Are you a lover of freedom?

Question

If you are, I really need your opinion of an idea I've had for a little while.

It seems others are coming along with this. Frankly, I hope you do too.

But most importantly, I'm hoping to gather the opinions of others in general...both pro and con.

I'll treat even my dissenters with respect (as long as they're not abusive. Fair?).

Go here first and read the simple idea I have: http://www.blogcharm.com/nostate
and then come back here and speak your mind.

Hey thanks!

Ok. For the sake of some of you, Like Mike F (What does the F stand for?), who aren't really used to the idea of ideas: Yes, my blog is sponsor supported. But if you click "Skip this ad", it goes right to the message. See son, in spite of what your Socialist schoolteachers told you, advertising is a good, beneficial, helpful thing!

Thank you for your participation.

BTW...Mike F, "Spam" is defined as inappropriate posting to newsgroups, not an ad on a blog.

Again; Thanks!

Answer 1

Yes, and let me expand on your point. The difference between his candidacy, and some of the others is this. The others base their whole candidacy on trying to out-smart, and one up, and outspend the other. I don't see Paul doing this. Sure, his interpretation of the Constitution might be different than yours, but at least he is predictable. Who else is predictable? No one.

Even Gravel seems a little too angry, and too flippant with the purpose of our government (though I respect him, and would vote for him if Paul wasn't running). Supporters of other campaigns go to great lengths to attack Paul, and especially his supporters, but why? Have they not seen the failings we see in their candidates? I have rarely seen Paul's supporters attack individuals, just their candidates, unless they blatantly distort the truth.

When I look at Mrs. Clinton's campaign, almost none of it appeals to me. The things that do, I have seen prior evidence of her supporting the exact opposite previously. When Barack says he would sit and use diplomacy (which is the sane thing to do), she bad mouths him. Yet, there is a video of her saying the same thing! There are many more examples of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

When you look at Mitt Romney's campaign, I had never even heard of him. He actually looked like a decent candidate at first, especially to the uninformed. He blows it by having aides make fake police badges to skirt rules, other campaign workers get indicted for 32 million in fraud (Alan Fabian). That's just the recent stuff. His stance on abortion has flipped 180, and he sounded sincere both ways. Abortion is not a make or break presidential choice issue for me, but what else has he just said, to gain our acceptance?

Rudy Giuliani, I haven't liked him for years, and outside of NY, I don't think that many people do. He has made some egregious statements in the past (Freedom is about Authority, etc), he's running in the wrong party (or more likely, that's what he was told to say, to get the widest range of support from moderates on both sides, while having no intention of following through on any of it). While I understand that the cross dressing skit was a joke, it's not presidential. He also gives me a strange feeling when watching him, like a con artist trying to get away with something. There are many more reasons, but I don't think he's a contender anymore.

I think it boils down to this, Ron Paul is a Statesman, and most of the others are your run of the mill Politicians. I feel he is running for our country, not just for his own ego, and monetary advantages. Why do you pick your candidate? Is it for single issues? Like "I like him/her, but I won't get over the fact that they are for or against this or that?". One of the most important issues for me, are they advocates of CFR and UN agendas over our own countries?

When will one drop the personal problems, for the good of the country? Why is gay marriage more important than restoring our basic laws? Why is abortion? Why are we pinning the hopes of change for these things (either way), on a single person when one has hundreds of representatives working for them? Why would you not want more States rights, so maybe you can change that issue for your state, and be happy?

If you feel that the powers that the Bush administration have allegedly canvassed, might be too much concentration for the next President, vote for Paul, which will inherently restore your liberties and freedom. It really feels like corporations have more freedom than the people, and I can see others feel the same way. When the 3 branches of our government are more or less equal, and some sound fiscal and monetary policies are enacted, I would have little problem with some progressive measures that will help our nation and it's people.

A President isn't supposed to be our king, or our father or mother, he/she is supposed to defend our Constitution, to command the military, and to work with our representatives in the Senate and Congress.

Answer 2

Hell NO! He won't violate the 2nd Amendment - he will just make it impossible to own a gun through regulations, penalties, and bogus 'guidelines'. There is talk about a bill in the Illinois congress where a million dollar insurance policy will be mandated for anyone who owns a gun. In order to keep your mandatory permit, you will be forced to buy an insurance policy. First of all, the cost would be outrageous. Secondly, there are no insurance companies offering this type of policy. Thirdly, if insurance companies start offering such a policy, they would be completely under government control and would enact stipulations that would prevent anyone from buying the policy anyway. See where this is going? Just like the Fairness Doctrine - Obama will be against it and will not violate the 1st or 2nd Amendment, but will 'back-door' both of them to take our freedoms away. Sneaky corrupt lawyer at work here, folks!

Answer 3

I love freedom.

We need watchdogs, always.

I don't want to discourage the idea, but you also have to understand that most government employees think of the general public as fairly foolish, woefully uninformed, rude, etc.

Because they are.

I had two parents in government. I repeatedly heard complaints about things in government and go "the other side".

The other side consisted of the rest of the story the public really didn't know.

A good example is the Suez Canal crisis. We received more flack from that one event that most nations do in their career. We actually chased our allies OUT of Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Canal, and chased Israel back behind their borders using the fleet out of Italy.

We opposed our ALLIES! The President was called names, treated quite badly, the public was in an uproar. Our government was corrupt!

No one knows the truth. I know. My grandfather was instrumental in preventing what could have quite easily turned into WWIII.

While Russia was beating its chest saying, "We'll come if they don't stop! We'll help our ally, Egypt!" they were actually doing nothing of the kind. They weren't even getting ready.

China had the planes ready and loaded, had said nothing.

If China had gotten control of Egypt, the Pentagon was very clear on the fact that they never would have gotten them out, not without a world war. They would have had access to the Mediterean Sea by land, a bad situation for the West.

They couldn't tell anyone at the time.

Most people in government listen to the complaints of the public like two players in the park listening to a bunch of kibbitzers, whining about how the players don't know how to play, keep forgetting to king their pieces, keep forgetting how to move diagonally, and otherwise must be taking side-bets to lose the game. They call them names, spread unfounded rumors about them, and otherwise act like jerks because they are so much more intelligent about how to play checkers than the two players actually playing...

...both of whom shake their head, and keep playing...

...chess.

Most people have no conception of the forces we're dealing with. Perhaps that's for the better. It's not fun finding out the world doesn't fit into a nice ideological box.

Answer 4

Ron Paul.

He's had a real job.

He knows what the Constitution is.

He speaks his mind on unpopular issues.

He is not an alcoholic.

We could do (and have done) much worse. And we probably will.

Ron Paul is worth a look.

Answer 5

Yeehaw, another suggestion would be to take a look at this if you are a passionate purveyor of the truth and freedom:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Peace

Answer 6

I ilked Ron Paul, when liking Ron Paul wasn't cool. Good for you for supporting him.

Answer 7

What the hell was that spammy **** that came up when I tried to read your link? I'm flagging you.

So when we go to your "link", we get to watch those insipid popups instead of reading your content and you get a nickel. Wow. Smells like spam to me.

Answer 8

You still have a terrible unreadable website, sorry.

Answer 9

might be interesting for some, but I guess I am conformist

Answer 10

"freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose"...
-Janis Joplin