[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Actually Ron Paul's recent visit was to Mountain View, not Palo Alto. But I can't imagine many Libertarians complaining about Ron Paul visiting Bayview or Chinatown. I would personally very much welcome such campaigning. Not that I think he is "staying status quo" by any means -- his message is very much about changing the status quo in a more pro-freedom direction, even if it isn't as fully libertarian as some of us would prefer.
<<< starchild >>>
,_._
More pro-freedom or more small-government, Starchild? I agree the two
are related, but they're hardly synonymous. In terms of things that
actually affect my daily life with Kai, Obama is more pro-freedom than
Paul. So are most of the other Democrats.
Name the things Ron Paul would do to make me more free than I am right
now. Please concentrate on those things a Democrat like Obama or
Richardson would not also do.
My job for years (besides sitting in a colo facility babysitting a
server's RAID rebuild until almost midnight) has been to convince LGBT
voters why they should be Libertarians. With Libertarian candidates,
it has been easy -- equality in marriage, adoption, immigration,
military service, etc. But I can't "sell" Ron Paul to LGBT voters,
because in every measurable way, he's offering less freedom to them
than the Democrats. Heck, if you throw in his defense of sodomy laws,
he's even offering less freedom than a few of the Republicans.
I have no doubt that a President Paul would drastically reduce the
size and scope of the federal government and lower most people's taxes
significantly. But that does me no good if the state I'm in
re-criminalizes sodomy because Paul has appointed a new conservative
Supreme Court justice, and Lawrence has been reversed.
We had an extremely small federal government in the first half of the
19th Century. But I'd hardly say that was a more "pro-freedom" time
in American history.
Rob
(speaking for myself not Outright)