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.