Enter your email address to be notified of new blog entries:



07/27/2007 - 6:55am

Ron Paul Exposed


    del.icio.us

There's a Ron Paul hate site that I stumbled upon recently called "Ron Paul Exposed" trying to knock down his recent success. After reading it, my first reaction was, "If this is the best they have against him, then they've simply reinforced the notion that I'm voting for the right guy."

In this entry, I'll itemize their criticisms of him, explain them, and disagree with them as necessary.

Their first claim is this:

Ron Paul believes in conspiracy theories.

They site a reference to Dr. Paul mentioning how the Bush administration would like to declare martial law so that they have more power over the population. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's the writing on the wall. Anyone that pays any attention to what's going on can see that Bush is power-hungry and has been accumulating it since 9/11.

Ron Paul votes to protect constitutional rights of child predators instead of children rights.

This one is almost laughable. The justification for this is when Ron Paul voted against the national Amber Alert bill. For those that don't know, the Amber Alert is the process of the government informing the population through various means (television, radio, digital road signs, etc) when a child is reported missing. Many states have implemented these on local levels.

So this seems reasonable for the federal government to do, right? Not really. The states handle it very well. Even if this were a good idea for federal government involvement, the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to get involved. Ron Paul has said that there are some things he would like the federal government to be involved with, but he can't vote for them because the Constitution doesn't allow it, so he must uphold the Constitution as he has sworn to do, as has every other politician in the federal government.

The creator of "Ron Paul Exposed" would have you believe that his "No" vote on this bill, a vote he must cast because of his sworn oath, should be interpreted as a desire to protect child predators, and that's simply not a logical conclusion, nor is it the truth.

Ron Paul is a political opportunist.

The site mentions the fact that Ron Paul was originally in Congress as a Repulican, then ran for president in the 80s as a Libertarian, and now is running again as a Republican; then interpreted these actions as siding with whichever is most expedient at the time.

Here is the explanation for these party changes. When Ron Paul was a Republican in the 70s, it was of the traditional small government, Goldwater-style Republican nature. With Reagan came a larger government view and Ron Paul left the Republican party. He ran for president as a Libertarian because that was the party at the time that most closely aligned with his views. In 1994 when the Republican regained the majority in Congress, it was because of their small-government preaching. Thinking that the Republican party had returned to its roots, Ron Paul re-aligned with them. Unfortunately, this was all talk on the part of the Republican party and the size of government continued to increase.

Traditional Republican views (not the neo-conservative Republican views of Bush or Giuliani) are very similar to Libertarian views, and Ron Paul remains a member of the Libertarian party as well as being a Republican candidate. The Republican party has changed over time, but Ron Paul's views have been constant. A political opportunist (like Hillary Clinton) changes views to acquire votes.

Ron Paul is a documented hypocrite

The site's creator mentioned that Ron Paul voted for congressional term limits, but that he is in his 10th term in Congress, so that makes him a hypocrite. What a stretch!

Firstly, it doesn't indicate what limits Dr. Paul thinks should be imposed. Perhaps he thinks congressmen should have 20-term limits, which means he's only halfway there.

Secondly, Dr, Paul also stated that he supports term limits as a tool to reduce the size of government by reducing the power of the incumbency, not that he is specifically for term limits. He has often said that he has sometimes voted for things he is not in favor of, but he votes for them because they lead to a transition towards the thing he is in favor of, and he is for the transition.

Ron Paul thinks wed be safer without the CIA

Yeah, so would I! The CIA is simply "legal" organized crime. They are mobsters that undertake covert operations around the world with the intent of "protecting our interests" that ultimately lead to blowback. Without the CIA, or other US-government-sponsored organized crime, we would not have been involved with incidents like World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, or terrorist attacks like the bombing of the World Trade Towers, or the hijacked planes on September 11th. When you see that the CIA's actions led to these types of events, wouldn't you also feel safer without them? I know I would.

He has said Iran has no military

I saw the video where this comment was taken out of context. He was being interviewed by a college student in the student's dorm. The context of this was him indicating that other candidates are advocating the possibility of a nuclear strike against a country (Iran) that is no direct threat to us. He did say that they didn't have a military capable of attacking us. The inner-workings of the Iranian military is largely a secret to us, but being that they are practically a third-world country, I'm inclined to believe Dr. Paul.

Paul has voted against funding our troops while in combat

Yes, because he wants to save their lives by bringing them home. They are involved in an unnecessary battle and are in harm's way every single day. What better way to "Support Our Troops" than by bringing them home to safety. And we have all the funding we need to do that.

