The War on Ron Paul

[Gary G]

Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they don't, Ron Paul IS the 'front runner' for the republican primary. Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting out Obama for the presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of the aisle, and is attracting the much sought after independent swing vote almost as fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet is indisputably Ron Paul country as countless polls and google trends have repeatedly shown. The gradual change in political rhetoric flowing out of Washington, D.C. over the last 3 years reflects an explosion of interest in the freedom message he spreads so tirelessly. The continuous growth in popularity of talk and news shows focusing on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts loud and clear the rising prominence of issues he has brought to the debate. For anyone with any powers of discernment, it's a no-brainer.

So why do media pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable experts of self-aggrandized consequence spend great swathes of time, effort, and someone's money working so hard to convince the people otherwise? You can't turn on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet without encountering the words "He can't win," or some other lame variation repeated ad nauseam with great gusto.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/westfall1.1.1.html

[Gary G]

I had a young lady call me today. In the conversation, she ask who would be voting for? My answer was Ron Paul. She said, "I just can't vote for him".
I said, "well what part of liberty and freedom is it that you do not like".
She said: "oh, I like freedom and liberty, I just don't like his stance on drugs".
I said: "well first of all, you don't think other people will make wise decisions for their life and so you would use the power of government to take away someone else's right to choose". "Do you really like freedom and liberty"?

[nw_hunter]

I had a young lady call me today. In the conversation, she ask who would be voting for? My answer was Ron Paul. She said, "I just can't vote for him".
I said, "well what part of liberty and freedom is it that you do not like".
She said: "oh, I like freedom and liberty, I just don't like his stance on drugs".
I said: "well first of all, you don't think other people will make wise decisions for their life and so you would use the power of government to take away someone else's right to choose". "Do you really like freedom and liberty"?

I run into this same response all the time.I like most of what he say's............ but!!!!

I think the truth is. Most people are afraid to lose! "The old lesser of two evils" They feel they have a better chance of being on the winning side, If they choose the GOP's pick, or the Donkey's Even if it means business as usual if their candidate wins. If they lose......Well they can make themselves feel better by blaming the third party voters for throwing it ::)Even though Paul is running for the Republican nomination, he will be made to appear as an outsider. A third party candidate, (A fly) in the Republican ointment.

Look to see the others running against him, to team up on him when in the primary debates.

Ron Paul has an uphill battle all the way!The press will give him little air time, and when they do, it will be to use some hack to ridicule him like Beck did last time he ran.Once again the internet will be his voice, and main stream media will be the hand picked candidates world.

I feel the same as you. If you love liberty and freedom, what's not to like about Paul?

[Doublebass73]

Both parties are the parties of "business as usual". When it comes to spending our hard earned tax money both parties are the same in that respect - they love to blow our money. They might like to spend it on different things but the bottom line is they love to spend.

The reality is Ron Paul is the only candidate out there that wants to change the way government does business. Every other candidate wants to maintain the status quo of blowing our tax dollars.
I'm amazed at how many people complain about how big our government is yet they aren't willing to vote for a candidate who actually wants to shrink the size of government.

[magooch]

Ron Paul does indeed have many beliefs that make him a great candidate, but like it, or not he is sort of like a beautiful woman who has one too many items in her package.  A little precise surgery could fix either, but the stigma remains.

Ron Paul is a libertarian.  There is nothing wrong with the libertarian philosophy except that it doesn't take into account the complexities of our society.  It is too simplistic--nothing wrong with that, but it probably can't work and it's too easy to pick apart.

Ron Paul's theories on foreign policy are probably not workable either.  It leans a bit heavy on isolationism.

Ron Paul is the Dumycrat's dream opponent and a virtual walking talking dream for the liberal gotcha media.

[teddy12b]

I'm on the Ron Paul wagon.  I'll admit I was part of the problem and I'm embarassed to say I voted for McCain.  Whatever the Republican machine produces will likely be a same old BS candidate like Romney or Newt.  Paul will probably have to run as an independent, but he's got my vote to loose and he'll have my $$ for support (not like it's much, but I'll try to help him out).

The problem with Ron Paul is that many people in the American audience are idiots who only hear and read the headlines.  We have a guy where I work who's got an engineering degree and all he heard was that Paul was a whacko who wanted to legalize drugs.  That's the obstacle that Paul is up against, the sheeple of the world. 

I'm glad that he wants to legalize drugs.  People need to have enough responsibility over their own lives to not inject poison into their bodies.  If they're dumb enough to do that then that's natures way of weeding out the dumb ones from the herd.  Maybe that sounds a little cold and cruel, but I get tired of seeing the "stars" of my generation going into celebrity rehabs. 

They don't just attack him on drugs though either.  Look at what the mainstream news were saying about his stance on Osama Bin Laden.  The headlines made it sound like he wouldn't have done anything and the reality is that he'd have gone about it a completely different way.

I've gone through his book "Liberty Defined", and I'm half way through "End the Fed" with his other book on order.  Ron Paul is like a drug and I'm getting addicted the more I learn about him.  He's got my vote to loose at this point.

[teddy12b]

Ron Paul does indeed have many beliefs that make him a great candidate, but like it, or not he is sort of like a beautiful woman who has one too many items in her package.  A little precise surgery could fix either, but the stigma remains.

Ron Paul is a libertarian.  There is nothing wrong with the libertarian philosophy except that it doesn't take into account the complexities of our society.  It is too simplistic--nothing wrong with that, but it probably can't work and it's too easy to pick apart.It's hard to argue on simplicity.  I'd love to see him and Obama in a private debate and let the two discuss their views.  I think you'd see how simplicity would win out.

Ron Paul's theories on foreign policy are probably not workable either.  It leans a bit heavy on isolationism.He's not about isolationism, he's about keeping his nose out of other people's business.  Show me some examples of where US foreign policy is a good thing?  Obama ran on ending the wars, and here we are starting up in Libya.  It's BS and my generation now has three wars to deal with because of our "foreign policy".  What's wrong with leaving people be?  He's stated many times that he'd like all our troops home to defend this country and I support that.  We don't need to be all over the world.

Ron Paul is the Dumycrat's dream opponent and a virtual walking talking dream for the liberal gotcha media.

I'd disagree about Paul being a dream oppenent for the dems.  If he can get people to actually hear his message, he'd be their worst nightmare (and the republican parties also).

[nw_hunter]

I'm on the Ron Paul wagon.  I'll admit I was part of the problem and I'm embarassed to say I voted for McCain. 
I've gone through his book "Liberty Defined", and I'm half way through "End the Fed" with his other book on order.  Ron Paul is like a drug and I'm getting addicted the more I learn about him.  He's got my vote to loose at this point.

Welcome to the RP revolution! It took GW to finally wake me up and see Liberal Republicans had taken over the GOP.Another good point you make is.........You read! Very few people read anymore and rely on the talking heads to inform.Problem is, they don't inform! They indoctrinate, and both parties are telling us they are the right party and we are too dumbed down to see both have basically the same agenda.

[yellowtail3]

I like Ron Paul.We might part company on some issues, and that is okay. Here's why, and this is very, very important: I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon and adopt beliefs because my 'champion' does. That's ideology, and I've had enough of that.

I think Dr. Paul is a good man - that's important to me in a president. I think Obama's a good man, too, but Ron Paul is closer to me on a number of issues. I hope he makes it. One thing is for sure: he's not in bed with Wall Street, and he's not beholden to Republican (or Dem) elites.

I like Dr. Paul.

[nw_hunter]

I like Ron Paul.We might part company on some issues, and that is okay. Here's why, and this is very, very important: I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon and adopt beliefs because my 'champion' does. That's ideology, and I've had enough of that.

I think Dr. Paul is a good man - that's important to me in a president. I think Obama's a good man, too, but Ron Paul is closer to me on a number of issues. I hope he makes it. One thing is for sure: he's not in bed with Wall Street, and he's not beholden to Republican (or Dem) elites.

I like Dr. Paul.

YT! You and I have agreed on quite a few issues, but I just don't see how you can compare Paul to Obama! I see them as complete opposites.What is it that Obama has done during his adm. that would make him a good leader?

[powderman]

NW_HUNTER. Good question, I can hardly wait yellows reply, shouldn't take long.  POWDERMAN. 

[teddy12b]

NW_HUNTER. Good question, I can hardly wait yellows reply, shouldn't take long.  POWDERMAN. 

+2 on this.

[yellowtail3]

YT! You and I have agreed on quite a few issues, but I just don't see how you can compare Paul to Obama! I see them as complete opposites.What is it that Obama has done during his adm. that would make him a good leader?

Just what I wrote - I think he's a good man. You're right, they're not politically aligned. In President, I'd like to have a good man. A legislator just has to vote right; President have more a leadership role. One can be a liberal (or a conservative) and be a good man. Ideologues on both sides will scoff & display their usual juvenile contempt.

That's all.

[BBF]

  It will be interesting to see if he goes to AIPAC to grovel like all the other candidates.

..TM7
.

 Was Dr. Paul part of the stand up and applaud crowd in the recent Congress debasement with the Israeli PM ??

[45-70.gov]

one question  to ALL  ron paul critics

do you think if elected  he will get EVERYTHING   his way??

i  don't

i only think he will  move things in the right direction...hopefully cause gridlock[a good thing]

OBUMER  didn't do every thing he said  he  would

but  he sure moved things in the wrong direction  faster than  mccain  would have

[magooch]

I have my doubts about whether, or not Obama is a "good man",  but there is no doubt whatsoever that he is not a good President.  In my book it's pretty hard to get on the good-guy list if you are a Dumycrat--especially if you are a communist, and muslim sympathizer.  The last Dumycrat that I thought was a good man was a guy whose name I think was Zel Miller.

About Ron Paul and what has been written and said about him; that is not how I have come to my opinions about him.  I have watched him on television and seen and heard the words come out of his mouth.  I don't agree with his approach to drugs and some foreign policy issues.  He may be right as rain about economic problems, but I'm hoping for a President that gets it all right.

[teddy12b]

I don't agree with his approach to drugs and some foreign policy issues. 

Could you expand on this?

[Gary G]

[

I don't agree with his approach to drugs

]
Then you believe in an authoritarian government that makes our decisions for us, even if we are not a threat to anyone else. I wear my seatbelt because that is what I choose. If I wanted, I could choose not to wear it even though the government says I must. Either way, I am not a threat to anyone else. It is the same with drugs. I choose not, but I could. The government can't prevent it. But they can make it very profitable so that crime enters the picture. The crime is much more dangerous, and economically more costly to us, than the occasional drug user. Government causes crime!

 I prefer liberty and freedom for everyone and think it is immoral that people should demand the government, through threat of force, make individuals adhere to the mold they choose. This is authoritarianism and in it's full application ends in a Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.

[yellowtail3]

[

I don't agree with his approach to drugs

]
The crime is much more dangerous, and economically more costly to us, than the occasional drug user. Government causes crime! ...  I prefer liberty and freedom for everyone and think it is immoral that people should demand the government, through threat of force, make individuals adhere to the mold they choose... This is authoritarianism and in it's full application ends in a Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.

+1

[teddy12b]

[

I don't agree with his approach to drugs

]
Then you believe in an authoritarian government that makes our decisions for us, even if we are not a threat to anyone else. I wear my seatbelt because that is what I choose. If I wanted, I could choose not to wear it even though the government says I must. Either way, I am not a threat to anyone else. It is the same with drugs. I choose not, but I could. The government can't prevent it. But they can make it very profitable so that crime enters the picture. The crime is much more dangerous, and economically more costly to us, than the occasional drug user. Government causes crime!

 I prefer liberty and freedom for everyone and think it is immoral that people should demand the government, through threat of force, make individuals adhere to the mold they choose. This is authoritarianism and in it's full application ends in a Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.

+2

[Matt]

[

I don't agree with his approach to drugs

]
Then you believe in an authoritarian government that makes our decisions for us, even if we are not a threat to anyone else. I wear my seatbelt because that is what I choose. If I wanted, I could choose not to wear it even though the government says I must. Either way, I am not a threat to anyone else. It is the same with drugs. I choose not, but I could. The government can't prevent it. But they can make it very profitable so that crime enters the picture. The crime is much more dangerous, and economically more costly to us, than the occasional drug user. Government causes crime!

 I prefer liberty and freedom for everyone and think it is immoral that people should demand the government, through threat of force, make individuals adhere to the mold they choose. This is authoritarianism and in it's full application ends in a Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.

+3

[Lost Farmboy]

[

I don't agree with his approach to drugs

]
Then you believe in an authoritarian government that makes our decisions for us, even if we are not a threat to anyone else. I wear my seatbelt because that is what I choose. If I wanted, I could choose not to wear it even though the government says I must. Either way, I am not a threat to anyone else. It is the same with drugs. I choose not, but I could. The government can't prevent it. But they can make it very profitable so that crime enters the picture. The crime is much more dangerous, and economically more costly to us, than the occasional drug user. Government causes crime!

 I prefer liberty and freedom for everyone and think it is immoral that people should demand the government, through threat of force, make individuals adhere to the mold they choose. This is authoritarianism and in it's full application ends in a Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.

+3

+4