Of course Janis taught us another definition:

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"

Me & Bobby McGee

<a href='http://www.plime.com/redir.p?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FMhnl0__Vo' class='plime' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'><b>flash video</b></a>

Ron Paul is my Republican favourite. The Dems have Edwards as my favourite.

But I don't expect both to be chosen for the job.

If we allow the federal government to assume more of our personal responsibilities (such as parenting, caring for those unable to work, care of seniors, etc.), does that equal more freedom for us, or less?

Wow, how the US has changed in the course of time. If the men who established a government with bases on defending the people from living under the thumb of one wacky chief of state, all of his caprice and the ensuing consequences could see what the American people has to deal with today, they would slap 90% of the politicians in office to unconsciousness – if not beat them down with a club.

Me, I’m still for a parliamentary republic rather than a federal one: if the pressure’s up (usually this kind of pressure comes from the people), the Head of State kicks the Head of Government (he/she with all the executive power) out and new elections are held, i.e., probably you’d have a new guy calling the shots, with new solutions to solve the horrible mess your sons, daughters, spouses and parents are in now, half a world away.

Then again, if the president of the US was elected by universal suffrage, it would indeed be a democracy, right? And the point here is that democracy is not always a synonym of freedom.

But I’m not here to say which is best and which is worse, I’m here to say this is a tremendously well written essay which should be read and understood by all American (and non-American) voters before the upcoming elections.
Even if Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t get as many supporters as he’d like, at least he would be reminding them they can still think for themselves.

In general, I think Ron Paul represents my best interests...EXCEPT:

I cannot go along with how he looks at the war in the Middle East. We must be there to protect our oil interests for the time being.

When we eventually develop viable alternative sources of energy, then, I would agree with Ron.

So you're saying that a war fought against another country on their soul is to protect our resources? And that that is ok?

You bet.

We must have access to those resourses. Unless, of course, you have a bicycle you are yearning to use.

We must be practical. Until we have alternatives IN PLACE, we must protect our ability to get that ugly oil.

What about sacrifice? Tell people they cannot drive their gas guzzling behemoths, because we are not going to let soldiers die to do so. Show the world that we will not be dragged into a war of profit and greed. Every other war we fought had all americans sacrificing something. In this war, we sacrifice soldiers (and in the bs war on terror, our freedoms).

Maybe I am drawing broad parallels here, but is anyone familiar with the term Lebensraum?

We can have access to those resources, and do it practically, without occupying foreign countries.

In the long run it would cost us a lot less. The billions upon billions we spend to keep up the effort in Iraq is far more expensive than simply supporting free trade and being open with other countries.

And thats before considering that we're still over 1000 deaths per year of US soldiers. An inestimable cost.

That is pretty crappy reason for our soldiers to die. If worse comes to worse I would rather we ration our oil than have Americans and Iraqis die because people cannot curb their gasoline use.

Seriously, do you know how much gas we would save if people walked/biked to the corner store instead of drive? How many times have you used a car when your trip was within a mile of your home?