?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Still Supporting Ron Paul

Today is the Ron Paul campaign-starting Money Bomb. I already contributed. Even though many people do not take him seriously, any opportunity to get his ideas better represented in the public discourse is beneficial to the Republic. I ride the line between left and right. If the two ever should meet we would have a new middle position, different from the existing one that has sold out.

Here's where you too can give $20.12 or more to keep the debate going:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/


If I had a choice between Obama and Ron Paul I'm not sure what I would do. But I would LOVE to have that choice. I believe in foreign policy conservatism combined with social liberalism. On the domestic front I would hate to see all our social services eliminated, however I am positive that more appropriate care could be provided with considerably less waste. And there is no doubt that a great many people on the dole are quite capable of doing productive work; they just don't want to and have learned how to work a system that is slack. So as a nation we have work to do. Unfortunately the political discourse rarely touches on anything resembling reasonable... Both Ron Paul and Obama are reasonable men who are only driven to unreasonable behavior and statements by the parties and situations that corner them.

If you don't know already, Dr Paul's polling numbers show that he has the strongest support for a presidential race that he ever has had. The Republican default man is Mitt Romney the vacillator and if he gets the nomination it will be proof that the Republican party is right; the majority of American voters are clueless. Herman Cain is interesting but I can't see the Republican party picking a black man to run against a half-black man. Palin is an idiot and her popularity confirms the ignorance of a large segment of Americans. I don't know much about Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty but my source tells me they don't have a chance. I don't really follow the news much these days, I have friends who do it for me. =-]

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
ford_prefect42
Jun. 5th, 2011 09:39 pm (UTC)
@0.12 conributed to teh Paul campaign.

For me, what resonates most with Ron Paul are 2 things. 1) We simply cannot afford to keep doing this. Not the military aspects, not the social services aspects, none of it. We don't have the money.

2) The constitution is not a suggestion, it's black-letter law. the federal government was not granted the authority to do many of the things that it is doing by the constitution. If we're to have a republic, rather than a simple representative democracy, we're going to have to start giving powers back to the states.



Just to mention... Palin isn't as bad as she is frequently made out to be. Most of the things that get said of her are outright lies. Including that one.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/05/2011-06-05_sarah_palin_defends_paul_revere_comments_i_know_my_american_history.html

"Palin said her version was correct and </b> alluded to a lesser known part of the story, when Revere was captured by three British soldiers late that night and told them 500 militiamen were ready for battle.</b>"

That said, she isn't a good presidential candidate. But I enjoy watching the far left foam at the mouth whenever her name is mentioned.



I also disagree that Obama is reasonable. He does and has always struck me as the most rabid of ideologues.
liveonearth
Jun. 6th, 2011 02:21 am (UTC)
What is Obama's ideology, in a nutshell?
ford_prefect42
Jun. 6th, 2011 02:30 am (UTC)
Approximately socialist. Opponent of private property in all forms, advocate of major government expansions in all areas, major proponent of wealth redistribution, collectivist thought processes, opponent of affluence in any form.


I know that that statement won't win any friends here, but there are volumes of evidence that back up that viewpoint, and the counterpoints... Have not seemed valid to me.
liveonearth
Jun. 6th, 2011 02:39 am (UTC)
Can you give what you consider to be the top evidence supporting any of these suggestions? I'm not going to engage in confronting your statement, but I am interested in how you arrived at it.
ford_prefect42
Jun. 6th, 2011 03:38 am (UTC)
Well, the first is his appointments. Now, I know that many of his appointments have been reasonable, but many have not. The thing is: his *highly scrutinized and challengable* appointments have been reasonable, his more "rubber-stamp" and "unvetted" appointments have been *extreme*.

As examples,
Van jones, avowed communist, member of marxist organizations, etc.

Anita Dunn, who stated "Mao Is One Of My Favorite Philosophers" in a press conference... Do I need to explain the problem with this?

Carol browner, member of the Socialist party.

Elena Kagan, who's thesis was a lament on the pitfalls that socialism had experienced in the 20th century. And Sotomayors yearbook quote of the Socialist party presidential candidate.

There are others. Lots of them.

Then there's Bill Ayers, a questionable afiliation to be certain, but... it's there.

Then there's reverend wright, openly

Then there's his own statements such as "the famous "spreading the wealth", and the "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." in DFMF.

Then there's his policies, which are shockingly uniformly anti-business, redistributive, and "socialistic". The few exceptions (Bush tax cuts) have been made in the face of overwhelming opposition to his desire to do more "redistributive" things (the republicans wouldn't give him the middle class tax cuts without the higher-income tax cuts).

Then there's the fact that of *all* of his appointments, fewer have private sector experience than any president in history (which politifact challenged, but not, in my opinion, effectively).

Now, the counterpoint that I have seen is "if he were a socialist, he'd have [for example] totally eliminated private property" or things like that, but the problem is... he's a socialist *working within the framework of a constitutional republic*, so regardless of what his convictions are, there are limits to how far one president can move a fractitious and mistrustful nation. But he's certainly given it the ole' college try!


How much evidence does it take?


Now, I should mention here that I don't consider "socialist" to be... on the same scale of things as "sociopath". I consider it a wrong philosophy, much like I consider many many philosophies. But I do have to say that I consider Obama to be very very close to Marx on the political spectrum.
liveonearth
Jun. 6th, 2011 03:44 am (UTC)
Thank you.
ford_prefect42
Jun. 6th, 2011 03:47 am (UTC)
Interesting.
You're welcome.
ford_prefect42
Jun. 5th, 2011 09:40 pm (UTC)
20.12!! not 0.12!! *)%#$)*%* typos!
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

moon
liveonearth
liveonearth

Latest Month

April 2019
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars