Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
Looking awesome! 
We've got another few myths to get done. I aim to get all of these done by the weekend, so whoever is willing to help out or has all ready signed up, please get typing! Start proofreading the myths we've got, editing them, citing them and making them sound convincing.
Let's also start advertising our Facebook and Twitter page. Anyone who can spread these links and get likes or follows for them, please do so. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Myths/235313769837627
http://twitter.com/#!/RonPaulMyths
EDIT:
Hey guys, we also need someone to head the advertising of this site. If anyone is capable of mass-advertising and knows a thing or two about it, please PM me! We need someone's help with that.
I'm also going to post up some of the myths we've got done. We need to edit and revise these as needed. If anyone else who happens to be viewing this topic can reply with suggestions, or if you can even edit it yourself if you've got the time, please do!
We've got another few myths to get done. I aim to get all of these done by the weekend, so whoever is willing to help out or has all ready signed up, please get typing! Start proofreading the myths we've got, editing them, citing them and making them sound convincing.
Let's also start advertising our Facebook and Twitter page. Anyone who can spread these links and get likes or follows for them, please do so. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Myths/235313769837627
http://twitter.com/#!/RonPaulMyths
EDIT:
Hey guys, we also need someone to head the advertising of this site. If anyone is capable of mass-advertising and knows a thing or two about it, please PM me! We need someone's help with that.
I'm also going to post up some of the myths we've got done. We need to edit and revise these as needed. If anyone else who happens to be viewing this topic can reply with suggestions, or if you can even edit it yourself if you've got the time, please do!
2. Ron Paul is a kook -- his ideas are crazy, and he’s too far to the right.
Ron Paul’s views, in actuality, are not that ‘extremist.’ Paul’s ideas reflect a growing trend of
support in the United States, and are ideas that most people would support, like balancing the budget, reducing the size of government and allowing American citizens more liberty. Extremism is the new TSA screening policy within airports, or our projected debt to GDP ratio for 2020 of 90%. (Digital History, Washington Times) Extremism is, with all due respect to the Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama adding more to the national debt than all Presidents from Washington through Reagan combined. (CNS News) Ron Paul’s views are only viewed as extreme because they are out of the norm of conventional thinking -- the same thinking that resulted in the previously mentioned.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
3. Ron Paul is soft on taking any action against China, and therefore is weak economically when compared to Trump and others who would impose a tariff.
False. Dr. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of free market capitalism, promotes free trade amongst nations, and believes American workers and entrepreneurs can compete - and should be free to pursue profitable economic endeavors of their own free will - without government interference in the market - such as corporate subsidies, excessive regulatory burdens, politically motivated tax loopholes and incentives, or xenophobic or isolationist protective tariffs.
The cheaper goods produced by international trade partners frees up American resources (time, labor and capital) to leverage Americans’ unique strengths to pursue innovative and entrepreneurial activities, yielding more growth and productivity, creating jobs and restoring profitability.
The international competitiveness of Chinese corporations has been a direct result of the country’s decision to mimic America’s greatness by introducing free-market capitalist reforms in special economic zones set up all across the country. China’s top-down approach started with a grand strategy of international partnerships and foreign direct investments in its manufacturing sector with a focus on low quality, high quantity goods. With the almost limitless availability of low cost labor and total lack of private property rights, Chinese industry was able to grow at a phenomenal rate, uninhibited by internal constraints. As the Chinese standard of living has grown, as has respect for human rights, private property and the rule of law, wage costs have risen, as has the cost of doing business, forcing the country’s businesses to diversify their industries with higher quality products. As the formerly communist country catches up with the rest of the world, its advantage as the low cost manufacturer will recede, but will allow China to compete with America at all levels of the economy.
It’s time America took notice and went back to our traditional values of freedom, free markets, property rights and the rule of law. With our country’s history and fundamental embrace of liberty trade, and honest friendship as a guide, we can restore America to its proper greatness, with freedom, peace and prosperity.
4. Ron Paul was insufficiently against Bush's wars.
Some claim that Paul was insufficiently against the wars that were started under President Bush Jr. This, however, is false. Paul was the only Republican member of Congress running for the Presidency in 2008 who did not vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2002. (Council on Foreign Relations) While Paul did support invading Afghanistan following 9/11, he did so with reason: to capture Bin Laden following an attack upon our nation, an objective which wasn’t achieved nor kept to. (ABC News) Paul states,
"We neglected to pursue Osama bin Laden." And voting for the authority to invade Afghanistan "did not mean that they had the authority to occupy and try to transform Afghanistan." (ABC News)
John Stossel writes in an article that Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th because we were pursuing the perpetrators of the attack. Since the invasion, he writes, Paul has been dissatisfied with what the war has turned into as it never kept to that objective. Paul has a strong anti-war record that does not reflect on either Bush’s foreign policies. Lastly, in a recent finding, Ron Paul received more military donations than all other 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates combined, and more than President Obama. (Ron Paul 2012) Paul received the same distinction of receiving more military donations than all other Republican Presidential Candidates when he ran in 2008. (Ron Paul 2012)
http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/ron-paul/b13303#4
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3978940&page=1
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/20/ron-paul-campaign-raises-most-donations-from-military/
6. Ron Paul wants to ban abortion nationwide.
False. Although it is true Dr. Ron Paul is personally pro-life and supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution demands the legality of the issue be resolved at the state level.
In fact, Ron Paul states, “Our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts.” “So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”
(- Ron Paul, "Federalizing Social Policy", 01/31/06, LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html)
Dr. Paul’s “Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.”
(- Ron Paul, "No Federal Funding for Abortion!", 04/02/03, LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul84.html)
Again, Dr. Paul supports legislative action at the state level, not by federal or activist judges.
