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.
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
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.