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.
Well then, back to the orininal post I responded to that suggested the candidate does not take the WOT seriously...My point was is neither does this government or our leadership.
Otherwise, we would have real border security, without millions crossing in illegally from who knows where, along with tons of drugs, thousands of truck full of human cargo, and Lord only knows what else...All during wartime.
So we agree. The current Bush administration and any hypothetical Ron Paul administration would not do a good job of addressing the war on terror. Thanks.
Perfect response to this article ... I don’t fear Ron Paul - I simply and utterly disagree with his view of foreign policy and consider his view incredibly dangerous for our country and the world.
They are about the only two providing good, solid info, and I have read them. Most of the rest are too busy shooting off snide comments to bother with, and if you were being honest with yourself, you would admit it.
The reason you see ‘Fear the Fred’ and ‘FredPhobic’, etc. is because those in the know are tired of repeating the information over and over again to those that think they know something but are unknowingly clueless or incorrigible.
I am doing my homework on all of the candidates I consider acceptable. One thing I have learned about all of them is that the stuff posted about them is mostly crap, once you read the primary source material in context.
But that isn't the reason the same "Fear the Fred" chants are posted ad nauseum. The reason is because the posters of those shallow slogans are reactionary fans trying to shout down the opposing viewpoint of anyone who dares to criticize. They are no different in tactics than the sports fans who heckle the batters from behind home plate.
And it isn't just Thompson partisans who do this. Every camp on FR has, or have had, a similar goon squad. Rudy's all got bounced for behavior not too dissimilar.
Real, valid criticisms? I think not, I’ve seen them all and none of them are valid.
Every candidate has real, valid criticisms that can be laid out; none of them are perfect. The question becomes, are the flaws great enough to disqualify the candidate for support?
For example, it is a valid criticism of Thompson to point out his avid support of the unconstitutional "Campaign Finance Reform" laws, and that they were his major legislative accomplishment as a Senator. It is a valid criticism of Romney to point out his support of the federal "Assault Weapon Ban". It is a valid criticism of Hunter to point out his inability to gain voter support is an indication of his inability to do the same as a President or the GOP candidate. It is a valid criticism of Paul to point out that jet aircraft, ICBMs and terrorists don't stop at the Rio Grande, so dumping the CIA and FBI, even if they are flawed, might be stupid.
Hmmm, seems like the old standby non-argument - that opposition equates to being afraid; as in homophobic. Guess they’re calling people Paulophobes now.
It's been tried, marginal candidates run all the time. And lose.
And yammering about "abolishing the income tax" isn't a proposal without details about how the revenue will be replaced, and what cuts will be made.
I'll play though, Wikipedia is good enough for this exercise.
By eliminating the income tax without a replacement, you've just dropped federal revenues from $2.2 trillion to just over $1 trillion. You're going to continue Social Security and Medicare, you've got $122 billion left to run the government.
Scrapping SS and Medicare, you save $890 billion in expenses, but lose $818 billion in tax revenue. If Paul prefers that approach, he should be honest about throwing grandma off the train, he's got about $195 billion to run the government.
So tell me, how is President Paul going to run the government on $122 to $195 billion?
What goes, what does he keep.
BTW, I'm assuming we default on our debt, if Ron pays the interest, he's got nothing left to run the government.
Paul is a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit.
==============
Total Receipts
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2006 are $2.2 trillion. This expected income is broken down by the following sources:
The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.6 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Reason to be scared>
Of a third party run?
So Paul is a liar--you're some supporter.
Hint, if your candidate states unequivocally he won't run third party, don't go around threatening he will, makes both the candidate and his supporters look like fools.
See post 167, needless to say not of Paul’s numbers remotely add up.
Won't be any, turn off the lights, send everyone home. If you remember Howard Ruff and "The Ruff Times" back in the 70s and 80s, he'll be vindicated.
Politicalmom was the originator of ‘Fear the Fred’. It is a rally phrase and not a snide comment.
And you mentioned only one thing about Fred Thompson that you say has a valid criticism.
No it is not a valid criticism to say he was an avid supporter of CFR. He was against the restrictions on advertising and he was proud to have raised the amount that ordinary voters can donate to their candidates (hard money). He is also proud to have taken down the direct soft money contributions. This has the effect of curtailing the bribing and buying of politicians. That is a good thing which cannot be validly criticized.
Here are his own comments in the press:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901007/posts?page=178
And his legislation is having the effect of having Hillary Clinton’s fundraising behavior examined in court with a highly possible FEC investigation to follow. That is a good thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1902749/posts
As I said I have seen all the criticisms of Fred Thompson and none of them are valid. The criticisms are frivolous and are expressed by people with an agenda.
The only thing that can be criticized about Fred Thompson’s legislation is that the government implemented it poorly and other members of the Senate voted on amendments that restricted advertising which the Supreme Court has since struck down. Fred Thompson was not responsible for any of that.
What else you got?
I think you have nothing.
I only see 4 issues even remotely covered by the Constitution. The rest was intended to be left up to the separate and sovereign states. And if you think only $38 billion was spent on foreign aid, I've got this great seaside property in Montana you might be interested in. The interest on debt would be erased as the budget goes in the same fashion. Rep. Paul has made it clear some of what he wants will take time. But through vetoes, it will force Congress to cut government just to overcome a veto.
