Do you want ABSOLUTE life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[superfoodist]

I know there's some people out there that don't like Ron Paul, but he's the ONLY one that's 100% FOR the Constitution. He's EXACTLY what the founding fathers would have wanted. For those that haven't heard of him, or don't know enough about him, here's a few key things about this candidate :

• He wants to end the Federal Reserve, and bring the control of money back into the AMERICANS hands.

• He wants to lower taxes, and COMPLETELY abolish the IRS and income tax, which accounts for about 2-3 months of your labor.

• He wants to bring our troops back home, and put them around OUR borders to protect us, rather than invade every country we can and oppress the people of other nations.

• He wants to legalize marijuana, gay marriage, etc -- He doesn't legalize these things out of personal preference.. He wants to legalize them because this is supposed to be a FREE nation, with FREE choices. No government has the right to tell us what we can, and can not put into OUR bodies, or how we can live OUR lives.

• He wants to stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.

• He supports homeschooling, and will help to make it a more accepted and widespread (this is a major plus for those that understand how terrible our nations' education system has become) form of education.

• He will look into alternative energy choices.. This means we can eventually stray away from the use of oil, and focus on energy sources from the sun, water, wind, and biofuels, making energy cheaper, and majorly reducing our negative impact on our environment.

• He wants to legalize the Second Amendment (our right to bear arms [own guns]), which politicians have been trying to make illegal for a long time now. Look up statistics of American states that allow concealed carry of firearms, and see how much lower state crime is compared to states who make firearm ownership illegal. The fact is, if someone plans to rob/murder you, they will think twice if there's a chance of you adequately defending yourself. Also, the criminals who commit crimes in the first place will find a way to ILLEGALLY get a gun if they need to, while the honest, innocent American citizen remains defenseless. To understand how critical it is that we keep our Second Amendment right, please check out this website and look at quotes about it by our founding fathers : The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Overall, he's about FREEDOM. For those stuck in the republican/democrat, liberal/conservatism, one vs the other mindset - please leave that behind for a moment and focus on what this guy truly stands for - your personal rights as a human being.

He has never voted on a tax raise.

If you want to learn more, please check out his website at : Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website

There's a reason the mainstream media ignores him. It's because he won't buy into their game. He won't be one of their puppets that they can throw a few dollars at to push their agenda. He's for the constitution. He's for America.

[scorpio1980]

Thank you superfoodist for starting a new thread about Ron Paul. He is the only candidate worth voting for. I see people starting to wake up. His ideas aren't at all new, but are new for us. Freedom in every form is what he desires, and what I desire. One thing that we need to get Ron Paul supporters to understand is that he needs to win the primaries to have a shot at being the president. This means you need to be registered republican to vote in the primaries. I was registered independent, but switched so I could vote for him in the primaries. I feel Dr. Paul is the only real choice to beat Obama as well. He is the only candidate that isn't really republican, he is a libertarian. I feel this gives him an advantage, because he will gain a lot of Democrat voters along the way as well. Ron Paul 2012! Thank you for spreading the message of liberty.

[Andrew Gubb]

I like the sound of that.

*Puts hand up* Question - what does he cut down on so he can lower taxes? Maybe excessive polititian salaries and absurd, crippling subsidies?

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I like the sound of that.

*Puts hand up* Question - what does he cut down on so he can lower taxes? Maybe excessive polititian salaries and absurd, crippling subsidies?

Social Security, Medicare, welfare, social programs, education funding, scientific research, foreign aid, defense, infrastructure, environmental protection, energy, etc.

I like the idea of libertarianism and what Dr. Paul espouses, but I am skeptical of it's real world effects. A society dominated entirely by selfish and corrupt multinational corporate interests is no better to me than a society run by selfish government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. I don't want prisons, hospitals, military forces, etc. all run by private contractors.

I think Paul is a needed voice, a great counterbalance to the current circus in Washington, but I'm not convinced that the society he wants to create would end up being any better for the average citizen than the one we have now --- in the absence of government influence, other forces will step into the power vacuum, and Goldman Sachs and Monsanto will have even more influence on people's lives than they do today. Still, I like having him in the ring and calling other politicians on their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

As for cutting spending: people talk about "waste" and "fat" in US budgets, and it's there, but it makes up a very small percentage of total spending. There are really only 4 contributors to US budget problems: defense, Social Security, Medicare, and debt financing. Nothing else even comes close, and there is no way to fix spending without addressing these areas.

