Answers to 10 Common Criticisms of Ron Paul
Posted August 8th, 2007 by robbjerk
output
Here is a useful link with criticisms and answers:
http://marcg.net/blog/arc...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
right on rights on ramp!
RightsonRamp said:
_______________________________________________
"The explanations are poor at best. For example, a better explanation for the gold standard/stock market would be that we are already having stock market crashes and major drops but these are disguised by the rapidly depreciating dollar. The dollar has lost 35% of its value in the last 6 years alone. See for yourself and google dow gold ratio."
_______________________________________________
My criticism is not toward Ron Paul at all. It is toward his lack of constituency. The insidious thing is that you all think you are behind Ron in reforming the money system but with your SSNs and signing endorsement of private credit from the Fed, that is just not true.
http://thomas.loc.gov/hom...
Search for "HR 2778"
http://thomas.loc.gov/hom...
Search for "HR 2755"
I suggest you consider why Ron Paul introduced these bills alone and they simply flopped? They did not last any longer than it took Ron to introduce them. Is it that the other congresspersons like the Fed? No. It is that you like the Fed. All of you. You are confused if you think you can sign your signature saying you like the Fed and then give any effective lip service to the contrary.
Because of your confusion, Ron Paul seems to be the only congressman who does not listen to his constituency. If you all like the Fed so much, why do you like somebody who keeps trying to abolish it?
http://friends-n-family-r...
http://video.google.com/v...
Regards,
David Merrill.
Not very useful
The explanations are poor at best. For example, a better explanation for the gold standard/stock market would be that we are already having stock market crashes and major drops but these are disguised by the rapidly depreciating dollar. The dollar has lost 35% of its value in the last 6 years alone. See for yourself and google dow gold ratio.
Earmarks and Neo-cons...
I just concluded a conversation with a neocon who, among other thing, brought up the "earmarks" issue. This forced me to crystallize some thoughts and I came up with this,
"About the so-called pork. You are aware, that while he does pass on the requests of his constituents (as is his duty), he always votes against the bills those earmarks end up on (according to principal). One must work within the system we have.
Would you call me a hypocrite because I pay my Federal Income Taxes in spite of the fact that I, along with Dr. Paul, believe them unconstitutional?
Perhaps you guys should start attacking him because he pays his taxes. It is essentially the same "pork" argument you present here."
The entire thread is on Kelly Haldorson's blog at
http://www.blogthecoast.c...
nice list but...
The main objection that many Republicans have is that Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist. This raises two issues: questions on willingness to defend against threats and concerns about our moral duty to police the world.
In order to address the first, Dr. Paul needs to cite historical examples of where he agreed with decalarations of war, such WW II. Emphasize those and de-emphasize things like the criticism of the civil war and Abraham Lincoln's presidency. The rank and file Republican voter is not interested in questioning the legitimacy of the US Civil War, so he should stay away from any appearance of doing so.
Secondly, someone somewhere has to diffuse the neoconservative interventionist rationale head on. Most people with interventionist leanings justify them with the idea that since the US is the big kid on the block, it is our duty to make sure the other kids behave as we think they should. Nevermind the cost or danger, they'll say, we have to ensure the world is aligned with our vision of what's best. Can someone shoot holes in this viewpoint? Not just give good reasons why it is infeasible, but attack the position in its own terms?
I hope these two criticism of the good doctor are diffused quickly.
Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd
What I do
If I come across someone that is interventionist, I ask them if they themselves would sign up in a foreign legion to be sent off to a foreign land to fight for someone else. Oh, and once you're there, you can't back out. The usual answer I get is "no". I then ask them why it is then acceptable for us to send our own people to fight in foreign lands for someone else and ask them to do the same. If they feel the cause is worth it, they should sign up for that country's military, not drag ours into it.
You can also argue that almost every place we've interfered in has had blowback. Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam, Chile, Kosovo, (Part of the reason Putin was raised to power). Our interference in WW1 created communism and hitler. If we had stayed out of it, Germany would have won, hitler would never have come to power, and the kaiser would have tried to overthrow the communist regime in Russia. Seriously, hardly anything good comes out of our foreign policy.
If you treat an adult like a child, you will eventually get punched in the face. Our foreign policy treats other countries like children.