h2. Point-counterpoint:

*Ron Paul paints an incomplete picture of “freedom” and “liberty”*

I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for Congressman Ron Paul. I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s his grandfatherly anti-charisma. Or his willingness to buck his party on matters of foreign policy and limited government.

Whatever the reason, I was not about to miss the Ron Paul rally Wednesday.

Amid the sweltering heat of a Huff Hall crammed with nearly 5,000 roaring students, Paul took the stage and spent an hour talking about his vision for America.

Liberty and freedom were the overriding themes of Paul’s speech. He mentioned variations of those two words more than 55 times, by my count.

Now, I understand the importance of simplicity and repetition in political messaging. And I agree with many of Paul’s positions on foreign policy and personal freedoms.

But it seemed as though Paul painted an incomplete picture of freedom and liberty.

No candidate has a monopoly over those principles. And taking a hacksaw to the federal government, tempting though that may be, is not the only way to promote them.

A few examples: Anti-pollution standards ensure that every person has the freedom to breathe smog-free air and drink mercury-free water. Modernized transportation infrastructure enables budding entrepreneurs to take their products to market. And a world-class education can open the doors of opportunity for even the poorest of children.

These are just a few of the many examples of government-enabled freedoms.

We do ourselves a disservice when we ignore them and frame the debate in terms of the government-cutting friends of freedom and the government-growing foes of freedom.

Everyone wants freedom. We just disagree on the best ways to promote it.

_Jason is a senior in Engineering and Business._

*This is the kind of revolution America needs to be hearing*

Huff Hall was filled to capacity Wednesday evening in what appeared to be one of the largest crowds Dr. Ron Paul has seen this campaign. The virtue of a college town is that a candidate can test the waters for talking points that would not fly in a less tolerant situation, and the senior congressman eagerly jumped from issue to issue.

He received one of the most fervent roars of approval when he breached the military topic: “Bring our troops home!” he professed to thunderous applause. Along with abolishing the Federal Reserve, breaking down the illusions of America’s disastrous foreign policy adventures of the past decade has become Paul’s signature issue.

And to him it is also the “easiest” issue. His “foreign policy of the golden rule” is as basic as it sounds (“How would we like it if drones were dropping bombs on our heads?”) Yet he’s been sounding the same alarm for more than 20 years.

The key obstacle is that his popular anti-war stance is essentially anti-Republican. The unlikely chance that Paul will receive the GOP nomination should not detract from his message, and in the coming months he must double-down on his critiques of our continuing foreign occupations.

If Paul continues to apply enough pressure on Obama and the other GOP clowns on the wasted “trillions” from these wars, the politicians and the American people will be forced to respond to this profound moral dilemma that has shaped the prevalent negative image of United States’ intervention around the world.

If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. But Paul, who can’t beat ’em, will never join ’em. He is one of the few in the United States government today that speaks truth in power on the anti-war issue.

This is the kind of revolution America needs to be hearing.

_Michael is a senior in LAS._