Congressman Ron Paul's Answer To Combat Racism by 6ixStringJack

I can't believe that he hasn't had somebody try to kill him yet. I've already said that if he does win, he will be assassinated before his first term is up. It's a shame.

Righteous. Not that I expect any intelligent thought from a brainwashed sheep in the first place, but your post just reflects what a close-minded idiot you are. You must really have a low opinion of mankind in general if you really believe we need government intervention to keep ourselves from regressing to hateful racists. The media and the government perpetuates racism. These government programs have done nothing but destroy our schools and dumb them down to the lowest common denominator. How do you know how people got along before? Because you read it in a social studies book that is almost completely rewritten every generation?

Go ahead and look at a Social Studies book today. I guarantee it looks completely different than the one you read when you were a kid, assuming of course that you were one of the 5 kids in your class that even read the book. History's written by the winners, and the sheeple believe everything they read. Your post is full of trite Disney bullshit and "The More You Know" soundbytes you've been force fed all your life and makes me sick.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I can't believe that he hasn't had somebody try to kill him yet. I've already said that if he does win, he will be assassinated before his first term is up. It's a shame.

Have hope Six, I knew a few people who swore that Bush wold be assassinated if he was re-elected. Nothing so far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:51 PM

I could see it with Bush. He's done so many wrongs, not only to his own people, but all the people of the world. Desipicable crimes against humanity. So has Blair, but looks like time's running out there too.....

If Ron Paul were to be assassinated, it wouldn't be for anything he said in this post. It wouldn't be by the people either. It would be because if any of his ideas were to take firm root, and proles woke up one day and decided they didn't want or need an invasive government micromanaging every detail of their lives, there would be a lot of people up top that stand to lose a lot of money and control.

Think insurance tycoon with the sniper rifle on Bullworth.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:29 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Wha?

Lets look at how people got on shall we? We had Jim Crow laws, unprosecuted lynchings, back-of-the-bus policies and general segregation, the assasination of Medger Evers MLK and Macolm X...

do I need to go on? Are these products of historic revisionism to you? are you also a holocaust denier? What would be sufficient evidence for you to accept that things were and are fucked up and unfair, and that racism has had a very heavy hand in keeping the black community "in its place."

Would you say all of these things are products of government intervention and meddling? Was slavery?

ON edit - this isn't to say the government doesn't perpetuate xenophobia and racism when to do so benefits some agenda. I don't see affimrative action as a race-baiting agenda. I do see how affimative action programs galvanize racism to some extent, with no small helping from people who say it promotes racism by being unfair, bending the rules for people who didn't 'earn' it..." but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

And No, I don't have a low opinion of mankind in general. Look, I almost went another way with this, but I'm going to suggest that we keep the thread civil, because I think the dialog is important...because I certainly don't like being one of the close-minded idiot sheeple.

I have a high opinion of mankind actually, and of our system of government. You're the one who sounds cynical. I really believe that a well informed public( and by informed I do not mean propagandized) has the common good and the good of the country in mind. I think that it would attempt to make redresses to this issue through goverment intervention. That isn't the government doing this for us...its us using the government to do it.

...........

What information do you have that shows these programs have a dumbing down effect on America, undermining our overall education? I don't see it this way, but maybe I'm the one who doesn't have the facts. I'm willing to entertain that possibility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Are you also a holocaust denier?

Let's just say I haven't yet bought AIDS or the lunar landing. The story of the Holocaust could very well be true, while at the same time it could very well serve an agenda. Think about it. The Jewish people are the one truly untouchable demographic because of it. You can't even question a Jew's motives at any time now because you could be labled a racist. I'm sure it's working it's charm right now. You're probably squirming in your chair reading this now. The people who lived there didn't even know it was going on at the time and we didn't hear until much later. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying that I don't believe it simply because Hollywood and our text books said it happened. I give it 50/50 chance like I give most things I've ever heard or read.

Quote:
What would be sufficient evidence for you to accept that things were and are fucked up and unfair.

Plenty out there now doing a good job of that. Life is a bitch. What has government really done to help anybody? Has it really gotten any better? At what cost?

All signs point to no. The world is worse now than it has ever been and during the entire decline the government has gotten exponentially larger. Coincidence? Possibly..... I'm just making an observation.

Quote:
Would you say all of these things are products of government intervention and meddling? Was slavery?

Though slavery might not have been a Government sponsored program like "No Child Left Behind" or the "Patriot Act", it certainly got no flack from the Government at its origins. Many, if not most, politicians owned slaves themselves. It's no secret that many of them had sex with their slaves too. Government only turned on slavery when it suited its needs. This is how they've vilianized the Southern people and practically made the Confederate flag akin to the Nazi Swazzi. The Civil War had little, if anything, to do with slavery in truth. That is just what we were taught in school growing up. It was about a people who felt their government had been meddling in their lives too much (sound familiar...... Battle of Serenity, ahem.....). They wanted to secede from the Union, for reasons other than slavery. When the revisionists rewrote history for us, they made it a black/white issue to cover up the fact that these brave men were fighting for freedom to live without Government invasiveness. How many people today would form a bond and take up arms against our own oppressive government and the current administration? Shit... most people who would want to are too busy living their meaningless lives of instant self-gratification by playing XBox eating cheetos and beating off to internet porn. That or they're on happy pills.......

BTW... there were black men who owned property and had influence, even back before the Civil War. Some of them even owned slaves themselves (OMG!!!!!)... Yeah, and there were even white slaves too.. The only distinction they were given was that they were known as share-croppers and that they could come and go as they please. They still didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

Quote:
but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

This is only an opinion, and might I add, one that has no real basis because we don't really know what the alternative might bring. Having never tried it.