However, Dr. Paul is personally against public funding in the form of federal subsidies for elective abortions, as many taxpayers find the practice morally objectionable. He is also against forcing private insurers to cover abortions, and is against the concept of population control in general. As such, Dr. Paul had introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any federal taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas. Dr Paul states, “Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.”
(- Ron Paul, "The Immorality of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion", 07/28/09, LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul564.html)
Dr. Paul’s view is that the Constitution does not give any authority to the federal government to legislate on the issue, so it should be up to the people and the states to decide the particulars of the issue. However, Roe v. Wade has been defended on Constitutional grounds, but again, Dr. Paul disagrees with the rationale, based on the issue of privacy.
"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.
Roe v. Wade was decided in large part under the doctrine of substantive due process as an issue of privacy. Paul thinks that basis for the ruling is flawed.
"I don't see it as a privacy issue," he said. "I think it's only a life issue. As an obstetrician, I can verify the fact that the life does exist. It's very much alive, and it's very human, and I have a legal responsibility for it. If I do any harm, I can be sued for it. If an individual kills a fetus, they can be hauled off to court for it. So it's a legal life. To say that life doesn't exist -- if someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to this. So why is it life one time but not another time?"
While admitting situations such as rape and incest require further consideration, he continued his rebuke of the Supreme Court's privacy basis for legalizing abortion.
"The government doesn't have the right to invade your home or have cameras in your home," he said. "That doesn't give you the right to kill a child just because it was born and it was in the crib and you didn't like the way it looked and you went, 'Oh, we don't want to keep this baby.' Everybody knows it's illegal and it's killing. But one minute before the baby's born they come to me and if I did the abortion I'd get paid for it. So that's a real contradiction about the definition of life."
- James Freedman, "Ron Paul: Roe v. Wade a 'Big Mistake'," 01/24/08, huffingtonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-freedman/ron-paul-roe-v-wade-a-big_b_82991.html)
7. Ron Paul would ban gay marriage nationwide, or is heavily against it.
False. Dr. Paul wants government out of the private decisions of citizens altogether.
Dr. Paul has written, “Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.”
However, as Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate marriage, the 10th Amendment reserves that power to the states and to the people.
As Dr. Paul continues, “Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.”
In addition to the powers granted to the legislature, the Supreme Court’s powers should also be Constitutionally limited.
As Dr. Paul states, “The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states' rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.”
In all, Dr. Paul supports the liberty of free individuals to make their own personal lifestyle choices, so long as the do not violate the rights of others in the process. Dr. Paul’s position is the most likely remedy to this very divisive, polarizing issue, which is too often used by both parties as a single issue talking point to score grand political points. Let’s put that power back where it belongs and allow our federal government to address those few limited, pressing issues that truly affect our nation as a whole.
(- Ron Paul, "Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction", 03/02/04, LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html)
9. Ron Paul is a third party candidate.
Many in the public believe that GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is a third party candidate. This, however, is just not true. Although Ron Paul brings in votes from Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike and is as upset with the state of the Republican Party as most Americans, Ron Paul is a registered presidential candidate of the Republican Party for the 2012 Republican Primary. (Politico, USA Today, Youtube: “Ron Paul: Has the Republican Party lost it’s way?”) Paul’s campaign alignment with the Republican Party is by no means an endorsement of Republican policies across the board – Ron Paul’s stances can be understood by both the most Conservative Republicans and the most Liberal Democrats alike, it would seem. Paul has continuously stated that the idea of liberty is what brings people together. While Paul is a Republican and has been for his entire life, he does set his own platform based upon his convictions.
Furthermore, some claim that Paul is the equivalent to a third party candidate due to his supposed “unelectibility” and his supposed support of a third party campaign if he were to lose the nomination. However, this is also false. Paul has repeatedly claimed that he would not seek a third party run, and his campaign has repeatedly claimed that there is “virtually a zero chance” of a third-party bid. (Washington Post) Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and as a Republican in 2008. (GOP USA) Paul has also widely claimed that there is unfortunately no point in running as a third party candidate for the White House due to the lack of viability for such a candidate in our electoral system, as Paul learned from is 1988 Libertarian run.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61412.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/ron-paul-presidential-race-/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF7KtJ0cntA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ird-party-bid/2011/08/15/gIQAZvC2IJ_blog.html
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/05/...l-running-for-president-on-republican-ticket/
10. Ron Paul is a racist.
“Libertarians such as Paul reject affirmative action, racial set-asides, and all other forms of state-enforced special treatment for “minorities” precisely because they oppose racism, or any form of collectivism.”
– Justin Raimondo, “Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul,” Takimag.com, January 18th, 2008, http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/#ixzz1VK5FmML9
“In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase—as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”? If anything, it’s a warning that the sociological consequences of statist policies – and the failure of the elites to address them—will lead to the rise of the David Dukes of this world, if more responsible politicians don’t face them head on.”
– Justin Raimondo, “Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul,” Takimag.com, January 18th, 2008, http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
“Paul's position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table. Paul has also recently rescinded his support for the federal death penalty, also due to its disproportionate impact on blacks. Those two positions alone certainly don't indicate a candidate who fears "animal" blacks from the urban jungle are coming to kill all the white people.”
– Radley Balko, “Ron Paul,” Reason.com, January 8th, 2008, http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/ron-paul
Timeline of Rascist Attacks on Ron Paul: … (recommend we indicate the rascist smear campaign was intentionally initiated to strategically harm Dr. Paul’s performance on the day of the NH GOP primary in 2008.)
- FormerBeltwayWonk, “The Orange Line: anatomy of a smear campaign,” 01/15/08, http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/
incomplete, but comment on what's up for this one please though!
Last edited:
