Actually, if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, I may abstain from voting altogether. He was my last hope for anyone actually *changing* the status quo and bringing our freedoms back through the political means.
If I voted for Obama or Romney, I'd feel like I had blood on my hands. They are both seriously narcissistic individuals - possibly even sociopathic - and I wouldn't trust them to look after my houseplants, let alone my country.
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination at Tampa......
Teri- Oregon
2012/07/19 21:46:43
What is your second choice?
Top Opinion
-
I'm writing Paul in. I don't care if write ins don't count.





















We've sent them numerous messages to no avail.
http://www.strike-the-root.co...
Gary Johnson: Statist
http://www.strike-the-root.co...
Rockwell's Thirty-Day Plan
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ro...
I always promised myself I'd never become one of those libertarians/ancaps who complains about the system yet never votes....but after twp elections in which the indisputably most humble, decent, and least power-hungry man has failed miserably in this system, I think I'm starting to see the non-voters' point.
I just feel so helpless at this point. I mean, if we can't win in politics, how can we win with education? It's not like the average CNN/FOX/MSNBC viewer has enough braincells to rub together to even begin understanding freedom or the non-aggression principle, let alone begin to live by them.
If anyone has the right to complain it's those who do not contribute to the problem by voting for evil people. The voters are the one's lending legitimacy to it...even those who lose. While we may assign our own fate to the decisions of another (i.e. power of attorney), we cannot legitimately do so on behalf of another.
I think Paul was pretty good on a federal level, and I even wondered if I would break with non-voting in the hope that he would end the foreign aggressions, However, in the end, he is a statist. He believes that statism is a good thing, just not so much at a national level. However, he would use the military to attack foreign nations if congress declared war. He supports state governments having the right to do many of the things that he doesn't want the federal government to do. While smaller would be better in so many ways and state governments theoretically cannot run a deficit, state power is still immoral at its foundation.
We are helpless to change it. The winners are chosen in advance so that it matters not if the people vote left or right. Were a Ron Paul or even a full blown anarchist to take office (as an example) they could not accomplish anything as the public unions, corporate and individual welfare recipients would ...
If anyone has the right to complain it's those who do not contribute to the problem by voting for evil people. The voters are the one's lending legitimacy to it...even those who lose. While we may assign our own fate to the decisions of another (i.e. power of attorney), we cannot legitimately do so on behalf of another.
I think Paul was pretty good on a federal level, and I even wondered if I would break with non-voting in the hope that he would end the foreign aggressions, However, in the end, he is a statist. He believes that statism is a good thing, just not so much at a national level. However, he would use the military to attack foreign nations if congress declared war. He supports state governments having the right to do many of the things that he doesn't want the federal government to do. While smaller would be better in so many ways and state governments theoretically cannot run a deficit, state power is still immoral at its foundation.
We are helpless to change it. The winners are chosen in advance so that it matters not if the people vote left or right. Were a Ron Paul or even a full blown anarchist to take office (as an example) they could not accomplish anything as the public unions, corporate and individual welfare recipients would cause everything to come to a grinding halt when they stopped receiving their goodies. Congress and the media would then blame the president rather than point out all the grasping hands of the thieves who shut down...everything. From the beginning of the new administration congress would be passing all kinds of laws that would be vetoed and overturned. In the end people would only blame freedom for their troubles. Better that there isn't a libertarian of any flavor (even bland and statist as Johnson or Barr) to take the blame for the crimes of the Republicrats. Not even rigorous libertarian policies could effect a "salvation" of this system. The only real choice is to choose anarchism before it's forced on us. Since people still foolishly believe in electoral politics, that isn't going to happen.
The best hope is to educate them enough that when the state finally collapses, they don't try to re-create it or choose some other form of government. To constantly point out that government is the immoral monopoly of force. That it uses that monopoly to steal and murder those within and without the country. It's up to those of us who can see it coming to show how they can live without a government and that choosing government is not choosing safety or freedom. Most won't listen until the walls are crumbling around them. Perhaps not even after, but I choose to hope for better.
I don't hold much hope for those who are older, but the young aren't so easily fooled. My son and his friends have no trouble understanding the NAP or the predations of the government. They understand the violation of the NAP that forces them to attend public school (although I homeschool now). My son would talk to his friends all the time and they would actually listen. So I have some reason to hope. The ones that will take over are open to the truth even as they are forced to imbibe the lies of the state.
Maybe those are just rumors, but it tickles my fancy to believe them. Besides, Ron Paul did admit right on the debate stage once that "all government is is force." It's an obvious truism, but hearing it from a politician was a pleasant shock. :D
I haven't heard so much about Judge Napolitano, but I wouldn't be too surprised. It's kind of like listening to Tom Woods. When he's in the spotlight talking to RP supporters or the media he sounds more like a minarchist and then when he's at the Mises Institute it's more ancap.
That was great to hear from a politician. Especially when contrasted with the tenor of the way he said it vs. the way it sounded from Obama when he stated that government is a monopoly violence...like it was good and proper and no one else should have that power.
He does seem to lay it out there even more than I was aware. He seems to have gone further than perhaps even the '04 race. I'm still bothered by the states' rights movement as a statist approach, but I can see it from the perspective of gradualism. It's more Rothbardian in its approach, tactically, but I don't know that he ever said such things, only that he would accept a "smaller is better just don't stop there argument". However, at least one can move from state to state without getting permission from the next state.
I guess it would be too much trouble for the RINO loving ABO geniuses to accept the fact that childish talk about liberty is cheap and that this race wouldn't be so desperately close if the so-called conservatives actually had the intellectual integrity, spines and balls to stand and back a real constitutionalists, rule of law candidate that does truly care about FREEDOM in a meaningful, consistent, fundamental, proven way.
Good luck with that too but I would have thought that even the Republicans could do better than a lightweight amateur night equivalent of Obama's 08 "Chains for Dopes" campaign.
Differing the speed of the US AmeriKa and swerving a little left and right may be enough to fool dopes Ken but it doesn't alter the destination that the Demopublicans have set... The people might buy a little time electing one propped up big gov crony versus another but, until the course is truly altered back towards Fundamental Liberties, the top heavy rat infested rust bucket of a ship is ultimately still headed straight towards SERFDOM ROCK.
If folks like you still believe it will somehow, someway, magically, this time, make a real difference and you feel that you are doing the right thi...
Good luck with that too but I would have thought that even the Republicans could do better than a lightweight amateur night equivalent of Obama's 08 "Chains for Dopes" campaign.
Differing the speed of the US AmeriKa and swerving a little left and right may be enough to fool dopes Ken but it doesn't alter the destination that the Demopublicans have set... The people might buy a little time electing one propped up big gov crony versus another but, until the course is truly altered back towards Fundamental Liberties, the top heavy rat infested rust bucket of a ship is ultimately still headed straight towards SERFDOM ROCK.
If folks like you still believe it will somehow, someway, magically, this time, make a real difference and you feel that you are doing the right thing by continuing to sanction the same old "heads the demopublicans wins, tails the people lose" machine then feel free to spin your wheels all day long Ken... But, if you folks don't like coming across as childish whiney Alinsky style libtart brats you might also want to reconsider trying to irresponsibly blame your lame O-lite candidates lack luster showing on everyone but yourselves.
1992 Percentage Clinton - 43.0% Bush - 37.5% Perot - 18.9%
1996 Percentage Clinton - 49.2% Dole - 40.7% Perot - 8.4%
Blaming others for the problems the zombie voters create is a cop out, but typical of this "it's everyone else's fault" society. Stop blaming those who use their votes as a voice supporting candidates who are the most qualified and best choice, as was intended for the system. You people who make excuses for picking the slower poison that will kill this country are cowards, many of which claim they're ready to take up arms to "defend the Constitution", but are LIARS, as the proof that you won't even break from the herd to vote independently shows your true colors.
http://politicoid.blogspot.co...
I should note by the way that Obama actually tried to extend our stay in Iraq and we're still in Afghanistan losing soldiers.
Your logic is so strange. You're going from someone who wants to protect people from the government to someone who wants to destroy the middle class and continue killing people overseas.
The only reason I choose Obama over Romney is because I loath the idea of people getting killed over seas but the difference is that our troops are not running that risk. I think Romney will escalate things because he will be like all war pig republicans, he'll send out troops out to die.
You just want your team to win to be a cheerleader for them regardless of their record, history and the danger they have posed to this country.
Can you show me those lists please?