Tuesday, January 15, 2008

I voted today! Big deal...

Well, I went and voted for the least objectionable candidate in the Michgan Primaries today, even though I know he won't win and even though I am registered as an independent (or at least not registered as a Republican nor Democrat). As you may have guessed, I didn't vote for Ron Paul. In fact, let me restate that I voted today, against Ron Paul and against Huckabee. Nope, no populists, rEVOLutionaries, nor social-cons deserve my vote. Really, I went to vote because I believe it is my only duty as a citizen in this great country. That and paying taxes unfortunately.

I must hand it to the Paulians out there. They sure are devoted. I had a complete stranger (a real person, not just some spammer), find me through a state search on myspace and private message me to go vote, along with the usual Ron Paul propaganda about how he'll turn the government on it's head and such. I've posted the gentleman's point below and responded to each one:

-Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and allow every citizen to keep every cent they earn.

Yeah! That would be great! I just said I hate paying taxes! Hmmm, I also like the fact that the voting precinct today was staffed with equipment, supplies, and people. I like that the roads I drive on are occasionally repaired. I like that the police, fire, EMS are on duty and ready to save my life in case that broken road causes me to get into an accident. I like that when I drive through the majority of the US, it doesn't look like Mexico nor any other Third World Country, and this is mainly because our infrastructure is supported by our taxes. Hey, I'd like to cut government jobs and entitlement programs as much as the next hard working guy, but there are a few I take for granted and I have a feeling they would be affected by this sweeping change. Maybe I missed it, but how exactly would Ron go about doing this and what would he put into place to keep those basic necessities functioning?

-Ron Paul wants to abolish the DEA because he believes that the right to make personal decisions is the choice of the individual, NOT the government.

Sure, I can agree with that... but to a point. Sure, a person wants to smoke weed without the DEA crashing through the door. I can understand that. But what about cases where the DEA broke a drug ring that was funneling money to Hezbollah? Under Ron, these types of black market activities would surely add to the terrorist threats against our country. Does he have a plan to counter this?

-Ron Paul not only believes we should pull all of our troops out of Iraq, but he also believes that we should bring ALL of our troops home from all over the world and be most concerned with our security here in the US.

Great. So where we have troops in place to prevent larger conflicts and where the host countries foot most of the bill and specifically ask us to stay such as in South Korea, what do we do? Just leave and hope for the best? Ron, with his brand of nutroots should know and understand that the world is a flat world and that Isolationism is a dead theory. It simply doesn't work. Foreign hackers can devastate our economy. Jihadees can board plains from other countries to fly into American buildings. Others can rise up against our transnational corporations' foreign headquarters. On and on... How does Ron plan to act against these threats to our interests, which happen to exist outside of our borders? And what do we do with all of these soldiers we bring home, who no longer have jobs that were cut abroad, such as from Germany or Saudi Arabia? Will Ron find them sandbags to fill? What will he do with all of the specially trained technicians? I have a feeling with no work, there will be no jobs, and with no jobs for these soldiers; an even smaller military. Then what happens when we are attacked again? Ron gets on the news and claims that our tiny and underfunded military will not go after those who attacked us, well, because they actually never attacked us in the first place, as he alluded to in the debates the other night?

-Ron Paul opposes the "Patriot Act" and illegal wiretapping on American citizens and believes that our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have been compromised.

I don't know about you, but if a US Citizen is talking to Islamists overseas about murdering Americans via phone conversations, I'm pretty sure we should revoke their citizenship. See, I'm not concerned that my phones are being tapped. What reason would the NSA have to tap my phone calls for? I suspect that if I hated this country and was planning attacks against it, I'd be a little upset as well if my phone was being tapped. Otherwise, go for it. My cable network already tracks what I watch, my employer checks on what sites I visit, and Google collects practically every other piece of information on me. Am I worried? Not in the least. Why? Because, for the most part, our government is transparent. We have enough traitorous scum throughout its ranks and a media bent on leaking any secret information that I need not worry about why or who's listening in on my phone conversations. Had we known that if these conversations were tapped before 911 that the tragedy may have been prevented, I would have been the first in line to give up that freedom. The bottom line is, whatever medium you use, email, phone, skype, SMS, etc., it's built, owned, and/or hosted by a provider or company of sorts. And I don't trust them anymore than I trust our government. You want completely private conversations? Then go back to Carrier Pigeons and/or pay someone to deliver the message in person. Other than that, whether it's the government or some AT&T desk jockey listening in, I'm not worried, as I'm not breaking any laws. If you are communicating with someone over the phone about some seditious act, then I hope you are caught and locked up for life.

