Poll: Who is the Piggs president?

[Eugene]

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

I don’t think there is much difference between using federal and state money and I don’t think Ron Paul does either. He uses federal vs. state card to avoid addressing hot issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.

government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs.

Some branches of science require presence of government to advance. Private investors aren’t going to pay for research unless it is likely to lead to profits in reasonable timeframe. Theoretical physics is a good example. Then, there are things that can’t come into existence unless backed by government(s). Some time next year we will probably see the launch of the largest particle accelerator in the world (LHC). It was built in Switzerland at the cost of around $3 billion. It is going to keep a good portion of world’s high energy physicists busy for the next 10 years. No private investor or a group of investors is going to pay for a project like this. For a government like the one we have in the U.S., it’s peanuts ($15 from every taxpayer). (Incidentally, an even bigger accelerator could have been finished and launched in Texas 10 years ago, but, in the end, the government decided that the project was too expensive and killed it.)

Same thing with space exploration. It’s been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik and still no private company has been able to even come close to putting a man-made object into orbit. It’s just too expensive.

With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could.

The problem is, people who need Social Security / Medicare most don’t pay much (if any) income tax. Abolishing income tax will greatly benefit lawyers and engineers and programmers (especially single ones), but it won’t do much for a burger flipper or a janitor who makes $30,000 a year.

But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct.

Ron Paul’s views on economics (and the Austrian school in general) are the economic equivalent of the intelligent design. It’s okay to study the intelligent design as long as it stays theory, but you’re going to get in trouble if you try to solve real-world problems and to make policy decisions based on it. Conventional economics tells us that attempting to keep a tight lid on money supply in times like the present has a good chance of turning a potentially mild economic slowdown into a full-scale depression. Who would you rather trust to make decisions on this subject? An obstetrician (Ron Paul) or a professor with three published textbooks on macroeconomics (Ben Bernanke)?

The thing about free market, it tends to adhere to a 80/20 rule: 20% of people make 80% of the money. Basic cost of living is nearly the same for everyone, so people who make more money can save more and invest more. Rich get richer and poor stay poor. In the United States, inequality is not so pronounced, for a number of reasons, all of them anti-libertarian (income tax, minimum wage laws, partially socialized medicine and education). Minimum wage laws make it uneconomical to manufacture stuff in America. Instead of assembling iPods and painting toys, unskilled Americans join the service industry. American burger flipper is far better off than Chinese manufacturing worker, because minumum wage laws make sure that he’s paid at least $5.15 an hour (more than most Chinese workers make in a day), and his clients can afford to pay $3 for a Big Mac.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[NotCranky]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Sandi,
His view on power and use of American Authority will end his presidential hopes. When he talks about a hands off stance against Iran and the economic stances he is famous for, the terrorist propagandist(Republicans) and prosperity conscious ideologues(all candidates) that are going to be the real core of the election campaigns will be brought out to do away with him. I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.

Dr. Paul’s response to the religion issue is just a shame as far as I am concerned.The religion issue is a shame for me throughout the political process, especially at the national level. It is just as much what he says as what he doesn’t say. When we have a candidate similar to Dr. Paul, who also seems contemporary and intellectually honest, on church and state/religion and politics, I will get really excited. His poor rhetoric on religion is a bigger strike against him than it is to other candidates because he gives me the hope that he would be more progressive. He is totally unexceptional on this front and is in fact a disappointment.

[NotCranky]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Sandi,
His view on power and use of American Authority will end his presidential hopes. When he talks about a hands off stance against Iran and the economic stances he is famous for, the terrorist propagandist(Republicans) and prosperity conscious ideologues(all candidates) that are going to be the real core of the election campaigns will be brought out to do away with him. I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.

Dr. Paul’s response to the religion issue is just a shame as far as I am concerned.The religion issue is a shame for me throughout the political process, especially at the national level. It is just as much what he says as what he doesn’t say. When we have a candidate similar to Dr. Paul, who also seems contemporary and intellectually honest, on church and state/religion and politics, I will get really excited. His poor rhetoric on religion is a bigger strike against him than it is to other candidates because he gives me the hope that he would be more progressive. He is totally unexceptional on this front and is in fact a disappointment.

[NotCranky]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Sandi,
His view on power and use of American Authority will end his presidential hopes. When he talks about a hands off stance against Iran and the economic stances he is famous for, the terrorist propagandist(Republicans) and prosperity conscious ideologues(all candidates) that are going to be the real core of the election campaigns will be brought out to do away with him. I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.

Dr. Paul’s response to the religion issue is just a shame as far as I am concerned.The religion issue is a shame for me throughout the political process, especially at the national level. It is just as much what he says as what he doesn’t say. When we have a candidate similar to Dr. Paul, who also seems contemporary and intellectually honest, on church and state/religion and politics, I will get really excited. His poor rhetoric on religion is a bigger strike against him than it is to other candidates because he gives me the hope that he would be more progressive. He is totally unexceptional on this front and is in fact a disappointment.

[NotCranky]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Sandi,
His view on power and use of American Authority will end his presidential hopes. When he talks about a hands off stance against Iran and the economic stances he is famous for, the terrorist propagandist(Republicans) and prosperity conscious ideologues(all candidates) that are going to be the real core of the election campaigns will be brought out to do away with him. I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.

Dr. Paul’s response to the religion issue is just a shame as far as I am concerned.The religion issue is a shame for me throughout the political process, especially at the national level. It is just as much what he says as what he doesn’t say. When we have a candidate similar to Dr. Paul, who also seems contemporary and intellectually honest, on church and state/religion and politics, I will get really excited. His poor rhetoric on religion is a bigger strike against him than it is to other candidates because he gives me the hope that he would be more progressive. He is totally unexceptional on this front and is in fact a disappointment.

[NotCranky]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Sandi,
His view on power and use of American Authority will end his presidential hopes. When he talks about a hands off stance against Iran and the economic stances he is famous for, the terrorist propagandist(Republicans) and prosperity conscious ideologues(all candidates) that are going to be the real core of the election campaigns will be brought out to do away with him. I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.

Dr. Paul’s response to the religion issue is just a shame as far as I am concerned.The religion issue is a shame for me throughout the political process, especially at the national level. It is just as much what he says as what he doesn’t say. When we have a candidate similar to Dr. Paul, who also seems contemporary and intellectually honest, on church and state/religion and politics, I will get really excited. His poor rhetoric on religion is a bigger strike against him than it is to other candidates because he gives me the hope that he would be more progressive. He is totally unexceptional on this front and is in fact a disappointment.

[4plexowner]

Sandi Eagan – to summarize your description of Ron Paul: he is a statesman

a statesman puts his country and people first and moves into politics because of his passionate beliefs

a politician chooses politics as a profession that will allow them to achieve their personal ambitions (power, fame, wealth, all of the above) – the people are secondary to their personal agenda

Ron Paul is the first statesman the world has seen in a long, long time – perhaps the world has forgotten what honesty and passion look like (or is scared witless by the sight)

[4plexowner]

Sandi Eagan – to summarize your description of Ron Paul: he is a statesman

a statesman puts his country and people first and moves into politics because of his passionate beliefs

a politician chooses politics as a profession that will allow them to achieve their personal ambitions (power, fame, wealth, all of the above) – the people are secondary to their personal agenda

Ron Paul is the first statesman the world has seen in a long, long time – perhaps the world has forgotten what honesty and passion look like (or is scared witless by the sight)

[4plexowner]

Sandi Eagan – to summarize your description of Ron Paul: he is a statesman

a statesman puts his country and people first and moves into politics because of his passionate beliefs

a politician chooses politics as a profession that will allow them to achieve their personal ambitions (power, fame, wealth, all of the above) – the people are secondary to their personal agenda

Ron Paul is the first statesman the world has seen in a long, long time – perhaps the world has forgotten what honesty and passion look like (or is scared witless by the sight)

[4plexowner]

Sandi Eagan – to summarize your description of Ron Paul: he is a statesman

a statesman puts his country and people first and moves into politics because of his passionate beliefs

a politician chooses politics as a profession that will allow them to achieve their personal ambitions (power, fame, wealth, all of the above) – the people are secondary to their personal agenda

Ron Paul is the first statesman the world has seen in a long, long time – perhaps the world has forgotten what honesty and passion look like (or is scared witless by the sight)

[Author]

Posts