Why haven't you checked him out yet? I'm telling you, everyone within normal social or financial conservative ranges that's checked him out LOVES him, and many of them have sincerely thanked me. You're welcome.
Those who don't like him generally fall within the socialist or liberal ranges. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they generally tend not to agree with free-market conservatives anyway. That's cool. Or they're die hard Hannity-Coulter neocon Dubya-loving war mongers... not cool, but whatevs.
No, he's not black. No, he's not a woman. Yes, he's a Republican. I realize all of those things put him in the unpopular category right now. But if you've EVER voted Republican in the past and you're ashamed of what the Republican party has become, please check out Ron Paul.
The guy's AWESOME. I'm just sayin'.
He's the only truly pro-life candidate who's got a 20 year consistent record standing behind him. He's the only Republican candidate that's against the war and has an actual plan for troop withdrawal. He's the only politician that realizes that the Constitution is the document on which all of our laws should be based instead of political whim or popular opinion.
I think my lolpaul says it all.
19 comments:
Okay the URL disappears. Just google "International League of Religious Socialists" or "Christian Socialist" or "religious liberal". You'll get the point.
God-"fearing" neocons have gotten us into this stupid war... I consider a communist less of a threat than a neocon. Communists threaten my wallet, neocons threaten lives, incessantly.
They tend not to fear God, rather play God. War isn't really Jesus' thing. I found it telling at the Value Voters debate that when Ron Paul said that he was against unjust wars and that THIS war was not the Christian thing to do (he's not wrong there!), he got soundly booed by a bunch of God-"fearing" neocons. They don't care about God. They care about politics.
And Mel, no, it's expressly Tony's job to needle me... he's the self-appointed Stacey-blog-needler.
Actually, more accurately, socialism. Communism isn't exactly a threat in the old US of A, but Hillary's strong socialist views are an imminent threat.
If I were forced at gunpoint (likely by a neocon) to choose between spending half a TRILLION dollars on an unjust war or spend half a TRILLION dollars on a socialist health care plan, I'd have to pull out a good ol' WWJD on that one. Either way, freedoms would be limited, but hey, I'm being forced at gunpoint.
I'm one of the people who thanked you and I'll thank you again--Andy and I are now big Ron Paul-vangelists in our little corner of the world! So, thank you again! Ron's the first candidate we have really loved in a long time!
I also want to mention to people that Ron Paul is a doctor who looks down on the past efficacy of the FDA. He wants to improve how the healthcare system here works--and allow people the freedom to choose what type of healthcare they use (and have it covered through insurance even if holistic!). He really sees this country's citizens as individuals, has a great track-record for sticking to his guns, and is not afraid to go out there and speak his views--He is great! I hope this made sense--I'm sick right now and am not thinking very clearly today--Blah!! :o)
Actually, Hillary's healthcare plan wouldn't be socialist. It would be a big ol' giveaway to private insurance companies. Too many people think government involvement = socialist. That's not the case. It's waaaaaaaay more complicated than that.
Here's a good brief source on the difference between single-payer systems (socialist) and "universal" healthcare (not socialist):
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/644/644_03_Woolhandler.shtml
There are a lot of types of socialist. I'm a DSA girl myself: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html I'm not saying you should become a socialist, but if you're interested, DSA gives a lot of info on how socialism plays out in America today.
Here's a short blurb from the site:
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
Maybe it's the ADD, but here's what I read:
"Bla bla bla we want money that isn't ours to pay for things we can't afford because life should be faaaiiiirrrrr bla bla bla."
Call the socialist waahhhmbulance. It doesn't matter what kind of socialist you are, socialism boils down to taking money that isn't rightfully yours.
(I needle back, but with love.)
For me, it was the text messaging polls at the end of the Fox News debates that got me interested in Ron A. (for Awesome) Paul. He won twice in a row by a great margin; much to the surprise of the commentators.
So I looked him up... Found some Youtube videos. The most interesting one is this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywYDhPeY8
From that point on I have been hooked. The man is made of gold. I don't agree with everything he wants - but the biggest one is to stop government growth, and maybe even shrink it a bit, which is something none of the other politicians seem to want to do.
Stacey, Don't get me started.
Let me remind you of the things we owe in whole or in part to the socialists of America: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Pure Food and Drug Act, FDA, ERA, workplace safety protections, the minimum wage, anti-child labor laws, worker's compensation, public education... ALL part of the socialist party platform...
Considering both you and your husband benefitted from taxpayer-subsidized education, I think something smells in Denmark. blah blah blah Capitalists suck slop like the pigs they are... blah blah blah Debs for President!!!!!!!
One more: What's a capitalist? A guy who takes but gets pissed when he has to give back.
Then who is someone that works hard for and earns their money and gets pissed when they have to give it away?
Melinda - you see all of those things as super awesome. I don't. The government can't take care of us any better than we can take care of ourselves, but they've taken it upon themselves (with the aid of socialist ideals) to become everyone's babysitter.
The government was created to serve the people, not the other way around.
Heehee, cuz. I heard that.
"Let me remind you of the things we owe in whole or in part to the socialists of America: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Pure Food and Drug Act, FDA, ERA, workplace safety protections, the minimum wage, anti-child labor laws, worker's compensation, public education... ALL part of the socialist party platform..."
I'll give you maybe three of those - the workplace safety, child labor and workers' comp. Government needs to protect the rights of the worker. Government does not need to, and is not equipped to, educate or medicate us. Every country that has socialized medicine has substandard care for everyone. I could have paid off my house with the money FICA stole from me, and I'm only 28. All mandatory insurance does is create an artificial price floor. Etc., etc., etc.... I don't have time to write 2000 words right now. Let people decide how to spend their own money - they'll educate and medicate themselves, and do a much better job at it. Look at the Catholic Church's system of schools and hospitals that existed and thrived until government decided that it was their job (and until the welfare state propagated by liberals created a generation of selfish bastards who aren't answering their calls from God to become religious priests, brothers and sisters to staff the schools and hospitals, leaving us to have to charge outrageous tuitions to pay the same selfish bastards who should be doing the job for free and living in the rectory or convent... but I digress.)
Apparently, I only have time to write 200 words.
What about Mike Huckabee?
Tony - he'll make a good vice president. First and foremost, I don't like his stance on the war... I will NEVER vote for someone who is pro-war, much like I will never vote for someone who is pro-abortion. Secondly, I don't like how insincere he is - every answer he gives devolves into a big, pre-written speech. Very insincere.
The government was created to serve the people, not the other way around.
Amen, sista!
I'm pleased to learn more about Ron Paul, thanks to you. :) I'm still not 100% sure if I'm more in favor for him over Fred Thompson, though. I'm still doing my own research on this.
Okay, somehow this went from a defense of Stacey to an economics debate. I was just trying to show that Stacey isn't being hypocritical or anything with her love or at least tolerance of the G-d fearing liberals.
Personally, I consider social/economic protections to be "serving the people." It's all your perspective.
As for "earning your money." Do you think my big ol' socialist butt doesn't have a job? I so have a job and I have a rather decently paying job at that. I don't mind my money going to make life a little easier for people going through hard times or for people who just don't have the capabilities that I do. Whether that goes through my temple contributions or my taxes doesn't really bother me. I like a little of both.
My point was that a lot of people who bitch about social programs got where they are because of social programs. Sometimes they are where they are b/c their parents were given a hand up with social programs. Would those people be willing to give back everything they got with "other people's money?" I doubt it.
As for the hospital stuff, prior to social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., MOST people rarely if ever saw a doctor, optometrist or dentist. They were delivered by midwives, took home remedies, and died of easily preventable/treatable diseases and conditions. I don't deny the great works done by religious organizations. I just think there are better ways to get things done, especially since mixed economies (tilting towards socialist) in European countries have produced BETTER healthcare, higher standards of living, lower infant mortality rates, longer life expectancies, and less social conflict.
Read the CIA Factbook and see where the U.S. stands on both positive/negative factors related to quality of life. We don't look so good compared to nations with major social programs.
Let me end with. I LOVE ME SOME STACEY AND DREW AND ESPECIALLY SOME ACE, SO DON'T TAKE THE NEEDLING SERIOUSLY. SEND ME FRESH, HOUSEWIFE-IN-FLIP-FLOPS-BAKED COOKIES!!!!!!!! pleeeeeeeeeez?
I love you too, Melinda. We've never exactly been on the same side of the political spectrum, but I love you anyway.
Did I tell you that Ace just said his first words? They were "Ga ga if Auntie Melinda loves me she'll vote for Ron Paul goo goo." Amazing, that kid.
"Mixed economies (tilting towards socialist) in European countries have produced BETTER healthcare, higher standards of living, lower infant mortality rates, longer life expectancies, and less social conflict."
I defy you to verify that statement.
Jesusthroughmary,
See the CIA World Factbook Rankings for the quality of life stats, WHO reports on Healthcare worldwide (France is currently #1; we're #6. France has a socialist healthcare system.). comments does not allow easy link posting, but both are readily available through google.
Stacey,
Although I'll be forced to vote Democrat in 2008, please note that I'll be taking the crying game shower aferward. I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but overall I think getting Democrats in power will be the "lesser of two evils." I'll still be scrubbing myself with Brillo pads though.
Post a Comment