Sunday, March 9, 2008

I'm still voting for Ron Paul

Well, I'm still voting for Ron Paul. Why? Because I don't want to waste my vote, thats why. Is there a single viable alternative? The simple answer is no.

I'd rather vote for something I wanted, and not get it, than vote for something I didn't want and get it. That is what I call not wasting a vote. Because the only difference between the other 3 candidates is how they present the same ideas to you.

And that isn't by accident in my opinion. Ever played a game of chess by yourself? So is it really amazing that you win every time? By putting yourself on all sides of the contest, you are guaranteed victory. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can control the politics of a country by playing both sides, nor does it take one to see and understand it. However, it does take people who actually pay attention.

The current candidates don't offer anything different than a king or queen would in history. The king and queen generally handled things differently from 1 to another, just as our politicians do today, but that all agreed on a few basic principles. Namely, they were in control of the issue, and the citizens were not.

And the United States represented a country and government directly opposed to this principle. Offering instead that the people of the country itself were more than capable of taking care of themselves. And that is what we call Freedom. But today, politicians have managed to keep those basic principles silent in the debate. And rather than even argue over who should have control of the issue, it's only a debate on who should be in control, or who/what they should give money to. That is all we do anymore, is elect someone to manage our own money for it. And the American people are soaking it up and asking for more.

But not Ron Paul. The real reason Ron Paul has been censored and why he has the support he does is because he brings up those basic principles(otherwise known as liberty). And there isn't a single politician out there who will debate him on the level, because once the people see - hey, we don't have to let these people control everything, the game is over. And that is exactly what this "revolution" is about.

It's not just about getting 1 man elected. It's not just about getting certain people into the government. What is needed today is educating the citizens to how a proper government works, and why it is the best system. Because what good would it do if Ron Paul were elected, and the citizens didn't understand things? The fact of the matter is that a person like Ron Paul getting elected is the result, not the real action here. And it's important not to forget that.

As 1 said, the people will not get the best government possible. They will get the government they deserve. And that couldn't be more true today. Because quite frankly, if the American people don't understand Freedom and liberty, then they don't deserve it. And they won't have it either, just as Ben Franklin said over 200 years ago.

There is still 9 months until the election. And that is plenty of time for things to change. This isn't a time for giving up, it's a time for punching through the wall that is present, and showing what you are made of.

So despite all the negative reporting lately, and claims of Ron Paul dropping out. I will still do my best to educate people on proper government and liberty. I have $2300 waiting to send Ron Paul for the general election donations as quickly as I can. And I will be writing Ron Paul in if I have to come election time.

After all, every revolution starts out with defeats. Even our own revolution to found this country started out as such. But it was the people who believed in what they were fighting for who carried on, and others who woke up and joined them rather than just accepting the things being pushed on them. They deserved their freedom and liberty, and they got it. How long until we as Americans deserve it once again?

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." -- Dwight Eisenhower

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill


Patrick M said...

What is needed today is educating the citizens to how a proper government works, and why it is the best system.

Out of curiosity, how will you help Ron Paul to do that by coming to conservative blogs and coming off like a cut-and-paste moonbat?

The beauty of freedom in this country is your ability to support whatever candidate you choose, no mater how futile. I know, because the candidate I wanted the least is the GOP candidate. So I'm in the undecided column. But if you are the example of the average Ron Paul supporter , and I have a good idea that you are, then there's no way in Hell I'm going to go anywhere near him.

If you want to win, learn how to win, then come and add to the discussion.

Randolphus Maximus said...


I came over here from your comments at chatterbox.

Your comments are on target as far as the 3 "top tier" candidates are concerned. Why is the scope of debate among the 3 only limited to the degree of government intervention and not whether government *should* be doing a particular action or not based on what the Constitution says. It's like having to choose between the Gambinos or the Bonnanos or one of the other crime families out there.

Keep on doing what you are doing. The message will spread.


ilovetheconstitution said...

Patrick. You know whats funny? You talk about me being some cut-and-paste moonbat, and then you turn around and tell me you would base your vote not on the candidate, but his supporters. Thats pretty nutty. I don't think I'd be able to vote for anyone - Ron Paul included if I went and looked for any supporters of that person I didn't like. It just so happens, I look at the candidates issues.

Also, I'd love to know what you think I am copying and pasting here.

Now, I may not be Einstein, but I know BS and excuses when I see it. I also know personal attacks when I see them. Did you talk about an issue here? Nope, you just came and attacked me. But have a nice day anyway.

Patrick M said...

Randophus: You've got the SPD philosophy in a nutshell. Come on over to my blog and enjoy more insight.

What is needed today is educating the citizens to how a proper government works, and why it is the best system.

Out of curiosity, how will you help Ron Paul to do that by coming to conservative blogs and coming off like a cut-and-paste moonbat?

That was a question, not an attack. If I attack, you will know it.

My cut-and-paste reference is due to the fact that you filled the page with an assload of points rather than a concise question or statement.

And while I find some of Ron Paul's ideas good, some are downright scary, and his supporters generally reinforce that perception I've gathered from the early debates that, in my most unhumble opinion, Dr Paul may be a little nucking futs.

I appreciate you answering me clearly, though. It allows for discussion.

ilovetheconstitution said...

You called me a cut-and-past moonbat. That is not an attack?

What is so bad about just making points?

And if you find something Ron Paul wants to be downright scary, then I'd say chances are you didn't really understand what he meant. But which positions do you find to be so scary? I don't see you mentioning any.

Patrick M said...

I said you were coming off as a moonbat, not that you were one.

Points are fine. Pages of them are a tactic.

Most of my information on Ron Paul's positions comes from his website, which I did study before I started commenting on him. And since I can read....

As for scary positions, his position on the war in Iraq. While I myself have said it is time to begin pulling out, his position is to order an immediate pullout. My instincts tell me that too rapid a pullout will destabilize the area and will make it worse than when we get in.

Furthermore, despite the Democrats' promises to pull out, I don't think, once they see all the information, that they will pull out ASAP. Ron Paul states he would order the immediate pullout. I believe he would do just that. I'm willing to get the troops out, but with a measure of victory. This is the deciding factor for me.

Beyond that, most of my disagreements are a matter of degree. I won't overload your blog by trying to argue every point, though.

Third, there is a matter of his anger. In his appearances in the shooting gallery debates, he did not appear presidential. He appeared pissed off. How you present your message is almost as important as the message itself.

ilovetheconstitution said...

I think I'll write a topic on what I'd like to see done to fix/help Iraq. I don't disagree with Ron Paul much at all however.

But the angry part? The only time Ron Paul ever raised his voice was when they were obviously repeating what he said in a spun way to take a shot at him.

For example, on Fox when they said "Are you suggesting Americans were responsible for 9/11?", he responded with a very stern No. Personally, I thought he did very well containing himself considering, and he never really attacked anyone personally in the debates.

And while I think it's great/important for him to keep a level head. He would have to be a whole lot angrier to match that of the American people right now.

Overall, thats a pretty weak point, and more appropriate for American Idol or some other pageant than a presidential debate. I vote based on the issues.

Patrick M said...

Issues are alway a priority. But, the type of person we elect is also an issue. I'll use the top-tier candidates as examples.

Hillary Clinton - Liberal on most issues and absolutely a calculating, lying politician

Barack Obama - even more liberal on most positions, and he may have Marxist and anti-American leanings. (Still needs to be investigated)

John McCain - Most conservative of the three (relatively) but with some troubling positions. In addition, he is more of a legislator than a leader, and a weak candidate. If he wins, it will be because the other candidates were weak.

My moment with Ron Paul was based on his assessment of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As he was arguing his point, I got the impression (wholly subjective) that he was more focused on what we have done wrong than what we have done right.

And it was with that that I saw he was not nearly ready to be a presidential candidate. The successful candidates are perceived as speaking of the greatness and potential of America, not what's wrong with it. Bill Clinton (ick) is a perfect example of this. In his 1992 campaign, he sounded and felt as though he was going to lead the country into another great era. And while the truth was significantly different, it was perception as much as positions (excessively spun in this case) that carried the day.

Until Ron Paul can project that image, he will, for better or worse, remain a marginal candidate, even if he is perfect on every position.

ilovetheconstitution said...

First off, maybe Ron Paul is having to point out what we did wrong because nobody else on the stage will.

John McCain is not a conservative.

Tell me, what issues is he a conservative on? Education? Healthcare? Immigration? Gun laws?

Any of them? Nope. He's a liberal. Learn to look past the -R.

ilovetheconstitution said...

And btw, the person who looks presidential is the guy who gets elected.

Again you give lame points on why you don't like Ron Paul. All materialistic American Idol bullcrap.

You can put frosting on a pile of poo and make it appear to look good. But you're still getting a pile of poo. Seems you just want to ask for more frosting, rather than getting rid of the pile of poo.