Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
The other day I was driving past a very busy Intersection in my neck of the woods and I noticed a Ron Paul Revolution sign had gone up. There were a couple more on the toll way that some farmer had put up. These were put there on private property by people that most likely were not paid to do so. That’s the way Ron Paul supporters are. They don’t have to be asked to do something for their candidate. They don’t have to be told to go out and campaign. They simply do what they can, or what they think needs to be done. Most are extremely enthusiastic about Ron Paul, and some would say they are too enthusiastic. Perhaps they are right and in some cases Ron Paul supporters get a little overbearing in their zeal, but that is to be expected. After all, when was the last time we saw an honest politician in this country? When was the last time a politician spoke of adhering to the constitution? Oh sure, they’ve always been there, lurking on the outside of the establishment, staring through the windows of the halls of power at two major parties like bums passing a mansion and longing for just a taste of the good life as the Democrats and Republicans pass laws making it harder and harder for them to ever get elected. This is the first time in a long time a major party candidate has come out with a message of hope and freedom and of smaller, limited, less intrusive government. It is a message that he backs up with his voting record. It is this message that has gotten his supporters so excited. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters might not have supported anyone in this campaign had Ron Paul decided not to run. No other candidate, either Republican or Democrat, espouses the principles Ron Paul supports. All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul. His candidacy has given many of us someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against. His candidacy has given many of us something to vote for other than the lesser of two evils.
Yet the enthusiasm and excitement expressed by Ron Paul’s supporters seems to have spawned a community of fellows vehemently opposed to Ron Paul. As I go through posts and read through blogs, it seems to me that many of these people are frightened by something. There’s something about their insistence, their passion about the "evil" of Ron Paul and the seemingly supernatural power of his “few” supporters to be able to hijack opinion polls, phone polls, and dominate Internet blogs, there’s something about the demeanor of these folks that suggests to my mind that they are terrified. There’s something even more disturbing about the way the mass media ignores or portrays him. All this has caused me to wonder, what are these Ron Paul detractors so frightened of? I have spent some time in the blogosphere in an effort to ascertain the answer to this question and to assuage their fear. Of course, I don’t expect to be able to convince everyone that there is nothing to fear from a Ron Paul victory, there are people who no matter how hard you argue, no matter how much reason you apply to the argument, will simply refuse to listen. They will not give up their beliefs. I hope to reach those who are on the fence, who are intrigued by Ron Paul’s ideas but are worried about all the negative rhetoric spewed forth by those afraid of real change.
One of the first things I notice about Ron Paul detractors is how often they call Ron Paul and his supporters names. To be fair, I’ve also seen Ron Paul supporters calling his detractors names, which I also think is wrong. As Ron Paul supporters, we should be able to recognize name calling for the juvenile practice it is and avoid that tactic. I know that’s hard to do when the mud starts flying. I realize that when someone insults you it is a natural tendency to insult them back, but we need to remember that name calling accomplishes nothing and serves only to inflame the emotions of those involved. We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots. Let them label us “crazy”, “conspiracy theorists” and whatever else they want to label us as. So what? Take a deep breath and let the name calling roll off your shoulders. It is more important to get Ron Paul’s message of personal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government out there. It is time for us to grow up. It is time for us to reclaim out freedoms, to demand them back, and in the process get our lives back, free from government intervention.
Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. They have addressed their fears and stated why they are against Ron Paul. I’d like to address some of these. One of the big ones is that he’s against abortion. This is true, Ron Paul is against abortion. More specifically, he believes it should not be a constitutional issue and that the individual states should be able to decide abortion laws. He is, after all, an ob/gyn and as such has his own personal opinion on the miracle of life. Still, this is an issue where he and I actually disagree. I see abortion as a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor and perhaps her family. Government should not be involved. But all this is beside the point. In my opinion, this country has far, far more important issues to worry about. And those who worry about women losing the right to an abortion, fear not. President Bush is also against abortions and he was not able to make them illegal in this country even with a Republican congress and a supreme court leaning his way.
Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is not so. Sure, he wants to bring our troops home from around the world. This is something he would actually have the power to do, should he become president. He wants to end our wars of aggression and bring the troops back home to protect our borders. Isn’t that what the military is for? Do we have to police the world? I don’t believe we should. I say it’s time we stopped trying to dictate to the world how to run their countries and remove the threat of force our military poses. I say it's time we stopped nation building. Just because he wants to bring the soldiers home does not mean he is an isolationist. He would still want to do business with the rest of the world. The difference is, he would not be doing business at the point of a gun, rather we would all be interacting on a voluntary basis. Sure, competition would increase, but fear not. I have faith in the American people. I think we can take on competition and come out ahead. We don’t need to force our will upon others in order to remain on top of the heap. We can lead by example and show the world that free markets are the way to improve the quality of everyone’s life. I believe that left to our own devices our ideas and innovations will help improve the world for all mankind.
