Posted on 12/31/2009 4:21:45 AM PST by rabscuttle385
I was a Ron Paul supporter in the 2008 campaign for the presidency, and I made no apologies about it. Ron Paul was the candidate at the time that supported a smaller government, individual liberties and the Constitution closer than any other candidate. By far, he was the small government candidate.
Others, especially conservatives, would often say that they support many of Paul’s positions, but…
Either his voice was too “high and whiny”, or they viewed his position on America’s foreign policy to be “wacko” and “crazy”. The going phrase at the time, and still today, is that Ron Paul is a politician who is living “on the fringe”. He was not “mainstream” enough to win over much of the concerned voting public.
Clearly, the term fringe is meant in a negative light to imply that his views are out of the norm. So-called fringe candidates are outside of a more typical path to political enlightenment, I suppose, and cannot possibly run a country as big, expensive and corrupt as the federal government.
But the irony should be simple. It is just this “typical path to political enlightenment” that has grown this country to monstrous proportions. These candidates who apparently subscribe to the more common views in Washington are the very ones who are responsible for our multitrillion-dollar national debt, and our ever-burgeoning deficit. These are the politicians with whom Americans are most upset with, but yet, other candidates like Ron Paul are somehow “on the fringe” and cannot possibly be trusted. Continuing with the “mainstream” was a better option.
To this, I have only one question. WHAT?!? Truthfully, if a firm and consistent belief in a small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy is what it means to be on the fringe, then I am proud to be here. I am proud to be outside of the typical political thought in Washington D.C. that has caused the great majority of the problems that we face on a daily basis in the first place. Being mainstream is the problem!
What ground can anyone possibly stand on, when their political philosophy (you know, the typical, common, “in the middle” frame of mind) happens to be the root cause for the problems that concern so many Americans today? How is it possible to escape from the clutches of big government corruption and maniacal control over almost every aspect of American life if we continue to reject outsiders as “on the fringe”?
Do you want change, or no?
I am sure during the revolutionary times back in the 1700’s many viewed our founding fathers to be “on the fringe” for wanting to start a war to free ourselves from British tyranny. But sometimes, when things get bad enough, introducing non-common ideas and a radical change to politics as usual is what a country needs to break free from the continued degradation of American society.
Perhaps it is not bad enough yet.
This isn’t about Ron Paul specifically. This is about the rejection of thought outside of the norm, but yet, expecting the same political ideas from the same politicians to somehow result in positive change. Career politicians have made their living out of consolidating money and power into the hands of select politicians. There are a lot of uncertainties in this world, but one thing is very, very certain: nothing will change unless American voters begin to reject typical political thought in D.C.
Don’t believe me? Then continue voting as you always have. Continue rejecting anything outside of the same political thought that politicians have used to concoct government programs and initiative for years. Continue doing what you have always done, and watch what happens.
…to the peril of us all.
Ron Paul is wrong in his reasoning of why we were attacked. There are many places that are too poor and don’t get involved in outside politics, they are attacked by the Muslims, too. Why?
Our problems with terrorism won’t be solved by staying out of wars and the business of other countries. That theory of his is flawed. I’m not sure what the answer is, but he doesn’t have it.
Perhaps we stop all Muslims from coming into the United States. The Muslims that are here, that want to change our country to suit them...well, they can be shipped out. That won’t happen though.
We’re stuck until we are cleansed of this PC bull crap. I doubt there are any politicians that are brave enough to swim without their PC water-wings.
I do agree with Ron Paul on much though...
I hope so. Just out of curiosity, who do you like? Speaking about right now, not holding you to it down the line.
I missed that from Jim. Thanks for re-posting. Good to see he isn’t fooled by ron paul.
IMO, it’s way too early. I’m really not impressed with anyone at this point.
Thanks...and it probably didn't help that he looks like a twin brother to that Heaven's Gate cult leader.
Ron Paul has too many Alex Jones followers. Alex Jones is the original Mr. Crazy Pants.
“They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers,” Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said on the Larry King show:
This is where Ron Paul lost me and most of the Conservatives I know. The idea that it is better to fight the enemy overseas rather than here in the homeland is rooted in our basic character. Mr Paul seems to feel that if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. That idea is so naive that it makes us question his basic thinking process. We are at war. We cannot unilaterally declare peace and go home because the other side won't let us.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with him on the small government concept and most of his other positions....but when he loses his creditability like this it's hard to get it back.
isolationism does not have a good track record in modern history.
Actually, I am increasingly of the opinion that both the action in Afghanistan (what the hell do we need with a country named after a dog?) and the one in Iraq wee unnecessary.
In a rational world, no nation would support, or give sanctuary to terrorists who attack the country with the mightiest military in history. In a rational world, those that do, pay dearly. In a rational world, Libya, Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would be radioactive, smoking ruins.
In a rational world, we would not be interventionist, but we would get revenge.
Muslims attack us because its what they’ve been taught to do since about 400 AD. Their religion does not tolerate any other religions. They are instructed to kill anyone who refuses to convert.
We could pull everything back to the states and they would seek us out. Only our international trade would die first. All of our allies would be converted by force.
Ron Paul has some great ideas about constitutionality in government, but he’s way too far out there on the fringe insofar as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned. I have yet to hear how he’d take the fight to al-Qaeda. It’s rather difficult to “declare war” on a non-state entity.
And we occupied Afghanistan WHEN before 9/11?
“And we occupied Afghanistan WHEN before 9/11? “
And thats an example of how Dr Paul is a wacko.
Ron Paul is the only Federal legislator whose ideas resemble any of those of the Founding Fathers...including the admonition about involving ourselves in foreign affairs.
There simply is no need for the depths of our involvment in the overseas oil markets that have led us to a condition of nearly “perpetual war” in a region of the world permantly wedded to hatred.
May I point out that our “founders” was not a bunch of Isolationist nutjobs??? TJ sent the Navy to deal with The Barbary Pirates (our first war on terror) instead of giving them bribes...
Ron Paul is a Weasel! Get over him!
Sarah Palin is a Rock Star!
“Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute....”
We pay tribute....every day...in every way...dollars, blood, lives, time,attention and future treasury to a part of the world with which we, by virtue of the natural resources we have in abundance, HAVE NO NEED TO DO SO in any way, shape or form.
TJ at least put an end to tribute and lives in one relatively short expedition...and if anything today because of how our elected representatives have chosen to deal with these issues so far, there is no end in sight other than what Ron Paul rationally proposes .
Communism is the tool of Satan to wreck havoc across the planet.
I agree with his stand on the fed and the economy - his foreign policy is left field
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.