Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Ron Paul: Modern Copperhead

We have a problem here.

Of course, many of you know it already. But, I think the time has come to make it official: Ron Paul’s campaign for the Presidency now presents a serious challenge to those who love liberty and seek its preservation against the Islamist assault on our civilization. It is no longer sufficient to simply dismiss those who support him as a motley collection of nuts and morons. It’s not that I deny that many of them are – it’s just that nuts and morons get to vote too.

It is fashionable for conservatives to dismiss Ron Paul, citing his flat poll numbers – just a few percentage points in most polls. I believe this to be a mistake – not only are national polls worthless in assessing the results of individual primaries, but they also fail to consider support that polls – especially polls partisan primary polling – might fail to pick up. While there’s absolutely zero chance that Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, there is a very high probability that he will be able to raise enough money to remain in the race and get enough votes to continue to receive media coverage. Worse still, it is entirely possible that he will win a sufficient number of delegates to cause trouble during the Republican National Convention (even, say, thirty could be a serious annoyance and disruption) and that he will go on to run as a third party candidate. There is also, if Senator Clinton secures the Democratic nomination early, the possibility that the internet-savvy leftist nutroots might organize in order to give Paul the illusion of more support.

Of all opposing forces, fifth columnists are the hardest to defeat. And that is what makes Ron Paul such a serious threat – because he is nominally a “Republican” he gets to go up on stage with the serious candidates for the Republican nomination and to spew his garbage all over the stage.

Who is Ron Paul? For a name that we hear so often (at least online), I don’t think most of us know much about him. He’s been a member of Congress for twenty years. In that time, he’s failed to achieve a single item of note. Instead, he’s dedicated himself to fringe causes – such as abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold Standard. In the meantime, he’s helped to ensure his own re-election in part by securing pork projects for his own district while maintaining his ideological purity by voting against them on final passage.

In short, in three decades in public life, Ron Paul has shown himself to be a nothing more than a kook politician noteworthy primarily for his uselessness and pointless lectures. He is, it must be conceded, a strange vessel to contain such support as he now commands.

So? Why have many chosen him? Simply put, because he’s the candidate who has managed to capture the imagination of a certain sort of person on the war. The thing to remember about Americans – and watching Democratic debates it is easy to forget – it is that they are an unusually patriotic people. Even many (though not all) of the people working to bring about the defeat of the United States in the War on Terrorism (and before that in the Vietnam War – and long before that in the Civil War) think of themselves as American patriots. What Ron Paul – and all of his declarations about George Washington, non-intervention, the Constitution, and so forth – offers is a way for some people to feel that they are patriotically seeking to bring about the defeat of the United States and the victory of its enemies in a war.

When the Copperhead Democrats sought to undermine the Union during the Civil War they, much like Ron Paul today, claimed that they were acting in the defense of the Constitution – which they accused Abraham Lincoln of destroying. Like Ron Paul, the leader of the Copperheads, Clement Vallandigham, railed against debt, taxation, and the loss of rights under the Constitution. Lincoln responding by having Vallandigham exiled to the Confederacy but, alas, I don’t think there’s any chance of President Bush handing Ron Paul a one-way ticket to Tehran.

Who does support Ron Paul? I am told that the “Don’t Tase Me, Bro” guy is one of his Legionaries. The base of his support, it is not at all difficult to conclude, is drawn from the vast ocean of “slight unmeritable men” about whom it is hard not to wonder, as Antony did of Lepidus in Julius Caesar whether it is really fitting, political power being divided such as it is, that they ought to have an equal share.

Obviously, individual political equality is a basis of modern democracy but, nonetheless, it is probably worth wondering why we ought to consider the beliefs and views of, for example, 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists to be of any merit at all. It is not really possible to reason with people who adhere to a worldview for entirely irrational reasons.

Whenever I see Ron Paul’s supporters, my mind flashes (though not for any pharmacological reason, I assure you) back to a time that I saw pro-drug crusader Marc Emery speak during the 2001 provincial election. Every time the man spoke his dirty and confused supporters – who uniformly reeked of pot – would scream their approval, even when he made statements (abolish welfare, radically cut taxes, and the like) which would not ordinarily meet with the approbation of dishevelled hippes. In each case, an unlikely figure was grabbed onto by a motley crowd of fringe fools because of the appeal of their position on a single issue. In one case, drugs and in this case the war.

