Skip to comments.Why Obstetrician-Gynecologist Ron Paul Should Not Be President Of The United States (Vanity)
Posted on 01/06/2008 6:42:04 AM PST by joeclarke
I know many Paul Bearers, and they are Christian - as most everyone, except Democrats, are now confessing to be. To say they are overly enamored with Ron Paul is an understatement as they think he is just an apocalypse shy of being the Second Coming. Ron Paul is the only "Constitutional" candidate, they claim, and he wants to High Tail It out of Iraq, eliminate the IRS, withdraw from the world, and kill welfare payments including Social Security and Medicaid. Who could ask for anything more?
Ron Paul does have more reasonable ideas such as "really doing something" about the Mexican border and illegal aliens, the NAFTA Highway, abortion, and other points I cannot think of right now. However, his lack of military and geopolitical depth as well as his "no-tax" plans have attracted such peaceniks as Potheads For Paul, Strippers For Paul, the Google people, Johnny Rotten, and other constituents not traditionally known for having a Christian ethic. Why does Mr. Paul attract stripping, pot-smoking folks who might enjoy the Sex Pistols music - as well as church hymns?
Mr. Paul does have that pariah messianic presence which Ross Perot exuded - before his crackpottedness surfaced even as he took 20% of Republican votes away from the general election, thus allowing Bill Clinton to be ushered into the Oral Office for just enough time to subvert all that was called holy in America.
Ron Paul's trouble with the military probably stems from his professional involvement with women. As a man who has delivered thousands of babies, and participating in the miracle of child birthing, he must be naturally resistant to sending this same infant to battle and possibly death. I mean that as a compliment. I have observed former military doctors, corpsman and medics who have this similar disposition. They are so up close and personal to the ravages of war that they are predisposed to be vigorously opposed to military conflict, no matter how necessary. Incdentally, Ron Paul, for all of his compassion, refused to medically treat patients who were on Medicaid and Medicare. I have seen no conclusive evidence that he would help such people for free so that he would not have to charge "the government dime." Medicaid and Medicare just would not pay him enough.
Ron Pallbearers also tout him as the only candidate that is "Constitutional." Some of their reasoning is sound, but one of Paul's more frequent mistakes is calling the Iraq War invalid because the U.S. did not declare war according to the Constitution which demands that Congress shall declare war. Well, Congress has voted on two resolutions to combat Saddam and eradicate Iraq of most of the extreme terrorists. The Constitution does not declare in what exact format Congress shall declare war, so two resolutions to go to war should be enough to satisfy the Constitution. The U.S. had planned to oust Saddam even during Clinton's reign for many more reasons than just WMD. Pauliacs and Democrats constantly ignore these historical facts. Ron Paul has no problem with leaving Iraq high and dry, as well as so many other struggling and fragile democracies around the world.
Under President Paul, Israel would be more at the mercy of their surrounding Islamic enemies without the assistance of the United States. Ron Paul states that the U.S. is "interfering with Israel's sovereignty" by HELPING her!! So, lets not aid Israel so she can retain her sovereignty and then be quickly driven into the Mediterranean by Islamo Fascists. Mr. Paul must also believe that we interfered with Vietnam's sovereignty by fighting the Communists who now have such oppresive control in Nam. He must also object to the post WW II treaties, such as SEATO, in which the United States and other freedom loving countries decided to protect, as much as possible, far flung countries from Communist takeovers. It worked fairly well in Korea and elsewhere until communism took over the Democrat Party left and its media. Ron Paul does not understand that if the United States does not win friends and influence people with money (as with Arab countries and Israel) and with and occasional rattling of the sword (as in Iran and Korea), there will be less incentive for these countries to heed America's nonimperialistic desires. If you are of the hate-America-first crowd, then nothing the United States does can gain the respect of international countries. In fact foreign countries, such as Venezuela, have developed a hatred with the help of the American media. We are so hated according to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, CNN, Hollywood, academia, the New York Times and others. No wonder we are despised, as the lib press damns everything President Bush does.
Ron Paul recently questioned the attendants at one of his Meetups and mockingly asked them if anyone really believed in the Domino Theory which was one of the motivations for fighting communists in Vietnam. The answer was "no" despite the fact that Laos and Cambodia were also claimed by fascists after the U.S. left Vietnam hanging in the lurch. Worse of all, the U.S. itself became another Communist domino since the 1970's takeover by the libs who are so much closer to totally communizing the United States during this presidential election of 2008 than ever before.
