Will It Be Dangerous To Be Right If Ron Paul Is Wrong? Comments on Anderson CooperSubmitted by nathanv on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 06:45
A favorite bumper sticker of mine reads "Jesus Save Me From Your Followers".
Now I do not assume that whoever came up with the idea of that bumper sticker hates Christians. But there are plenty of keepers of the faith at the Daily Paul who are convinced that they have insights into other peoples motives and intentions. I can ascribe my own personal observations and life experiences to find a bit of humor in that bumper sticker for myself. But I certainly do not expect others to find humor in it just because I do. Yet I am constantly amazed by the narrow minded fervor surrounding Ron Paul in which the people on the web cling to their suspicions about others even when they are faced with facts that contradict their charges. Take the bumper sticker for example. Maybe the guy who came up with the idea for the bumper sticker followed it up with an anti-Christianity rampage and gunned down worshipers in a church. Maybe it was an inside joke between a Cardinal and a Bishop where all of the sales proceeds went to a cause started by Saint Teresa. Chances are the truth is somewhere in between. But when it comes to Ron Paul, there is no in between for some. I was critical of the Ron Paul campaign for the anti-media stunt that was exposed on CNN with Anderson Cooper. I "obviously" had an agenda against Ron Paul. The mindset that I was an enemy to Ron Paul was as rigid as the invisible goose step that many on this website use to to gauge others. The tactics used by those who insist that this lock step march is the cornerstone to victory overlook the individual. Even the "peace makers" take the side of of the rabid. The pleas for all of us to get along never seem directed at the nasty. The tactics used to accuse those who are not in sync with "the cause" are to interrogating anyone who questions the campaign. There are couple of threads linked to my name for those who do not know what I am talking about, judge for yourself. I find it deplorable that the same people who publicly wear a portrait of Ron Paul chained around their neck use this type of fanatical dogma (once again) like fascists. On the Daily Paul you can find perfect examples of where devotees of a the messenger choose to institutionalize or deify a particular individual as opposed to acting in regard to the spirit of his message.
This process is happening with Ronald Reagan as well and I believe that Ron Paul himself would agree with my premise. When Ron Paul was publicly critical of Ronald Reagan, Dr. Paul claimed that it was because he disagreed with his political decisions. I believe that Ron Paul stayed true to his positions and that it was Reagan who fell short in keeping with liberty. The cynical responses by those quick to defend Reagan could be construed to mean that Ron Paul wished to undermine this presidents legacy. Ron Paul has articulated to my satisfaction the reasons he chose to distance himself from Reagan when he did and I accept what he said at face value. This logic however does not prevent others from asserting conspiratorial motives behind what Ron Paul did concerning Reagan.
There are others who I agree with and we would like to discuss the paths towards liberty, but the accusatory attacks constantly rain in. Despite my challenge for those who are critical of us to define their contributions to the cause of liberty before spewing their insults but they seem satisfied only to respond by calling people tards or whatever.
In my estimation, I can go back and pick through the names of those who really deserve the monikers of ignorance.
Ron Paul is a re-packager of ideas. Many in ancient Greek understood that an individual was entitled to their personal space. Without checking the spelling they had a broad general term to describe an individuals rights which was "time". There was not a law for every aspect of every infringement, they had a simple term that was understood in its simplicity. Whenever an individual had their "time" infringed upon by by another, they believed that they were entitled to justice. This justice was metered out similar to a government as discussed in "On Liberty" by Mill many years later. John Stuart Mill was another re-packager of ideas, many of which have been around for thousands of years. Think about this. Douglas Brinkley is writing a book on Woody Guthrie. Well, what personal experience does Douglas Brinkley have with Woody Guthrie that entitles him to write that book? I don't recall any stories of Douglas having any access to Woody while he was alive. I think it is safe to say that Mr. Brinkley was not tagging along with Bob Dylan to visit poor Woody while he was in the hospital. Douglas will have to take information from other people and package it together. First person, second person accounts, articles, music or whatever he can get his hands on. Douglas will take what he learns from other people and re-package it for the theme of his book. I am sure this book will be a best seller. But like any other scholar, if he wants to have a good book he will have to consider all sources. I am sure that Woody put his pants on just like every other man and had his share of mistakes. And I am sure there are those out there quick to point out his shortcomings as well. I am referring to a book that is not released yet and I have no inside knowledge as to what it is about. All I know is that Douglas Brinkley is writing a book and Woody is in it. But, I will stick my neck out a bit to speculate that Douglas admires Woody yet he will not portray Woody as though he walked on water. I doubt that he will sensationalize his book with previously unknown transgressions (if there were any). But I will gamble that Woody will not be portrayed as a one dimensional character who strummed a guitar and sang his songs without fault. I doubt that Woody would mind criticism about the problems he had in life or the bad decisions that he made provided it brought more people to his music. Mr. Brinkley has a purpose other than to just promote Woody, I know that he has seriously considered the American Dream and I know that he has helped others find it their own way. I wonder if people who were on a Woody Guthrie fan site for 15 months would disparage him as being an unqualified newbie?
A scholar once said that everything he learned from he learned in books. That is similar to how Ron Paul describes reading about economics and the books that helped him begin his career politics. Actually Ron Paul is a bit more than a re-packager of ideas, he is a man who has walked a line of fidelity in his personal life. This has served to better clarify his vision for our future and he has earned the right to champion this greater cause. The vision that Ron Paul shares in his message points to the unbridled human experience. We know how we are not free. We know how we are oppressed. I understand that some of us are crossing their fingers hoping Ron Paul wins the nomination. Some of us are crossing them so hard that our fingers are bleeding. But as far as I am concerned neither Ron Paul, nor anyone on his staff, or his supporters can publicly claim to carry the Torch of Liberty without considering how their actions effect others who have made their own prior sacrifices.. There are many of us who have paid dearly for this cause in our own lives. By not compromising or accepting the status quo even when self preservation dictated otherwise, some of us have held our ground at great personal expense. Some of us have made sacrifices in the workplace that have cost us our jobs. Others have decided to not tailor our work in college for liberal expectations at the expense of a degree. Some have even paid with their lives. Those of us who will stand up to the bullying tactics used by the flock of crows that blight these pages with nasty remarks will be on the right side of history. Ron Paul may be the messenger but his message has been around for thousands of years. It is a tale entwined with crucifixions on all levels and yet the vile I speak of think themselves superior based on months clocked on a website. I do not accept this "newbie" bias. I can backup my standings in this Paulier than thou contest. If that is how you guys want to stack things up lets start with day 1. When you call someone a "newbie" are you claiming that Ron Paul invented the idea of individual liberty? And that anyone who joined this particular conversation less than a few months ago is inferior? Ron Paul had not even won the primary and many of you are already foaming at the mouth to start the crucifixions. Who first, the "Trolls" the "Newbies" or the "Tards" oh I forgot you guys are not done with the media yet!