Skip to comments.Maybe Ron Paulís fringe is what America needs
Posted on 12/31/2009 4:21:45 AM PST by rabscuttle385
I was a Ron Paul supporter in the 2008 campaign for the presidency, and I made no apologies about it. Ron Paul was the candidate at the time that supported a smaller government, individual liberties and the Constitution closer than any other candidate. By far, he was the small government candidate.
Others, especially conservatives, would often say that they support many of Pauls positions, but
Either his voice was too high and whiny, or they viewed his position on Americas foreign policy to be wacko and crazy. The going phrase at the time, and still today, is that Ron Paul is a politician who is living on the fringe. He was not mainstream enough to win over much of the concerned voting public.
Clearly, the term fringe is meant in a negative light to imply that his views are out of the norm. So-called fringe candidates are outside of a more typical path to political enlightenment, I suppose, and cannot possibly run a country as big, expensive and corrupt as the federal government.
But the irony should be simple. It is just this typical path to political enlightenment that has grown this country to monstrous proportions. These candidates who apparently subscribe to the more common views in Washington are the very ones who are responsible for our multitrillion-dollar national debt, and our ever-burgeoning deficit. These are the politicians with whom Americans are most upset with, but yet, other candidates like Ron Paul are somehow on the fringe and cannot possibly be trusted. Continuing with the mainstream was a better option.
To this, I have only one question. WHAT?!? Truthfully, if a firm and consistent belief in a small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy is what it means to be on the fringe, then I am proud to be here. I am proud to be outside of the typical political thought in Washington D.C. that has caused the great majority of the problems that we face on a daily basis in the first place. Being mainstream is the problem!
What ground can anyone possibly stand on, when their political philosophy (you know, the typical, common, in the middle frame of mind) happens to be the root cause for the problems that concern so many Americans today? How is it possible to escape from the clutches of big government corruption and maniacal control over almost every aspect of American life if we continue to reject outsiders as on the fringe?
Do you want change, or no?
I am sure during the revolutionary times back in the 1700s many viewed our founding fathers to be on the fringe for wanting to start a war to free ourselves from British tyranny. But sometimes, when things get bad enough, introducing non-common ideas and a radical change to politics as usual is what a country needs to break free from the continued degradation of American society.
Perhaps it is not bad enough yet.
This isnt about Ron Paul specifically. This is about the rejection of thought outside of the norm, but yet, expecting the same political ideas from the same politicians to somehow result in positive change. Career politicians have made their living out of consolidating money and power into the hands of select politicians. There are a lot of uncertainties in this world, but one thing is very, very certain: nothing will change unless American voters begin to reject typical political thought in D.C.
Dont believe me? Then continue voting as you always have. Continue rejecting anything outside of the same political thought that politicians have used to concoct government programs and initiative for years. Continue doing what you have always done, and watch what happens.
to the peril of us all.
I actually wish I had voted for him instead of McLame. I voted against Obama and for Sarah, but to do it, I had to vote for Lame.
If Sarah Palin runs, I will proudly vote for her, but I am not voting for any more RINOs because they might have a chance to beat the greater of two evils.
I mourned when Obama won. Yes, Lame wouldn’t have done as much damage as the Marxist is doing, but he still would have been a socialist wrecking ball.
I didn’t like some of Ron Paul’s views. I do believe that the Iraq war was necessary. I do like his desire for fiscal restraint and smaller government.
As a conservative I can respond to the questioning of why people didn't vote for Paul. I think he's insane. That doesn't mean he's wrong on everything. In fact, he's correct in a number of areas, but he's only just this side of Gore sanity wise.
Ron Paul is a pipsqueak. Ron Paul is a gnat.
We’ve got our great leader. We’ve got our Ronald Reagan. She’s come down from the north to roll up her sleeves and work with us to roll back the tide of communism sweeping our land.
If citizen Ron Paul wants to roll up his sleeves and contribute, I say three cheers for Ron Paul and his supporters.
But if pipsqueak Ron Paul has delusions of grandeur and delusions of leadership, I say go to hell, Ron Paul. Go to hell.
Didn’t Ron Paul blame our “occupation around the world” for the terrorist attack on Christmas.
Enough said. The guy’s a loon.
wRONg Paul is delusional and his sycophants are worse.
