The Libertarian Thread

[The Senator]

I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Dark Vigilante]

Than do you pass on the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

This is essentially what Ron Paul is all about.

 

[ObakeTora]

The founding fathers had slaves.

 

[Dark Vigilante]

And they also founded this beautiful country. While slavery is terrible, back then it was a normal fact of life.

 

[The Senator]

Than do you pass on the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

This is essentially what Ron Paul is all about.

I pass on the ideas of a self-righteous libertarian whose beliefs aren't grounded in reality. Not to mention, for a libertarian, Paul is one of the biggest hypocrites in American government. Sure, he may support the legalization of marijuana and the abstention of America's involvement in foreign affairs, but he is adamantly pro-life and has spoken out in opposition of gay marriage. For someone who supports the Constitution, he's against birthright citizenship for children born to immigrants and adamantly supports the death penalty. His voting record proves that he's against giving health care to children, he flat out refuses to bestow ceremonial honors on American and international heroes, and he has no concern about how corporations treat the environment.

I find him to be insanely over-hyped, and I think his supporters are almost as ignorant as some of the people who support Barack Obama. I have no desire to read his "manifesto," nor do I have any desire to ever see him ascend to any higher office in the United States.

But I will give him one thing: For a Republican, he's better than most. But that doesn't say a hell of lot, in my opinion.

 

[ObakeTora]

And they also founded this beautiful country. While slavery is terrible, back then it was a normal fact of life.

google this city in california and tell me your opinion....

Maywood california

 

[hippie_hunter]

I pass on the ideas of a self-righteous libertarian whose beliefs aren't grounded in reality. Not to mention, for a libertarian, Paul is one of the biggest hypocrites in American government. Sure, he may support the legalization of marijuana and the abstention of America's involvement in foreign affairs, but he is adamantly pro-life and has spoken out in opposition of gay marriage. For someone who supports the Constitution, he's against birthright citizenship for children born to immigrants and adamantly supports the death penalty. His voting record proves that he's against giving health care to children, he flat out refuses to bestow ceremonial honors on American and international heroes, and he has no concern about how corporations treat the environment.

Actually Ron Paul has consistently stated that gay marriage should be up to the states and he personally doesn't give a care one way or the other. His vote for DOMA and whatnot was done in the view of states rights and that the federal government shouldn't force states to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to if one state did so.

He is adamantly pro-life but he has stated that yet again it's a state issue and that the Supreme Court overreached it's authority in telling states what to do.

As for the health care and what not, his voting record again is to state his opposition to bigger government and giving honors to people that the taxpayers have to pay for.

I find him to be insanely over-hyped, and I think his supporters are almost as ignorant as some of the people who support Barack Obama. I have no desire to read his "manifesto," nor do I have any desire to ever see him ascend to any higher office in the United States.

But I will give him one thing: For a Republican, he's better than most. But that doesn't say a hell of lot, in my opinion.

I like Paul, I don't agree with everything he says. I personally oppose DOMA and view it as unconstitutional on the basis that it violates multiple clauses in the Constitution. I also don't agree with his more isolationist views on the UN, NATO, a North American Union and whatnot. But I do agree in principal on a lot of what he has said. I support smaller government. I do think that a lot of issues should be up to the state. I feel that we do need to cut back on a lot of our foreign policy issues that come off as imperialistic. I do feel that we're spending ourselves into oblivion and it's hurting us. I do feel that we need to return to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

I voted for Ron Paul in the New York Republican Primary and I'm proud that I did.

 

[StorminNorman]

The founding fathers had slaves.

John Adams didn't.

Nor did Alexander Hamilton - though I am sure that is not one of the founding fathers Ron Paul really likes.

 

[StorminNorman]

I am certainly going to pick this up. I am not a total Paultard but I have tremendous respect for him.

My father actually has consulted for Dr. Paul during an election

 

[SuBe]

Actually, the Most important Book of our Time is the FairTax book. But thanks for trying.

 

[zenile]

How many primaries did Paul when anyways?

 

[SuBe]

How many primaries did Paul when anyways?

How many did he "when"? I Don't know, but he didn't "win" any.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Why would you want to idolize a man who calls black people “animals”? I can think of a number of books off the top of my head more important than some right-wing libertarian claptrap. Here are a few:

1. A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn (Learn how all the Founding Fathers were complete *******s)
2. Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
3. Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill
4. Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (Learn how Paris Hilton’s grandpa engaged in a bunch of legal shenanigans to get money from a charity for poor people)

I’m sure others here can add to my list.

