Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Michael Gerson on Why Ron Paul Would Be A Disastrous Presidential Choice

Michael Gerson's Washington Post opinion piece on Ron Paul has the most cogent reasons why Ron Paul is so very wrong for this country:

Let us count the ways in which the nomination of Ron Paul would be groundbreaking for the GOP.

No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.” Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or called America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.” Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad,” and defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.”

The rest here.


BB-Idaho said...

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Why he
runs on a GOP ticket is a good question.

Incognito said...

BB, I have no clue, because he is a pure Libertarian. Too bad he feels the need to co-opt the Republican ticket.

unrigteousfury said...

Oh come on!

You people can't really believe this shit can you? It takes minutes to google search most of this horseshit, and debunk it. Same old tired lies.
This clown says

"Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use".

What a crock. It would literally take you less than 1 minute to research this and find out it is false.

Our tenth amendment says

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

So unless the constitution mentions anything about the federal government having authority over prostitution, or heroin, [which it doesn't] then it is a states rights issue and left to the state to decide.

You show me one clip of Ron Paul saying "I advocate drug use and the legalization of drugs" go ahead just 1.Can't do it can you? Thought not.

Even Rick Perry advocates states rights using this amendment.

Paul is just following the constitution, and until the tenth amendment gets repealed [never happen] the president is supposed to abide by it.

Damn that Ron Paul following the highest law in the land what a NUT JOB!

I also see no problem with a second 9/11 investigation, appointed, and run by an independent panel unless somebody can explain to me who it would hurt and why?

Departing from Nato, and United Nations, is a no brainer. Paul is not the first, or last republican who will suggest it I assure you. If somebody can tell me why these organizations are a good idea to be involved in I am all ears.

It's like people actually think that if a member of Nato who was an ally got into a war they wouldn't ask for our help or vice versa because we aren't members. Silly logic. Not to mention the whole entangling alliance thing our founders were against. You might wonder why they never signed an alliance with France even though they helped us through the revolution arguably the most important American war....worked out well to.

Then he says,

"Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust".

Which of course was not why we went to war with Germany at all. Again show me a clip of Ron Paul saying this or anything even close. Here is the text of the declaration of war with germany,

"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States".

See all that stuff about Jews, and concentration don't? Must be because WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEM AT THE TIME!

This article by this guy is garbage. It purposefully misleads.

You are not stupid how come you don't call this guy out on his bullshit?

Incognito said...

Okay dear... when asked if he is for legalizing prostitution and drugs he does not deny.


I agree regarding the U.N., but Paul isn't the only one. And my reasons are because they're a damn useless organization. NATO is at least doing a better job.

unrighteousfury said...

Ok in your first link listen to the question. Wallace says "IF the states want to permit it" That is correct. I just put the 10th amendment up there for you to read "hun" Why is it that the states shouldn't have the power to regulate what the people want vrs the federal government mandating it? Especially since [again read the 10th amendment while I beat my head in frustration] they don't even have the authority to do so. So again where does Paul advocate for people to do hard drugs?

On marijuana, who cares? Come on nobody has ever even OD'd on marijuana and throwing somebody in jail for smoking a plant is fucking crazy when we could use the space for rapists,murderers,and thieves. Pot smokers don't hurt anything except their fridge. Ask a cop sometime who they would rather take to jail somebody high or somebody drunk, then listen very carefully to what they say about hwo they have the most violent encounters with.

Don't you understand in all the research you supposedly do checking out what these candidates say that the government constitutionally is not supposed to have these authorities? On Nato and the U.N, who gives a shit if they do a fantastic job? We are not supposed to be involved in entangling alliances.

This guy's article is misleading. You could have proved it wrong as easy as I did if you wanted to. It just didn't fit your agenda.

Incognito said...

I do not advocate legalizing drugs in any way, shape or form.

those kinds of laws are there for a reason. You might not OD on pot, but that's still not a reason to legalize it. If it was legal it would make it much easier for young kids to start smoking. the last thing we need.

Pot smokers shouldn't be in jail. Dealers yes.