Why I Do Not Support Ron Paul

[Rob308]

I have very little patience for the notion that we deserved or invited 9/11 to ANY degree whatever.

Well he's not saying that.. there's a difference between saying that we deserved it or that we invited it and saying that our foreign policy gave them reasons to be angry with the US government.

"Who are the Jihadists?" Oh, please. Are you taking the leftist line that radical Islam isn't really a threat, just a "bumper sticker" hyped by the Administration?

Radical Islam is not a specific group of people, it's an ideology. It can become more or less popular depending on what we do. Look, you can't defeat an ideology with an army. The way to beat the Islamists is to win the "battle of the hearts and minds". That will never happen if we keep doing what we are doing in the middle east.

On Al Qaeda not attacking Canada, etc.: Yeah, just how many Balinese troops are in Iraq, anyway?

Huh?

True, AQ hasn't been doing well lately--because of the "surge", of course, but you wouldn't care to acknowledge that, would you?

Maybe the surge did have something to do with it but the Sunni's were turning against AQI long before the surge started. They aren't very popular for a few reasons.. they kill civilians, they are mostly foreigners, and they are very strict when it comes to certain things that many Iraqi's like to do (like smoking tobacco).

Gosh, yes; all those laws could be abused. Can you document any actual cases of that?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patriot_Act_abuses

 

[publius42]

Ron Paul's position on the 2nd Amendment resembles my own; unfortunately, I do not think that that position is shared by the majority of Americans, or even a majority of Republicans.

The question may reach the Supreme Court in the Heller case before the election. That could get interesting.

Even if you don't agree with the initial reasons we went in, it would be absolutely insane and suicidal to cut and run now.

I did not believe the war was a good idea, but I disagree with Paul on "immediate withdrawal" (as if there is anything immediate about moving an army). On the broader questions of nation building and foreign entanglements, I think it's about time we had a President who questions the usefulness of the UN and foreign aid. President Paul couldn't do much on the subject without convincing Congress. Congress spent $17.2 billion on international affairs in 2000 and they are projecting $36.1 billion for 2008, so perhaps with the need to override a veto, the growth rate in spending can be slowed a bit.

Paul, like leftists and Democrats, opposes the Patriot Act and declares that it sacrifices our civil liberties in the name of security. Sorry. There have been no, none, nada, zero abuses of the Patriot Act recorded or reported

Parts of it were just ruled unconstitutional. Parts of it are good, and bring our laws out of the 1950s and into the digital age.

Paul wants to abolish the personal income tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, and most of the departments represented on the Cabinet. It appears that he wants to abolish about 90% of the Federal bureaucracy.

Gee, what a great idea! Unfortunately, it just isn't within the power of an American President to do any of that. There's a little thing called Congress in the way, and they're going to laugh those ideas off the floor before they're even proposed.

Total federal govt spending in 2000 $1,789,200,000,000.

Total federal govt spending in 2008 $2,901,900,000,000 (projected).

Give them a veto to override.

 

[SpectreBlofeld]

Hows this for an argument...$500 on the table says Ronnie doesnt win, place or show....

Hey any folks wanna help me and really make it worth their while...whats it gonna take...$5K? Naw, even his acolytes KNOW he isnt going to win LOL...

I don't know what you hope to accomplish, there. Whether you would win such a bet or not has no bearing on the soundness of his policies or validity as a candidate. I could wager that we're likely to see more restrictions on handgun ownership in the US in the future, not less, but that doesn't make it The Right Thing To Do. Regardless, I have some information you might find entertaining:

The gambling public seems to believe that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul stands a very good chance of winning, so much so that this past week odds on Dr. Paul have been slashed further from 8 to 1 down to 6 to 1, with the potential payout of $600 for every $100 bet. (see betting odds at Sportsbook.com).

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-100107.html

 

[GoSlash27]

In reference to the OP:

The vast majority of the reasons you don't support Dr. Paul are exactly the reasons I do.

"Ron Paul believes that there was no good reason to go to war in Iraq,"
I agree.
"that a Congressional declaration of war was Constitutionally necessary,"
I agree. That's how you keep from making ill-informed decisions (which the vast majority of us now consider the Iraq invasion to be).
"and that we ought to just unilaterally pull out completely and immediately."
I agree. Iraq has been on autopilot to becoming an Iranian puppet state ever since they ratified their constitution.
"Further, Paul's position is that we brought 9/11 on ourselves,"
I agree. A direct result of establishing permanant bases in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm.
"and that if we just cut and run--all over the world--that the Jihadists will leave us alone."
Oversimplification. They will still want to mess with us. That course of action undermines their ability to do so. Letters of marque allow us to directly engage the threat.
"That's an isolationist fantasy."
Non-interventionist.
"It's also called "surrender" or "appeasement"."
Depending on your point of view it may also be called "refusing to play the game by your enemy's rules".