 

[SuBe]

Why would you want to idolize a man who calls black people “animals”? I can think of a number of books off the top of my head more important than some right-wing libertarian claptrap. Here are a few:

1. A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn (Learn how all the Founding Fathers were complete *******s)
2. Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
3. Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill
4. Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (Learn how Paris Hilton’s grandpa engaged in a bunch of legal shenanigans to get money from a charity for poor people)

I’m sure others here can add to my list.

Great List, Add Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg on your list if you really want to know about the History of Fascism and how it relates to Modern Liberal Ideolouges. It's really interesting how there were Self Proclaimed Liberal Fascists in the United States in the 30's such as HG Wells and since the Fall of the Nazi Party converted the word "Fascist" to mean the complete opposite of what the original definition is.

Oh, buy the way, what is wrong with people making money, and why do you think "rich" people don't work for money? Do they not have an Profitable Idea, or a determination that warrents them to keep the money they earned? Or do you agree with Hillary that said "I'm going to Take Those Profits"? Is the money you earn not yours to keep?

By the way, I was being Sarcastic when I said your list is great.

 

[zenile]

Great List, Add Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg on your list if you really want to know about the History of Fascism and how it relates to Modern Liberal Ideolouges. It's really interesting how there were Self Proclaimed Liberal Fascists in the United States in the 30's such as HG Wells and since the Fall of the Nazi Party converted the word "Fascist" to mean the complete opposite of what the original definition is.

Oh, buy the way, what is wrong with people making money, and why do you think "rich" people don't work for money? Do they not have an Profitable Idea, or a determination that warrents them to keep the money they earned? Or do you agree with Hillary that said "I'm going to Take Those Profits"? Is the money you earn not yours to keep?

By the way, I was being Sarcastic when I said your list is great.

Back at you big boy...how much are you offering to pay for this

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Great List, Add Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg on your list if you really want to know about the History of Fascism and how it relates to Modern Liberal Ideolouges. It's really interesting how there were Self Proclaimed Liberal Fascists in the United States in the 30's such as HG Wells and since the Fall of the Nazi Party converted the word "Fascist" to mean the complete opposite of what the original definition is.

Oh, buy the way, what is wrong with people making money, and why do you think "rich" people don't work for money? Do they not have an Profitable Idea, or a determination that warrents them to keep the money they earned? Or do you agree with Hillary that said "I'm going to Take Those Profits"? Is the money you earn not yours to keep?

By the way, I was being Sarcastic when I said your list is great.

Chomsky, Zinn, and Herman can't be accurately described as being "liberals." Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist (such a persuasion is referred to simply as being "libertarian" in all other places in the world as it is only in the United States that the dogma that markets equal freedom reigns with little challenge; Dejacque, the first person to call himself a "libertarian," was actually an anarcho-communist). Zinn and Herman are of a similar, if not exactly the same, political outlook. David Cay Johnston is actually a right-wing libertarian, but what he says in his book is important for everybody. There are some people with money who worked hard; I don't doubt that, but Paris Hilton's grandpa really did take money from a charity for the destitute, and a lot of other rich people have used their power for their own illicit gains. Look it up. Being a right-winger yourself, you should be concerned by how people dishonestly game loopholes in our market system to get an unfair advantage over others with whom they're competing.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Chomsky, Zinn, and Herman can't be accurately described as being "liberals." Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist (such a persuasion is referred to simply as being "libertarian" in all other places in the world as it is only in the United States that the dogma that markets equal freedom reigns with little challenge; Dejacque, the first person to call himself a "libertarian," was actually an anarcho-communist). Zinn and Herman are of a similar, if not exactly the same, political outlook. David Cay Johnston is actually a right-wing libertarian, but what he says in his book is important for everybody. There are some people with money who worked hard; I don't doubt that, but Paris Hilton's grandpa really did take money from a charity for the destitute, and a lot of other rich people have used their power for their own illicit gains. Look it up. Being a right-winger yourself, you should be concerned by how people dishonestly game loopholes in our market system to get an unfair advantage over others with whom they're competing.

Actually, Johnston can't really be described as a right-wing libertarian because he wants single-payer healthcare. Sorry about that. He's not as radical as Chomsky and the others though. Probably more a centrist from what I gather.

 

[Dark Vigilante]

I pass on the ideas of a self-righteous libertarian Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a Republican. His views and ideas are much more in line with the traditional values of the Republican Party, not the neo-con fascists we have today. Also, he will be the first to admit that is role-to-play in the coming Revolution is miniscule, that it is about much more than just him and his "self-righteousness".whose beliefs aren't grounded in reality. His beliefs are based in a reality that made this country what it is today. He believes in the Constitution, and the sound principles of our Founding Fathers Not to mention, for a libertarian He's not a libertarian. Study the original Jeffersonian Republican party and you will see why. , Paul is one of the biggest hypocrites in American government. Uh...what? He has the most consistent voting record in Congress. Voting consistently Constitutional and conservative does not sound like hypocrisy. Sure, he may support the legalization of marijuana and the abstention of America's involvement in foreign affairs, but he is adamantly pro-life The abortion issue is not something that will destroy our country. Our foreign and economic policies will. These are much more pressing issues. And from his perspective, an infant, whether in the womb or not, is an individual, and therefore he believes that they are to be protected as any other. Do I agree 100%? No. But this is no grounds to call him a hypocrite. He also acknowledges that if this is the will of the people, then it is. He firmly dislikes abortion, but he firmly believes in the people to decide if they do or not on a state-level. It is not a decision to be made by the Federal government.and has spoken out in opposition of gay marriage. He has also spoken out a Constitutional amendment banning it. He more accurately believes that the issue of gay marriage should be a state issue only, not a federal one. And once again, the issue of gay marriage does not pose an imminent threat to the future prosperity and even existence of our country. These issues (gay marriage, abortion, et al.) while important, are mere distractions leading Americans astray from the more pressing and drastic problems of the day. For someone who supports the Constitution, he's against birthright citizenship If the infant's parents are not legal citizens of the United States and are here illegally, then why should they receive the same benefits you and I have? This is a narrow comment. for children born to immigrants Illegal immigrants. and adamantly supports the death penalty He in fact, does not support the death penalty. I will quote from his book: "I have dropped my support for the federal death penalty. It is a dangerous power for the federal government to have and it is exercised in a discriminatory way: if you are poor and black, you are much more likely to receive this punishment." His voting record proves that he's against giving health care to children This is an empty, flat out silly platitude. Comments like these are designed to attack character, not differences in issue. He supports health care to children you dolt. He doesn't support the Federal government giving it to them. If you think waiting in line in an emergency room or getting approval is bad now, just wait until we have "universal healthcare". The standards of care will go down, and our health-care system will flat line. Comments like these are ignorant. Ron Paul has been delivering babies for over 40 years. He obviously hates children right? he flat out refuses to bestow ceremonial honors on American and international heroes Most honors that are paid for with our money., and he has no concern about how corporations treat the environment Another empty comment. Just because he doesn't want the government regulating this doesn’t mean he flat out does not care. Tell me what sort of regulations the EPA has enact or what steps we've taken today with many Federal organizations designated in regulating corporate treatment of the environment? Are they effective? The real answer is with the free-market. With the price of oil rapidly increasing, corporations will eventually switch to green sources of energy. Not because the government is forcing them to, but because it is a more efficient business decision.

I find him to be insanely over-hyped, and I think his supporters are almost as ignorant I would certainly call Ron Paul's followers ignorant. I would also say the same thing about the American Revolutionaries. After all, if they were alive today, they would be saying the same thing.as some of the people who support Barack Obama. I have no desire to read his "manifesto," That’s a shame. It may educate you.nor do I have any desire to ever see him ascend to any higher office in the United States. He probably won't. But his followers will. The message of liberty is a popular one, and it is with it that this country will be great again.

But I will give him one thing: For a Republican, he's better than most. But that doesn't say a hell of lot, in my opinion.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man. Brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

-Mark Twain

 

[Kelly]

touche'

 

[Superhobo]

I know that quote from Twain at the end of your post was supposed to have a positive effect, but it just made me laugh. If there's a change or a revolution to be had, it's not going to be from Ron Paul.

 

[The Senator]

1) I was at a Ron Paul rally where he referred to himself as a libertarian. Moreover, his voting record and personal philosophies reflect the ideology of modern-day libertarians, so while he may, in theory, be a Republican first and foremost, he is also a hardcore libertarian.

2) His beliefs aren't grounded in reality. Do you think we can get rid of the Federal Reserve and the half the government bureaucracies over night? It just isn't possible. These things take time, and I personally oppose the elimination of both the Fed and executive branch agencies such as the Department of Education.

3) Regardless of whether you consider issues such as abortion or gay marriage to be important or relevant issues, I consider both issues to be extremely important. A woman deserves a right to privacy, as well as her right to make her own decisions in regards to her unborn child. I deserve the individual liberty to marry whoever I want to without the government interfering. Everyone deserves the same rights of marriage. It shouldn't be up to one state government or the people of a particular state to decide who gets to marry whom. This is an issue of personal liberty, it isn't deciding whether one should have access to guns or if property taxes should be increased. So while he may oppose an amendment banning gay marriage, he is not opposed to state legislation or referendums which would ban the practice, and as far as I'm concerned that is hypocritical-- especially for someone who has emphasized the importance of personal liberty.

4) This isn't a debate about "illegal immigration." It's a debate about the constitution and constitutional freedoms. And for someone who wants to uphold the constitution, I find it a true reflection of hypocrisy for him to be so adamantly opposed to the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Basically, he picks and chooses which amendments he wants to support, which doesn't really represent the mindset of a strict constitutional constructionist.

5) Well, I'm glad he's changed his mind about the death penalty then.

6) No, it's not an empty platitude. The fact is, he voted against expanding SCHIP to cover all children. That means he's against giving health care to children. If he supported giving health care to children, then he would have voted for it. It's really as simple as that. I don't care if he was a doctor or delivers babies on a regular basis. That's a moot point when you consider his voting record.

7) How much of our money goes to forge the Congressional Medal of Freedom? Why is he opposed to honoring such great, historical figures as Rosa Parks?

8) He thinks that private entities should be able to do whatever they want to on their own property, and believes that carbon-based emissions-- even though they enter the atmosphere and are spread across the United States-- are an exercise of that corporation's right to do whatever it pleases in regards to its property. The EPA is an ineffective agency at this point, and I agree, corporations will start switching to "greener" sources of energy. But I am opposed to anyone who thinks its fine and dandy to release plumes of toxic, destructive emissions into our atmosphere. These emissions not only harm the environment, they harm the health of those who live around these many factories and industrial plants. These missions interfere with my personal right to life, especially if they are having adverse affects on my health.

9) I find it hard to take anyone who compares a modern-day politician to the Founding Fathers seriously.

10) I have no desire to be "educated" by biased, one-sided nonsense which I will ultimately disagree with when all is said and done. I've been to two Paul rallies when he was running for President-- that's all I need to get more than an adequate dose of his personal "manifesto."

11) If Ron Paul was going to have an effect on this country, his followers would have seen to it that he was elected the Republican nominee for President. He was the third-highest fundraiser of the Republicans before the primaries, yet the best he could do was tie for second place in Nevada (before Romney and Huckabee dropped out). The time for the Paul Revolution has passed, unfortunately. No one will be able to represent the values of modern-day libertarian-republicanism like Paul, especially as he made these values his own.

 

[Dark Vigilante]

I know that quote from Twain at the end of your post was supposed to have a positive effect, but it just made me laugh. If there's a change or a revolution to be had, it's not going to be from Ron Paul.

Really? Ron Paul's book debuted this week as the number one New York Times Bestseller List. In the book, he calls for revolution. He's raised more money online than any other candidate. He gets more donations from active military members than any other candidate. Now while he will not be the "source" of the Revolution, he will be one of the influences upon it, much like Thomas Paine and his Common Sense.

 

[The Senator]

Really? Ron Paul's book debuted this week as the number one New York Times Bestseller List. In the book, he calls for revolution. He's raised more money online than any other candidate. He gets more donations from active military members than any other candidate. Now while he will not be the "source" of the Revolution, he will be one of the influences upon it, much like Thomas Paine and his Common Sense.

"The Yiddish Policemen's Union" debuted at number one on the New York Times Bestseller List. Does that mean Alaska is going to become a Jewish colony?

 

[Dark Vigilante]

1) I was at a Ron Paul rally where he referred to himself as a libertarian. Moreover, his voting record and personal philosophies reflect the ideology of modern-day libertarians, so while he may, in theory, be a Republican first and foremost, he is also a hardcore libertarian.

While it is true that many of his philosophies fit the ideology of libertarianism, they more accurately fit the ideology of the original Jeffersonian Republican party. I would argue that he is more of a Republican than most modern-day Republicans.

2) His beliefs aren't grounded in reality. Do you think we can get rid of the Federal Reserve and the half the government bureaucracies over night? It just isn't possible. These things take time, and I personally oppose the elimination of both the Fed and executive branch agencies such as the Department of Education.

His ideas are grounded in reality. Do you think we can continue to pay for the inflation of the Federal Reserve and half of the needless government bureaucracies that our contributing to our $9 trillion dollar deficit? The answer is no, and your foolish if you believe otherwise. And he never says that it can or will be done overnight. Obviously, it would take some time. But it is the only option if we wish to salvage the economy of our country. You must not know how the Fed works if you oppose it's abolition. The Fed is a parasitic organization that exists only to benefit the rich international bankers that operate it. The dollar is backed up by nothing. These meaningless pieces of paper are loaned to the U.S. government at interest. That means for every dollar loaned, the government, and therefore the American taxpayers, are in debt to the Fed for one dollar plus extra debt in the form of the interest that goes to the bankers. But in order to pay back this extra interest-debt, we loan out more money from the Fed, which has it's own interest attached, which generates more debt. This means perpetual inflation and devaluation of the U.S. dollar only so the bankers can continue to earn mass profits. I hope you'll reconsider. As for the Department of Education, have they done what you would consider a "good job" in making children in the United States any smarter? I would in fact argue that they have done the opposite. Education as been wholesaled into a grooming system for a child's transformation into essentially nothing more than a drone in a country devoted to the corporate system of slavery we willingly allow ourselves to be a part of. Education is equivalent to getting a job. Quite shallow. And besides just that, it is becoming more and more focused on passing tests and exams as opposed to actually learning anything of value. The Department of Education is a harmful institution if not just a needless one.

3) Regardless of whether you consider issues such as abortion or gay marriage to be important or relevant issues, I consider both issues to be extremely important. A woman deserves a right to privacy, as well as her right to make her own decisions in regards to her unborn child. I deserve the individual liberty to marry whoever I want to without the government interfering. Everyone deserves the same rights of marriage. It shouldn't be up to one state government or the people of a particular state to decide who gets to marry whom. This is an issue of personal liberty, it isn't deciding whether one should have access to guns or if property taxes should be increased. So while he may oppose an amendment banning gay marriage, he is not opposed to state legislation or referendums which would ban the practice, and as far as I'm concerned that is hypocritical-- especially for someone who has emphasized the importance of personal liberty.

First of all, I did not say abortion and gay marriage are unimportant issues. I said their importance dwarf in comparison to our foreign and economic policies, which can and will bring inevitable doom. But the mainstream media detracts from your ability to think critically of these far more important issues and has you focus on abortion and gay marriage instead. Why? Because if most people understood the real issues and what must be done to correct them, the people who lurk in the shadows that run both the media and the government would have quite a lot to lose. That’s why gay marriage and abortion are issues far more important to most Americans. It is a mere distraction from what's truly pressing. Now if we must discuss these things: it is my belief, and Ron Paul's, that the Federal government should have no say in either abortion or gay marriage. These are social issues that the Founders never wanted the Federal government to control. Now the Supreme Court dictates issues of social importance to us. These are issues that are state issues. That is more constitutional, and that is more democratic as the people will have a louder voice in the matters and decisions that directly affects them. I'm not sure where Ron Paul stands on this, but the issue of marriage is essentially a religious one. I agree that a gay couple should have the same rights as a straight couple. However, whether or not it is called a "marriage" is not the government's decision to make. It is the church’s.

4) This isn't a debate about "illegal immigration." It's a debate about the constitution and constitutional freedoms. And for someone who wants to uphold the constitution, I find it a true reflection of hypocrisy for him to be so adamantly opposed to the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Basically, he picks and chooses which amendments he wants to support, which doesn't really represent the mindset of a strict constitutional constructionist.

But it is a debate about illegal immigration. You say Ron Paul opposes birthright citizenship as if American children will lose their citizenship. Ron Paul opposes the birthright citizenship of infants that are born of ILLEGAL immigrants. It is not right that we have to pay for the children of people here illegally. They are not citizens. If they wish to become so, they should go through the proper channels to get there. Then their children can be considered citizens. Allowing the children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship is essentially a reward for the illegal actions of their parents. A reward our money will pay for, and as we can see, spreading money the way we do is unhealthy.