[Andrew Gubb]

As for cutting spending: people talk about "waste" and "fat" in US budgets, and it's there, but it makes up a very small percentage of total spending.

I don't know about that - what of the absurd subsidies e.g. to corn, meat, etc? In Spain bullfighting is estimated to take up 47€ of each family's yearly tax contribution. This is a sport that 60% of Spanish people either don't support or are against.

I can't make a list of all of these absurd expenses - and lack of transparency in government spending very much assures that - but the scale of it I believe is staggering.

[garentee]

There is a lot I do agree with Mr Paul about, however there are things that disturb me.. most notably his possible connections with Christian Reconstructionists,and The John Birch Society. In addition, his isolationism which I find rather destructive..Isolationism could be seen as part of the cause of WW2. I certainly think we ought to be more selective of where we put our energies in the world, but as long as corporations are in bed with government it is a moot point... I would like to believe that he is the answer, but there is no one person who will be THE answer and frankly I think he is a wolf in sheeps clothing..

[JSB]

Yes, there is waste and money thrown at "pet projects", but the scale of it pales in comparison to defense, social security, medicare and debt financing. Also, federal employee pensions, which I forgot to mention earlier.

See below for more detail on how federal tax money is spent in the US. The Mandatory section is for spending commitments already mandated by law, meaning that Congress can't just decide not to pay without changing the existing laws, and even then may be forced to pay pre-existing commitments by the Federal courts, depending on the nature of the spending (e.g. the government isn't allowed to ignore or write off its pre-existing debts).

Discretionary spending can be changed year to year, but good luck cutting Defense significantly.

Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I don't know about that - what of the absurd subsidies e.g. to corn, meat, etc? In Spain bullfighting is estimated to take up 47€ of each family's yearly tax contribution. This is a sport that 60% of Spanish people either don't support or are against.

I can't make a list of all of these absurd expenses - and lack of transparency in government spending very much assures that - but the scale of it I believe is staggering.

[superfoodist]

Hey guys!! I'll try and answer your questions, or comment on some of your statements in the best way I can

I like the sound of that.

*Puts hand up* Question - what does he cut down on so he can lower taxes? Maybe excessive polititian salaries and absurd, crippling subsidies?

@Andrew Gubb - One of the most notable "tax cuts" he's going to make is to abolish the IRS, therefore stopping us from being charged income tax. Income tax consumes 2-3 months worth of YOUR money, from YOUR labor. This alone will stimulate massive economic change, and he plans to do much more than this.

I like the idea of libertarianism and what Dr. Paul espouses, but I am skeptical of it's real world effects. A society dominated entirely by selfish and corrupt multinational corporate interests is no better to me than a society run by selfish government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. I don't want prisons, hospitals, military forces, etc. all run by private contractors.

@JSB - There's a lot of things that I'm sure Ron Paul isn't going into detail about - because presidential elections need to have a touch of mass appeal, and too much information doesn't often appeal to the masses. One of those things that I'm talking about is corporate charters (You can read about them here : History of Corporations (United States)). Basically, a corporation would be granted a limited charter to exist, and when their time runs out, it would go to congress, and it would then be decided if they're allowed to continue on, or if they must shut down. They also made it illegal to run a monopoly in this way. Now, like I said, Dr. Paul isn't saying this as part of his campaign, because most mainstream media consumers wouldn't understand the significance of this - but as a guy who knows history, and as a true patriot, I'm almost positive he would re-implement something similar to keep corporations in check.

Goldman Sachs and Monsanto will have even more influence on people's lives than they do today. Still, I like having him in the ring and calling other politicians on their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

One of Ron Pauls primary campaign slogans is "End The Fed". By ending the Federal Reserve, there will be MANY banking and monetary reforms, which will definitely dim down, if not completely black out, the power of Goldman Sachs and similar firms. As for Monsanto, it's been proven over and over again that pesticides, herbicides, GMO seeds, etc are damaging our planet, our health, and it destroys tens of thousands of farmers jobs. Ron Paul knows this, and more and more people are starting to wake up to this as well. Monsanto, and similar corrupt corporations won't stand a chance with him in office.

