Thursday, October 25, 2007

Uh-oh! Is Someone's Party Feeling Threatened?

There is a website called, which is obviously an anti-Ron Paul site. It's claims are questionable. I have answered these claims myself, but for a more detailed rebuttal, go see the website for a complete refutation. Boy, the lengths some people will go to to cover the asses of their fascist leaders!

Statement: Ron Paul thinks we'd be safer without the CIA

Bill Maher - I would feel pretty naked without the CIA

Ron Paul - You'd feel naked, but you'd be a lot safer because you'd be less likely to be attacked by terrorists.

My Answer: First, Bill Maher is an asshole and a Party line hack, so anything he says is questionable. Second, Ron Paul is correct, and here is why: the CIA is responsible for much of the American-sponsored terrorism around the world, as the arm and the sword of the American Foreign Policy that has resulted in the blowback of 9/11. If it weren't for the CIA, America could not have been able to do all the rotten, unethical, immoral things that have angered the fanatics and provoked them to strike back at us on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. If the owner of finds Ron Paul's statement appalling, then he needs to stop drinking the government kool-aid and start looking for the truth; unless of course he is a Party line hack, like Bill Maher, in which case he's hopeless because when Big Brother tells him 2+2=5, then 2+2=5.

Statement: Paul has voted against funding our troops while in combat.

My Answer: Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, and as such, he believes that we should keep our nose out of other people's business. This includes the end of unconstitutional warmongering, empire-building, nation-building, etc. Ron Paul supports the troops by vowing to bring them home immediately, and not just the ones in Iraq, but all of them around the world. There is no better support that a President can give to our troops than to bring them home to the safe and loving arms of their families. The owner would rather keep funding a war the majority of Americans are against, with taxpayer money Americans would be better off pocketing, in order to keep Americans soldiers in harm's way and watch them be maimed, crippled and killed. Maybe the website owner should be the one exposed!

Statement: Ron Paul is a political opportunist.
*In 1988 Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian, despite being a life long Republican. Now he's running for president as a Republican. Seems he runs on the side that seems the most expedient at the time.

My Answer: According to this logic, Ron Paul was a lifelong Republican who ran as a Libertarian because the Libertarian Party was the side that was most expedient at the time. Does anyone really believe that the Libertarian Party had a snowball's chance in a furnace of cranking out a Presidential frontrunner? It seems that the website owner doesn't have enough facts about history to be making such bold statements. Ron Paul is a lifelong Libertarian who did indeed run on the Libertarian platform. Paul has a better chance of being elected as a Republican, because America is not very familiar with the Libertarian Party or its philosophy, thanks to the propaganda against it by the two major Parties. What matters is that Ron Paul holds the same beliefs as a Republican as he has held as a Libertarian. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul's philosophy about politics and economics run diammetrically contrary to the views held by the Neocons, who have adopted the same Statist mindset as their Socialist Democrat counterparts. Ron paul today is the Ron Paul of yesterday. There is no flip-flopping here.

Statement: Ron Paul believes in conspiracy theories.
*Paul believes Bush is determined to impose martial law through a bird-flu scare.
"They're determined to have martial law."

*Paul believes Bush will concoct something to scare the American people.
"I think freedom's been sliding for a long time and it got a lot worse after 9/11 and I'm always afraid of some concocted event that will scare the American people"

My Answer: The phrase "Conspiracy Theory" has aquired an undeserved negative connotation. This negative connotation works in favor of the government, because it can be used to discredit anyone who holds a view different from the Party propaganda. A conspiracy is nothing more than the act of several individuals in unison planning or conspiring to attain a specific goal. A conspiracy theorist is an observant person who sees through the government imposed blinders to the truth and states his beliefs about it. The term "conspiracy theorist" does not mean crazy, insane or lunatic. This is something the government wants everyone to believe. If the government says 2+2=5, and I believe otherwise, I am a "conspiracy nut." The website owner seems to believe that our dear Leader would never impose martial law on America. Time will tell, now won't it? I'd like to hear him explain why he believes the government would be against having ultimate power and control.

Statement: Paul leads Houston area in Pork\Earmark spending

My Answer: The name of the blog is "Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul - Watching what Ron Paul does. Not what he says." Obviously, Ron Paul's Libertarian philosophy goes against the statist-minded insanity of the Neocon website owner. I may be wrong but I didn't see any comments from Libertarians on the page. Go see the blog, read the main post and the 16 replies, and judge for yourself if Ron Paul is wrong.

No comments: