War on Reddit

[StateofTrance]

Ron Paul is a highly ideological libertarian and a creationist. Saying a few things against military spending and imperialism does not redeem him:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bphcj/ron_paul_is_a_highly_ideological_libertarian_and/

[bchavez]

hell yes. ASOT.

fellow trance addict. :D

[StateofTrance]

:D

[KramerDSP]

Love this series of comments on Reddit of all places.


I seriously considered supporting Ron Paul in the elections mainly because he is in favor of ending the war, cutting funding to Israel, ending corporate subsidies, ending intrusions on our civil liberties, ending the bailouts, etc., a combination of intentions I didn't see in any other politician.

I'm not idealistic enough to believe that actually strictly adhering to the constitution as it was intended would be a good thing. History has proven that interstate regulation is necessary to prevent abuses by interstate organizations. Still, it doesn't seem right to me that the phrase in the constitution establishing the power of the congress "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States" has been interpreted as "To make any law as long as it has any kind of vague implications for interstate commerce whatsoever". It's a problem that the role of the federal government has been redefined to give the ruling party near absolute control over the country.

Ron Paul would have temporarily corrected that problem. Theoretically, since the democrats were and are the majority party in congress, new laws would not pass. Ron Paul's more objectionable anti-regulation reforms wouldn't have gone into effect, the Patriot Act would have expired, and the war in Iraq would have ended. In the event that a member of the supreme court died or left office, there's a greater chance that they would have been replaced by another wildcard who doesn't make judicial decisions along party lines, which, honestly, should never happen anyways.

As a country we really need to rethink the hard limits on our government. What happened during the Bush years was unacceptable, as are many practices from that time that are continuing.


You bring up a lot of points of all the good Paul could have done if elected to the Presidency in 2008. Any of the "kooky" ideas he has would have to be done legislatively through the Congress - especially because Paul believes in the Constitution and not writing signing statements or executive orders.

In my book, the two most important things he could have done:
veto most of the corporatist legislation that comes out of Congress, including the bailouts, unbalanced budgets, violations of the Constitution, etc.. Imagine Congress actually trying to publicly argue for some of the crap they push through.
defend this country and its borders by bringing all the troops home. (And no cop-out "non-combat troops") Congress would actually have to vote for war and force the President to go and deploy. (hah!)

"What happened during the Bush years was unacceptable, as are many practices from that time that are continuing." The Bush years was just a continuation of the previous Presidents. Obama is no different.


I'd rather have a politician I can predict but slightly disagree with than one that is a political whore.

Even on the toxic blogs like Hot Air, there are some reasonable comments from those who sort of shrug and say "well, he'd balance the deficit, that's for sure" or "At least I agree with him 70-80% of the time. That's better than the last few guys I voted for".

I can feel the momentum. But we cannot rest. We need to start doing more word of mouth in untraditional ways. T-shirts with Ron Paul. Bumper Stickers to vehicles if they haven't been already. Anything to get the name out there and hit home the message that it is "OK" to be a Ron Paul supporter.

[micahnelson]

Agree. We also need to start convincing him to run independent or third party if he can't get a GOP nod.

[GunnyFreedom]

I wore (one of) my Ron Paul shirt(s) to the Halifax First In Freedom day celebration today! :D