Quote:
And No, I don't have a low opinion of mankind in general. Look, I almost went another way with this, but I'm going to suggest that we keep the thread civil, because I think the dialog is important...because I certainly don't like being one of the close-minded idiot sheeple.

My apologies for not keeping it civil. I'm no stranger to feeling that maybe I was a little too harsh after a post. It was more the "hear hear" comment posted after yours that rubbed me wrong, but considering the source of that completely ignorant statement, it's not at all unexpected.

Edit: If MARINA comes back to read this, sorry about that. I don't know you and I don't believe we've ever had dialogue on here before. I mistook you for somebody else. A mindless "hear hear" without knowing any facts still gets under my skin though.

Quote:
I have a high opinion of mankind actually, and of our system of government. You're the one who sounds cynical. I really believe that a well informed public( and by informed I do not mean propagandized) has the common good and the good of the country in mind. I think that it would attempt to make redresses to this issue through goverment intervention. That isn't the government doing this for us...its us using the government to do it.

If I sound cynical, it's because I am. I don't trust our government at all. It has overstepped its boundaries so far and for so long that when we were born, we didn't even know how much they've already taken from us. We entertain ourselves mindlessly every day while we're under the impression that the Government is looking out for our best interests and meanwhile, they're playing the terrorist and invading people all over the world and making all of the emerging superpowers very pissed off at us. We're going to have hell to pay one day, and if I was a gambling man I would wager we'll see the wake of this in our lifetimes. It's really got me kind of scared.

Ron Paul is an old school Patriot. He's not somebody who believes "right or wrong my country", when refering to what the Administration or Big Gov wants. He is a Constitutionalist, and he's sick of people like George Bush pissing all over it for "The Children" or "Public Safety" or whatever rhetoric gets the proles to line up behind another oppressive idea. We're watching our individual freedoms erode and it's very sad. This is why I'm cynical. I see Ron Paul as the anti-politician. The man who says all the things that I believe in and actually has a small fighting chance to make things better. I've never felt this way about a politician before and I never thought I possibly could. I actually trust him, as a man and a politician. If he were to get in and go back on the things he said, it would break my heart.

I recommend reading his stance against the Real ID Act for more on his anti-Big Gov viewpoints. He's a personal hero of mine.... and I don't think I've ever said that before about somebody who didn't hold a guitar.

...........

Quote:
What information do you have that shows these programs have a dumbing down effect on America, undermining our overall education? I don't see it this way, but maybe I'm the one who doesn't have the facts. I'm willing to entertain that possibility.

I'll get back to you on this. I'm at work now and I don't have enough time to do this question justice.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 5:08 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
He's a personal hero of mine.... and I don't think I've ever said that before about somebody who didn't hold a guitar.

HEAR HEAR!!!

I've been hearing good things about Ron Paul lately and this thread will cause me to look into him a bit more. So at least in my humble little case, your thread has worked.

Also....Ron Paul...Les Paul...??? Could it be possible?

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 5:09 AM

"Lets look at how people got on shall we? We had Jim Crow laws, unprosecuted lynchings, back-of-the-bus policies and general segregation, the assasination of Medger Evers MLK and Macolm X... "

Ahhhh, the good ole days.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 5:28 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Lets look at how people got on shall we? We had Jim Crow laws, unprosecuted lynchings, back-of-the-bus policies and general segregation, the assasination of Medger Evers MLK and Macolm X... "

Ahhhh, the good ole days.......

whaddya think of Ron Paul Kane?

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 6:07 AM

I must admit that I don't know much about RP, however I did just spend an hour on youtube...I like every thing he has said about immigration, taxes, and the constitution........

*edit*
The only problem I can see is that he is a Doctor. He may have stuck his fingers in too many asses.... Squeezed to many balls while saying "turn and cough"...Oh, and that fucking needle thing

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 7:18 AM

After more fact finding and research...THIS COULD BE THE END OF HIS BID....I support RP....110%..

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 11:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think Ron Paul is hopelessly naive about racism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 2:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Now that I have a little more time...

Quote:
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines.

Wow. Did "the government" create sexism or slavery? Those divisions existed long before "the government" did. While I think it's generally true that dividing society benefits those in power I don't see what this government gets out of religious, gender, or so-called racial divisions. It doesn't increase their coffers, and unless the government actively portrays a group as "the enemy within" (like the Nazis painted the Jews or like the right wing paints gays) it doesn't even increase their power. What I DO find inevitably benefitting from these divisions is corporations. In fact, if they can make everybody fight everybody along any line whatsoever- age, IQ, gender, race, height, good looks etc.- then nobody will ever get together to fight corporate power structure around. Oh and BTW- you're not about to fight them by yourself.

Quote:
Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking

Assuming there's genuine goodwill to be had. In a zero-sum society, genuine goodwill is awfully hard to come by.

Quote:
thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

"government loot" is not anywhere near as important a factor as a job. So if anyone is fighting for anything, it's a job.

Quote:
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism

What I see is free-market capitalism for individuals and socialism for corporations. Does that seem fair to you? IMHO the true antidoe to racism is full employment.

Quote:
which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

blah blah blah...

Not only is Ron Paul hopelessly naive about racism he's also hopelessly naive about capitalism.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

Now I'm confused. Are you quoting Ron Paul now after you said he was naive? That's almost word for word what he was saying. The "Cliff's Notes" version, if you will.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:02 PM

Quote:
By Malbadinlatin: ....Ron Paul...Les Paul...??? Could it be possible?

