Ron Paul the Progressive

This question has plagued me for some time now:  Why would peace-loving Progressives support O-Bombs-Ya over our own peace-loving Dr. Paul?  It may strike you as no surprise that while plenty do, none of them should, and that’s based on their own political assumptions.  Okay, okay, okay, Paul is opposed to social welfare programs, disaster relief funds, Social Security, and a host of other darlings of the Left, but what about bombs?  Paul, of course, has an absolutely spotless record of opposition to American militarism around the globe.  He has never voted for a spending bill–loaded down as they all are with explosive pork–and has never once supported anything close to intervention in the affairs of other countries.  Stated simply, if ending our five+ wars is more important to you than continuing to bail out the big banks and sponsoring worthless make-work programs to boost “jobs” numbers, you should vote for Ron Paul–the anti-murder candidate!  Isn’t this a strange world where a candidate has to be sold in such a manner?  Has the presidency sunk to so low a point that the assumption becomes not that the president will avoid conflict as long as possible, but that they seek out new “preventative wars,” because some enemy might be out there waiting for us…Well, Ron Paul doesn’t spout such nonsense.  He doesn’t lie, he votes his conscience, and his conscience says murder–whether shrouded in fatigues and a flag or not–is simply wrong.  Imagine how many Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Yemeni, and Libyans souls (not to mention countless others, no doubt) would have wished for an American president like that over the past 10 years…Wait, make that about 90 years…maybe more.

This entry was posted on 22. September 2011 at 06:53 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.