I can’t help but notice there has been vocal hostility to Ron Paul from the least likely groups: liberals and neoconservatives. Before I go on, I would like to point out that there are two kinds of left-leaning groups in America: there are the progressive, who often lean on the left and are able to explain their viewpoints, and then there are liberals, who are often are automatically against anything from the right, resort to petty insults, or support an idea just because it sounds good without thorough evaluation. Examples of progressives include Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Spurlock, and Martin Luther King while liberals are best exemplified by Michael Moore, Mike Gravel and Rosie O’Donnell.
On the other end of the spectrum you have a group of right-leaning American who profess to be neoconservatives or Republicans. These people would simply support the Bush administration simply because they are Republicans without examining whether their policies benefit them as individuals and loyal party members, or they support the government because they think it is patriotic to mindlessly support it. Then there are those who decide to identify themselves as neoconservatives or conservatives without understanding the true nature of American neoconservativism or classical American conservatism itself.
These people actually believe that conservatism involves creating a strong state, trading away freedom for security or engaging in unprovoked wars. It does not help that these groups are reluctant to have objective dialogue on the issues but preferring to simply question people’s patriotism or insulting them. Examples of such individuals are Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, and Ann Coulter.
So let’s be very clear that this post is critical of both the so-called ersatz conservatives and irrational liberals in regards to Ron Paul.
So far, it seems both liberals and conservatives dislike Ron Paul based on the assumption that he is incompetent.
Some examples liberals give are the following:
1. He prefers tax credits for reducing healthcare costs rather than state-controlled health insurance
(counterpoint: Ron Paul would prefer the individual recoups his or her medical costs in the form of a tax deduction that can reduce the cost of income tax. In some cases these deductions can eventually lead to a tax refund check that will return funds to the individual and the amount of tax credit depends on the level of healthcare. He would also deregulate some of the health insurance laws so there would no be any limits of what providers would be available in each state.
Whereas, the government would simply tax everyone the same amount of money regardless whether the person received medical care or not in a state-run health insurance scheme. There would also be little or no alternatives available for socialised heath insurance and a two-tier heathcare system would remain for those who can afford private insurance.)
2. He is supposedly a bitch-ass pussy for wanting to reduce government
(counterpoint: Ron Paul has mentioned that the Federal budget needs to be cut in addition to reducing taxes. America’s current spending is catastrophic due to the rising costs associated with Iraq are increasing, the growing deficit from increased borrowing from China and Japan, the expanded bureaucracy such as Homeland Security, and from federal entitlement programmes. This is happening at a time when the Bush administration reduced taxes without covering for these increased costs and at a time when the dollar is loosing value as the world tries to find alternatives from American financial influence.
I am sure liberals and statists would love to have a bloated bureaucracy, but the reality is that America will become a bankrupt, backward, and excessively bureaucratic society if spending isn’t curbed in our lifetime. Also, Ron Paul will allow individuals to opt out of paying for entitlement programmes without cutting any of them.
This video explains the problem in greater detail, but I doubt many liberals would bother to watch because they may not like what they hear.)
3. He is a bitch-ass pussy because some racists support him
(counterpoint: Yes Ron Paul did receive some open donations from racists such as David Duke and Don Black. He has also received donations from thousands of non-racists, ethnic minorities, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the LGBT community, progressives, libertarians, conservatives, and genuine reformers. For every White Supremacist there are hundreds if not thousands of regular campaign contributors.
Some liberals enjoy making a big deal out of these handful of donors by making blog entries that imply Paul is a klansman, a neo-nazi, a Southern slaveowner, and other labels that imply Ron Paul is a bigot. Ron Paul is not a racist, but a man who supports basic freedom and a defender of minority rights from the “tyranny of the majority” that liberals and neocons would like to see happen if they got their way.