LOL.... Well, I'll take it over Ru Paul anyday. I'm glad you're interested in learning more about him. I realize that he's probably not going to be popular with a large group of people, particularly the Oprah crowd because he speaks common sense and he proposes that we should be responsible for our own actions and not rely on Government. He avoids telling people what they want to hear and he tells it like it is.

The truth is hard for many to face, but the longer we wait to face the truth, the harsher it will be when we're ultimately forced to face the music. Honestly, I don't know what his chances are because the Dems are going to have anti Ron Paul ads telling people that they're going to lose welfare if he's elected. I'm all for it though. Welfare programs are simply an important ingredient for Communism and wealth re-distribution and have no place in this country.

My only exception to this rule would be that injured Veterans who served our country should not be left to fend for themselves after they come back home. If we weren't funding our war of terror, we'd have plenty of money to protect ourselves and take proper care of our soldiers, rather than spreading ourselves so thin that they don't even have the proper body armor when the Administration sends them out to die.

Quote:
By Kaneman: After more fact finding and research...THIS COULD BE THE END OF HIS BID....I support RP....110%..

LOL.... I just had a great campaign idea for Ron, Kaneman. Make a post on every thread in this forum about how much Ron Paul sucks and he'll probably get 90% of the fff.net vote!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

See above. I accidently posted an incomplete reply. Sorry about that!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:10 PM

Quote:
Signy's entire post.... blah blah blah.... yada yada...

Sorry Signy.

Your post enrages me so much that I can't even respond without being uncivil. I'm choosing to not get into it with you because we've had good conversations before and I don't want to start yelling.

I'll just leave it that I don't agree with one single word you said.

Maybe if I'm in a better mood later I'll try to put my thoughts on this in a way where I'm not being an asshole about it.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm all for it though. Welfare programs are simply an important ingredient for Communism and wealth re-distribution and have no place in this country.

My only exception to this rule would be that injured Veterans who served our country should not be left to fend for themselves after they come back home.

Just curious, what about other disabled people? Mentally handicapped? The families that are supporting the handicapped?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 4:04 PM

Quote:
Just curious, what about other disabled people? Mentally handicapped? The families that are supporting the handicapped?

Well.... Just because you're asking me this question I am positive you won't like my answer. So.... here it goes.

People need to have personal accountability. People should not have children unless they are financially able to afford it. This financial planning should also take into consideration the possiblity that your child might be handicapped. Life changes that would happen should one be unfortunate enough to have a handicapped child should be taken into consideration before two people decide they want to have a child in the first place. We all knew before we ever had sex that we could end up having kids if we weren't careful about it and we also all know that there is a very real possibility of having a handicapped child going into it no matter what precautions we take. There's plenty of birth control out there, and given the fact that schools are even pushing various forms of birth control and safe sex on kids today, "accidents" should, or will very soon be, a thing of the past.

Furthermore, if the child is born handicapped and the cause is found to be negligence on the parents part due to irresponsible behavior, such as drug or alcahol abuse (legal or perscription) or unhealty dieting, ect., the parent(s) should be severly punished. Maybe just knowing that they are to blame for their childs state coupled with having to raise the child without aid is punishment enough.

Certainly, there should be no person in the nation who gets aid for such a child and has a big screen TV or a nice car. When you become a parent, that's it. Life isn't about you anymore. It's about family, for better or worse. If it wasn't financially viable for you to have a child who was healthy, I'm certainly not going to feel sorry for you if you have a mentally handicapped child. Suck it up, get two jobs and save your cash.

Trust.... there would be a lot more money to be spent by these families for the welfare of their handicapped family members when they've got an extra 30% of their pay in their wallet instead of Uncle Sam's pocket. I'd rather see families be able to take care of their children, particularly the handicapped children, than see this money go to fund our terrorism on other countries via Federal taxes. This would simply be allowing people to decide where their money should be spent instead of the Government. If you didn't read anything else by Ron Paul, he also wants to eliminate the unconstitutional income tax and disband the IRS completely. I would recommend reading some more on that site before you make judgements about Ron Paul's opinions on things as well as my own. Perhaps when one reads only this article without reading others and seeing the big picture, it seems as though some of this may not be feasable, as stand alone ideas.

I look at children the same way the Oprah army of Smoke Nazis look at smoking. There is a part of their agruement that I actually do agree with. Why should you have to pay for my medical care with your taxes when I'm coughing up blood when I'm 65? It was MY choice to smoke, and these responsibilites are mine. I can afford the luxury because I have a great 401k plan at work and I contribute as much as I can to it. I also fund an IRA and I put a decent amount of money every month. I don't make very much money at all, having no college degree. I can do this because I'm a minimalist. I never bite off more than I can chew, I'm responsible with my money, and I sacrafice a lot to build my own nest egg. I've been driving the same beat up Cavalier for 9 years now. I can afford another car, a much better car, but I'm going to drive this thing into the ground first. I never said it was glamourous. I'm 27 and I won't even think about having kids or getting married until I know it's financially viable and I already own a house which is paid for, or at least a majority of it is paid for. If you're going to make the choice to have a child, I don't want to have to pay for it, and I don't care if it's handicapped or underprivelaged. I really can't see what's so hard to understand about this concept. Or is it okay for people to think this way about certain issues when it suits them or their warped moral compass, but to go the other extreme when they don't agree with the benificiaries of the Government's "goodwill"?

