Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…
Please make sure to read this article before reading mine, otherwise it won’t make sense!
When writing a critical piece against someone in politics it is easy to become confused about ethics. For instance, the trend in campaigns for the last couple of hundred years tells us that if we merely attack someone enough then the veracity of the accusation need not be upheld in order to have the desired effect. I've written many opinions and I’m sure some were plainly wrong. No one is perfect, but Darren my friend; here are the reasons you shouldn't write such things:
“Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.”
Counterpoints.
Having a charismatic President is a good thing. We agree here.
Perhaps he is a straight shooter as his record indicates…..perhaps you will provide an example of where he isn’t instead of just suggesting it wrecklessly?
So his policies bring left and right together on issues such as national defense and the millions wasted on the war on drugs. Those seem like more good things. (even if you disagree with legalizing any drugs, the money was still wasted because we are losing worse than ever….at least we can agree the money could be better spent I’d say.)
So far so good….although the tone of the writing indicates he isn’t a fan of Dr. Paul’s he has been fair in representing him at least.
“Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.”
I’m not sure where this paragraph is going. It ignores that Dr. Paul readily admits that he is not proposing anything new. The principles, priorities and philosophies that he represents are those that allowed us to become the most powerful nation on earth. The first 150 years of our nation were founded on the teachings of smaller government, individual responsibility, self-reliance, low taxes, thoughtful use of military force and above all liberty and those are the same lessons you will hear if you listen to Dr. Paul.
Where did history demonstrate that these ideas wouldn’t work? America is a unique country with a unique founding document. Name one place that history has shown it doesn’t work, because it sure as hell isn’t America. We feed over half the world. Even nations that hate us come to study within our borders before going home to plot against us. Such a statement ought to at least give reference to some point in history which proves his accusation. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Ahhh the best part for last….. So his ideas “crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.” So these principles Dr. Paul professes provided us with America and its constitution, yet they don’t stand up to the accepted THEORIES about gov’t and society. What the hell does that mean? The principles of those who support the status quo are the same as those that have brought this crisis in morals and economy to our doorstep. Ron Paul doesn’t want to give you more of the same crap, he wants to give you your freedom back and return our government to its lawful role in our country. The historical founding of our nation upon individual liberty and small government is fact. These “theories” that supposedly debunk Dr. Paul are just that; the accepted theories of a failed philosophy struggling to remain in power.
“ Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.”
Counterpoints:
I don’t even have to copy any more of this paragraph to prove my point. You can still read it at the link, I’m certainly not hiding it.
Ron Paul has never said he wanted to restrict abortion in anyway. He is prolife and personally believes that is the right choice. However, any fair examination of his comments on abortion always point to his belief in State’s rights and the unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court.
If anyone took your rights to abortion away from you under Ron Paul’s Presidency it would be your neighbors voting against it. If your state outlaws it and you don’t agree, you are free to move to a state more to your liking and yet still be an American; kind of a cool system right? I can’t force you into complying with my opinion, you can’t force me to comply with yours and the governmental structure supports both our opinions as valuable. Now we can still be Americans and yet disagree. Damn, what a country!
“Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights”
Since you couldn’t find anything else to pick on him about, I guess you had to throw abortion back at him twice, Darren? Yes, we get it, Ron Paul opposes abortion. That in no way means he opposes your right to it within the confines of the law. Why don’t you quote him to prove your point? (oh, you can’t?)
Anyway:
The entire point of being a Republic is to have control as decentralized as possible. If Utah allows polygamy and New York doesn’t so be it.
This section is typical fear-mongering. Statements such as “Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court.” come out of nowhere in order to frighten us away from the reality that the States would actually only remove those liberties we voted against. Once again, if the people don’t support it, you won’t get it. When you pay attention to the big picture, which includes removing the relationship between business and government, Ron Paul allows for more equality and liberty than anyone else and it isn’t even close.
Darren, you act as though rights are handed out by our courts and politicians. They are not. America was founded upon the belief that we are born free and our government takes our rights away little by little. To act as though the centralized power we now allow in Washington is historically American is to rely upon the uneducated masses following you like the sheep beckoning your dreams.
I’ll finish this tomorrow I can’t take it anymore for the moment.
Phlegm
No comments:
Post a Comment