So, I decided to take a look at the reasons why Ron Paul is now being censored by Big Brother over at Rapture Ready and debunk what it says, just in case someone wants to know the difference between a real conservative and a neocon. This could get long, so let's first take a look at the new rules on this board.
1) We are a conservative board. Paul is Libertarian, not a Conservative. Paul won't be a major part of this political board.
Apparently, Libertarians are not Conservatives because they yeild to the Constitution of the United States and the philosophies of the Founding Fathers. At any rate, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.
2) DO NOT insert Paulian politics into existing threads. They are different from conservative political thought and muddy the waters. If you must, OPEN A NEW THREAD. I am not above deleting individual posts.
So, debate isn't welcome. Instead, they must be kept in a different thread. I wonder how long before those other threads then become "hijacked" by the neocon mindset?
3) DO NOT hijack existing threads. This is already a rule. Rule #2 is considered hijacking a thread.
Oh good! This clears up my thoughts regarding #2. And here I thought the moderator had a big stick up his/her rear end and would be policing these other threads and "hijacking" them, too. No problem, though, since real conservatives love to debate the neocons.
4) There have been serious problems with Paul people in the past election. A new election season is coming up. We WILL NOT have a problem in this one.
Propping up a political agenda, are we? "You cannot be 'one of us' and vote your conscience!"
And here's the last thing:
RR does not offer a platform for conspiracy discussions. There are plenty of sites on the net where such discussions are welcomed. It the same thing with Paulianism and Libertarian issues. There are plenty of other sites, RR will not be one of them.The rules have been changed, its official now.[13] No liberal left wing libertarian political agendas, pacifism, socialism,
Ignoring the blatantly bad punctuation error at the end of this, I have to say that I feel sad. Just a little while ago they said that the RP people could post his viewpoints on seperate threads! Contradiction galore! And since when is Libertarian known as "left wing" and "pacifism"? Oh yeah, ever since these people decided it should be. I don't believe I have ever seen this kind of association before. How sad.
So that was pretty amusing, I think. Let's look a bit more at this thread. You gotta love how the fascists on that board locked the thread so no one could post a reply.
RP is unable to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished, he will never vote on the best bill possible; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect.
Do I want to know what this poster calls "the best bill possible"? Maybe not. It's probably the Patriot Act or some other oppressive bill. On that note, a lot of people are coming around to Ron Paul's side. I guess, though, that unless your the majority, you're obviously not worth wasting time on.
Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive.
Of course! We all just go with the flow and not set any examples! Hurray for collective mindset! "There is no such thing as a wasted vote," as were the words of someone I can't remember. Besides, the inability for those forum members to bend speaks volumes for their flexibility.
RP’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. He may have the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. His policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," once said Benjamin Franklin. I'll see you in the Fema camps. After all, who needs terrorists to take away our precious rights when our own government can do it without any opposition? On that note, we were never lacking in intelligence, rather, as Ron Paul put it, we need intelligent people to interpret the intelligence we manage to get. This mindset is classic Orwellian. In the book 1984, the government knows that people are ready and willing to give up their freedom in order to save themselves from their enemies. I wonder if the government's kool-aid tastes good?
RP is an isolationist and is against free trade, his “Libertarian” policies are not some great new idea but hark back to the old and flawed ideas of individual-anarchism and right-wing “Libertarianism” which have been argued over and refuted many times in the last 150 years
When was Ron Paul against free trade? Ron Paul consitently argues for free trade! You're allowed to disagree, but to outright lie? And when was Libertarianism refuted? Where did this person get their information? The talking heads on MSM?
RP is a conspiracy nut. His supporters are the Jesse Venturas, John Birchers, and others who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional
Ron Paul is not a conspiracy nut. Name one instance where he says that he believes the government staged the moon landing, 9/11, or any of those other things. Wait, he says 9/11 should be reinvestigated! I forgot that doing a thorough search for information without a propoganda bias is wrong! We musn't forget that our government is totally honest, very thorough when it comes to terrorism, and a Godly entity. Anyone who says differently is unAmerican. So he might have some radical supporters. Big deal. Did you know that Sarah Palin wants a reinvestigation as well? 9/11 truther!
Let's keep going, since the thread goes even further when they define their definition of "conservative".
a good conservative president would:
Preserve and uphold the US constitution, no attempts to change
Because we all know that Ron Paul insists on rewriting the Constitution. I jest. Ron Paul is more dedicated to this task than anyone else in Washington!
Strong national defense, support of Israel
Again, Ron Paul is definately for a strong nation defense. However, given that this is a neocon we're dealing with, I need to elaborate.
First of all, placing our troops all over the globe doesn't do anything for our national defense - it actually weakens it. Look at what our government has done throughout history. We prop up tyrants and tear down democracies, pretty much whatever suits our political agenda at the time. We place sanctions on people, install curfews, and even throw children in concentration camps.
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (Ambassador to the UN) appeared on a 60 Minutes (before 9/11, remember). Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it." If you were a citizen in Iraq at that time, would you have thought it was worth it? Would you hate the US? What if China came over here and placed sanctions on us, policed our streets, etc.? Would you want to drive them out? Put yourselves in other peoples shoes, would you?