I also have a huge problem with giving out normal diplomas to somebody who didn't deserve them, simply because of the fact that they are handicapped. My English teacher in Junior year of High School, a woman might I add, was the first person to ever say this to me (to the whole class, actually). I was pissed at her when she said it then too, especially considering I have a brother who suffered multiple strokes during a brain hemmorage when he was only 6 years old. It was years later, when I shed myself of a majority of the brainwashing I recieved growing up (I hope), that I realized that she was right. Giving the same diploma to a retarded child simply invalidates every high school diploma ever given to anybody EVER. Why even try anymore? Given the fact that they've made the classes so stupid that perfectly healthy and normal kids with 5th grade reading ability are graduating high school, the diploma is now a worthless piece of paper. This is part of my answer to the question asked above by Righteous about explaining how the educational system in this country has been dumbed down to the lowest commond denominator. Actually.... this is pretty much an in-your-face definition of it.

If that English teacher were to say something like that today, I can almost guarantee that she'd be fired like Imus. Sadly, she would probably be ratted out by somebody just like me when I was 12 years younger. It's a very sick world we live in.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 7:15 PM

Ready for a shock? I agree with you almost completely. The only parts where I disagree is that I don't particularly care for Ron Paul (Fremd posted a long monologue of his a while back and I had a lot of issues with it but that's for another post), and I can't agree with you on the planning to take care of handicapped children for purely practical reasons.

The problem is that some handicaps can be so expensive that even a rich family can be brought to bankruptcy, so if everyone went by the idea of only having children if they are financially prepared for every circumstance then no one except the absolute richest people will have children. Now my opinions on whether or not the extinction of the human race would be a bad thing are a subject for another post but for now let's assume that we want to human race to continue and thus we want people to have children.

While there certainly should be more care taken to be assured of the ability to take care of children then there is now there will still be children who are afflicted with handicaps that are unusually expensive even speaking relative to other handicaps. So what do we tell the parents of these children? If we say that they just have to deal they'll probably turn the kids over to the state or an orphanage and it comes back to bite us anyway, the only other real option is to put the children down if their treatment is going to be too expensive. The only viable (and socially acceptable) option I see is subsidized care of the children in question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 8:54 PM

To everybody.... long post, I know. Sorry. I'm actually replying to Signy's questions here, but feel free to take a look if you're REALLY bored at work or whatever. If you're at home, skip this post and get your ass outside. The weather is great now.

I've chilled a bit Signy. I'll try to get through this now without ranting too much. I know you know how hard that is for me to do. I apologize for being so curt earlier.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow. Did "the government" create sexism or slavery? Those divisions existed long before "the government" did.

Sure they existed before "The Government" did, but don't you think we've evolved as a social speices since then? Do you honestly think without government intervention that Americanized blacks would allow themselves to be slaves again or allow whites in this country to bring more Africans to enslave? Would they allow themselves to be told to drink from seperate fountains or be forced to sit on the back of the bus again? Or women.... do you think they'd allow themselves to be beat up by drunk asshole husbands or boyfriends to the point that they lost the ability to vote again? Do you think that the men would drive them all out of the workplace without the Government's aid? I can go on and on, but I'll just finish this line of questioning with, do you really think that this is what a majority of white males today would want without a large invasive Government telling them everyday that we should want the opposite? Do you think that we'd all actively participate in sending the civil rights movement back 100 years or stand by and let others do it?

Come on Signy.... I'm supposed to be the cynic here.

Quote:
While I think it's generally true that dividing society benefits those in power I don't see what this government gets out of religious, gender, or so-called racial divisions. It doesn't increase their coffers, and unless the government actively portrays a group as "the enemy within" (like the Nazis painted the Jews or like the right wing paints gays) it doesn't even increase their power.

We both agree that dividing society benefits those in power. Can we also agree that right now, we're more divided than ever before? I assume we cannot for reasons such as we don't have hangings anymore and women are allowed to vote. But what about what lies beneath? What causes kids to shoot up a school? What causes a man to go into his place of work and kill everybody and then take his own life? We're living in a fast paced world full of angst. Everyone is scared. Some hide it much better than others do, but it's there in nearly every one of us just waiting to be set off. Racial tensions today are like a giant boil on the tip of your nose that's almost ready to come to a head. They've grown exponentially with every race-baited story since Rodney King and OJ Simpson and seemingly get worse every year. Everytime we see Sharpton or Jackson on TV it's just more bad news. I'm sure they have to be doing something at some point of thier lives that's "happy" for people, but the news only shows them to us when they know it's going to just piss more people off. In fact, Jesse might not be a racist and might be one of the greatest guys in the world, but you'd never know it by watching the news. Watch 3 hours of news at any given time a day and you're going to walk away pissed off.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about newspapers, and one could only assume that he would have included MSNBC, FOX News and any other outlet for them to show us the worst of humanity 24/7:

"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it."

Wise words from a wise man. He also had this to say about the news:

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

Good advice from an insider, I think....

and

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

All very, very true.

Well..... to get back to point now, although all of that was meaningful to the topic for answering the "how's", we need to ask ourselves "why?"

Why do we see things that build tensions between races, sexes, sexualities, religion, etc. on the news EVERY day? Why can't we log on to the internet, or enjoy the paper with a cup of coffee or even watch MTV for 15 minutes without hearing Kurt Loder tell us about something else bad that has happened, most usually between people of different groups? Why can a fight of any sort between two people for whatever the reason be told to us in a way where now it's a black/white, straight/gay, man/woman issue when the original scuffle had nothing to do with any of the above in the first place? Can't people just get pissed at each other because we're all a bunch of assholes anymore? Does every damn thing have to be a fucking issue every time?

Sorry.... keep it civil.......

I'll tell you my whys... First off, the government, through the media, has all but destroyed religion in this country. America is nearly completely secularized now. Even as immigrants settle in here as we speak, their grandchildren will not be practicing their beliefs.... at least not a large enough percentage of them to matter, and of their children, even less.....

