Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maybe Ron Paul’s fringe is what America needs
Small Gov Times ^ | 2009-12-30 | Steve Adcock

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.


TOPICS: Candidates; Issues
KEYWORDS: apaulling; apaulogia; apaulogist; paulbearers; paulestinians; paulkucinich08; paulkucinich12; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: rabscuttle385

the Republican and Democratic parties are headed for the dustbin of history


41 posted on 12/31/2009 7:36:02 AM PST by usshadley (Orwell was an Optimist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Like treating a cut on your finger with a flamethrower. No thanks.


42 posted on 12/31/2009 8:03:34 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
"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.

And THAT is where the public support for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan came from.

The truth is that "Revenge" is what Americans really wanted after 9/11 -- -- to strike back and not feel helpless. But Americans are so geographically challenged that it became "Iraq, Afghanistan", same difference, it's all over there". It's NOT "the same difference".

Afghanistan, yes. They gave safe harbor to those who attacked us. We needed to take out al Qaeda there and there is evidence that it wouldn't have taken all that much to do so had we used the right strategy and not been distracted by Iraq.

But if someone took a step back for long enough to realize what's happened, they'd see that it was Saudi Arabia that needed (and still needs) removed from the face of the map. Saudis are playing both ends against the middle -- publicly befriending us to take our money, meanwhile sponsoring terrorism against us and other non-Muslim peoples around the world. If we took out Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would ultimately become completely irrelevant. But the Saudis were protected by the longstanding friendship with the Bush family. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was Saudi Arabia that was the prime motivator and financial sponsor for the Iraq war.

Attacking Afghanistan was rational. But nothing else in our Middle East strategy (if there is one) for the last 20 years has been rational. It's probably irrational to us because we don't see all the strings being pulled and pockets being stuffed behind the scenes.

War is unfortunately sometimes necessary to defend yourself, but the point is to fight wars that you are going to get some relief/benefit from, not to make it a way of life that drains you, your people and your resources and leaves you with nothing -- even if you win.

So, having said all of that, I still agree that a RP non-interventionist policy should be our ideal, where we only go to war to defend ourselves and defend our direct interests.

But instead, we've empowered a globalist cabal who are determined to remake the world in their own image using our country, manpower and resources to do it for them --FOR THEM, not for us. Their strategy is that they reap the benefits and we wind up broke and disheartened, dependent on them for everything.

I, for one, don't want to play their game.

43 posted on 12/31/2009 10:38:27 AM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
isolationism does not have a good track record in modern history.

When, precisely, have we seen it tried in order to evaluate that "track record"?

44 posted on 12/31/2009 6:38:02 PM PST by uprising2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
I have yet to hear how he’d take the fight to al-Qaeda.

did I miss the sarcasm tag?

45 posted on 12/31/2009 6:38:05 PM PST by uprising2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: uprising2010

When have we seen it work? Its very similar to the enemy who want us to go back to the 700s.


46 posted on 12/31/2009 7:01:47 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: uprising2010; ScottinVA

“I have yet to hear how he’d take the fight to al-Qaeda.

did I miss the sarcasm tag?”

Thats because Dr Paul WON’T take the fight to the enemy. He’d pull pull all the troops back to the US and hope someone didn’t come for us.


47 posted on 12/31/2009 7:06:02 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky; SoCalPol

Afraid so. Ron Paul threads are the gifts that just keep on giving.

All that’s missing are some photos of the screwball.


48 posted on 12/31/2009 7:12:38 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: usshadley

Not in your life time.


49 posted on 12/31/2009 7:13:37 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: onyx

50 posted on 12/31/2009 7:19:18 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Reposting so it posts in top spot #51


51 posted on 12/31/2009 7:24:01 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Jim Robinson
Why aren't the anti war, Ron Paul bots going the way of the Romney bots and the Rudy bots?

Left up to Paul, America would have taken no action after 9-11 because it was our fault. He is scum!

52 posted on 12/31/2009 7:29:31 PM PST by CAluvdubya (Palin 2012...YOU BETCHA!.--Praying for Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya

Ron Paul and his PaulBots believe we were attacked because we are occupiers “Imperial America” as Paul said.

CAluvdubya, don’t they remind you of the Code Pinkos wer countered for weeks and weeks. They have the same Neo Left talking points


53 posted on 12/31/2009 7:34:17 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Come to think of it, they do remind me of the ugly code pinkos we ran off from the Naval Hospital.

Paul bots should be ashamed of themselves for supporting an America apologizer. We already have that with the current admin.

54 posted on 12/31/2009 7:40:06 PM PST by CAluvdubya (Palin 2012...YOU BETCHA!.--Praying for Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson