"The Civil War could have easily been avoided. The South even attempted to negotiate a peace over slavery with an end-date in the mix. The Whigs (which were disbanded and replaced by the Republican party in 1856) had always wanted to subdue the South because the South balked over the Internal Improvements Policy (contemporary pork)and the South was chomping at the bit over the high tarrifs being levied on their products.
The South was willing to fight over these two major issues and some smaller ones but the Whigs/Republicans/Lincoln worked very hard to keep slavery in the mix and they had some media spin-doctors who worked it much like our present administration. Lincoln could have easily ordered the closing of all military contingents in the seceded South which he did for the most part. But he kept Fort Sumter and a couple of others open to use as a powder keg to ignite military interaction between the North and South.
The South accommodated him by attacking resupply efforts to Sumter and later the fort itself. Without a hint of a doubt the Civil War and all the mayhem could have been avoided. Good job Ron Paul if you did, in fact, say this. The majority of the U.S. is obviously not well enough read to have properly analyzed the situation and prefer to remain stump-minded over it."
-Jim Jones, http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/37#comments
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
So Lincoln was a racist..
So Lincoln was a little racist, how 'bout that? So the Civil War wasn't just about slavery?
Lincoln-Douglas debates
Charleston, September 18, 1858
And I quote:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.
Lincoln-Douglas debates
Charleston, September 18, 1858
And I quote:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.
A vote for Ron Paul is...
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for..
an end to endless preemptive war.
protecting our borders.
an end to foreign aggression.
lower taxes and smaller government.
a president who honors his oath of office.
no unreasonable search and seizures.
an end to torture, both on citizens and foreigners.
an end to unreasonable spying, both on citizens and foreigners.
a restitution of habeas corpus, both on citizens and foreigners.
a sound currency.
openness on issues that all other candidates avoid.
honest politics.
an end to unregulated spending.
an end to a dynasty.
returning to the Constitution.
adhering to the advice of our founding fathers.
an end to a fifty year Korean occupation.
an end to borrowing from Chinese and other governments.
an end to monetary aide to Israel and other Middle East governments.
the ability to dissent, peaceably assemble, voice our opinions, and have due justice of law.
an end to Blackwater who is not held accountable to any laws.
an end to many bureaucratic policies that end up tying up money instead of using it.
an end to federal regulations that prohibit states from stricter environmental laws.
responsibility of government.
an end to secret prisons.
an end to spending 10 times more on military efforts then any other country.
an end to the United States being a threat to all other countries.
the beginning of a belief that the people can change things in this country.
Congress passing veto proof bills - a toned down, better Congress.
competing currencies - not backed by debt but by gold, stopping inflation.
policies ratified by Congress, not ignoring Congress.
If it is nothing more then a protest vote, then so be it. It is time for a change.
an end to endless preemptive war.
protecting our borders.
an end to foreign aggression.
lower taxes and smaller government.
a president who honors his oath of office.
no unreasonable search and seizures.
an end to torture, both on citizens and foreigners.
an end to unreasonable spying, both on citizens and foreigners.
a restitution of habeas corpus, both on citizens and foreigners.
a sound currency.
openness on issues that all other candidates avoid.
honest politics.
an end to unregulated spending.
an end to a dynasty.
returning to the Constitution.
adhering to the advice of our founding fathers.
an end to a fifty year Korean occupation.
an end to borrowing from Chinese and other governments.
an end to monetary aide to Israel and other Middle East governments.
the ability to dissent, peaceably assemble, voice our opinions, and have due justice of law.
an end to Blackwater who is not held accountable to any laws.
an end to many bureaucratic policies that end up tying up money instead of using it.
an end to federal regulations that prohibit states from stricter environmental laws.
responsibility of government.
an end to secret prisons.
an end to spending 10 times more on military efforts then any other country.
an end to the United States being a threat to all other countries.
the beginning of a belief that the people can change things in this country.
Congress passing veto proof bills - a toned down, better Congress.
competing currencies - not backed by debt but by gold, stopping inflation.
policies ratified by Congress, not ignoring Congress.
If it is nothing more then a protest vote, then so be it. It is time for a change.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Ron Paul on Meet the Press
I'm afraid to say it, but Ron Paul got badly burned by this one. It isn't because his positions are bad, but they sound incredibly terrible if you're only given a couple seconds to answer. Mostly, the interview consisted of difficult accusations against Ron Paul followed by interjections just moments later - hardly time to explain anything substantial.
Here's some quotes from digg.com about the interview:
Hypomaniac on how badly he did:
Millions of average Americans who haven't been paying attention or reading deeply into Ron Paul's philosophies and nuanced positions just heard him say he'd vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (explaining with a convoluted confusing blurb on property rights), he characterized Abraham Lincoln as an aggressive war-monger (drifting into what could be spun as either a genius or ridiculous gaffe about buying all the slaves to free them... ignoring the fact that the American South wasn't like Britain. The South would have put up a fight against that), and that he's a hypocrite with earmarks. Russert filleted him and it was painful to watch. Paul seemed unprepared for the barrage and he should have seen all these things coming. He should have known Russert would pull gotcha questions on race and voting record, because that's where the friction of his libertarian philosophy is in the context of modern American politics.
Eryximachus on why the Civil Rights act was bad:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a violation of property rights, and the right of free association. It is immoral for the government to discriminate against its open people, but it was quite another thing to say that individual citizens can't and shouldn't discriminate against those with whom they associate. Ultimately, the law was a failure and it directly created the ghetto in which blacks now find themselves.
White flight was never an issue before that law - but as soon as it was passed, people just left the cities in droves, and the companies who could hire blacks just left with them. In the end, blacks today are far worse off than they ever were in 1964. Literacy rates are way down, the percentage of the population in prison is way up, and the vast social programs that were created to help black people have done nothing but bring generations of misery (Come to a NYC public housing project someday) Let's not forget that unemployment amongst black men is much greater than it was in the post-war boom days.
The only reason you don't see more hoopla over the act is other minorities discriminate against blacks far, far more than whites do. Only white people are willing to move en masse to black neighborhoods today, and you should see how Hispanics and orientals treat them in their stores in the ghetto. Yeah, there is a reason blacks love to riot against Koreans. The government will never, ever try to suggest that racism in the US is mostly everyone else against the black man, because it contradicts everything modern liberalism stands for.
I think you don't understand the difference between the 1964 civil rights act and the 1957 civil rights act. They are decidedly different laws, despite the fact they were both put forward by Republicans.
Rolf on his political earmarks:
He's not a hypocrite with earmarks. He's against the system. However, the people in his district pay federal taxes and while the system is in place (both the earmarks and income tax system) -- he won't feel bad trying to get it back in ways.
Moreover, he simply passes on the earmarks the people in his district ask for (no political favors, everyone gets a fair shot). AFAIK, the committees select which earmarks gets into the bills. Earmarks takes money that's already budgeted and marks it for something specific, in this case it does not increase the money appropriated for spending but merely directs it (instead of the executive branch).
Ron Paul, considering the whole spending in the bill unconstitutional, votes against it. If the others in Congress followed his example, the bill would not pass. He is also one of the few congress critters that voluntarily releases his earmarks (and fully releases all of them). He is practicing as he preaches -- transparency in government. Why don't the other senators/representatives release the earmarks they submitted?
The problem is, as with many criticisms of RP is that the answers are nuanced and take time to explain. Often, that is how the world works, but in our 5 second soundbite culture..... it's hard to do that.
Stealthc on civil rights and property:
Privately owned businesses on private property do NOT have to follow the Constitution. The Constitution is a document restraining the federal government. America is a nation of sovereign citizens. You're king in your own castle, so long as you do not harm others.
As for the private property thing, it is a violation of your rights for someone in government to force you to accept guests you do not want. If you get to discriminate who comes into your house, you get to discriminate who comes into your business. The Civil Rights movement was a good thing, and what MLK was doing was fantastic, with all the non-violent resistance of stupid race-based rules. That's the kind of thing that can change the culture, which is what you really have to do first. By forcing business owners to hire people based on race quotas, and forcing them to accept business from certain people based on race, only increases racial tension and reinforces the lines between racial groups. Government should be treating all individuals as individuals, instead of granting privileges, penalties or welfare based on race.
Theodorelogan on Paul being hypocritical:
What is hypocritical about opposing the government taking your money, but working to at least get some of it back?
I seriously do not get this argument. Same with term limits. Great, all the good congressmen who want term limits should leave congress, and leave it to the power hungry scumbags who oppose term limits?
theroc on Paul being hypocritical:
how does spending money in his district make him a hypocrite? it doesnt cost the taxpayer more, it simply transfers the money from the federal level to his congressional district, it does not increase spending.
Xang on how the interview went:
This interview was hardly as grim as some make it out to be. Russert was tough on Paul, perhaps moreso than the other candidates, but Paul's following doesn't hinge on how the major news outlets portray him. It never has. The interesting thing about Paul's campaign is that most of his support came independantly and spontaneously. These folks continue to perpetuate Ron Paul's message and it's still growing. The majority of his donors so far this week are first timers.
So, I think Paul did fairly well considering Russert's rapid fire attack. He could've been more prepared but many of Paul's positions are nuanced and there wasn't exactly lots of time to expound.
Here's some quotes from digg.com about the interview:
Hypomaniac on how badly he did:
Millions of average Americans who haven't been paying attention or reading deeply into Ron Paul's philosophies and nuanced positions just heard him say he'd vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (explaining with a convoluted confusing blurb on property rights), he characterized Abraham Lincoln as an aggressive war-monger (drifting into what could be spun as either a genius or ridiculous gaffe about buying all the slaves to free them... ignoring the fact that the American South wasn't like Britain. The South would have put up a fight against that), and that he's a hypocrite with earmarks. Russert filleted him and it was painful to watch. Paul seemed unprepared for the barrage and he should have seen all these things coming. He should have known Russert would pull gotcha questions on race and voting record, because that's where the friction of his libertarian philosophy is in the context of modern American politics.
Eryximachus on why the Civil Rights act was bad:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a violation of property rights, and the right of free association. It is immoral for the government to discriminate against its open people, but it was quite another thing to say that individual citizens can't and shouldn't discriminate against those with whom they associate. Ultimately, the law was a failure and it directly created the ghetto in which blacks now find themselves.
White flight was never an issue before that law - but as soon as it was passed, people just left the cities in droves, and the companies who could hire blacks just left with them. In the end, blacks today are far worse off than they ever were in 1964. Literacy rates are way down, the percentage of the population in prison is way up, and the vast social programs that were created to help black people have done nothing but bring generations of misery (Come to a NYC public housing project someday) Let's not forget that unemployment amongst black men is much greater than it was in the post-war boom days.
The only reason you don't see more hoopla over the act is other minorities discriminate against blacks far, far more than whites do. Only white people are willing to move en masse to black neighborhoods today, and you should see how Hispanics and orientals treat them in their stores in the ghetto. Yeah, there is a reason blacks love to riot against Koreans. The government will never, ever try to suggest that racism in the US is mostly everyone else against the black man, because it contradicts everything modern liberalism stands for.
I think you don't understand the difference between the 1964 civil rights act and the 1957 civil rights act. They are decidedly different laws, despite the fact they were both put forward by Republicans.
Rolf on his political earmarks:
He's not a hypocrite with earmarks. He's against the system. However, the people in his district pay federal taxes and while the system is in place (both the earmarks and income tax system) -- he won't feel bad trying to get it back in ways.
Moreover, he simply passes on the earmarks the people in his district ask for (no political favors, everyone gets a fair shot). AFAIK, the committees select which earmarks gets into the bills. Earmarks takes money that's already budgeted and marks it for something specific, in this case it does not increase the money appropriated for spending but merely directs it (instead of the executive branch).
Ron Paul, considering the whole spending in the bill unconstitutional, votes against it. If the others in Congress followed his example, the bill would not pass. He is also one of the few congress critters that voluntarily releases his earmarks (and fully releases all of them). He is practicing as he preaches -- transparency in government. Why don't the other senators/representatives release the earmarks they submitted?
The problem is, as with many criticisms of RP is that the answers are nuanced and take time to explain. Often, that is how the world works, but in our 5 second soundbite culture..... it's hard to do that.
Stealthc on civil rights and property:
Privately owned businesses on private property do NOT have to follow the Constitution. The Constitution is a document restraining the federal government. America is a nation of sovereign citizens. You're king in your own castle, so long as you do not harm others.
As for the private property thing, it is a violation of your rights for someone in government to force you to accept guests you do not want. If you get to discriminate who comes into your house, you get to discriminate who comes into your business. The Civil Rights movement was a good thing, and what MLK was doing was fantastic, with all the non-violent resistance of stupid race-based rules. That's the kind of thing that can change the culture, which is what you really have to do first. By forcing business owners to hire people based on race quotas, and forcing them to accept business from certain people based on race, only increases racial tension and reinforces the lines between racial groups. Government should be treating all individuals as individuals, instead of granting privileges, penalties or welfare based on race.
Theodorelogan on Paul being hypocritical:
What is hypocritical about opposing the government taking your money, but working to at least get some of it back?
I seriously do not get this argument. Same with term limits. Great, all the good congressmen who want term limits should leave congress, and leave it to the power hungry scumbags who oppose term limits?
theroc on Paul being hypocritical:
how does spending money in his district make him a hypocrite? it doesnt cost the taxpayer more, it simply transfers the money from the federal level to his congressional district, it does not increase spending.
Xang on how the interview went:
This interview was hardly as grim as some make it out to be. Russert was tough on Paul, perhaps moreso than the other candidates, but Paul's following doesn't hinge on how the major news outlets portray him. It never has. The interesting thing about Paul's campaign is that most of his support came independantly and spontaneously. These folks continue to perpetuate Ron Paul's message and it's still growing. The majority of his donors so far this week are first timers.
So, I think Paul did fairly well considering Russert's rapid fire attack. He could've been more prepared but many of Paul's positions are nuanced and there wasn't exactly lots of time to expound.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Sanctions are bad for everyone
As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy.
Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.
In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo.
While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations.
Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable.
It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly directed at America.
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed.
Embargoes greatly harm our citizens. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology to reduce costs and increase yields, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities.
Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans.
-Ron Paul
Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.
In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo.
While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations.
Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable.
It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly directed at America.
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed.
Embargoes greatly harm our citizens. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology to reduce costs and increase yields, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities.
Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans.
-Ron Paul
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Another Army guy against the war
Written by Zakery Carter, taken off of NPR. (I know I should edit it a bit better, but.. nah.)
"I joined the Army in the early months of 2001; my patriotism led me to the recruiter???s office. I had grown up in awe of my grandfathers and their stories of World War II, and their reminiscing became my dreams. When I got to basic training I did not talk about missing home like the other recruits around me, I felt at home in ways I never had before.
The weeks after 9/11 found me in Kosovo, part of C co 3/7 Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division, patrolling the border with Macedonia as part of our duties. We had ammunition to defend ourselves with and the authority to apprehend anyone crossing the border illegally. I will get back to why these details are important later.
Fast forward to 2003, I am rolling across the desert in the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle, part of the spearhead into Iraq. Other than those first three weeks of ???Shock and Awe??? what I remember most about Iraq was the people. Crowds of kids wanting to know about Michael Jackson and Britney Spears, open-minded adults wanted to know about our social freedoms, and ninety some percent of Iraqis just wanted to raise their families in peace and did not hesitate to tell us. I really fell in love with the Iraqi people. My platoon and I played soccer with some of those crowds of kids, we had dinner and shared food with families in their homes, we even went to a few house parties, and my lieutenant and I spent one very memorable afternoon swimming in an irrigation ditch with five young women. It is all of them I think of when anyone tells me we need to turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass or that all Muslims are our enemies.
I remember thinking on this briefly when I was there, but more so since I???ve returned, usually when I???m day dreaming behind the wheel of my van, but what we were doing when we were doing our jobs, patrolling the streets, conducting road blocks vehicle searches, bodily searching individuals, and searching houses, couldn???t be helping our long range plans for winning hearts and minds. I really have to wonder, how long would it take me to move from a position of thanks for my despotic government being removed to feeling like I lived in a conquered and occupied country if I saw foreign troops on the streets of my hometown Tallahassee everyday? Add to this our having bases and troops in Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, ( I may have missed a few, we have approximately 700 bases in 130 countries ) some of them for decades, our Navy of their coast, our fighter jets in their sky???s , the CIA in business with monarchs, dictators and thugs, and our State Department treating their leaders like irresponsible children, it???s no wonder moderate Muslims takes to the streets shouting ??? Death to America??? and a minority takes action against us. I would expect we would be doing the same thing if say, China had bases on our soil, and her Navy patrolled our coastline and Chinese fighter jets streaked across our sky. In short, this is all hard to admit, but our actions do have consequences.
