Door #3?

Not sold on either Obiden or McPalin? Can’t stomach one pair taking away your economic freedom and the other taking away your personal freedoms?

There may still be hope in this already remarkable political season.

Ron Paul to Hold Major Press Conference Wednesday

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jesse Benton
September 8, 2008

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA – Congressman Ron Paul will hold a press conference in the Ball Room at the National Press Club on Wednesday, September 10th at 10:00 am. Dr. Paul will announce his intentions for the fall presidential election and will be accompanied by several special guests.

This event comes on the heels of Dr. Paul’s historic three-day Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis, Minnesota that drew over 12,000 supporters.

-30-

In case you think such a movement is small spuds, the Campaign for Liberty is on a roll. Yesterday it surpassed 100,000 passionate members.

Check it out and help stop the creeping authoritarianism.

0 thoughts on “Door #3?”

  1. Mrs Spock — except I think Dr Paul is more grounded and let flighty.Antigone — me, too. Barr does nothing for me.Denise — thanks for saying so (about my nephew).Luna — I’m not sure. But what I like is that he would make sure the federal government stays out of what is taught in public schools. He does not believe this is an issue for the federal government to address.

  2. Interesting to think about another alternative. I’m definitely torn between the two other choices.Your perfect moment post gave me chills.

  3. Mrs Spock — except I think Dr Paul is more grounded and let flighty.Antigone — me, too. Barr does nothing for me.Denise — thanks for saying so (about my nephew).Luna — I’m not sure. But what I like is that he would make sure the federal government stays out of what is taught in public schools. He does not believe this is an issue for the federal government to address.

  4. Interesting to think about another alternative. I’m definitely torn between the two other choices.Your perfect moment post gave me chills.

  5. Okay, I get that he is different and I am not exactly thrilled with the two running but look at it logically. He has no chance of winning, just like Perot. What is he gaining from splitting the vote? Is is sour grapes and he wants to get a certain candidate in so he can shout I told you so from the hilltops?If people are not finding what they want in candidates maybe we should stop letting the media pick them for us. LMHO… :o)

  6. Okay, I get that he is different and I am not exactly thrilled with the two running but look at it logically. He has no chance of winning, just like Perot. What is he gaining from splitting the vote? Is is sour grapes and he wants to get a certain candidate in so he can shout I told you so from the hilltops?If people are not finding what they want in candidates maybe we should stop letting the media pick them for us. LMHO… :o)

  7. Tammy — I think it’s more about movement away from the 2-party stranglehold than about a 2008 3rd party win.If even 20% of voters swing away from the Dems and the GOP, it will be harder to ignore 3rd party candidates AND ISSUES in 2012 and beyond.I would consider that a win.Lolli — if you want someone to take your money and do real good things with it, pick me!

  8. Tammy — I think it’s more about movement away from the 2-party stranglehold than about a 2008 3rd party win.If even 20% of voters swing away from the Dems and the GOP, it will be harder to ignore 3rd party candidates AND ISSUES in 2012 and beyond.I would consider that a win.Lolli — if you want someone to take your money and do real good things with it, pick me!

  9. In response to your either/or presentation of the presidential choices, and your Libertarian perspective, my question is that don’t you think by severely reducing “big government” to the point of getting rid of agencies such as departments of eduction and human services (such as Ron Paul wants), we’re abdicating our responsiblities to take care of our citizens who will never have the autonomy of personal freedoms that those who have economic advantages, necessarily have? It seems cruelly naive to me to believe that free market choices etc. will really bring greater freedoms to all Americans, when, in fact, the opposite is continually being shown to be true. Yes, the market works, and yes we need economic incentives in our culture, but many people are born into situations that without some governmental support, they would have no chance to make it. These are the people who continually suffer under governmental restrictions fo their personal freedoms. They can’t buy their way out. And where would women’s rights and children’s rights be without social consciousness? (Even if it’s a little forced and a little imperfect?)Think about the content of many of your postings and issues of adoption and women’s reproductive rights? How many women today, don’t have choices about fertility because it costs too much? How is the free market going to play out as genetic testings and designer babies become more available? Imagine the inequity in our world then!OK, enough said!Your liberal, non-Libertarian, librarian,E

  10. In response to your either/or presentation of the presidential choices, and your Libertarian perspective, my question is that don’t you think by severely reducing “big government” to the point of getting rid of agencies such as departments of eduction and human services (such as Ron Paul wants), we’re abdicating our responsiblities to take care of our citizens who will never have the autonomy of personal freedoms that those who have economic advantages, necessarily have? It seems cruelly naive to me to believe that free market choices etc. will really bring greater freedoms to all Americans, when, in fact, the opposite is continually being shown to be true. Yes, the market works, and yes we need economic incentives in our culture, but many people are born into situations that without some governmental support, they would have no chance to make it. These are the people who continually suffer under governmental restrictions fo their personal freedoms. They can’t buy their way out. And where would women’s rights and children’s rights be without social consciousness? (Even if it’s a little forced and a little imperfect?)Think about the content of many of your postings and issues of adoption and women’s reproductive rights? How many women today, don’t have choices about fertility because it costs too much? How is the free market going to play out as genetic testings and designer babies become more available? Imagine the inequity in our world then!OK, enough said!Your liberal, non-Libertarian, librarian,E

  11. E — why is it up to the federal government to “take care of our citizens who will never have the autonomy of personal freedoms that those who have economic advantages, necessarily have”?We were set up as a union of states. Our founding fathers were very suspicious of centralized power and of federal power.Much of what the federal government does now could be better handled closer to the problem, and the state and local level. And without the associated waste that goes with bloated fedgov programs.“And where would women’s rights and children’s rights be without social consciousness?” A legitimate function of the federal government would be to protect these rights.“How many women today, don’t have choices about fertility because it costs too much?” Are you wondering if I advocate the federal government funding fertility treatments? Guess what my answer would be to having the government up in my hoohahooterus.

  12. E — why is it up to the federal government to “take care of our citizens who will never have the autonomy of personal freedoms that those who have economic advantages, necessarily have”?We were set up as a union of states. Our founding fathers were very suspicious of centralized power and of federal power.Much of what the federal government does now could be better handled closer to the problem, and the state and local level. And without the associated waste that goes with bloated fedgov programs.“And where would women’s rights and children’s rights be without social consciousness?” A legitimate function of the federal government would be to protect these rights.“How many women today, don’t have choices about fertility because it costs too much?” Are you wondering if I advocate the federal government funding fertility treatments? Guess what my answer would be to having the government up in my hoohahooterus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>