Posted on 10/14/2007 1:29:17 PM PDT by reasonisfaith
Something about Ron Paul doesn’t smell right. Despite the fact that he appears to advocate core conservative values such as upholding the constitution and limiting government power, instinct tells me not to touch Ron Paul with a ten foot pole. Conservatives understand this. He’s just too kooky. I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
It’s true that on a certain level, tending to our own political and economic affairs here in the U.S. is where we should focus most of our resources. But the cauldrons of tyranny and terror are ever-present in far reaches of the world. When these wicked brews begin to boil over and spill their hateful contents onto our land, that’s the point where we must take action to extinguish the fire at its source. We did so in Japan and Germany sixty-odd years ago, and we are now doing it in Iraq.
Ron Paul’s behavior is consistent with two possibilities. The first possibility allows for the notion that Paul is an honest man with true libertarian beliefs who just doesn’t understand the reality of geopolitics, thus he is basically a kook hopelessly unfit for the oval office. The second possibility is less likely but nonetheless fun for the imagination: Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy, planned for decades, that covertly seeks something sinister—either a Hillary presidency (by means of dividing the conservative vote) or the downfall of the United States.
Not even with a borrowed 10 foot pole.
Well, okay, sure. But that does us no good NOW, so what do we do NOW?
"We never should have gotten involved in WWI!"
Uh. Right. Okay. So what do we do NOW?
"Do you know about the Rothschild connection??"
I mean, it's like dealing with someone who wanders around museums with a dueling pistol and a copy of The DaVinci Code clutched in their hand.
I’m more concerned about Rudy as the biggest threat to the GOP. Not Ron Paul. Not even Ann Coulter or Michael Savage.
He’s a Libertarian, not a conservative. He recognizes that the Libertarian party is a lost cause, and so runs as a Republican.
Your post is about as Kooky as you claim Ron Paul to be. A Democratic conspiracy? He’s not even close to getting the Republican nomination so it doesn’t even matter. Excluding Iraq, his positions are still just too extreme for the majority of America (elimination of all entitlement programs, abolishment of the federal income tax, etc) to ever be anything more than help keep spending in line to some degree. Besides Iraq, every position of his is at DIRECT odds with the Democratic Party. He’s Pro States Rights, against affirmative action, against Roe Vs Wade, against entitlement programs, etc.
Rino globalists and overtly socialist Democrats are already about a stone's throw away from accomplishing that goal. We will be compromised from within by those groups if we do not wake up and stop them.
I hear a voice in Ron Paul standing against them with real ideas. For example, his intent to abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back a precious metal-based currency standard. When the private bankers got control over our currency in 1913, it was inevitable that liberals would take inexorable control over our entire society. And that is happening, without a doubt.
Considering the money we spend on global redistribution of American wealth for the purpose of 'diplomacy' (the transfer of wealth via declining dollar value nothwithstanding) we have not just domestic communism to fight, but now international socialism funded by our own politicians. It must stop. These are more important issues than anything else right now.
The way some of his followers obsessively worship him is also somewhat off-putting. You wonder if the're all waiting for the Mother Ship to come and get them.
Museums! I think you might be onto something. Hint to Paul campaign staff—now you know where to find him during those sporadic episodes when he strangely goes missing.
It should be an excellent treatise on the sneaky, scurrilous manner in which the Federal Reserve act of 1913 was perpetrated on the American people on the pretext of wrestling control of the nation's monetary system away from the robber barons.
Instead, the Federal Reserve act handed them all the monetary power directly.
These are historical facts. Staunch John Birch conservatives adhere to the view that the Fed is a tool of tyranny. The von Mises institute, a notable conservative think tank agrees. Ron Paul is not some lone voice in the wilderness crying out about these issues: a wealth of economic theory supports his views.
If you wonder why other candidates aren't speaking out against our ludicrous and corrupt monetary system, remember that they have a vested interest in maintaining it.
The film Fiat Empire about the Fed's takeover of our system is basically the book you were mentioning in video form, as far as I know. I would encourage everyone to watch it through.
He won’t matter anyway.
The marjority of his positions are more at odds with sanity. In fact, he does a 360 all the way to the fringe elements of liberals like drugs and economics. From Volcker to the present, the Federal Reserve has helped to fuel the people and markets that have created our growth—from the corner store to the fixed business investment.