Let's say he cuts 10% of 2 trillion the first two years. As I suggested as his message of liberty gets out, more challengers come to the forefront for Congressional seats that agree with his positions. As that group of elected officials grows (which will take continued campaign work for those of us that still believe in limited government), the budget will have to be cut even further to overcome a Paul veto.
Paul is a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit.
And yet we still come down to slurs. Why? Perhaps because the idea of limited government isn't even your concern (which I highly believe is the case). Perhaps it's because Republicans are more concerned with remaining in power to advocate their big government programs instead of the other guy's. Maybe it's because you don't actually have an argument against 98% of his positions. Don't know, don't care. What I do know is that Rep. Paul has brought a lot of us back into the game that had given up on what's left of the Republic and were prepared to sit on the sidelines watching the slide down into the annals of history. He's also vitalized a group of young people (many hard conservatives ideologues) who believed the bunk their parents told them about changing the world.
You throw out $641 billion in what you and Paul consider remotely permissible expenditures, but you still don’t answer the question of how you’re going to pay for even the $641 billion on the $120 to $190 billion in revenue you have left after saving $211 in interest payments by defaulting on our debt.
Sorry, not only is Paul a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit., he’s a highly irresponsible one.
Paul voted against finding the Iraqi’s guard units ‘terrorists’....(eyes rolling)
Guess its either ‘unconstitutional’ or will negatively impact the shrimp industry....
And we're all mighty thankful for that.
Good. Starve the government. Hmmmm...I seem to remember another President (one highly respected by conservatives) that advocated that. Can't pay for it, shut it down.
But this is the point. No other candidate has formulated a plan for most of what they advocate. Come to think of it, none of them have given specifics for what they'd cut let alone a plan for how they'd cut it. But only Rep. Paul should have a plan laid out for you. Gotcha. You know even if he laid out a plan tomorrow, you'd still have a problem with him. So why bother complaining about his supposed absence of a plan on how he plans to get rid of the behemoth on our backs?
Sorry, not only is Paul a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit., he’s a highly irresponsible one.
Yes because a 'highly responsible' one would just give platitudes, maybe repeat a couple well rehearsed lines, and once in office continue to expand government. That about it?
Keep in mind that this post shouldn't be construed as me shilling for Paul, but you guys need to look at some reality here. Now I've attended Paul rallies and seen pics and videos of them, and these folks could easily have been your next door neighbors. Women with kids and babies in the audience. Funny, but I didn't see any 9/11 "Truthers", anti-war kooks, or anarchist anti-gov't types.
All your name-calling and cheesy photo-shops are apparently having no impact on the thousands of grassroots supporters who are enthusiastically supporting Paul. Paul has the GOP in a delicate situation. Should they keep marginalizing him, taunting him and his supporters, at the risk of his supporters staying home or writing in Paul's name in the general, thereby giving Hillary the election? Or do they at least adopt some of his views, like ending the Drug War and not committing to a long-term Mideast operation, and perhaps abolish the income tax and let Dr. Paul speak at the convention so those libertarian and swing voters will vote for the nominee? These are serious questions here, because I for one do not want Hillary to be President, and I'm sure in the Hell am not supporting some RINO who'll continue the quasi-socialist status-quo.
You have fallen for the lie that the Income tax actually pays for something useful.
Does the Income tax pay for roads? No, gas taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for education? No, local levys and property taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for Social Security? No, Social Security taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for Medicare? No, Medicare taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for defense? No, Corporate income taxes do.
What does the Income tax pay for?
Answer:
1) Interest on debt borrowing, largely from the non-federal money printer calling ifself the ‘Federal’ Reserve. This entity creates something it calls ‘money’ out of thin air and charges the federal government interest on it. The Constitution clearly gives the US government the power to create its own coin and notes, but instead the federal government ‘borrows’ from nothing and has taxpayers pay interest on this nothingness.
2) Waste. Is the Department of Education necessary? How about the Department of Housing and Urban Development? And so on ad infinitum.
The Income tax is a scam foisted on a small percentage of very wealthy Americans in 1913 at a max rate of 7%. The tax code was 14 pages long and with today’s printing fonts and format would fill 9 pages. It was allowed passage as a quid pro quo to the likes of financial barrons such as JP Morgan in return for a concession to manufacture money out of thin air. Why object to 7% income tax when you can create 80% new money from nothing based on your gold holdings? But the greed of bankers would not put up with even 7% maximum. Over the decades they shifted the income tax burden to the middle class and used it to vacuum dollars out of circulation while they manufactured federal reserve notes to put into circulation.
Ron Paul is aware of all that and more.
Is there a better way? You damn right there is. Start by federalizing the Federal Reserve and stop paying interest on nothingness immediately. Enact the FairTax which will abolish the IRS and move immediately to repeal the 16th Amendment.
I left out the hypothetical in your post and just left the facts as we know them.
I'm glad to see you agree, I was confident you would...
Even a blind man can see the Bush administration, Congress, the Senate, are not serious about this war on terror.
Otherwise, things would be very different, and our borders would not be chaotic crime zones and a national security bad dream.
And that was the point I was originally trying to make here in the beginning when I responded to a poster suggesting the candidate was not serious about the WOT, when in reality, neither is this current president of the United States.
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.