I read one detractor claim that Ron Paul is racist. When I see the label “racist” used, I instantly question the author’s motive. When one uses such a name it seems to be an attempt to evoke emotion in the reader and cause one to instantly ostracize the subject on the basis that this person has an opinion that is so onerous as to be socially unacceptable. Now, I don’t know Ron Paul personally, so I can’t say for certain whether he is or isn’t a racist, but I can say that I seriously doubt it. Apparently, the claim that he is a racist came from some sort of newsletter that he sent out where one of his people made an unseemly comment that some interpreted as racist. Ron Paul apologized for the comment and fired the offending staffer. I would bet that just about everyone has said something at some point in time that could be considered racist. This does not make the person racist. As it is, Ron Paul has himself addressed this issue. Some of his thoughts on racism can be found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
I believe that fear is unfounded.
Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul’s stance on taxes and the Federal Reserve will lead to economic collapse. First off, why should a privately owned organization have a monopoly on our money when the constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” Why should our tax dollars go to pay the interest on trillions of dollars in loans when congress can order the creation of treasury notes interest free? Personally, I’m tired of seeing the value of the dollar shrink to nothing and I’d rather have a steady, stable currency that keeps its value as we had for hundreds of years before this fiat banking system took hold around the world. There might be a short period of adjustment in the economy if Ron Paul was able to implement such a change, but sound fiscal policy and the power of free, open markets would soon right the ship. Then there are those who would ask “What about the poor?” when income taxes are done away with. Well, not having to pay taxes will certainly give you more money in your pocket. You could give the extra money you’d have to some worthy charity that helps the poor. Private enterprises taking care of charity can certainly do a better job than any government organization or plan for wealth redistribution. Again, I have faith in the American people. We are, after all, perhaps the most generous nation in the world. You should not fear changing our money system, for sometimes change is for the best and often times it comes whether you plan it or not. It’s best if that change can be controlled rather than suddenly thrust upon us.
I could go on, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Try to remember, we are in the process of selecting a president here, not a dictator or a decider. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for a smaller government with the voting record to prove it. All the other candidates are for increasing the size of government and government’s power and control over you. Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, and any war of aggression. He is in favor of bringing our troops home to protect our borders. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Military Commissions Act. He does not believe we should engage in entangling alliances. He believes we should maintain our national sovereignty. And, should the citizens of the United States elect him as our next president, we would be sending a clear message to our politicians that we understand what freedom is and what it means and that we want to keep our freedoms and liberties rather than letting them die under the oppressive boots of a police state. We would also be sending a message that we appreciate honesty and openness in government and we will no longer tolerate the corruption that has plagued our government for decades now. Ron Paul should frighten no one, except maybe the establishment which has been feeding at the pig trough of political power for far too long.
I don’t think it’s “frightened” so much as “annoyed.”
They have a way of trying to take over whatever is happening on any website that will let them. :p
Oh you want to play?
Simple challenge to you. With NO slogans. NO demagogary. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything.
Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together bascially screaming bile at everyone and everything.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive retoric. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
“They” being Paul supporters.
Your comment is a perfect example of that, specifically in using the Unitary Executive branch principle to implement change. This is exactly what you want, and I agree in this approach.
The problem, however, is that Ron Paul doesn’t agree with you. He has spoken out often and loud against the Unitary Executive branch. He calls it Presidential dictatorship.
This again goes back to what someone else said, Paul is long on platitudes, short on specific plans. By doing this, we are, in our own minds, filling in the ‘how’ and all the details he leaves out and falsely attributing that to a specific of how Paul would do that.
This is why Paul seems to generate such an emotional response, because people have had to invest themselves into his plans in order to fill in the gaps. Instead of debating for Paul, you are subconsciously debating for yourself.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The vast majority of replies are one liner "Fear the Fred" type comments. Most of the rest are cut-n-paste advocacy rips from some site or another, reams of text that doesn't address the point. Very, very few are cogent, crafted responses to direct questions or on point rebuttals.
OTOH, I am talking about real, valid criticisms, not the spin attacks such as you refer to. Those are also mostly cut-n-paste hatchet jobs.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the postings about every (R) candidate on FR consists of dialog at the "My ol' man can beat up your ol' man" level of discourse. The same tired, old attack graphics, the same out-of-context quotes, the same juvenile ad hominums, thread after thread.
Your little graph is puzzling for a number of reasons. 1) It says it is "Since Fred Thompson entered the race on March 10th, 2007". Um...no. 2) It says that every candidate starts at 1, but it is a measure of a change of "momentum." So if I start at .002 and go to 1, then I've got some terrific momentum and I'm still completely irrelevant.
Paul isn't the only candidate in the race whose support seems to mostly come from projection. But, it does no good to warn them. They will insist on hero worship, and then shriek the loudest when they get "betrayed" because the Chosen One didn't do what they imagined he would.
