I followed the WSJ link, read the article (sure did sound familiar!) and then read the comments following the article. We all have our opinions, and it seems in high political years opinions are often expressed with far too much self-importance (and often a lot of venom) propelling them. At least those expressed after the article are not as nasty/mean-spirited as some political forums I've visited.

I was very much a supporter of John Edwards and loved his message and ideas on most issues. I am now exploring the remaining candidates as to who will give me that sense of hope that I had with him. This, I hope, will be an historical election year. I don't think the US can sink any further.

I do want to thank this group of Arlonet posters for being considerate and tolerant of other's opinions. You make it a joy to visit this most comfortable place.

Ron Paul stands against government intervention (which is, by definition, coercive). Why do people look to their government to satisfy their needs and to remedy all that is wrong with their lives? In return, they willingly forgo many of their freedoms and responsibilities, dependent on a complex network of subsidies, entitlements, regulations, and bureaucracy. The paradox of big government is that the very idealism that creates a bureaucratic state in the first place will end up consuming individual rights entirely and the notion of freedom will be a distant mirage. Another paradox is that the more that people are dependent on the state, the less responsibility they feel toward each other to respect their rights and to "do no harm". Jung would say that the morality of a group is inversely proportional to its size and that the bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. The Romans used the saying "The senate is a monster, but the senators are good men" to describe the rise of the mass mind. Mass bureaucracy feels no responsibility (FEMA, New Orleans) and no fear (endless wars) and therefore has no conscience. I'm not naïve enough to believe that we can revert to culture of self reliance any time soon. I think the era of big government and big business will just have to play itself out and eventually self destruct by sheer incompetence if for no other reason. Most people know that government is broken. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging...

In the case of FEMA/New Orleans and the Iraq War, those were perpetrated by people who got into office with the stated goal of dismantling those parts of our government that work well, because they don't believe in government. They want a free-for-all for the rich.

I alone cannot build the roads to take me where I need to go, I alone cannot ensure that my family and I will have clean water, clean air, a good education, health care, etc., etc... I cannot defend myself and my family against those who would hurt us and take away our liberties. So I choose to join with other people; as a group, we can do these things for ourselves. That is the ideal of good democratic government. And those who are against it are traitors, IMHO.
--also a long-time Arlo fan

Wow! Thanks Shelley.

Shelley, what you said.....Bravo!!

Lest it be misinterpreted, let me say that by "those who are against it" I meant the ones who are currently doing their best to tear it down before we boot them out. But it also covers anyone who would do so in the future. It's not perfect by any means, but it's the best got, and maybe we'll soon have a chance to repair the damage.

If Ron Paul was one of the bad guys, he'd be getting a lot more support from them than he is now. It's unjust and unfair in my view to lump those greedy slime balls into a discussion about Paul. There may well be profiteers and cronies within government, he's certainly not one. Paul is more like a farmer who wants to prune the trees so they bear more fruit, Not someone who wants to cut the trees down so you have to buy fruit from someone else.

Suggesting that anyone who wants a return to constitutional law (i.e. no war without an act of Congress, reduction of presidential powers, end of torture, freedom to make your own mistakes etc.) should be considered a traitor is an oxymoron, and doesn't make any sense. Paul's position is not to dismantle government, but to make government's intrusion into one's liberties less likely.

The real traitors are those who have stolen our freedoms on the promise that we will be more secure without them. Ben Franklin said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Whether or not those promises of security come in the guise of eminent terrorism, global financial disaster or better schools, more highways, healthcare, we would be wiser to err on the side of freedom when choosing between the promises of opportunists.

Obama said as much himself last night. Can we believe in our ability to transform the future? Or will we fail in this chance because of our fears?

This is the moment our American founding mothers and fathers were considering when they made the leap to create a new nation. Their hopes and dreams outweighed their fears. They realized for themselves what Barak Obama asked us to realize, that "We are the one's we've been waiting for."

I will not denigrate any man or woman who stands behind the covenant that began this nation. I will not call them names. I applaud those who remember what it meant to make that leap of faith, whether they are right, left or in between. And I will not be discouraged by the fears or pessimism of others. Whether it comes about in this election or one yet to come, there is a rising tide of hope, based on the principles as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. If I live long enough to see it bear the fruit of dreams I will be happy. I'm happy anyways...

That's my view...

I'm sorry, adg. Through I'm not for Ron Paul. I did not mean him and I wouldn't call him a traitor (or anyone else, just because we didn't agree). I did mean Bush, Cheney, et al., because their actions were cited as proof that government is bad, and it isn't always. but it is when they're running it. I was following the flow of the thread and didn't even notice the title was "Ron Paul." But it's always good to hear your views, most of which I agree with wholeheartedly.

[quote="adg"]

The real traitors are those who have stolen our freedoms on the promise that we will be more secure without them. Ben Franklin said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

That quote from Ben Franklin is so true.

Farm Out and Out of State, I got the Folkslinger to Smile Today.

I guess it is a myth that we have separation of church and state in the constitution. It only says congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. But it is also a myth that the constitution was based on the 10 commandments.

Somehow I hope we get back to the principal of freedom.-Which in and of itself, takes enough trash/cash, and time to spend it. If I ever had anything to do with starting over: it would have Solomon's idea of money being the answer to everything.-not the love of it.

I agree with the liberterian rhetoric on freedom and freedoms and stuff. I don't agree with the slash and burn economic social darwinism philosophy (the whole get a gun and survive the storm as society adjusts away from socialism attitude scares the s@&t out of me)! I agree even less with the whole build a huge wall around America isolationism thing that Ron Paul espouses (global econimics is real and the transfer of jobs to cheap markets is real and suggesting we can turn back time is not real, besides, I think the right approach to global economics is a good thing). And, he is a little too Christian for me as well (a surprising turn compared to most real liberterian party members I know).

But I do love that liberterian rhetoric.

I must say I am a little shocked that you support Ron Paul, Arlo. I was hearing a lot of good things about him initially--that he was a no nonsense principled guy. Sounded good until I researched his principles.

He does have some progressive views, he's against the death penalty, for the decriminalization of drugs, anti-patriot act and anti-Iraq War. Which are all very admirable.

But his anti choice, anti stem cell research, pro-creationism, pro public school prayer, anti affirmative action, anti universal heath care, anti environmental protection legislation, pro oil and coal, pro social security privatization, anti gay adoption and anti amnesty stances kill the deal for me. It just doesn't seem like he has much to offer anyone who isn't white, male, heterosexual, insured, Christian and somewhat well off.

How do you reconcile playing and recording a song like Deportees and supporting a man who, by all accounts, would like to expel millions of Mexican immigrants from this country? This includes people who were born and raised in the US, but who's parent's were "illegals". I find it interesting that his proposed reform only seems to target the immigrants but not the companies that employ and recruit undocumented workers.

I recently read a quote, but can't remember who it was. Basically, he said that a democracy can only last around 200 years because in a system that the leaders have access to the public coffers, it cannot last. Something like that. Greed wins out. I truly believe that if elected officials had to live for one year on Social Security, most of them would jump out of 20 story windows. None of them should have a "special" pension plan, health care or most of the perks they enjoy at our expense.
High ideals are great if you can afford them. I live in that "other America" where people are in danger of losing their homes and dying for lack of health care. While Bush and Cheney are getting rich off high gas prices, I know many people who can barely afford food for their families because of the cost of gas to get to work. This is messed up.
I wanted to vote for Edwards, but since he's out I'm thinking Obama. Even as a woman voter, I'm concerned that too much of Clinton's experience is the same old government as usual. Edwards does look good in jeans, though. Darn him for dropping out so soon!

My husband's opinion is that if Ron Paul had run as an independent or democrat he might have had a chance. I agree that we need, not only a lot less government at every level, but a lot more oversight and accountability for anyone who is elected. Why can't they understand that their job is to simply to represent the people who voted for them? Do they really even need an opinion? I also think elected officials should have to live where their constituites live for a term or two, tops, rather than in their ivory towers in DC for life. That's the way our forefathers planned it-not that polititions have cushy, high paying jobs and life-time pensions that could support half the population of a lot of cities.
I'd like to think that if I were in a position of power, I wouldn't pick my friends (as much as I love them) for jobs they are not qualified for. We need "experts in the field" for each important position. Also, no one should ever have the ability to vote themselves pay raises and benifits. That's where the corruption begins and it never ends.
Maybe we need the single mother of a large family to be president. At least she would know how to say, "NO you can't have twenty billion dollars for a bunch of crap! We can't afford it!" Or, "If you're going to argue over the remote, both of you go to your rooms until you can figure how to work it out."