There is a lot I do agree with Mr Paul about, however there are things that disturb me.. most notably his possible connections with Christian Reconstructionists,and The John Birch Society.

Hey garentee! I don't know too much about either of these subjects, but after a wikipedia search on The John Birch Society, I got this :

The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic[1][2] and personal freedom.

It looks like they stand for the reasons America was created, and what it's meant to be. Limited government, a Constitutional republic, and personal freedoms are exactly what our founding fathers fought to achieve for us. Communism wasn't even a word until the 19th century, but our founding fathers would have without a doubt been against it as well due to its limitations of personal freedom.

In addition, his isolationism which I find rather destructive..Isolationism could be seen as part of the cause of WW2.

Hope I'm not coming off like I'm trying to attack you, but the only thing that's been destructive is our invasion of other nations. The "Washington Farewell Address" specifically states that we should keep to ourselves (George Washington's Farewell Address). If we bring our troops home, to guard our borders, and ONLY our borders, we'd be back to being the #1 superpower in the world... Not only because we'd be saving MASSIVE amounts of money on "defense", but because mainland America would be literally impenetrable with our entire armed forces defending it.

As for Isolationism causing World War 2.. That's a long subject to discuss, but in short (and this isn't conspiracy theory).. American bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution, which eventually brought Communism into play. Communism was getting too powerful, so in order to keep the world economic game board in check, they funded an "enemy" to communism, known as National Socialism. It's well known, for those that research, that Prescott Bush (George W. Bushes grandfather) was one of the people that financially supported Hitlers rise to power. Eventually, Nazi Germany (National Socialism) started becoming too powerful as well, and was starting to look as if they'd be the victor in WW2, so America had to chime in and play their part to make sure they didn't take over all of Europe.

That's the extremely summarized version, but basically, I wouldn't say it was Isolationism that caused WW2.. Instead, I'd say it was bankers, and multi-national corporations that caused it.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

There is a lot I do agree with Mr Paul about, however there are things that disturb me.. most notably his possible connections with Christian Reconstructionists,and The John Birch Society. In addition, his isolationism which I find rather destructive..Isolationism could be seen as part of the cause of WW2. I certainly think we ought to be more selective of where we put our energies in the world, but as long as corporations are in bed with government it is a moot point... I would like to believe that he is the answer, but there is no one person who will be THE answer and frankly I think he is a wolf in sheeps clothing..

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to have relations and trade with everybody. He simply wants to pull our military out from everywhere and bring them home. That is not isolationist.

[superfoodist]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to have relations and trade with everybody. He simply wants to pull our military out from everywhere and bring them home. That is not isolationist.

[Andrew Gubb]

@Andrew Gubb - One of the most notable "tax cuts" he's going to make is to abolish the IRS, therefore stopping us from being charged income tax. Income tax consumes 2-3 months worth of YOUR money, from YOUR labor. This alone will stimulate massive economic change, and he plans to do much more than this.

I think I'm on your side in this, Ron Paul inspires me -- but I don't think your answer quite works. I asked what is being cut - I mean what expenses are being cut - so that taxes can be lowered. But the IRS isn't an expense right? Not to the government. The IRS brings in money to the government, but if we cut expenses, it won't be needed and can be cut itself.

[superfoodist]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I think I'm on your side in this, Ron Paul inspires me -- but I don't think your answer quite works. I asked what is being cut - I mean what expenses are being cut - so that taxes can be lowered. But the IRS isn't an expense right? Not to the government. The IRS brings in money to the government, but if we cut expenses, it won't be needed and can be cut itself.

Taxes|Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee :P

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

Taxes|Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee :P

Fair enough :P

[JSB]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

...Basically, a corporation would be granted a limited charter to exist, and when their time runs out, it would go to congress, and it would then be decided if they're allowed to continue on, or if they must shut down. They also made it illegal to run a monopoly in this way.
...

Dr. Paul is a strong Libertarian, and is highly opposed to government interference in the free market. The proposal you mention is in direct opposition to his core philosophy. Never in a million years would he support anything of the sort that gives the government power to revoke a corporate charter.

As I said, I admire his opposition to governmental tyranny, but I fear that without government power as a balance, excess corporate power and influence will simply replace excess government power and influence. (We see a hint of this today as our government representatives are bought and sold by corporate donors and serve to further the interests of these donors, rather than the people of the United States.)

So, Paul would do some good and clean out the corruption and shake up the system, but due to the power vacuum created and the struggles that would ensue, I'm not convinced that things would be any better 5 or 10 years down the road.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

Hey garentee! I don't know too much about either of these subjects, but after a wikipedia search on The John Birch Society, I got this :

It looks like they stand for the reasons America was created, and what it's meant to be. Limited government, a Constitutional republic, and personal freedoms are exactly what our founding fathers fought to achieve for us. Communism wasn't even a word until the 19th century, but our founding fathers would have without a doubt been against it as well due to its limitations of personal freedom.

Yes, they would arguably have been a positive organization if this was what they stood for and tried to work for in a beneficial and positive way. In actuality, they ended up so unrealistically paranoid of Communist influence that they ended up supporting extremist right-wing candidates not much better than the totalitarianism they nominally opposed. Think witch-hunts, persecution and fanaticism.

[James81]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

• He wants to legalize the Second Amendment (our right to bear arms [own guns]), which politicians have been trying to make illegal for a long time now. Look up statistics of American states that allow concealed carry of firearms, and see how much lower state crime is compared to states who make firearm ownership illegal. The fact is, if someone plans to rob/murder you, they will think twice if there's a chance of you adequately defending yourself. Also, the criminals who commit crimes in the first place will find a way to ILLEGALLY get a gun if they need to, while the honest, innocent American citizen remains defenseless. To understand how critical it is that we keep our Second Amendment right, please check out this website and look at quotes about it by our founding fathers : The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

If politicians are trying to make it ILLEGAL, then how can you say he wants to legalize it? If politicians are trying to make it illegal, then it's already legal.

To be perfectly honest, though, I am SO glad that not just anybody can walk around carrying a gun. And it's not because I don't believe in freedom, but have you seen and talked to people? Most people are great, wonderful people, but there are a lot of dumb animals out there too. I think it's a great thing that you can't just walk around carrying a gun wherever you want. it doesn't infringe on my freedom in ANY way whatsoever, because I sill own guns and I still use them for shooting target, hunting, etc. I don't need to carry one on my hip to feel safe. If you live in an area where you need to do that, then friking move. Don't say you can't afford to move, just pack what you can carry and get the ♥♥♥♥ out of there. I think being completely homeless in a safe place would be far better than scraping and scrounging in a place where you live in constant fear.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

As for Isolationism causing World War 2.. That's a long subject to discuss, but in short (and this isn't conspiracy theory).. American bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution, which eventually brought Communism into play. Communism was getting too powerful, so in order to keep the world economic game board in check, they funded an "enemy" to communism, known as National Socialism. It's well known, for those that research, that Prescott Bush (George W. Bushes grandfather) was one of the people that financially supported Hitlers rise to power. Eventually, Nazi Germany (National Socialism) started becoming too powerful as well, and was starting to look as if they'd be the victor in WW2, so America had to chime in and play their part to make sure they didn't take over all of Europe.

That's the extremely summarized version, but basically, I wouldn't say it was Isolationism that caused WW2.. Instead, I'd say it was bankers, and multi-national corporations that caused it.

I'm sorry but this argument is inaccurate in so many ways. Yes, there were some corporate and political interests in the US and UK who supported the Nazi Party as a counterbalance to Stalin (of whom they were understandably afraid), but most of this support dried up when it became obvious that Hitler had no intention of being anyone else's pawn, and was Hell-bent on conquering all of Europe, not just fighting Bolshevism. Also, most of the purely corporate interests only supported Hitler's rise to power because they saw there was a lot of money to be made -- it was less an explicit support of Nazism than a chance to get rich from the German industrial ramp-up and re-armament.