But, we cannot simply dismiss the fringe. In that 2001 Election, the Marijuana Party got 3.2% of the vote across the Province of BC and that was without a galvanizing issue like a war. Well-organized kooks can cause problems. It is tempting to simply dismiss the 9-11 Truthers, the people who see Black Helicopters’ everywhere, and the rest of that crowd as irrelevant. But, sadly, they aren’t. Individually they don’t matter but, if they can gather in once place, they are… Well… A problem.

29 Comments:

Blogger James said...

Paul only "nominally" Republican? Hardly. If Rudy can be considered GOP while remaining an accross-the-board liberal socially and having a tax/spending record that is mixed at best, then Paul certainly can be if your big gripe against him is his being of a like mind with Bob "Mr. Republican" Taft on foreign policy.

The ad hominem attacks on Paul supporters are cute for a time, but you seem to have no strategy to combat us beyond this. I would suggest presenting another candidate whose platform is based first off of limited government, you know, that thing the other Republican candidates give lip service to. Find me some other candidate who thinks balanced (and reduced) budgets should exist as more than talking points AND knows what the tenth amendment is (sorry W) AND thinks that millions of people sneaking into the country every year don't deserve the same privaleges afforded those who wait in line and play by the rules AND will unashamedly say that abortion is wrong. Try it.

The first time I saw Paul on TV I my appraisal of him was not unlike yours. Once I took some time to actually look him up, I found him to be the most conservative candidate in the race. I do not support him because of his Iraq position. I am not a pothead. I am disgusted by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

I would ask you to account for my existence, but, seeing as your blog reads like the rants of a 15-year-old who has discovered spell check, I doubt you could accomplish it without more unwarranted vitrol and name-calling than I would care to sift through.

October 3, 2007 10:19 PM  
Blogger Adam Yoshida said...

Simply put, if you support Ron Paul for President - there's something wrong with you. One need not read through many pro-Ron Paul websites and publications to discover this. You may claim not to approve of the 9-11 truthers and the anti-war seditionists but, sir, I adhere to the idea that people ought to be judged by the company that they keep.

In any case, the rest of Ron Paul's ideas are just nutty at this point in history. Abolish the Federal Reserve? Restore the Gold Standard? How, exactly, do you plan to live through the Depression that would be triggered by that?

I can't be the only one who has noticed that, during the 19th Century, America suffered through a Depressiion or "Panic" every ten years or so and, since the advent of modern Central Banking, has suffered through exactly one - one triggered by the failure of the central bank to respond adequately to the crisis at hand.

October 3, 2007 10:33 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

So where are the facts, and his uselessness is called a track record of voting against unconstitutional legislation.

But I wont go there. You try to make a very valid point, but you fail to back up the point by issuing references.

First, his issue is that we are not in this war constitutionally.

Second, he believes that we are being attacked and have been attacked in the past because we have a very good way of policing other nations. I will give you an example called a Prime Directive, if you've ever watched Star Trek Voyager you will know that the federation refuses to get involved with other species internal disputes. Unless asked, hence why the UN exists. I have a simple question for you though. Do you believe that the government getting any more power than it has is a good thing?

October 3, 2007 10:36 PM  
Blogger Webmaster said...

OH brother and this from a socialist in Canada?

Grow up child.

October 3, 2007 10:44 PM  
Blogger Adam Yoshida said...

Oh, and yes - James, I think it's fair to describe someone who was previously the candidate of another party for President and who has yet to rule out running on behalf of that same party against as only nominally belonging to the Republican Party.

October 3, 2007 10:45 PM  
Blogger Reeve said...

You seem to have constructed an argument of circular logic to your liking. I encourage you to think about and respond to these questions.

1) Is it possible that Ron Paul's pursuit "fringe causes" and seemingly irrational no votes could construed as "idealism", and do you beleive there is a situation where idealism can be dangerous?

2) Could your own shortsightedness or disenfranchisement with government be to blame for your difficulty in recognising the "point" of Dr. Paul's "pointless lectures"?

3) Do you feel safe playing the role of "the guy that has nothing to hide"? Do you truly beleive you could not be the next "don't tase me bro" bro? (i encourage you to watch the "riot" this man incited here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s )

4) Could your fear of "Islamic Terrorism" be media inspired, and do you realise how exponentially more dangerous our international occupation of countries needing "stabalization" is? (I encourage you to read Chalmers Johnson's prophetic book: Blowback, regarding this subject)

October 3, 2007 10:46 PM  
Blogger P. M. Jaworski said...