Some of RP's scarier statements include: "It would only take a few nuclear submarines to protect the U.S." When responding to Huckabee's Christmas commercial which displayed a floating cross, Ron Paul said, "Fascism has often come draped in a cross." [When did that last happen, Ron?] Ron Paul was also asked which Democrat most resembled his own platform [not just the Iraq war issue] "Dennis Kucinich," was his answer. Nothing more can be said about Ron Paul's candidacy. He's outta here.
it was uplifting to hear about “our war-mongering foreign policy” on a Republican debate
We have a Huckabee proud of progressive taxation (Leno Show) and open borders, but willing to do whatever CFR tells him to do on the global front—and a Ron Paul who wants the rest of the world to take care of itself. Difficult choice.
Funny you say that because Bush and most other Republicans running for the nomination in 2000 said the same thing about Clinton and the Democrats at the time.
“Ron Paul states that the U.S. is “interfering with Israel’s sovereignty” by HELPING her!!”
Ya know, I heard his high-pitched whine when I read that line. Now I need to turn on some music and try to forget it.
I’ve gone from Rudy to Fred, looked at Mitt, don’t like what I see; Huckster is a joke, McCain was one of the Keating Five, and he was coauthor of McCain/Feingold. Can’t be him.
I am down to taking a hard look at Ron Paul; might end up voting for him in my state’s primary. At least he’s consistent.
Don’t really care for any of these folks. Except for Paul they are nothing but professional politicians who change their positions whenever it suits them.
At least Paul is consistent.
Has Dr. Paul (OB-GYN) ever performed an abortion?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president (Al Gore) and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
Doubt it, since he’s Pro-Life and anti-Roe vs Wade.
I couldn’t believe it in the debate when he blamed America for 9/11 because we had an air base in Saudi Arabia.
The guy’s a loon.
Ron Paul stands about as much chance of getting elected as I do.
There is a difference between blaming America and pointing out something that may cause a crazy radical person to get upset with us and wish to kill us. And he actually said that AQ listed that base as one of the reasons for the attack.
I hardly think Fred's professional pol. He's also been very consistent and lines up best with Reagan (other than Duncan Hunter, who for some reason cannot get any traction).
Do what you want in the primary, but a vote for Ron Paul in the general election is half a vote for the Dems.
LOL Quote of the week.
“Except for Paul they are nothing but professional politicians who change their positions whenever it suits them. At least Paul is consistent.”
Ron Paul is a professional politician and inconsistent.
Earmarks? Ron says he votes against them because they’re un-Constitutional. Yet, Ron proposes as many earmarks for his district as any other politician.
Use of Force Resolution. Ron voted against the Authorization to use for in Iraq because it was un-Constitutional not to declare war. Yet, Ron voted for the Authorization to use for in Afghanistan.
Ron is just as much a politician as the rest.
He seems to understand that using our stolen tax dollars to bribe and threaten other nations is not only immoral, but impractical.
Candidates such as Ron Paul and their supporters always bring home to me, how ignorant people are of the workings of the American Republic.
It is all well and good to have a President that perfectly mirrors your beliefs, but if those beliefs are not mirrored by a sizable percentage of people and their representatives, very little will come of it.
Let’s say R.P. became President. He would NOT eliminate the IRS? Why, because its not within the President’s power.
Actions come from political movements, not Presidential decree. That is not to say Presidents have no power, just that they can do almost nothing by themselves.
“As a man who has delivered thousands of babies, and participating in the miracle of child birthing, he must be naturally resistant to sending this same infant to battle and possibly death.”
That isn’t the real reason. RP belives the federal government is the real threat and that the only way to reduce that threat is to reduce the size and power of the federal government. RP belives that governments grow in power by exploiting war to increase their power. IOW, he’s against the war because he’s against the federal government.
I’ll come out of the shadows:
I’ve donated and donated to Fred’s campaign; however, I admire Dr. Paul and have been disappointed in the average FReeper treatment of his message.
It used to be taken for granted that the conservatives were for smaller government. I think it is a logical fallacy that 9-11 should subordinate principles.
Oh well, I could go on, but its just my opinion; but I wish more on this board would put down their hysteria and think things through.
You almost just convinced me to vote for him. The fed govt is out of control.
