Remember “Bush Derangement Syndrome”?

Tweet

It has returned. Only this time it’s in the GOP, and it’s now being called “Paul Derangement Syndrome.” Even though the man is consistently polling higher than anyone but Obama.. errr McCain… errr, Romney (Sorry, I was a bit confused there. They are so much alike.), there are quite a few people out there that instantly turn into rabid beasts when the man’s name is mentioned. One so-called “conservative” website has banned people for simply saying they support Ron Paul.

It is really no different than the liberals that would just foam at the mouth at the slightest mention of G.W. Bush. And let’s be honest, he and the Republicans in the House and Senate grew the government just like any good Democrat would have, but I can at least talk about him without resorting to the tired, old tactic of “He’s an idiot! And you are too, for supporting him!”

Such antics are the realm of grade school.  Yet they seemed to be on display for quite a few of Mr Bush’s most vocal critics.  And they are, again, for critics of Ron Paul.  Instead of calmly, and civilly stating their objections to the man, so that we begin the common “Point, Counterpoint” of a friendly debate, they simply start saying he’s stupid, we’re stupid, everyone is stupid. Or worse, that we hate America.

Yes, we have our disagreements, but aren’t we supposed to be on the same team? This is like football practice, where we determine who the starters are going to be. Do we pick the rich kid to be the quarterback, just because his daddy gives huge donations, or do we pick the guy who has a great arm, and can go the distance?

It seems awfully suspicious, to me, that one minute, you’re complaining that Romney is no conservative, and we should all vote for your guy, because he -is- conservative, and he can win, but when he loses to another candidate that is saying the same thing, you decide to go to Romney’s camp.  Talk about flip flop.  One minute, Romney is too liberal, too wishy washy, then after it’s shown that your chosen candidate can’t beat him, but another genuine conservative, whom you disagree with on one single point, you decide that perhaps Romney isn’t so liberal as you thought.

Do me a favor, don’t claim to be conservative, if you won’t vote for the candidate who has proven by his record, that he will not raise taxes, will always vote in favor of the Constitution, and will always err on the side of liberty, just because you disagree with him on foreign policy.

If your idea of foreign policy is “Lets bomb another country, unless of course, a Democrat suggests it first.” then you really have no credibility in my eyes. It was ok for Bush to attack Iraq, but not OK for Obama to attack Libya and Yemen, but it’s ok for our next President to attack Iran.  Yea. that’s really consistent there, Mr “Conservative.” And really, the argument of “If Iran attacks, Ron Paul won’t defend this country.”

Seriously? Is that all you’ve got? Can you point to one single time that he has said that? In fact, Ron Paul voted IN FAVOR of attacking Afghanistan, after the World Trade Center was destroyed. He just wants to do it legally, with Congress making a formal declaration of war. Not simply by Presidential fiat.

Not only that, but he ALSO put forth two great bills, immediately following that attack. He tried to make it legal for pilots to carry guns on the plane. Imagine if those hijackers had been shot by the pilots, instead being able to crash them in the first place. The other bill that Ron Paul sponsored, was a bill that would revoke, and deny visas for nations that supported terror, and from where terror suspects had come from.

Have you considered that maybe the reason that Iran wants to have a nuclear weapon is because we have yet to use force to destroy a nuclear-armed nation? It’s like a nuclear weapon is an automatic “safe zone” that we will not violate.  Perhaps that is why so many nations try to get one.

Also, consider this, perhaps Iran is doing all this posturing to GET the USA to move vessels into the Persian Gulf, whereupon they can now have several poor families sell an extra kid or two, and load up a passenger jet to fly over our carriers, in the hopes that we’ll shoot it down.

Talk about a major incident.. You can bet it would happen. If I were the commander of a naval fleet, off unfriendly waters, and had an aircraft heading towards my flagship, not answering hails, ignoring orders to veer off.. Yea. I’d probably shoot it down.

And that is the problem.  If our warships are that close to another nation, we should either already be at war with them, or we should have an agreement with that nation that allows our sailors to take R&R on their shores.

When opposing armies, or fleets, are in that sort of close proximity, something is always bound to happen.  And you can bet your bottom dollar, that no matter -how- it gets started, the other side will have “evidence” that the United States of America started it.

If you think that won’t happen, you are just plain naive. Guess what happens after that. Jihadist recruitment goes up.  Do you advocate simply killing everyone? Seriously? I hope you don’t also seriously consider yourself a Christian.

Perhaps you’ve forgotten about that commandment.. I forget.. something about not killing.. I’m not sure. Help me out here.

I hate to come as more than a little irritated. But I am. I’ve been called all sorts of vile names, by supposed “Christian Conservatives” for the last few days, and I’ve tried, sometimes unsuccessfully, to be civil in return.

“Turn the other cheek.” So simple in wording, yet so hard for this imperfect human to always accomplish.