Fast forward again to the present day, I am out of active duty, and in the Army Reserves. (I wanted to stay active duty, but my wife said I would be single, so we had a compromise.)To be honest the reserves has bored me to tears and I haven???t felt like I???m giving anything back to my country, so I looked into getting attached to a National Guard unit on our border with Mexico for a tour or two. However, when I learned they don???t have the authority to apprehend illegal border crossers and can only call up our overworked and overstretched border patrol when they spot illegal activity, I got myself in trouble again by thinking - about what I had done in Kosovo and about what I knew our military had done to our own people in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina ( disarmed law abiding civilians only trying to protect themselves when the police had failed to do so) . To add insult to injury, our Guardsmen and women on our own border don???t have ammunition and have on several documented occasions actually had to retreat when facing fire from Mexican paramilitary groups. Now why would I want to sign up for that? To be witness to the violation of America???s sovereignty? No one in the Executive branch of our government is doing anything about it, and it makes me wonder why I am even in the Army at all.
Why are we the worlds policeman when our own country is being openly violated? Why are we borrowing money hand over fist from nations not exactly our friends, just to spend it on our out of control foreign policy? I am starting to feel like the powers that be do not have America???s interests in mind at all. It???s starting to feel like our ruin is their objective. From our factories closing and moving overseas, to the plunging value of our dollar, America is crumbling. Yet I love her far to much to watch her fall apart.
This is why I am taking my personal revolution and joining forces with Dr. Ron Paul???s revolution. His ???bring all the troops home??? non-intervention foreign policy and plans to put America first again are just what we need at this time in our history. I don???t expect you to agree with everything he says, but I do hope we can all put our differences aside and join him in seeing that ALL the troops come home, the Republic is restored and America saved. Thank you and God Bless.
Zakery Carter
Sent by Zak Carter | 2:15 PM ET | 12-18-2007"
"I joined the Army in the early months of 2001; my patriotism led me to the recruiter???s office. I had grown up in awe of my grandfathers and their stories of World War II, and their reminiscing became my dreams. When I got to basic training I did not talk about missing home like the other recruits around me, I felt at home in ways I never had before.
The weeks after 9/11 found me in Kosovo, part of C co 3/7 Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division, patrolling the border with Macedonia as part of our duties. We had ammunition to defend ourselves with and the authority to apprehend anyone crossing the border illegally. I will get back to why these details are important later.
Fast forward to 2003, I am rolling across the desert in the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle, part of the spearhead into Iraq. Other than those first three weeks of ???Shock and Awe??? what I remember most about Iraq was the people. Crowds of kids wanting to know about Michael Jackson and Britney Spears, open-minded adults wanted to know about our social freedoms, and ninety some percent of Iraqis just wanted to raise their families in peace and did not hesitate to tell us. I really fell in love with the Iraqi people. My platoon and I played soccer with some of those crowds of kids, we had dinner and shared food with families in their homes, we even went to a few house parties, and my lieutenant and I spent one very memorable afternoon swimming in an irrigation ditch with five young women. It is all of them I think of when anyone tells me we need to turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass or that all Muslims are our enemies.
I remember thinking on this briefly when I was there, but more so since I???ve returned, usually when I???m day dreaming behind the wheel of my van, but what we were doing when we were doing our jobs, patrolling the streets, conducting road blocks vehicle searches, bodily searching individuals, and searching houses, couldn???t be helping our long range plans for winning hearts and minds. I really have to wonder, how long would it take me to move from a position of thanks for my despotic government being removed to feeling like I lived in a conquered and occupied country if I saw foreign troops on the streets of my hometown Tallahassee everyday? Add to this our having bases and troops in Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, ( I may have missed a few, we have approximately 700 bases in 130 countries ) some of them for decades, our Navy of their coast, our fighter jets in their sky???s , the CIA in business with monarchs, dictators and thugs, and our State Department treating their leaders like irresponsible children, it???s no wonder moderate Muslims takes to the streets shouting ??? Death to America??? and a minority takes action against us. I would expect we would be doing the same thing if say, China had bases on our soil, and her Navy patrolled our coastline and Chinese fighter jets streaked across our sky. In short, this is all hard to admit, but our actions do have consequences.
Fast forward again to the present day, I am out of active duty, and in the Army Reserves. (I wanted to stay active duty, but my wife said I would be single, so we had a compromise.)To be honest the reserves has bored me to tears and I haven???t felt like I???m giving anything back to my country, so I looked into getting attached to a National Guard unit on our border with Mexico for a tour or two. However, when I learned they don???t have the authority to apprehend illegal border crossers and can only call up our overworked and overstretched border patrol when they spot illegal activity, I got myself in trouble again by thinking - about what I had done in Kosovo and about what I knew our military had done to our own people in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina ( disarmed law abiding civilians only trying to protect themselves when the police had failed to do so) . To add insult to injury, our Guardsmen and women on our own border don???t have ammunition and have on several documented occasions actually had to retreat when facing fire from Mexican paramilitary groups. Now why would I want to sign up for that? To be witness to the violation of America???s sovereignty? No one in the Executive branch of our government is doing anything about it, and it makes me wonder why I am even in the Army at all.
Why are we the worlds policeman when our own country is being openly violated? Why are we borrowing money hand over fist from nations not exactly our friends, just to spend it on our out of control foreign policy? I am starting to feel like the powers that be do not have America???s interests in mind at all. It???s starting to feel like our ruin is their objective. From our factories closing and moving overseas, to the plunging value of our dollar, America is crumbling. Yet I love her far to much to watch her fall apart.
This is why I am taking my personal revolution and joining forces with Dr. Ron Paul???s revolution. His ???bring all the troops home??? non-intervention foreign policy and plans to put America first again are just what we need at this time in our history. I don???t expect you to agree with everything he says, but I do hope we can all put our differences aside and join him in seeing that ALL the troops come home, the Republic is restored and America saved. Thank you and God Bless.
Zakery Carter
Sent by Zak Carter | 2:15 PM ET | 12-18-2007"
Sportsbook: Candidates odds of winning
Disclaimer: Political betting websites have been accurate predictors in the past, however, there are still many unpredictable factors that may change the outcome of the race. My math is taken as a percentage of the whole. Many bets that are placed too early may sway in favor of a certain candidate that now has a lower chance.
Giuliani 31.7%
McCain 7.1%
Thompson 3.8
Romney 28.5
Huckabee 16.3
Paul 11.4
Tancredo 5.7
Hunter 5.7
Giuliani 31.7%
McCain 7.1%
Thompson 3.8
Romney 28.5
Huckabee 16.3
Paul 11.4
Tancredo 5.7
Hunter 5.7
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Why are we at war?
This post was so good that I felt it should be repeated.
Fogy at http://www.ultimatebass.com/bass-fishing-forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1bf0727ba23b7c1881226055a5dea727&topic=41872.0 writes:
"Ok political talk and bass fishing forums have a hard time mixing because folks sometimes just can't say something without pissing off someone else.
So with that said, this isn't a slam tomcat, but the American people can not sit on the sofa watching CNN or FOX and learn history. Every news station has a slant and the slant is pushed based on who they want as an audience.
We the USA armed Osama while he was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. We the USA armed Saddam and Iraq while they were fighting Iran. We the USA armed lots of our past friends only to face them on the battle field at a later date.
Osama proclaimed a Jihad on us because we wouldn't leave the middle east, we wouldn't stop dictating our wants to the region and because we support Israel. Now should we give it all up and just the the world go to hell? NO but there has to be a middle ground. What American citizen would sit by while the Iraq Army rolled into down town apple pie? None of us would. The Iraqi people for the most part welcomed us with hugs, smiles, food and warnings of attacks and you know what, at the same time they were feeding me and my guys they wanted to know when were we going to leave!
If we the USA wanted out we could have left a long time ago. We could have left after the fall of Baghdad, we could have left after the 1st vote, we could have left after we handed sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, or the 2nd vote, we could have left after we caught Saddam or after the 3rd election. We could have left after we killed Zarqui "spelling" or after the execution of Saddam. If we wanted to give the folks a chance at freedom and leave we could have done that.
Instead we are 5 years into the war, that is after 12 years of building bases in Saudi, 12 years of doing no fly zone patrols out of Turkey for operation Northern Watch. We want that region and now that we are in Iraq the next thing DC is talking about is Iran. Our government doesn't want to leave if they did a goal would have been stated clearly and we the service members would know what that is. Instead we are feed kill them there before they can kill us here, lets take the fight to them before they can plan another attack here. This is BS pushed down from above to justify close to 4,000 US service members KIA and 60,000 or more wounded in combat operations that were declared over back in 2004.
Why do you all think the USSR left Afghanistan? You can not win a war without killing every one or changing the minds of those that you fight. Here in Iraq for every bad guy we cook off, a brother, father, sister, son or daughter takes his place. For every 10 we kill we create 100. And for every 100 that is killed 10 get away and learn. We are making combat harden soldiers that one day will try to come here.
This war can not be won by bullets and bombs unless the American people are willing to stand by and let us the US service member start at one corner of Iraq and kill everyone we think is or could be a bad guy. The only way to win is through the hearts and minds of the people to get them to accept the responsibility of running a country. The trouble is we waited to dam long to put enough boots on the ground to control anything. Both the Iraqi and American people lost faith and now after 5 years of fighting we do not have the manpower left to continue the fight for much longer. Instead it is going to be the same old same. Rotate in, rotate out and they bad guys are going to keep stabbing the giant in the ankle until we finally give up.
Sadly we could have done so much but in the end all we managed to do is short change our service members in Afghanistan who for the most part are forgotten. Forgoten by the public at large, forgotten by the brass to fight this war and forgoten because there is not enough manpower to catch and kill Osama, so we just keep doing the same old same.
I for one no longer want to keep doing the same old same. I want to consolidate our troops, re-arm, retrain, rest our men/women and use the small tactical hunter killer units to do surgical strikes and gather intel.
Anyway I'm looking for change and IMO not one of the folks running today have the stones to tell you up front and eye to eye what there ready to do. They all talk in circles and they all try to change the tune just enough city to city to make everyone happy.
Name me one person that has a plan to win and leave the chit hole.
Ron at least knows we have to leave. Leave today, next year 10 years from now we are going to leave it's just how many more have to die before we go and Ron isn't afraid to say that.
So bash me if you want but I was there 1st hand. I've been at war now since I joined in 1988 thats going on 20 years this won't be the 1st war we could have done better at, but it will be one of the longest wars before we pull out."
Fogy at http://www.ultimatebass.com/bass-fishing-forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1bf0727ba23b7c1881226055a5dea727&topic=41872.0 writes:
"Ok political talk and bass fishing forums have a hard time mixing because folks sometimes just can't say something without pissing off someone else.
So with that said, this isn't a slam tomcat, but the American people can not sit on the sofa watching CNN or FOX and learn history. Every news station has a slant and the slant is pushed based on who they want as an audience.
We the USA armed Osama while he was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. We the USA armed Saddam and Iraq while they were fighting Iran. We the USA armed lots of our past friends only to face them on the battle field at a later date.
Osama proclaimed a Jihad on us because we wouldn't leave the middle east, we wouldn't stop dictating our wants to the region and because we support Israel. Now should we give it all up and just the the world go to hell? NO but there has to be a middle ground. What American citizen would sit by while the Iraq Army rolled into down town apple pie? None of us would. The Iraqi people for the most part welcomed us with hugs, smiles, food and warnings of attacks and you know what, at the same time they were feeding me and my guys they wanted to know when were we going to leave!
If we the USA wanted out we could have left a long time ago. We could have left after the fall of Baghdad, we could have left after the 1st vote, we could have left after we handed sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, or the 2nd vote, we could have left after we caught Saddam or after the 3rd election. We could have left after we killed Zarqui "spelling" or after the execution of Saddam. If we wanted to give the folks a chance at freedom and leave we could have done that.
Instead we are 5 years into the war, that is after 12 years of building bases in Saudi, 12 years of doing no fly zone patrols out of Turkey for operation Northern Watch. We want that region and now that we are in Iraq the next thing DC is talking about is Iran. Our government doesn't want to leave if they did a goal would have been stated clearly and we the service members would know what that is. Instead we are feed kill them there before they can kill us here, lets take the fight to them before they can plan another attack here. This is BS pushed down from above to justify close to 4,000 US service members KIA and 60,000 or more wounded in combat operations that were declared over back in 2004.
Why do you all think the USSR left Afghanistan? You can not win a war without killing every one or changing the minds of those that you fight. Here in Iraq for every bad guy we cook off, a brother, father, sister, son or daughter takes his place. For every 10 we kill we create 100. And for every 100 that is killed 10 get away and learn. We are making combat harden soldiers that one day will try to come here.
This war can not be won by bullets and bombs unless the American people are willing to stand by and let us the US service member start at one corner of Iraq and kill everyone we think is or could be a bad guy. The only way to win is through the hearts and minds of the people to get them to accept the responsibility of running a country. The trouble is we waited to dam long to put enough boots on the ground to control anything. Both the Iraqi and American people lost faith and now after 5 years of fighting we do not have the manpower left to continue the fight for much longer. Instead it is going to be the same old same. Rotate in, rotate out and they bad guys are going to keep stabbing the giant in the ankle until we finally give up.
Sadly we could have done so much but in the end all we managed to do is short change our service members in Afghanistan who for the most part are forgotten. Forgoten by the public at large, forgotten by the brass to fight this war and forgoten because there is not enough manpower to catch and kill Osama, so we just keep doing the same old same.
I for one no longer want to keep doing the same old same. I want to consolidate our troops, re-arm, retrain, rest our men/women and use the small tactical hunter killer units to do surgical strikes and gather intel.
Anyway I'm looking for change and IMO not one of the folks running today have the stones to tell you up front and eye to eye what there ready to do. They all talk in circles and they all try to change the tune just enough city to city to make everyone happy.
Name me one person that has a plan to win and leave the chit hole.
Ron at least knows we have to leave. Leave today, next year 10 years from now we are going to leave it's just how many more have to die before we go and Ron isn't afraid to say that.
So bash me if you want but I was there 1st hand. I've been at war now since I joined in 1988 thats going on 20 years this won't be the 1st war we could have done better at, but it will be one of the longest wars before we pull out."
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Does Ron Paul have a chance?
Actually, mostly yes.
220 thousand voted in the Texas 2004 Republican primay and 54000 in the New Hampshire 2004 Republican primary. That's roughly 1% and 5% of those states populations voting, respectively. So, in order to win let's assume you'd need 3% of the US population voting. If Ron Paul really has a base of even 3% of the American population dedicated to him, then he would succeed.
Alaska had a fairly unbiased poll and he was at the top with 28%. He's certainly not doing as well as internet polls would leave you to believe nor as bad as other polls say. According to today's Rasmussen poll, only Mitt Romney and Huckabee are above 10%. Without knowing how they poll, I cannot trust any poll thoroughly. (Note: No political poll is "scientific". If you can criticize how a poll is conducted, it "unscientific".)
Polls like the Rasmussen report place Ron at 5%. That's people who have already registered, have voted in the past, and have land line phones. Now, if you add in internet and grassroots support, and if you add in people that will be "converted", if you will, and add in people who are just registering or don't usually vote in primaries, then I'd bet he has a base of more than 10% of the American population. That's more than enough to win - if they show up.
Even if he only has 5% of the entire population, those people are very likely to show up.
There's actually a big roadblock. One third of the delegates, people who actually select the candidate, are Republican party leadership. If they all vote for anyone besides Ron Paul, he would need about 80% of the popular vote to win. That's a huge kink in the chain. However, if he did do that well but wasn't nominated, he might run without the nomination.
Huckabee, Romney, and Paul each have something great going for them. Huckabee appeals to a lot of Americans. Romney has an excellent record and lots of money. Ron Paul has grassroots supporters that money can't buy and it will translate into a bigger victory for him than cable television realizes. (The people who support Ron Paul probably would die for that man..)
I don't believe anyone else has a chance of beating any of those three. Fred Thompson doesn't have any momentum. McCain is out of money and very pro-war. And Guiliani is on a downward spiral - America is too conservative for drag queens.
The difference between Huckabee, Romney, and Paul are their backgrounds. Who you vote for will depend on your core values and how much you actually research them - not that it's a bad thing, just that there are three different yet viable choices.
220 thousand voted in the Texas 2004 Republican primay and 54000 in the New Hampshire 2004 Republican primary. That's roughly 1% and 5% of those states populations voting, respectively. So, in order to win let's assume you'd need 3% of the US population voting. If Ron Paul really has a base of even 3% of the American population dedicated to him, then he would succeed.
Alaska had a fairly unbiased poll and he was at the top with 28%. He's certainly not doing as well as internet polls would leave you to believe nor as bad as other polls say. According to today's Rasmussen poll, only Mitt Romney and Huckabee are above 10%. Without knowing how they poll, I cannot trust any poll thoroughly. (Note: No political poll is "scientific". If you can criticize how a poll is conducted, it "unscientific".)
Polls like the Rasmussen report place Ron at 5%. That's people who have already registered, have voted in the past, and have land line phones. Now, if you add in internet and grassroots support, and if you add in people that will be "converted", if you will, and add in people who are just registering or don't usually vote in primaries, then I'd bet he has a base of more than 10% of the American population. That's more than enough to win - if they show up.
Even if he only has 5% of the entire population, those people are very likely to show up.
There's actually a big roadblock. One third of the delegates, people who actually select the candidate, are Republican party leadership. If they all vote for anyone besides Ron Paul, he would need about 80% of the popular vote to win. That's a huge kink in the chain. However, if he did do that well but wasn't nominated, he might run without the nomination.
Huckabee, Romney, and Paul each have something great going for them. Huckabee appeals to a lot of Americans. Romney has an excellent record and lots of money. Ron Paul has grassroots supporters that money can't buy and it will translate into a bigger victory for him than cable television realizes. (The people who support Ron Paul probably would die for that man..)
I don't believe anyone else has a chance of beating any of those three. Fred Thompson doesn't have any momentum. McCain is out of money and very pro-war. And Guiliani is on a downward spiral - America is too conservative for drag queens.
The difference between Huckabee, Romney, and Paul are their backgrounds. Who you vote for will depend on your core values and how much you actually research them - not that it's a bad thing, just that there are three different yet viable choices.
Iowa PBS Debate Impressions
I enjoyed watching the Iowa debates. There's a few things I learned:
Fred Thompson doesn't believe intelligence reports.
Alan Keyes is more of a preacher than Huckabee.
Romney insults others, but just a little less than Alan Keyes. Romney is proud that he's a flip flopper (but I actually like that about him).
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes continue talking when they should shut up.
Ron Paul looks tired, but he actually has Bills where others are just talk.
McCain doesn't admit to any mistakes.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were interesting to listen to, but they have less of a chance than Ron Paul.
Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson are a lot of talk but no substance.
Some candidates were still for attacking Iran, which suprised me. Ron Paul had the most clear and firm stance on that issue. He said that he would bring our troops home within his first year in office.
Romney and Huckabee kind of bickered over who had the best education plans. Romney made sure to point out multiple times that students in his state tested higher than those in other states. Romney cited a myth that the U.S. is in the lower 15% of testing scores internationally.
Huckabee is in favor of reducing government, (and I believe Ron Paul has influenced him with that,) but even though I enjoy listening to Huckabee, I don't believe his good intentions translate into action. For example, Huckabee said that education should not be federally controlled, but then turned around and said that education should be federally controlled just in more words. I believe there's too much dirt on Huckabee that if he was nominated, he'll be hammered down really quick.
Huckabee claimed that he wanted to unite the nation, "left versus right, liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican." That was a waste of a minute. It was rhetoric without a meaning or plan. Ron Paul tells us that we should be united under the Constitution, so I think that's a pretty good stance.
Ron Paul also stressed diplomacy to other countries - basically the difference between "non-intervention" and "isolation" - and wants to improve diplomatic relations to other countries.
Overall, I enjoyed it. It had questions that weren't on other debates and gave a chance to actually test candidates. They gave time to every candidate. Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo should not have been there - it would have given more time for more issues for the actual candidates with a chance. Alan Keyes doesn't even poll 1% nor has he a campaign staff in Iowa.
Huckabee and Paul probably will benefit the most from it. They had clear, good responses while I feel the others merely talked "politican speak" and were pointless.
Fred Thompson doesn't believe intelligence reports.
Alan Keyes is more of a preacher than Huckabee.
Romney insults others, but just a little less than Alan Keyes. Romney is proud that he's a flip flopper (but I actually like that about him).
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes continue talking when they should shut up.
Ron Paul looks tired, but he actually has Bills where others are just talk.
McCain doesn't admit to any mistakes.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were interesting to listen to, but they have less of a chance than Ron Paul.
Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson are a lot of talk but no substance.
Some candidates were still for attacking Iran, which suprised me. Ron Paul had the most clear and firm stance on that issue. He said that he would bring our troops home within his first year in office.
Romney and Huckabee kind of bickered over who had the best education plans. Romney made sure to point out multiple times that students in his state tested higher than those in other states. Romney cited a myth that the U.S. is in the lower 15% of testing scores internationally.
Huckabee is in favor of reducing government, (and I believe Ron Paul has influenced him with that,) but even though I enjoy listening to Huckabee, I don't believe his good intentions translate into action. For example, Huckabee said that education should not be federally controlled, but then turned around and said that education should be federally controlled just in more words. I believe there's too much dirt on Huckabee that if he was nominated, he'll be hammered down really quick.
Huckabee claimed that he wanted to unite the nation, "left versus right, liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican." That was a waste of a minute. It was rhetoric without a meaning or plan. Ron Paul tells us that we should be united under the Constitution, so I think that's a pretty good stance.
Ron Paul also stressed diplomacy to other countries - basically the difference between "non-intervention" and "isolation" - and wants to improve diplomatic relations to other countries.
Overall, I enjoyed it. It had questions that weren't on other debates and gave a chance to actually test candidates. They gave time to every candidate. Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo should not have been there - it would have given more time for more issues for the actual candidates with a chance. Alan Keyes doesn't even poll 1% nor has he a campaign staff in Iowa.
Huckabee and Paul probably will benefit the most from it. They had clear, good responses while I feel the others merely talked "politican speak" and were pointless.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Half of my posts are satire, hyperbole, or something else
Half of my posts are satire, hyperbole, or something else. For example, I don't actually believe Ron Paul canvassers will gather in the thousands in New Hampshire or Iowa, or that they will raise money for F-16s, and I obviously don't don't like Ron Paul. (Double negative intended.) I'm just attempting to find my niche in writing, trying to find how I write about topics best. Yes, I support Ron Paul but I believe I'll lay that to rest for a while and attempt to write about something else. The biggest problem of passion is that when you are truly passionate about something, no one will correct you.
Satire - Ron Paul Supporters Want to Raise Money for F-16s
(Onion spoof.)
Have you heard of Ron Paul? His campaign has garnered many supporters from across America.
"This whole thing has taken off far more than anyone ever could have imagined," says Michael Michwalski. "Ron Paul's message was first heard by someone in Ukraine, who then email spammed it to the rest of us. Once I opened his email, I knew I could never get his message off my computer. Within days, money in my bank accounts were going to Ron Paul's campaign."
Most claim that Ron Paul's popularity is due to the internet. "I heard of him while browsing my favorite website - Bushisanalienlizard.com. They had an advertisement for his campaign there. I went to his site and everything finally made sense to me. I'm voting for the guy who isn't a lizard," says Bernie Benson.
Despite his fame on the internet, very few have heard of Ron Paul. CNN and Fox News were asked about Ron Paul's campaign and replied, "Who's Ron Paul?" Currently, "Other" is winning over many other candidates in their polls.
One of Paul's ideas is that a superhighway will be built across America, uniting Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Government officials stated, "There is no conspiracy about a super highway. I think we've made it pretty clear that we are going to build a really, really big highway, but a conspiracy about a superhighway? That's lunacy."
"We'd like to return to how the government was in the 1850s. That was truly the golden age," says Ron Paul's campaign manager David Jensen. "We'd like to get rid of all health care, civil service, income taxes, and military."
Ron Paul supporters have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for blimps to fly over America. "We wanted to spread knowledge of Ron Paul. We broke many laws raising the money, but we spread the message, and that's what's important," says David Jensen. "We would like to arm them with nuclear weapons since we believe the people should be able to stand up against big government. We also want to spread Paul's message faster so we're trying to raise money for F-16s."
"We're also petitioning the Pope to give him 'Saint' status," says a local meetup group coordinator. "We truly believe if he wins, it will be the Second Coming."
Have you heard of Ron Paul? His campaign has garnered many supporters from across America.
"This whole thing has taken off far more than anyone ever could have imagined," says Michael Michwalski. "Ron Paul's message was first heard by someone in Ukraine, who then email spammed it to the rest of us. Once I opened his email, I knew I could never get his message off my computer. Within days, money in my bank accounts were going to Ron Paul's campaign."
Most claim that Ron Paul's popularity is due to the internet. "I heard of him while browsing my favorite website - Bushisanalienlizard.com. They had an advertisement for his campaign there. I went to his site and everything finally made sense to me. I'm voting for the guy who isn't a lizard," says Bernie Benson.
Despite his fame on the internet, very few have heard of Ron Paul. CNN and Fox News were asked about Ron Paul's campaign and replied, "Who's Ron Paul?" Currently, "Other" is winning over many other candidates in their polls.
One of Paul's ideas is that a superhighway will be built across America, uniting Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Government officials stated, "There is no conspiracy about a super highway. I think we've made it pretty clear that we are going to build a really, really big highway, but a conspiracy about a superhighway? That's lunacy."
"We'd like to return to how the government was in the 1850s. That was truly the golden age," says Ron Paul's campaign manager David Jensen. "We'd like to get rid of all health care, civil service, income taxes, and military."
Ron Paul supporters have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for blimps to fly over America. "We wanted to spread knowledge of Ron Paul. We broke many laws raising the money, but we spread the message, and that's what's important," says David Jensen. "We would like to arm them with nuclear weapons since we believe the people should be able to stand up against big government. We also want to spread Paul's message faster so we're trying to raise money for F-16s."
"We're also petitioning the Pope to give him 'Saint' status," says a local meetup group coordinator. "We truly believe if he wins, it will be the Second Coming."
Friday, December 7, 2007
Trying to argue the opposite view - Why I don't like Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. He consistently scores below 10% of any telephone poll. He's against abortion. He is a conspiracy theorist. He wants to achieve unreasonable objectives like get rid of the IRS, income tax, CIA, and Departments of Education and Energy. He wants to go to the gold standard. He wants to withdraw most, if not all, of our troops from around the world. It's because of these crack pot ideas that Ron Paul is not taken seriously.
Because Ron Paul scores less than 10% in any telephone based poll, he is given less air time on Fox News, CNN, or most major news networks. Ron Paul supporters cry foul! The networks and their overlord leader Viacom are conspiring against Ron Paul. "They don't want him elected," they claim. For example, Ron Paul was given 1/3 of the time that Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani had in the last CNN debates. Of the questions asked, Ron Paul was asked whether he believed in conspiracies and whether he'd promise to never raise taxes. (His answers to both were pretty much yes.) Ron Paul supporters claim that those questions were merely bait to embarass the candidate.
His supporters are a mixture of crazy people. Most of them, if not all, come from the internet. This makes them seem more than they really are. For example, there has been a lot of recent Ron Paul email spam lately originating from a single person in Ukraine. Because of this, he wins almost all online political polls. The internet is full of conspiracy theories and Ron Paul tends to attract this crowd of people. If you ever meet a Ron Paul advocate in real life, it is incredibly hard talking to them about politics because half of what they will talk about has no basis in reality. He attracts the pro gun, pro life, libertarian, pro drugs crowd.
He also attracts a lot of students. Students and universities are typically more liberal than people in other sectors of society. It is impossible to tell how many - or how few - students actually support him because these are likely people who won't be polled.
Ron Paul is against abortion. This is suprising because he was a previous obstetrician and gynecolist! Doesn't he understand that women can enter life-threatening situations where the fetus must be aborted? Actually, Paulites will tell you that they want abortion laws to be decided on a state level. But if that occurred, then couldn't a mother just travel to another state to have her baby aborted? (For that matter, couldn't they travel to another country? My guess is if a mother is that rich to travel that far, they probably are rich enough to provide for the baby through life.)
Ron Paul is crazy. He doesn't follow norms. Quite often 400 congressmen will vote for something while Ron Paul stands alone in his 1 vote against it. For example, he voted against a medallion for Rosa Parks. The nerve!
He stands alone among other congressmen on many issues. He wants to obliterate the IRS, Department of Energy and income tax. He thinks the IRS is unconstitutional. If we got rid of those we wouldn't be able to pay for all of the science that occurs in the US. Nevermind that it would cut half of our military spending. What about all the promises that we have made to veterans? What about the amazing benefits people get from serving in the military?
Besides that, he wants to abolish the Department of Education and the CIA. What about all of the good people working in those companies that will be without a job? Doing this would displace thousands of Americans.
And going to the gold standard? Well, that's what he wants, not what he'll do. If elected, he would allow gold to be a competing currency to the dollar. There are plenty of reasons behind this but mostly I picture a person holding a bag of gold coins trying to deposit them in the bank. "Before I can make this deposit Mr. Adams I'll have to weigh this and put it in acid. Oh, it checks out. Would you like your change in gold or dollars?"
And he wants to withdraw all of our troops from all around the world. We are preventing Americans from being killed in America by having our troops fight a war against terrorism. We are stabilizing the rest of the world. We are providing oil for our own economy to function. It would be a mistake to pull our troops out of Iraq.
Nevermind that he won't be able to accomplish these goals. He doesn't have a chance to be elected. Even if elected, he would have strong opposition in both the House and Senate. Even if he had a chance, those goals could not be immediate.
(Did I miss any other criticisms of his campaign?)
To quote:
"Constitution, Smonstitution. Ron Paul may have the largest online following of any presidential candidate, more military donations than any other candidate, and a name that rhymes with the (former) pope's, but he doesn't have what you need to become president- NO INTEGRITY AT ALL. Ron Paul missed the boat on talking without saying anything and kissing the anus of the two party system. He's too in line with the American people to actually become president, then we might get a government that reflected the American people. I'm glad the media hasn't anointed him a top-tier candidate, so that we can all admire him in peace without wondering when he'll get the coverage he deserves. Besides, you can't give the power to the people! Where do you think we live? 18th century France? Anyway, this guy can never be president- you can actually tell what he thinks."
by hubrisrising October 3 at 3:56AM
Comment posted on random website
Because Ron Paul scores less than 10% in any telephone based poll, he is given less air time on Fox News, CNN, or most major news networks. Ron Paul supporters cry foul! The networks and their overlord leader Viacom are conspiring against Ron Paul. "They don't want him elected," they claim. For example, Ron Paul was given 1/3 of the time that Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani had in the last CNN debates. Of the questions asked, Ron Paul was asked whether he believed in conspiracies and whether he'd promise to never raise taxes. (His answers to both were pretty much yes.) Ron Paul supporters claim that those questions were merely bait to embarass the candidate.
His supporters are a mixture of crazy people. Most of them, if not all, come from the internet. This makes them seem more than they really are. For example, there has been a lot of recent Ron Paul email spam lately originating from a single person in Ukraine. Because of this, he wins almost all online political polls. The internet is full of conspiracy theories and Ron Paul tends to attract this crowd of people. If you ever meet a Ron Paul advocate in real life, it is incredibly hard talking to them about politics because half of what they will talk about has no basis in reality. He attracts the pro gun, pro life, libertarian, pro drugs crowd.
He also attracts a lot of students. Students and universities are typically more liberal than people in other sectors of society. It is impossible to tell how many - or how few - students actually support him because these are likely people who won't be polled.
Ron Paul is against abortion. This is suprising because he was a previous obstetrician and gynecolist! Doesn't he understand that women can enter life-threatening situations where the fetus must be aborted? Actually, Paulites will tell you that they want abortion laws to be decided on a state level. But if that occurred, then couldn't a mother just travel to another state to have her baby aborted? (For that matter, couldn't they travel to another country? My guess is if a mother is that rich to travel that far, they probably are rich enough to provide for the baby through life.)
Ron Paul is crazy. He doesn't follow norms. Quite often 400 congressmen will vote for something while Ron Paul stands alone in his 1 vote against it. For example, he voted against a medallion for Rosa Parks. The nerve!
He stands alone among other congressmen on many issues. He wants to obliterate the IRS, Department of Energy and income tax. He thinks the IRS is unconstitutional. If we got rid of those we wouldn't be able to pay for all of the science that occurs in the US. Nevermind that it would cut half of our military spending. What about all the promises that we have made to veterans? What about the amazing benefits people get from serving in the military?
Besides that, he wants to abolish the Department of Education and the CIA. What about all of the good people working in those companies that will be without a job? Doing this would displace thousands of Americans.
And going to the gold standard? Well, that's what he wants, not what he'll do. If elected, he would allow gold to be a competing currency to the dollar. There are plenty of reasons behind this but mostly I picture a person holding a bag of gold coins trying to deposit them in the bank. "Before I can make this deposit Mr. Adams I'll have to weigh this and put it in acid. Oh, it checks out. Would you like your change in gold or dollars?"
And he wants to withdraw all of our troops from all around the world. We are preventing Americans from being killed in America by having our troops fight a war against terrorism. We are stabilizing the rest of the world. We are providing oil for our own economy to function. It would be a mistake to pull our troops out of Iraq.
Nevermind that he won't be able to accomplish these goals. He doesn't have a chance to be elected. Even if elected, he would have strong opposition in both the House and Senate. Even if he had a chance, those goals could not be immediate.
(Did I miss any other criticisms of his campaign?)
To quote:
"Constitution, Smonstitution. Ron Paul may have the largest online following of any presidential candidate, more military donations than any other candidate, and a name that rhymes with the (former) pope's, but he doesn't have what you need to become president- NO INTEGRITY AT ALL. Ron Paul missed the boat on talking without saying anything and kissing the anus of the two party system. He's too in line with the American people to actually become president, then we might get a government that reflected the American people. I'm glad the media hasn't anointed him a top-tier candidate, so that we can all admire him in peace without wondering when he'll get the coverage he deserves. Besides, you can't give the power to the people! Where do you think we live? 18th century France? Anyway, this guy can never be president- you can actually tell what he thinks."
by hubrisrising October 3 at 3:56AM
Comment posted on random website
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Hyperbole - Ron Paul, Martin Luther, and the revolution
There's something very interesting afoot here. Ron Paul began his run for president without the support that he has now, probably believing there was little chance for success. But he ran, simply because no one else in the Republican party was against the war. The Republican party supposedly stood for principles he believed in, and yet no one was running on those principles. And so he ran. He began as a solitary voice preaching his message.
Now he has the support of millions. You heard me, millions. (That's considering he's at least at 4% in most states, heck, even at 1%. At 1% for 300 million people is 3 million people.) And he probably didn't even have to spend a dime to get them too.
These people began following Paul because of his message. That is his anti-war, small government agenda. Sure, they disagree with him on various issues, but his main message is what none of the other major candidates are preaching - what many Americans really want. Most of us despise Bush. We don't want another Bush in office. Another war-mongering tyrant who will infringe on civil liberties at home, who lie to us about the causes of going to war, who preach that terrorism endangers us while opening our borders further for immigration, who respond poorly to national emergencies, and who further inflate the dollar. We want the opposite of that. But when you look at the candidates, there's only two other options - Kucinich and Gravel. Ron Paul has a greater chance of being elected than them and many other candidates such as Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson. I bet all candidates dream they could have the support that Ron Paul has (perhaps with fewer kooks).
His movement is a people's movement. The people found him, the people saw his message, the people organized. Compared to the organization of individuals, his staff does very little. It was an individual that raised $4 million for him in one day - none of his staff did it. It attests to the power of the movement. The people are organizing against something and for a cause. Right now, that cause is Ron Paul. Despite what you may think, Ron Paul gives the message but he is only subsidiary to the message. We, the People, are organized and will spread the Constitution. We support Ron Paul because he supports peace and the Constitution. We chose him, not the other way around.
His campaign is very similar to what the people did when they heard of Martin Luther. There were many people against the message of Martin Luther. But then there were people who saw through the crap. These people organized and there was a long war. We, who support Ron Paul, will not wage a war of guns, but we will organize and wage a war of ideologies. We are tired of big government, of the failures of this administration, and we are intelligent, savvy, and educated. We are not the crap barrel that others make us out to be, in fact, you will be surprised at how resourceful we can be.
Whether Ron Paul wins is not in question. Whether his ideas prevail is. Are you in favor of a war over oil while our dollar declines? Of government overspending on things overseas while our own infrastructure could use that money? Are you in favor of Big Brother? Are you in favor of a four football field long highway, going from Mexico to Canada, paid by American taxes and then tolling Americans to drive on it, that doesn't even check nationality? Are you in favor of the government controlling the internet? Ron Paul's campaign will give those of us dissatisfied with our government the organization to further sway public opinion in the future.
Why do people say, "Oh, you won't win" directly to Ron Paul? That is utterly disrespectful. Would they say it to a lower tiered candidate? No! And yet Ron Paul ignores their disrespect and tells his points. By saying he won't win they are saying something more. They are saying, "I don't believe in democracy because otherwise you'd be elected" or "I think the media already controls us too much so there's no chance for you to be elected." Well, we are going to prove them wrong.
None of his contributions come directly from special interest groups or corporations. All of it is small donations from individuals. What's more is that there will soon be thousands of volunteers from all around the country knocking on doors in both New Hampshire and Ohio. That alone will be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Estimate, 2000 people, $500 per day per person, 1 week per person, Total: $7 million.) In the states where his name is recognized only by 25% of the people, who are likely swing voters, the Presidential race will be greatly influenced by these first Republican nominee voting states. (Kerry was at 1% this time of year but won in those states, thereby giving him the Democrat nomination.)
The trouble is is that it is impossible to tell how well he is really doing. Online he wins all the polls. But telephone polls tell a different story. Telephone polls are highly biased. Just listen to this. When did you here Ron Paul's name? "Other"? (Here's a youtube interview of the tactic.)
Ron Paul must be doing exceedingly well for the Republican party to be running scared. By using these tactics, they have to consider him a real threat.
There's a number of other problems with these polls. First, how many people actually use their landline these days? Telephone polls only poll landline people and people who have been registered in their parties for years. They will not poll people who have recently registered in a party, nor people who use their cell phones exclusively (or don't answer their landlines that often). That's probably a lot of people under forty who aren't included - the ones most likely to vote for Ron Paul.
And the Republican party is running with its tail under its legs in other aspects too. Straw polls are an excellent example. Romney won a recent straw poll in Florida - by having each of their voters vote 20 times for Romney. Ron Paul had over a thousand people show up at that straw poll, and came in second at the total. He was second with 534 votes to Romney's 893. Watch them caught in the act. There were probably a thousand Ron Paul supporters who were actually there. So who won that straw poll? That's only the beginning.
A straw poll was held in San Francisco a couple days ago. The original deal was $33 for a plate and a vote. Then they changed it after dinner so that you needed $5 more to vote. Then they canceled the straw poll. They kept changing it (that's fraud by my account) to suit their needs. The reason - too many Ron Paul supporters. Youtube Video.
If you want to see all a summary of straw poll results, click here. He even took second in a Democrat Straw Poll.
And major news still consistently ignore him or mock him. Did you hear about the Ron Paul blimp over the CNN debate? Probably only through a social news site on the internet. What about Ron Paul raising more than any other candidate within the last two quarters? He's at $10.4 million now. On December 16th, he'll probably raise at least a few million more. Tea Party Website. Place to officially donate.
Perhaps you don't agree with him on all his beliefs. In fact, people are divided among beliefs like abortion. First, he wants to bring power back to the states - let them decide on some of those things. (Are you so bent on enforcing your opinion on the rest of America? Don't local regions determine laws better based on local customs?) Second, the President probably doesn't have all the power that you might think he has. He can control the troops in war, sign and veto bills, suggest new laws, grant pardons, and enforce laws. He cannot decide how money will be spent, make laws, or interpret laws - despite what you may have learned of Bush's presidency. If he's against a governmental entity or group, he will not and can not disband them immediately.
There's one catch to his candidacy as President. It is within the individual - within you who are reading this. He may or may not win whether you do something, but his whole candidacy revolves around your action. Getting to know the issues better, talking with people, having a home made or professional sign, and even donating. Whether he wins, life will go on. But I assure you, it would've been better if he had won.
There's much more to Ron Paul than what I've just written. You might think he was a Saint by what we've written (..it's too soon to tell if he really is *wink*). He's received more donations from people in the military than any other candidate. He's helped veterans get long overdue medals. Veteran commercial.
And he has an outstanding record too. He's a four term Republican congressman that always votes according to what he preaches. He has a clean record. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force; he's been a gynecologist and delivered thousands of babies; and he's faithfully married to his wife. He doesn't just preach Republican values - he embodies them.
Now he has the support of millions. You heard me, millions. (That's considering he's at least at 4% in most states, heck, even at 1%. At 1% for 300 million people is 3 million people.) And he probably didn't even have to spend a dime to get them too.
These people began following Paul because of his message. That is his anti-war, small government agenda. Sure, they disagree with him on various issues, but his main message is what none of the other major candidates are preaching - what many Americans really want. Most of us despise Bush. We don't want another Bush in office. Another war-mongering tyrant who will infringe on civil liberties at home, who lie to us about the causes of going to war, who preach that terrorism endangers us while opening our borders further for immigration, who respond poorly to national emergencies, and who further inflate the dollar. We want the opposite of that. But when you look at the candidates, there's only two other options - Kucinich and Gravel. Ron Paul has a greater chance of being elected than them and many other candidates such as Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson. I bet all candidates dream they could have the support that Ron Paul has (perhaps with fewer kooks).
His movement is a people's movement. The people found him, the people saw his message, the people organized. Compared to the organization of individuals, his staff does very little. It was an individual that raised $4 million for him in one day - none of his staff did it. It attests to the power of the movement. The people are organizing against something and for a cause. Right now, that cause is Ron Paul. Despite what you may think, Ron Paul gives the message but he is only subsidiary to the message. We, the People, are organized and will spread the Constitution. We support Ron Paul because he supports peace and the Constitution. We chose him, not the other way around.
His campaign is very similar to what the people did when they heard of Martin Luther. There were many people against the message of Martin Luther. But then there were people who saw through the crap. These people organized and there was a long war. We, who support Ron Paul, will not wage a war of guns, but we will organize and wage a war of ideologies. We are tired of big government, of the failures of this administration, and we are intelligent, savvy, and educated. We are not the crap barrel that others make us out to be, in fact, you will be surprised at how resourceful we can be.
Whether Ron Paul wins is not in question. Whether his ideas prevail is. Are you in favor of a war over oil while our dollar declines? Of government overspending on things overseas while our own infrastructure could use that money? Are you in favor of Big Brother? Are you in favor of a four football field long highway, going from Mexico to Canada, paid by American taxes and then tolling Americans to drive on it, that doesn't even check nationality? Are you in favor of the government controlling the internet? Ron Paul's campaign will give those of us dissatisfied with our government the organization to further sway public opinion in the future.
Why do people say, "Oh, you won't win" directly to Ron Paul? That is utterly disrespectful. Would they say it to a lower tiered candidate? No! And yet Ron Paul ignores their disrespect and tells his points. By saying he won't win they are saying something more. They are saying, "I don't believe in democracy because otherwise you'd be elected" or "I think the media already controls us too much so there's no chance for you to be elected." Well, we are going to prove them wrong.
None of his contributions come directly from special interest groups or corporations. All of it is small donations from individuals. What's more is that there will soon be thousands of volunteers from all around the country knocking on doors in both New Hampshire and Ohio. That alone will be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Estimate, 2000 people, $500 per day per person, 1 week per person, Total: $7 million.) In the states where his name is recognized only by 25% of the people, who are likely swing voters, the Presidential race will be greatly influenced by these first Republican nominee voting states. (Kerry was at 1% this time of year but won in those states, thereby giving him the Democrat nomination.)
The trouble is is that it is impossible to tell how well he is really doing. Online he wins all the polls. But telephone polls tell a different story. Telephone polls are highly biased. Just listen to this. When did you here Ron Paul's name? "Other"? (Here's a youtube interview of the tactic.)
Ron Paul must be doing exceedingly well for the Republican party to be running scared. By using these tactics, they have to consider him a real threat.
There's a number of other problems with these polls. First, how many people actually use their landline these days? Telephone polls only poll landline people and people who have been registered in their parties for years. They will not poll people who have recently registered in a party, nor people who use their cell phones exclusively (or don't answer their landlines that often). That's probably a lot of people under forty who aren't included - the ones most likely to vote for Ron Paul.
And the Republican party is running with its tail under its legs in other aspects too. Straw polls are an excellent example. Romney won a recent straw poll in Florida - by having each of their voters vote 20 times for Romney. Ron Paul had over a thousand people show up at that straw poll, and came in second at the total. He was second with 534 votes to Romney's 893. Watch them caught in the act. There were probably a thousand Ron Paul supporters who were actually there. So who won that straw poll? That's only the beginning.
A straw poll was held in San Francisco a couple days ago. The original deal was $33 for a plate and a vote. Then they changed it after dinner so that you needed $5 more to vote. Then they canceled the straw poll. They kept changing it (that's fraud by my account) to suit their needs. The reason - too many Ron Paul supporters. Youtube Video.
If you want to see all a summary of straw poll results, click here. He even took second in a Democrat Straw Poll.
And major news still consistently ignore him or mock him. Did you hear about the Ron Paul blimp over the CNN debate? Probably only through a social news site on the internet. What about Ron Paul raising more than any other candidate within the last two quarters? He's at $10.4 million now. On December 16th, he'll probably raise at least a few million more. Tea Party Website. Place to officially donate.
Perhaps you don't agree with him on all his beliefs. In fact, people are divided among beliefs like abortion. First, he wants to bring power back to the states - let them decide on some of those things. (Are you so bent on enforcing your opinion on the rest of America? Don't local regions determine laws better based on local customs?) Second, the President probably doesn't have all the power that you might think he has. He can control the troops in war, sign and veto bills, suggest new laws, grant pardons, and enforce laws. He cannot decide how money will be spent, make laws, or interpret laws - despite what you may have learned of Bush's presidency. If he's against a governmental entity or group, he will not and can not disband them immediately.
There's one catch to his candidacy as President. It is within the individual - within you who are reading this. He may or may not win whether you do something, but his whole candidacy revolves around your action. Getting to know the issues better, talking with people, having a home made or professional sign, and even donating. Whether he wins, life will go on. But I assure you, it would've been better if he had won.
There's much more to Ron Paul than what I've just written. You might think he was a Saint by what we've written (..it's too soon to tell if he really is *wink*). He's received more donations from people in the military than any other candidate. He's helped veterans get long overdue medals. Veteran commercial.
And he has an outstanding record too. He's a four term Republican congressman that always votes according to what he preaches. He has a clean record. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force; he's been a gynecologist and delivered thousands of babies; and he's faithfully married to his wife. He doesn't just preach Republican values - he embodies them.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
An unbiased interview with Ron Paul
These journalists certainly are actually letting him answer questions! An hour long interview with Ron Paul.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Ron Paul Revolution
People call it the Ron Paul Revolution. That's an interesting title. They say Ron Paul has no chance of winning whatsoever. They disagree with him, and won't vote for him.
And a revolution indeed it is. There's an interesting thing about revolutions - even the most famous ones - is that people don't believe that they will happen. During the American revolution, there were many who were opposed to it. There were people who didn't believe it was possible. They said that America could never leave Britains rule. They didn't believe that America could win.
And indeed the odds were stacked against the Americans. The Brits could have won - in fact, they probably could have returned to fight another day. If it wasn't for the Americans willingness to not play by the rules and sheer luck, they probably would've lost. (Oh, I'm sure America would've gotten it's freedom from Britain anyways - just look at Australia, Greenland, or Iceland.) At that time, the Americans were worse equipped and didn't have the same man power. But they won. They declared their freedom.
Oh, I'm sure I've taken a very romantic view of the revolutionary war. I probably should read up in a history book someplace and remind myself of more of the facts. But I'm a dreamer. I believe that there is hope when there seems to be no hope at all. I am disillusioned on many things, but I never stop hoping for better, for something grander.
Whether Ron Paul can win is impossible to tell. If the elections were truly fair and democratic, then he might have a chance. Why, we probably wouldn't even have Bush in office today. But despite odds, I am a hoper, I am a dreamer, I am a believer. I always will fight for more, despite what the majority may say. And despite whatever odds he may have, doesn't mean I won't donate more money, because I want him to win.
And a revolution indeed it is. There's an interesting thing about revolutions - even the most famous ones - is that people don't believe that they will happen. During the American revolution, there were many who were opposed to it. There were people who didn't believe it was possible. They said that America could never leave Britains rule. They didn't believe that America could win.
And indeed the odds were stacked against the Americans. The Brits could have won - in fact, they probably could have returned to fight another day. If it wasn't for the Americans willingness to not play by the rules and sheer luck, they probably would've lost. (Oh, I'm sure America would've gotten it's freedom from Britain anyways - just look at Australia, Greenland, or Iceland.) At that time, the Americans were worse equipped and didn't have the same man power. But they won. They declared their freedom.
Oh, I'm sure I've taken a very romantic view of the revolutionary war. I probably should read up in a history book someplace and remind myself of more of the facts. But I'm a dreamer. I believe that there is hope when there seems to be no hope at all. I am disillusioned on many things, but I never stop hoping for better, for something grander.
Whether Ron Paul can win is impossible to tell. If the elections were truly fair and democratic, then he might have a chance. Why, we probably wouldn't even have Bush in office today. But despite odds, I am a hoper, I am a dreamer, I am a believer. I always will fight for more, despite what the majority may say. And despite whatever odds he may have, doesn't mean I won't donate more money, because I want him to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
