The candidates!

[mauler]

http://www.americandailyherald.com/kerwick-jack/paul-derangement-syndrome

Paul Derangement Syndrome

 Sunday, 02 October 2011 07:01  Jack Kerwick

   



Paul Derangement Syndrome (PDS) is a mental condition that, though it was first detected during the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries, has only now been identified for the dangerous disorder that it is. Also known as “Paulophobia,” those suffering from it find themselves tortured by their fear of Texas congressman and three time presidential candidate Ron Paul.

PDS is peculiar in that in spite of its being a contagion, there is but one segment of the general population that it is known to afflict. Even more curious is the fact that this segment consists of Ron Paul’s fellow partisans in the Republican Party. More specifically, it is neoconservative men and women, especially those with a particularly powerful proclivity for “conservative” talk radio and Fox News, who are most susceptible to contracting PDS.

 PDS is known to ravage the rationality of its hosts. While this disorder indeed promises to reduce its victims’ thoughts on Congressman Paul to textbook cases of illogic, it would be a mistake to infer from this that every Paulophobe was a clear thinker prior to falling prey to PDS: in a not inconsiderable number of instances, Paulophobia hasn’t so much as caused the wild irrationality that is the most salient characteristic of all PDS victims as exacerbated the general unreasonableness with which they already lived.

Unlike many other illnesses, PDS isn’t at all difficult to identify. The Paulophobe’s discourse on all matters pertaining to Ron Paul, or at least to Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, is replete with, not just inconsistencies, but glaring inconsistencies, contradictions that are so profound that even a college freshman enrolled in an introductory logic course couldn’t help but to be pained by them. To anyone remotely attuned to reality or possessed of a modicum of reason, the Paulophobe’s utterances can’t but sound like the babblings of a baby: indecipherable noises intending to signify we know not what.

At one and the same time that he loudly and proudly affirms “limited government,” “liberty,” “individualism,” “fiscal sanity,” “the Constitution,” and “the Founders,” the Paulophobe will just as loudly and unabashedly repudiate Ron Paul. Although the latter has proven to be, by far, both more committed and more consistently committed to these values than any political actor of our generation—although, that is, he is an incomparable champion of the very ideals that the Paulophobe claims to cherish—the Paulophobe insists upon treating Ron Paul as an enemy. 

This in and of itself is sufficient to convict the Paulophobe of invincible irrationality. Yet this unreason runs deeply, manifesting itself in other ways.

Obsessed with erasing altogether the distinction between his perception of reality and reality itself, the Paulophobe will stop at nothing to deny the latter. Of the nine GOP presidential contenders, Ron Paul is more or less consistently in third place in those polls taken among likely Republican voters. When Michele Bachmann held that same distinction, the Paulophobe repeatedly, and excitedly, declared this a “three way race.”  Now that Paul has usurped Bachmann’s standing, the Paulophobe characterizes the primaries as a contest between two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry—two candidates whose commitment to the Paulophobe’s self-professed ideals even he questions.  But what’s worst, he episodically regards as a viable candidate virtually every other contestant in this race—from Tim Pawlenty, who terminated his candidacy after being crushed in the Iowa Ames Straw Poll by Ron Paul, to Herman Cain, from Jon Huntsman to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum—while either failing to mention Paul at all or mentioning him just long enough to assure the rest of us that Paul is not a serious candidate. This, the Paulophobe does, in spite of the fact that not one of Paul’s second-tier competitors has overall performed nearly as impressively as has he. 

Some victims of PDS, like nationally syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved, argue that Republican primary voters should nominate, not the most conservative of candidates, but the most conservative of candidates who also happens to be the most electable of candidates. That is, only that person who can dominate Obama among “independents” and “moderates” should receive his or her party’s nomination. 

Now, Medved suffers from an especially acute case of PDS. Indeed, Medved is a classic illustration of the depths of irrationality to which the mind will sink when Paulophobia is permitted to go untreated, a depth that appears to be beyond the point of no return.  Polls, including a Harris Poll that was conducted on September 28, show that among the Republican candidates, there are but two who will defeat Obama among independents and moderates: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Yet Medved continues to dismiss Paul when he isn’t insulting the latter and his followers. 

And this brings us to another observation: PDS warps what powers of rationality the Paulophobe once had, it is true, but at the same time, it severely weakens his character. 

The Paulophobe’s inability to follow the simplest of arguments that Ron Paul has articulated to substantiate his positions is rivaled only by his inability to resist casting one unfounded aspersion after the other against the twelve term Texas congressman.  Within no time, at the mere mention of Ron Paul’s name, the Paulophobe’s last vestiges of reason become forever lost in a mountainous pile of straw man fallacies, non sequiturs, and ad hominem attacks.

