Like this one?
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 the latest Gallup Poll, Ron Paul has moved from 1% to 3% of Republicans and Republican leaners who were polled. Since the margin of error for the poll is plus/minus 5%, any movement could be nothing more than statistical noise. Paul is currently a non-entity for the nomination.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
Geez, SJ... don't you know anything about economics...? ;)
I know that and you know that, but try telling Paul supporters that, LOL!
Do your own research.
Almost a thousand articles and speechs by Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
Well, I don't know.
I haven't figured out what I'm going to do when large denominations of US currency start raining from the sky or what I'll do when that flock of pigs flies over my house and whether the freezing over of Hell will have any impact on this global warming stuff.
Once I figure all of those out, I'll work on that one. :-)
Whats telling are the comments in the Ron Paul forums. They undermine the ‘push’ the Paulies have launched in this and other conservative forums.
“I know that and you know that, but try telling Paul supporters that, LOL!”
I’ll wait until the actual primaries, then remind them.
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me WHAT and 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
Do your own research.
Almost a thousand articles and speechs by Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
The great message of Ron Paul sells itself!
In 2006 corporate income tax, which Paul will eliminate but we're just playing games here, was 10.1%. Defence spending was 18%. Why you're discussing corporate income tax is beyond me, but the numbers don't work. Why don't you start again with post 167, 2006-the most recent available, or if you want to choose another year, post your figures.
The question I had about the Fair Tax is whether Ron Paul supports it as a remplacment for the income tax, citations please, and, if the income tax is unconstitutional due to not being cited in the Constitution, only an amendment, how the Fair Tax would pass the Paul smell test.
Personally I question whether Paul is a Fair Tax Supporter.
I referred to Paul as Paul is a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit. That's a perfectly reasonable assessment of his non-positions. I added that he's irresponsible, and I stand by all of it.
As you demonstrate, there's nothing to back his "positions" up.
What are you going to do when the moon melts, it's made of green cheese you know.
As I'm mentioned to you before, we'll get to see the political acumen of FR's Paul supporters put to the test.
Keep in mind that this post shouldn't be construed as me shilling for Paul, but you guys need to look at some reality here. Now I've attended Paul rallies and seen pics and videos of them, and these folks could easily have been your next door neighbors. Women with kids and babies in the audience. Funny, but I didn't see any 9/11 "Truthers", anti-war kooks, or anarchist anti-gov't types.
Of course not. You’d never shill for Paul. And he gets no support at all from truthers, anti-war folk, or haters. That’s just an internet thing, and we all know the internet isn’t reliable. Is that why Paul’s supporters tout his internet performance?
All your name-calling and cheesy photo-shops are apparently having no impact on the thousands of grassroots supporters who are enthusiastically supporting Paul. Paul has the GOP in a delicate situation.
Oh, please, the whining accomplishes nothing. I’ll stand by everything I’ve said about Ron Paul. For your own credibility, please provide links to 5 of my photoshops.
I see, so he has double secret probation plans that he doesn't publish since he is, after all, the source of wisdom, put upon by all the big government Republicans and Freepers. Right.
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?
He's said he will get rid of the income tax. If he thinks it's going to take "time", or he has a plan for alternative revenue, this would be a good time to let the world in on it. And yes, I think it's irresponsible to simply scrap social security tomorrow, as would be scrapping the income tax.
I don't know, I'll probably starve, I guess.
As I'm mentioned to you before, we'll get to see the political acumen of FR's Paul supporters put to the test.
I don't care about the Paul supporters here. I'm talking about the thousands that exist outside of this website. The folks that got you guys in serious denial.
Of course not. You’d never shill for Paul. And he gets no support at all from truthers, anti-war folk, or haters. That’s just an internet thing, and we all know the internet isn’t reliable. Is that why Paul’s supporters tout his internet performance?
It's been explained to you a million times that there is a relatively small minority of fringe individuals that are trying to exploit Paul's campaign. Now if you want to believe that Paul's support entirely consists of truthers, nutjobs, neo-Nazis, and skinheads, that's your perogative but the folks at the rallies and in the audience says otherwise.
Oh, please, the whining accomplishes nothing. I’ll stand by everything I’ve said about Ron Paul. For your own credibility, please provide links to 5 of my photoshops.
No whining, I'm just pointing out that actions have consequences, like Paul's supporters not supporting the GOP nominee, that's all.
Smart move on Rudy's part. He's clearly a member of the global ruling elite.
Then he needs to turn the thousands into millions and clearly disassociate himself and his campaign from the less savory parts of the internet realm who support him. I wouldn't support him for that, but it would restore some level of respect. I believe I've cited to you the indicted drug dealer in Canada organizing meetings. Is a drug dealer and a dozen of his pals important, no. But when a political campaign is asked about the support of someone under indictment, the Paul campaign response that we'll take support from anywhere is unacceptable in my mind. In fact a disqualifier, because in the highly unlikely event a politician like that were successful, those early supporters would be the only he'd have a moral obligation to.
Like this one?
Would you care to point out how that is inaccurate? Do you have the numbers from another source to verify your gut feeling?
The fact that our current president is making mistakes in the war on terror is in no way an argument in favor of another candidate who we know prospectively will make large mistakes in the same war. If that's not addressing your point, then I'm not sure why you responded to the thread at all.
The fact that our current president is making mistakes in the war on terror is in no way an argument in favor of another candidate who we know prospectively will make large mistakes in the same war. If that's not addressing your point, then I'm not sure why you responded to the thread at all.
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.