5) Well, I'm glad he's changed his mind about the death penalty then.

6) No, it's not an empty platitude. The fact is, he voted against expanding SCHIP to cover all children. That means he's against giving health care to children. If he supported giving health care to children, then he would have voted for it. It's really as simple as that. I don't care if he was a doctor or delivers babies on a regular basis. That's a moot point when you consider his voting record.

Again, this is an issue concerning more centralization of power to the Federal government. He is not against giving health care to children. He is against giving Federal health care to children, as the quality of that health care will be sub-par, and it will in fact drain more precious money out of our wounded economy. There are alternatives, and they should be done on the state level. I can't understand why people don't realize that the more power you give to a Federal government; the more and more you are working against yourself. It makes the central government more powerful, and history has taught us that there may be nothing more dangerous than a strong central government. Did I mention we can't afford measures like these? That sounds cold, but it's the truth. In the end, these programs won't exist anyways because we will bankrupt ourselves in trying to pay for them.

7) How much of our money goes to forge the Congressional Medal of Freedom? Why is he opposed to honoring such great, historical figures as Rosa Parks?

Because it is not the duty of the Federal government to honor these people. This again, gives more power to the Federal government. If the Feds decide who should and shouldn't be "honored" in our country, you’re simply asking for propaganda in the long run. And it is a needless expense.

8) He thinks that private entities should be able to do whatever they want to on their own property, and believes that carbon-based emissions-- even though they enter the atmosphere and are spread across the United States-- are an exercise of that corporation's right to do whatever it pleases in regards to its property. The EPA is an ineffective agency at this point, and I agree, corporations will start switching to "greener" sources of energy. But I am opposed to anyone who thinks its fine and dandy to release plumes of toxic, destructive emissions into our atmosphere. These emissions not only harm the environment, they harm the health of those who live around these many factories and industrial plants. These missions interfere with my personal right to life, especially if they are having adverse affects on my health.

And he is right invariably. It is their property, and it is their right. This does not mean that Ron Paul supports pollution. This point is simply ignorant and is what would be called a "fallacy" in logical reasoning. He advocates and believes firmly in the abilities of the free market, and it is in the free market that a switch to green energy will fix this problem. You said it yourself.

9) I find it hard to take anyone who compares a modern-day politician to the Founding Fathers seriously.

Ron Paul is by no means even comparable to anyone in Washington DC today. His nickname in Congress is Dr. No. It is quite apparent from his voting record that he doesn't vote based on popularity. He votes for what he truly believes is right. That is why he is in fact very similar to our Founding Fathers.

10) I have no desire to be "educated" by biased, one-sided nonsense which I will ultimately disagree with when all is said and done. I've been to two Paul rallies when he was running for President-- that's all I need to get more than an adequate dose of his personal "manifesto."

I hate to break it to you, but everything you will learn from these days is "biased, one-sided nonsense", especially if you watch TV. Now if Ron Paul isn't your choice, then he isn't. It is Ron Paul's ideas you should look into further. I would suggest at least going to the library and picking up this book to find out for sure if you think he's wrong.

11) If Ron Paul was going to have an effect on this country, his followers would have seen to it that he was elected the Republican nominee for President. He was the third-highest fundraiser of the Republicans before the primaries, yet the best he could do was tie for second place in Nevada (before Romney and Huckabee dropped out). The time for the Paul Revolution has passed, unfortunately. No one will be able to represent the values of modern-day libertarian-republicanism like Paul, especially as he made these values his own.

His followers would've seen to it that he was elected the Republican nominee if the mainstream media hadn't convinced most Americans that he's crazy. It is interesting that even after tying for second in Nevada while Romney and Huckabee were in the race, the media spent more time talking about every other candidate, even the losers, than they did Paul. It was almost as if Ron Paul didn't even run in the Nevada primary. Don't you see what’s going on? Indeed he did raise a lot of money, and he wasn't successful because no matter how much money or even popular support one has, if they are a threat to the powers that be, they will use their control of the media to paint you in a negative light. And it is unfortunate that you believe that the time for a "Paul Revolution" has passed and it's upsetting that you think it would be just a Ron Paul revolution. Ron Paul has been an influence. If there is to be a revolution, it will be a revolution of the people.

I'm curious; whom are you planning on voting for?

 

[The Senator]

I'm curious; whom are you planning on voting for?

Captain Jon Powers for the New York 26th Congressional District election.