Skip to comments.It's Conservatism (Or why we can't support Ron Paul)
Posted on 08/05/2011 9:43:48 PM PDT by orthodoxyordeath
During the past few years, the American people have witnessed the strikingly meteoric rise of two politicians on both sides of the political aisles. These two burst onto the political scene during the '08 Presidential Race, and have impassioned individuals in a manner not seen in recent memory. The Liberals got Barack Obama. We all know how that turned out. The Conservatives got stuck with Ron Paul, a deadweight if there ever was one.
Now, as we enter into the full swing mayhem of the next presidential race, it's interesting to note the similarities between "Paul-ites" and the '08 "Obama-ites". The support Paul has on the Internet is probably only second to Obama, and Paul's supporters (you know who I'm talking about!) are some of the most dedicated and rabid ones around. I'm not going to mince words here, Paul fans are as impaired and emotionally unstable as the Obama supporters were (and still are). After jumping onto the passing "Ron Paul Revolution" bus, people have lost their political sanity. The Paul movement is stronger than ever, and people are joining his campaign everyday. I have major problems with him, and I'm going to lay them out here.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebandofpatriots.com ...
R-U-N Paul is a Libertarian, not a Conservative. He’s not worth the ink people are wasting on him.
Agree. Can’t stand the guy or his supporters.
Ron Paul is the constitutionalist that ‘conservatives’ say they’re looking for, but really aren’t. Paul is right, conservatives have lost their way and have become more and more like progressives. But we keep voting for the same old frauds and think it will work THIS time.
The ATF, yes I could see doing away with them. The rest, not so much.
Ron Paul can blow it out his ass. There is a difference between Conservatism and Anarchy. Ron is all anarchy. Now if you want me to vote for his son I am on board. He is a Reaganite.
R-U-N Paul is a fraud.
Your link didn’t work for me, try this one:
(Conservatism was spelled conservativsm in your links...)
Whoops, I completely messed up the URL somehow. I’m so sorry guys. First post, noob here, have some mercy :-/
Nonsense. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. Ron Paul is the same as Andre Marrou, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, etc - all failed libertarian presidential candidates, all utterly insignificant politically. The only reason Paul is even noticed at all is because he runs as a Republican instead of the libertarian that he actually is.
When all is said and done and Paul gets some tiny fraction of the primary vote, more than half of his supporters will go on to vote for Obama in the general election rather than the GOP nominee anyway. Many, perhaps most, libertarian leaning voters are simply mushhead college students that want legalized dope and are attracted to a peacenik agenda.
TL;DR, Paul is a libertarian not a conservative, doesn't really belong in the Republican party and adds precious little to the GOP.
Keep those earmarks coming Ron...
It might not have been your fault. They may have made the initial mistake and fixed it, leaving you with bad links...
But dismissing a large part of the conservative movement that feels there is more honesty in libertarian views is mostly disingenuous.Franklin would have happily called himself a libertarian, Goldberg enjoined libertarianism, and as for supporting "the Reaganite":
From the pen of Ronald Reagan, himself in Reason magazine in 1975:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
The problem is that are so many assumed conservatives who are pissed that the Left is getting away with what they would like to do - use the force of a central government to make individuals live according their world view.
Oh, I get it. A conservative is someone who believes in unconstitutional government as long as it’s THEIR unconstitutional government. Vote for Romney or Perry or Palin or whomever ends up getting the nod and you know what you’ll get? Bigger government because not a one of them truly believes in smaller government or placing the chains of the constitution back on the feds. Yes, during the election they’ll talk about it, but once they get in power, forget about it.
We need to wake up to the fraud that is so called conservatism which isn’t conservatism at all. It’s just the slow socialism that so many of you claim to hate yet you continue to support election cycle after election cycle and then wonder why we keep getting the same old crap out of D.C.
Ron Paul is no conservative, nor does he have a chance of winning the nomination.
He runs because he likes the attention his cult gives him.
The BEST article I’ve ever read on Ron Paul. It expresses my thoughts on him completely!
“R-U-N Paul is a Libertarian, not a Conservative. Hes not worth the ink people are wasting on him.”
I’m SO glad he decided not to run on third party ticket, though, as he did in 1988. He’d be a real spoiler and doom us to a second term of BHO for sure. At least this way, we’ll get rid of him (not soon enough, but soon as possible).
I’m also scared to death that Trump’s going to get back in as a third party candidate. He talks about it at least once a week.
“Hes not worth the ink people are wasting on him.”
The problem is, the leftist MSM thinks this nutjob represents real conservatives. It galls me how so many of them make him the face of the Tea Party.
This blog link is dead. might as well read some internet posts.
“Whoops, I completely messed up the URL somehow. Im so sorry guys. First post, noob here, have some mercy :-/”
I just used some ingenuity and did a search from within the site :-)
It was a great post, thanks for that.
I remember MY very first thread post (I was clueless) - the headline had a typo in it! So embarrassing. Then I guess JimRob took pity on me, because next thing I knew, it was corrected :-)))))))))))
Again, thanks for that post. Think I’ll print it out, carry it with me and next time I encounter another misled Ron Paul fan, just hand it to them to read (if they seem open to reason, that is).
“Now if you want me to vote for his son I am on board. He is a Reaganite.”
RP probably wonders where he went wrong as a father :-)
But look which member of the family made Senator.
Hint. Nobody clicks on blog links. If your blog has something to say, say it. Don’t stop in mid sentence.
You’re new here. You’ll find out we hate unnecessary excerpts. It looks like you’re blog pimping.
Just say it.
This is the page where I found the article.
Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy are really scary.
He does NOT understand Islam in the least. They are commanded to convert, subjugate or kill ALL non-Muslims (Infidels) and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what WE do or do not do. They’d really love for us to follow what RP preaches - just look the other way, ignore Israel and hide our heads in the sand.
We already have one president who’s helping our enemies and leaving us more vulnerable than ever - the last thing we need is another.
I suppose I’ll have email spam again tonite.
why not? what has the FBI ever done for you?
We have a bunch neocons calling themselves conservatives but of course they are big government commies and former Trotskyites that have co-opted the right.
I guess what I mean is we got stuck with him in that he’s the supposed “star” now, and he somehow got associated, wrongly, with us conservatives
That was addressed, I apologize. I’d change the link if I could. A word is misspelled in the given link somehow, that’s the real link:
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.
What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of non-interference. However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.
Libertarians think they may advance the cause of social liberalism simultaneously with fiscal conservatism; but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.
Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
- Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? Give us bread and circuses!
Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.
Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nations economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.
You need to understand that the vast Republicans are not libertarians and Ron Paul is a libertarian. Because Paul decided to put an (R) by his name because he couldn't get elected dog catcher without being in one of the two major party's does not make him a conservative.
Paul has some good things to say when it comes to economic issues, but his social and foreign policy are simply unacceptable to 95% of conservative voters within the Republican party. You just have to get that through your head.
And another big problem with Paul is that he isn't even helping grow the Republican party by adding libertarians with his views to it. Paul voters tend to be a bunch of college mushheads who don't give a fig about his economic views, they are only voting for him because of his drug legalization and anti-war views (2 of the very policies conservatives oppose). Most Paul voters and supporters are NOT going to vote for the eventual GOP nominee anyway (even if it's a Tea Party conservative like Palin or Bachmann) - and more than half will likely go on to vote for Obama.
Thank you for a mature, well thought out response! Paulite?
Sorta like Dennis Kucinich. All political bluster, no political accomplishments.
That is exactly the reason I hope he decides to run third party. He will definitely siphon off more obama votes than Republican votes. No true Republican could vote for this blame America first surrender monkey.
I have a hunch your right. I think Paul would draw more votes from Obama than he would the eventual GOP nominee (which most certainly will not, and will never be, Ron Paul). Paul's base is ignorant college kids who want to smoke dope and protest wars. These are not Republican voters, these are libertarian voters who don't really understand the rest of the libertarian agenda. Nearly every Paul supporter I knew from 2008 ended up voting for Obama. If Paul ran 3rd party at least we'd deprive Hussein of some percentage of the pot smoking, peacenik voters.
Every time one comes on here I, and many others get spammed in my mail box.
I didn't get far enough past what you clipped because your link is bad.
I thought it was an article about the great following the kook has.
No, no I can’t stand Paul. He’s a nutbag
To whoever posted those pictures, remember, he said he wanted to be distanced from Reagan.
Based upon what Libertarians have stated as their tenents, IMO their political ideology would, if implemented, result in anarchy.
Meaningless, all of them. I’m sure there are pictures of Reagan with Tip O’Neill too.
...The same sh!t from the same CINOS that voted for McCain and stood around Nov 08 lookin like someone dropped a turd in their drink, "wwwwhat happened???
...Oh yea, haven't heard anything in constructive dialog from you goofballs but GO PALIN, WWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOO!!!!!!
...Forget it, sorry I wasted my time and bandwidth...
My challenge to you, since you called me a GOOFBALL, is for you to find any posts I have made that embodies your accusaation with respects to Palin. Good luck.
Since you understand that he controls a large bloc of votes, and you believe that his voters won’t vote for any Republican not named Ron Paul, you are hoping that he’s on the ticket as VP, I assume. You can do basic math.
Reagan and other candidates running this year.
Rick Perry has pictures with Al Gore, I’m sure, from when Rick Perry rabn Al Gore’s TX campaign in 1988 But not with Reagan.
Other candidates might pretend they were with Reagan. Ron Paul was with Reagan.
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.