Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul and Miranda Lambert - My correlation between Politics and Country Music, and why dreams do come true! What Dr. Ron Paul and and Country Music star Miranda Lambert have in common!by Harry Tugwell
(Libertarian)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I know them both, having first met Miranda and her wonderful family at Fan Fair in Nashville before she became a huge Country music star, and I met Dr. Paul and his wonderful family on the Internet before he became a huge political star!
I am a member of The fan club of both Miranda and Dr. Paul. and I give my full unfettered support to each one, and listen to each one, as often as I can.
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda believe in our right to bear arms. If you want proof, google Ron Paul, and listen to Miranda Lambert's new song Gunpowder and lead!
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda are both from the great state of Texas.
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda have a firm belief in what made this country great, the Constitution of the United States of America!
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda are telling the honest truth. Google either one of them, and listen closely.
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda have me as their biggest fan!
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda are "moving up the chart" even though each have major resistance from the competition.
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda will "reach the top"!
I firmly believe Dr. Paul will be President of the United States of America, and Miranda Lambert will be country music Entertainer of The Year! Google either one and see for yourself.
Both Dr. Paul and Miranda are getting huge monetary contributions from their "grass roots supporters" like you and me.
If you really get to know them like I have, I know you too, will love them both, and put your unfettered support behind both of them.
GO RON PAUL AND MIRANDA LAMBERT, FOR THE TOP SPOT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ENDEAVOR. Both will reach the top with our unwavering support.
HERE I GO DREAMING AGAIN!
Wouldn't it be a dream come true, if Dr. Paul and Miranda Lambert began supporting each other. Maybe she will write a hit song about our Freedom's, The Constitution of the United States and Texas and Dr. Paul - -
AND
Dr. Paul could get Miranda to Have a concert Promoting His candidacy for President of the United States of America!
Well I may not be too far off. Dreams do come true.
Both Ron Paul And Miranda Lambert's success are living proof!
NOW IF MY DREAM COMES TRUE, We will be right there won't we, giving them both our unwavering support.
GO RON PAUL & MIRANDA LAMBERT!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 21 thumbs so far
2008 Harry Tugwell, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 17, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 17, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Harry Tugwell only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Harry Tugwell is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I see the appropriate song for Ron Paul's campaign as Linkln Park's Runaway and IntheEnd . For one, he will wish that he could runaway and never say goodbye to all his supporters when he doesn't win the nomination. Two he tried so hard and got so far that in the end it doesn't really matter when the vast majority of so called interventionist libertarians like me do not support him for his Statist comforts of pulling out our troops out of deigo garcia, Italy, Germany, Pakistan, Japan, Korea, and Cuba. (read Rush babies or Neocons)
You put your trust in him, pushed him as far he would go, for all this, there is only one thing that you should know. You tried so hard and got so far. In the end it didn't even matter. You blogged so long, but not so well. In the end it didn't even matter.
the Statist said, "...You tried so hard and got so far. In the end it didn't even matter."
First of all, we are 46 states away from "the end" with no clear front runner. Perhaps more credence can be given to your crystal ball after Nevada. Until then, such statements make you sound like you're part of the mainstream media.
Secondly, there is more to this movement than the presidential election. It will not end with a defeat of Paul's candidacy.
But my primary reason for posting this comment has to do with your love affair with US military imperialism. I may be wrong, but I'll venture a guess that you aren't a vet nor do you have any sons or daughters in the military. Its easy to promote "globo-copism" when somebody else is doing the dying. As a decorated veteran of the USAF, I believe that risking the lives of soldiers should only occur in the defense of our nation. Hold a dying soldier in your arms and then see if you disagree with me.
An "interventionist libertarian"? That is as oxymoronic as a "Christian atheist". Proudly bearing such a moniker is a proclamation of total confusion. That aside, a true statist embraces the structured definition of the state which is, in our case, the Constitution. What part of Article 1, Section 8 confuses you?
You tried so hard and got so far. In the end, it didn't even matter... as statistism was shunned in favor of liberty and freedom.
WOW! You are totally wrong. I actually am a vet and I work in Baghdad with muslims! Oh my! How did you get it soooo wrong? Well we will see.
The best thing that Ron Paul can do is get the Republican party to break from those evangelical religious anti personal freedom idiots and support more personal freedom.
George W. Bush was right about the war and the border with Mexico. He was wrong to appoint Christians to the FCC and to many other offices. He was wrong to be transparent with the Patriot Act and just did things like the Dems did when they wiretapped Socialist Martin Luther King Jr. under Robert F. Kennedy.
He was wrong to promote more and more non war related spending. And he was wrong when he placed a tarrif on foriegn steel. Other than that he was a good guy who history will favor like they will with Clinton.
How did I get it so wrong? Hmm.. I should have guessed that an "interventionist libertarian" could also be confused enough to be a vet who supports risking US soldiers' lives for corporate/imperialistic goals. Please forgive me if I sound like I'm attacking you, here. I really am not. Its just that the philosophical chasm that exists between interventionism and libertarianism seems to be as huge as being a veteran and promoting "globo-copism". After all, it isn't a secret that Ron Paul has received more donations from active military personell than any other candidate. That sort of puts you in the minority.
Perhaps you should rethink the whole "interventionist libertarian" thing. A true libertarian loves liberty enough not to shove it down somebody's throat at the barrel of a gun.
Statist said, "He [Bush] was wrong to be transparent with the Patriot Act and just did things like the Dems did when they wiretapped Socialist Martin Luther King Jr. under Robert F. Kennedy."
So, violating the Constitution is ok so long as it is done with stealth?
No the public was demanding the Patriot Act. Victims of the attacks were angry to know that we had a lot of red tape that prevented the government from stopping these guys. Bush was forced to make changes that violated the constitution and civil liberties so that another 9/11 would happen. Bush was damned if he didn't damned if he did. Politically he had more pressure from the public to do it.
You have to remember that Lincoln violated the constitution a lot more than Bush did. Was he a good president? Isolationism lead us into World War I. We tried it again and were lead to World War II. Because the Soviet Union wanted to suppress the world and us, we had to take them on.
We learned that waiting to get jumped was not as good of an idea as jumping the other guy while he was weak. We have bases arround the world to keep the peace. To allow statism to be forced on other people is not something that I am content with. All men deserve freedom, even if that means running away to the United States, Canada, UK, or Australia, then so be it.
To deny a man of another race freedom, we fail our obligation to the world. The Iraqi people are worth liberating, every man suppressed by Statism deserves freedom. To deny this is a racist attitude. Our military will remain voluntary as long as we take our weak Statism before it grows too big.
The American Revolution would be impossible today. If a servicemember doesn't want to go to Iraq he can simply cry and desert to Canada. The Military is not a replacement for the wealfare state. And I can sya this of course, because I am a veteran. And most Veterans do not get involved with politics. I've talked to many over here who thought that Ron Paul was an idiot. (with all due respect that is what the SSgt said.)
So I need to be in the majority huh? Wow real strong argument, Ron Paul should hire you to direct his campaign.
Statist, you said, "No the public was demanding the Patriot Act. Victims of the attacks were angry to know that we had a lot of red tape that prevented the government from stopping these guys."
The reason we have a Republic and not a Democracy is to protect essential liberties from the will of the mob which can be manipulated (i.e. lies about WMD, "they hate us for our freedom", etc.). It is the President's responsibility to carry out his oath of office and protect our Constitutional rights, not trample on them to appease a few thousand families who are angry about his administration's inept security failures (i.e., failure to act on intelligence reports about foreign student pilots learning how to fly but not land, foreign intelligence warnings relating to the attack, etc.).