I'm with James. Maybe you could acknowledge some of the non-Truther, non-pothead, non-conspiracy types who support Ron Paul.

To be perfectly honest, I'm mostly a fan of his because of his opposition to the War in Iraq, but I had known of, and occasionally paid attention to, his years as a Congressman. His opposition to the tragic and ruinous war just made me all the more excited about him.

I was aware that he had never voted for a tax increase. That he, unlike members of the now-defunct Reform Party who promised the same thing, does not participate in the Congressional pension program. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget, for God's sake. And he wants to abolish the Department of Education, the IRS, and a host of other big-government programs and Departments.

What's there not to like about this guy? (All right, he's pro-life, and pro-border fence. Both of those positions I disagree with).

What matters is that he is a thorough-going small government guy. On everything. No exceptions. His voting record is a Ronald Reagan wet dream. His policies are consistent with those of Mike Harris and Ralph Klein (the early years version). They are the policy positions that Harper should have had, and should have acted upon (rather than the sell-out policies he's been busy pushing and passing).

You're right. Big government conservatives should be worried. Pro-war conservatives should fret. Ron Paul's fundraising figures are a shot across the bow of the 2004-2007 Republican conservatives (you know, the *new* pro-nation building, non-humble foreign policy Republicans. The ones that had always thought W. Bush's first campaign platform was all wrong since it didn't call for war here and there).

Yup. Sit up, take notice. Go Ron Paul.

*(Oh, and the earmarks issue is bullshit. Either congresscritters put in earmarks, or bureaucrats do. That money is already gone, the only question that remains is whether the money will be spent by a politician or by a bureaucrat.)

October 3, 2007 10:47 PM  
Blogger Adam Yoshida said...

Robert - Yes, I'm fully aware of his view about the "unconstiutionality" of the war. I'm of the opinion that it's pure nonsense. As Paul himself pointed out - he voted on an Iraq War Resolution. He voted against it, but the majority of the Congress voted for it. And, to top that off, even if they didn't, the President would have had recourse to the post 9-11 Resolution passed by the Congress (Public Law 107-40), which Ron Paul voted for. And, in any case, he would have recourse to the President's inherient powers as the Commander-in-Chief.

The Iraq War is perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. Indeed, its authroization came by the same means as the authorization for the first war that American fought as a nation, that against the Barbary Corsairs. That, I might add, came about under Thomas Jefferson - hardly someone known for his loose view of the Constitution. I'm a Hamilton man myself, but there that is.

October 3, 2007 10:49 PM  
Blogger Adam Yoshida said...

In general, I'd say that people who oppose the Iraq War fall into the "fool" category that I already outlined.

October 3, 2007 10:52 PM  
Blogger Reeve said...

"only fools oppose war"

...you heard it here first folks

Come on Adam...

October 3, 2007 10:57 PM  
Blogger Chip said...

Hi Adam,

Ron Paul supports the rule of law, which I think is something many people don't understand. He took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and does so, regardless of his belief of a particular subject. Even if he agrees with the intent of a law, he will vote against it if not authorized by the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land."

He also understands how our foreign policy affects other nations, and why people get upset at the United States. Saying that "this is why they are mad" does NOT say they are justified in doing what happened on 9/11. It only offers an explanation.

I have asked the questions below to several folks and not received a reasonable answer - I hope you can help me with this:

If China set up some military bases in or near the United States, the way the US government has set them up in (for example) Saudi Arabia, do you think the US citizens would be happy?

If any other nation did to the USA what the US government did to Iran's government in the 1950s, do you think US citizens would be happy?

Would we not expect the USA to retaliate?

Is there any reason we should not expect others to retaliate against the USA for these types of actions?

Respectfully,

- Chip

October 3, 2007 10:57 PM  
Blogger Adam Yoshida said...

Obviously, I would never accept such actions by the Chinese. But the point, sir, is that someone has to lead and, yes, rule the world. If it isn't the United States - than it will be someone else. Who do you suppose that will be? Do you suppose that it will turn out well for the United States or, well, pretty much anyone?

There must be different standards for the West, versus the rest of the world. It's the only way that this thing works and our civilziation survives. We're too interconnected to survive without someone in charge.

October 3, 2007 10:59 PM  
Blogger Chip said...

We must rule the world, because we are right?

That sounds like a recipe for perpetual war. Everybody thinks "they are right." The Muslims do. The Christians do. The Jews do. So does everyone else.

And the different standards for us? Is that a "do as I say, not as I do" thing?

Do you really think other nations / peoples will stand for this concept?

October 3, 2007 11:12 PM  
Blogger P. M. Jaworski said...

It's amazing, reading your comments (and some of your other blog posts... I only came across this blog because you mentioned Ron Paul) that you would be busy accusing Ron Paul fans of being kooks and crazies.

"Someone has to rule the world!" and "The War in Iraq: Good idea!" are slogans I'd be inclined to put in the zany camp. Maybe a year or so ago it was okay to think that there was a slim, tiny chance that the war was a good idea.

But now? Given what we know?

I understand the zeal of the partisan. I understand the person who cares more about party identification than policy and ideals. I understand those things, they are good explanations for the behaviour of you and Rush and Hannity and some of my friends who work at various conservative think tanks and news outlets in Canada. I just don't think they justify it.

So, call me a fool for thinking that the War in Iraq makes America less safe. Call me a fool for thinking that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrah. Call me a fool for thinking that WMDs had something to do with the justification for the war. Call me a fool for thinking that this war is only making things worse in the Middle East, as well as in the U.S.

Still, better a fool than a partisan tool...

October 3, 2007 11:12 PM  
Blogger Reeve said...

You may have played follow the leader your whole life Adam, but don't beleive that everyone will be so easy to govern.

Your view of world domination paints an overly rosy picture in my estimation. Attempt to rule a group of 100 people by force and see how easy it is, now ponder ruling arkansas, now extrapolate that to: 6 BILLION people. There is a reason Draco's laws no longer govern Athens, and i don't think it is because the citizenry was smoking too much weed.

October 3, 2007 11:19 PM  
Blogger Adam Yoshida said...

The feelings of other nations are totally irrelevant to the question, Chip. Power, sir, is a zero sum game. If you surrender it, as Ron Paul proposes, someone else gets it.

It'a hardly a plan for perpetual war when you have the most advanced technology and sophisticated military. The model for sustainable peace and prosperity, of course, are the great Western Empires - particularly the British and Roman ones. You might have delusions that we can all be simple agrarian farmers or whatever and get along - but that's not the world the exists.

It is either dominate or be dominated. I know which side I'm on. So, apparently, do you.

October 3, 2007 11:21 PM  
Blogger Winston said...

The guy is a nut

October 4, 2007 2:23 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

Adam, Ron Paul is far more conservative than you could ever hope to be. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter or even a conservative, but I thought conservatives believed in things like the rule of law, fiscal restraint, small government. You have advocated for the opposite of all of those things.

Modern neo-cons worship at the same altar and suckle at the same teat of big government that liberals do. They just want to use it to control different aspects of your life. Ron Paul, more than pretty much any candidate in the race, is seeking to change that. If that's not true conservatism, I am truly sorry that you don't recognize it as such. True conservatism must be truly dead.

October 4, 2007 9:45 AM  
Blogger Therapeutic Messenger said...

Mr Yoshida,
You are most certainly suffering under the delusions of collectivist, elitest propaganda which will micromanage you into a state of manageable mediocrity. Which, by your own words, is a condition you can be comfortable within, while avoiding personal accountability. You seem to be a "let the government be accountable as long as my plate is full" kind of person. That sir, is not a judgement, it is an observation.

October 4, 2007 10:03 AM  
Blogger Suffolk Bank President said...

"I can't be the only one who has noticed that, during the 19th Century, America suffered through a Depressiion or "Panic" every ten years or so and, since the advent of modern Central Banking, has suffered through exactly one - one triggered by the failure of the central bank to respond adequately to the crisis at hand."

Adam,

I'm a one of the "cooks" you refer to who works as a Senior Analyst at a regional bank. A "depression" that you know will happen as a result of a return to a gold standard is a hyperbolic statement borne from fear. Paul has proposed a side by side currency (one redeemable in gold or silver and the existing note) to co-exist. The market will be the judge as to the price of each.

I suggest you read the causes of the panics you refer to in the 19th century. Each one was caused not by the gold standard itself but by government trying to break from it. They would stop redemption or move the ratio of metal/note on a dime to inflate for pork projects or wars. The people had a choice either watch their money disappear (as is happening today with the CAD/US and EURO/US) or redeem. Had the governments not broken the promise none of the runs in the 19th century would have taken place.

The federal government since the war of 1812 has been seeking a lender of last resort to buy its debt to fund its projects. That is what a central bank does. On a gold standard, govt could not spend beyond what they have unless they went to the open market and competed for capital like the rest of us. Rates would be real in terms of not having a fed to keep them artificially low/high.

Lastly,

If you truly are interested in US banking history and the persistent effort of the US govt throughout the 19th century to create a lender of last resort, research The Bank of North America and The Bank of the United States.

October 4, 2007 3:00 PM  
Blogger Billy said...

Quick comment on a couple of Adam's statements.

Adam: "...someone has to lead and, yes, rule the world"

Whoa, perhaps we're going to have to agree to disagree because you actually *want* someone to rule over you and nothing I say will change that. This goes strictly against any notion of freedom I've held.

Adam: "The model for sustainable peace and prosperity, of course, are the great Western Empires - particularly the British and Roman ones."

Umm, how did that "sustainable" Roman empire fare anyway? The British empire has been in decline for the last half of the century.

Adam: "It is either dominate or be dominated."

I'm sorry Adam but this just screams of someone who was picked on by the school bully. We may have thought it worked when we were five but I hope we've learned some civility. Diplomacy anyone?

October 4, 2007 3:07 PM  
Blogger Suffolk Bank President said...

Adam,

I'd like to add another comment.

" can't be the only one who has noticed that, during the 19th Century, America suffered through a Depressiion or "Panic" every ten years or so and, since the advent of modern Central Banking, has suffered through exactly one - one triggered by the failure of the central bank to respond adequately to the crisis at hand."

We have had one asset bubble after another since 1970, 2 bubbles in the last 7 years and one Asian currency crisis in 1997. We have a national debt level that if fully funded is approximatley $60 trillion and a consumption driving economy that needs 3 billion in foreign capital alone to keep going. The US currency is staring to reflect this as it is near all time lows on the CAD and Euro. World central banks have nothing but US $ in them backing their own currencies. What will happen to the value of the foreigners I.O.U as the US Fed montizes US obligations. How will foreing govt react to watching their US holding lose value? The US TIC report shows presisly what they are doing. Leaving $ based assets with you and me. For a country that relies on foreign capital to fund it's operations and wars, this is not going to end well. Interestingly, you hold the Roman and British Empires up in high regard. Where are they now?

Remember, everything is economic. Politics is a side show

October 4, 2007 3:20 PM  
Blogger schimberg said...

Adam, you obviously have almost no supporters, or people who share your insane, shortsighted, and irrational view-point. Your phony talk about historical precedents, power, and "dominate or be dominated" are (as others have already pointed out) childish at best, completely psychopathic at worst.
Your supposed fear of "islamic extremists" makes you look WEAK, and your suggestion that we should completely give up our constitutionally(Bill of Rights) guaranteed civil rights shows that you really are a fascist.
What a waste of a person you are.
You should really consider moving to North Korea. I think you'd get along well with Kim Jung Ill.

October 4, 2007 3:35 PM  
Blogger Lord of Wealth said...

As a Canadian I would welcome Ron Paul as the leader of U.S. While not a libertarian at heart I can respect his ideals which no Politicians of any stripe in the U.S. can stand up to, that and he'd make a damn fine neighbour.

As for the Gold standard,something needs to be done to give people sound money that the Gov and Private banks like the Fed RES can't destroy via the printing press and electronic money.

The U.S. was founded by conservative, libertarian minded people who wrote a constitution to give people and States rights within a loose union. 2 centuries of corruption, anti constitutional rulings by appointed judges, and constitutionaly illegal institutions like the IRS and the Fed have left the U.S. a virtual police state with limited democracy and freedom for the corporation.

Paul represents what the founders wanted, to discount him as a nut is to discount the intelligence of the founding fathers.

October 5, 2007 6:16 AM  
Blogger AndyByGodJackson said...

"In any case, the rest of Ron Paul's ideas are just nutty at this point in history. Abolish the Federal Reserve? Restore the Gold Standard? How, exactly, do you plan to live through the Depression that would be triggered by that?"

In fact, FDR's theft of We the People's Gold took place *during* the depression caused BY the Fed printing too G_ddamn much money during the Roaring Twenties. You are grossly mistaken, and presenting diametrically opposite Orwellian newspeak (just as so called "neo-conservatives" are neither new NOR conservative) serving up Marxist tripe as "conservative Republican" values.


"I can't be the only one who has noticed that, during the 19th Century, America suffered through a Depressiion or "Panic" every ten years or so and, since the advent of modern Central Banking, has suffered through exactly one - one triggered by the failure of the central bank to respond adequately to the crisis at hand."

As a matter of fact, unconstitutional modern Central Banking, along with unconstitutional direct, unapportioned taxes such as the income tax (regardless of the 16th amendment which granted 'no new taxing authority' according to the Supreme Court) ARE TWO OF THE TEN PLANKS IN THE CENTRAL PLATFORM OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. This, sir, makes you a Communist, not a conservative.

October 6, 2007 11:28 AM  
Blogger Mumphrey Bibblesnæð said...

Dude, you don't get it. We have already lost the war in Iraq. We just haven't faced up to it yet. I know, you and others who think as you do will be quick to point out how we're "kicking ass" over there militarily, and how we've won every battle we've fought. That's all true.
But you (and Bush) don't understand that by now this is a war we can't win or lose militarily. It's an insurgency. The insurgents don't need to win any battles; they only need to keep fighting long enough for the American people to make up their minds that they've had enough. No country can carry out a war indefinitely against the wishes of a wide majority of its own citizens, and by now, something like 65 or 70% of Americans want us out of there now.
All the nsurgents need to do is keep comng up with a small but steady supply of nuts who are williong to die in order to kill some American troops, and they can keep this war going until the American government ends it. And thanks to our brilliant administration of Abu Ghraib, Blackwater's first rate markmanship against unarmed civilians, and many other atrocities like those, there will be no lack of young nuts ready to blow themselves up to kill our troops anytime soon.
The only way we could really end the insurgency and "win" the war would be to just go ahead and kill everybody in Iraq, a tactic you would no doubt heartily endorse. Short of that, the war will end with our loss and humiliation.
Bush could end it but he The next president will have to do it. It'll be a catastrophe, both in humanitarian terms and from the point of view of American power and safety and influence in the world, but there's no way to stave it off any more, if indeed there ever was.
I happen to think there was no way this ever could have worked, no matter who led it; it's sure as hell true that this sorry Republican crew would heve failed wretchedly, even if there had been some small chance of it working. Bush and his crew of pathetic, incompetent fools are responsible for this abject failure, which my country will spend at least the rest of my life (I'm 39) and maybe all of my 5 month old daughter's life living down.
This war was lost the minute George Bush began it.

October 6, 2007 8:06 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

"What Ron Paul ... offers is a way for some people to feel that they are patriotically seeking to bring about the defeat of the United States and the victory of its enemies in a war."

Isn't that what George W. Bush has been doing for that 5 years?

October 6, 2007 9:44 PM  
Blogger Mumphrey Bibblesnæð said...

I also think it's funny for you to compare those who are against this war to the copperheads who were against the Union fighting the Civil War. If you had been around in the 1860's, it's obvious from your political views that you would have been a big booster of slavery and would have been wailing about how awful Lincoln was.
And to clarify: I'm not accusing you of being pro-slavery tody; it's rather that people with your politics today would have been pro-slavery back before the Civil War. I'll bet if Preston Brooks were alive today, he'd be saying the same kind of stuff you say.

October 7, 2007 5:15 AM  
Blogger equipop60 said...

My vote's for ron paul although he can't win. liberty is a good enough message. I don't believe we are in danger from islamists wiping us out any more than we were in danger of communism during the vietnam war although I served in the navy at that time and in that region. When I saw the trade center attack on television one of my thoughts were "what took them so long?" Mess with the arabs and you bought the farm you corporate warmongers. In my opinion war is good for business period. Let the bankers and draft dodgers like limbaugh and bush go fight it. I know this sounds simplistic but it really is if people would stop trusting their government. What real difference is there in the 2 parties? If a guy wants to smoke pot or not wear a seat belt or yank his kids out of the useless schools can he? We say we love our children but the state owns them from age 5 to 18 but parents please take them home at night so the government doesn't have to board them thank you. After age 18 register for the draft you free citizen you.

October 21, 2007 8:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home