Now I'm not defending religion here or even making a statement on whether this is good or bad. I'm simply stating a very obvious observation. People generally need something to follow. Whether that is God or Allah or the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster (being the symbol of a belief consisting of the utter lack of belief of a higher power, for those who don't know), most people would go out of their mind not having belief in something. We like to think we have individuality, but we're all trying to be a part of somethning.... even the most antisocial of us. Just watch "Dead Poet's Society" again or read "Harrison Burgeron" from the late Kurt Vonnegut to get a good idea of what I'm trying to say. If people don't believe in God, they are going to believe in Government, period.

Think of it this way.... regardless of what religion you are or if you don't even believe in God, don't you yourself feel better in the knowledge that we're so secular here that even some of the most devout Muslims in sleeper cells here will probably be at a strip club or too busy watching Girls Gone Wild to get the energy to strap on that bomb and take a trip to the mall where you drop off your kids next Saturday? I hate to say it, but I actually fee pretty good about that. We're stupid enough to let them over here, so I'm glad that we can corrupt them into submission. Sometimes it's hard to think of God(s) or show them the devotion you used to when you've flown thousands of miles away from sand to the "Land of Oppurtunity" where you become so mindlessly entertained. Even in the Bible the Devil learned that if he wanted to take control of somebody, the trick is to give him everything and not to take it away. The man who has nothing has nothing but God. There's no Athiests in the foxhole.

Now this, I realize, is a very extreme example, but a very obvious and topical one today given the hostility of the Muslims (at least how they're portrayed as a people on the news). Remember also the Crusades and the fact that even Protestants in our own country used to burn women alive, drown them or even go to the great lengths of dropping boulders on them for being witches. We haven't seen a witch burning in quite a while, unless we're talking about George C. Scott's performance in "The Crucible" in high school.

Our Government does a stellar job making sure that the mob has more than enough to get by. Sure... most of us are bitching about one thing or another, but in terms of work and availibility of resources, food and cheap and disposable comsumer goods, and 15 or so years of seemingly unlimited spending via turning our own homes into ATM machines, courtesy the FED, we've got it easier than any generation that has ever come before us. But at what price?

Yes... the Government has MUCH to gain from the destruction of religion. People quickly become docile and obedient to Government when they've collectively lost any belief in a higher power and they're completely dependent upon the Government for survival. Maybe that's what you want. I know that it's a common desire among the proles... a world without religion, without hell. The Bible even says that it was going to happen and that it's happened on occasion in the past. It's just not a scenario that I want any part of, at least not yet.

I haven't made up my mind about everything, but I don't want Government making up my mind for me. It would be a shame for a kid to be born 5 or 6 generations from now and not even have the option because religion isn't even taught anymore. Could you imagine any story starring Jesus taught as just another Mother Goose story... perhaps a major Disney/Pixar picture? How hard would it be for Government to really pull the plug since a majority of Churches are Federally funded? Not federally funded, you say? Okay.... let's see how many churches close at the end of the year if the Government were to charge the Churches property, gift and income tax.

Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" to see what that all might be like. I'm interested to see if you would prefer this world. There are sometimes where even I myself actually would. In any event, it's a much more preferable scenario than living Orwell's 1984 (same means, different ends).

Quote:
What I DO find inevitably benefitting from these divisions is corporations. In fact, if they can make everybody fight everybody along any line whatsoever- age, IQ, gender, race, height, good looks etc.- then nobody will ever get together to fight corporate power structure around. Oh and BTW- you're not about to fight them by yourself.

Sure the corporations benefit from it. I think our disagreement here stems from the fact that you belive that Government and Corporations are two seperate entities, whereas I know they're part of the same umbrella that is known as the Federal Reserve Bank. The FED controls the money, thus it controls the companies, their employees (you and I) and the Government at the same time. We're paying the interest of the National Debt off now with Labor.

At the end of fiscal year 2006, the interest paid on US's national debt alone was $405,872,109,315.83, up from $352,350,252,507.90 in 2005. That's right.... over 1/3 of a Trillion dollars and not long until it's 1/2 Trillion dollars a year. Are we paying that off? Supposedly, but who are we kidding since the debt is increasing every year? Because we've allowed Congress to illegally and unconstitutionally sign over their granted ability to coin money to the Federal Reserve, we've allowed them to accrue a debt which constitutes a sum of $29,215.53 for every man woman and child living legally in this country. Do you have enough money saved up to pay your share if the Piper comes to your door?

Who do we owe this to? Not other countries, that's for sure. If they're not in debt to us financially, they owe the FED too. The FED owns the world.

CHECK OUT THE DEBT CLOCK: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

If you keep hitting refresh, you can watch it soar right before your eyes.

Quote:
Assuming there's genuine goodwill to be had. In a zero-sum society, genuine goodwill is awfully hard to come by.

So says MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, The Herald, The Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, Social Studies books, Lord of the Flies, etc., etc., etc.......

Quote:
"government loot" is not anywhere near as important a factor as a job. So if anyone is fighting for anything, it's a job.

Sure... tell that to the recipients who would rather collect the government loot rather than get a job and then bitch about what they don't have. Of course this isn't 100% of the recipients, but whenever anyone is giving anything away to help others, there is no shortage of scammers, conmen, and plain lazy peolpe looking for a handout. The amount of money going to social programs in this country is astronomical. We've been told that even if the public aid were to stop now, many jobs would be lost as a result and the economy would collapse. Therein lies the problem....

During my 5 year unemployment stint I still had over $35,000.00 worth of credit available to me. I got quite good at balancing 0%interest rates from card to card because the Companies were giving them out like candy then and I had a good credit rating because of the great job I had when I was 18-20 years old. Well... I had to go to the hospital, after nearly two months of avoiding it, to get a lump on my testical checked out. I was 23 years old and I was prime age for testicular cancer. I was unable to find any government support for the procedure. I'm assuming, of course, that this is partially due to race, but I know that the majority of it was because a) I had a car of my own and I didn't rely on public transportation and b) I had access to $35,000.00 of credit (because I was an idiot and thought I was hot shit being a 20 year old with a badass job and 7 credit cards. I've since learned my lesson. I have 3 cards now and only access to $6,500). After my instinctual survivalism and fear for my life finally trumped my fear of eternal debt and ruined credit rating for a procedure I knew I would never be able to afford, I went and got it checked out. Funny thing was, if I had waited it out only a few more weeks, I would have found out that it would go away on its own. It was nothing more than a cyst with a fatty membrane. My body absorbed it without any medical aid. Sadly, I already knew this would happen because I already went through the embarassment of a nice gel down and ultrasound preformed by a homely 50 something nurse and nearly $2,000 out of pocket for the procedure, supplies and doctor evaulation of the results.

Now my question to you is, if you had four or five children and they all had free government subsidized health care on top of the welfare checks and subsidized housing, would you really be fighting for a job so you can crawl out of the hole and get your own transportation and credit, only to have one of your children become deathly ill and lose it all again when you could have just sat on your ass and been in the same spot? I know some people would and do, but we both know that it's not a majority and they can't even be blamed because the Government makes it appealing to stay down and suck on its teet.

Quote:
What I see is free-market capitalism for individuals and socialism for corporations. Does that seem fair to you?

You'll need to elaborate here. I'm not understanding the question. I'm assuming you're having a problem here with the way things are already and, if that's the case, I don't think we even have a Capitalistic society because Free Enterprise in America today is a fallacy.

Quote:
IMHO the true antidoe to racism is full employment.

Purely speculation here, but I can go for that. There has never been an administration that has run this country so far where there was 100% employment though, period. So.... do we keep voting the same knuckleheads in, or do we maybe give the 3rd party a try? (Remember, though running as a Repuglican, Ron Paul is really a Libertarian)

Bottom line is, it couldn't possibly be any worse than the current administration. If you take the time to read his thoughts on other topics, you may find that you agree with a lot of other things he has to say, even if you find his take on racism "naive". And our Demoncrat friends are strong advocates of Orwellian tactics such as the "Real ID Act". So was Bush, seeing as how he signed a bill authorizing it's origin in 2005. Ron Paul is 100% adamant against it.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 11, 2007 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Ready for a shock? I agree with you almost completely. The only parts where I disagree is that I don't particularly care for Ron Paul (Fremd posted a long monologue of his a while back and I had a lot of issues with it but that's for another post), and I can't agree with you on the planning to take care of handicapped children for purely practical reasons.

The problem is that some handicaps can be so expensive that even a rich family can be brought to bankruptcy, so if everyone went by the idea of only having children if they are financially prepared for every circumstance then no one except the absolute richest people will have children. Now my opinions on whether or not the extinction of the human race would be a bad thing are a subject for another post but for now let's assume that we want to human race to continue and thus we want people to have children.

While there certainly should be more care taken to be assured of the ability to take care of children then there is now there will still be children who are afflicted with handicaps that are unusually expensive even speaking relative to other handicaps. So what do we tell the parents of these children? If we say that they just have to deal they'll probably turn the kids over to the state or an orphanage and it comes back to bite us anyway, the only other real option is to put the children down if their treatment is going to be too expensive. The only viable (and socially acceptable) option I see is subsidized care of the children in question.

LOL.... glad we agree Fredgiblet? I guess? I'm not sure what you agreed with if you don't care for Ron Paul or my answer to your question though.

EDIT: Well... I looked at my post and it was one of my long ones again, so if that's all you didn't agree with, I guess that's pretty good! If you're against Ron Paul though, I'm not doing what I set out to do.

I know about dibilitating illness. My brother's hospital bills for the brain hemmorage were nearly half a million dollars (15 years ago) and we'd be in the poor house if both of my parents didn't work and have good insurance.

I really don't know what to say here. Even though this happened to my own brother who I love, I am against insurance of any kind too. Insurance is the reason that medical procedures cost so much for everyone today. Think about it for a second... could the hospitals truly charge these outlandish fees if they didn't have insurance companies and Federal-Reserve-backed-by-thin-air dollars to pay them off? Since its origins it has just been another form of wealth re-distribution. It's built up our false sense of security and lead the charge to warnings and signs everywhere, frivilous lawsuits for millions of dollars and the fact that we have to put our damn signature on everything we do now. It helps fund the corrupt legal system we have today by making millions of cases for the lawyers to lawyer over and the judges to judge.

As for only the rich having kids, I don't think it will be that way. If people want to have kids, they're going to take the risk and have the kids. Even if they know going into it they're on their own. It's that false sense of security that's speaking there again. I think at first people will be much more hesitant to have children, but that would waine over time as the desire to procreate trumped it.