A strong national defense means keeping our soldiers on our borders, not taxing us to run around the world and playing it like a chess board. Get rid of all those bases, which were only meant to be temporary after WW2 anyway, and come home! This isn't an isolationist policy! It's a common sense one! You don't want people to hate you, you leave them alone! It's none of our business anyway.
On that note, most people are unaware that the reason America was not stationed all over the world previously was because the Founding Fathers expressly forbid it. It's not rocket science to look through history and find that great empires simply collapse when they overspend on their military and run all over the world! It ruins the currency, bankrupts them, and ultimately brings them down!
Then again, I don't think that these people like the Founding Fathers. They'd be rolling in their graves to hear these people speak.
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace." George Washington – Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has extended her dominion over them all, Africa, Asia, an America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit." Alexander Hamilton on Colonialism, The Federalist Papers 1787 - Kind of like the US now, isn't it?
"My ardent desire is to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none." George Washington (Letter to Patrick Henry, October 9, 1795)
There's more, but there's a few memorable quotes. I would like to touch on the supporting Israel thing. I argue that since Christ has already come, God no longer blesses those who stick by Israel, the nation that openly rejects His Son. God did not save Israel when she was destroyed before, and I do not think He means for us to stand by her now. As such, the current Israel is not the Israel that existed in the Bible; it is not Abraham's Israel. At any rate, regardless of how you interpret scripture, it doesn't change the fact that support of Israel is a religious viewpoint, not a political one. It has nothing to do with being a political conservative.
Considering that two of Ron Paul's brothers are pastors (bet the RR people didn't know that!), I'm sure Ron Paul knows what to do when it comes to Israel. It's not like Israel benefits much from us, anyway. She cannot make war on her own, cannot declare peace on her own, and is essentially the red-headed step-child of the Middle East. Our politicians, as it currently stands, do not support Israel because of their piety, but because she gives us a foothold in the Middle East where the oil lies. Our government doesn't flow with righteousness, but with selfish desires.
Small government, tax breaks for small businesses, support free market
Again, where does Ron Paul disagree with this?
Rehabilitating the prison system
You just said that a conservative president would uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the president the authority to do this, it is for the States. They do believe in States' rights, don't they?
Tax ratio percentage rate dependent upon income
Or, just get rid of the income tax! Don't get much more conservative than that! And why don't they like RP over there?
Fiscal responsibilities, cut out government waste, reduce salaries, fire all unnecessary government bureaucracies and offices, about 70%
Now I'm laughing. Ron Paul would cut way more than that, yet they still don't like him? No other presidential candidate this past election ever talked about cutting that much except for Ron Paul! Sure, they all talk about how wasteful government spending is, but they don't ever have a plan for cutting it, except a little trimming here and there. Ron Paul should be these peoples' heroes!
No political correctness, global warming, imaginary protection of critters, and all that other liberal garbage
By now Ron Paul should have their vote. Ron Paul is so unpolitically correct, it makes even the Republicans (and the RR people) cringe. What? You mean the US government is a political vessel and not a righteous overlord? What? You mean they really don't hate us for our freedom, but for our domineering interventions? We'd be safer if we didn't give people a reason to attack us? But I thought it all came down to the fact that we're good and their evil! Evil doesn't need a motive! They just hate us because their evil! Where'd this logic come from? That's not politically correct.
Ron Paul also doesn't believe in global warming, so no problems there. As for animal rights and animal welfare (I'm all for animal rights and welfare, by the way), the federal government doesn't regulate that. That's for the States, so Ron Paul's (and mine) own viewpoints are rather irrelevant when it comes to that. In fact, most of that liberal garbage is for the States, not the federal government.
Uphold sanctity of moral principles.
What does that mean? There's no clarification.
Someone else added, before the thread was locked:
uphold the sanctity of marriage
This is, again, a States issue, not a Federal one. Besides, Ron Paul personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Those guys never actually studied out the Federal Government is supposed to operate, did they? Given that they act like Constitution experts, the fact that they believe the president has this kind of power speaks otherwise. What do they suppose the States' governments do?
uphold the sanctity of life
Again, a States right. However, Ron Paul feels very strongly about this issue and has proposed bills in the past to define life as starting at conception, thereby making abortion murder. Unfortunately, the Sanctity of Life Act never passed. You can blame pretty much everyone except Ron Paul for that!
no amnesty shamnesty
Ron Paul is about as against amnesty as you can get, unlike a certain Mike Huckabee.
protect national sovereignty
This is Ron Paul's key issue! He's the only guy who actually would pull us out of the UN! These people should love him!
In the end, it seems that the RR board is full of hypocrites. They kind of remind of the Pharisees, trying to call everyone out on everything when they themselves aren't exactly clean, either.
Pharisees: Don't vote against the Constitution! *They then go vote for someone who is willing to 'bend' and violate the Constitution because their just upholding a cause that said Pharisees feel strongly about.*
Well, here's hoping for more tolerance in the future. Cheers.
Posts
