Ron Paul detractors - who do you support?

As Ron Pauls popularity has been increasing, so of course are those against him waking up that he is the leader in the republican primaries at this point by the majority of ways to measure, and has recently shown up as the biggest chance to win against a democrat in the latest Zogby blind poll.

Over the course of these hit pieces, I have noticed one common factor among all of them. I never see anyone offered up in response as a better candidate than Ron Paul. The current hit pieces have the theme of "libertarians are leaving Ron Paul". Which I personally find very curious.

Rarely do these articles talk about issues. They all have one major goal in mind, character assassination. Which in my opinion, only goes to point out that this election really is Ron Paul vs the status quo.

Because of course, when you compare Ron Paul, side by side to any other politician running, these so called claims made just don't hold water. As if because you don't agree with him 100%, you suddenly can't vote for him. Obviously there is likely no candidate you can find you agree with 100%.

If you can show me someone I'd rather vote for than Ron Paul, then I'm am all ears. Please, show me the candidate I agree with more, has an established voting record backing it up, has consistent values and can explain their position in detail, and has taken up the fight to returning our foreign policy to what it should be.

Where is this candidate who understands the constitution so much better than Ron Paul? Who is it that doesn't need lawyers to decide for him, and understands that domestic issues on the whole, belong on the state level. Which other candidate understands that the general welfare is defined in the preamble of the constitution as the amendments themselves, and the general welfare clause is what gives congress the power to uphold those amendments.

Because I must say, I have spent the last 7 years looking for this candidate after it was clear GWB wasn't going to hold up to his promises. I had all but given up hope, and Ron Paul, and more importantly, the support he has gotten, has renewed my hope for this country.

So how is it all you that post articles that don't like Ron Paul actually support? And why if you feel so passionate about that candidate, you never mention it? Just because the major media likes to tell you the American people are stupid, doesn't mean it's true. We aren't that dumb, sorry.

Re: Attention you politics-hating coders

So, taking a break from my norm of talking about the constitution to post a little reply to this article:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2046

I would like to state, that yes I am a programmer, and yes I make my living on the internet. I am also 100% against net neutrality, or any other regulations on the internet.

The big issue the writer of the previous article throws out is CHOICE. Yes, choice. If an ISP were to start charging websites(like the one I work for), then I would have 2 choices. I could go ahead and pay the charge, or I can refuse the charge, and not get traffic from that ISP.

But are those the only choices? Not by a long shot. If an ISP were to stop allowing traffic to certain sites, then their users are not going to be happy. I personally use AT&T(they bought out SBC) for my internet. If AT&T were to introduce such charges, then I the customer will not be allowed to visit sites that don't pay. Thus, I would immediately change to an ISP who didn't do such things.

Likewise, if a website wanted to charge an ISP, then I would simply not go to that site. I seriously doubt any website would do such a thing, as it goes against everything about being an internet based business.

What do government regulations do? They remove that choice. They instead use FORCE to make everyone do something. Under regulations, I will no longer have a choice of using a better ISP, as all ISP's will be made to follow the same rules. Let me be very clear on this - NO THANK YOU.

The author himself starts out saying - money decides things in politics. He even goes to use this as a fault for Ron Paul. Well, given this information, then who do you think this law is for?

So I have looked for a candidate who will leave an OPEN internet, VOID of regulations, and that candidate is Ron Paul. However, that is hardly even close to the real reasons I'll be voting for him.

May I however suggest that you start looking at things beyond the name of a bill. Net Neutrality is about a neutral internet as much as the Patriot Act saved our liberties.

Capitalism vs Corporatism

While visiting peoples blogs, sites and listening to opinions, I am often faced with people who blame capitalism for todays problems. And why wouldn't they? They've always been told we had a capitalistic market.

But is that really the case? Do we really have capitalism in America? Do we have a free market? In some places, yes we do. The best example would be the internet. Where pretty much everyone is given free reign to do business as they please. Obviously, there are still laws that must be obey'd, such as theft, but is free of government regulations. But that isn't the case for the heavier markets. Those markets are heavily regulated.

Why are these regulations bad? Well for starters, regulations are introduced because they feel someone is doing something bad, or that the possibility for someone to do something bad exists. On the outside, it would appear these regulations help the American people and businesses. However, in reality these regulations punish everyone. Even those companies who would never do anything bad to begin with. And not only that, but most likely the act that would cause the regulation in the first place is probably already illegal. In instances where companies must prove they are obeying the regulations, this assumes that everyone is guilty and they must prove otherwise. This is completely against the ideals this country was founded on. Yet, companies are forced to deal with these all the time.

And now that the government is involved in these industries, in come the lobbyist. Big corporations with alot of money are able to persuade politicians into passing laws and regulations that help their business. These are added as little pieces to bills, and by adding them congress is able to get votes on bills and makes changes that otherwise would never fly. Of course, the smaller companies of the industry are rarely represented. A recent well known case of this is the internet gambling law. Clearly not a law the American people wanted.

But that happens with just regulation, what happens when government is really involved with an industry? Such as healthcare, education, etc. Now you have companies who will use lobbyists to get government contracts. Because getting those contracts guarantees you business, funding and customers. And these companies waste money like crazy, and charge the full amount they can for everything. Haliburton was a good example of a company who has been abusing the American taxpayer. Meanwhile, other companies who could perhaps do the job on smaller levels or who don't have good ties are never given a chance. This is passed off as a "free market" or capitalism.

That however just isn't the truth, and goes completely against the definition of a free market and capitalism. When corporations are using money and influence to pass laws, regulate the markets as they see fit and other things, that is corporatism. Some people call it fascism, but I personally believe corporatism is better way to describe it.

So for anyone who says we have a free market and that it doesn't work is wrong. When we had a free market, our economy was thriving. You are right when you say the current system isn't working, but it's corporatism, not capitalism which has lead to the problems and corruption of today.

What limits the 2nd amendment?

So a popular discussion is the 2nd amendment, and what defines the limits. It's original purpose was to defend yourself, and I still believe in that today. But where do we draw the line on what is suitable and what is just a bit overboard? After all, citizens running around with nukes isn't a good thing no matter how you want to spin it.

For most, they seem to think it's just what the majority of people deem is ok, even if that means none at all. That is a total violation of the 2nd amendment. So what defines that is property and individual rights. You can't have a nuke, because you could never set it off without infringing on the property rights of millions of people. It goes way beyond the realm of self defense, hunting or anything other than straight warfare. This would apply to many explosive weapons, they would all infringe on other peoples properties, even with just sound waves alone.

But do rifles and such do this? The answer is no. They do not automatically infringe on property rights of other people. And yes, they are for self protection. The immediate comment is, how can you let people run around with these? My answer is, have you looked around, if they are a criminal, they aren't paying attention to the laws. We've all heard it before, it only takes them out of law abiding citizens, the ones who have legitimate reasons to have them in the first place. Which is worse, 30 citizens with automatic weapons, and 1 criminal with one, or 30 unarmed citizens with 1 criminal armed with even just a couple of pistols? Who are you really helping here? Unfortunately, that has been answered too many times in slaughters in our schools. I'm certainly not saying kids need to bring weapons to schools, just that it is an example of what could happen anywhere if all law abiding citizens give up their weapons.

So does that mean people will be walking the streets with these things? I highly doubt it. What is to stop them? You. Private businesses who own their property, also have every right not to allow them on their property. Pretty much every business is not going to allow it. And if they do, you can let them know you will not give them business as long as they allow it.

Statistics keep showing over time that areas that have the strictest gun laws carry the highest amount of gun related crimes. Because the victim is less likely to be able to defend themselves. In places that allow concealed weapons, the crime rate is much lower. Because there is a much higher chance the victim is able to defend themselves.

If we could rid the world of guns tomorrow I'd be in favor of it. But that just isn't realistic. They are here to stay, the only thing we can reduce is their effectiveness, and the less people who have them, the more effective they are.

Adding social programs the constitutional way - amendments

So previously I explained how the abuse of the general welfare clause was bad for all Americans. I also explained why those who say the current social programs are unconstitutional are right. So now, this is where republicans start to hate me. Because I'm going to tell you how to do them constitutionally.

So, now we know that the general welfare clause is actually what gives power for congress to protect our rights. So in a limited government, in order to add to that power, you need an amendment! Once you add an amendment, then congress has the authority to do things, under the general welfare clause. But it gets better, aside from just being constitutional, it will actually better fit your goals.

Because if you add it as an amendment, then it is added as a RIGHT for all citizens, not just citizens represented by special interests groups, not citizens who will vote for them because they receive them. Because it will go to EVERYONE EQUALLY. And, in doing so, you've only given congress to do the 1 thing you actually wanted to do, not a broad open door to do whatever they want to do. Immediately, our governments role in our lives and in our pockets will be reduced to only the things we exactly want, nothing more.

Passing an amendment is much harder. It requires 2/3's majority in the senate. This is where it takes out partisan politics. As instead of issues being decided on near 50/50 issues, where the American people are basically yo-yo'd around depending no what swing state voted in who, it will require an overwhelming amount of majority to pass things. And once passed, it is then a right for all people, and all people will be treated equally. And that is the main goal of most people who are in favor of socialized programs.

And candidate or politician who isn't trying to pass amendments on social issues, is just looking out for special interest groups and lobbyists. Because they clearly have a better way, and yet they just ignore it, and continue to serve special interest groups and lobbyists.

I personally think these social programs are a bad idea on a federal level, and that they could be handled on the state level much better. IMO, 50 states doing their own programs allows for more creativity, and leaves the other states to adopt their practices when it works, and not be punished by bad ideas another state drops. With the federal government, we are reduced to 1 program, which is only adjusted every 4-8 years and everyone is made to pay for mistakes, while new ideas can't be tried as easily. But at least if amendments were passed, everyone would be treated equally, and we wouldn't have to accept the extra stuff nobody really wants.

I think if this were to happen, education would have a pretty high chance of having an amendment. The big change with this would be that rather than funding being done by the community, all schools would be funded equally. I am personally against this for the above reason, but I think it would have the highest chance of being passed since even some republicans like it. I think how well it did would have an affect on things such as healthcares chances, which would only be around 50% support right now.

So that is how our government is supposed to work, and will hopefully work 1 day again. You'll see that you have more control over the government this way, and it is forced to treat people equally. I think this is something both republicans and democrats can understand, and hopefully we can work together to return to this in the future. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown he will get both the republican party, and the democrat parties on the right track.