Annoying pain in the ass.
The titles of his threads are sometimes cause for a hearty chuckle or a choking back of vomit.
I never read the threads or articles about him, I read enough about him without even trying. This is my first.
Perhaps the people for Paul could start supporting Hillary as they have mastered the art of annoyance and subsequent backlash.
Then we're foreever stuck with rinos because we can't even consider abolishing these massive federal programs? If that's the case, the country is doomed to global socialism, because that's what rinos and democrats are advocating. Redistribution of wealth is now no longer confined to our shores: it's a global challenge to the elite. Think $31b we've promised to Africa alone. Think welfare for illegal immigrants. Think about our defense budget for Saudi Arabia alone.
Conservatives need to reevaluate their willingness to kowtow to the left. We have a better way. We know that government is the problem, not the solution. We have a way forward. We shouldn't be apologizing and retreating from truth.
So why is it that his defining issue is losing the Iraq war? When people think of Ron Paul, they don’t think of solid conservatism. They think of this kooky squirrel-like oddball whose tantrums over cutting and running from Iraq have suspiciously become even more shrill now that we are having success there.
He’s just taking a play from the Jesse Jackson/Pat Buchanan playbook. Find a fringe niche that 1% of the population supports and milk that 1% for money and publicity.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
What exactly is liberal about his economics? Because he opposes the Federal Reserve? Do you even know what you are talking about? The Federal Reserve & the Drug War were liberal inventions to control the masses. The FR was put together by the Rockfellars, etc and signed by W Wilson. The Drug War was started by WW and escalated dramatically by FDR after Prohibition repeal. Yeah—true beacons of conservatism—Woodrow Wilson, Rockefeller & FDR. Give me a break. The drug war is such a big issue on Ron Paul anyway—that it’s NOT even talked about as an issue on his page.
I think it's important to keep perspective on that. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are very broadly defined. No one has yet offered a valid definition for 'victory' in these areas. Right now it appears that the way forward is through nation-building. Yet we have not truly shocked these peoples as we did the Germans and the Japanese during WWII. Furthermore, the Germans and the Japanese were advanced societies with central figures of authority who were either eliminated or drawn into the cause of pacifying their countries.
It's not kooky to point out that there isn't a valid exit strategy yet.
Is this news? Where’s the news link?
Something about Ron Paul doesn’t smell right. Despite the fact that he appears to advocate core conservative values such as upholding the constitution and limiting government power, instinct tells me not to touch Ron Paul with a ten foot pole. Conservatives understand this. He’s just too kooky. I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
This is a classic example of what is called the Excluded middle fallacy.
Let's demonstrate how that happens with the following statement of yours:
I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
There are actually four options here:
The fallacy is that you have attempted to force the reader into two, and only two options, when in fact, other possibilities exist.
In short, you're trying to dismiss Ron Paul without discussion or debate of particulars by limiting the other choices.
It’s true that on a certain level, tending to our own political and economic affairs here in the U.S. is where we should focus most of our resources. But the cauldrons of tyranny and terror are ever-present in far reaches of the world.
As a very wise morning drive radio host named Jim Quinn has often observed, "Remember, everything before "but" is BS.", at least from the perspective of the one making the statement. Let's ask you a question: How many Americans, and people residing in America died from terrorist attacks in the past 20 years?
...got an answer
...good!
Now, How many Americans, or residents of America have died in automobile accidents in the past 20 years? i'll bet you find that the last number is at least an order of magnitude greater than the first number.
Puts a perspective on our alleged 'terrorism problem' doesn't it?
When these wicked brews begin to boil over and spill their hateful contents onto our land, that’s the point where we must take action to extinguish the fire at its source. We did so in Japan and Germany sixty-odd years ago, and we are now doing it in Iraq.
We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?
Ron Paul’s behavior is consistent with two possibilities. The first possibility allows for the notion that Paul is an honest man with true libertarian beliefs who just doesn’t understand the reality of geopolitics, thus he is basically a kook hopelessly unfit for the oval office. The second possibility is less likely but nonetheless fun for the imagination: Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy, planned for decades, that covertly seeks something sinister—either a Hillary presidency (by means of dividing the conservative vote) or the downfall of the United States.
Another excluded middle fallacy. Hopefully you've now been better educated, and won't make these kinds of stupid mistakes again.
Have a good day.
And he has been doing this for years. He keeps winning because there isn't anyone who runs against him. If you met him in person he would give you a chill he is so cold.
rt= Your absolutely right. Ron Paul is nothing to worry about. He has as much chance of being nominated by the GOP as Fidel Castro. Running for the Presidency gives him a platform to evangelize libertarian ideas, and maybe he’ll pick up a few converts for his efforts. That’s the most he can realistically hope for. Having him in the debate may annoy some but he can do little damage. He’s kind of like a fly at a picnic buzzing around your head, pesky but of little consequence
Congressman Paul is a leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital and is seeking the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination. As a congressman, Dr Paul tirelessly worked for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.
Sounds real liberal doesn't it? Ron Paul is THIRD on my list of candidates to vote for (Hunter, Tancredo then Paul) but this crusade some of you on here have against Ron Paul because of Iraq is ridiculous. It is NOT a litmus test on how conservative one is. When Clinton was in office Ron Paul had well over a 90% conservative rating from every organization. It dropped to around 70 since Bush has gotten into office because he votes AGAINST entitlement spending increases which these ACU, etc say are 'conservative' because they are smaller than the Democrats. Balogney.
Fool
The Ron Paul Anti-War Lefties don't like to hear about that. It's like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.
“LOL! I thought it was Ron Paul and his supporters who were the ‘kooks’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’?”
Remember to read my post carefully—your comments suggest otherwise.
Here’s what I think about conspiracy. They do happen, but because of that fact there will be instances where people erroneously suspect a conspiracy is taking place, more often than there are instances of a true conspiracy. This sort of hyper-vigilance becomes an advantage for those who truly wish to perpetrate a conspiracy (such as getting Hillary elected or overthrowing the United States by means of cultural Marxism) in that they can stifle vigilant citizens with the threat of labeling them as “paranoid.”
I think the most likely scenario regarding Ron Paul is that he is just a lucky break for leftists. He comes around with his kooky ideas just in time for the leftists to attempt to use him as a way to split the conservative vote. But I have no problem admitting that I don’t know for sure what’s really going on in Ron Paul’s mind.
Uh, Travis, I think reasonisfaith was pulling your chain—deliberately imitating Paulianish conspiracy kookiness in order to illustrate his (her?) point.
And you took the bait.
“Now, How many Americans, or residents of America have died in automobile accidents in the past 20 years? i’ll bet you find that the last number is at least an order of magnitude greater than the first number.
“Puts a perspective on our alleged ‘terrorism problem’ doesn’t it?”
No, it does not.
Because the trajectory of automobile accidents does not include the possibility of an exponential increase in future deaths, whereas the terrorist phenomenon does.
Yes, Turkey is shelling across the border and talking about closing its airspace to us. The web we are weaving is getting more and more tangled. I wouldn't describe it as "better." It's "different." It's a different problem every day.
Okay, so you weren’t tongue-in-cheek trying to illustrate the foolishness of conspiracy-paranoia by suggesting a Manchurian-candidate conspiracy explanation for Ron Paul. But just the same, even if you did not intend to, your second explanation for Ron Paul does ironically illustrate how silly conspiracy theories are.
Except, of course, when a deep-cover decades-long conspiracy has been underway. But then, how would anyone ever know? Truely devilishly clever conspiracies are by definition undetectable.
How’s about just sticking with your option no. 1—Ron Paul is the kook, well, sort of a kook, who brings out astonishing levels of kookiness in his followers? (Not all leaders of kooks are themselves as kooky as their followers.)
He’s not my first, second or third choice, but I’d vote for him over Hillary.
Guilt by association? It’s not a fair attack. Few people would argue that our political system is under attack. Consider the evils of the Clinton presidency. That alone should give us pause. Some people are angry and upset about the loss of representation in our government. They lash out in inappropriate ways. That doesn’t mean that the problem doesn’t exist. It does. Ron Paul discusses it in detail, and that’s what attracts some of these people to him. It’s not his fault that he’s speaking the truth even if they aren’t.
