Why Ron Paul is Not the Man
This is why I would not support Ron Paul. EVER.:
-I am not sure, but have all our politicians gone brain dead? Does not Ron Paul realize that he is part of the government he implicates in this statement ‘I never automatically trust anything the government does’? I mean that basically nulls and voids everything, all of them do, ever. And he tops it with this gem ‘It’d be bipartisan too’? If anything, the 9/11 Commission was skewed against the Bush Administration, certainly not for it. Which then implies that Mr. Paul (et al) want to condem the Bush Administration which brings into question any investigation he or Kucinich would conduct, which of course leads us directly back to his original statement. And he, of course can’t see the insanity of such a statement and that which follows.-
I sent this to Michelle Malkin after she highlighted his stupid ‘I never. . .’statement in one of the debates.
He sounds as lunatic and insane as all the bds suffering barking moonbats on the left. And that is definately dangerous for America.
I just want to say that I think that article about Ron Paul is way off the mark. He is probably the most conservative Congressman that exists today, also a long time supporter and friend of Ronald Reagan. What we have now are people that don’t really resemble what a true conservative is. The following is a rebuttal to the items listed above: 1. Ron Paul has been a Repulican Congressman for 10 terms. “10”. He ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate once. True conservative values align themselves with the libertarians, like it or not!!! 2. Check out the NAU and see what you think. Is it really happening? I was a skeptic as well until I checked out alot of information on both sides of the fence, and to my amazement there are alot of things going on from the CFR and SPP that are very quesionable. Why is Rudy’s company involved with the Trans Texas corridor? Hummmm!!! There are huge amounts of information out there. Check it out. 3. Why is everyone so afraid of re-looking at some of the so called conspiracy nuts ideas? I think the Federal Gov’t has done a lousy job explaining many things surrounding 911. Why can’t an independant council of ordinary citizen, with credentials, be used to either set the record straight or find out what happened? I believe “we the people” should be involved alot more in these issues when fraud and corruption are thoght to exist. The commitees they get to look into these things are just more of the same politcal people that are all in it together. How can you get an honest finding on anything? 4. What are these so called radical views. Is following the constitution radical? Since when? Holey Cow!!! Is getting rid of the income tax radical? That is a huge issue that many may be surprised at how it has all come to pass. Check that out and see if you think its still legitamate. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation, not run by the Gov’t. Check that out as well. 5. There are always, irrating supporters out there in any campaign. Is that really relevant to anything? 6. Ron is not an isolationist, read the constitution. Then you will see why he believes what he does. 7. Ron’s postion on the War is that Congress has never delared war. They gave the power to the President to do so and that in itself was un-constitutional. He believes the war on terror is a sham to keep the conflict going on on on forever to keep us all in fear. I can’t say that I totally agree with his opinion on the war but if you follow the constitution, he is correct. 8. Ron did not excuse the attacks on us by Al-Qaeda. What he said was that since we’ve been meddling in their affairs over there they retaliated against us. He did not say they we justified. He said it was blow back and that very issue was stated in the 911 report. Check it out for yourself. The enemy is Redressing a Greivance against us. We have the right to Redress a Greivance in this country as well. Still Ron didn’t say he approved of what they did. His thought on the whole issue is that we have flawed foreign policy that needs to be corrected. 8. Ron Paul is probably the most electable candidate that the Repulicans have but they don’t see it. He reaches across the polital isle and has lots of support from Repulicans, Independants and, who would of thought, liberals. The current polls taken are showing Americans more likely to vote for a Democrat President. This in itself is scary because they will put even more debt load on the American people with their Health care and other new give away programs. Check out Rons site at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and http://www.dailypaul.com/ there are many others as well.
I hope you will all at least think about what I have said and do a little research before you form an opinion. The corporate media is working overtime to discredit this man. Don’t fall for it. Question everything you hear and read, even this. Don’t tust any network for truth or believe that they are fair and balanced. Remember its all about the money. Just one last note. Itsn’t it funny that all the “Big” candidates have so much money in their camapign funds? Ron gets his from personal donations, grass roots support. Where does theirs come from???
Posted by mustang302
06/15/2007 at 10:14 AM
Ok mustang, I figured out “NAU”. But CFR and SPP? Not acronyms I’m familiar with.
