I'll look into it too. At this point i'm trying to find things Ron Paul voted for that i would disagree with and I've only found one bill that seems to be a problematic attempt to correct a thorny problem (activist Supreme Court decisions that extend beyond their constitutional bounds).

While we're at it, lets see what Mr Giuliani has to say about freedom...



...A little mash-up I did in the gimp today.

You should've probably do one for ron paul, man.
he is not better than guiliani.
talks a good game.
Think the american people had enough of the republican party for a while.

You got it!



(edit) I just had to post this comment from a NYT reader.

Dr. Paul’s record in congress shows that he is a man of principle.I live in Arizona but have often contacted Ron Paul’s office when concerned about liberty stealing legislation like the “Patriot Act”. My own representative won’t listen-he’s a neocon. Ron Paul is a true statesman. He can’t be bought by special interests and he won’t be corrupted. He is more interested in destroying the “ring of power” than wearing it.

— Posted by Dianne Golubski

New York Times - Ron Paul's Web of Support

Yeah, I'd like to say I was shocked when I first read Guiliani's comment, but after Bush's "there ought to be limits to freedom" was met with little reaction (and some defense!) by the American public, I realized we decided at some point to welcome Big Brother with open arms. :/

Somehow I'm missing the irony in that second one.

There was never a time in American history when government interference was absent, and there never will be. It's a balancing act. The main people to fear are people with nice simple ideological solutions. As with the Bush administration, or the Communists, those solutions never work. What does work is taking a pretty good system and shaping it to make it better.

Absolutely agreed. But here in America we've decided to accept a gradual dumbing down of the general populace, which has no problem now accepting the notion of standardized testing as a cure to public educational ills, not to mention an impatience with realistic solutions. So people bought all the insanely simplistic Bushisms as solutions until they were beat over the head with failures long enough to realize that THOSE soundbites didn't translate into anything workable. They'll just look for different soundbites now. I'm not trying to sound elitist, but I encounter so much of this personally and see the results in pendulum-swinging polls to know it has to be pervasive.

/soapbox

Yes, I hope someone will come along.who can sell reallism to the American people. Ross Perot did for awhile.

It is a mistake, though, to pick the "perfect" poliitician and back him no matter how low he is in the polls. One of the attributes of perfection is the ability to win elections.

Disclosure: I've been a Hillary supporter for a long time.

Thing is, there IS a way to distill even complex issues down to simple sentences, but that takes an effective speaker, not some jingoistic blowhard looking for immediate gratification. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton all had that gift. Perot did too to an extent-- I voted for him the first time just because I'm an iconoclast. Problem is, Perot scared the parties so much that they sealed up the "gaps" that allowed independents and third parties to have that good of a shot at the process. Bastards.

Well put. If we had range voting, third parties might win a few seats in congress. But we need the MSM viewership to collapse completely and the kids who mainly use the internet grow up and dominate the demos.

For me it's Dr. Paul so hands-down. But then again, I can parse sentences with big words. I love how anti-politician he sounds - just like a grandfather explaining to a kid how things work.

Here's him eviscerating the NeoCons. 51 minutes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74553630131591