You mean there’s another reason besides his being a Nut Job?
The clock struck the correct time in Paul’s explanation of the surge in oil prices. The value of oil as a commodity has held or gone up, the value of the dollar used to buy that oil has gone down. More dollars to buy the same amount of oil, oil looks like prices are higher.
The growth in federal government is no reason to support a man who would surrender to Islaam.
No flame here. I don't understand why so many are threatened by him. RP is not going to be president, and RP probably believes that more than anyone here. So all that is left is his message, which we should be able to debate calmly and rationally without worrying that we are about to elect RP as a consequnece. What is important is the libertarian message, reminding us that the Constitution limited the powers of government for very clear reasons. The guy who has the power to take an Al Qaida member off a plane and confine him to Guantanimo without trial is the guy who can do that to your sons and daughters. Imagine your worst nightmare of a democtratic presidential candidate having that kind of power.
Do these folks really think that the stumblebums at airport gates, who manage snake lines by letting the half at the back of the line go through before the half at the front of the line, keep us safe from Al Qaeda?
The only explanation I can come up with is that there are too many so-called conservatives who want to use the power of government to make liberals live the way they think people should be living.
Want to know why UK just surpassed us in GDP? Look at government here. You may hate socialism, but we are paying socialist like taxes without getting the associated services, however bad you might think them to be in UK. We get heavy handed Gestapo like regulators instead.
And Republicans have done that as much as Democrats.
You are frightened by your own shadow. RP is not going to be president, and growth in Federal Government is very good reason to support a set of principles that seeks to downsize federal government.
According to Ron Paul’s website, he has never performed an abortion. Here’s a link: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
Where you will find:
“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called population control.
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, Ive delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.”
What RP does is remind everyone that there is a Constitution that limits the power of the federal government, and we might remember that from time to time.
We have beat the snot out of these people for 7 years now and in a large part have achieved our goals. There will be an organized draw down prior to the elections anyways, you would have to be politically retarded not to know that. Besides, turning it over to the Iraqi army is not surrendering to anyone if they’ve got it, let them take it.
He has a valid point about us hurting Isreal by “helping” them. We give them money and all and then use that to twist their arm to do things which are against their best interest such as handing over land to the terrorists. GWB was doing the same crap at Annapolis. Its dumb.
What do you call a 35 year old father who still gets lots of money from his old man so he can get by. I call him a loser. You need to make it on your own, just like each country has to figure out how to make it on your own. I dont depend on money from my folks and as a result I am free to make my own decisions without consulting them first.
That said, I dont have a problem with giving Isreal, Iraq and other countries that we like military assistance on an equal partner type basis, but this business of sending all our tax dollars all over the world to buy off all the corrupt governments needs to stop. We shouldnt send all this foriegn aide money, when we could just have a larger military instead.
I am not comfortable with Paul’s idea of how the war in Iraq is going, or his plan to immediatly pull out. Having visited there myself, I would never categorizie what we have accomplished there as a failure in any way. If anything it has been a historic military victory which will merit study by the next generation of warfighters. I also think we should use the Japan and S Korea model of maintaining a presence to keep an eye on things in the future. However, after seeing his thinking behind his bold statements, I do not think he is nuts either. He actually has some of the more original ideas in this entire election and merits consideration.
What a tagline by the way. Is that how you define yourself - a single-minded opponent of Ron Paul? RP is your idea of the devil incarnate, an evil to spend your life thwarting?
Just bear in mind that the neocons had defeat firmly in the grip of their snarling maws. It required a very disgrunteled voting population, a devestating plunge in the pools, and a loss of control of the Congress in order to get the right guys with the right strategy back in control. That things are going well now is not the result of any ideology that came into power with GWB, but in fact the opposite.
"WELL, I'M NOT A GYNECOLOGIST, BUT I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT."
New Ron Paul T-shirt slogan:
"WELL, I'M NOT A PRESIDENT, BUT I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT."
How’s this for a brief summary -
“Ron Paul believes in a laissez-faire foreign policy. So did England and France when Germany re-militarized the Rhineland.”
Fifty million dead later...
Well, yes but no. I was there in 05/06 and things were definatly swinging our way. This was BEFORE the 06 elections. Good things we knew were happening then didnt get into the news until after the elections. I guess they were trying to credit the Dems for the improvements, I dont know.
Its all very frustrating because words have almost ceased to have meaning in our country and the news routinely reports lies and distortions as truth. And the average Joe just sits there and believes it all.
I want someone to compile a list of the top ten agenda items of each of the Republican candidates, not compared with each other, but what they as individuals have as their platform.
Then post those top ten for each, and have people check off which ones they agree with. Granted there would be some redundancy between candidates, but the idea is to see what the “rank and file” think of the candidates ideas.
As a general list, here are ten broad subjects:
1) Foreign policy, the wars and national defense.
2) The economy.
4) Immigration and border control.
6) Civil rights of all kinds.
7) Spending, especially earmarks.
8) Pending treaties.
9) Energy and the environment.
10) Health care and Social Security.
9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
When responding to Huckabee's Christmas commercial which displayed a floating cross, Ron Paul said, "Fascism has often come draped in a cross."
"It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' Now I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don't think I would ever use anything like that."
I will be kind and assume those errors were a result of inadequate research and not intentional distortion, although I question in general (and not towards you specifically) why it is that every anti-Paul article I read always contains multiple factual inaccuracies.
I think we should downsize the federal government. The question is how much. RonPaul is not the answer to that downsizing.
If you cant see the difference between Republicans and Dems, there is no difference. I have tried to convince some folks that there is a difference but its a hard argument to make in many cases. If they dont see the distinction, they’ll vote democrat because they are offered more free stuff by them. And the dirty secret is, if Hillary does win, she’ll keep doing the same thing in Iraq that GWB is already planning to do anyways. Just it will be great and wonderful because she is doing it. (and she’ll end up selling subdivisions in al anbar for amazing profits - Al Casa Grande Subdivision)
He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment. source
"When responding to Huckabee's Christmas commercial which displayed a floating cross, Ron Paul said, "Fascism has often come draped in a cross." [When did that last happen, Ron?]"
At least have the decency to quote him correctly and in context: "It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross. Now I dont know whether thats a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I dont think I would ever use anything like that." source
Thanks for the compliment. It expresses my concern about Ron Paul who I think does not recognize the fact that we do not live in the 1800s but who would enact policies as if we did.
I haven’t selected a candidate at this time. I do find the Ron Paul supporters to be an amusing lot worthy of ridicule.
Ha! I just posted almost the same thing... How does the quote with the great minds go?
The same reason that every article about what Mormons supposedly believe contains numerous factual errors. The media is a bunch of lying liars.
Tonight at 6, the Two minutes hate will be directed at Ron Paul!
>Consistantly a blame America first anti-American.<
I was taught to examine my own actions before casting blame on others. People such as yourself don’t do that so you can live in denial of the fact that you could be doing more wrong than the next person.
A few years ago I wrote a saying for *denial* folks, such as yourself.
If you want to make people angry, lie to them.
If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell ‘em the truth.
I dont see why our laws and government really need to be significantly different from what they were in the 1800s. Just because the economy is growning doesnt mean the government needs to. Murder is still murder. And if we’d hang them like we did in the 1800s we’d have less of it.
>Actions come from political movements, not Presidential decree. That is not to say Presidents have no power, just that they can do almost nothing by themselves.<
Really? You mean he would have to approach Congress with his plans to get rid of a few agencies in DC. Would he have to do that to get us out of the UN too? I’ll bet that’ll come as a shock to the man.
This fits Ron Paul to a T
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.”
- Mark Twain
Have you been keeping up with bush and Rice in Israel lately? Bush seems to be supporting Islam to a much further degree than Paul ever has.
I’ve posted the same questions to those who gripe about the U.S. ‘not declaring war’. Please tell me the difference! They never can answer.
OK, I’ll give you one example.
In the 1800’s we could stand back behind our ocean walls. No country could expect to project enough military power across those oceans to cause us real harm.
Today, an airplane can span an ocean in hours. Missiles can hit anywhere in the world in 20 minutes. Nuclear weapons can obliterate a city in seconds. Biological weapons in days. We have thousands of visitors arriving every day. The worlds financial markets are completely integrated. It is not the world of George Washington and Andrew Jackson.
BTW, if Ron Paul gets his way, murder would not necessarily be murder. Ron would declare an unborn to be a citizen with all rights. Ron would leave prosecution of abortion to the states meaning that what is treated as murder in one state might not be treated as murder in another.
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.