For example, look at Bush. He made no secret of his immigration policy in 2000, yet some conservatives were totally shocked to find out that he didn't see the Mexican Exodus the same as they did.
Or take Arnold Schwartzenegger. They thought he was actually promising a policy when he made vague statements about "blowing up boxes". They thought he meant to change things when he promised a "top to bottom audit" of the state government. They heard what they wanted to hear.
Quick, what percentage of the 2006 Federal Budget was consumed by "foreign aid gravy trains?" Yeah. You don't know. But it's a good bumper sticker.
And almost every post in favor of Ronnie says that Ronnie is the only candidate for the Constitution with a copy/paste from the Ron Paul website. That's the level of most public debate these days. No different on this issue.
Dittoes. Nobody is "frightened" by Ron Paul. He's just a big target, easy and fun to trash.
Not quite accurate. In fact, if you visit www.stormfront.com, you'll see plenty of pro-Ron Paul stuff for yourself and you won't have to depend on a blog. I know this won't give you pause, but maybe some other people. And I have not seen anyone say all RP supporters are neo-Nazis. I have seen them say that it is more than a bit bothersome to see neo-Nazis so excited about supporting him as a candidate.
“Refreshing to be able to enter a voting booth and vote for someone because you believe in their principles instead of voting simply because you don’t want the ‘other guy’ to get in office”
You’ve always had this choice. There are always third parties.
But theres’ also a damn good reason most people don’t vote for them.
Thank you very much because you unknowingly are proving something I’ve said many times...
...and
People actually want to vote for themselves and they are projecting that on Paul.
???Paul wants to vote for me?Paul wants to vote for himself.What a bunch of gobbbledy-gook.It only makes sense to vote for that person that most closely resembles your own personal views.Calling it projection is a psychologist looking for work.
The problem, however, is that Ron Paul doesn’t agree with you. He has spoken out often and loud against the Unitary Executive branch. He calls it Presidential dictatorship.
But I doubt very much if he believes that the president doesn't run the executive branch.Whether or not he believes in the Unitary Executive does not make that doctrine so.He may not believe in executive orders either,but it may well be that they would be required to rescind those which have already been issued.
You asked me what constitutional powers exist which give the president the authority to implement his agenda.It is very much the case that he believes there was no authority in the first place to create these agencies.
And in my answer to your first post,you know,the questions to which you NEVER received any answers,I explained that you can ask your question about ANY of the other candidates running.I can imagine,every time Romney or some other flunky nominated by the GOP expounds on an idea,to ask him "okay,you beleive that,but what differencce does it make,what can you as president do about it?
Paul is long on platitudes, short on specific plans.
The repeal of the income tax,removal of the UN,abolishment of the IRS and FRB.These are platitudes?These are not specific plans?.Oh no not for you,you demand to know before the election,exactly what it is he's going to do the morning of Jan.21,2009.According to these criteria,no-one is suited for the job.Whether the president has the power,if only the power of the bully-pulpit,is a question up for much debate.But failing to find fault with these "platitudes",you immediatley go into argument b,"How will he do it?"
This is why Paul seems to generate such an emotional response, because people have had to invest themselves into his plans in order to fill in the gaps.
You're a riot.Yes it's the Paul supporters who are emotional.How perceptive of you.You can always tell them by their bitter invectives.
Instead of debating for Paul, you are subconsciously debating for yourself.
Right. Debating for yourself.Also known as thinking
You asked for specific methods.I pointed out two.One you answered unconvincingly and the other you ignored.Then you posited that perhaps Paul supporters are lost in some kind of subconscious limbo.
But go ahead,take your favorite candidate and pose the same ridiculous burdens on them.How would they do ANYTHING on which they campaign.We do have a three part government,the president is not omnipotent.This applies to ALL the candidates.To find this as a major fault with the campaign of one is not much fault at all.In fact it speaks well of him that the only thing you can really find fault with something for which no candidate can answer..
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything.
Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
Not getting us killed is an important issue.
It's not a matter of how much,but rather why are Americans being taxed even a penny to send overseas to some God-forsaken country that probably bad-mouths us and votes against our interests in the UN?Do you have any principles at all,or are you just concerned about your pocketbook(not that that's not something with which to be concerned,but in this matter it should certainly be secondary).
This is a free country.If you want to send your money to Zimbabwe,Croatia,or even Iraq,you have a right to do so.Give till it hurts,as you'll be making up for me.
Not getting us killed is an important issue.
Why don't you break the ice and tell us all how ANY candidate would do anything.You can't find fault with his core positions,with the possible exception of his position the War on Terror,so you put up this ridiculous argument.You make it sound as though any of the other candidates would have powers to implement their policies that would not be available to Paul were he elected.
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.