My Introduction to Ron Paul Supporters

Recently, well, actually yesterday, as I was on Facebook I noticed a wall posting promoting Ron Paul. Although the posting was decidedly biased in favor of Paul, I went ahead and read the post and watched to pro-Ron Paul video that had been attached to it. Simply put, it was a nice presentation of Ron Paul talking points, most (if not all) I had read before when I did my review of him.

Now, I would like to point out that I do agree with some of Ron Paul’s views, and when I responded to the Facebook post, I indicated the same. I then went on to explain the Ron Paul policies that I did not care for, and I used my review of Paul (as well as the sources accompanying the review) as a source for my response.

Although I would dearly love to include each and every post in that Facebook debate, I cannot. The reason being, is that the Ron Paul supporter (we’ll call him “John”) has either deleted the entire discussion, or has since limited his “wall” posts to his Facebook friends only. Either way, they are now unavailable to me. That being said, however, I was able to copy all of his responses to my posts in this discussion, all but his original post, and my first two responses. Read ahead to witness someone who is so enamored with his political candidate of choice that he will eschew all rational discussion and revert to insults, mockery, and belittlement. If this is any indication of how the candidate himself thinks, then I can assure you that I would rather eat barbed wire than vote for Ron Paul. [Note, I have included those portions of the discussion that I was able retrieve verbatim. Please excuse John’s spelling and grammatical errors, as I think I upset him].


Photo of Ron Paul and “John” (face obscured for his privacy), from John’s Facebook photo album


The first post by John contained little more than Ron Paul talking points, and although it did not attack any other candidate or point of view, I still responded with my view points (as is common on Facebook), and I pointed out my disagreement with Paul’s stance that the 9/11 attacks were America’s fault, his condoning of embryonic stem cell research, and his view that should individual states choose to legalize heroin, meth, prostitution or shariah law, then that was okay by him. John’s response was:


John wrote: “@ thom: you have completely distorted dr. paul’s views – for example: 9/11 is not our “fault”, but we encourage hostility by policing the world and nation-building! they don’t hate us for our “freedom” as some simpletons would have you believe, they focus their irrational hated at us BECAUSE WE ARE IN THEIR COUNTRIES! how you would you feel if china was policing our nation? why do we not follow dr. paul by return to our conservative principles and pulling out of the UN and NATO and NOT police the world and NOT nation-build (neither of which we can afford!), and FOLLOW our Constitution by a congressional declaration of war which republicans and democrats both neglected! “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” – Ggeorge Washington “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.” – Thomas Jefferson (1823) “In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home.” – George Washington suggesting ron paul doesn’t respect the life of an unborn baby is a complete lie – you need to research dr. paul’s record before you make such accusations. che: Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research: ron paul on stem cell: as far as saying ron paul WANTS to legalize heroin, etc – it is another distortion of the truth! what dr. paul wants IS TO FOLLOW OUR CONSTITUTION and let the states regulate themselves on such matters! “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison (Father of the US Constitution and author of Federalist No. 45) how is following the advice of our founding fathers and sticking to our constitutional restrictions of the federal government the same as obama? you probably don’t think obamacare is constitutional, but then you want to grow the federal government’s regulating powers beyond the insight of our founders and cage of our constitution and strip the states of powers. can’t pick and choose when to follow the constitution when it suits you or when not to or you are just as tyrannical as the left (and right). it’s not just about dr. paul, but the constitutional platform which he defends! show me any other candidate that does so and i’ll support them as well, but there is none… i’m serious about that: i challenge you to show me which presidential candidate is as principled and defends the conservative/constitutional platform as dr. paul – i’m all ears!”


My response to this was to indicate that I had not distorted Ron Paul’s views. I merely pointed out that in Paul saying that the singular motivation behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11 was America’s presence in a foreign country was akin to saying the attacks were our fault, which is exactly what Paul is saying. We are there so they attacked us. If we were not there, they would not have attacked us. I pointed out that I had studied the koran and that the koran instructs all true muslims to attack and kill all non-muslims whether they are in their country or not, and the subjugation of all religions and all non-muslims is the goal if islam. This is what the koran teaches. I did not say that Ron Paul wanted to legalize heroin, I said (and as it was written, all John had to do was read what I wrote) that Paul’s viewpoint was if a state wanted to legalize heroin it was okay by him. He would allow that. I took that reasoning to its logical conclusion to point out that following Paul’s line of reasoning, if a state wanted to legalize crack houses, meth labs, or brothels next door to elementary schools, or if they wanted to implement shariah law in their state, then he would do nothing to stop them. I also provided a video link in which Ron Paul clearly states that as long as embryonic stem cell research does not result in an abortion of the unborn baby, then he says it is okay by him (Video Link Here). My view is that no unborn child should ever be used for experimental research. Since John challenged me to provide him with the name of another presidential candidate who is “principled and defends the conservative/constitutional platform,” I offered up my candidate of choice, Herman Cain. John’s response, as well as the remainder of our discussion – verbatim, is as follows:


John wrote: “@ thom: i don’t know how much more simple i can present the fact our intervention in other countries is the reason they dislike us. how do we know this? BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT’S WHY THEY DISLIKE US! if you think they are lying about why (for some unknown reason), listen to the insight of the Former CIA unit in charge of hunting Bin Laden, Michael Scheuer, who said: “What they hate us for is the unusually virulent strain of obsessive compulsive disorder that’s present in the American governing class, and that’s called interventionism. That’s what the cause of this war is.” … “That’s what the cause of this war is. And neither Mr. McCain, nor Mr. Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, nor any of the rest of them who are in the campaign-except Mr. (Ron) Paul…”, apparently you know more than the former CIA agent in charge of hunting bin laden… if you think they still hate us for our “freedom”, there is no reasoning with you. i do find it hypocritical of you to think we should continue to abandon conservative values by disregarding our constitution and police the world and nation-building and continue to go further into debt in the process… as far as states exercising their constitutional rights to potentially legalizing some drugs – you described this as “Following this line of Ron Paul’s reasoning” – that reasoning is the reasoning of our founding fathers and our constitutional! let’s do a quick lesson in founding father history 101 – again: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison (Father of the US Constitution and author of Federalist No. 45) so let me get this straight – if you had YOUR way, you would remove the leath of the constitution from the federal government and allow the feds to absorp state rights and assume more power… as long as you think it’s ok, but obamacare is unconstitutional. you are just as bad as democrats on ignoring our founding fathers and spitting on our constitutiion. you have NO claim to our history and to Constitutional principle. in your mind, somehow states are soooo incompetent, that they need an unconstitutional federal government to stop them from having “crack houses” next to schools. what state do you live in? how’s this – i trust my state far more than i trust an unconstitutional federal government, but apparently you think that your “opinion” is more important than the designs of our founders and our constitutiion. again, you must be a pretty smart guy… as far as stem cell research – a medical dr. (ron paul) who has the strongest pro-life record going talks about the complications of stem cell research, but your apparently hermain cain declined to sign the pro-life pledge. let’s take a further look into hermain cain’s record: Herman Cain’s political donation record ( 1. Donated to NY Democrat Rep. Jose E. Serrano – $250 on 12/23/1993 2. Donated to Nebraska Democrat Sen. Bob Kerrey – $250 on 9/3/1993 3. Donated to Nebraska Democrat Rep. Peter Hoagland (Nebraska ’s 2nd District) against Republican Jon Lynn Christensen in 1994. He gave $500 to Hoagland – but Christensen won as part of the Republican Revolution of 1994 anyway. 4. Donated to money to Democrat Ben Nelson ( Nebraska ) – $500 on 6/5/1996 and record: 1. Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts. He even wrote a column to vigorously argue in favor of the Wall Street bailout in 2008, writing: “Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem.” Cain derided opponents of the bailouts as “free market purists.” That sounds more like something Rachel Maddow would call Tea Partiers than something a true Tea Partier would use as an insult. 2. Herman Cain enthusiastically endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Herman Cain called Mitt Romney his “No. 1 choice” for president. Remember that Mitt “RINO” brought socialized medicine to Massachusetts as governor, and his “RomneyCare” legislation would eventually form the blueprint for ObamaCare, which all true Tea Partiers strongly opposed! How can a “Tea Party candidate” like Herman Cain endorse someone like Mitt Romney for president? 3. Herman Cain opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve. Actually a former chairman of the Federal Reserve bank of Kansas City, Herman Cain opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve bank and supports its continued existence and manipulation of our dollar. This isn’t even just a Tea Party issue. 80% of ALL AMERICANS want an audit of the Fed. Herman Cain doesn’t. on second thought, hermain cain’s record is clearly conservative and principled/consistent – if one was a political bisexual (and i hate to insult bisexuals with that comparison)… strange cain only got 140 votes in the Iowa Straw Poll…”