If Bush really wanted to ease the public's fear about terrorism, he would have found bin Laden by now. He would have called in his multi-billion dollar trump card from Dictator Musharraf and forced him to hand bin Laden over instead of protecting him. But instead, Bush pushes his own agenda (ID cards) under the guise of "saving us from the terrorists". Have we forgotten that the terrorists had ID cards? That really helped! (eyes rolling).
"You have to remember that Lincoln violated the constitution a lot more than Bush did. Was he a good president?"
Not really. The Civil War erupted over states' rights being trampled on by the Lincoln Administration - an example of the trouble caused by ignoring the Constitution. Emancipation of the slaves came in the middle of the war to destabilize the slavery states but was neither the cause nor the catalyst for the war. Had emanicpation been his primary, initial goal, then he'd have been one of the greatest presidents in my eyes.
"We learned that waiting to get jumped was not as good of an idea as jumping the other guy while he was weak. We have bases arround the world to keep the peace."
Which makes more sense to you?
I'm your neighbor and I come over to your yard and tell you to cut your bushes down to three feet high. You tell me to mind my own business - you like your bushes high. I come back with a gun to force my agenda.
OR
I come to your yard and say, "I met a landscaper who will give us a 50% discount to cut our bushes so long as he can do it at the same time." If you agree, we both win, If you say, "No, I like to do it myself." I say "OK, I can respect that" and then go back to my yard.
We cannot successfully force our agenda on the world. Just like the neighbor scenario above, it makes angry neighbors. The victims of collateral damage become our enemies. There is a picture of an Iraqi father holding the dead, mutilated body of his 8 year old daughter. Want to bet he is now a member of al Qaeda? How many recruits have we / are we sending them as a result of our irresponsible actions there?
Neutrality works for Switzerland, why not us? Neutrality is not isolationism as the latter is akin to what exists in North Korea.
"...every man suppressed by Statism deserves freedom."
That sound pretty funny coming from someone who uses "the statist" as his moniker!
"And most Veterans do not get involved with politics. I've talked to many over here who thought that Ron Paul was an idiot."
You should talk to the ones over here! The sentiment is quite different.
"So I need to be in the majority huh? Wow real strong argument, Ron Paul should hire you to direct his campaign. "
You missed something here. Reread my reference to your "minority opinion status" - it was only stated as being part of the reason I assumed you were not a vet.
You should talk to the ones over here! The sentiment is quite different.
One soldier who was regular Army told me that he thinks pacifist Soldiers back home are pussies. (his words not mine).
Did you know that not every Amry, USMC, Air Force, Navy, or Coast Guard unit or servicemember has been deployed to Iraq?
"...every man suppressed by Statism deserves freedom." -What you disagree? Maybee I should give up on irony and change my name to the anti-statist so that possible for people like you can understand.
With your imaginary neighbor scenario, you obviously haven't been to many trailer parks, or watched Cops or Jerry Springer Show enough.
Lincoln was a lot worse than Bush. I'll write that as my next article.
If most active duty & vets are so gung-ho for the occupation (it isn't a war) of Iraq and globo-copism in general, how is it that more of them have donated far more money to Ron Paul's campaign than any other candidate? Seems to be a conflict there, right?
"One soldier who was regular Army told me that he thinks pacifist Soldiers back home are pussies. (his words not mine)."
Yes, I knew some of those types when I was active duty - we called them maggots (as the maggots had eaten their brain cells). The soldiers supporting Ron Paul aren't pacifists, they just don't want to kill for corporations and foreign lobbyists. They became soldiers because they believed in protecting their country.
On the issue of your moniker, no... it wasn't obvious to me that you were trying to use it in an ironic manner.
"With your imaginary neighbor scenario, you obviously haven't been to many trailer parks, or watched Cops or Jerry Springer Show enough."
You've made my point. I prefer that our country abandon its trailer park / Jerry Springer Show foreign policy.
Lincoln was a lot worse than Bush. I'll write that as my next article.
Worse than Bush? I'll have to think about that one. I'll look forward to reading your article.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Harry Tugwell, all rights reserved.