Why I Cannot Stand Ron Paul

I have lost track of the number of times I’ve been at loggerheads with Ron Paul’s rabid supporters. It usually begins with their excited question: “so, do you support Ron Paul? Waddya think of Ron Paul? Will you vote for Ron Paul?” It can be a lot like talking to Hammy the Squirrel (who, by the way, I adore – I’m just using him for reference).

The cuteness of their exuberance always turns into a scene straight out of the Exorcist as soon as I tell them that I cannot stand Ron Paul because he has, in the past, espoused 9/11 “truth movement” ideas.

The Ron Paul supporters who are twoofers (the name that many have begun to use to describe “truthers”) get huffy and demand that you immediately give them evidence that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. Of course, even if you give them any, it’s never enough. Popular Mechanics thoroughly debunked their ridiculous claims one by one in a book that was not funded in any way by the government, but it wasn’t enough. The Ron Paul supporters who aren’t get pissed and scream that he was never a twoofer and they will demand that you prove that he was.

See the video and all the goodies that Michelle Malkin has compiled here. He may not have come out as a twoofer or gone to any protests, but he doesn’t have to. The mere fact that he’s never come out against their outrageous ideas, comments and behavior is enough. This weekend, though, he all but put himself squarely in their camp.

He’s saying that US foreign policy contributed to 9/11.

That statement alone is enough for me to want that man out of Congress and as far away from the White House as we can get him. He worsens the situation by saying, “And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don’t like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don’t like the intervention that we do in their nations,” and saying it is “dangerous” to promote the notion that terrorists attacked the US “because we’re free and prosperous.” In all of this he demonstrates a complete lack of any understanding about the dynamics in the Middle East and why al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Any lawmaker who is this inept needs to step away.

Before 9/11, how many Mideast countries did we try to conquer? How many did we bomb, and why? Reagan bombed Qaddafhi only after several Libyan-supported terrorist acts against Americans, including a plot to assassinate US diplomats in Paris and Rome, a string of kidnappings of US military and diplomatic targets (including CIA chief William Buckley), the hijacking of the Achille Lauro (with the murder of a disabled US tourist), the bombing of airports in Rome and Vienna, the bombing of a German discotheque frequented by US servicemen, and the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Libya was also believed to have sponsored multiple deadly attacks carried out by Hezbollah out of Lebanon, including the infamous US embassy bombings in Beirut and Kuwait and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. After that many innocent American lives had been lost, yes, we would have wanted to send a message that we weren’t going to sit on our laurels. When a bully refuses to back down you don’t sit there and give him a target to punch – you stand up and fight back until he begs you to stop and swears never to bother you again.

I hate to tell you this, Ron Paul-ians, but the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi were not enough to come close to justifying any reason behind 9/11. Lemme back up a little bit and I’ll explain.

Osama bin Laden founded, financed and trained al Qaeda himself. The man was the uber-wealthy son of the Saudi bin Ladens – his wealth came from oil production. Now, if you follow HIS logic, then yes, the reason for the formation of al Qaeda was the belief that US foreign policy had harmed “innocent” Muslims in the Middle East. Then again, the man believed not only that the Jews were at the heart of every evil in the world, he also believed that all music and chilled water were evils straight from the pits of hell. Yeah…he wasn’t exactly running on all six cylinders.

Add to that the fact that he believed the best way to bring major nations down was to lure them into wars over territory in the Middle East and let them ruin each other and BAM! You have a bona fide hypocritical lunatic.

Exactly which US foreign policy was harmful to Muslims? I’ll tell you: democracy. He believed it to be just as evil as he believed the Jews were. It wasn’t Sharia, therefore it was sinful and harmful to “innocent” Muslims. See where this is going? The harm he saw us committing was one that included an end to beheading gay people, stoning heretics, and chopping the hands off of thieves. America is an example of how liberty can make life wonderful. That was the harm, and Ron Paul and ALL of his supporters have missed the point completely. They took one quote from a former CIA analyst and looked no further than that. Since bin Laden was killing Americans long before 9/11 as part of his jihad, nobody can claim that they’re all pissed over Iraq and Afghanistan. This has been going on much longer than that.

That Ron Paul does not understand the variables that go into this is frightening. We cannot allow him to take the candidacy. I see him as being just as dangerous as Barack Obama – the only difference is that Obama’s stupidity is deliberate. Paul’s is happy ignorance.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Why I Cannot Stand Ron Paul

  1. You just don’t read about Paul and his views enough; watch the last debate! He would leave it up to the sates to decide what the state wants, which means what the people want in that state. You and I and so many other Americans could live the life we truly want and decide to live with no interference. I would choose the life of true freedom rather then a false forced freedom someone else chose for me.

  2. His stance on gay rights isn’t enough. I want to know that he fully understands foreign policy, too – if he doesn’t and we get hit again despite his best efforts to placate the jihadists, then my rights as a gay American won’t matter much.

  3. He doesn’t have a pro-gay agenda. He answers by saying “leave it to the states to decide!” Well, you cannot have 50 states with 50 different marriage laws. There are a million legal consequences to marriage and they would not accomodate such a system.

    I absolutely agree with you, Mel. I hope this post goes viral. Last night, I posted a pro-Newt video with his brilliant articulation of the OWS movement to which one Ron Paul supporter — a woman — engaged in a discussion with me proclaiming Newt was a sociopath and that we’d be better off with Obama for four years, then began throwing links at me about Newt from third party sources.

    I felt like I was talking to Alex Jones. No kidding. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon and Israel is wiped out, who do these nuts think is next? And the idea that the United States is starting the fire on Iran is preposterous. We have dozens of other UN members who join us in hopes they never acquire nuclear capability.

    They won’t be happy until we are in WW3. Perhaps Paul will get his “official Declaration” memo then.

    He’s an idiot. Further, he’s too old.

  4. Steve, I have often thought the same thing about Ron Paul supporters – that it’s like talking to Alex Jones. They have links, alright, but none of it is vetted. It’s as if Occam’s Razor simply doesn’t exist for these people.

  5. Because of the lunacy of some of the Paulians, I find myself having to be increasingly precise when I tell people about my politics. I make sure I say that I’m a libertarian conservative, and not just a libertarian.

    I believe that libertarians have the best ideas about the direction this country needs to go. But the purists really scare me. Moreover, Steve is right. In any rational universe, Ron Paul cannot really be considered pro-gay rights.

  6. That is simply untrue. Ron Paul has NEVER espoused 9/11 truth ideas. He is liked by truthers because he is willing to reopen the investigation because he thinks it was a white wash since no negligence or reason was found why evidence wasn’t acted on. HIS point is that you need intelligent people to ACT on intelligence and adding an entire new DHS on top that is no more intelligent than the layer below, does not fix the problem. And he points to the underwear bomber as proof that idiocy still runs rampant.

  7. By calling for that investigation to be reopened, he is espousing 9/11 truth beliefs.

    All of that evidence was considered. Let me explain what most twoofers don’t like to think about…our legal system is a nightmare to maneuver through, particularly if you’re law enforcement. Intelligence agencies can listen to chatter, but they cannot use any intel they gather in the course of such activities in any sort of legal or law enforcement action. According to US law, even the PATRIOT Act, they cannot wiretap any US citizen or legal resident without a warrant (they can only do so on subjects who are not citizens and are not on US soil).

    Their evidence that a plan on 9/11 was in the works was essentially obtained illegally. No judge would have issued a warrant based on any of that evidence – not even an immigration judge. If the CIA had acted on the intel that they had – which was spotty at best – every single one of the hijackers would have made a huge noise, claimed they were being persecuted, and riled up the left-leaners who all would have agreed that it was unfair for us to illegally detain these men on no evidence. Hell, we have an island prison at which we’ve detained captured combatants and known terrorists and the liberals are screaming for it to be closed.

    Basically the whole problem came down to legalities. It is a system that most don’t understand and don’t care to. I’ve studied it for years and even I have trouble following it sometimes. I get very tired of hearing people claim that we had evidence that 9/11 was coming and we didn’t act on it – because that claim is always made by people who don’t know how it works.

    Bottom line, nobody would have believed that 9/11 was possible until it did happen and if they had taken the hijackers into custody to stop them from carrying it out there would have been a blood-curdling scream from the left about it. I promise we will be hit again – it’s only a matter of time, because there are half-wits out there like Ron Paul who refuse to accept the reality that we didn’t bring this on ourselves. I think it comes from the idea that we really can reason with everyone, and that is a dangerous thing to believe.

  8. “I have often thought the same thing about Ron Paul supporters – that it’s like talking to Alex Jones. They have links, alright, but none of it is vetted. It’s as if Occam’s Razor simply doesn’t exist for these people.”

    I don’t find myself agreeing with much of what this site offers, but I do agree that Ron Paul is a lunatic, and would be disastrous for the country (and even then, it’s for different reasons than yours (for the most part)).

    One area of complete overlapping agreement (and with the same reasons) is his tacit approval of these “truthers” (that term insults me to no end, as it presupposes that their version of what constitutes the truth is the only acceptable one), and their THOROUGHLY debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having had many ‘head against a wall’ moments with Ron Paul cultists (feel free to use that term), who also seem to think that Alex Jones is a credible source of information, I have, on several occasions, vocalized your thoughts on Occam’s Razor verbatim. It’s kind of weird for me to be in a position where I have to defend George W. Bush, but this is one where I’ll gladly do it. Their open hostility towards physics boggles my mind. I especially love when they make the absurd claim that the twin towers collapsed at free fall speed. Needless to say, me presenting them with video footage of the towers falling at sixteen and twenty two seconds (or somewhere around there) doesn’t seem to sway them from their idiotic preconceived notions. I even had one person suggest that explosives could have been placed in the building while it was still being constructed. I guess it was miraculously still good to go after sitting there for 33 years…

  9. “One area of complete overlapping agreement (and with the same reasons) is his tacit approval of these “truthers” (that term insults me to no end, as it presupposes that their version of what constitutes the truth is the only acceptable one), and their THOROUGHLY debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

    That, Robert, is why I call them “twoofers”. Where did I get that? Well, my cousin’s son, right around the age of four, started saying “it’s the truth” to everything. He loved the phrase. He could not, however, pronounce “truth” correctly – he pronounced the phrase, “it’s da twoof!”

    Whenever I see those fools in public, I get this mental image of a four-year-old kid in a WAY oversized “9/11 was an inside job” t-shirt clapping his hands over his ears, going, “I KNOW DA TWOOF! I won’t believe what you say! I won’t, I won’t, I WON’T!”

    Needless to say, I’m with you on that one. Any time I hear those conspiracy theories I just wanna bang my head against the wall. That seems more intelligent than trying to talk to these loons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s