As for the Russian Revolution, the US and UK (among other powers) invaded Russian in 1918 in support if the White Russians (Czarists) in the civil war against Lenin and the Bolsheviks. There may have been a few wealthy eccentrics who supported the Communist revolutionaries, but the "establishment" certainly didn't.

[scorpio1980]

The media is at it again. I wonder why every time Ron Paul wins a poll they either discredit their own polls or take them down. The corporate media does not want Ron Paul to even have a chance, but too bad because he does.
Ron Paul 2012 - Wins Again - Nov 12th 2011 CBS Debate (MUST SEE) Corrupt Media Proof!!! - mirror - YouTube

[scorpio1980]

Ron Paul is in a 4 way tie for 1st place in Iowa now.
Cain 20%
Paul 19%
Rom 18%
Ging 17%

New poll shows 4-way tie in Iowa as Ron Paul moves to top tier - - CBS News

CBS also put up a poll again after enough people called to complain about the unfair treatment of Ron Paul. In the latest CBS poll:

1st place Ron Paul 57,000 votes
2nd place Mitt Rom 28,600
3rd place cain 21,600

So no matter what the media states vote for Paul no matter what. I will not vote for anyone else, and most Paul supporters won't either. We will write in his name if we have to, but if he keeps this up he has a very good chance.

[Andrew Gubb]

I googled it - this vote is going to be in december of next year?

I wanna know so I'll know the best times to blog about it

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I googled it - this vote is going to be in december of next year?

I wanna know so I'll know the best times to blog about it

No the vote for president will happen next November. It the meantime the Republican primaries will start happening in the next 7 weeks, and then of the course of a few months all the states will vote for who will challenge Obama. Iowa is the first to vote 7 weeks from now. My state of NC doesn't vote until May.

[scorpio1980]

Ron Paul aced the debate tonight like always.

His poll numbers from this debate look really good as well.

Here is his condensed 15 minutes from tonight's debate.

Ron Paul Kicking Ass! (11-22-11) - YouTube

[MariconesUnited]

''Acing'' a Republican primary is easy. Just don't say any crazy stuff. The rest of the candidates will take care of the rest for you!

[garentee]

I found this rather interesting and informative...It definitely is not the whole picture, no one article can be, but I think it helps me to know that my gut feeling is spot on....
You Might Be A Ron Paul Supporter If… | Addicting Info

[firenexx]

The missing piece in the Ron Paul puzzle is consumer awareness. Take away the EPA and other regulations, and you have companies running amok, polluting everywhere, destroying everything in the name of profits and dismissing environmental concerns as quackery.

To be a Ron Paul supporter, you must have faith that the stupid, fat, lazy American Consumer is going to change and actually vote with his wallet. For instance, even going to great lengths and making great sacrifices to not purchase anything from companies that do bad things.

An anti-Ron Paul webpage that I saw mentioned some vote that had something to do with a regulation about U.S. companies not being allowed to do business with Darfur (this was during the genocide.) The author of the webpage claimed that Ron Paul was the only senator to vote against this measure.
Why did he vote against it? Because he thinks that the federal government should not interfere with the company's rights to do business with whom it wishes. In fact, he thinks that the American Consumer should have the right to choose whether or not to do business with the company that financially supports genocide.
The problem? Currently, most consumers would choose to do business with that company, out of pure and blissful ignorance.
(E.G. The girl who made your new sweater might have been 9, and she might have just been raped by her supervisor in a factory in Sri Lanka. You would be a worse federal regulator than the real federal regulators, because they don't even have to pay you to look the other way.)

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

I found this rather interesting and informative...It definitely is not the whole picture, no one article can be, but I think it helps me to know that my gut feeling is spot on....
You Might Be A Ron Paul Supporter If… | Addicting Info

Wow I don't think I have ever seen an article with so many out of context statements. This guy is a major anti-Paul leftist, so he will try to spin things in a bad light. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist so of course the "machine" will not like what halts their plans. He believes in individual choice and freedom. Do you want endless war? No? Then vote Ron Paul. Do you want endless violation of our freedoms in the name of "terror"? No? Then vote Ron Paul. A vote for any of the other candidates is a vote for the same dogma we have had for generations. Is Paul perfect? No, but he sure as hell stands by his principles, and is a change from the norm. The left/right have been our only choices for generations I think it is time for a change, and that change is Ron Paul.