"Paul, like leftists and Democrats, opposes the Patriot Act and declares that it sacrifices our civil liberties in the name of security."
I agree. In fact, our transparency and openness are our greatest weapon in the so-called "war" against Islamofascist terrorism.

"Paul believes that ALL foreign aid to EVERY nation ought to be abolished."
I agree. They don't pay taxes and our economy won't support continuing it.

"Israel, in particular (aid to which Paul adamantly and especially opposes)..."
Your first paragraph explains in detail exactly why they don't need our help.

"Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN and NATO and pull ALL our troops back from ANYWHERE they're stationed, anywhere in the world, not just Iraq and Afghanistan."
I agree as would anyone who doesn't subscribe to the false choice fallacy of either world domination or invasion.

"Paul wants to abolish the personal income tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, and most of the departments represented on the Cabinet. It appears that he wants to abolish about 90% of the Federal bureaucracy."
I agree. Most people who call themselves "conservatives" do.

"Principled"...
If the Republican base is "principled" (read myopic) enough to nominate anyone other than Dr. Paul they will lose the general election regardless. This election cycle is a mandate on 1) the war and 2) the Bush presidency. If you can read polls, fund-raising, and rally attendance, you should be able to deduce which way the wind is blowing. The smart move is to promote the guy with an established ability to draw support from the left...but I never accused the average Freeper of being very smart.

 

[cnorman18]

rob308

On "hearts and minds":
As usual with this sort of suggestion, no specifics. There's a reason.

"Stop doing what we're doing in the Mideast" = surrender, stop pursuing our national interests, do everything they demand that we do, and have a nice chat.

Sorry. Since bin Laden himself has stated that what we must do to end his jihad against us is to convert to Islam en masse, I don't think that's a good plan. "Negotiation" isn't in their vocabulary, and neither is "compromise". While we worry about making sure our prisoners have special foods at Ramadan and (literally) handle their Korans with gloves on, they subject their prisoners to torture and mutilation and cut their heads off on camera. I don't think they're going to respond well to diplomatic tea parties.

AQ blew up a nightclub in Bali. Killed a couple hundred people. Bali is not in Iraq. Didn't you hear?

I took a look at this site, and I invite anyone who cares to to do the same:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patriot_Act_abuses

See what you can find. I found a guy griping because he refused to show his ID at an airport and got detained, some allegations of people being beaten while in custody (Abu Ghraib writ small: a few rogue guards get out of control and it's the whole Government's fault), and, of course, lots and lots of articles about how abuses are POSSIBLE.

If there were any really significant abuses of the Patriot Act, I think there might be a few more prominent headlines, and in venues other than extreme-left blogs.

Even if you somehow managed to prove that the present Administration is exactly the kind of imperialist, fascist nightmare that the left keeps bleating about--which assertion, since it requires some actual facts, isn't likely to be proved anytime soon--it would still be light-years from proving that Ron Paul has a single idea that is, on examination, either practical or doable.

Maybe we ought to get back to THAT, because the title of this thread isn't "I hate Bush and here's why."

 

[cnorman18]

goslash27

As far as I can see, you have ignored--not rebutted--my arguments and simply reaffirmed Paul's positions. The term "Kool-Aid" occurs to me for some reason, but never mind.

Not a lot of critical thinking here. I base that observation on your starry-eyed conviction that Paul will actually win.

I'm still waiting for some description of Paul's legislative plan. Here's a hint for those who'd attempt it: "Veto everything" is not a viable plan...

 

[ZeroJunk]

I think that abortion is intuitively wrong.But,you will never get that milk back in the glass.If you make it states rights,women will just travel to those states.Making a vote on that basis is useless.

I don't like eminent domain.But,as long as people breed like a bunch of rats you are going to have to build infrastructure to support the population.People fight it tooth and nail everywhere,so it's rare that it is done without benefit for the many.Not an issue to decide a president.

You can beat that dead horse about Iraq forever.But,it is history.Like Powell said,we own it.Presidential candidates can yack about it all they want,but it is going to wind down at this point pretty much the same regardless of the president.Once a person is elected logic kicks in and all the pre-election positioning runs into logistics and reality.

 

[Rob308]

On "hearts and minds":
As usual with this sort of suggestion, no specifics.