“We went after Japan only after they attacked us, and Germany only after they declared war on us.
When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?”
That’s why I used the cauldron spilling over metaphor, because the parallel exists on a more general level than with a comparison of particular events or individuals.
The point is that entities external to us are the cause of problems taking place internally (both actualized and impending terrorist attacks). Therefore we must act in the external theater. This is precisely what happened in WWII.
Had we not taken out Saddam, his actions would have led to terrorist attacks against us increased both in frequency and intensity.
“It’s like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.”
Exactly!
I would. But what do I know....I've just been here for the last nearly four years, watching it all from the 50-yardline.
And you're a typical jaundiced liberal, only seeing the dark. Glass is half-empty and you find the cloud to every silver lining.
Do you work for CNN?
Oh, and you can thank your liberal Democrat friends for what might happen with Turkey.
easy he is a scoundrel whose monolithic ego is allowing him to be used as a fool.
Can we start an email campaign directed at FNC to boot him off the debate?
If you think the Turks are ‘momentarily’ unhappy with us because of ‘recent’ proclamations by the Dems, think again. That’s a real stretch you were trying to make there.
That's a real load of your own words you put in my mouth there.
Your Democrat buddies are escalating problems with Turkey and you know it.
With your views, I really think you'd feel more at home on DU.
“How’s about just sticking with your option no. 1”
As I said, the second possibility is entertaining. You admit it is not entirely impossible.
There was a time not so long ago there was no difference. However with George and Company's hijacking of the Republican party, a conservative can advocate wasting money stacked to the sky domestically as long as he or she advocates bombing third world nations that don't represent a threat to our borders.
I'm just saying...Madagascar, I've been hearing things.....could have a nuclear weapon in say 70-80 years. Don't see how George hasn't noticed them. I mean they stick right out on the Risk board....
If he has to publicly defend legalizing drugs, ending federal subsidies of student loans, supporting gun rights, ending welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, farm subsidies and a lot of other specific government spending, etc. he’s going to lose support of those who are on the right or left, but like some part of the libertarian agenda in favor of candidates who more accurately reflect their beliefs.
And yet interestingly enough there aren't calls for the hacks occupying the stage with him to do the same....perhaps 'conservatives' can ask their own candidates how they're going to accomplish the things they advocate before attacking an actual conservative. Oh sorry, most of those candidates have advocated anything yet. No, just sorry platitudes that can mean anything.
Still, I do wish there were some way to harness his fans' obvious spam skills
You're telling me!! His campaign was spammed with $5 million in the last three months alone. Perhaps Republicans need to wake up and realize it's not spam. The internet for the large part is occupied with libertarian thinking, let me alone with my business sorts that don't want the government to run their lives. Not many BOHICA please can I have another sir statists on the net yet to influence the polls out there.
The statist, multiculturalist, anti-gun, pro-Hillary, pro-communist DU? You’ve got to be kidding.
Paul ought to be a sent to a loony bin! Only a kook would voluntarily give up his government pension and all because he made a pledge to save the taxypeyrs money!? What an wacko! Fortunately, we have a sane conservative alternative. His name is Fred Thompson and he always is very practical. If a thug like Aristide needs to get back in power, for example, the ever level-headed thread will take the money and do what it takes to helps his “client.”
Well, yeah. There's a rather strong ronpaul contingent over there. You'd fit in more over there than you do here.
The story of the “nation’s monetary system” as controlled by the “robber barons” of the Federal reserve is even better than global warming for the purpose of demagoguery. It’s too abstract for average people to understand completely and it sounds really scary. What a powerful way to mobilize the masses.
I think the real conspiracy is that the conspirers are perpetuating a false story of a conspiracy.
Here’s a question for you: what if the supposed scam of the Federal Reserve “robber barons” had never been put in place? In what way would we have benefited? Could our nation possibly have been more advantageous to the poor and middle class than it has been to date? Is it not somewhat questionable to propose that the United States is the greatest example of freedom and prosperity that has ever existed, yet somehow it is run by a system of “robber barons” who have been keeping us down for the past century or so?
Italy never attacked America either, but when war broke out a lot of us ended up fighting and dying there.
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.