I’m not afraid to look at what the conspiracy folks have to say and have done so. But like Rosie’s belief that fire can’t melt steel, a huge amount of thier beliefs are utter crap.
RP has some strange ideas - yes, we were bombing Iraq for 10 years, but it was because they were shooting at us for 10+ years!
Many many conservative people are naturally suspicious of a candidate that somehow attracts large numbers of the moonbat fringe.
As for Congress giving the President the power to declare war, this is rather a misstatement. I think you are referring to Paul’s speech of 2/4/04 which harks back to his other talk about the October ‘02 resolution to use force against Iraq. Again, I think he is mistaken, as he is splitting hairs that may not actually exist. His own words at that time were
“But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.
My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously. ”
So please, mustang, tell me how RP can say Congress gave up the power to declare war to the president, when by his own admission we were still actively engaged in a war that had begun 12 years prior? Such immature circular logic; it is a viewpoint the tinfoil hat brigade clings to, and to me that’s the kiss of death to a GOP candidate.
I’m willing to look at his other ideas, but this view of his along with what really does seem like a “we had it coming” attitude gives him about zero chance of ever getting my support.
I am never sure it is a good idea to argue with conspiracy theorists, because they have already jumped off the logic train. I agree that true conservatism is just another word for Libertarianism. However Paul is just the Republican incarnation of Kucinich. They are both nutjobs who have no chance of being elected. They dilute the base and take focus off issues of importance.
the government spent too much time on 911. Want an explanation? Some muslim crazies hijacked a plane and flew it into the WTC. End of analysis.
“...friend of Rpnald Regan”???? Surely you jest. everyone in polics described everyone they meet as a “friend”. The only Regan would have done differently is make certain we were better prepared when we went into Iraq or more correctly he would have made sure we finished the job Bush Sr failed to doPosted by DixieKraut
06/15/2007 at 03:46 PM
Go to the original post and you see that the RP nutters swarmed in like sharks to a chum pot. What is it with these clowns? Do they have some cyber/ether/virtual war room in their collective parents’ basements to just sit around monitoring the net and gang posting anywhere that RP is criticized?
More and more I think these goofs are just Lyndon LaRouche moles who start at foaming lunacy and go ballistic from there. Mostly.
I too find myself supporting Ron Paul. He is not a media whore but more like a regular joe…
Posted by CharmingBarracuda
06/15/2007 at 07:44 PM
Three words to those Luap Nor supporters out there visiting the late, great Skipper’s domain: ISLAM DELENDA EST.
Wow - Mr. Christian - you really know how to get the party going!
How can a fringe candidate bring such defense out of the woodwork?
I have most (can’t remember all their names, thanks to #7 for the names of a couple more) of the candidates bookmarked - I’ve read their take on the issues.
I’m tired of debating the talking points versa facts with those devoid of the intellectual capacity to even grasp reality.
I even was moved to read the NAU - tip #1 - on all issues - read both sides. While I concur that the progressive, liberal, socialist, communist, democrat, turncoats, sellouts - whatever euphemism you want to label those Americans who want to turn this into one Glowball Union peoples republic of pc stupidness World - I do not think that it is signed, done deal yet - and since those on the NAU, CFR, SPP side tend to shade and talk in euphemisms and double talk, and those on the other side tend to use facts, dates and - well you get my point.
As I’ve been connected to Iraq (OIF) almost since it happened - always family or friend there - I know that indeed we were welcomed as liberators again and again and again by the PEOPLE of Iraq - that 60+% of those ‘insurgents’ captured/killed are foreigners from Syria and Iran (now why are they fighting us, if they want us out of Iraq?) and that Baghdad, specifically Sadr city was welcoming until al-Sadr (you know cleric - of the religion of peace - incited mayhem under the guise that the US was going to dictate to them as Saddam had). . .what is a cleric - religion of peace - doing inciting violence when once again they claim they want us out of there? Perhaps they want us dead - just as the President stated and that the media who can’t seem to report a darn thing from Iraq correctly is mis-reporting the reasons. Cutting and running is cowardice, stupid and leaves the PEOPLE of Iraq in for a bloodbath that will make Saddam’s reign seem tame. That will do lots for American street cred in the World.
A person has to be more than a one trick pony and certainly palatable to a majority of Americans to become President - and sadly bds suffering, terrorist appologist and dimwit (’I never automatically trust anything the government does’) Ron Paul will never meet that standard.