What do you mean?
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
Happy New Year.
It is amazing to me how 90+% of the GOP is anything but ‘conservative’ yet because they call themselves republican and support the war well then by golly I support them too even though almost everything they stand for is antithetical to our long term survival as a people and an as a nation.
Just a day ago Ron Paul said that the terrorist attack was because America is an occupier.
Sorry, this man is a fringe TOO far.
Just what country were we occupying on 9/11
Does Paul believe that attacks on America are ‘chickens coming home to roost’
Sounded like any other pol, saying what they think we want to hear.
Not trying to squash others enthusiasm but, she doesn't do it for me.
TRAITOR TO REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 2008 BY TOYING THE IDEA OF CONSIDERING VOTING FOR TEH ONE, OBAMA.
PAUL NEVER CONCEDED TO MCCAIN.
RECENT WACKO JOB? THAT STUPID REMARK ABOUT US AS OCCUPIER?????????
I believe in Paul’s fight against the monstrosity of the Fed. But there is a huge character flaw on the old man.
To Rand Paul:
It’s about time to clearly disassociate (be independent) yourself from your father. STAND ON YOUR OWN. You’re the better Paul.
Many of the old Rs are either RINO, corrupt*, no-good old boys ... and/or wacko. GEESH!!!!!!!!!! VOTE FOR NEW AND YOUNG REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!
*Relatively, the Ds are the Demons.
Aw geez...where’s the eye-rolling emoticon when you need one.
Well, your certainly entitled to your opinion. I think you are absolutely wrong and everything I’ve seen from Palin I see Reagan quality.
As a conservative I can respond to the questioning of why people didn't vote for Paul. I think he's insane. That doesn't mean he's wrong on everything. In fact, he's correct in a number of areas, but he's only just this side of Gore sanity wise.Very well said, highlander. And spot-on accurate.
I gave Ron Paul a glance. If you can’t see right through him and tell he is a crackpot within 20 minutes - you are a crackpot also.
Note: even a broken clock is right twice a day and Ron Paul’s admirers keep pointing to those two times each day as the reason he is the best candidate.....
That’s cool. I might even have a change of heart down the road.
Ron Paul is wrong in his reasoning of why we were attacked. There are many places that are too poor and don’t get involved in outside politics, they are attacked by the Muslims, too. Why?
Our problems with terrorism won’t be solved by staying out of wars and the business of other countries. That theory of his is flawed. I’m not sure what the answer is, but he doesn’t have it.
Perhaps we stop all Muslims from coming into the United States. The Muslims that are here, that want to change our country to suit them...well, they can be shipped out. That won’t happen though.
We’re stuck until we are cleansed of this PC bull crap. I doubt there are any politicians that are brave enough to swim without their PC water-wings.
I do agree with Ron Paul on much though...
I hope so. Just out of curiosity, who do you like? Speaking about right now, not holding you to it down the line.
I missed that from Jim. Thanks for re-posting. Good to see he isn’t fooled by ron paul.
IMO, it’s way too early. I’m really not impressed with anyone at this point.
Thanks...and it probably didn't help that he looks like a twin brother to that Heaven's Gate cult leader.
Ron Paul has too many Alex Jones followers. Alex Jones is the original Mr. Crazy Pants.
“They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers,” Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said on the Larry King show:
This is where Ron Paul lost me and most of the Conservatives I know. The idea that it is better to fight the enemy overseas rather than here in the homeland is rooted in our basic character. Mr Paul seems to feel that if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. That idea is so naive that it makes us question his basic thinking process. We are at war. We cannot unilaterally declare peace and go home because the other side won't let us.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with him on the small government concept and most of his other positions....but when he loses his creditability like this it's hard to get it back.
isolationism does not have a good track record in modern history.
Actually, I am increasingly of the opinion that both the action in Afghanistan (what the hell do we need with a country named after a dog?) and the one in Iraq wee unnecessary.
In a rational world, no nation would support, or give sanctuary to terrorists who attack the country with the mightiest military in history. In a rational world, those that do, pay dearly. In a rational world, Libya, Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would be radioactive, smoking ruins.
In a rational world, we would not be interventionist, but we would get revenge.