Watch "Angela's Ashes" (or read the book if you're not as lazy as I am) if you want to watch a movie about this very depressing topic. To us, at least, it's depressing. To the Irish it was standard operating procedure. If the mortality rate of the poor Irish was as high as it was, why would they continue to have so many children? Perhaps it's their Catholosism telling them they couldn't wear protection? Maybe.... no, that's likely even it. Even if that is the answer and people here choose not to have children of their own because they have no religious aversion to birth control, well they might just be happier being self-indulgent and fucking like bunnies and popping pills over having kids in the first place and that's a good thing in my eyes. There's too many people in the world, given our limited resources anyhow. Eventually something is going to happen to curb our insane population growth. In my opinion, it would be much better if the people decided to voluntarily curb population growth rather than have strict and very necessary laws 100 or so years down the road forcing abortions if you dare have more than one child.

No.... I don't believe that doing this will make it so only the rich procreate. I believe it will make it so that, other than the rich elite, the only people having children are the people who really want them..... and in the end, wouldn't that be the very best outcome for everyone anyhow?

I think you'd be suprised and there would be much more than you'd think. You're just thinking as a person who has had to take very little risk would speak. Given time, people would get on without Government aid or insurance. Until a hundred or so years ago, mankind has lived thousands of years without either. To me, Liberty and Freedom are much more a priority than Safety and Security.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
If you're against Ron Paul though, I'm not doing what I set out to do.

Not against him, I just don't think he's The Greatest Thing Ever To Happen. I don't remember much of the post that Fremd made but I remember that most of my disagreements were on practical grounds instead of principle, meaning that I like the idea I just don't think it's reasonable or practical.

Quote:
Insurance is the reason that medical procedures cost so much for everyone today. Think about it for a second... could the hospitals truly charge these outlandish fees if they didn't have insurance companies and Federal-Reserve-backed-by-thin-air dollars to pay them off?

I'm gonna have to disagree here, first off doctors are well-paid (and rightfully so), second off many times the equipment used in treatments is in itself very expensive. I'll agree that insurance has allowed more expensive treatments to be used for the reasons you mention, and possibly it has something to do with rising prices of simpler treatments, but the majority of the really expensive treatments are more likely honestly expensive. The exception would be treatments involving exotic medications where the price is high so Big Pharm can advertise.

Quote:
As for only the rich having kids, I don't think it will be that way. If people want to have kids, they're going to take the risk and have the kids. Even if they know going into it they're on their own. It's that false sense of security that's speaking there again. I think at first people will be much more hesitant to have children, but that would waine over time as the desire to procreate trumped it.

Maybe I'm overstating the problem, but I still think it would be more of a problem then you do.

Quote:
No.... I don't believe that doing this will make it so only the rich procreate. I believe it will make it so that, other than the rich elite, the only people having children are the people who really want them..... and in the end, wouldn't that be the very best outcome for everyone anyhow?

Sure, no argument there. Although I'm thinking you are underestimating the stupidity of people, I think there will likely always be people who have kids or large families when they really shouldn't (probably largely the Catholics and Mormons), and I can't help but feel sorry for the kids who get screwed over because of their parents decision.

Quote:
Given time, people would get on without Government aid or insurance. Until a hundred or so years ago, mankind has lived thousands of years without either.

But back then raising kids was cheaper and kids became an asset to the family when they were very young, now even raising kids without many possessions is more expensive and the kids are barely valuable to the family (not counting welfare and tax breaks).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 12, 2007 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
What causes kids to shoot up a school?

I think that the divide that causes this isn't the doing of the government myself, I think that this is almost purely cultural.

Quote:
Why can a fight of any sort between two people for whatever the reason be told to us in a way where now it's a black/white, straight/gay, man/woman issue when the original scuffle had nothing to do with any of the above in the first place?

It makes better news, when the news is a capitalist enterprise then they have to convince people to pay attention to THEIR channel so they provide sensationalism to try and up their numbers.

Quote:
First off, the government, through the media, has all but destroyed religion in this country. America is nearly completely secularized now.

Um...you are aware that the fundamentalist movement is on the rise right? You probably aren't aware that a church in my town was built about 6 years ago, and last year was expanded to 4 times it's original size. Religion isn't dying.

Quote:
There's no Athiests in the foxhole.

Oh yes there is, the number of atheists in the military (even in wartime) isn't that far off of the number in society in general. Consider as well the countries that openly push atheism, they have militaries and many of them have gone to war since they started pushing atheism.

Quote:
It would be a shame for a kid to be born 5 or 6 generations from now and not even have the option because religion isn't even taught anymore.

Have you considered that there might be a valid reason for the decline of religion? For instance as we explain the world and get a clearer view of our history it becomes apparent that the religious texts are simply wrong. If the religions flex with the history that we discover and accept that literal interpretations are not going to work then they can keep their followers on simple spiritual grounds, but many religions don't and continue to insist that their beliefs about the nature of the world are absolute truth. In that situation when what they are saying is exposed as falsehood the follower loses faith.

Quote:
How hard would it be for Government to really pull the plug since a majority of Churches are Federally funded? Not federally funded, you say? Okay.... let's see how many churches close at the end of the year if the Government were to charge the Churches property, gift and income tax.

I think it would be harder then you think, they could easily start charging property taxes but there would be a voter revolt. Maybe sometime in the future the religious zeal of the country will decline to the point where that's possible but we aren't there yet.

As a side note I think it's interesting that you seem to be fine with everyone supporting religion by giving them the benefit of not paying property taxes but you don't think that we should support handicapped children. IMO religious building should pay property taxes, if you want a church bad enough then you should have to pay for it.

Quote:
Because we've allowed Congress to illegally and unconstitutionally sign over their granted ability to coin money to the Federal Reserve

The more I find out about this the more absurd it seems

Quote:
We've been told that even if the public aid were to stop now, many jobs would be lost as a result and the economy would collapse.

