Saturday, January 12, 2008

If Ron Paul scares you, you might be a SOCIALIST


Actually, if Ron Paul scares you, you ARE either a Socialist or a Big-Government neo-con!

Consider yourself in good company because you represent about 90% of AmeriKa!

I know, now your angry, but don't worry. The truth will piss you off before it sets you FREE.

The rest of us 10% have been voting and supporting Ron Paul!



Anonymous said...

Looks like you summed it up pretty good Freedom Maverick. Now, let our 10% grow - our nation, our economy, our liberty, our survival depends on it!

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul was correct in his face off with Giuliani. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Paul, but I do not support him for president. He does not scare me. I think he contributes a great deal to the debate, and espouses a philosophy that more Americans need to listen to.

However, Ron Paul's great weakness is that he is a career politician, and one from the legislative branch, at that. He is a great political philosopher, but he is not an executive manager, and lacks any credentials in fulfilling the role of president.

As a Capitalist, I wish to see those champions of the private sector, leaders of American enterprise, not politicians, step up and run for high office. Those with the skills and experience to take what makes our Capitalist market system work in practice, and apply it to our public sector (not just Capitalism as theoretical ideology which, for all his good intentions, is Ron Paul's only experience).

I support Michael Bloomberg for President because he is the living embodiment of these ideals.

Bloomberg is a pragmatic businessman. He is unabashedly pro-markets, and pro-Capitalism. But he doesn't sit in a musty library writing theories and thesis on how Capitalism works. He became a self-made billionaire by going out and practicing Capitalism. As mayor of New York, he has looked for every way to introduce competition and meritocratic reward into the public sector, often in very novel ways. Ron Paul reads and writes books and legislation. He has never managed a staff larger than a dozen people. He is good for the system. He would make a terrible head of the executive branch of government.

But you will squeal that Mike Bloomberg is not "ideologically pure". Sometimes he has done things in practice that go against some of these ideological positions.

Here is my take— It is rare that you find a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue. But at the end of the day, the President is the executive manager of the world's most powerful enterprise, the US government. I believe most voter's underestimate the value of competence and management experience. What is most important to me is, do they have the competence and the experience to manage such an enterprise? Will they keep the economy strong? Will they make sound judgement in a crisis? Will they hire competent people, or just give valuable positions to unqualified individuals because they either have party connects or "owe" someone because of a campaign contribution?

This makes Bloomberg the right man at the right time.

As mayor of New York, he governs by results.

He is the only candidate that will be sure to keep the economy strong.

When the economy is strong. When everyone has a job. People tend to be less concerned about the differences among us. When the economy is bad, and people are unemployed, everyone looks for someone to point the finger at, and politicians look for divisive wedge issues to distract their constituents from the real problems at hand.

The fact is, presidents rarely get to implement even a fraction of the so-called promises and policy positions they campaign on. A president's term in office is most largely shaped by events of the day. And a president's successes and failures in dealing with crisis that emerge define most president's term in office more so that any specific piece of legislation that gets passed on their clock.