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.
You be BAD!
Reasoned debate? I dont like Rudy...but maybe you should ask him after the Ferry foray.
Didnt look to my as if the Paul supporters were interested in anything that resembled reasoned.
LOL I was afraid of Kerry! I mean ...scary
You're right. Just today I passed an '83 Cavalier with a "Ron Paul 2008" and an "infowars.com" bumper sticker. Salt of the earth.
Deal with what? A Ron Paul nomination? The same way I deal with all situations which are hypothetically possible and almost completely impossible. Not giving it a lot of "worry time" and living my life.
You forgot the spittake warning.
Don’t you get it? If we don’t all shill for Ron Paul we are DOOMED because Paul’s base won’t vote GOP. It’s like extortion. Extortionists who of course only have our Constitution in mind.
I agree, but making mistakes on the war front, and war strategy is one thing, making mistakes on the homeland front, that puts the homeland at critical risk is entirely another issue altogether. It's inexcusable to jeopardize national security, when national security should be above all, paramount and priority #1.
We are told this war is all about the security of America, when clearly this is not the case, when looking at our lawless, chaotic borders and an invasion of millions, all during war time.
Sure, sure....so your posting on Paul threads hyperventilating with your buddies, you're just having fun, right?
I will repeat: it is not a valid criticism to say he was an avid supporter of CFR. There was nothing wrong in his support of CFR. He wanted to drive corruption out of politics and CFR was his vehicle to do so. That others added amendments that restricted ads in a certain timeframe before election is something that fell out of his control.
You caught me. So I really work for the Republican Party and the Council on Foreign Relations and do some work consulting for the Zionist Occupied Government. And I'm paid to go around bashing Ron Paul's very sound and imminently executable ideas. Really, at heart I would vote for Ron Paul and his ReLOVEution but a job is a job.
As far as I know, “defacement” of currency is only illegal if the action makes the denomination or serial numbers illegible.
“if they want to stand around on street corners and scream his name like fools, who am I to stop them.”
That’s funny, because no other candidates were doing sign waves this year until the Ron Paul people did it. Now the Fred Thompson people have taken to coming to Ron Paul sign waves here in NH and trying to crash our party.
I have found that Paul supporters seem to consistently ignore laws they don't like such as defacement of currency, internet gambling and smoking pot. The latter is probably where you are picking up most of your younger supporters. IF he gets into office, then you can change the laws to your liking, but until then what you are doing is illegal and I will call you on it. As I said, I will stick to hanging out with a better class of law abiding citizens.
That others added amendments that restricted ads in a certain timeframe before election is something that fell out of his control.
Sorry, don't buy that. It's like saying gun registration laws are a vehicle to drive gun violence out of the ghettos. CFR was fundamentally flawed from the start, and there was no lack of conservatives pointing out the flaws while he was sponsoring it in the Senate. It was a bad and unconstitutional approach to a problem that originates, not with the public using money to fund points of view, but with the politicians themselves, who hide the source of cash and are easily influenced. Essentially, Thompson and McCain wrote a law that restricted MY free speech because THEY couldn't trust themselves and their fellow congressmen to remain honest.
Moreover, the ban on issue ads was a direct assault on political speech, which was INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL that Thompson sponsored. To say now that those parts were added by others, and that he had no say, doesn't wash. He personally filed an amicus brief to the USSC defending the provisions only four years ago, as a private citizen out of the Senate, so clearly he thought they were still a good idea in 2003.
Thompson needs to own up on this and either clarify his continued support or repudiate it unambiguously. Vague "it didn't work out quite right" statements are not sufficient.
You support bribery and corruption in Congress. You live in a different universe than nearly anyone else.
The rest of your hot air comment is misguided ranting bordering on gibberish. I don’t need it and I am sure most others are likewise.
What a BS strawman. Bribery and corruption are already illegal, and were long before Thompson's CFR bill, which clearly did little to stop either one. There is absolutely nothing corrupt about the NRA running an advertisement critical or supportive of a specific candidate within 60 days of an election. What is corrupt is when the politician or others are secretly funneling funds to the organization to run ads. CFR banned the former and established an easy way for Soros and Move-on to do the latter, via 527s. All that was needed were full disclosure rules.
I support free speech and the First amendment. And since the provision was struck down by the Supreme Court, despite Fred Thompson's ardent support for it in his court brief, I would guess they agree with me and not with him or you.
The rest of your hot air comment is misguided ranting bordering on gibberish. I don’t need it and I am sure most others are likewise.
You resemble a liberal: when facts are presented to you, you plug your ears and shout, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you!" If you think citing verifiable facts is "gibberish", that either means you haven't bothered to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.
Which brings this full circle. Instead of addressing the valid criticism, once again a fan boy has instead resorted to attacking the critic with a logical fallacy. In your case, the classical strawman.
Person A: "I don't support the Assault Weapons Ban."
Person B: "You support murder and mayhem in the streets."
is exactly the same as:
Me: "I don't support CFR."
You: "You support bribery and corruption in Congress."
That's my dilemna too. In looking at his voting record I agree with everything he's done EXCEPT issues relating to foreign policy. His voting record seems to indicate he's against abortian, against big government, against high taxes, for gun rights, for personal freedoms/accountability, for homeschooling, for American sovereignty, for border security.
He just seems to have a really screwed up view on terrorism and the mission of radical Islam.
It's a tough call (for me at least).
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.