I Really Like Ron Paul but I'm Enthusiastically Voting for Obama!

[kaz]

I am not at all certain that if he hadn't gone looney tunes , quit and came back, he could have been elected in that first campaign. When he wigged out, most of his supporters and volunteers felt betrayed and were bitterly disappointed and didn't get back on board when he re-entered the race. Even with all that he got 19% of the vote which is amazing. Clinton won with a scant 43% of the vote.

Yep, you obviously remember it. I voted for him anyway, but the fire was gone. Just that even as a nut he was better then HW or Slick. But it was hard to be as ardent in supporting him.

 

[The T]

Not if Romney wants to be a two termer, which I believe he will want to be. He has a pretty good Tea Party endorsement, but they will not tolerate another George W. Bush type spender. If Romney doesn't toe the line fiscally, he will be challenged by their fiscally conservative candidate in 2016. If the GOP does not reform itself, I fully expect there to be a viable third party by the time the 2014 election rolls around.

I respectfully do not agree. Just as today, the Dems are not offering anyone to replace President Obama, if Romney wins he will be the 2016 candidate. A third party has no chance in our political climate for generations to come.

Edit: Note to The T: Sorry for the "short-sightedness" but that is how I see it. Call me hopeless if you want... in one manner of speaking you would be 100% correct.

Immie

Don't be too sure. In the general disatisfaction with both major political parties, Ross Perot successfully developed a viable third party with a whole lot less focus and inspiration and direction than what the Tea Party would come up with. I am not at all certain that if he hadn't gone looney tunes , quit and came back, he could have been elected in that first campaign. When he wigged out, most of his supporters and volunteers felt betrayed and were bitterly disappointed and didn't get back on board when he re-entered the race. Even with all that he got 19% of the vote which is amazing. Clinton won with a scant 43% of the vote.

Despite how the media spins it, the Tea Party is not an arm of the GOP. The Tea Party intentionally is the driving force behind the resurgence of the GOP. The Tea Party has intentionally set about to reform the GOP and infuse it with true conservatives rather than form a third party at this time. If the GOP doesn't respond to that, there will be a third party, however. And given the abysmal track record of both the Dems and GOP, I would expect that third party to be even more successful than Perot's Reform Party.

Thye TEA party is the saving grace of the GOP that has lost thier way.

The GOP elites fight against it because their ideals and partisanship are of more import than saving thier namesake.

 

[Liability]

I really like prohibition. Let's drink on it!

 

[GuyPinestra]

I am not at all certain that if he hadn't gone looney tunes , quit and came back, he could have been elected in that first campaign. When he wigged out, most of his supporters and volunteers felt betrayed and were bitterly disappointed and didn't get back on board when he re-entered the race. Even with all that he got 19% of the vote which is amazing. Clinton won with a scant 43% of the vote.

Yep, you obviously remember it. I voted for him anyway, but the fire was gone. Just that even as a nut he was better then HW or Slick. But it was hard to be as ardent in supporting him.

Ross Perot didn't wig out, he was 'gotten to'.

He was too big a threat to the entrenched interests.

Ron Paul will be 'gotten to', as well.

 

[The T]

Because I am registered decline to state I will vote for Ron Paul in the Primary (which is allowed in my state) and after that neither side is a winner on NDAA. Ron Paul truely cares about the constition and would truely reduce the deficit. All the rest are mostly BS.

Both sides are for subsidized health care. Obama'a is actually less so in my mind. Granted, he is just using the government versus private insurers which I don't prefer. But, he is attacking preventative care instead of blowing dollars when it is too late. Advantage: Obama

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit. So I will vote for him. I don't want to hear about more tax breaks for the wealthy when revenue is already at record lows.

The trouble with Obama's Health care is the build-in layering that will triple again the already-high medical costs to do business passed onto the average American family that is already paying $1500 more per year of Obama's pain at the pump idea. I'm here to tell you, Sactowndog, higher medical costs, higher gas costs, higher restaurant costs, higher natural foods costs, higher real estate costs, higher interest costs, and higher taxes are going to destroy families. Everybody is already cranky about the higher gas costs which were targeting lower usage.

The only trouble is, that lower usage is tanking the small business owners of the tourist industry, because families are staying home summers instead of driving across country to see a National Park.

That hamstrings everything Theodore Roosevelt ever did to promote Americans getting to see the beauty of this country.

Please rethink, and think of American middle class families who are not going to have a good vacation this upcoming summer, because gas is projected at going to a dollar higher yet from what I've read.

That will put these National Parks on the visitation lists of the higher upper class, moneyed people to get to see them.

Obama doesn't see people, he sees a good thing in lowering gas usage that hurts American citizens but giving citizenship to people because they came somewhere that had an out-of-control birthrate and uses America to dump its (1) incorrigible criminals they do not wish to pay for housing for, (2) a way to get illegal drugs to America that puts its own young at risk to problems of addiction, and (3) a thoroughfare for terrorist cells.

Obama isn't going to address real problems. He's just passing the buck to average American citizens to foot the bill, while he's talking silly about 1% paying 80% of the taxes. 1% will have to start firing people to pay higher taxes if he does that.

All this experimentalism that Obama does--are tried and true warning signs that are hallmarks of societies that fail. When you punish the hardworking stiffs who are America's backbone, you destroy the body, fast. Don't let Obama do any more experimentalism on America.

Don't let any President destroy America just because it would be nice if America could boast a black president... It would be. But this one is playing with the matches of community-ism that reached its climax of failure while America-the-middle-class-promoter country was developing wealth for everyone with tried-and-true methods of success--like encouraging people to work hard and get financial and social benefits out of life.

The community experiment stuff failed in Russia, it failed in China, and it fails to free people from misery, but puts a high misery index on everyone.

You can vote your heart out, but you can't stop Obama from his madcap programs that are proved failures elsewhere.

When the system lets me reload. REPS YOUR WAY

Taken care of.

 

[Oddball]

I really like prohibition. Let's drink on it!

I'm a teetotaller, but I'm heartily endorsing Bacardi 151.

 

[kaz]

I really like prohibition. Let's drink on it!

I'm a teetotaller, but I'm heartily endorsing Bacardi 151.

I can go for some teetotaling...but I like to spike it with some whiskey...

 

[Liability]

I really like prohibition. Let's drink on it!

I'm a teetotaller, but I'm heartily endorsing Bacardi 151.

I can go for some teetotaling...but I like to spike it with some whiskey...

I take my Scotch neat. On the rocks!

 

[The T]

I am not at all certain that if he hadn't gone looney tunes , quit and came back, he could have been elected in that first campaign. When he wigged out, most of his supporters and volunteers felt betrayed and were bitterly disappointed and didn't get back on board when he re-entered the race. Even with all that he got 19% of the vote which is amazing. Clinton won with a scant 43% of the vote.

Yep, you obviously remember it. I voted for him anyway, but the fire was gone. Just that even as a nut he was better then HW or Slick. But it was hard to be as ardent in supporting him.

Ross Perot didn't wig out, he was 'gotten to'.

He was too big a threat to the entrenched interests.

Ron Paul will be 'gotten to', as well.

Perot was a result of HW Bush telling him he couldn't be involved in a rescue mission Perot funded to extract Viet Nam POW's.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should we conpromise when it comes to freedom?

It has nothing to do with ‘compromise.’

It has to do with a political philosophy anathema to the Constitution and rule of law; where states are empowered to violate citizens rights and citizens lose the means by which they may seek remedy for such violations.

We have had 100 years of creeping big government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. We won't be able to reverse that overnight. But we can begin the difficult and sometimes painful process of rolling it back and increasing our liberties, opportunities, and choices.

On the contrary, we’ve realized 100 years of further government restriction and protection of our civil liberties, where the tyranny of the states and local jurisdictions was ended via the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, where the right to free speech and assembly were protected from government preemption, where due process and equal protection rights acknowledged, and where the right to privacy free from government intrusion guaranteed.

The republican record is poor in this regard, where conservative ideologues are appointed to the Federal courts attempting to reauthorize state governmental intrusion, allowing majorities to determine citizens’ civil rights, in violation of the rule of law.

We won't get all that with a Mitt Romney or any of the other GOP hopefuls. But we will have a chance to begin the process.

What you’ll get is an erosion of our civil liberties with Romney, where hard fought for privacy and due process protections will be in jeopardy should he have an opportunity to make judicial appointment. With Romney – or any of the republican nominees, for that matter – the rule of law would be discarded for the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you like Ron Paul but your enthusiastically voting for a man who stands for the exact opposite in all areas both foreign and domestic?

Don't take this the wrong way, but that is one of the dumbest, most illogical things I've ever heard.

 

[Meister]

I'm a teetotaller, but I'm heartily endorsing Bacardi 151.

I can go for some teetotaling...but I like to spike it with some whiskey...

I take my Scotch neat. On the rocks!

Scotch neat...on the rocks? Really?
Hmmmm, I'm going to have to think about that one.

 

[Liability]

I can go for some teetotaling...but I like to spike it with some whiskey...

I take my Scotch neat. On the rocks!

Scotch neat...on the rocks? Really?
Hmmmm, I'm going to have to think about that one.

Hello! I must be going. I cannot stay. I came to say, "I must be going."

 

[The T]

I take my Scotch neat. On the rocks!

Scotch neat...on the rocks? Really?
Hmmmm, I'm going to have to think about that one.

Hello! I must be going. I cannot stay. I came to say, "I must be going."

 

[Foxfyre]

I respectfully do not agree. Just as today, the Dems are not offering anyone to replace President Obama, if Romney wins he will be the 2016 candidate. A third party has no chance in our political climate for generations to come.

Edit: Note to The T: Sorry for the "short-sightedness" but that is how I see it. Call me hopeless if you want... in one manner of speaking you would be 100% correct.

Immie

Don't be too sure. In the general disatisfaction with both major political parties, Ross Perot successfully developed a viable third party with a whole lot less focus and inspiration and direction than what the Tea Party would come up with. I am not at all certain that if he hadn't gone looney tunes , quit and came back, he could have been elected in that first campaign. When he wigged out, most of his supporters and volunteers felt betrayed and were bitterly disappointed and didn't get back on board when he re-entered the race. Even with all that he got 19% of the vote which is amazing. Clinton won with a scant 43% of the vote.

Despite how the media spins it, the Tea Party is not an arm of the GOP. The Tea Party intentionally is the driving force behind the resurgence of the GOP. The Tea Party has intentionally set about to reform the GOP and infuse it with true conservatives rather than form a third party at this time. If the GOP doesn't respond to that, there will be a third party, however. And given the abysmal track record of both the Dems and GOP, I would expect that third party to be even more successful than Perot's Reform Party.

Thye TEA party is the saving grace of the GOP that has lost thier way.

The GOP elites fight against it because their ideals and partisanship are of more import than saving thier namesake.

Let's face it. Human nature is human nature whether one has a D or an R after their name. Your perception has some merit but I am not convbinced that partisanship and ideals are the core of the problem.

I think most of those who run for high office these days are mostly opportunists looking to increase their own status, prestige, personal fortunes, or maybe to have something impressive to engrave on their tombstones. I suppose a lot of us wonder if we are at all important, if we have made any difference.

But whatever the motivations--a desire to make a difference or a desire to improve our own standing--there is little more corrupting in the world than money, power, prestige, influence. So long as we have a system that allows politicians to obtain large amounts of the people's money to use in ways that increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, I think that becomes their Number #1 motivation.

The only difference is that the GOP represents people mostly on the right who mostly value fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and American exceptionalism; but even they usually won't turn down a free handout that is right under their nose. So the GOP leadership grows government and increases their personal fortunes at the people's expense, but at a slower pace in order to give the illusion of respectability and responsibility. And even Republicans are too often reluctant to give up government benevolence when they get it.

The rest of the population either exists in total ignoranvce re government, because they pay litle or no taxes, or they clamor for the free stuff andf turn a deaf ear and blind eye to deficits, debt, and the solvency of the country. They don't really care what happens to anybody else so long as they get theirs. Or there are a few bleeding heart types who assuage their own lack of self worth or for whatever reason by feeling self righteous that their government is a perpetual Santa Claus or Robin Hood--so long as it uses other peoples' money to do that. All these of course are the main constituency of Obama and the Democrats.

Despite high ideals and morals, most of those entering goverment are quickly corrupted by the heady two fisted punch of power and personal wealth added to a moitivation to 'fit in' and thereby obtain the committee appointments, etc. necessary to gain all that.

So I think the problem is not partisanship nor idealism, but it is the encroachment of the nanny state in varying degrees. We are gradually selling ourselves back into bondage and one day will no longer have any power over the government who will be free to throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing to us it wants.

The ONLY solution is a constitutional amendment making it illegal for federal government elected leaders or bureaucrats to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, or advantage for any targeted group of people.

It will be a long, hard struggle to infuse government with enough visionaries all at once who will have the will to do that. And it may already be too late.

 

[The T]

Don't be too sure. In the general disatisfaction with both major political parties, Ross Perot successfully developed a viable third party with a whole lot less focus and inspiration and direction than what the Tea Party would come up with. I am not at all certain that if he hadn't gone looney tunes , quit and came back, he could have been elected in that first campaign. When he wigged out, most of his supporters and volunteers felt betrayed and were bitterly disappointed and didn't get back on board when he re-entered the race. Even with all that he got 19% of the vote which is amazing. Clinton won with a scant 43% of the vote.

Despite how the media spins it, the Tea Party is not an arm of the GOP. The Tea Party intentionally is the driving force behind the resurgence of the GOP. The Tea Party has intentionally set about to reform the GOP and infuse it with true conservatives rather than form a third party at this time. If the GOP doesn't respond to that, there will be a third party, however. And given the abysmal track record of both the Dems and GOP, I would expect that third party to be even more successful than Perot's Reform Party.

Thye TEA party is the saving grace of the GOP that has lost thier way.

The GOP elites fight against it because their ideals and partisanship are of more import than saving thier namesake.

Let's face it. Human nature is human nature whether one has a D or an R after their name. Your perception has some merit but I am not convbinced that partisanship and ideals are the core of the problem.

I think most of those who run for high office these days are mostly opportunists looking to increase their own status, prestige, personal fortunes, or maybe to have something impressive to engrave on their tombstones. I suppose a lot of us wonder if we are at all important, if we have made any difference.

But whatever the motivations--a desire to make a difference or a desire to improve our own standing--there is little more corrupting in the world than money, power, prestige, influence. So long as we have a system that allows politicians to obtain large amounts of the people's money to use in ways that increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, I think that becomes their Number #1 motivation.

The only difference is that the GOP represents people mostly on the right who mostly value fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and American exceptionalism; but even they usually won't turn down a free handout that is right under their nose. So the GOP leadership grows government and increases their personal fortunes at the people's expense, but at a slower pace in order to give the illusion of respectability and responsibility. And even Republicans are too often reluctant to give up government benevolence when they get it.

The rest of the population either exists in total ignoranvce re government, because they pay litle or no taxes, or they clamor for the free stuff andf turn a deaf ear and blind eye to deficits, debt, and the solvency of the country. They don't really care what happens to anybody else so long as they get theirs. Or there are a few bleeding heart types who assuage their own lack of self worth or for whatever reason by feeling self righteous that their government is a perpetual Santa Claus or Robin Hood--so long as it uses other peoples' money to do that. All these of course are the main constituency of Obama and the Democrats.

Despite high ideals and morals, most of those entering goverment are quickly corrupted by the heady two fisted punch of power and personal wealth added to a moibvationto 'fit in' and thereby obtain the committee appointments, etc. necessary to gain all that.

So I think the problem is not partisanship nor idealism, but it is the encroachment of the nanny state in varying degrees. We are gradually selling ourselves back into bondage and one day will no longer have any power over the government who will be free to throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing to us it wants.

The ONLY solution is a constitutional amendment making it illegal for federal government elevcted leaders or bureaucrats to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, or advantage.

It will be a long, hard struggle to infuse government with enough visionaries all at once who will have the will to do that. And it may already be too late.

You expounded brilliantly on my meaning. Simply Liberty. Both parties seem to see it as a threat as they address issues to keep the people ensconced in the new form of slavery.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thye TEA party is the saving grace of the GOP that has lost thier way.

The GOP elites fight against it because their ideals and partisanship are of more import than saving thier namesake.

Let's face it. Human nature is human nature whether one has a D or an R after their name. Your perception has some merit but I am not convbinced that partisanship and ideals are the core of the problem.

I think most of those who run for high office these days are mostly opportunists looking to increase their own status, prestige, personal fortunes, or maybe to have something impressive to engrave on their tombstones. I suppose a lot of us wonder if we are at all important, if we have made any difference.

But whatever the motivations--a desire to make a difference or a desire to improve our own standing--there is little more corrupting in the world than money, power, prestige, influence. So long as we have a system that allows politicians to obtain large amounts of the people's money to use in ways that increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, I think that becomes their Number #1 motivation.

The only difference is that the GOP represents people mostly on the right who mostly value fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and American exceptionalism; but even they usually won't turn down a free handout that is right under their nose. So the GOP leadership grows government and increases their personal fortunes at the people's expense, but at a slower pace in order to give the illusion of respectability and responsibility. And even Republicans are too often reluctant to give up government benevolence when they get it.

The rest of the population either exists in total ignoranvce re government, because they pay litle or no taxes, or they clamor for the free stuff andf turn a deaf ear and blind eye to deficits, debt, and the solvency of the country. They don't really care what happens to anybody else so long as they get theirs. Or there are a few bleeding heart types who assuage their own lack of self worth or for whatever reason by feeling self righteous that their government is a perpetual Santa Claus or Robin Hood--so long as it uses other peoples' money to do that. All these of course are the main constituency of Obama and the Democrats.

Despite high ideals and morals, most of those entering goverment are quickly corrupted by the heady two fisted punch of power and personal wealth added to a moibvationto 'fit in' and thereby obtain the committee appointments, etc. necessary to gain all that.

So I think the problem is not partisanship nor idealism, but it is the encroachment of the nanny state in varying degrees. We are gradually selling ourselves back into bondage and one day will no longer have any power over the government who will be free to throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing to us it wants.

The ONLY solution is a constitutional amendment making it illegal for federal government elevcted leaders or bureaucrats to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, or advantage.

It will be a long, hard struggle to infuse government with enough visionaries all at once who will have the will to do that. And it may already be too late.

You expounded brilliantly on my meaning. Simply Liberty. Both parties seem to see it as a threat as they address issues to keep the people ensconced in the new form of slavery.

Thank you and yes, I think you're right. To his credit, of ALL the candidates running in 2012, Ron Paul seems to understand that the most clearly. Unfortunately, he also seems to lack sufficient leadership skills to persuade anybody else.

I would guess neither of us are persuading many here on the truth of our convictions either.

 

[The T]

Let's face it. Human nature is human nature whether one has a D or an R after their name. Your perception has some merit but I am not convbinced that partisanship and ideals are the core of the problem.

I think most of those who run for high office these days are mostly opportunists looking to increase their own status, prestige, personal fortunes, or maybe to have something impressive to engrave on their tombstones. I suppose a lot of us wonder if we are at all important, if we have made any difference.

But whatever the motivations--a desire to make a difference or a desire to improve our own standing--there is little more corrupting in the world than money, power, prestige, influence. So long as we have a system that allows politicians to obtain large amounts of the people's money to use in ways that increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, I think that becomes their Number #1 motivation.

The only difference is that the GOP represents people mostly on the right who mostly value fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and American exceptionalism; but even they usually won't turn down a free handout that is right under their nose. So the GOP leadership grows government and increases their personal fortunes at the people's expense, but at a slower pace in order to give the illusion of respectability and responsibility. And even Republicans are too often reluctant to give up government benevolence when they get it.

The rest of the population either exists in total ignoranvce re government, because they pay litle or no taxes, or they clamor for the free stuff andf turn a deaf ear and blind eye to deficits, debt, and the solvency of the country. They don't really care what happens to anybody else so long as they get theirs. Or there are a few bleeding heart types who assuage their own lack of self worth or for whatever reason by feeling self righteous that their government is a perpetual Santa Claus or Robin Hood--so long as it uses other peoples' money to do that. All these of course are the main constituency of Obama and the Democrats.

Despite high ideals and morals, most of those entering goverment are quickly corrupted by the heady two fisted punch of power and personal wealth added to a moibvationto 'fit in' and thereby obtain the committee appointments, etc. necessary to gain all that.

So I think the problem is not partisanship nor idealism, but it is the encroachment of the nanny state in varying degrees. We are gradually selling ourselves back into bondage and one day will no longer have any power over the government who will be free to throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing to us it wants.

The ONLY solution is a constitutional amendment making it illegal for federal government elevcted leaders or bureaucrats to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, or advantage.

It will be a long, hard struggle to infuse government with enough visionaries all at once who will have the will to do that. And it may already be too late.

You expounded brilliantly on my meaning. Simply Liberty. Both parties seem to see it as a threat as they address issues to keep the people ensconced in the new form of slavery.

Thank you and yes, I think you're right. To his credit, of ALL the candidates running in 2012, Ron Paul seems to understand that the most clearly. Unfortunately, he also seems to lack sufficient leadership skills to persuade anybody else.

I would guess neither of us are persuading many here on the truth of our convictions either.

*

 

[IndependntLogic]

So you like Ron Paul but your enthusiastically voting for a man who stands for the exact opposite in all areas both foreign and domestic?

Don't take this the wrong way, but that is one of the dumbest, most illogical things I've ever heard.

Well then let me address your point directly and without insult.

I really like Ron Paul's honesty and willingness to say things that will cost him votes - which he does often. It's refreshing as hell!
I agree VERY strongly with Ron Paul when he says "Look, if we don't trust the cooked politicians in our own country, why the heck are we giving billions away every year, to the crooked politicians of other countries? Do you really think that money goes where it's supposed to? You don't think the leaders in say, Pakistan or Israel use that for something our politicians don't tell us about?"
Now THAT I can get behind 100%. Or this:
"HELLO, we've LOST the war on drugs folks. We're just wasting our money. If they legalized heroin tomorrow, would you start using it? The answer is no."
Well THAT just makes sense!
There are other such examples.
But I disagree with him on the basic political philosophy behind his party: Libertarianism. If it worked, wouldn't some country, somewhere in history have tried it? And I've lived in countries that are pretty close and well, no thanks.
The Market does not eliminate countries that produce harmful products or abuse their employees or kill the environment and those living it.
Eliminating minimum wage does not create a more prosperous country, it kills the Middle Class.
There are bad people out there. There are fanatics. We have a right to sell planes to Saudi Arabia and any other country we dann well please. Sorry Ron, 9/11 was not our fault.
No we shouldn't have helped take down The Shah, armed the Taliban, given ChemWeps to Saddam and so on. But no, Bin Laden didn't attack us about that. The vids are all public. Hell, they published their own little newspaper. They attacked us because they were a bunch of religious fanatics led by the pariah of a rich Arab family who got the boot because his version of Wahabism was just plain Nurse Ratchet material.
Oh and voting NO on eliminating Oil & Gas subsidies?!?!?! (what state is he from again? Oh yeah. Texas). So all that talk about pure capitalism? Liiitle hypocritical there , eh Ronny?

I mean, I understand that a LOT fo Ron Paul followers think it's hypocritical to agree with him on anything if you aren't willing to put on the apostle's cloak and agree with him on everything. I'm not saying that's you but I'm sure you've seen posters who are exactly like that.
Sorry. Hell, I don't even agree with my best friends on everything.
So although I like many things he forwards, the things I disagree with him on (most importantly, the political philosophy of his movement), preclude my vote.

 

[Liability]

Let's face it. Human nature is human nature whether one has a D or an R after their name. Your perception has some merit but I am not convbinced that partisanship and ideals are the core of the problem.

I think most of those who run for high office these days are mostly opportunists looking to increase their own status, prestige, personal fortunes, or maybe to have something impressive to engrave on their tombstones. I suppose a lot of us wonder if we are at all important, if we have made any difference.

But whatever the motivations--a desire to make a difference or a desire to improve our own standing--there is little more corrupting in the world than money, power, prestige, influence. So long as we have a system that allows politicians to obtain large amounts of the people's money to use in ways that increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, I think that becomes their Number #1 motivation.

The only difference is that the GOP represents people mostly on the right who mostly value fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and American exceptionalism; but even they usually won't turn down a free handout that is right under their nose. So the GOP leadership grows government and increases their personal fortunes at the people's expense, but at a slower pace in order to give the illusion of respectability and responsibility. And even Republicans are too often reluctant to give up government benevolence when they get it.

The rest of the population either exists in total ignoranvce re government, because they pay litle or no taxes, or they clamor for the free stuff andf turn a deaf ear and blind eye to deficits, debt, and the solvency of the country. They don't really care what happens to anybody else so long as they get theirs. Or there are a few bleeding heart types who assuage their own lack of self worth or for whatever reason by feeling self righteous that their government is a perpetual Santa Claus or Robin Hood--so long as it uses other peoples' money to do that. All these of course are the main constituency of Obama and the Democrats.

Despite high ideals and morals, most of those entering goverment are quickly corrupted by the heady two fisted punch of power and personal wealth added to a moibvationto 'fit in' and thereby obtain the committee appointments, etc. necessary to gain all that.

So I think the problem is not partisanship nor idealism, but it is the encroachment of the nanny state in varying degrees. We are gradually selling ourselves back into bondage and one day will no longer have any power over the government who will be free to throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing to us it wants.

The ONLY solution is a constitutional amendment making it illegal for federal government elevcted leaders or bureaucrats to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, or advantage.

It will be a long, hard struggle to infuse government with enough visionaries all at once who will have the will to do that. And it may already be too late.

You expounded brilliantly on my meaning. Simply Liberty. Both parties seem to see it as a threat as they address issues to keep the people ensconced in the new form of slavery.

Thank you and yes, I think you're right. To his credit, of ALL the candidates running in 2012, Ron Paul seems to understand that the most clearly. Unfortunately, he also seems to lack sufficient leadership skills to persuade anybody else.

I would guess neither of us are persuading many here on the truth of our convictions either.

Ya can't persuade me. I was already persuaded.

Well, in part.

I think Ron Paul is nuts.