The Paul Derangement Syndrome is a serious condition.  Once it is identified, clear thinking should be sought immediately.

 

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. blogs at The Philosopher's Fortress:  www.jackkerwick.com; and “At the Intersection of Faith and Culture” through Beliefnet.com. Contact him at jackk610@verizon.net and “friend” him on Facebook.

Copyright © 2011 Jack Kerwick and The New American. Used with Permission.

[fullautovalmet76]

....Since you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the Neo-conservative movement and Leon Trotsky you might want to think about that glass house you live in before throwing rocks.

Mauler,
I see you're new to this board. Welcome!

I think you're going to find Tom is very knowledgeable about America's history and Geo-politics. I differ with him on the need for the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul and other stuff but I have found him to be very much beyond the average bear in his grasp of history.

[twyacht]

mauler, your informed, and have studied Paul to a great extent, and your a member here at DRTV, so that also counts as a good thing.

Since Ron Paul can't run as anything other than an "R"...and since he has been doing this for so long, I'm sure you have studied his political career, like every other candidate, some good, some bad....some hypocrisy, some flat out BS. (after all they are ALL politicians),...except Cain, who has NO previous political office history.

So I will post this for those other members, not you because you studied. Please read it all the way through. This is Public Record, and easily verified.

http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/06/21/why-ron-paul-has-zero-chance-to-win-the-republican-presidential-primary/

Why Ron Paul Has ZERO Chance To Win The Republican Presidential Primary
Posted by mikeymike143 (Profile)

Tuesday, June 21st at 6:25AM EDT

1. His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.

2. He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008.[/b] Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

3. There are plenty of people who are ”one issue voters” in politics. And in the Republican party there are plenty of people that ”opposition to islam” is the one issue they feel strongly about. You can go to any anti islam or conservative jewish site and see that the two politicians that are diliked the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said ”I don’t believe for one minute the religion of islam is our enemy”. And Paul also attacked the Sunshine Patriots for their oppostion to the ground zero mosque. Now i am not going to debate the muslim issue here, but the fact that a decent sized voting group in your own party considers you one of their main foes is certainly not good news for your campaign. Now to be fair, you will get the people who think Israel is oppressing Palestine and the pro muslim agenda voters will be on Paul’s side. The only problem with that is almost all of that crowd are Democrats who support Obama.

4. Let’s look at Ron Paul’s position on crack cocaine and heroin. Now I am totally fine with legalizing pot and prostitution in any state if the voters want it. If somebody wants to get laid or smoke a joint it sure isn’t any of my business. But we are talking about legalizing hard drugs because Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers. And please don’t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the drug war that was ”caused by the tea party candidate”. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover. Increased police and court costs etc, etc. But the issue isn’t what I think or Ron Paul thinks, the issue is what does the Republican primary voter think of this policy. The ”religious right” will certainly oppose it full force. And I would think that anyone that has had a family member suffer through the addiction process will be opposed to it. That’s two groups opposed. Of course, Paul will pick up the ”left wing hippie” vote and the anarchists vote. Except the left wing hippies are already card carrying members of the Democratic party. And all the anarchists who want to overthrow big bad America are already his supporters.

5. If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would strongly oppose him. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron Paul playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980′s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, starting that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

6. Illegal Immigration. According to the highly respected anti immigation group NUMBERS USA, Ron Paul has the lowest grade of any Republican presidential candidate out there, coming in with an F. Naturally, his paulbots try to put a spin on this by saying ”welfare and benefit programs should be unconsititutional so illegal immigrants wont come here”. If Ron Paul threw puppies off a tall building his hynoptized followers would be applauding and yelling it was ”constitutional”. That argument wont cut it with the voters. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are in favor of closing our borders and against all forms of amnesty. And that really holds true with Republican voters. April has posted articles by former Ron Paul allies like Tom Tancrdeo that blast Paul on the immigration issue. Yet again, Ron Paul thinks like a liberal Democrat, and in fact even has the same ”F” grade that NUMBERS USA gave Obama.

7. Paul’s pork problem. One thing career politicians learn to do is talk conservative while picking the taxpayers pocket for money. And ”Porkulus Paul” has this shady routine down pat. First of all, let’s go back to last November’s elections to get the proper perspective on this issue. The Republicans destroyed the Democrats on November 3 due to the energy and votes of the tea party!!!!! Now the tea party came in and deservedly wanted to flex it muscles. And decided to take a principled stand against the unethical practice of pork(earmarks). The fight against earmarks was led by the Tea Party Patriots(TPP) and other tea party and conservative groups against the pork loving Democrats. In fact, TPP leader Mark Meckler considered this such an important issue that he promised to run a tea party challenger against any Republican that accepted them.
A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.