[scorpio1980]

When will America start listening?

The system is broken. You may not like everything about Paul, but he is the start of change we need.

The other candidates will continue useless war. Will continue supporting our broken monetary system. Will continue our drug war. Will continue to promote a society that depends on government to take care of them.

Ron Paul may not solve everything, but he will start giving the people the freedoms we have lost. He will respect our liberties. He will awaken the American people to the dangers of the fractional banking system. He will awaken America to the dangers of endless war. He will change us from fear to love.

Ron Paul Reality Check - YouTube

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Wow I don't think I have ever seen an article with so many out of context statements. This guy is a major anti-Paul leftist, so he will try to spin things in a bad light. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist so of course the "machine" will not like what halts their plans. He believes in individual choice and freedom. Do you want endless war? No? Then vote Ron Paul. Do you want endless violation of our freedoms in the name of "terror"? No? Then vote Ron Paul. A vote for any of the other candidates is a vote for the same dogma we have had for generations. Is Paul perfect? No, but he sure as hell stands by his principles, and is a change from the norm. The left/right have been our only choices for generations I think it is time for a change, and that change is Ron Paul.

Are you aware of his voting record? Does it really grant freedom for all or for just a few?
As I have said here several times, I do agree with a lot of what he stands for, but a lot of what he stands for that I do not agree with outweighs his positive message....All that said though his presence in the primaries is GOOD as he is saying an awful lot of what needs to be said..

[garentee]

Originally Posted by firenexx

the missing piece in the ron paul puzzle is consumer awareness. Take away the epa and other regulations, and you have companies running amok, polluting everywhere, destroying everything in the name of profits and dismissing environmental concerns as quackery.

To be a ron paul supporter, you must have faith that the stupid, fat, lazy american consumer is going to change and actually vote with his wallet. For instance, even going to great lengths and making great sacrifices to not purchase anything from companies that do bad things.

An anti-ron paul webpage that i saw mentioned some vote that had something to do with a regulation about u.s. Companies not being allowed to do business with darfur (this was during the genocide.) the author of the webpage claimed that ron paul was the only senator to vote against this measure.
Why did he vote against it? Because he thinks that the federal government should not interfere with the company's rights to do business with whom it wishes. In fact, he thinks that the american consumer should have the right to choose whether or not to do business with the company that financially supports genocide.
The problem? Currently, most consumers would choose to do business with that company, out of pure and blissful ignorance.
(e.g. The girl who made your new sweater might have been 9, and she might have just been raped by her supervisor in a factory in sri lanka. You would be a worse federal regulator than the real federal regulators, because they don't even have to pay you to look the other way.)

+1

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

Are you aware of his voting record? Does it really grant freedom for all or for just a few?
As I have said here several times, I do agree with a lot of what he stands for, but a lot of what he stands for that I do not agree with outweighs his positive message....All that said though his presence in the primaries is GOOD as he is saying an awful lot of what needs to be said..

All I can say is that his voting record is as close to granting freedom for all as I have seen. That is unless you consider freedom to be different from what I believe freedom to be. I believe freedom is the ability to pursue happiness without government intervention as long as said happiness doesn't hurt anyone else. The thing is he will only vote in a way which doesn't take away our liberties. Look at his voting record, and tell me which vote you are so concerned with. I am not saying he is perfect, and perhaps some of his votes may seem a little bit out there. If you understand the meaning behind the vote perhaps you would see the purpose behind it. The article you linked didn't actually look at why Mr. Paul voted the way he did. He votes in a way that people have their god given freedoms to pursue happiness, liberty, and prosperity. I am 1 of the big Paul supporters around, and will tell you right now that I don't agree with everything he says. The truth is though you will never find someone that has all the answers. He takes the social liberties of the left, and the financial liberties of the right, and merges them into a total freedom package.