Macker, mine is Lan Astaslem. Ever.
When some supporter rings in backing “Dr. Paul,” all I see are the legions of LaRouche supporters going covert to sound reasonable and rational - until you point out flaws in their logic and thinking, then the foam flies as the rabid fruitcake nutter unmasks.
One thing that strikes me so is that discussing any other candidate with one of their supporters usually include the candidate’s own flaws, and they all have them and any sane supporter will concede so. Not Paulists. They defend a messiah whose every holy word and deed must be defended against the heritic and the unbeliever.
Well this has been fun. One thing about Paul supports is that they don’t write a few lines and leave…anonymously. I particularly love the references to Dr Paul. I am not sure being an obstetrician qualifies you to be president. Although it might help in dealing with Pelosi.
First I want to address the logic problem pointed out by one of the many Anonymous posters. In my haste I left a word out of the sentence, it should have read, The only THING Reagan would have done differently is make certain we were better prepared when we went into Iraq or more correctly he would have made sure we finished the job Bush Sr failed to do. I am well aware when Regan was elected, I am an old guy and voted for him. The point, is had he been president when Bush Sr went to war with Iraq, I seriously doubt he would have Saddam slip away. And had he been president this time, he would not have gone to war with Iraq as ill prepared as Bush Jr. The further point is that, Paul and Reagan would have differed on foreign policy. I don’t see Paul standing in front of the Berlin wall tell the Russian leader to tear it down.
I am a Libertarian and agree with much of what Paul stands for, as I think most true conservatives do. However, he has a serious credibility problem, see the most recent posts at Little Green Footballs regarding coolkidsrebel.com. Too many certifiable kooks are on Paul’s bandwagon.
His positions on dealing with radical Islam are straight out of NPR’s playbook (you guys seem to like acronyms). He has his head in the sand. What is your negotiating position with someone who wants you dead? Offer to commit suicide? We learned in WWII that we cannot turn our back on the world’s problems and expect them to go away; they end up on our back door. And our unwillingness to confront them during the Clinton years led to what? 911 is what. The only thing we can do is convince them that if they screw with us, the price they will pay is higher than they will want to bear. Don’t cite Bin Ladens fatwa to me, I don’t care what he has to say. The Koran tells him he can say anything as long as it advances the cause of Islam. I want him the same way he wants me, DEAD. And I want a president that understands that.
Finally Paul operates too far outside the beltway. The last president we had like that was Carter, (OK maybe W too) remember how fabulously successful he was? Nobody detests the gang we have on Capitol Hill more than me, but I will guarantee you that most of them well be reelected the next time and the next president better know his way around Capital Hill. Christ look at Massachusetts, they have repeatedly elected Kennedy and Kerry. You may hate them, but you better be able to deal with them.
Hugh Hewitt wrote a great column on the problems the Libertarian party has a couple of years ago, it’s no longer on his site or I would have linked to it. But his point was that they tend to lead with issues like marijuana legalization, which the typical voter is ether turned off by or doesn’t care about. That makes the average guy think they are just a bunch of young kooks trying to get a legal joint; go to a convention and you will find that is not far off. Then they present candidates like Paul. Until they focus on issues the voters can get behind and offer credible candidates, the party will continue to operate on the fringe and that is what Paul is, a fringe candidate.Posted by DixieKraut
06/17/2007 at 06:58 PM
I am sorry but for someone who wants to ‘be elected’ to the highest office in government to make the statement ‘I never automatically trust anything the government does’ is not noble - it is stupid and borders on insane. I know what the shaded implication of his statement is - which also causes me angst - in a time of War not to support the Administration - which is of your Party. Not noble at all.
To claim that policies instituted after 9/11 are ‘freedom’ issues only is also problematic. Which ties into this 9/11 problems and his terrorist apologist attitude. And by his convoluted logic - President Bush didn’t need to even go before Congress for approval for action in Iraq. To the logical thinker - none of his positions on this issue, is worthy of a Presidential candidate.
Problems with and problematic government decisions as a reason to completely and utterly walk away from that situation is wrong (but if you insist on it - let’s start with the IRS, welfare, medicaid, 65 & 86 Immigration Laws, Teachers unions, the Kelo decision and Roe v Wade to kick the ball rolling on abandoning worthless, problematic and bad government programs that are not doing anything positive for America), rather than Iraq which needed to be cleaned up and taken care of years ago.