Then it came out that a Republican asked for 150 MILLION DOLLARS IN PORK FOR HIS DISTRICT!!! Surely this was a RINO. Maybe Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown? No, it was actually Ron Paul.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Ron Paul is to the far left of the tea party on just about every major issue. Actually he looks just like a liberal Democrat to me.

SAY NO TO THE FAR LEFT TURN, STAY RIGHT. NO PAUL IN 2012.

****

To be fair mauler, I would love to see the same jack booted thugs that raided Gibson Guitars, raid the Fed...Audit, expose, investigate, whatever. The original premise of the Fed as a "bankers bank" has long since been morphed.

Paul has good ideas, I don't think anyone would disagree, some however are just off page of reality.

Best of luck in your endeavors and support, the election is a little over a year away. Pray, (you do pray don't you)? that we, as a Republic, under our current Admin. can make it that long.

[mauler]

mauler, your informed, and have studied Paul to a great extent, and your a member here at DRTV, so that also counts as a good thing.

Since Ron Paul can't run as anything other than an "R"...and since he has been doing this for so long, I'm sure you have studied his political career, like every other candidate, some good, some bad....some hypocrisy, some flat out BS. (after all they are ALL politicians),...except Cain, who has NO previous political office history.

So I will post this for those other members, not you because you studied. Please read it all the way through. This is Public Record, and easily verified.

http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/06/21/why-ron-paul-has-zero-chance-to-win-the-republican-presidential-primary/

Why Ron Paul Has ZERO Chance To Win The Republican Presidential Primary
Posted by mikeymike143 (Profile)

Tuesday, June 21st at 6:25AM EDT

1. His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.

2. He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008.[/b] Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

3. There are plenty of people who are ”one issue voters” in politics. And in the Republican party there are plenty of people that ”opposition to islam” is the one issue they feel strongly about. You can go to any anti islam or conservative jewish site and see that the two politicians that are diliked the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said ”I don’t believe for one minute the religion of islam is our enemy”. And Paul also attacked the Sunshine Patriots for their oppostion to the ground zero mosque. Now i am not going to debate the muslim issue here, but the fact that a decent sized voting group in your own party considers you one of their main foes is certainly not good news for your campaign. Now to be fair, you will get the people who think Israel is oppressing Palestine and the pro muslim agenda voters will be on Paul’s side. The only problem with that is almost all of that crowd are Democrats who support Obama.

4. Let’s look at Ron Paul’s position on crack cocaine and heroin. Now I am totally fine with legalizing pot and prostitution in any state if the voters want it. If somebody wants to get laid or smoke a joint it sure isn’t any of my business. But we are talking about legalizing hard drugs because Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers. And please don’t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the drug war that was ”caused by the tea party candidate”. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover. Increased police and court costs etc, etc. But the issue isn’t what I think or Ron Paul thinks, the issue is what does the Republican primary voter think of this policy. The ”religious right” will certainly oppose it full force. And I would think that anyone that has had a family member suffer through the addiction process will be opposed to it. That’s two groups opposed. Of course, Paul will pick up the ”left wing hippie” vote and the anarchists vote. Except the left wing hippies are already card carrying members of the Democratic party. And all the anarchists who want to overthrow big bad America are already his supporters.

5. If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would strongly oppose him. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron Paul playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980′s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, starting that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

6. Illegal Immigration. According to the highly respected anti immigation group NUMBERS USA, Ron Paul has the lowest grade of any Republican presidential candidate out there, coming in with an F. Naturally, his paulbots try to put a spin on this by saying ”welfare and benefit programs should be unconsititutional so illegal immigrants wont come here”. If Ron Paul threw puppies off a tall building his hynoptized followers would be applauding and yelling it was ”constitutional”. That argument wont cut it with the voters. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are in favor of closing our borders and against all forms of amnesty. And that really holds true with Republican voters. April has posted articles by former Ron Paul allies like Tom Tancrdeo that blast Paul on the immigration issue. Yet again, Ron Paul thinks like a liberal Democrat, and in fact even has the same ”F” grade that NUMBERS USA gave Obama.

7. Paul’s pork problem. One thing career politicians learn to do is talk conservative while picking the taxpayers pocket for money. And ”Porkulus Paul” has this shady routine down pat. First of all, let’s go back to last November’s elections to get the proper perspective on this issue. The Republicans destroyed the Democrats on November 3 due to the energy and votes of the tea party!!!!! Now the tea party came in and deservedly wanted to flex it muscles. And decided to take a principled stand against the unethical practice of pork(earmarks). The fight against earmarks was led by the Tea Party Patriots(TPP) and other tea party and conservative groups against the pork loving Democrats. In fact, TPP leader Mark Meckler considered this such an important issue that he promised to run a tea party challenger against any Republican that accepted them.
A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.


Then it came out that a Republican asked for 150 MILLION DOLLARS IN PORK FOR HIS DISTRICT!!! Surely this was a RINO. Maybe Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown? No, it was actually Ron Paul.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Ron Paul is to the far left of the tea party on just about every major issue. Actually he looks just like a liberal Democrat to me.

SAY NO TO THE FAR LEFT TURN, STAY RIGHT. NO PAUL IN 2012.

****

To be fair mauler, I would love to see the same jack booted thugs that raided Gibson Guitars, raid the Fed...Audit, expose, investigate, whatever. The original premise of the Fed as a "bankers bank" has long since been morphed.

Paul has good ideas, I don't think anyone would disagree, some however are just off page of reality.

Best of luck in your endeavors and support, the election is a little over a year away. Pray, (you do pray don't you)? that we, as a Republic, under our current Admin. can make it that long.

1.  Ron Paul's foreign policy is the same as George Washington's.  He promotes peaceful trade with all nations and no entangling alliances or meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries.  

2.  Where does political power come from?  It comes from the people.  This author would have written the headline "Dewey defeats Truman" had he been around at that time.

3.  Ron Paul doesn't believe that a religion (an amorphous abstract concept) is "our" enemy.  What this really means is that Ron Paul rejects the notion of judging people as a group; rather, he prefers to judge people as individuals.  I strongly suggest reading "The Revolution:  A Manifesto" to study the topic of what actually motivates violent activities like suicide bombing.  One wonders if the author of this article would have wholeheartedly support the Nazi round-up and extermination of Jews had he been there at that time.  After all, it was very popular at the time.

4.  The author fully exposes his contradictory ideology here.  He supports legalizing prostitution and pot, but thinks that heroin is overboard.  Where is his regard for the Constitution?  For the rule of law?  The federal government has no authority to regulate "drugs" in the Constitution.  Period.  You can't be half pregnant.  You either support the rule of law fully or you don't.  Cheering when the government, at gunpoint, violates others' rights to participate in voluntary activity that you disapprove of means that you have no grounds to complain when the hammer comes down on you and your rights.   The notion that a massive drove of people would run out and shoot up heroin if it was made legal displays a staggering lack of understanding of human nature.  People don't choose not to do drugs because the government threatens them not to.  They do what they think is in their own best interest.  The author also offers the collectivist/socialist justification of "who's gonna pay for it".  Following that rationale, the government should be empowered to tell us what we can and can't eat because who is gonna pay for my angioplasty?

5.  Ronald Reagan was a disaster for paleo conservatives and fiscal conservatives.  He talked about reducing the size of government, but in fact he greatly expanded it and the national debt.  He also gave us the bogus war on drugs, which is really a war on our rights.  You know, you have no 4th amendment rights because we must keep you safe from these evil drugs.  Reagan was a good actor and speaker, but he did the opposite of what he said he would do.

6.  The author is way off base here.  He should check his facts.  Ron Paul proposes bringing all the troops home from overseas and using them to secure the border.  Making such a glaringly false statement erodes the author's credibility.

7.  The author's claim about earmarks is an old one.  Ron Paul wants to abolish the income tax and the IRS.  Show me another candidate who wants that.  He has never voted for a tax increase.  His view about earmarks was well documented at the time the establishment threw this red herring at him back in 2008.  I am quite sure you could find a video of Dr. Paul discussing the issue on youtube.
  
Ron Paul's foreign policy is that of George Washington.  The author sounds like he would support Nikita Krushchev.


I would call this entire article Neo-Con Zionist hogwash.

[mauler]

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance260.html


Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul

by Laurence M. Vance

Recently by Laurence M. Vance: Are You an Imperial Christian?

     
    
Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.

The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.

Lie number one: Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn’t support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states. 


The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.

Lie number two: Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn’t support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs. 


The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don’t likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.

Lie number three: Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn’t support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.

Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."


Lie number four: Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn’t support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.

Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world’s policeman.

Lie number five: Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn’t support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.

The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.


So why the lies?

Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.

I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn’t just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn’t change his message depending on the crowd he’s addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?

So why the lies?

I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.

But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don’t share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.

The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, I concluded that he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right’s embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.

October 6, 2011

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

I would call this entire article Neo-Con Zionist hogwash.

Well thanks for reading it through, it proves your not just a troll, on a forum.