As you can see, these are the big "anti Ron Paul" words being spoken. And really, if this is what's so "bad" about Ron Paul, then it only reinforces that he's on solid ground.

It should also be noted that the person behind this site posts various videos on YouTube with these same messages, but denies dissenting comments to be posted to those videos. I just tried posting a comment to one of the videos, and was notified that it will be posted as soon as it has been approved. I'm not holding my breathe. It seems the creator of this site doesn't want to allow anyone to disagree with him.



Comments
Add Comment

Posted by: Mike
07/27/2007 9:51am

That was very good.

Posted by: Walter Burien
07/28/2007 2:38pm

Nick:

It is always good to take names and addresses. Well, in this case the person who created that site did not want anyone to know who he or she was. The list server was Domains by Proxy, which is a service that is paid to hide your identity. So it appears that whoever created that site wants to be the anonymous Boogieman. Well, a suit for misrepresentative slander, a fee paid to the court to file the suit, followed by a court order of disclosure would pry that lid open and expose the Boogieman behind that site.

Walter

The info on that site is as follows:

Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name:RONPAULEXPOSED.COM
Created on: 23-Mar-07
Expires on: 23-Mar-08
Last Updated on:

Administrative Contact: Private, Registration RONPAULEXPOSED.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599

Technical Contact: Private, Registration RONPAULEXPOSED.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599


Posted by: Nick Coons
07/28/2007 3:29pm

Walter,

<Well, a suit for misrepresentative slander...>

I would assume that Ron Paul is the only one capable of successfully doing this, since he is the one being slandered. I don't think it's possible for an unaffected third-party (like someone that's not Ron Paul) to do this.

I would then imagine that if Ron Paul himself were to do this, it wouldn't be the best move for his campaign, and would probably make him look bad.

I think we have more leverage against this person simply refuting his arguments, and adding "the fact that he feels the need to hide" to our ammunition.

Posted by: nobody
08/06/2007 7:55am

First, I don't think it is slanderous, and I believe that is the only reason Ron Paul or his staff has not acted against it. It's certainly no more slanderous than claiming that President Bush indubitably wants to declare martial law, as has been claimed on this very blog before.

Secondly, you are correct saying, "I would assume that Ron Paul is the only one capable of successfully doing this, since he is the one being [theoretically] slandered."

That site has a link saying, "The hosting company/registrar for ronpaulexposed.com, whose terms of service prohibit hateful, defamatory, slanderous material, told me that only the injured party can complain."

Further, you write, "I don't think it's possible for an unaffected third-party (like someone that's not Ron Paul) to do this."

True. And....
"I would then imagine that if Ron Paul himself were to do this, it wouldn't be the best move for his campaign, and would probably make him look bad."

The link I mentioned goes to this page: http://www.ronpaulexposed.com/takedown.htm which says, "The campaign office said they will ignore it because if they complain, it will draw attention to it. The host may pull the site, but it could move to another host and then draw more publicity by yammering about how the campaign complained about them."

Posted by: Nick Coons
08/06/2007 7:58am

<First, I don't think it is slanderous, and I believe that is the only reason Ron Paul or his staff has not acted against it.>

I don't know whether or not the comments are slanderous; I'm not a lawyer. I just know that most of them are incorrect. The point is that the statements do exist on that site, and are in need of correcting, hence the reason for this entry.

Posted by: GORDIE MACH
08/12/2007 12:39pm

THANKS FOR THIS SITE NICK !

Posted by: 4ronpaul2008
09/08/2007 9:02pm

"Without the CIA, or other US-government-sponsored organized crime, we would have been involved with incidents like World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, or terrorist attacks like the bombing of the World Trade Towers, or the hijacked planes on September 11th."

Corrections to the above:
1. "...would have been involved..." should be changed to "...wouldn't have been involved..."
2. Remove World War I
3. Remove World War II

The reason for 2 and 3 is because the CIA was formed in 1947!
(BTW, 1947 was a very interesting year - look it up...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181


Posted by: Nick Coons
09/08/2007 9:04pm

4ronpaul2008,

<Corrections to the above:
1. "...would have been involved..." should be changed to "...wouldn't have been involved...">

My mistake -- Fixed.

<2. Remove World War I
3. Remove World War II

The reason for 2 and 3 is because the CIA was formed in 1947!>

Notice that this was qualified with "or other US-government-sponsored organized crime..."

Posted by: 4ronpaul2008
09/09/2007 4:10pm

Yes, sorry - I realized that after posting. At least it brought 1947 to mind...
Keep up the good work!


Add Comment





Copyright 2004-2017 Arizona Paths

Arizona Paths Weather Button