Posted on 10/14/2007 1:29:17 PM PDT by reasonisfaith
Something about Ron Paul doesn’t smell right. Despite the fact that he appears to advocate core conservative values such as upholding the constitution and limiting government power, instinct tells me not to touch Ron Paul with a ten foot pole. Conservatives understand this. He’s just too kooky. I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
It’s true that on a certain level, tending to our own political and economic affairs here in the U.S. is where we should focus most of our resources. But the cauldrons of tyranny and terror are ever-present in far reaches of the world. When these wicked brews begin to boil over and spill their hateful contents onto our land, that’s the point where we must take action to extinguish the fire at its source. We did so in Japan and Germany sixty-odd years ago, and we are now doing it in Iraq.
Ron Paul’s behavior is consistent with two possibilities. The first possibility allows for the notion that Paul is an honest man with true libertarian beliefs who just doesn’t understand the reality of geopolitics, thus he is basically a kook hopelessly unfit for the oval office. The second possibility is less likely but nonetheless fun for the imagination: Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy, planned for decades, that covertly seeks something sinister—either a Hillary presidency (by means of dividing the conservative vote) or the downfall of the United States.
I think it's important to keep perspective on that. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are very broadly defined. No one has yet offered a valid definition for 'victory' in these areas. Right now it appears that the way forward is through nation-building. Yet we have not truly shocked these peoples as we did the Germans and the Japanese during WWII. Furthermore, the Germans and the Japanese were advanced societies with central figures of authority who were either eliminated or drawn into the cause of pacifying their countries.
It's not kooky to point out that there isn't a valid exit strategy yet.
Is this news? Where’s the news link?
Something about Ron Paul doesn’t smell right. Despite the fact that he appears to advocate core conservative values such as upholding the constitution and limiting government power, instinct tells me not to touch Ron Paul with a ten foot pole. Conservatives understand this. He’s just too kooky. I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
This is a classic example of what is called the Excluded middle fallacy.
Let's demonstrate how that happens with the following statement of yours:
I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
There are actually four options here:
The fallacy is that you have attempted to force the reader into two, and only two options, when in fact, other possibilities exist.
In short, you're trying to dismiss Ron Paul without discussion or debate of particulars by limiting the other choices.
It’s true that on a certain level, tending to our own political and economic affairs here in the U.S. is where we should focus most of our resources. But the cauldrons of tyranny and terror are ever-present in far reaches of the world.
As a very wise morning drive radio host named Jim Quinn has often observed, "Remember, everything before "but" is BS.", at least from the perspective of the one making the statement. Let's ask you a question: How many Americans, and people residing in America died from terrorist attacks in the past 20 years?
...got an answer
...good!
Now, How many Americans, or residents of America have died in automobile accidents in the past 20 years? i'll bet you find that the last number is at least an order of magnitude greater than the first number.
Puts a perspective on our alleged 'terrorism problem' doesn't it?
When these wicked brews begin to boil over and spill their hateful contents onto our land, that’s the point where we must take action to extinguish the fire at its source. We did so in Japan and Germany sixty-odd years ago, and we are now doing it in Iraq.
We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?
Ron Paul’s behavior is consistent with two possibilities. The first possibility allows for the notion that Paul is an honest man with true libertarian beliefs who just doesn’t understand the reality of geopolitics, thus he is basically a kook hopelessly unfit for the oval office. The second possibility is less likely but nonetheless fun for the imagination: Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy, planned for decades, that covertly seeks something sinister—either a Hillary presidency (by means of dividing the conservative vote) or the downfall of the United States.
Another excluded middle fallacy. Hopefully you've now been better educated, and won't make these kinds of stupid mistakes again.
Have a good day.
And he has been doing this for years. He keeps winning because there isn't anyone who runs against him. If you met him in person he would give you a chill he is so cold.
rt= Your absolutely right. Ron Paul is nothing to worry about. He has as much chance of being nominated by the GOP as Fidel Castro. Running for the Presidency gives him a platform to evangelize libertarian ideas, and maybe he’ll pick up a few converts for his efforts. That’s the most he can realistically hope for. Having him in the debate may annoy some but he can do little damage. He’s kind of like a fly at a picnic buzzing around your head, pesky but of little consequence
Congressman Paul is a leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital and is seeking the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination. As a congressman, Dr Paul tirelessly worked for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.
Sounds real liberal doesn't it? Ron Paul is THIRD on my list of candidates to vote for (Hunter, Tancredo then Paul) but this crusade some of you on here have against Ron Paul because of Iraq is ridiculous. It is NOT a litmus test on how conservative one is. When Clinton was in office Ron Paul had well over a 90% conservative rating from every organization. It dropped to around 70 since Bush has gotten into office because he votes AGAINST entitlement spending increases which these ACU, etc say are 'conservative' because they are smaller than the Democrats. Balogney.
Fool
The Ron Paul Anti-War Lefties don't like to hear about that. It's like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.
“LOL! I thought it was Ron Paul and his supporters who were the ‘kooks’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’?”
Remember to read my post carefully—your comments suggest otherwise.
Here’s what I think about conspiracy. They do happen, but because of that fact there will be instances where people erroneously suspect a conspiracy is taking place, more often than there are instances of a true conspiracy. This sort of hyper-vigilance becomes an advantage for those who truly wish to perpetrate a conspiracy (such as getting Hillary elected or overthrowing the United States by means of cultural Marxism) in that they can stifle vigilant citizens with the threat of labeling them as “paranoid.”
I think the most likely scenario regarding Ron Paul is that he is just a lucky break for leftists. He comes around with his kooky ideas just in time for the leftists to attempt to use him as a way to split the conservative vote. But I have no problem admitting that I don’t know for sure what’s really going on in Ron Paul’s mind.
Uh, Travis, I think reasonisfaith was pulling your chain—deliberately imitating Paulianish conspiracy kookiness in order to illustrate his (her?) point.
And you took the bait.
“Now, How many Americans, or residents of America have died in automobile accidents in the past 20 years? i’ll bet you find that the last number is at least an order of magnitude greater than the first number.
“Puts a perspective on our alleged ‘terrorism problem’ doesn’t it?”
No, it does not.
Because the trajectory of automobile accidents does not include the possibility of an exponential increase in future deaths, whereas the terrorist phenomenon does.
Yes, Turkey is shelling across the border and talking about closing its airspace to us. The web we are weaving is getting more and more tangled. I wouldn't describe it as "better." It's "different." It's a different problem every day.
Okay, so you weren’t tongue-in-cheek trying to illustrate the foolishness of conspiracy-paranoia by suggesting a Manchurian-candidate conspiracy explanation for Ron Paul. But just the same, even if you did not intend to, your second explanation for Ron Paul does ironically illustrate how silly conspiracy theories are.
Except, of course, when a deep-cover decades-long conspiracy has been underway. But then, how would anyone ever know? Truely devilishly clever conspiracies are by definition undetectable.
How’s about just sticking with your option no. 1—Ron Paul is the kook, well, sort of a kook, who brings out astonishing levels of kookiness in his followers? (Not all leaders of kooks are themselves as kooky as their followers.)
He’s not my first, second or third choice, but I’d vote for him over Hillary.
Guilt by association? It’s not a fair attack. Few people would argue that our political system is under attack. Consider the evils of the Clinton presidency. That alone should give us pause. Some people are angry and upset about the loss of representation in our government. They lash out in inappropriate ways. That doesn’t mean that the problem doesn’t exist. It does. Ron Paul discusses it in detail, and that’s what attracts some of these people to him. It’s not his fault that he’s speaking the truth even if they aren’t.
“We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?”
That’s why I used the cauldron spilling over metaphor, because the parallel exists on a more general level than with a comparison of particular events or individuals.
The point is that entities external to us are the cause of problems taking place internally (both actualized and impending terrorist attacks). Therefore we must act in the external theater. This is precisely what happened in WWII.
Had we not taken out Saddam, his actions would have led to terrorist attacks against us increased both in frequency and intensity.
“It’s like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.”
Exactly!
I would. But what do I know....I've just been here for the last nearly four years, watching it all from the 50-yardline.
And you're a typical jaundiced liberal, only seeing the dark. Glass is half-empty and you find the cloud to every silver lining.
Do you work for CNN?
Oh, and you can thank your liberal Democrat friends for what might happen with Turkey.
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.