Why are so many Southerners so pro-militarism and anti-liberty?

[Spirit of '76]

the post was longer, but apparently cut off

just so you know... I define yankee as follows:

yankee- anyone living north of San Antonio, TX

Them's fightin' words.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

Wow lots of anti-religious fervor in this thread. "yeah its because they are blind ignorant followers of their faith" and "Their churches are prisons not sanctuaries" yeesh people, i agree that it is better to mix faith and reason than to have blind faith, but these blanket generalizations seem a bit ill-founded and crude.

Not by me. I am one of those libertarians, while not religious myself (look at my signature) who thinks that religious people can and should be libertarians. If you accept that taxation is theft and one of the Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal", then you are a religious libertarian. The reason I brought of the South was that there ancestors (as well as the American Indians) were victims of the federal govt. But at the same time they are amongst the biggest cheerleaders for military interventions.

 

[quickmike]

SC is Sean Hannity country...................... Need I say more?

 

[jblosser]

Not by me. I am one of those libertarians, while not religious myself (look at my signature) who thinks that religious people can and should be libertarians. If you accept that taxation is theft and one of the Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal", then you are a religious libertarian.

Taxation is not *always* theft. You can get to taxation, even heavy taxation, via legitimate social contracts. Beyond that many "religious" types would maintain that what they own doesn't belong to them in the first place and if their Deity chooses to set up a particular form of government they need to go along with it.

I am a "religious" person and have libertarian ideas simply because a) that is the only intrepretation of the law of this country I consider legally valid, and following the law is the thing to do when it doesn't contradict something Higher, and b) I believe that man is depraved and evil and therefore while government is necessary, it needs to be limited and have checks and balances. I'd frankly prefer my particular Deity to come run things in a face-to-face manner but as long as They don't, this is what is necessary and proper given what I know/believe to be true about reality. There are consensual and/or "victimless" things which I fully believe are immoral and will have consequences, but I don't want the government policing them because the "cure" is worse than the disease. The gun should not be a tool of the church.

I have several non-theist friends who see proper government the same way because they have similar conclusions about the depraved nature of mankind, for their own reasons.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

I don't want to debate zero government versus limited government. And I understand the "Render under Caesar" concept although I don't think that justifies taxation. As far as man being depraved, I like this quote,
"If man is good you don't need government, if man is bad you don't dare have one".

 

[wecandoit]

I hate to say it, but I think it's because we are good, trusting folk, in other words easily fooled.

Of course I've never considered myself as such, I knew what Bush was doing with Iraq beforehand and pretty much predicted every bad thing that has happened since, there are always exceptions to generalations.

What most need to understand is even though trusting and perhaps easily fooled, many have been waking up for quite some time. After you have heavily invested in something, it's hard to admit you were wrong. I attend a small church just south of Little Rock, and just judging from the different times we have been lead in prayers by various members, it has gone from, help us defeat our enemies(2003) to protect our troops(2005) to help our leaders do what You would have them do (2006) To outright admissions that we are not doing what God would have us do. (2007)

We are by no means a liberal church, (church of Christ) about as conservative as it gets, and I'd estimate over 70% feel very uneasy about what has gone on with about 30% of that knowing exactly what is going on (destruction of America by evil forces from within) politics is not discussed much at all in the church building, not in sermons, only rarely in bible class. We are pretty strict about not allowing things to interfere with worship, and I'm grateful for that.

I've posted about this subject before in other threads, the Christian faithful in this country, in the south as much as anywhere, are primed to hear Ron Paul's message, they've never been more ready.

Paul's "most pressing moral issue" answer of the last debate and the other answers Paul has given that has touched on "moral" issues, we really need to get to this base of voters, it's the backbone of the country.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

Taxation is not *always* theft. You can get to taxation, even heavy taxation, via legitimate social contracts. Beyond that many "religious" types would maintain that what they own doesn't belong to them in the first place and if their Deity chooses to set up a particular form of government they need to go along with it.

I am a "religious" person and have libertarian ideas simply because a) that is the only intrepretation of the law of this country I consider legally valid, and following the law is the thing to do when it doesn't contradict something Higher, and b) I believe that man is depraved and evil and therefore while government is necessary, it needs to be limited and have checks and balances. I'd frankly prefer my particular Deity to come run things in a face-to-face manner but as long as They don't, this is what is necessary and proper given what I know/believe to be true about reality. There are consensual and/or "victimless" things which I fully believe are immoral and will have consequences, but I don't want the government policing them because the "cure" is worse than the disease. The gun should not be a tool of the church.

I have several non-theist friends who see proper government the same way because they have similar conclusions about the depraved nature of mankind, for their own reasons.

I think a better way of reaching people on the "victimless crime" issue is to talk about free will. All Christians believe (or should believe) that God has given us free will. And if the government prevents us from making the wrong choices, they are putting government before God. And in the case of drugs, I don't think the Bible mentions drug use as a sin.

 

[jacksit]

I'd agree with my fellow Texan though I'd have to shoot him for calling me a yankee.

I'm a hard-core orthodox Catholic who can Bible thump with the best of the Protestants and will argue all day with people about the merits of the Council of Trent, etc. My best friend is a fire-brand atheist. I see no contradiction there. The South in general and Texas in particular is a place where people stand for something. None of this wishy washy nonsense. And a person who stands for something, you can trust to act on principles. (Ron Paul is a good example of this). This breeds a real openness to different opinions, which I never saw in the North or West Coast.

As for why Southerners are more militaristic, the South is worth dying for. If I believed that Texas was in serious danger, I'd be out there too. I think it speaks loudly about the quality of life in the North that Southerners are more interested in avenging attacks on NYC than New Yorkers.

However, it's wrong to think of Southerners as neoconservatives. You have to remember that traditionally the south has voted democratic. Such representatives generally opposed big government but also opposed big money. The change-over didn't occur until the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it's almost entirely the result of the Democrats becoming anti-God and pro-death. Killing your unborn children for personal gain just doesn't fly with most people in the South.

 

[jblosser]

"If man is good you don't need government, if man is bad you don't dare have one".

I couldn't agree more, really, except I think some minimal type is still a necessary evil.

I'm sure we can agree the big problem is that people miss this entirely; they take it for granted (are indocrinated to think) that government is by existence a good thing and just needs to be pointed in the right direction. They don't think beyond that. This gives us religious types trying to capture government to push their agendas, social activists theirs, etc.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

As for why Southerners are more militaristic, the South is worth dying for. If I believed that Texas was in serious danger, I'd be out there too. I think it speaks loudly about the quality of life in the North that Southerners are more interested in avenging attacks on NYC than New Yorkers.

I don't consider those who defended the South as militaristic. I think one can be pro-self defense and be non-militaristic at the same time. This is the point that Ron Paul makes. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country think opposing a big military establishment is somehow unpatriotic, weak and un-American.

 

[bygone]

This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

Alright, I'm going to try to help you out a little here, even though it might not seem like it, at first. You might not like a few things I say.

This question is like asking "Why are all internet nerds more self-righteous than your average TV evangelist?" (the answer to which, is, of course, "because stupidity should be painful...) or something of this nature... It's a lack of understanding of both viewpoints.

I'm southern, been that way my entire life, I also happen to be a registered Republican, so you're talking to the horse on this one so to speak, and I'll try to explain at least part of this to you, since you (and some others here) don't seem to get it.

And please don't think I'm defending it, I'm not... that's another story. Anywho.

The person who brought up military bases is 100% correct. When you talk about less government in the southern states that message translates into "less jobs".

This is bad.

It's not just the military bases. A lot of federal programs have brought a lot of jobs, and a higher standard of living, to countless southern states and areas. So when you talk like that to a southerner you're likely to get a bad reaction.

That's just part of it, you know...


Something about southerners in general is your dealing with people (this is in general, there are exceptions) who develop long term relationships with a lot of people. They tend to count on their friends, stick to their guns, go to church on sunday, watch NASCAR, and all that. There's a lot of old beliefs and a lot of "set in your ways" type of thinking that, believe me, even the most intelligent argument will not dislodge.

That's because most of the southern populace does not base their living on intelligence. The people of the South do not live a calculated life, but rather a conservative, set in your ways, learned "trust" if you will in God, Country, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard and Cornbread. Do you start to understand what I'm saying here?

Not only that, but they tend to believe people even if these people are very questionable or even downright idiots. My wife and I were having a coversation about Rush Limbaugh the other day, and I was commenting on how he said that he has the power to determine the next republican party nominee, and a couple of other things you can find if you click around.

I'll save you some trouble.