In other news across the isle, Dennis Kucinich's ads have been flooding our TV screens here in Michigan for the last couple of days. Does this Prototypical Beta Male really think he can win over the majority of Michiganders with his wimpy little socialist screed coming out of that tiny little contrarian head of his? Every time I see his smarmy little smirk, I think of the communist minder sent along with the Moscow Circus to New York in Moscow on the Hudson.

Update: After writing this, I ran across this article. Yet another libertarian that comes out against Ron Paul and the crazies he hires. (Hat Tip LGF)


Anonymous said...

Thank you for referring to me as a "gentleman." I see that you are not privy to dole out compliments, so I must say I appreciate it.

I also know that being a super-savvy 32-year-old politico, you are not one to appreciate "lessons" as you put it , so let me just say I would like to respond with some "insight" or "clarifications" for Dr. Paul's positions that I didn't expound upon profusely in my initial email...

First point:
The taxes collected that pay for our infrastructure that you listed are from STATE revenue, not federal income taxes. Taxes on commerce, property and state taxes would still be collected. Saving a trillion or so dollars every year in military expense would be a nice savings that the IRS money typically pays for.

Second point:
Before the DEA, drug enforcement was the authority of the commerce department. It was illegal because money was exchanged without sales tax paid. The commerce department oversees all financial transactions between states and would remain. If the DEA is abolished, it returns to enforcement by the commerce department. That means possession is decriminalized, the sale is still illegal. Electing Ron Paul as President does not mean you will be able to buy weed at your local 7-11.

Next point:

Ron Paul's "isolationist theory" is strictly military. It has nothing to do with commerce or any other world relations. His idea is that we stop policing the world, installing governments and financially backing secret kus to eventually overthrow said government when they eventually turn against us with the money we gave them. (i.e., Saddam, al-Queda, Northern Alliance, Kosovars?)

Also, all of the points you made about threats being located outside of our borders cannot be solved with military force anyway, so that is an absurd point. Are we to assume that you are making the point that a military occupation in Nigeria is in order to fight those pesky 409 scams? Maybe you should know that ever since Al Gore invented the internet, we can connect to it and police it from here. It is because we are so stretched thin across the planet that we have gaps in our own security here that we somehow miss the clues about people training in our own country to fly planes into our own buildings from flights that originated in our own country.

I'd imagine that if a hijacked flight was coming across the Atlantic to initiate a kamikazi, we'd figure it out soon enough...

Also, if you feel so strongly that we should be overthrowing countries in the middle east to protect a Haliburton pipeline from Uzbekistan to the Persian Gulf who intend to sell 100% of the oil to China, then I think you should ponder the idea that capitalism works best when US companies who flee to Dubai to avoid paying corporate taxes into our economy should use those savings to pay for their own security (just a thought!)

Also, to address your allegation that Ron Paul said "because they actually never attacked us in the first place, as he alluded to in the debates the other night" was a gross misinterpretation that was more than clarified by Congressman Paul in that very debate. Guiliani made a smug comment about how we were justified in attacking any country that attacked us [by flying our own planes into our own buildings originating from destinations... well, you know the rest...]

Dr. Paul argued that a "country" did not attack us on 9/11. Are you saying that the current million-plus civilian death count in Afghanistan and Iraq is justifiable to avenge our loss by a few terrorists?
I am trying to see what your rational argument is here...
That we police every corner of this "flat world" because we are so a-scared that everyone is out to get us?

Last point:

Your argument, "Had we known that if these conversations were tapped before 911 that the tragedy may have been prevented" really shows that you missed a lot of news coverage (and, quite possibly, the 9/11 Report). There was plenty of evidence that was collected and reported by our government about these individuals well before 9/11.
This was before the Patriot Act was passed. There were plenty of warnings and reports but our government locked the keys in the car while the radio was on, the motor was running and the windshield wipers were going back and forth.

And the idea that our government is transparent is completely laughable! You are aware of the repeated subpoenas by Congress to the Bush Administration for alleged criminal conduct that they have denied to testify about under oath, right?

So, I wonder, who was your least objectionable candidate? I missed Undeclared's concession speech. How did it go?

Alexander said...


Thanks for your comments. Rather than address them here, I created a new post for them. Please see my responses there.