Posted by James @ 9:18 pm on October 23rd 2007

Being a Ron Paul supporter.

I like Ron Paul and plan to vote for him in the NJ primary. I disagree with him on a few of issues, but agree with him on far more. Even an asshole like me understands compromise. It is my hope that he will prevail, it is my cynicism that suggests that he won’t. I hope that I am wrong because we have to break out of the two party domination of this country’s political system (I know, I know, Paul runs as a Republican, but we all know he is something else) or we are going to be very sorry down the road.

This piece by Deepak Chopra, while again not exactly in line with my own opinion on everything he says, does state a real and present danger. I personally wish he casted a few more stones toward the other two branches of our government, but his overall message is sound I think. That is that we in America have relinquished our power to the elite of all branches of “our” government. Until now, every attempt to overturn this pork barrel has failed (e.g. Ross Perot, et al) because the candidates that have tried have been crazier than shithouse rats, Libertarian UN detonators included*.

While I personally agree with certain assessments of what the UN Building’s future structural future should consist of, I am NOT the guy you want as the “leader of the free world”. In this way Ron Paul is different. He understands Washington DC where other real change-minded, ‘3rd Party’ (which he is) candidates rarely or never have. You have to be on the ship to commandeer it so to speak. Mr. Paul is on that ship, in the system and yet unwilling to assimilate. This confounds his Democratic opponents and their media, flabbergasts his Republican contenders and their media, and energizes those that have had it up to their ears with the same old same old. Boy do I ever like that chemistry.

This brings me to the shameless self-promotion and what I hope will be motivational part of my internet defecation today. I support Ron Paul. I have given in excess of $500 to his campaign to date (something I do not usually do) and will likely give more. Even though I am almost diametrically opposed to some of his views related to the current threat from fundamentalist Islam, I am far more impressed by the fact that this guy is frickin’ REAL (or should have an Academy Award). Ron Paul is the statesman that I have waited for for so long. The statesman this country has needed for so long. Not always right, not always wrong, but true to the precepts of this nation that have been lost for so long. He is getting my vote and my money. What is he getting from you? Money is everything in this dog and pony show our “leaders” have created. It was and is their intention to keep it that way. Therefore, if you really want to change this crap in Washington, I mean shake it to its foundations, then it will take fire to fight fire.

Got a match? Spend it wisely.

* “The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble.” – Michael Badnarik (Libertarian nominee for President in 2004)


  1. $200 in direct contributions so far, and an extra $100 towards a billboard in KC, plus a considerable amount of my time.

    Worth every penny and minute.

    Comment by Rojas — 10/23/2007 @ 10:19 pm

  2. I’m with you on this. I diverge from Dr. Paul’s platform on many issues; I think there is a greater role for the federal government than he does, generally speaking. But overall, Dr. Paul’s authenticity overcomes that. And more than trying to push his agenda, he states what his agenda is and then promises to lead the country the best he can. That’s a nuanced point, but it’s really important to me. He also has stated emphatically that although he has certain ideas about how he’d change the government, he doesn’t want to make those changes without engaging in a discussion about what the government is/should be doing for us. THAT is a good idea! We need more national discussion (and don’t call what happens over partisan issues “debate” or “discussion”). We need national discussion on the role of government, communities, the impact of 9/11, education…pretty much everything civic-minded.

    We don’t have a civic-minded orientation to our nation anymore, but I believe Ron Paul would return us to that, or at least get us started. And that’s a good thing for everyone.

    I really really really really really want him to win, and I will be giving money to his campaign.

    Comment by Jerrod — 10/23/2007 @ 10:38 pm

  3. Magnificent.

    Comment by David M — 10/23/2007 @ 10:55 pm

  4. James,

    You complain about two-party duopoly, but you completely ignore the cause of it – our voting method.

    We need Range Voting, or at least Approval Voting.

    As for Ron Paul, I disagree with him on 3 issues:

    1) He’s against immigration, whereas I think a person is free to live anywhere on the planet that he can afford the rent/mortage – without regard to the insane construct of “government” boundaries.

    2) He’s not an atheist. Religious is insane. God is just pretend.

    3) He’s not libertarian enough. He believes in taxes for certain things.

    But compared to the other candidates, he’s in a completely different league. No one else in either major party even comes close.


    Comment by weltschmerz — 10/23/2007 @ 11:41 pm

  5. I meant to say, religion is insane. I am highly educated I want to point out.

    Comment by weltschmerz — 10/23/2007 @ 11:42 pm

  6. And insane, I want to point that out. But ever tried to herd a crazy sheep?

    Comment by James — 10/24/2007 @ 4:14 am

  7. Education might benefit your knowledge corpus, but your nose and jaw are beyond reach of the most advanced medical science.

    Comment by Jerrod — 10/24/2007 @ 9:25 am

  8. Nothing makes us look adult like personal insults in comments do.

    Comment by Adam — 10/24/2007 @ 9:29 am

  9. Oh, go butt your dick, dickbutt.

    Comment by Rojas — 10/24/2007 @ 12:09 pm

  10. Yeah, what he said.

    Comment by James — 10/24/2007 @ 1:51 pm


    Comment by James — 10/25/2007 @ 8:28 pm

  12. It isn’t an insult when it’s true, and its funny to watch kuggles run wild when you breathe on his buttons.

    Back to Ron Paul, I recently found a big problem with the man: he doesn’t seem to have any stand on global warming, at least on his official page. I’d expect him to oppose government attempts to deal with the issue (as if there was ever a more relevant candidate issue for collective action on), but he doesn’t even address it. Is he afraid of what people will think of him when they realize he doesn’t want to do anything about the problem once he becomes president?

    Comment by Jerrod — 10/25/2007 @ 8:56 pm

  13. What problem?

    Comment by James — 10/26/2007 @ 1:02 am

  14. Exactly, James.

    Comment by scineram — 10/26/2007 @ 5:31 am

  15. puh-lease.

    Comment by Jerrod — 10/26/2007 @ 5:38 am

  16. Paul opposes a variety of federal practices that increase global warming, including subsidized logging in federal forests, cost-reduced grazing fees, and overseas military deployments. He’d probably do more than any other candidate to reduce the direct federal contribution to greenhouse warming.

    He won’t forcibly compel private industry to reduce their contributions, so voters who consider a centralized, command-and-control approach to global warming to be the most important national priority will probably need to look elsewhere.

    Comment by Rojas — 10/26/2007 @ 12:02 pm

  17. Yeah, because the centralized command-and-control approach has worked so well thus far. I wonder what Dr. Paul’s position is on Earth’s gravitational force and the problem of Global Pulling.

    Comment by James — 10/26/2007 @ 12:16 pm

  18. I’d be interested to hear, actually, what he’d say would be the best response if the warnings about global warming were right. Is it never the case that the government should intervene?

    Comment by Adam — 10/26/2007 @ 12:16 pm

  19. Only if you want to take a difficult problem and make it more expensive and impossible to solve.

    Comment by James — 10/26/2007 @ 1:09 pm

  20. A carbon tax is a pretty clear way to reduce CO2 emissions, or at least the pro-business community believes so.

    The problem with “free-market only” ideologues is that they ignore anything that isn’t considered by the market. To be a true free-marketer, you have to make sure that everything is included in the market. Sometimes that means you have to force the market to consider things that the status quo considers externalities. Cradle-to-cradle resource considerations and total cost accounting are a couple of improvements on the standard market system that would allow the market to function naturally (ie effectively) AND improve the problems that “externalities” have produced.

    There is a cost to CO2 pollution but the market doesnt’ have to account for it. Incorporating that into costs is the only ethical free-market way.

    Comment by Jerrod — 10/26/2007 @ 9:22 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.