Muslims attack us because its what they’ve been taught to do since about 400 AD. Their religion does not tolerate any other religions. They are instructed to kill anyone who refuses to convert.
We could pull everything back to the states and they would seek us out. Only our international trade would die first. All of our allies would be converted by force.
Ron Paul has some great ideas about constitutionality in government, but he’s way too far out there on the fringe insofar as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned. I have yet to hear how he’d take the fight to al-Qaeda. It’s rather difficult to “declare war” on a non-state entity.
And we occupied Afghanistan WHEN before 9/11?
“And we occupied Afghanistan WHEN before 9/11? “
And thats an example of how Dr Paul is a wacko.
Ron Paul is the only Federal legislator whose ideas resemble any of those of the Founding Fathers...including the admonition about involving ourselves in foreign affairs.
There simply is no need for the depths of our involvment in the overseas oil markets that have led us to a condition of nearly perpetual war in a region of the world permantly wedded to hatred.
May I point out that our “founders” was not a bunch of Isolationist nutjobs??? TJ sent the Navy to deal with The Barbary Pirates (our first war on terror) instead of giving them bribes...
Ron Paul is a Weasel! Get over him!
Sarah Palin is a Rock Star!
“Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute....”
We pay tribute....every day...in every way...dollars, blood, lives, time,attention and future treasury to a part of the world with which we, by virtue of the natural resources we have in abundance, HAVE NO NEED TO DO SO in any way, shape or form.
TJ at least put an end to tribute and lives in one relatively short expedition...and if anything today because of how our elected representatives have chosen to deal with these issues so far, there is no end in sight other than what Ron Paul rationally proposes .
Communism is the tool of Satan to wreck havoc across the planet.
I agree with his stand on the fed and the economy - his foreign policy is left field
the Republican and Democratic parties are headed for the dustbin of history
Like treating a cut on your finger with a flamethrower. No thanks.
In a rational world, we would not be interventionist, but we would get revenge.
And THAT is where the public support for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan came from.
The truth is that "Revenge" is what Americans really wanted after 9/11 -- -- to strike back and not feel helpless. But Americans are so geographically challenged that it became "Iraq, Afghanistan", same difference, it's all over there". It's NOT "the same difference".
Afghanistan, yes. They gave safe harbor to those who attacked us. We needed to take out al Qaeda there and there is evidence that it wouldn't have taken all that much to do so had we used the right strategy and not been distracted by Iraq.
But if someone took a step back for long enough to realize what's happened, they'd see that it was Saudi Arabia that needed (and still needs) removed from the face of the map. Saudis are playing both ends against the middle -- publicly befriending us to take our money, meanwhile sponsoring terrorism against us and other non-Muslim peoples around the world. If we took out Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would ultimately become completely irrelevant. But the Saudis were protected by the longstanding friendship with the Bush family. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was Saudi Arabia that was the prime motivator and financial sponsor for the Iraq war.
Attacking Afghanistan was rational. But nothing else in our Middle East strategy (if there is one) for the last 20 years has been rational. It's probably irrational to us because we don't see all the strings being pulled and pockets being stuffed behind the scenes.
War is unfortunately sometimes necessary to defend yourself, but the point is to fight wars that you are going to get some relief/benefit from, not to make it a way of life that drains you, your people and your resources and leaves you with nothing -- even if you win.
So, having said all of that, I still agree that a RP non-interventionist policy should be our ideal, where we only go to war to defend ourselves and defend our direct interests.
But instead, we've empowered a globalist cabal who are determined to remake the world in their own image using our country, manpower and resources to do it for them --FOR THEM, not for us. Their strategy is that they reap the benefits and we wind up broke and disheartened, dependent on them for everything.
I, for one, don't want to play their game.
When, precisely, have we seen it tried in order to evaluate that "track record"?
did I miss the sarcasm tag?
When have we seen it work? Its very similar to the enemy who want us to go back to the 700s.
“I have yet to hear how hed take the fight to al-Qaeda.
did I miss the sarcasm tag?”
Thats because Dr Paul WON’T take the fight to the enemy. He’d pull pull all the troops back to the US and hope someone didn’t come for us.
Afraid so. Ron Paul threads are the gifts that just keep on giving.
All that’s missing are some photos of the screwball.
Not in your life time.
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.