I shudder at a politician but most particularly a politician who desires to become President who forms his decisions on issues by polls. We had 8 years of it from the Clinton Administration and it is a stupid way to run the country. And I can point you to a poll where 90% say we need to stay in Iraq and finish the job (and oh my, they are Americans too).
As I said in my last post - try reading something (anything from the other side) and that in itself is one of my major problems with Mr. Dr. Congressman Ron Paul - he is part of the devisive - my way or the highway - intolerant, spitefilled attitude that permeates Hollyweird, the DNC, the left, the liberals and the anti-war mongers. That is not what America is about - and it never should be.
You wrote a message titled: “Ron Paul is not the man” and then listed nine reasons to justify that statement. Since you asked to hear from a Ron Paul supporter and I am that, I shall refute your comment showing that “Ron Paul is the man” and that several of your nine reasons are wrong, all of which I know to be invalid and fallacious.
You listed as your # 1 reason Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. While Ron Paul is both a Libertarian and a Republican being affiliated with a political party does not sanctify one as being a conservative. However, being for reduced government spending, reduced taxes, abolition of the IRS and limited a federal government as expressed by the constitution certainly does qualify one as a conservative. In fact, Ron Paul has the most conservative voting record in Congress. Unlike, President Bush who claims to be for limited government in the mold of Ronald Reagan then does just the opposite by increasing spending, the size of government and federal deficits each and every year; Ron Paul actually walks the conservative walk as his voting record gives testament to. Unfortunately, too many politicians these days claim be conservative because they espouse some sort of agenda that have mistakenly tagged as conservative but is actually anything but. Supporting an aggressive global war strategy and restrictions on the civil liberties of Americans is anything but.
As to your second reason “#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy.” All I know is that there are conspiracies then there are conspiracy theories. Too which do you refer? What is certain, I believe, is Dr. Paul opposes anything reducing the soverignty of the USA and including any sort of North American Union.
You said: “Ron Paul is an isolationist.” I say not so, he favors commerce bettween all countries but opposes our current foreign ploicy and our nonessential global militarism which has seemingly made us into a world police force. Costing us trillions of dollars of indebtedness, making us hated by, rather than beloved by, others around the planet. The cold war is over, why do we have troops nearly everywhere? Our interventionism and hegemony into the internal affairs of other soverign countries has reduce not enhanced our own national security and put us in mega debt for generations to come.
You said: “Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq”. “Cut and run”, PLEASE—you need to GROW UP! He wants us to bring our troops home where they belong because we should not be engaged in nation building on the other side of the planet and involved in someone else’s civil war! Seventy percent of Americans want us to do the same, to just get out. It’s the best policy for our national security and that is conservative thinking! How does continued pursuit of a failed, mistaken policy serve to protect the USA? Isn’t this what we all want! Think about it. I invite you to join Ron Paul inorder to reduce federal encroachements into our lives, make our country safer, more secure and closer to that which it ought to be.Ron Paul rEOVLution…Be a part of it!
DD
Posted by double D
06/18/2007 at 10:21 PM
(Canmeron Serves )Anonymous
I was reading your Wilsonian 9 points on Ron Paul and got to #6 about the 2-3 billion given to Israel. That is when I stopped reading your rant. Hmmm, All the countrys in the world that the United States hands out money to including Egypt (2 billion plus) Jordan ( 1.5 billion plus) etc etc etc and you conveniently mention Israel. Dollar for Dollar the USA gets back ten fold in technology, improvements in War Tech, Arts, Science ,Medecine etc. compared to the 10 billion + given to the Arab world and we get back bombs,sand,gibberish,Camel portraits etc. The fact that you guys mention Isreal in a heartbeat shows me you are ...yes.......Anti-Semetic and please don’t give that BS line about the Arabs being semetic too. That is such a lame ass roundabout argument.
Posted by earth56
06/19/2007 at 12:59 AM
Do you minions of Ron Paul actually work ? How is it you flood polls and buzzin anytime your leader is mentioned anywhere ?
Ron Paul spells Laup Nor backwards too !
Posted by earth56
06/19/2007 at 01:06 AM