Well if you think of many people are employed in the Welfare department and others like it, there would be a lot of lost jobs. In fact that's one of the things I'm not so hot on in regards to Ron Paul, he wants to cut back hugely on the size of the government but where are all the government employees going to go then?

P.S. You might be interested in reading For Us, The Living by Robert Heinlein and I know I'd be interested in hearing your thought (and Fremd's) about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Because we've allowed Congress to illegally and unconstitutionally sign over their granted ability to coin money to the Federal Reserve

The more I find out about this the more absurd it seems

Just a quick note, I figured you might take this the wrong way so I thought I'd clear it up. What I mean is that the fact that a corporation is running our finances is absurd, not that the idea that a corporation might be running our finances is absurd.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 13, 2007 8:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6ix- Sorry for bactracking the thread, but my SO just had brain surgery (minor, if there is such a thing as "minor" brain surgery) and I've been awfully busy. We agree on so many things that I think deep feelings are inevitable. So let me try to do this piece by piece, if possible.

Society at every step of civilization has found ways to divide itself, so much so that the egalitarian ones (which I can count on the fingers of one hand) stand out as exceptions and leave us wondering how they managed. Men in every society are slightly larger and more aggressive than women, so unless women band together and/ or are given more authority they will wind up being at a slight disadvantage on a day-to-day basis. Certain men are larger and more aggressive than others. And certain people are sociopaths. The reason why I go back to biology is that power concentrates. Small differences in power tend to magnify over time. Whether you call it "government", corporations, religion, or the mafia it is a near-inevitable factor that some people will wind up with inordinate power over others and will use all means at their disposal- money, propaganda (including religion), "the law", and force of arms - to retain it.

I do agree that we're more divided than ever. You blame the government "through the media". But "the media" itself has its own agenda, which is to sell advertising. It is a whore of the corporations and itself a corporation. It has a vested interst in people not thinking. Why? Because thinking people will not buy on the basis of packaging or hype.

As far as loss of religion: America is the most religious developed nation in the world. More people in the USA say they believe in God, attend church, and disavow science than in any other industrialized nation. We are a nation of believers, which makes us a nation of followers. We are also the most unequal, the most violent, and the most punitive. Religion does not seem to tbe the answer.

It's not "the government" that benefits from the destruction of religion and social feelings and from the promotion of mindless consumerism. Most people have become docile, but most people do not depend on "the government" for survival and I can't imagine where you get that idea from.

Yes, government and corporations have an unholy alliance. It don't think it's all tied up in "the Fed" but much more broadly intertwined. If I were to make an argument against our government it would be this:

We live by laws and rules. These laws are generally enforced by arms and punishment. Once a group or person (it could be a monarchy, a high priest, or a corporation) controls those laws it has just acquired all of the force needed to benefit itself. Back in "the old day" when the greatest force was the spear, it would be relatively difficult to enslave a very large number of resistant people. But now that the greatest force includes WMD, it's possible to enslave entire nations by fear. Insofar as government wields that force it is complicit in subjugating a population. However, the impetus today (as I see it) doesn't come from "the government" because "the government" itself is working at the behest of the corporations. The real power lies with the multinationals.

As long as any politician points to "the government" as the source of the problem without looking at the power behind the throne, then IMHO that politician has not addressed the totality of the problem.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 13, 2007 8:39 AM

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Pirated from Ron Paul's myspace account......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If I find out that he voted against the personal bankruptcy bill, the DMCA, and several other onerous corporate assaults on fair law, then I'll consider him.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:39 PM

SIGNYM - I'm so sorry to hear about the brain surgery, no matter how "small" it was. I hope your SO pulls through it okay. I spent so much time in hospitals for my brother when I was a kid that it was like a second home for me there for a while. His was massive brain trauma and it took years for him to recover, and though he'll never be 100%, it's not outwardly noticable with the casual eye and he will be able to take care of himself without Government aid. A blood vessel in his head popped and the blood was squishing his brain inside his skull, causing him to suffer multiple strokes at 6 years old. He was 10 minutes away from death when the doctors operated on him. There's know way of knowing for sure, but my father believes that my mother's bulemia may have been part of the problem. He was born nearly 3 months premature.

Now, about Ron Paul, you and Fredgiblet bring up some valid points and I would like to address and discuss them when I have more time myself. I will be looking into Ron's views on the Bankruptcy bill and the DCMA. Everything that I've ever read about him would lead me to believe that he's 100% against both of them.

FREDGIBLET - Like I said, you have some good points... I'll get to them later this week.

KANEMAN - Thanks for summing up those talking points. I just really can't see how any other Repug could win the primaries. It's very exciting, to say the least. Maybe there will be enough Repug support behind him to prevent Socialists/Communists such as Hillary or Obama to sit at the throne in 2008. And maybe he'll be able to bring back at least a sliver of respect for the Repugs, by the people.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 13, 2007 6:46 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

Oh people, just put on your high heels and boufant wig and fight it out.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

That Sylar, he's so hot right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 14, 2007 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I just really can't see how any other Repug could win the primaries.

Does he appeal to the Religious Right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 14, 2007 10:38 AM

I don't see why not. He does seem to separate religion from politics a little more than Bush....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

And I love this little ditty on Hate crime laws...

"Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."

I mean I could be in a lot of trouble.........Well, I don't really give a shit....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 14, 2007 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I don't see why not. He does seem to separate religion from politics a little more than Bush....

That would seem to make him lose support from the RR...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 14, 2007 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I don't see why not. He does seem to separate religion from politics a little more than Bush....

That would seem to make him lose support from the RR...

I think the consensus of the GOP is that they have to go back to their roots......small gov....and freedom.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 14, 2007 3:55 PM