Let me paint a picture for you.
I was raised in a republican house hold suckling on the teat of Regan. I was young, naïve, and content. And then GHWB was elected.
My father owned his own car trim company and he subcontracted to local shops and dealers. Most of his income came from one major contract though. Well, GWHB allowed laws and taxes to pass that hit small businesses like my father's really hard. It made more sense for the shops he worked for to hire in house employees to do the same job.
In the mid 90s, after Clinton was elected, just about every republican I knew was screaming about how the country was going to self destruct and we were all going to hell. I certainly didn't like being lied to, told that something depends on the definition of "is", and having our country look like it was run by a fool. But all in all, he did some good things while in office. He also did some things I disagreed with, but so did both Bush presidents.
When I started questioning my political upbringing, I started finding that I didn't agree with anyone. I would love one thing a candidate would say, but then the next would be a deal breaker. I became so disillusioned that I haven't voted since 2000.
I honestly don't believe that either the Democrat or Republican positions are viable. They each have some really really good points, but neither encompasses what I believe to be a good solution for our country. If people asked me my political affiliation I would have said that I was a liberal capitalist or something along those lines.
I think Democrats aren't good for the economy, taxes, and government spending/size and I think Republicans aren't good for anything else ? and that's only if they follow the party line (which none of them seem to want to do now that there is an eternal "war on terror" to fight and money needs to be spent).
I think moderates on both sides of the aisle never get anything done and generally take the worst bits of each side and blend them together.
Here's what I believe.
I believe in personal freedom, responsibility and a free market economy. I believe in the fair use of copyrighted material by consumers is the most important aspect of copyright law. I believe in simplifying tax law to the point where the IRS is almost irrelevant (except that someone needs to be there to do the accounting of what was earned and as a point of contact for tax collection).
I believe that we should help other nations where asked or needed for humanitarian purposes, but that we should largely stay out of other people's business. I believe in free trade. I don't feel abortion should be used as a birth control method (adoption is a much better and less selfish solution in that case) but I would *never* presume to legislate the issue (either for or against abortion) because I think it's necessary for doctors and patients to come to their own conclusions on the best course of medical care and the government shouldn't get in the way of that. In the same vein, all drugs should be decriminalized and taxed similar to the way we treat tobacco and alcohol. I think the war on drugs serves only to support terrorism, as drugs are THE major source of funding for criminal and terrorist organizations. The money we save on fighting a war against drugs could be used to help people with drug addictions or problems (those are separate issues because not all illegal drugs are addictive and many others are less addictive than tobacco); jail is much less effective than medical treatment and high quality rehab programs that are free or very affordable.
I believe in a right to privacy. I am entirely against the Patriot Act.
And I never thought I would find a political candidate anywhere near worth voting for. Friends have encouraged me to vote for the lesser of two evils, telling me that that's how I need to use my power as a citizen. But I still can't get behind that as my vote will look like support to the person who gets it even though it's only a vote against someone else.
That is, until two weeks ago when a friend of my told me he thought I'd like a candidate. I said whatever and decided to check it out just for a laugh. And I was floored.
Every single thing I believe in was reflected in the words I read. Everything.
Certainly, all of you who are much more familiar with the candidates than I was until a short time ago already know who I discovered.
Ron Paul
The freaking man.
Not only am I newly inspired to have some faith that the occasional revolutionary can come along and get noticed, but I will be voting in a primary for the first time ever. Ron Paul has made me really want to get involved in my government ? to try and make a difference in spite of the odds. In spite of the fact that his winning the primary is a long shot, he still has a shot. And that's more than anything I thought someone who made sense would have.
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.
And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.
Probably a better example than that is Tom's Hardware ? How many of you who remember Tom Pabst's writing would think he agrees with even 20% of what the writers over there say? Of course, that actually helps his reputation rather than hurts it ? but you get the point. Sometimes the name can stick around long after the person who began the thing moves on.
Just because a publication with someone's name on it said something doesn't mean that person believes it. And I'm very inclined to believe that Ron Paul is not racist based on his voting record, past statements (actually made by him and not someone else), and his espoused beliefs in general. I'm certainly abhor racism and sexism and weightism and all other things you can put an ism after that imply discrimination.
Certainly, it would be better if it hadn't happened. It's really a better idea to keep such publications in the hands of people who will keep from mucking it up as much as possible rather than letting it float around on its own.
In any event, the thing that really struck me is that Ron Paul supports laws and actions that benefit the country rather than his own agenda. I never thought I'd see a pro-life person that just as strongly opposed making abortion illegal as they opposed making it explicitly legal (like Ron Paul is). He may be pro-life, but he's more pro-what-America-wants-and-needs. He doesn't let his own agenda get in the way of fulfilling his obligation to represent his people.
Having a president who truly believes in doing the job of a president and representing his country would be an incredible change from the unilateral insanity that has plagued Washington over the past 20 years.
I was raised in a republican house hold suckling on the teat of Regan. I was young, naïve, and content. And then GHWB was elected.
My father owned his own car trim company and he subcontracted to local shops and dealers. Most of his income came from one major contract though. Well, GWHB allowed laws and taxes to pass that hit small businesses like my father's really hard. It made more sense for the shops he worked for to hire in house employees to do the same job.
In the mid 90s, after Clinton was elected, just about every republican I knew was screaming about how the country was going to self destruct and we were all going to hell. I certainly didn't like being lied to, told that something depends on the definition of "is", and having our country look like it was run by a fool. But all in all, he did some good things while in office. He also did some things I disagreed with, but so did both Bush presidents.
When I started questioning my political upbringing, I started finding that I didn't agree with anyone. I would love one thing a candidate would say, but then the next would be a deal breaker. I became so disillusioned that I haven't voted since 2000.
I honestly don't believe that either the Democrat or Republican positions are viable. They each have some really really good points, but neither encompasses what I believe to be a good solution for our country. If people asked me my political affiliation I would have said that I was a liberal capitalist or something along those lines.
I think Democrats aren't good for the economy, taxes, and government spending/size and I think Republicans aren't good for anything else ? and that's only if they follow the party line (which none of them seem to want to do now that there is an eternal "war on terror" to fight and money needs to be spent).
I think moderates on both sides of the aisle never get anything done and generally take the worst bits of each side and blend them together.
Here's what I believe.
I believe in personal freedom, responsibility and a free market economy. I believe in the fair use of copyrighted material by consumers is the most important aspect of copyright law. I believe in simplifying tax law to the point where the IRS is almost irrelevant (except that someone needs to be there to do the accounting of what was earned and as a point of contact for tax collection).
I believe that we should help other nations where asked or needed for humanitarian purposes, but that we should largely stay out of other people's business. I believe in free trade. I don't feel abortion should be used as a birth control method (adoption is a much better and less selfish solution in that case) but I would *never* presume to legislate the issue (either for or against abortion) because I think it's necessary for doctors and patients to come to their own conclusions on the best course of medical care and the government shouldn't get in the way of that. In the same vein, all drugs should be decriminalized and taxed similar to the way we treat tobacco and alcohol. I think the war on drugs serves only to support terrorism, as drugs are THE major source of funding for criminal and terrorist organizations. The money we save on fighting a war against drugs could be used to help people with drug addictions or problems (those are separate issues because not all illegal drugs are addictive and many others are less addictive than tobacco); jail is much less effective than medical treatment and high quality rehab programs that are free or very affordable.
I believe in a right to privacy. I am entirely against the Patriot Act.
And I never thought I would find a political candidate anywhere near worth voting for. Friends have encouraged me to vote for the lesser of two evils, telling me that that's how I need to use my power as a citizen. But I still can't get behind that as my vote will look like support to the person who gets it even though it's only a vote against someone else.
That is, until two weeks ago when a friend of my told me he thought I'd like a candidate. I said whatever and decided to check it out just for a laugh. And I was floored.
Every single thing I believe in was reflected in the words I read. Everything.
Certainly, all of you who are much more familiar with the candidates than I was until a short time ago already know who I discovered.
Ron Paul
The freaking man.
Not only am I newly inspired to have some faith that the occasional revolutionary can come along and get noticed, but I will be voting in a primary for the first time ever. Ron Paul has made me really want to get involved in my government ? to try and make a difference in spite of the odds. In spite of the fact that his winning the primary is a long shot, he still has a shot. And that's more than anything I thought someone who made sense would have.
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.
And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.
Probably a better example than that is Tom's Hardware ? How many of you who remember Tom Pabst's writing would think he agrees with even 20% of what the writers over there say? Of course, that actually helps his reputation rather than hurts it ? but you get the point. Sometimes the name can stick around long after the person who began the thing moves on.
Just because a publication with someone's name on it said something doesn't mean that person believes it. And I'm very inclined to believe that Ron Paul is not racist based on his voting record, past statements (actually made by him and not someone else), and his espoused beliefs in general. I'm certainly abhor racism and sexism and weightism and all other things you can put an ism after that imply discrimination.
Certainly, it would be better if it hadn't happened. It's really a better idea to keep such publications in the hands of people who will keep from mucking it up as much as possible rather than letting it float around on its own.
In any event, the thing that really struck me is that Ron Paul supports laws and actions that benefit the country rather than his own agenda. I never thought I'd see a pro-life person that just as strongly opposed making abortion illegal as they opposed making it explicitly legal (like Ron Paul is). He may be pro-life, but he's more pro-what-America-wants-and-needs. He doesn't let his own agenda get in the way of fulfilling his obligation to represent his people.
Having a president who truly believes in doing the job of a president and representing his country would be an incredible change from the unilateral insanity that has plagued Washington over the past 20 years.
Facebook
Twitter