Poignant Persuasion

defining liberty

Those who try to define freedom are the ones who limit it.

An Imbalance in Scrutiny

The media blackout on Ron Paul may be coming to an end despite the continued censoring of his successful polling. Understandably, it has become too difficult, or more accurately, too irrational, to continue to ignore the candidate for president. On Sunday, Meet the Press was the latest outlet to give Paul some devoted airtime and, as always, he took the opportunity to eloquently explain his platform despite the skepticism with which David Gregory received it. While there are still those who would like to portray him as a hypocritical crazy man, I do feel there is a recent phenomenon of his perspective being largely understood by his political opposition.

However, the fact that his platform is understood and still opposed is disturbing. What I observed in Gregory’s and Jon Stewart’s interviews, along with Anderson Cooper’s behavior as moderator of the CNN debate, was the hosts giving Paul an unjustly hard time. I very much appreciate the few moments when the media effectively acts as an investigative body, the value of which was exemplified by Woodward and Bernstein. However, while opposing candidates get softballs and warm responses, Paul seems to draw the ire of his interviewers. The media exposes its bias by interrupting the man and antagonizing him with an increasingly condescending and skeptical tone.

Viewers make their judgements immediately and so they are easily swayed by the tone of the interview itself. I do have faith that individuals can think for themselves and listen to the words coming out of his mouth. But if his platform of peace, small government, and liberty is fully understood and, come 2012, voters still decide that they want one of the other corporate puppets that stand to have a chance at the presidency, then I will have little faith in our nation’s prospects.

False Hypocrisy

There is a mainstream portrayal of Ron Paul as hypocritical. One simple case is such; The man is pro-life but would not legalize abortion. If you understand Libertarianism, it would be clear that just because the man himself believes you should not kill a potential life, he would never seek to impose that view on others. A woman’s right to choose is a better way to describe legalized abortion and if there is anything that Ron Paul stands for, it is rescuing such choices from the power of government and returning them to its citizens.

Voluntary Exile

If Ron Paul does not get elected president in 2012, I will do my best to leave this country. The Libertarian candidate for president is the only hope we have of ending the government’s patterns of wars of foreign aggression, invasion of privacy, enforcing of a police state, and the imposition of conventional medicine. I could deal with the economic injustices of the near future but it is these other patterns that I do not want to be associated with or submit to.

The bipartisan rhetoric that makes demands of our government is disturbing because it seems that a majority of Americans want the government to provide for them. This is a lazy and entitled request that discourages personal responsibility and ingenuity. If you want the government to be your provider, then the good comes with the bad and what you will have is a totalitarian regime.

END THE FED

Republican Debate Live Stream

Don’t like your rights taken away?

booksofthought:

scatteredaesthetics:

Don’t like gay marriages? Don’t get one. 

Don’t like cigarettes? Don’t smoke one.

Dont’ like marijuana? Don’t smoke it. 

Don’t like sex? Don’t do it. 

Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them. 

Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it. 

Don’t like alcohol? Don’t drink it. 

Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one. 

Don’t like your rights taken away? Then don’t take away someone else’s.

Forever reblog. This sums it up brilliantly.

(via )