Thom Paine wrote: @John: My oh my, did I hit a nerve or something? Apparently I did. Rather than conduct a rational discussion, you resort to belittlement (“i don’t know how much more simple i can present the fact…”) and you resort the social network version of yelling (“BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT’S WHY THEY DISLIKE US!”). Then you turn to sarcastic mocking (“apparently you know more than the former CIA agent in charge of hunting bin laden”), and outright insult (“you have NO claim to our history and to Constitutional principle”). Then you return to sarcastic mocking and make a statement that would lead me to believe you are against the First Amendment right of free speech, at least when it concerns those who disagree with you (“apparently you think that your “opinion” is more important than the designs of our founders and our constitutiion.”).

You do not bother to refute the video (in the link I previously provided) in which Ron Paul states in no uncertain terms that stem cell research, as long as it does not result in abortion, is okay. Instead, you resort to sarcastic mocking once again, and then make a comment the Herman Cain declined to sign the pro-life pledge. (“you must be a pretty smart guy… as far as stem cell research – a medical dr. (ron paul) who has the strongest pro-life record going talks about the complications of stem cell research, but your apparently hermain cain declined to sign the pro-life pledge.”) Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul’s apparent condoning of embryonic stem cell research as long as it fits within certain criteria, but what has Herman Cain not signing the “pro-life pledge” have to do with anything? Did you sign it? If not, am I to assume that you are not pro-life? No, of course not as that would be a ridiculous assumption on the part of anyone who made it. And speaking of Herman Cain, your comment regarding him (“on second thought, hermain cain’s record is clearly conservative and principled/consistent – if one was a political bisexual (and i hate to insult bisexuals with that comparison)…”) is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard a Christian pastor called. I can only assume that you are not of that faith, but it is your right to follow any religious faith you choose.

With regard to state’s rights, I am simply saying that not all states are fair and just in their governing of their citizens. I know this from experience after working for a state government agency for 20 years. I do happen to believe in state’s rights and a limiting of the federal government. However, in my opinion, Ron Paul would limit the federal government to such an extent as to be largely ineffectual and in essence, leaving the individual states to do whatever they want. In doing so, it is my opinion that we have the “Independent States of America” rather than the “United States of America.” In short, I believe in Limited Government, not No Government.

Now, briefly, back to your reliance on Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA bin Laden unit. I am afraid I cannot take anything he says too seriously. No, I do not think I “know more than the former CIA agent in charge of hunting bin laden.” But I have studied the koran (it pays to know ones enemies), and I do know that the koran does instruct muslims to attack and kill non-muslims, whether they are in their country or not. As Mr. Scheuer, aside from the obvious (he did not catch bin Laden, did he? – and no, neither did Obama), Mr. Scheuer is blatantly anti-Semitic, and non-interventionist to the point of blurring the line between that and isolationism. Links are provided here to source my statements concerning Mr. Scheuer:

I am not a proponent of “empire building” and I do not believe we should be the “world’s police force.” But I do believe that U.S. intervention, in some countries and under certain conditions, is essential to our own national security.

Should you care to continue this discussion, I look forward to it. However, I will ask that you at least be civil and not resort to the tactics you have used thus far. Not only are they insulting, you are demeaning yourself by resorting to tactics generally used by those not as intelligent as I believe you to be.


John wrote back to me one last time. Not as part of the discussion, but as a private message:



  • sorry “thom”, i’m done trying to argue with someone that thinks his opinion should be forced on everyone else through legislation. you are nothing, but a naive pretend conservative that wishes to bypass our supreme law of the land (our constitution) and force through legislation your reservations – one of the most unconservative things one could do, but again you are a hermain cain supporter so you lack a conservative foundation in the first place. hermain cain doesn’t even know the difference between the declaration of independence and our constitution, so it is not surprising that you have little regard for constitutional law. i’m here to support our constitution as secure the liberties of the people as envisioned by our founders – not argue with rhino big government conservatives that are nothing more than mild democrats as hermain cain’s record indicates…


When I saw how this was going to end, I decided to use this experience as the basis for a blog post. However, when I went back to retrieve each and every part of the discussion, suddenly they were gone. When I clicked on the “notification” link, I received the This content is currently unavailable” message. I can only conclude from our discussion, that in order to be a Ron Paul supporter, one must eschew all forms of rational debate, one must abandon all opinions not in line with Paul’s views, and one must demonize all who disagree. It sounds almost like a cult.


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s