People need to remember that Ron Paul actually participated in the “All-American Presidential Forum” debates on September 27, 2007 to discuss issues that affected the African-American and Hispanic communities while Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain skipped it. We should remember that Romney admitted to crying when the Mormon (LDS) church leaders decided to allow African-Americans into their religion while Giuliani supported the NYPD officers who shot Amadou Diallo after he was racially profiled as a suspected rapist.)
Now here are some examples neocons give for hating Ron Paul:
1. He is a bitch-ass punk dickhead because he wants to abolish the income tax
(counterpoint: Ron Paul does want to abolish the income tax because it is already a heavy tax burden on those who are already paying taxes in the form of reduced interest rates, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and telephone taxes. We are already paying just enough taxes and getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service would significantly streamline the functions performed by the Department of Treasury. Most of the income tax in the past was often set aside as a means to pay off the federal deficit, but now most of the income tax is going to pay for foreign aid and the military in Iraq.
The problem with appropriating these funds for defence is that most of the funds are being allocated to companies close to the Bush administration that received no-bid contracts and often overcharge the government for inadequate work in the region. Foreign aid is another problem because it doesn’t necessarily payoff and those funds could have been better spent taking care of America’s deficit and help the taxpayers in the country. Ron Paul is not out to abolish all taxes as people would think, but simply removing the income tax as a way to remove the IRS, and to allow taxpayers to keep more of their disposable income for better use.)
2. He is a bitch-ass nutjob because he wants to reduce America’s global military presence.
(counterpoint: America’s global military presence needs to be reduced because America no longer has the proper resources to maintain such a presence and still have money to finance an ongoing war and reduced federal taxes. Many of these countries do not like American troop presence in their country because they perceive as an interference of their national affairs and it undermines their national sovereignty.
For example, there is growing support among Koreans for the removal of US Forces in South Korea because they feel their presence is a barrier from eventually reunification with the North Koreans, US soldiers often the source of crime against locals, and see it as a another form of foreign imperialism. Japan on the other hand has problems with US troops in Okinawa who have been known to sexually assault the local women, create massive pollution from their bases, and are considered an impediment for Japan’s national sovereignty.
Most of all, nothing good has come out of America’s presence in Iraq. Although, America did oust Saddam Hussein from power, their post-war mismanagement of Iraq has resulted in increased violence, a civil war, and the eventual dismembering of Iraq by the Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. Most of all over a quarter million Iraqi civilians and thousands of American soldiers have been killed or horribly maimed from a war they fought without any clear goals or understanding. I hate to say it but America’s domineering military presence in the world has generated more harm than good in most cases.)
3. He is a punk retard who thinks good Americans provoked terrorists
(counterpoint: According to the 9/11 Commission Report and CIA analysts, Al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 as a culmination of America’s presence on holy soil in Saudi Arabia, for support of Israel against the Palestinians, and for enforcing a “No-Fly Zone” and sanctions on Iraq. The concept of blowback is defined as the unintended consequences from covert or military actions taken by the United States. So anyone who actually thinks America was attacked for being the largest economy in the world or being “free” simply does not understand the real purpose for Al-Qaeda’s attacks on US embassies, on the USS Cole, and eventually the attacks on 9/11.
If America was simply attacked for being one of the world’s largest economy, then how come Japan, China, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Canada haven’t been wiped off the map yet? If America was attacked for its “freedom” then how come countries that are ranked higher in the World press freedom index not completely wiped off the map? There are many countries that are just as free and economically developed as American, yet they were never considered a target by terrorists until they collaborate with America in their War of Terror. Something worth considering for those who actually believe that a crusade against “Islamofascists (who are actually just a radical minority)” through endless war will bring peace.)
I think this is it for tonight. Liberals and self-professed neocons should seriously consider visiting the library, reading the news and form an opinion before taking sides on a particular issue. Taking a side without any research or an unwillingness to have dialogue with others will simply lead to a shouting match and insults based on misguided views that will only make the situation worse. This holds true for most of the liberals and neocons who decide to bash Ron Paul without knowing the facts and doing it purely for emotion.