Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[GHook93]

There is so much man-love for Ron Paul, but come the primaries and generals he will inrelevent. He will be more of an after-thought.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: GHook93 There is so much man-love for Ron Paul, but come the primaries and generals he will inrelevent. He will be more of an after-thought.

Aw, chin up there big guy, your disappointment is obvious. It won't be the end of the world you know. Well, perhaps the begining of the end, but...

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Aw, chin up there big guy, your disappointment is obvious. It won't be the end of the world you know. Well, perhaps the begining of the end, but...

It depends on who gets elected for it to be the end or the beginning!

[xyzer]

Here is revealing expose' of good ol' Ron Paul..the dangerous dud?
Townhall.com::The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul::By John Hawkins

This guy is an afterthought in the political spectrum?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: xyzer Here is revealing expose' of good ol' Ron Paul..the dangerous dud? Townhall.com::The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul::By John Hawkins This guy is an afterthought in the political spectrum?

Good morning, Xyzer.

I will now proceed to tear apart the article you cite above.

Quote by: John Hawkins #1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee.

Translation: "I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, the only reason for that is so they can hopefully see the light and give up their libertarianism."

In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.

Some people have a different (read: more traditional) definition for "conservative" than you do, Mr. Hawkins. What do you say to them?

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.

Independent Task Force on North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.

Translation: "No one must deviate from the party line! No one!!!" :rolleyes:

#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues. Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." ..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said. ...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks. "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote." Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.

I see nothing wrong (e.g., racist) with what Mr. Paul wrote. Do you?

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).

Non-sequitur. Whether his supporters are irritating has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of his ideas.

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.

Non-sequitur. I fail to see how US "isolationism" after WW1 caused WW2. If anything, it was US interventionism during WW1 that contributed to WW2.

Besides, Ron Paul is isolationist only when it comes to foreign policy. He has no problem with Americans buying from and selling to people in other parts of the world. That, by the way, is true free trade.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality.

Translation: "Don't interrupt us, even if we're wrong. This is srs biznes!!1"

Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

Question-begging. Does withdrawing US forces from Iraq mean retreating from Al-Qaeda? Does it necessarily mean letting that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war?

It does not necessarily follow that withdrawing US forces from Iraq will bring about "catastrophic results".

#8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.

This is the biggest non-sequitur in the entire article. I challenge anyone to show otherwise.

This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter.

Bringing up Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky is meaningless here, aside from trying to get readers to psychologically associate Ron Paul with them. There is a name for this: intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."

Another non-sequitur. Neither Egyptian nor Indonesian military forces have aggressed against the United States on its own soil.

#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

I wasn't aware that electability was necessarily a requirement for support. Maybe sometimes ideas are more important? Nah -- politics is all about winning, y'know. To hell with ideas. :rolleyes:

Finally, I do not present this as a counter-argument, but I did find it very amusing:

Mr. Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign. [Emphasis added.]

LOL!

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Great post Rob, and thanks for setting that straight.

[Clarence]

Neo-cons are getting scared of him. Xyzer's article is basically someone spewing bs out of both sides thier mouth. Sounds political huh? The whole attitude of the piece is a shining example of what's wrong with the 'status quo' if we can even call it that any longer. Neo-con's have little status or quo to speak of anymore.

I watched an h.our of O'reilly last night. There's something frantic in it that hasn't been. Reasonable and logical minds looking for solutions to our nations problems should not give the desperate attempts to regain public opinion any heed. People can read these things about Ron Paul but the ones who can believe it are rare. All they have to do is look at thier candidates. Which is what we want. Gulianni and McCain. In comparison Mr.Paul has got it all.

btw I haven't voted once in any silly poll so spamming is an unfounded accusation.

What is obvious. Many people have now heard of Ron Paul. One less excuse for them. So know people can dig for what little negative they can find on the man. That's great. It highlights his competitors. Ron Paul supportors should now provide relevent info to voters on Gulianni and McCain.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Clarence Neo-cons are getting scared of him. Xyzer's article is basically someone spewing bs out of both sides thier mouth.

Indeed, it seems there is truly is no end the their rhetoric, lies, half truths, etc... I guess the script writers are comfortable where they are now, so no need to switch stories this late in the game.

Quote by: Clarence Many people have now heard of Ron Paul. One less excuse for them.

That might be a bumper sticker.


Simple, blunt, concise, I like it.

[O-dehlay]

I love Ron Paul. Gonna be my first time I can vote due to age. I want to do everything I can to help him and have done everything I can think of thus far. Although ive been limited to internet activities and donations.

[xyzer]

Thank you for interpreting the authors opinions so inaccurately Autokylos!

I will now procede to tear apart the article you cite above.

Quite frankly I didn't detect any rending sounds. Obviously I don't agree with all the authors contentions either nor do I necessarily agree with all your interpretations.

I remain unconvinced that Mr Paul is a viable candidate for anything but dogcatcher..The fabric is still untorn!. IMNSHO The man doesn't represent mainstream conservative views... which I think important. e.g., I believe in conscription if the nation is threatened.,.libertarians don't? I believe in an aggressive foreign policy in our own interest, which is developed by our elected reps. I believe in support of our troops when they are in harms way performing the duties our legislators mandate?
I shudder at his type thinking which is at the core of the libertarian philosophy...

Libertarians embrace a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty.

Huh?
That's nonsense in our,or any, society. It smacks of moral relativism!
That being said the man apparently doesn't have any desire to persevere and support efforts in the war against terror. Like it or not that is a real threat to our future.

There is a difference between 'deviating from the party line' and criticizing legislatively mandated efforts without offering any realistic alternatives..This is the echo we get from the leftist elements in our government. To suggest that one with such views is a viable Republican candidate is the antithesis of reality.
Do you honestly think Paul has a chance to become anything but an independent candidate? In the Republican Party there are much stronger conservative candidates in the race, and another, Thompson who shiows much greater promise and is about to run.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: xyzer Thank you for interpreting the authors opinions so inaccurately Autokylos!

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Or perhaps you'd care to back up the statement above by showing my inaccuracies in interpretation?

Quite frankly I didn't detect any rending sounds.

That doesn't mean they didn't occur.

Obviously I don't agree with all the authors contentions either nor do I necessarily agree with all your interpretations.

That's nice. Anything substantive to add?

I remain unconvinced that Mr Paul is a viable candidate for anything but dogcatcher..The fabric is still untorn!.

In case you didn't notice, I'm not trying to convince you of anything so much as I'm trying to show that the views you (and those like you) hold are logically untenable.

IMNSHO The man doesn't represent mainstream conservative views... which I think important. e.g., I believe in conscription if the nation is threatened.,.libertarians don't?

Absolutely not. In effect, you're willing to enslave your fellow man to your cause, whether he likes it or not.

I believe in an aggressive foreign policy in our own interest, which is developed by our elected reps.

I personally don't care if it's developed by "our elected reps". And just what do you think "our own interests" are? Finally, why must we be aggressive in pursuing them?

I believe in support of our troops when they are in harms way performing the duties our legislators mandate?

Is that a question or a statement?

If I don't agree with the duties "our legislators" ostensibly mandate, how can I support the troops who perform those duties?

I shudder at his type thinking which is at the core of the libertarian philosophy... Huh? That's nonsense in our,or any, society. It smacks of moral relativism!

Please explain further, i.e., provide substantiation. All you're doing above is mouthing platitude after platitude. Or do you expect us to simply take your word for everything you say? :rolleyes:

That being said the man apparently doesn't have any desire to persevere and support efforts in the war against terror.

There's an oft-quoted definition for "insanity" that goes thus: "Expecting the same result every time, but always getting a different one". I would say that "perseverance" in the so-called "war against terror" simply means doing more of the same, which means getting the same result -- even more terror.

Like it or not that is a real threat to our future.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. I simply do not agree with you here.

There is a difference between 'deviating from the party line' and criticizing legislatively mandated efforts without offering any realistic alternatives..

I guess the operative word there is "realistic", eh? Of course, if you define "realistic" to mean "in accordance with what has already been mandated", then no alternatives will ever seem realistic. That's a nice example of setting up definitions to deflect any and all criticism.

This is the echo we get from the leftist elements in our government. To suggest that one with such views is a viable Republican candidate is the antithesis of reality.

Well why don't you be so kind as to tell us benighted folks just what "reality" is, then?

Do you honestly think Paul has a chance to become anything but an independent candidate? In the Republican Party there are much stronger conservative candidates in the race, and another, Thompson who shiows much greater promise and is about to run.

Thompson is yet another pro-war candidate. If you are pro-war, I guess he's the man for you. Some of us, on the other hand, happen to be more civilized.

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer I believe in conscription if the nation is threatened.,.libertarians don't?

I definately don't have a problem with conscription were it actually required to defend the homeland. I can't agree to such measures for the purpose of "installing democracy" ( on people who never asked to have democracy installed ), or "nation building" for for a particular Presidents amusement, vendetas, or profiteering.

Quote by: xyzer I believe in an aggressive foreign policy in our own interest, which is developed by our elected reps. I believe in support of our troops when they are in harms way performing the duties our legislators mandate? I shudder at his type thinking which is at the core of the libertarian philosophy...

Believe me, we're the ones shuddering over here.


You guys are about to get us all nuked, and you have the nerve to sit there, and type in that statement? :rolleyes:


Knock knock knock, ANYBODY HOME?


.

Quote by: xyzer That being said the man apparently doesn't have any desire to persevere and support efforts in the war against terror. Like it or not that is a real threat to our future.

That's why many of us like him, because he also recognizes the true threat to our future, and the true inspiration for the attacks, meddling in other peoples affairs.


I firmly believe the threat only exists as long as the current mentality dictates foreign policy.


Why, you ask?


Because people have things they would rather be doing than sacrificing themselves as suicide bombers. They only act as they do because of American interference in their domestic affiars.


We, the champions of "self determination", have prevented these people from exercsing that very thing, the thing you guys claim comes from installing the coveted "democracy" you're always rambling about. Are you guys holding out on the "self determination" until they "buy the whole package", or what?


I suspect the real rub is with the fact that you just won't stop meddling in their affairs.

Quote by: xyzer There is a difference between 'deviating from the party line' and criticizing legislatively mandated efforts without offering any realistic alternatives..This is the echo we get from the leftist elements in our government. To suggest that one with such views is a viable Republican candidate is the antithesis of reality. Do you honestly think Paul has a chance to become anything but an independent candidate? In the Republican Party there are much stronger conservative candidates in the race, and another, Thompson who shiows much greater promise and is about to run.

I think the real issue here is that somebody has substituted the Neocon agenda for the Republican agenda. That, or you're in the wrong camp, and have self identified with the people who are incorrectly calling themselves Republicans, but are not.


Call us crazy, but I tend to think foreign governments would cherish the opportunity to discuss policy with a man who respects their rights a sovereign nations, and people with rights not granted by the US government.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: O-dehlay I love Ron Paul. Gonna be my first time I can vote due to age. I want to do everything I can to help him and have done everything I can think of thus far. Although ive been limited to internet activities and donations.

Thank you, young champion of the people.


Now go forth, and recruit, er, um, well, welcome to forum anyway.

[xyzer]

Generally well put Milton! I'm laughing at this one, however..

You guys are about to get us all nuked, and you have the nerve to sit there, and type in that statement?

While I was not a proponent of the reason, or need, to invade Iraq, I find it ridiculous to blame that initiative on all the ills of the world? Do you really think 'Ahwannajihad' and his 'merry mullahs' wouldn't have tried to develop nukes if we hadn't invaded Iraq? If so you are in the ranks of the naive; a victim ot the antiwar, poltiically tinged, indirect consequences nonsense? The "if Johnny hadn't hit me with a paper wad last year I wouldn't have hit Jack with a baseball bat today..thinkers?

I firmly believe the threat only exists as long as the current mentality dictates foreign policy.

Do you really believe that a nations foreign policy should be overwhelmed by what other nations want it to do? What other nations think it should do? If so we might have joined the Axis against England in WW2? Germans would have liked us to help them.
Is not foreign policy made in the real world of perceived current needs? Or is it made with 20/20 forsight of all the subsequenbt influences that may or may notoccur in the future? Lets see now, I better not go out and pickup my NYTimes this morning because my neighbor doesn't want me to make noise this early in the morning and may later release his vicious dog on me? I better not post my derisive opinion of Ron Paul on Volconvo because Auto thinks Paul is OK+.


And I'm crying at this one by Auto...

Absolutely not. In effect, you're willing to enslave your fellow man to your cause, whether he likes it or not.

So much for our hallowed 'rule of law'. So much for the tyranny of the majority in a representative system? Is slavery again in fashion?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: xyzer And I'm crying at this one by Auto... So much for our hallowed 'rule of law'. So much for the tyranny of the majority in a representative system? Is slavery again in fashion?

Excuse me? Do you not realize that conscription is equal to slavery?

- Rob

[xyzer]

Do you not realize that conscription is equal to slavery

No I don't! Explain that one to me. Facts and logic please. I've searched the records and I can find evidence of conscription legislation but no national law authorizing slave owning in this great nation.

You are teetering on the edge of an illogical abyss Auto, don't let emotion tip the balance.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: xyzer No I don't! Explain that one to me. Facts and logic please. I've searched the records and I can find evidence of conscription legislation but no national law authorizing slave owning in this great nation.

What? I'm not talking in a legal sense -- I'm talking in a real sense. That is, is there any real difference between conscription and slavery?

Let's see. In conscription, you are forced by the state to go and do its bidding, whatever that may be. Does that sound like slavery to you? It does to me.

You are teetering on the edge of an illogical abyss Auto, don't let emotion tip the balance.

Um, right... :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer While I was not a proponent of the reason, or need, to invade Iraq, I find it ridiculous to blame that initiative on all the ills of the world?

It's not about "all the ills of the world", it's about whos policies are inspiring people with almost nothing to sacrifice themselves as suicide bombers to stop your henchmans plans for their future.

Quote by: xyzer Do you really think 'Ahwannajihad' and his 'merry mullahs' wouldn't have tried to develop nukes if we hadn't invaded Iraq? If so you are in the ranks of the naive; a victim ot the antiwar, poltiically tinged, indirect consequences nonsense? The "if Johnny hadn't hit me with a paper wad last year I wouldn't have hit Jack with a baseball bat today..thinkers?

Not only do I not think that, I never said as much either. I did say that they should allowed to persue their own nuclear ambitions, because at the end of the age of oil, it would seem pretty hypocritical to attempt otherwise.


The truth is, that in the period of time that my goverment did not interfere in the affirs of others, we were not being targeted by terrorists. ( or anybody else for that matter. )


A simple truth.

Quote by: xyzer Do you really believe that a nations foreign policy should be overwhelmed by what other nations want it to do?

Not at all, but thet is not what inspires the hatred. It's not like any of them are attempting to dictate terms to us now is it?

Quote by: xyzer Is not foreign policy made in the real world of perceived current needs? Or is it made with 20/20 forsight of all the subsequenbt influences that may or may notoccur in the future? Lets see now, I better not go out and pickup my NYTimes this morning because my neighbor doesn't want me to make noise this early in the morning and may later release his vicious dog on me? I better not post my derisive opinion of Ron Paul on Volconvo because Auto thinks Paul is OK+.

Wow, I think you left your logical fallacy generator on, and it's running without supervision.


I just don't see where you get some of these crazy ideas.


Nobody is suggesting that we should let others dictate terms to us, only that we should not be dictating to them, particularly in their own sovereign nation.


What is so hard to understand here that you feel we need to spell it all out for you?


Ours is the party of "common sense", not "please wipe your boots on us before entering".

[Clarence]

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president

Ron Paul 2008 › About Ron Paul

it was economic policy that eventually turned him off.

[xyzer]

Come come Milton?

Not only do I not think that, I never said as much either. I did say that they should allowed to persue their own nuclear ambitions, because at the end of the age of oil, it would seem pretty hypocritical to attempt otherwise.

You are rationalizing? Nuclear power plants are one thing, but refining nuclear material for making nuclear bombs(nukes) is another. "Ahwannajihad" has indicated(and intelligence reports reveal) that his nation is looking for the big bang not the slow power of fissionable materials. There is a hell of a big difference...Add to that this crazy man continues to threaten Israel, his neighbor, with destruction. Don't two and two make four? Do you understand that nuclear proliferation treaties don't relate to the use of unclear materials for power generation? We didn't complain with France and other nations building nuclear power plants.We didn't even shake nuclear proliferation treaties at them either. Ah just how does one define 'nuclear ambitions'?

Are you serious?...

The truth is, that in the period of time that my goverment did not interfere in the affirs of others, we were not being targeted by terrorists. ( or anybody else for that matter. )

Does this mean that there were no Barbary Pirates attacking our shipping in the 1800s?No sinking of the Maine in the early 1900s? No Panay incident in the late 30s? No attack on a US Naval communication vessel by the North Koreans in the 50s? No German subs attacking our shipping in the early 40s?

Interfering is a very general term. I don't define foreign policy initiatives as interfering so much as defining and executing our own policy objectives. You obviously define them as interfering?
This reasoning sound familiar? Lets don't go to WalMart today because it might interfere with the street cleaners on Lohman Avenue? The people at Costco may not like it?