New Website: Ron Paul Myths. Volunteers needed!

[Paul Fan]

isolationist

Here is a proposed revision of the isolationism one. I couldn’t find a link to the Reagan quote so I left it out; I’ve put it at the bottom in case anyone else knows it. Also, I couldn’t find a link with Ron Paul actually making the Switzerland/North Korea comparison, so I downgraded it to “commentators” say that – but then I couldn’t find a published article making that comparison either, so I removed it. Perhaps someone else could suggest a link that has it.

MYTH: Ron Paul is an isolationist.
FACT: Ron Paul is a non-interventionist.

- He advocates “the non-interventionist foreign policy recommended by our Founding Fathers.”
- He points out that foreign intervention is very costly and creates harmful blowback and danger for Americans
- He advocates leading by example with peaceful engagement: diplomacy, free trade, free travel

Founding Fathers’ foreign policy: Ron Paul reminds us that “Our Founding Fathers gave us excellent advice on foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson … called for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” George Washington … [said] “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest … But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences.” The Revolution, page 9.

Intervention costly, creates blowback: Ron Paul points out that “The costs of our foreign policy have become so great that they risk ringing the country to bankruptcy.” The Revolution, page 36. In fact, “right now our government is borrowing $2.2 billion every day, mainly from China and Japan, to pay for our overseas empire.” The Revolution, page 173. Yet, he points out, bipartisan “interventionist policies” and nation-building have “put the American people in greater danger and made us more vulnerable to attack.” The Revolution, page 16. This is because “whenever government meddles around the world, it can stir up hornets’ nests and thereby jeopardize the safety of the American people.” The Revolution, page 19. For example, “Al Quaeda terrorists … are twice as likely to come from a country in which US troops are stationed.” The Revolution, page 20. He adds that “Blowback should not be a difficult or surprising concept for conservatives and libertarians, since they often emphasize the unintended consequences that even the most well-intentioned domestic program can have.” The Revolution, page 19.

Lead by example; peaceful engagement: Ron Paul says the US should “lead by example rather than force.” The Revolution, page 14. Peaceful engagement includes “diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel.” The Revolution, page 10. Peaceful engagement is “the very opposite of isolationism;” “isolationists … impose sanctions and embargoes … use force overseas ... isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war.” The Revolution, page 11.


LEARN MORE

Watch:
Large collection of videos at http://wn.com/non-interventionism

Read:
The Revolution, Foreign Policy chapter, pages 9-39
Bruce Fein explaining foreign policy: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/the-myths-that-made-an-empire/



I couldn’t find a cite for this:
Ronald Reagan came to favor a more neutral policy in the aftermath of a terrorist bombing in Lebanon that killed hundreds of US Marines, saying: “[T]he irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.” (book citation here when I can find it)

 

[Slutter McGee]

They myths you guys are adressing are ones the ones that will appeal to liberal sensabilities.

Instead of the Myth being..."Ron Paul is a warmonger"
shouldnt the myth be..."Ron Paul will never go to war" because he would if we were attacked. Like he voted for afghanistan.

I here the latter a lot more from Republicans than I do the former.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Paul Fan]

I hope the two just posted will help address your concerns.

Specific comments would be welcome.

 

[Paul Fan]

Truther

You'd think this one would have been put to rest by now - but I do keep seeing it.

MYTH: Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther/Conspiracy Theorist/Sympathizer
FACT: Ron Paul has clearly stated that he does not believe the claims of the 9/11 Truthers.

Asked whether he believed in the claims of the 9/11”Truthers, Ron Paul flatly stated: “I don’t endorse anything they say” and “I don’t believe that.” (2008 South Carolina Presidential Debate, FOX, link below)

Watch:
South Carolina Presidential Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k

Read:
Transcript of relevant portion of S.C. Presidential Debate: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_ambushes_Paul_with_911_truthers_0111.html
Article noting that 9-11 Truthers are annoyed at Ron Paul for failing to support their cause: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ron-paul-is-not-a-truther/

 

[Paul Fan]

Immigration

Here’s a proposed revision for the immigration one. I can't do any more today, which is unfortunate because it might be useful to have a link countering some of the claims made recently that Dr. Paul is soft on immigration because he doesn’t support e-verify and other programs that put the burden on employers rather than the feds. Ideally a quote about the harms caused by these programs to ordinary Americans including small businesses and individuals who want to hire on a temporary basis without being criminalized. Perhaps someone else could find that?

MYTH: Ron Paul is weak on immigration and supports amnesty.

FACT: Ron Paul opposes amnesty and illegal immigration.

- He opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship
- He advocates reducing the excessive welfare spending that attracts illegal immigrants
- He supports increased border security rather than unfunded and unconstitutional mandates on states
- He supports streamlining the immigration process for legal immigrants

Amnesty and Birthright Citizenship: Ron Paul opposes amnesty, saying that “mmigrants who can’t be sent back … should not be given citizenship – no amnesty should be granted.” Liberty Defined, page 156. He also advocates the elimination of birthright citizenship, saying the US should “not grant citizenship to childen of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.” Liberty Defined, page 155.

Excessive Welfare Spending: Ron Paul believes that illegal immigration is “a consequence of our welfare state.” (On The Issues, link below) “We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. … in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn’t be a threat to us.” In the 2008 Facebook/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Debate, Paul explained further: “We haven’t talked about the economics of illegal immigration. You can’t solve this problem as long as you have a runaway welfare state & excessive spending & the wiping out of the middle class through inflation, because that’s what directs the hostility, is people are hurting. When we have all these mandates on hospitals and on schools. There’s an incentive for a lot of our people not to work, because they can get welfare. Then there’s a lot of incentive because they know they’re going to get amnesty. We gave it to the illegals in the ‘80s. Then, we put mandates on the states to compel them to have medical care. And you say, well, that’s compassionate. What happens if the hospital closes and then the people here in this country don’t get medical care? So you can’t divorce it from the economics. You’ve got to get rid of the incentives. No amnesty. No forced benefits. It just won’t work if you try to see this in a vacuum. You have to deal with it as a whole, as an economic issue as well. (On The Issues, http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm)

Increased Border Security: Ron Paul clearly understands that the federal government has a “constitutional responsibility to protect our borders.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ He says that “[a]s long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ Therefore, he says, he will “enforce border security.” Ron Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/446/ Ron Paul says that the federal government should be enforcing border security rather than infringing the Constitution and “restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

Streamlining the Immigration Process: For legal immigrants, Ron Paul supports “streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/


LEARN MORE

Watch:
Ron Paul on Immigration, segment from Stossel Interview, 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JllI9XsAjaU

Read:
Ron Paul’s full position on immigration: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/
Liberty Defined, section on immigration http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X
Article debunking the claim that Ron Paul is soft on immigration: http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/02/ron-paul-soft-on-immigration
Blog post debunking claim that Ron Paul supports amnesty and open borders: http://paulitifact.com/2011/06/10/c...n-borders-and-amnesty-for-all-illegal-aliens/
Blog post discussing other Republicans who share Ron Paul’s concerns about Arizona’s immigration law: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/marco-rubio-i-have-concerns-about-arizonas-immigration-law/

 

[ItsTime]

They myths you guys are adressing are ones the ones that will appeal to liberal sensabilities.

Instead of the Myth being..."Ron Paul is a warmonger"
shouldnt the myth be..."Ron Paul will never go to war" because he would if we were attacked. Like he voted for afghanistan.

I here the latter a lot more from Republicans than I do the former.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

This

 

[Paul Fan]

ItsTime, do posts 120 and 121 address your concerns?

Specific comments would be welcome on any drafts posted so far. Also, please suggest myths that you're seeing out there that need to be addressed, especially those raised by Republican voters.

 

[Paul Fan]

So I’ve finally tackled the “Ron Paul is crazy” one and here it is. On the theory that many people will only read the bold, I added a new section called “Ron Paul says”. The idea is to highlight a single short (2-3 lines at max) Ron Paul quote encapsulating his position and countering the myth. (Thanks to alexamason for highlighting this particular quote in her signature.) It would be good to add a Ron Paul Says section to the other myths, if anyone can make any suggestions.

MYTH: Ron Paul is a kook -- his ideas are crazy, and he’s too far to the left/right.

FACT: Ron Paul wants to change the status quo; his opposition prefers name-calling to reasoned debate.

- Ron Paul wants to shrink Big Government
- Ron Paul wants to stop nation-building and preemptive wars
- Those who profit from the warfare-welfare state use immoderate language to oppose these ideas
- Most Americans favor these reforms

RON PAUL SAYS: “I’m fascinated with your word unconventional. Isn’t it strange that we can apply that term to freedom, and liberty, and the Constitution, a balanced budget, and limited government?”

(Fox interview, Aug 29, 2011, link below)

DETAILS:

Shrink Big Government: Ron Paul says “[t]here is an alternative to national bankruptcy … and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom.” The Revolution, page x. He says “we need to rethink what the role of government ought to be. … transition our way out of a financially impossible situation gradually and with foresight, with due care for those who have been taught to rely on government assistance.” The Revolution, page 173. Specifically, he proposes that the US government give “young people the right to opt out of social security … The transition period should be funded by curtailing our overseas expenditures .… The budgets of every federal cabinet department should at the very least be immediately frozen … [and] Americans should be free, if they wish, to engage in transactions and contracts denominated in gold and silver.” The Revolution, page 172-76.

Stop Preemptive Wars: Ron Paul says it is “time to begin bringing American troops home from around the world – an absolute necessity if the budget is ever to be brought under control.” The Revolution, page 179. He explains that “Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue. But that is very different from launching a preemptive war …. A policy of overthrowing or destabilizing every regime that our government dislikes is no strategy at all, unless our goal is international chaos and domestic impoverishment.” The Revolution, page 30.

The Status Quo Opposes Ron Paul’s Ideas: Ron Paul explains attacks on him by pointing out that even “[w]ith national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both sides continue to make multi-million dollar promises of ‘free’ goods from the government, and [keep…] troops in more than 130 countries around the world … Fundamental questions [about the status quo] are off the table …. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subjected to smear campaigns that … are aimed at the political heretic.” The Revolution, page x.

Americans Favor Reform: Paul’s ideas reflect a growing trend of support in the United States. Just 17% of Americans believe that the federal government as currently structured has the “consent of the governed,” and only 14% think the government is moving along the right track. Rasmussen Reports (links below). More than two-thirds of Americans say that “thoughtful spending cuts should be considered in every program of the federal government as the nation searches for solutions to the budget crisis.” Rasmussen, link below. More than half of Americans think that states should be able to opt out of federal programs. Rasmussen, link below. On foreign policy, a full 59% of Americans now believe that the troops should come home within the year; this is a sharp increase from just 39% two years ago. Rasmussen, link below.

“Ron Paul Says” taken from: Fox News Sunday, Aug 29, 2011; video and partial transcript at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ns_go_bankrupt_let_the_liquidation_occur.html)


LEARN MORE:

Watch:
Ron Paul: The one who can beat Obama (1-minute campaign ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY
Ron Paul: Conviction (1-minute campaign ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI&feature=relmfu
Ron Paul Hour-Long Interview - thoughtful, in-depth, wide-ranging interview with editorial board of Concord Monitor: http://www.concordmonitor.com/codesnippet/video-ron-paul-editorial-board
Collection of videos featuring Ron Paul at http://ronpaulflix.com/

Read:
Ron Paul’s positions at the official campaign site: RonPaul2012.com/the-issues/
The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom, by Ron Paul http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X
Rasmussen Reports:
- 17% of Americans believe the federal government has the consent of the governed: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ay_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed
- 14% of Americans think the federal government is heading along the wrong track:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track
- 67% of Americans say spending cuts should be considered in every area of the federal government:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n_roads_and_highways_until_budget_is_balanced
- 56% to 63% of Americans say states should be able to opt out of federal programs: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...should_be_able_to_opt_out_of_federal_programs
- 59% of Americans want the troops home:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...hanistan/59_want_troops_home_from_afghanistan

 

[Patriot123]

Awesome job so far haha

I just have one suggestion that... I guess I think we need to think about. I feel as though we're beginning to just make... arguments as opposed to dispelling myths. As in we're trying to argue a political position as opposed to saying, "no, Ron Paul is actually not a racist because this this and this." Instead I feel like we're heading in the direction of, "Ron Paul is not racist, and now we're going to explain why Affirmative Action is unconstitutional, morally wrong and this and that." Is anyone following what I'm saying? I dunno', just a suggestion, I suppose, for us to keep in mind, if it's valid. I feel like we'd be more successful winning people over if we just dispel myths as opposed to arguing Paul's positions.

 

[Paul Fan]

Patriot123, I have been worried about that too.

The factual myths - eg 'Ron Paul is a truther,' 'Ron Paul is a third party candidate" - are fairly easy to dispel with just one quick fact. and video link.

The opinion myths - eg 'Ron Paul is a racist, too old, crazy, unelectable, soft on immigration, soft on China, anti-Israel, not anti-war enough/weak on defense, not a true Republican' - are much harder. If one can identify one false "fact" on which the opinion is based, then one can correct the underlying factual myth. But sometimes it is hard to know what is the underlying false fact - or there might not be a single fact, but rather the opinion is based on his disagreement with the other candidates or with the status quo. (With the racism myth is it probably the newsletters, which is why I suggested adding a brief rebuttal of the newsletters - see draft posted at post 100 and revised at post 111. Not sure about the reference to affirmative action - I don't remember seeing that.)

What are the factual myths that are out there? The drafts posted, to which I have suggested some revisions, almost all seem to deal with opinion myths. (With the exception of "wants to ban abortion and gay marriage," both of which are myths that concern liberal voters rather than Republican primary voters.)

I have been thinking that there should be one on 'Ron Paul wants to cut off Social Security and throw old people into the street,' another on "Ron Paul wants to abolish Medicare and leave the sick without care," and another on "Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs." What other factual myths are out there?

 

[Steve-in-NY]

First of all Id like to thank everyone that has put their time and effort into this. Great job.
I must admit, Paul Fans layout is nice in that I can literally pull it directly from the forums without much trouble at all. Makes things go a lot faster.

I was working on a new style that would allow both the text to expand as before, but also with the option of being able to link to a specific myth, and have that myths text automatically expanded.

Sorry Ive taken so long, but I believe I finally have a working solution. It needs a bit of "beautification", but I was able to upload a working example for your review.
You can find it here:
http://ronpaulmyths.com/test/testing.htm

Now, once you see how that works, I added the link at the bottom, which calls the contracted or hidden div that the information is stored in by name, so you should be able to simply add the div string to the end of the url to allow a link right to the myth, with the text already expanded.
Example:
http://ronpaulmyths.com/test/testing.htm?expanddiv=non-interventionist

Obviously, it would be a huge pain in the butt to look at the java script hover to figure out the div, (javascript:animatedcollapse.show('non-interventionist') so I figured Id just add a text link to it on the bottom of each link.

If this looks good and works for you guys then I can get cracking.

If the myths are all set in the thread here, I could be done as early as tomorrow.
Let me know!

Later!

 

[NiceneTruth]

Hi Steve,

First, thanks for spearheading such an awesome concept - I'm ever refueled and inspired by watching other supporters find a way to make a difference. Big kudos...

Second, I'm sure by now you've seen this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ulitics.com-New-website!!-I-can-use-your-help.

And this site:

http://www.realclearpaulitics.com/

Not sure I understand the need for double work... seems that Priest has already worked out a very nice / smooth design that would be great for Myths. Is there a reason you guys are not concerting efforts on the design side? Just wondering...

 

[Steve-in-NY]

wow that is a nice design.
I guess great minds think alike...

Well, at this point I suppose we can determine if we want to continue or not. It certainly couldnt hurt to collaborate - perhaps more sites could help each other too...

Honestly Im having fun w this site, but I admit that other design blows mine away.
Let me know what you guys want to do.

 

[NiceneTruth]

I agree... the other design is slick... That being said, your concept, content, and presentation is the heart of the matter.

I think you should just team up and go at this collectively.

 

[wstrucke]

Not sure I understand the need for double work... seems that Priest has already worked out a very nice / smooth design that would be great for Myths. Is there a reason you guys are not concerting efforts on the design side? Just wondering...

... because this one came first? Who cares how many copies there are? They should all have the best information possible. Speaking of which, I think this site needs to go live ASAP. Designs can be changed and adjusted after it's up, but every minute someone can reference it can potentially save a vote.

 

[NiceneTruth]

... because this one came first? Who cares how many copies there are? They should all have the best information possible. Speaking of which, I think this site needs to go live ASAP. Designs can be changed and adjusted after it's up, but every minute someone can reference it can potentially save a vote.

No, because Steve is working his ass of trying to make the design / presentation work and someone else has already done it rather effectively. I'm not saying to only have one site... I'm saying share what can be shared and utilize what we do best... Synergy.

 

[wstrucke]

No, because Steve is working his ass of trying to make the design / presentation work and someone else has already done it rather effectively. I'm not saying to only have one site... I'm saying share what can be shared and utilize what we do best... Synergy.

Having similar content would be useful. Having the same design and exact same content would probably reduce the impact. If every news site you visited was CNN.com, you might question the message -- even though they all say the same thing anyway.

 

[NiceneTruth]

Having similar content would be useful. Having the same design and exact same content would probably reduce the impact. If every news site you visited was CNN.com, you might question the message -- even though they all say the same thing anyway.

Good point...

Also, I think that RonPaulMyths is a much better name as well.

 

[Steve-in-NY]

the domain is awesome.
Ok then. Tomorrow it is.

... in the words of Billy O...
"f*** it, we'll do it live!"

 

[Patriot123]

Their design is fine. Honestly, though, we've put way too much work into this for someone to tell us, "hey, they all ready did it." They should have seen this thread and collaborated with us instead of jumping the gun and doing their own thing, which is just terrible for all the hard work and long hours everyone, including myself as a full-time college student have put into this. They can collaborate with us if they like; just like Paul advocates, competition and a free market. After all, from two sites the better one will surface, of course, which will benefit us all. Until then, however, we're going to push forward. I'm fine with going live tomorrow. Steve, I'm going to PM you some revisions of my own. I'll call the campaign in the next day or two, as I said I was going to.

By the way, Steve, the new design looks incredible -- it really does.