 Voting for Paul, IMHO (In I guess, a neo-con, Zionist way),  is a vote for a philosophical idealism...Not our present day reality. (You do know the term neo-conservative was started by a Democrat fed up with his party right?), and George Washington never had to deal with ICBM's and hijackers in airplanes, and EMP threats, and dirty bombs, and 7 minute flight times of thermonuclear warheads, right?

I would like to see a "peaceful, diplomatic, Neutral, Ron Paul approach to us lowly Infidels, with regards to Al-Quaeda, and Islamic Terrorists", Paul just better have plenty of negotiators and diplomats on hand,....as they will be beheaded on prime time Al-Jazeera TV. If he actually spoke to military commanders, or a decent football coach, a good defense is a strong offense. Peace through strength is another...

All the best.

tw

P.S. You never answered my question if you pray. (It's a personal matter and you don't have to answer, I was just curious.)

[tombogan03884]

First off Mauler, Don't tell me to learn about much of anything about the Soviet Union, it's brand of communism, or the people who manipulated it, I really doubt you have volumes of declassified KGB documents on your light reading list.
Second, if this ridiculous "Paul Derangement Syndrome" "was first detected during the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries,"
please explain to me why he was rejected and ignored in the 4 elections prior to that  ?

Third, This thread was started for  evaluations of ALL the candidates, The Cain thread was started to specifically discuss Cains positions, chances and opposition, You have worked at diverting both into Ron Paul love fests, their are a few Paul supporters on here, most of would rather back some one new who has not had their ass handed to them for the last 22 years.
That right there is why Paul will never get the nomination, McCain is a perfect example of why people who lost in previous primary races don't get nominated in the next one.
Two of my statements about Romney sum it up nicely, 1- He couldn't even beat a chump like McCain, 2 You would not put a retread on your car, why the hell would you put one on the ballet.
Don't like it ?
Tough, start a Ron Paul thread.

[BAC]

First off Mauler, Don't tell me to learn about much of anything about the Soviet Union, it's brand of communism, or the people who manipulated it, I really doubt you have volumes of declassified KGB documents on your light reading list.
Second, if this ridiculous "Paul Derangement Syndrome" "was first detected during the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries,"
please explain to me why he was rejected and ignored in the 4 elections prior to that  ?

Third, This thread was started for  evaluations of ALL the candidates, The Cain thread was started to specifically discuss Cains positions, chances and opposition, You have worked at diverting both into Ron Paul love fests, their are a few Paul supporters on here, most of would rather back some one new who has not had their ass handed to them for the last 22 years.
That right there is why Paul will never get the nomination, McCain is a perfect example of why people who lost in previous primary races don't get nominated in the next one.
Two of my statements about Romney sum it up nicely, 1- He couldn't even beat a chump like McCain, 2 You would not put a retread on your car, why the hell would you put one on the ballet.
Don't like it ?
Tough, start a Ron Paul thread.

My crystal ball tells me he's calling you a "Neo-con zionist" right now.   

[tombogan03884]

More likely F*** A****** .
And that ain't for FullAuto  
I'm surprised he is trying to sell us on Lyndon LaRuche.
If he actually were New, I might have been nicer about it, but he's been registered since Apr. of 2010, he's no newbie.
He's simply the other side of the coin from the Obamazombies .
But I will give him credit for finding that Fox news clip about FBI terror arrests being entrapment.

[mauler]

First off Mauler, Don't tell me to learn about much of anything about the Soviet Union, it's brand of communism, or the people who manipulated it, I really doubt you have volumes of declassified KGB documents on your light reading list.
Second, if this ridiculous "Paul Derangement Syndrome" "was first detected during the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries,"
please explain to me why he was rejected and ignored in the 4 elections prior to that  ?

Third, This thread was started for  evaluations of ALL the candidates, The Cain thread was started to specifically discuss Cains positions, chances and opposition, You have worked at diverting both into Ron Paul love fests, their are a few Paul supporters on here, most of would rather back some one new who has not had their ass handed to them for the last 22 years.
That right there is why Paul will never get the nomination, McCain is a perfect example of why people who lost in previous primary races don't get nominated in the next one.
Two of my statements about Romney sum it up nicely, 1- He couldn't even beat a chump like McCain, 2 You would not put a retread on your car, why the hell would you put one on the ballet.
Don't like it ?
Tough, start a Ron Paul thread.

I bow down to your obviously superior intellect and experience.  Clearly you are a top level CIA operative that knows who shot Kennedy and where Waldo is.  Feel free to continue to condescend and bloviate to me ad nauseam.  Tell me, though, how long did it take you to teach Steven Seagal aikido?