxes do.
More or less, you appear to believe in that lock box. But I acknowledged that, you get to $190 billion from $120 billion to spend by raiding social security. But still, you won’t play, what are you going to spend your $190 billion on>
Does the Income tax pay for defense? No, Corporate income taxes do.
There’s no connection, but $220 billion in un-Constitutional corporate income tax pays for a $512 billion Defense Department. Is Paul now in favor of retaining the IRS to collect an income tax on corporations?
Paulenomics at it’s best.
What does the Income tax pay for?
Nothing if we eliminate it.
Answer: 1) Interest on debt borrowing, largely from the non-federal money printer calling ifself the ‘Federal’ Reserve.
No problem, I’ve acknowledged the Paul “plan” includes a default on our debt. If banana republics can do it, so can we.
2) Waste. Is the Department of Education necessary? How about the Department of Housing and Urban Development? And so on ad infinitum.
The numbers Paul, and tell me how you’re going to do it.
The Income tax is a scam foisted on a small percentage of very wealthy Americans in 1913 …. But the greed of bankers would not put up with even 7% maximum. Over the decades they shifted the income tax burden to the middle class and used it to vacuum dollars out of circulation while they manufactured federal reserve notes to put into circulation….Ron Paul is aware of all that and more….Is there a better way? You damn right there is. Start by federalizing the Federal Reserve and stop paying interest on nothingness immediately. Enact the FairTax which will abolish the IRS and move immediately to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Thank you, the heart of the Paul argument.
It’s a scam, aka a conspiracy.
Cult leader Paul is aware of all that and more.
BTW, is Paul in favor of the Fair Tax, citations would be nice, who will administer it (the Fair Tax Revenue Service?) and where does it appear in the Constitution.
Dems don’t like what Limbaugh says either.
Historically corporate taxes always paid for military spending. Corporate tax rate cuts have forced the federal government to borrow manufactured notes from the Federal Reserve to take up the slack.
Add corporate tax revenues and debt borrowings to get 23% of all federal dollars. The military is exactly 23% of federal dollars. This is not a coincidence. And it is not associated with Ron Paul, it’s a fact, look it up.
And calling people names brings you no support.
As far as your FairTax questions, they are all answered thoroughly here:
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything. Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
I support the Iraq war but I am curious where you and others get the idea that Ron Paul would cut and run, or that he is a coward.
He has a different opinion I know but that does not make him a person to cut and run or a coward in my view. Where do you get your view from?
Ron Paul may be the best congressman we’ve ever had, but he lacks the understanding of military and foreign policy issues necessary to be president.
Why bother publishing it? Those that are against him are not against him because of his stance on limited government. As I said he could lay it out tomorrow and you'd still be railing against him
As an example, I believe both Gingrich and Giuliani have advocated shrinking government by only replacing half the federal retirees through their term.
Oh well you didn't mention you believe in fairy tales. You should have said something before starting this conversation
Essentially requiring a default on our debt and a virtual shutdown of all government functions. Much depends on whether or not Paul wishes to cease SS taxes and benefits immediately as well. That's thoroughly irresponsible
Well I believe he's said that it would take time to get rid of SS and I honestly believe he understands that it would take time to get rid of the IRS. However trying to pass off 'privatization' of 1-2% of SS as some sort of huge change isn't very responsible, or truthful.
But I don't see why you say it would be irresponsible to get rid of SS tomorrow either. It was irresponsible to rely on government in the first place. I'm not related to those getting it so why should I have to pay for it? There used to be these things, charities and churches I believe they were called, that took care of the elderly as the Bible tells us. However I don't remember the Bible requiring the government to take care of us.
As a Congressman from Texas, he's an amusement, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he's an embarassment to the Party
To the party of big government that has no plan to pay anything more than lip service to limited government I imagine he is.
"What are you guys going to do if it turns out that the disembodied brain of William Shakespeare, kept alive by Nazi scientists all these years in a secret underground government bunker, actually dictated every last episode of Jake and the Fatman?"
"What are you guys going to do if Celine Dion becomes an ace reliever for the Houston Astros next year?"
"What are you guys going to do if it turns out that Batman and the Easter Bunny are actually real?"
Notice what all four of the queries listed above have in common.
Oh, come on. He was a major sponsor of the bill, one of the original three, along with McCain and Feingold. He helped shepherd the bill through the Senate.
He was against the restrictions on advertising and he was proud to have raised the amount that ordinary voters can donate to their candidates (hard money). He is also proud to have taken down the direct soft money contributions. This has the effect of curtailing the bribing and buying of politicians. That is a good thing which cannot be validly criticized.
Bulloney. Any infringement of free speech can be validly criticized, and bribery has always been illegal. CFR did nothing new to curtail that, but did limit the speech of free citizens in support of political viewpoints. Here is a particularly strong criticism of McCain-Feingold by JimRob.
Here is a detailed timeline of Thompson's involvement in CFR, by a member of Romney's camp. If he "was against the restrictions on advertising", then why did he include it in the original legislation and file a brief in support of the restrictions in the SCOTUS case four years ago? This is a valid criticism, but instead of addressing it, the Fred supporters on that thread just attacked the messenger.
As far as his supporters, I said their actions are childish and border on criminality (re: vandalism of currency, on-line gambling) because those actions are considered illegal under the law, as is smoking pot. IF he gets into office, then you can change those laws to your liking, but until then, I will hang with a more law abiding class of people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.