"As WND reported May 16, Limbaugh, the most-listened-to radio host in the U.S. and America's No. 1 voice for conservatism, said he alone has the power to select the 2008 Republican nominee for president at this point, but he's avoiding promoting one candidate over another so as not to sound like a "cheerleader." "

Ok, you laugh (and so did I) but there IS some truth to this. My wife promptly said "Rush is a "The D Word". I said "Yeah, he might be. But that "D word" has 15 million people listening to him and a large majority of them BELIEVE him..."

And so you start to understand the mindset. It's not so much blind obedience as it is the willingness to believe someone who seems credible that expresses viewpoints somewhat similar but usually beneficial to thier way of life due to an inherent laziness and ultimately, the lack of caring about us blowing up the rest of the people on earth as long as God blesses the USA.

Now like I said I'm not defending this point of view, but I'm trying to explain it best that I can. Its utterly frustrating at times. But it's the way it is.

Some young people "get it". Problem is that its not and never will be received very well by most of the parents and older crowd, and sometimes its just with young people that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You know the 25% of America that still believes Bush and Congress are doing a good job? You'll find 75% of them in the south. You do the math.

Most southerners are pro-liberty... and in a lot of cases see the military as an extension of liberty, in the same selfish sense, if that makes any sense to you. It probably isn't your definition of liberty, though. Remember that the south left the union over protecting their way of life more than anything else. At least, that's what you'll believe if you're Southern...

What constituent has to say is pretty spot on, too. As far as churches go, really the Isreal subject in my experience is avoided altogether, as are a lot of other subjects.

There is a tendency in the South to simply ignore or shun certain topics, much like the MSM does about certain things. What's critical, I think, to your understanding of this, is that this doesn't only apply to the south, in some limited ways it applies to America as a whole.

Southern people are largely selfish, in many ways, except to those that they are close to, and to those they are often very generous.

What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

Like the war in Iraq. You know, CNN recently said it would take two years to pull everything out we've got there. That's probably not overestimating it by too awfully much. You're talking about moving 160,000 troops and all the crap they brought with them. That won't happen overnight, and any argument for that needs to reflect that.

Freedom is popular, non-intervention is popular enough to run on it these days I think. Some of the other points need some serious tuning before you run the serious risk of being labelled so badly that the majority, and the MSM who can help you get the majority, won't touch you.

Like the welfare state issue, and all the entitlements and all that. You know, some people depend on that system, and some of them vote. And to be perfectly honest I can't see how you'd just pull the rug right out from under them, and expect no blowback. Same for the education programs, and a lot of other good things the federal governement does. I'm NOT saying there's no bad in that, just that there IS some good, too.

I understand that Ron is a man of principle. I believe that he is. But America is sick, in so many ways, and when you deal with a patient, you must have a certain bedside manner... Does having that compromise your principles? If it does, you're not half the Doctor I think you are.

That's my opinion, and that's all it is. I hope it helps, even in some small way.

 

[jacksit]

I don't consider those who defended the South as militaristic. I think one can be pro-self defense and be non-militaristic at the same time.

I agree entirely. I think southerners are pro-self defense and not any more interested in going to war than the rest of America. However, being pro-defense, they don't see serving in the military as "bad" in the way a lot of northerners do.

 

[jblosser]

I think a better way of reaching people on the "victimless crime" issue is to talk about free will. All Christians believe (or should believe) that God has given us free will.

Er... no, some of the oldest and largest branches of Christian thought do not believe in the notion of free will, at least not as it is popularly understood. That issue is way too complicated for a forum like this, though.

I have no idea what your background is talking to Christians or other religious types, but in my experience, talking to them about the depravity of man is far and away the best way to get them to recognize that government is at best a necessary evil that needs to be limited. The easy progression is "are people basically good or bad" to "given that, why do we need government" to "but what does it mean when government itself is made of people". Most of the ones that *can* be reached respond well to this, in my experience.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[foofighter20x]

I don't want to debate zero government versus limited government. And I understand the "Render under Caesar" concept although I don't think that justifies taxation. As far as man being depraved, I like this quote,
"If man is good you don't need government, if man is bad you don't dare have one".

Yeah, but then again, the Jews and disciples of Jesus didn't get to pick their Caesar.

We, however, do get to pick. Similar context, but not the same. These followers of Christ have the choice to chuck Caesar peacefully if they don't like him.

 

[jblosser]

Yeah, but then again, the Jews and disciples of Jesus didn't get to pick their Caesar.

We, however, do get to pick. Similar context, but not the same. These followers of Christ have the choice to chuck Caesar peacefully if they don't like him.

This is an important point. I have had some luck pointing out to Christians that following the laws of this particular nation require them to take personal responsibility for their own defense and government.

 

[DAZ]

Spirit of 76, constituent, and bygone have made some excellent points. I would only add something that most people outside the South don't see. There are really two "Souths". The first is the loud and proud to be Southern, hunting, gun owning, leave me the hell alone type. More rural. Evangelical Christianity tends to be pretty big, and they are mostly raised to bleed Republican because Democrats "love killing babies" etc. The second South is the big city South like Atlanta. Especially Atlanta. The Southern identity, and even our accent, is more watered down because of the influx of people from other areas of the country, and from other countries entirely. The religious mix is vastly greater, and I think even on the Protestant side tends to be less intense. (I was raised Catholic.) Republicans are still dominant, but we have no shortage of Democrats. We are still proud, just not quite as loud. I think across the board, we are raised to be aware of a military tradition and the "duty to country" is more ingrained than in most other regions.

I think the generalization that we are pro-military is for the most part correct, for all the reasons already outlined by others. The anti-liberty part is less clear. Here, religion can play a big role in one's comprehension of things like homosexuality and abortion. Or you just might not care. But most people do want the government to get its hand out of our pockets. The biggest split is whether we want the government out of our (neighbor's) bedroom as well.

 

[Carbine556]

This is my take on it. Firstly, it has to do with religion. There are no two ways about it...

Muslims hate jews...
Jews are God's chosen people...
Muslims hate god's chosen people...
Terrorists are islamofascists (still trying to figure that one out)...
Fascist=Nazi...
Nazis murdered six million jews in World War Two...
Jew hating muslim terrorists want to murder six million of God's chosen people...
Jesus was a jew...
Muslims hate Jesus and, therefore, Christianity...
Israel is God's pet country...
Israel is surrounded by jew hating muslim terrorists that want to murder six million of God's chosen people...
We, as a Christian nation, must supply aid and support to God's pet country...*


*I, personally, do not subscribe to this train of thought.


Jobs. As said earlier. For example, if you shut down Robins Air Force base, Warner Robins, Georgia would be a ghost town. If you want to see a Southerner get hoppin' mad, threaten to close a military base in a place like that. The base was being threatened with closure when I was in high school and the entire city was protesting it.

Our country is at war, like it or not. No, I absolutely do not agree with it, but it's a fact. Southerners never have and never will back down from a fight. Southerners would rather, if I may quote General Longstreet (Tom Berringer) from the movie Gettysburg, "lose the war than admit to the mistake". Convincing Southerners that we should leave Iraq before we've won (whenever and however that's supposed to happen)? You don't have enough time in the day, and would have better luck trying to ride lightning across the sky. My mother is dead set on voting for Ron Paul. She absolutely loves him. My stepfather is a Fredhead. And the reason for that is he thinks we shouldn't "cut and run" in Iraq. I'm still working on him...

These are a couple of reasons why Southerners seem to be pro-militarism. Others have been laid out as well, and nothing that I've written should be taken as a negative comment on Southerners or Southern culture. I love my Southern people and Dixie, and I'm going right back there when I get out of the Navy.

 

[bygone]

I cannot help but think that great results would have been obtained had my views been thought better of; yet I am much inclined to accept the present condition as for the best.

James Longstreet

Others have been laid out as well, and nothing that I've written should be taken as a negative comment on Southerners or Southern culture. I love my Southern people and Dixie, and I'm going right back there when I get out of the Navy.

Carbine

Well said, Carbine. I agree with this. The fatter and older I become the more I long for a cooler climate, though. Maybe one day.

 

[Moneychanger]

Alright, I'm going to try to help you out a little here, even though it might not seem like it, at first. You might not like a few things I say.

This question is like asking "Why are all internet nerds more self-righteous than your average TV evangelist?" (the answer to which, is, of course, "because stupidity should be painful...) or something of this nature... It's a lack of understanding of both viewpoints.

I'm southern, been that way my entire life, I also happen to be a registered Republican, so you're talking to the horse on this one so to speak, and I'll try to explain at least part of this to you, since you (and some others here) don't seem to get it.

And please don't think I'm defending it, I'm not... that's another story. Anywho.

The person who brought up military bases is 100% correct. When you talk about less government in the southern states that message translates into "less jobs".