First of all.. we need to be fair when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict. That would be a good start.

I don't think they're going to respond well to diplomatic tea parties.

I never said we should negotiate with Bin Laden or his group. There are many different things we could do to win the fight against AQ besides war or "diplomatic tea parties".

 

[publius42]

t would still be light-years from proving that Ron Paul has a single idea that is, on examination, either practical or doable.

How about the Sunlight Rule? Why is that not practical or doable?

For that matter, why isn't vetoing almost everything which comes along viable? Congress can override vetos. If continuing the explosive growth of federal spending is so critically important, surely they will get together and override any ill-advised vetos.

 

[GoSlash27]

cnorman,
There's not enough room to rebut your arguments without dragging the thread off-topic. It's not just your policy I disagree with, but your entire world view...particularly in regards to the issue of violent extremism.
You will never be able to understand why I agree with him on this point without a long involved discussion about the history of terrorism and counter-terrorism. There is a method to the madness, but I fully understand why you can't see it.

[edit] I will be more than happy to provide the viewpoint in another thread. I don't expect you to convert to it, but it might at least shed some light. [/edit]

"Veto everything" is not a viable plan..."
Considering the impending Dem majorities in both houses, you might want to expand your definition of "viable".

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

If the Republican base is "principled" (read myopic) enough to nominate anyone other than Dr. Paul they will lose the general election regardless

The polls I've seen indicate 45% of the electorate won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

With negatives like those, a reasonably attractive Republican candidate could win.

 

[GoSlash27]

With negatives like those, a reasonably attractive Republican candidate could win.

Agreed. Unfortunately, pro-Iraq war is not "reasonably attractive" to the electorate. There is no Republican candidate who can defeat Hillary other than Paul, and even that's a stretch.
Long-short any other candidate results in a Republican defeat even if Dr. Paul stays home.
I personally hope he is offered and accepts the Libertarian nomination. He will lose, but the spectacular whuppin' bestowed upon the Republicans will result in some much needed soul searching and plank walking. It's long overdue IMO.

 

[cnorman18]

rob308 and goslash27

Rob308:

"Fairness" in the israel/Palestine conflict? Specifics (again)?

Here's my take: Israelis just want to live in their little land in peace. They have proven, over and over, their willingness to accept and support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and to compromise till they're bending over backwards; establishing, funding and even arming the PA, withdrawing from Gaza, evacuating the settlements, proposing and/or signing agreement after agreement (including the unprecedented offer at Camp David), and on and on. Also, Arabs are part and parcel of Israeli society: they buy and sell land, own businesses, vote, serve in the IDF and hold seats in the Knesset.

On the other side, EVERY Palestinian organization explicitly calls for the expulsion or extermination of every Jew in the Mideast. They have reneged on EVERY agreement they have signed, specifically in that they keep pledging to fight terrorism and then provably continuing to promote it. They demand that the West Bank and Gaza (and the entire Mideast) be Jew-free, while complaining about Israeli "racism". They complain about Israeli "atrocities" while literally celebrating their own; they murder or attempt to murder Israeli civilians) en masse, daily--families at holiday dinners, Bar Mitzvahs and weddings, children in elementary schools and on buses, teenagers at discos and pizzerias--and dance in the streets and hand out candy when such attacks are successful. They quite deliberately hide arms, bombmaking centers, training sites, and terrorists among their own civilians (an explicit violation of the Geneva Convention that no one seems to mention), and then complain when the civilians that they themselves put in the line of fire are injured or killed. They use ambulances to transport fighters, weapons and bombs, then complain when ambulances are stopped and searched; they disguise suicide bombers as pregnant women, then complain when pregnant women are stopped and searched. They openly preach that the mass murder of Jews is a sacred religious duty, and teach their children that Jews are descended from dogs, pigs and apes and that committing suicide while murdering them is the highest and most noble act they could perform....

Now tell me what would be "fair".

People keep pretending that there are two sides to this story. There are: there's the Palestinian position, and then there is the truth.

And, here we go again:
"There are many different things we could do to win the fight against AQ besides war or 'diplomatic tea parties'..."
At the risk of repeating myself--what "things"? Do you have a problem with being specific? It would appear so.

-----

Goslash27:

I see: You're far too knowledgeable and articulate for a poor ignorant dimbulb like me to understand. Gosh, what a compelling argument. You must be right.

Thanks for playing. I look forward to reading your erudite, closely reasoned, and well-documented new thread.

 

[xd9fan]

I suspect that a lot of Ron Paul's financial support is coming from the political left at the moment, i.e. Howard Dean / Moveon.org supporters who are reached via the Internet. That fact alone makes a third party run inevitable.

LOL
proof please

It cant be the that everyday americans are doing it

LOL

 

[Pat H]

Here's my take: Israelis just want to live in their little land in peace.

Since there's no evidence supporting this statement, and mountains of evidence to the contrary, one wonders why you've made it? Even Menachem Begin admitted (in his memoirs) that Israel staged an unwarranted attack on the muslim countries in 1967.

The Ron Paul position supporting the cessation of foreign aid is the conservative position, and as someone else pointed out, the funds can't be supported economically. There's also the immorality of giving tax money to foreign governments.

 

[SpectreBlofeld]

Quote:I suspect that a lot of Ron Paul's financial support is coming from the political left at the moment, i.e. Howard Dean / Moveon.org supporters who are reached via the Internet. That fact alone makes a third party run inevitable.
---
LOL
proof please

It cant be the that everyday americans are doing it

LOL

I actually think he's right about garnering some substantial support from the left - I have many friends who are historical Democrats that have really taken a liking to him. Like most Libertarians, he is 'liberal' on some stances (such as the war on drugs), staunchly 'conservative' on others.

However, I don't believe the conspiracy theory that supposes that he's getting support in order to draw votes away from other candidates. Though I wouldn't mind if that were the case at this point. Because a strategy like that would NOT help the dems before the primaries. If Paul does not win the nomination and then proceeds to run under the Libertarian ticket, THEN giving him support would help draw votes away from the Republican candidate - which is what the Republicans did with Nader. However, it would make no sense for them to employ that strategy this early in the game.

I put quotations marks around 'liberal' and 'conservative' because I think these terms have been bastardized and shouldn't be equated with the political ideas of the 'left' and the 'right'.

I'd also like to say that I don't think he's a 'moderate', and that I hate the very idea of a 'moderate' candidate - as traditionally that seems to indicate a person who doesn't really have a framework of ideals to work from, and has an inconsistent voting record.

 

[Rob308]

Here's my take...

Well you have just proved my point. There is so much misinformation in this post I don't know where to start. You don't even understand what fair is because you have been subjected to so much biased information. I might decide to talk about this at a later date but right now I don't have the time or energy to go through all this. It's obvious that you have already picked a side so I'll just let you think what you want to think...

At the risk of repeating myself--what "things"?

Send the CIA to assassinate him and his buddies, use propaganda and other forms of psychological warfare to counter his message, develop alternative energy sources so we can get out of the Middle East etc...

There are many things we can do besides war or "tea parties".

 

[cnorman18]

Pat H

Your "mountains of evidence" seem to consist of a widely discredited anti-Israel screed by Mearsheimer and Walt.

Examples? Okay. Here is the *beginning* of a series of corrections and comments by Benny Morris, a liberal Israeli historian who is heavily sourced in their "work":

"Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity. Were “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body."

Read the rest of Morris's outraged comments here:

http://www.yourish.com/2006/04/28/1158

And here are a few more reviews and corrections:

http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/a-challenge-to-walt-and-m_b_33191.html

http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=424

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342

it's glaringly obvious that you did not dispute, nor even acknowledge, a single one of the FACTS I posted. You apparently have nothing to say about savagely murderous behavior--and bad faith--on the part of the Palestinians. I find that--significant.

The 1967 war was an Israeli war of aggression? Reeeally! Maybe the Egyptians shouldn't have announced that they were about to mount a war of extermination, then, nor invited other Arab nations to come join in the slaughter, which invitation they gleefully accepted.
Where do you read history? Radio Islam?

Okay, your "position" on Israel is clear. Contemptible, bigoted, morally indefensible, and loaded with blatant propaganda, but clear.

Now how about that brief explanation of Ron Paul's legislative plan?

How about answering that perfectly legitimate and on-point question about Paul's "non-interventionist" policies as they relate to our entrance into WWII?

Any comment on either?

 

[Fremmer]

Eh.

 

[pitz96]

This is getting ridiculous. Any criticism of Israel, is, as usual, dismissed as blatant anti-Semitism, in spite of obvious facts. Obviously, its pointless to even mention removing Israel's blank check from the US.

Ron Paul, to get back to the original subject, says things most Americans don't like hearing, ie, the truth. Believing comforting lies is always more palatable than being told uncomfortable truths. hence, we will always have the governments we deserve--corrupt liars, working to make the world a fertile ground for privatization and corporate prosperity via constant turmoil.