Is it possible to write in Ron Paul's name? I hate politicians (I once compared them morally to child molesters but later took back the comment as I felt it was unfair to the child molesters (the comment was half joking, obviously)), but still support the Texas Congressman 100%. He's the only candidate that supports--TRULY supports--limited government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, the end of the welfare state, the return to our constitutional roots (no more ignoring the Constitution when it's convenient for us in order to engage in undeclared wars, indefinite detention without habeas corpus, domestic surveillance without judicial oversight, etc.), the free market, a sound economic policy that lowers inflation and strengthens the dollar, the end of the income tax and the IRS, and the general advancement of liberty. Other politicians, I feel, only pay lip service to these ideals. Ron Paul is actually serious about them.
Obama says he's for "change". What change? His foreign policy is almost the same as Bush's, which is pretty much the same as it has been since the end of World War II. He, and Bush, support the American interventionism that has sent our tax dollars overseas in return for the ire of terrorist groups, rogue states, and other dangerous groups. Sure, it doesn't SOUND like the same hawkish Bush-Cheney foreign policy, but just because it sounds warmer and fuzzier (and just because he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq) doesn't mean it's a "change". He says he wants sound economic policy, but he supports universal healthcare. The only way to fund that and similar domestic policies, along with the aforementioned interventionist foreign policy, without running the country further into a deficit is to raise taxes. He has the same foreign policy and an economic policy that, at least to me, consists of the same "raise taxes vs. run up the deficit" option that has been so damaging to the American economy over the years.
McCain has the same foreign policy, but his just comes off to me as a hawkish Cold War foreign policy. He seems to be more confrontational with countries that we shouldn't--or needn't--be confrontational with; his animosity towards China and his extremely tough stance on Russia is especially unnerving. I didn't like how he seem to disregard the fact that Georgia was the one who launched the first wave of invasion last month (against South Ossettia), not Russia. He doesn't seem to be interested in getting to the roots causes of anti-American terrorism ("I'm not interested in talking to them. They're only interested in trading burqas."), and (like Obama but even moreso, in my opinion) would continue to engage in a foreign policy that would fuel more terrorism against America rather than reduce it. When a presidential candidate mistakes understanding anti-American terrorism and formulating a proper and appropriate foreign policy around it with World War II appeasement, that tells me that the candidate isn't ready to be Commander-in-Chief. As for his economic policy, well I at least I can respect the (former) straight talker for admitting he doesn't know much about economics. I'd be lying if I said I know much about McCain's proposed economic policies (other than continuing the Bush tax cuts), but the fact that he doesn't know much about economics doesn't sit well with me. Admittedly, the President of the United States doesn't have the omnipotent power over the economy everyone thinks he has, so this may not be as big an issue as we may think. Oh, and McCain's choice for running mate? Don't get me started on the pitbull-in-lipstick hockey mom who thinks being able to see a part of Russia from Alaska that no Russian takes seriously counts as foreign policy credentials. The fact that he chose someone so unready to lead as his Vice President shows me that despite his claim that he'd rather "lose an election than lose a war", he's more interested in winning the presidency than actually being a good leader. Frankly, though, I doubt Obama's all that different.
Wow, I just realize that my anti-McCain paragraph is twice as long as my anti-Obama paragraph. I must be a sleeper agent for the liberal media, huh? Anyways, like I said, I'm planning to write in Ron Paul's name and vote for him. They say our democracy relies on people going out and voting, but I can't in good conscious vote for Obama or McCain. Ron Paul it is then.
P.S. I'm not trying to get on the case of the member who kind of got on Obama's case for being a Muslim (and thinking that, as a result, all women would be forced to wear burqas), but my girlfriend's Muslim. No, she's not a terrorist. No, Muslims aren't out to destroy American freedom. No, a Muslim president would not mean that you'd have to pray 50 times a day any more than a Christian president would force you to go to church every Sunday or go to prison. No, being Muslim is not something to look down upon, nor is it a reason to vote against a candidate. In my opinion, Islam is the same useless, outdated, irrational, dangerous religion as Christianity, Judaism, and all the rest (she knows how I feel and she doesn't care). Er, no offense to anyone here that is religious--it's just my opinion--I just got ticked off by the notion that being Muslim somehow makes you less of a good person when my Muslim girlfriend is probably a better person than anyone I've ever met in my whole life (definitely better than the asshole writing this post).
Obama says he's for "change". What change? His foreign policy is almost the same as Bush's, which is pretty much the same as it has been since the end of World War II. He, and Bush, support the American interventionism that has sent our tax dollars overseas in return for the ire of terrorist groups, rogue states, and other dangerous groups. Sure, it doesn't SOUND like the same hawkish Bush-Cheney foreign policy, but just because it sounds warmer and fuzzier (and just because he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq) doesn't mean it's a "change". He says he wants sound economic policy, but he supports universal healthcare. The only way to fund that and similar domestic policies, along with the aforementioned interventionist foreign policy, without running the country further into a deficit is to raise taxes. He has the same foreign policy and an economic policy that, at least to me, consists of the same "raise taxes vs. run up the deficit" option that has been so damaging to the American economy over the years.
McCain has the same foreign policy, but his just comes off to me as a hawkish Cold War foreign policy. He seems to be more confrontational with countries that we shouldn't--or needn't--be confrontational with; his animosity towards China and his extremely tough stance on Russia is especially unnerving. I didn't like how he seem to disregard the fact that Georgia was the one who launched the first wave of invasion last month (against South Ossettia), not Russia. He doesn't seem to be interested in getting to the roots causes of anti-American terrorism ("I'm not interested in talking to them. They're only interested in trading burqas."), and (like Obama but even moreso, in my opinion) would continue to engage in a foreign policy that would fuel more terrorism against America rather than reduce it. When a presidential candidate mistakes understanding anti-American terrorism and formulating a proper and appropriate foreign policy around it with World War II appeasement, that tells me that the candidate isn't ready to be Commander-in-Chief. As for his economic policy, well I at least I can respect the (former) straight talker for admitting he doesn't know much about economics. I'd be lying if I said I know much about McCain's proposed economic policies (other than continuing the Bush tax cuts), but the fact that he doesn't know much about economics doesn't sit well with me. Admittedly, the President of the United States doesn't have the omnipotent power over the economy everyone thinks he has, so this may not be as big an issue as we may think. Oh, and McCain's choice for running mate? Don't get me started on the pitbull-in-lipstick hockey mom who thinks being able to see a part of Russia from Alaska that no Russian takes seriously counts as foreign policy credentials. The fact that he chose someone so unready to lead as his Vice President shows me that despite his claim that he'd rather "lose an election than lose a war", he's more interested in winning the presidency than actually being a good leader. Frankly, though, I doubt Obama's all that different.
Wow, I just realize that my anti-McCain paragraph is twice as long as my anti-Obama paragraph. I must be a sleeper agent for the liberal media, huh? Anyways, like I said, I'm planning to write in Ron Paul's name and vote for him. They say our democracy relies on people going out and voting, but I can't in good conscious vote for Obama or McCain. Ron Paul it is then.
P.S. I'm not trying to get on the case of the member who kind of got on Obama's case for being a Muslim (and thinking that, as a result, all women would be forced to wear burqas), but my girlfriend's Muslim. No, she's not a terrorist. No, Muslims aren't out to destroy American freedom. No, a Muslim president would not mean that you'd have to pray 50 times a day any more than a Christian president would force you to go to church every Sunday or go to prison. No, being Muslim is not something to look down upon, nor is it a reason to vote against a candidate. In my opinion, Islam is the same useless, outdated, irrational, dangerous religion as Christianity, Judaism, and all the rest (she knows how I feel and she doesn't care). Er, no offense to anyone here that is religious--it's just my opinion--I just got ticked off by the notion that being Muslim somehow makes you less of a good person when my Muslim girlfriend is probably a better person than anyone I've ever met in my whole life (definitely better than the asshole writing this post).
Last edited:
