The poll found that 29 percent had a “very favorable” opinion and 21 percent had a “somewhat favorable” opinion, for a total of 50 percent. Majorities in the Iowa and South Carolina [Republican Primary] polls also supported the idea. So Paul is correct on the number — but way off on the description. This was not a “national poll” that shows that a “majority of the American people believe we should have a gold standard.” Instead, it was three polls in three states, with respondents from only one party — and even among this narrow sample, it only asked those who are active enough politically to be considered likely to participate in the upcoming primary. The survey was also commissioned by a group that supports the gold standard.
I’ve been seeing these thrown around from the Ron Paul crowd, and I’ve noticed that they are… well… full of lies. Let us dissect this
bullshit little beauty, shall we?
- 1: Obama did not “force socialized medicine” on everyone. That is just an outright lie (so is saying that Mitt Romney supports “socialized medicine”). The health care act, in fact, puts MORE of the health care burden into the private market. That is quite the opposite of socialism, in fact, if you want to get mad at it for something, get mad at it for pretty much being Crony Capitalism. It is very, very far from socialized medicine. For some refernce on why it isn’t “ebil socialism,” I will refer you to a lovely article written by Howard Fineman. That doesn’t convince you, since you know this guy has to be a commie since he goes on MSNBC. Fine, take from the mouth of a real life actual socialist: OBAMACARE ISN’T SOCIALISM. Here is a lovely definition of socalized medicine:
The provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds
As you can pretty plainly see, this is not even close to applying to “Obamacare” or “Romneycare” or “Obneycare” or whatever, so stop speading the lie and formulate an attack that is actually based on reality and, you know, facts.
- 2: Obama didn’t expand our two wars into three. He sent drones into Libya under NATO control to topple a dictator (a dictator whom we had been propping up for nearly four decades) and to free a people. It took about six months. In fact, Obama has now decreased the number of wars we are in. (I refer you to War, Iraq). And before you give me the “oh but he said he would end all the wars wah wah wah Afghanistan.” Obama never promised that. He said he would refocus the war efforts to what it was originally intended for, which was getting Bin Laden. WHICH HE DID. Also, we now have an exit strategy for Afghanistan, which is way more than we had before. Again, get some facts.
- 3: “Promotes class warfare.” LOLOLOLOL GTFO. Really? If anything, he encourages class warfare by supporting Wall Street and Big Business and Corporations. “Promoting Class Warfare” isn’t making rich people pay taxes. So stop it, please. This argument is just ridiculous.
I won’t argue with Gitmo and the PATRIOT Act (though it is supposed to be in all caps, let’s not forget that nifty little acronym), because those are actually true, but if you really wanted to harp on someone for that, look to congress. It seems like the only thing they agree on is stripping our rights and liberties.
Now, I want to get to another one that has been floating around the interwebs:
- "Has a lifetime of consistent views" of hating women, gays and people of color.
- "Will bring the troops home," this makes him unelectable in Republican circles, and is already something Obama is doing.
- "Will balance the budget." Um. How exactly? Never raising taxes ever and making poor people starve to death in the cold isn’t exactly electable.
- "Will reinstate power to the states" to discriminate against women, gays and people of color. Oh boy, a state’s rights argument, that sure is different.
- "Is honest with people." Actually, no he’s not. His voting record and rhetoric clash with each other. A lot.
Michele Bachmann always calls herself a proud Minnesotan. Unless she’s stumping for her presidential campaign in the early-caucus state of Iowa. Then she’s a “seventh generation Iowan.” Actually, that’s not true either — she made up her own family history. She’s not seventh generation anything, and her ancestors actually settled in Wisconsin.
Read more about this.