This is bad.

It's not just the military bases. A lot of federal programs have brought a lot of jobs, and a higher standard of living, to countless southern states and areas. So when you talk like that to a southerner you're likely to get a bad reaction.

That's just part of it, you know...


Something about southerners in general is your dealing with people (this is in general, there are exceptions) who develop long term relationships with a lot of people. They tend to count on their friends, stick to their guns, go to church on sunday, watch NASCAR, and all that. There's a lot of old beliefs and a lot of "set in your ways" type of thinking that, believe me, even the most intelligent argument will not dislodge.

That's because most of the southern populace does not base their living on intelligence. The people of the South do not live a calculated life, but rather a conservative, set in your ways, learned "trust" if you will in God, Country, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard and Cornbread. Do you start to understand what I'm saying here?

Not only that, but they tend to believe people even if these people are very questionable or even downright idiots. My wife and I were having a coversation about Rush Limbaugh the other day, and I was commenting on how he said that he has the power to determine the next republican party nominee, and a couple of other things you can find if you click around.

I'll save you some trouble.

"As WND reported May 16, Limbaugh, the most-listened-to radio host in the U.S. and America's No. 1 voice for conservatism, said he alone has the power to select the 2008 Republican nominee for president at this point, but he's avoiding promoting one candidate over another so as not to sound like a "cheerleader." "

Ok, you laugh (and so did I) but there IS some truth to this. My wife promptly said "Rush is a "The D Word". I said "Yeah, he might be. But that "D word" has 15 million people listening to him and a large majority of them BELIEVE him..."

And so you start to understand the mindset. It's not so much blind obedience as it is the willingness to believe someone who seems credible that expresses viewpoints somewhat similar but usually beneficial to thier way of life due to an inherent laziness and ultimately, the lack of caring about us blowing up the rest of the people on earth as long as God blesses the USA.

Now like I said I'm not defending this point of view, but I'm trying to explain it best that I can. Its utterly frustrating at times. But it's the way it is.

Some young people "get it". Problem is that its not and never will be received very well by most of the parents and older crowd, and sometimes its just with young people that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You know the 25% of America that still believes Bush and Congress are doing a good job? You'll find 75% of them in the south. You do the math.

Most southerners are pro-liberty... and in a lot of cases see the military as an extension of liberty, in the same selfish sense, if that makes any sense to you. It probably isn't your definition of liberty, though. Remember that the south left the union over protecting their way of life more than anything else. At least, that's what you'll believe if you're Southern...

What constituent has to say is pretty spot on, too. As far as churches go, really the Isreal subject in my experience is avoided altogether, as are a lot of other subjects.

There is a tendency in the South to simply ignore or shun certain topics, much like the MSM does about certain things. What's critical, I think, to your understanding of this, is that this doesn't only apply to the south, in some limited ways it applies to America as a whole.

Southern people are largely selfish, in many ways, except to those that they are close to, and to those they are often very generous.

What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

Like the war in Iraq. You know, CNN recently said it would take two years to pull everything out we've got there. That's probably not overestimating it by too awfully much. You're talking about moving 160,000 troops and all the crap they brought with them. That won't happen overnight, and any argument for that needs to reflect that.

Freedom is popular, non-intervention is popular enough to run on it these days I think. Some of the other points need some serious tuning before you run the serious risk of being labelled so badly that the majority, and the MSM who can help you get the majority, won't touch you.

Like the welfare state issue, and all the entitlements and all that. You know, some people depend on that system, and some of them vote. And to be perfectly honest I can't see how you'd just pull the rug right out from under them, and expect no blowback. Same for the education programs, and a lot of other good things the federal governement does. I'm NOT saying there's no bad in that, just that there IS some good, too.

I understand that Ron is a man of principle. I believe that he is. But America is sick, in so many ways, and when you deal with a patient, you must have a certain bedside manner... Does having that compromise your principles? If it does, you're not half the Doctor I think you are.

That's my opinion, and that's all it is. I hope it helps, even in some small way.

Just vote for Clinton or McCain and spare us your stupid rationalization for why you wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul. You want bedside manner? That's exactly what you've received from every main-stream-media politician! If you want the truth, you need to stick to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't care to coddle the masses(your "sick patient"), that's what every other candidate does. He means what he says and he says what he means. You can either accept it or ignore it. But you CAN NOT change it! That is Dr. Paul's true principle!