Ron Paul - Help Wanted by SevenPercent

I support him Seven. Can I be on your 'loon list'? :)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:42 PM

I don't know if you think I'm rational but here goes, I think he's a decent choice who has the right idea but maybe takes things too far. However his more radical ideas probably wouldn't get past Congress so I'm not worried about that too much. All in all I wouldn't feel bad about voting for him but I don't know if hes going to be the best choice yet (and I won't until it's down to the final two) but I certainly don't think he'll be a bad choice given the people who we already know are going to be running.

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Can I be on your 'loon list'? :)

No. You can't be on the loon list. Sorry Sarge, but I have to put my foot down on this one.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:56 PM

PENGUIN

“Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.” Gore Vidal

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:07 PM

LEADB

There's a wikipedia entry (no idea how biased it is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
reads a little too much like campaign literature for me to be sure it is not biased (on the flip side, it's at least -good- campaign literature).

Its too early to say I'm 'for' him; been a life long democrat when it comes to presidential vote casting; but I must admit he'd tempt me. The main thing I'd like to see is exactly what he wants to cut. I probably have too much bias toward some form of universal health care to end up voting for him; but put the wrong democrat up against him, I could see voting for him.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:20 PM

Okay Seven. I think I'm somewhat qualified to answer your questions. I've not followed Ron Paul's career especially closely, but I've been in and out of the Libertarian party for years. And that's the first thing you need to understand about Ron Paul. He's a Libertarian in Republican clothing.

I think that's great, but it's likely to present some scary issues to many folks. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll hit on all the scary stuff that'll possibly make him unelectable in the end.

Libertarians believe in minimal government. They mean it. Ulitimately they'd pare government down to the bare essentials (defense and basic laws preventing violence and theft). What the bare essentials are is debatable, and not even all Libertarians agree where that line should be drawn, but they hope to push the pendulum a good distance in the other direction.

In short, they believe the government has no business interfering with anyone unless they are harming or threatening another. This simple notion is applied to pretty much every political issue a Libertarian considers. They are against 'victimless' crimes and most regulation. They're against drug laws and laws pertaining to consensual sex.

These issues will be used by Democrats and Republicans to scare middling voters away. Scaring people has proven a very effective, and spectacularly easy, way to manipulate the American public. You can bet they'll turn it up to eleven if push comes to shove.

I've read and thought a fair amount about politics and libertarianism, to me, is by far the sanest and most rational of the various philosophies of government. It's not perfect, but it's not nearly as scary as they'd have people believe. Democrats will try to convince you that we're cold-hearted social Darwinists, and Republicans will tell you we're hedonists. Neither of those is the case.

Lastly, while libertarianism is remarkably consistent as a political philosophy, there are a few issues that don't fit nicely into the basic framework. One of those issues, abortion, happens to be where I disagree with Dr. Paul (actually a majority of the Libertarian party does as well, but there is a sizable pro-life contingent).

His views on abortion are roughly thus: He believes it is wrong - it's initiation of force against a person (unborn). But he doesn't think think it should be a federal issue - only states have the right to pass such laws.

I disagree with him fairly strongly on this. In my opinion, aborting may be, in the strictest sense 'murder'. But in this case, the cure is worse than the crime. If the only way a law can be enforced is to annex a woman's body, effectively making her public property, then that's a bad law.

But as president he'd actually have very little say on this issue, by his own reckoning of constitutional law. He's specifically against federal mandates to the states and he's made very clear it should never be a federal issue. So I've convinced myself it's a moot point.

Well, those are the scariest positions I can think of. There may be others that seem benign to me, and not so much to your ear, but I can't think of anything else that would cause you grave concern.

EDIT to add: Applied thoroughly and consistently, libertarian ideology implies some pretty radical changes to the make up of our federal government. If they had their druthers, in the long run Libertarians would abolish the IRS and many other government bureaucracies. They'd get rid of the Department of Homeland Security. They'd dismantle perhaps two-thirds of the federal government, eliminating many institutions that most people now see as synonymous with government.

Of course, none of this would ever happen without a massive shift in the public's preferences, regardless of who is elected.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:43 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Liberal Playboy Pajama-Party Jew Bill Maher LOVES Ron Paul, as did the ENTIRE audience, who gave Dr Paul a long standing ovation last week:

Quote:

VIDEO: Ron Paul On Real Time With Bill Maher (05/25/07)

VIDEO: Bill Maher stands up for Ron Paul
www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52096/

Jew Ben Afflack also clapped for Dr Paul.

But Dr Paul is pulling his punches re 9/11 (trying to keep the CIA assassins at bay), and Paul wants a criminal investigation into the 9/11 Massacres, which would result in the arrest of Mafia mayor Ghouliani and the Bushes, who led the attack, with zero Muslim "hijackers", just like Pentagon's declassified Operation Northwoods.
www.piratenews.org/911con.html
www.september911surprise.com

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:26 PM

PN, you should reconsider Giuliani. I think he's truly your candidate!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:56 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:

"Ron Paul is my new hero. What is so sad to me is this guy is saying truth, and they're treating him as a crazy person."
-Bill Maher

VIDEO: www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52096/

As for the hero worship of Rotton Reagan:

Quote:

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."
-President Ronald Reagan

When Reagan said that on live TV, my job for Uncle Scam was loading nukes targeted at US troops and allies in Western Europe.

As for Ghouliani Knight of the British Empire:

Quote:

"Mayor Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who won notice for 'pursuing' the Mafia — had relatives linked to organized crime, including a mobbed-up cousin who was gunned down by FBI agents in 1977, a new book says. Lewis D'Avanzo, a son of the mayor's uncle and a guest at Giuliani's first wedding in 1968, was a 'ruthless and widely feared mob associate' who headed a massive stolen car ring, according to FBI documents and interviews detailed in Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, by Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett. Due in stores next week, the book sketches a largely unflattering portrait of the clan, depicting his father, Harold, as a hothead and the "muscle" behind a brother-in-law's loansharking operation, run out of a Brooklyn bar. Along with cracking heads, it says the mayor's father served time in state prison for a stickup, rarely held an on-the-books job and once was a gunman in a mob shootout in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. According to the book, Giuliani's cousin Lewis D'Avanzo was known as "Steve the Blond" and listed as armed and dangerous in FBI bulletins. His criminal record included a 10-year federal sentence for the armed hijacking of a truck loaded with $240,000 worth of mercury. The book alleges that he was suspected of taking part in several murders. D'Avanzo was gunned down by the FBI in October 1977, when he tried to run down an agent after being stopped on a warrant that accused him and two associates of transporting 100 stolen luxury cars. Quoting an unnamed friend of D'Avanzo, the book describes a 1962 shootout pitting a local mobster against the mayor's father and Leo D'Avanzo, Lewis D'Avanzo's father. The book says Leo was later sanctioned by mob bosses for shooting at a Mafia member. Leo D'Avanzo, who was known in family circles as a black sheep, ran loansharking and gambling operations out of a Brooklyn bar where Giuliani's father worked as a bartender. In his role as debt collector, his father 'broke legs, smashed kneecaps, crunched noses.' Joan Ellen D'Avanzo, a cousin who at one time lived with Giuliani when he was a youngster, became a drug addict who was beaten to death in 1973 at age 34. Her cause of death was listed as undetermined, but several family members said she was murdered."
—Michael R. Blood, New York Daily News, "Rudy's Kin Tied to Mob", July 06, 2000

"The father he celebrated so often was a pathological predator. His extended family harbored a junkie, a crooked cop and a murky mob wing. He dissolved his first marriage with a lie so he could appear Catholic when he remarried. The very personal jewelry his first wife found in her bedroom wasn't hers...."
—Wayne Barrett, Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Guiliani, "All in the Family: Crooks, Cops and a Junkie" (co-author of City for Sale)

Donald Trump sucks Rudy's tits

NYC TV News: Ghouliani ambushed by 9/11 Truthers
http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=112179

Queen Rudy's private company bombed London on 7/7, which is why the German queen of England knighted him. He's also helping the king of Spain annex all highways in Texas, for the www.SPP.gov Trans Texas Corridor for Mexico to Canada, as part of the British Commonwealth.

"You can't stop the signal! But if you make me wear a dress it'll kill me."
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:15 PM

Quote:
sevenpercent- But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like).

you know sevenpercent, im actually a little hurt by that comment... although i havent narrowed down whether im the "idiot", "nuts", or the "douchebag"(but ill assume theyre in order).

in our defense, Ron Paul finally vindicates the arguments we've made that their IS an agenda for a global government, and that it is being coordinated by the central banks. i mentioned the illegality of the federal reserve, and the IRS many times, and a lot of people around here outright dismissed my comments as absurd... but now that Ron Paul is speaking out, maybe these subjects will be taken seriously. us "conspiracy theorists" have had concerns about national ID cards, and abuses of the Patriot act and Military commissions act since 9/11, and we've only been criticized... but again, Ron Paul agrees with us 100%!!! so atleast ive been consistent, and im confident as time passes my stance will only be further justified

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, Seven, there's the rub...

You have straight-up conservatives that support him because he, unlike the neocons, is actually conservative, and respectful of the constitution in that he believes in limited government.

You have liberals that support him because he values and respects privacy, and plans to rein in and/or eliminate many of the government alphabet-agency shocktroops.

You have libertarians who support him because of the reasons Sarge stated.

Thing is, nobody likes the govt all up in their business, and nobody likes the taxman either, and Ron plans to take corrective action on both of those fronts.

I myself am an Anarchist, with heavy retro-antifederalist leanings, and am willing to support Ron Paul because I can acknowledge that americans in general desire an orderly structure, whether I agree or not - many hardcore Anarchic type would be annoyed with me for supposedly 'supporting the state machinery' but thing is, americans want that framework, and if someone took it down, they'd only put something even less viable back up in it's place, so I will take what I can get, you understand ?

Hell, I don't even have that much of an issue with taxes so long as they are reasonable, used for the public good, and above all, used efficiently - many of my arguments here have reflected this.

Above all, this is a man with tremendous credibility, and a history of putting his vote where his mouth is, thus earning him the title "Dr. No." from his fellow congressfolk.
So when he says he intends to do something, and something in keeping with the views and actions of his entire career - I am thus more inclined to believe him.

And many of the things he is planning to address are matters that piss off the *entire* political spectrum, from the staunchest conservatives, to the most radical liberals, so he has support amongst every single political community, I know I am not the only Anarchist who'd break form and drop a vote for him - hell I plan to do that even if I have to write it in.

Also, he has the knack for getting folks who don't necessarily agree with all of his intent to support him because he is willing to address OTHER concerns held by those folk, I know I do not necessarily agree with all his economic policies, but am willing to give them an honest shot as opposed to the ruinous ones we have now.

In essence, this is a guy who's addressing AMERICAS problems, not one party, not one PAC, not one foreign country who's mostly financing their campaign... but AMERICAS, yours, mine, his, hers... OUR people's problems, and dealing with them as an immediate priority.

And THAT message rings through loud and clear, causing americans in general to support him regardless of current political affiliations.

He plans to address MY problems, and unlike the others promising to do so, has enough history, reputation and credibility to make that claim solid, and thus, he gets my vote.

Simple enough ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:16 AM

EARLY

Some people worry that Paul is too radical for America but remember this, a President needs Congress to pass laws, and unlike Bush, clinton etc. Paul doesn't like Executive orders so he'll use them sparingly. Having a libertarianesque President will balance out the government when the Congress still remains big government, big spending etc. I agree with Gore Vidal in the above quote, but remember when you have a candidate like Paul, (or Gravel or Kucinich) you know he doesn't "want" to be President the same way the establishment candidates do or else he'd be willing to sell out his principles in order to get more votes. since Paul's voting record actually backs up what he says this is proven to not be the case. But my favorite thing about him is that he will vote against something he thinks is a good idea simply because its not constitutional. As SargeX mentioned his stand on abortion. He is very pro-life, but he will NOT try to federally outlaw abortion. people have given him crap because he voted against giving a medal to Rosa Parks, but what they forget is he votes against giving medals in general (though I don't think this includes military medals like the medal of honor which since the military is constitutionally federal he would consider constituional). you don't have to agree with every vote he makes just understand that our freedoms are in danger and we need a president who wants to stop that.
You asked for some links:
Some articles and speeches at LRC http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Ron paul 2008 http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Daily Paul http://www.dailypaul.com
Texas straight talk http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:18 AM

"But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like)."

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag. Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:00 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Now, I've seen Ron Paul on a few shows now, and I've kind of liked what the man had to say.

I'm a little underexposed to his entire platform, but I agree with you in that "I've kind of liked what the man had to say". He seems to refrain from the canned dribble that most politicians must say in order to not offend anyone. When RP was on Maher, he stated his opinions and backed them up with historical fact, and they made good sense to me. I kept waiting for the spew to start, and it didn't. You gotta love that! I can see why the Repubs feel threatened, and the dems. As for the media...he doesn't seem to have skeletons in his closet, and he isn't in favor of wars for them to cover night and day. Don't let the "he'll never win" and "he's too much of a crackpot" people sway you. They're just worried that they'll no longer be able to sell you what they're selling you now if RP were to become President.

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:30 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Paul has stated that he will run as an Independent... (one o'em in'penents..) and i beleive the odds are staked against him winning the Republican nomination....

i really like his, seemingly, honest approach and could support him if he runs as an Independent...

(sticker is on the jeep already...)

big edit... Paul stated that he will NOT run as an independent...

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:08 AM

He only says that he will not run as an independent, because he is seeking the repub nomination...If he doesn't get it and changes his mind...I'll forgive him.........

Sevenpercent

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:34 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

i gotta say Kaneman, that it's a little scary being in agreement with you on Paul.... but not so much that i would change my mind - (so do you really have a heart of gold.... and not coal as i have suspected..?)

the thing is - both parties are really the same - i learned that on May 24th when the Dems caved to Bush and voted for the supplemental funding bill... they had their chance to stand up and they failed - they failed everyone who wants to end the war in Iraq and they failed everyone who elected them last November to do just that...

i regret all the donations i have made to the DNC, DCCC and various congressmen seeking election or reelection... i have stopped supporting the Democratic cause competely... and have sent donations to Ron Paul's campaign... i have supported many failed canidates in the past so why change now..? Men like Paul are not made in the mold of many of the career politicians that have ruined our system of government (IMO)... and they never seem to get the support of the people who they want to help the most - it's all about the 30 or 60 second sound bite anymore - many folks make snap decisions on who they will vote for on the basis of these stupid talking points and not the real issues -

i hope, for the future of this country, that people will wake up and realize that if they choose either Republican or Democrat, they are asking for more of the same status quo of the past.

We need a viable third party in this county to counter the other two.

I hope Paul runs as an Independent. I will vote for him.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag. Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

I suspect that it's more the conspiracy theories then the religion (though the two overlap sometimes).

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag.

No. You pretty much fit trolling douchebag. This post is just another example.

Quote:
Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Degenerate? There's a good one, coming from someone who routinely posts gay sex fantasies in response to other people's posts on this board. If I was a degenerate, I'd probably be tagged as, oh, I dunno, offensive? But I havent been. Somebody else here has been though...wonder who that is?

Quote:
Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

I don't need help to decide about him, I want to know more about him from people who already have an opinion on him. I understand how google works, numbnuts; I want opinions and reasoning. I can easily track a voting record, it's a lot harder to track the why of the voting record. I'm looking for people in the area he's represented or for opinions of people who've followed his career over the years. I'm also tracking commentary on a number of other sites and places.

Unlike you, you festering, pustulent, pea-brained boil on the ass of humanity, I like to make informed decisions, not just read one link and make up my mind. I like to consider things for a while. It even took me two or three of your posts to decide you were an ignorant troll (shouldn't have taken me that long, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt).

Quote:
On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

Nice. Good imagination you have there. It's okay to come out of the closet, Kaneman.

Oh, and instead of replying to a second post of yours?

right back atcha.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:04 AM

Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories. His religion doesn't bother me in the least, though I've said in the past that his type of conspiratorical fundamentalism makes Christians like myself look bad by association.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag.

No. You pretty much fit trolling douchebag. This post is just another example. Now pickle licker....stay on topic.......

Quote:
Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Degenerate? There's a good one, coming from someone who routinely posts gay sex fantasies in response to other people's posts on this board. If I was a degenerate, I'd probably be tagged as, oh, I dunno, offensive? But I havent been. Somebody else here has been though...wonder who that is?

Quote:
Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

I don't need help to decide about him, I want to know more about him from people who already have an opinion on him. I understand how google works, numbnuts; I want opinions and reasoning. I can easily track a voting record, it's a lot harder to track the why of the voting record. I'm looking for people in the area he's represented or for opinions of people who've followed his career over the years. I'm also tracking commentary on a number of other sites and places.

Unlike you, you festering, pustulent, pea-brained boil on the ass of humanity, I like to make informed decisions, not just read one link and make up my mind. I like to consider things for a while. It even took me two or three of your posts to decide you were an ignorant troll (shouldn't have taken me that long, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt).

Quote:
On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

Nice. Good imagination you have there. It's okay to come out of the closet, Kaneman.

Oh, and instead of replying to a second post of yours? right back atcha.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

Sure. Like I start threads that wrongly list only three RP supporters and then call them idiots, trolls, and nut cases. Well, actually I would. However, you claim to not be the faggot troll that I think you are. And then you post this thread...What a tool. You are proving to be very similar to me...only difference is your gay-ness....

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:22 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

As a liberal, Ron Paul presents me with a true philosophical dilemma.

I like the man, because I think he is honest and has integrity, something most politicians on both stages could not say. He doesn't seem to shy away from saying something unpopular, whereas Obama and Clinton are masters at avoiding anything provocative, even when they know its the truth.

Granted, they both went on record as being against the recent democratic cave to Bush over timetables, but they would never say what Ron Paul was brave enough to say, because they know, or believe, that would end their bid for the Presidency.

They are classic examples of the political institution. It's not clear to me whether they even truly want change, or if they're really truly willing to fight for it. The status quo keeps them in power as courters of the middle. I'm not sure they even want to end the war in Iraq,

or whether the dissent they voiced in congress was because they knew it was safe, without actual effect beyond political pandering. After all, they know who's going to get blamed when things go even southerer in Iraq after an American pullout, so maybe they'd rather leave this disaster to Bush, even while people in the real world are dying because of their inaction.

But if Obama or Clinton were to beat out my favored choices, Edwards(not that he has nothing to answer for on this war), Kucinich, and hell, even Gravel, I would still vote for them over any Republican candidate, yes including Ron Paul.

This is a painful statement for me, because I want honest governorship. I don't know what it says about me frankly that I would choose less then genuine articles over Paul, but Ron Paul does scare me. He scares me because while he gets our problems with the Middle-East, and he gets that all Americans need health care(I assume this is not a job for the government), there's too much I think he doesn't get...there's too much at odds with my sense of the world. and of our nation’s problems.

First and most central to me is his seeming disconnect that assumes there is any difference between intrusive Federal Governments running people's lives or state governments doing so, or corporations for that matter.

Could any libertarian please step up and explain to me how Ron Paul's solution to some ailing Government programs is that they should be privatized is in-fact a good solution?

Haven't we been seeing way too much of that? Isn't there example enough of unregulated companies doing what they want when they want and giving us the bill? That's the problem I see right here. If he thinks our lives will be meddled with less in an unregulated world, he's forgotten shanty towns and black-lists, and now private contractors used in both Iraq and Katrina who are not regulated by any military code of justice.

Next, he seems to think that racism is something that will go away if we stop trying to address it. That neglects 200 years of our history dealing, and mostly not dealing, with this very real problem.

And last, he thinks that fetus's are human beings, and that States should be able to decide whether or not to allow abortions, which certainly isn’t liberal, and frankly isn't very libertarian. Why should states individually have the right to make laws that intrude upon the rights of the individual? He would argue that this isn't a "victimless crime" I suppose, but the science isn't on his side here as to whether a fetus is a person.

Here's my fundamental dilemma. Obama and Clinton say they mean to end the war. They very well could be lying to me. Ron Paul tells me he wants to let states have the rights over women's reproductive system. I believe him when he tells me this.

Half of what he says he’s going to do I disagree with. What recourse do I have when I vote somebody into office that does what he says he’s going to do?

Of course, its a fair question to pose to me, what recourse do you have when you vote somebody into office and they don't do what they say they are going to do? don't know exactly.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:47 AM

FLETCH2

He's an honest man who stands for his convictions, you don't have to agree with him to respect him.

I think his interpretation of Constitutional issues are pretty true to the framer's thoughts on the matter. I understand that he doesnt like fudging constitutional ussues or either judicial rewrites or SCOTUS being asleep and letting bad laws go unchallenged.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the Constitution strictly interpreted in a 200 year old context would actually work very well. There are a lot of "actors" in place that simply didn't exist in the 1780's including multinational corporations, companies treated as people and changes to the rules of usary that could infringe on practical personal liberty in the absence of a strong government.

One thing is true though and that is that we need more guys like him.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Sure. Like I start threads that wrongly list only three RP supporters and then call them idiots, trolls, and nut cases.

At the time I looked at it, you three were the only three that had posted to the original RP thread. I didn't know Sarge had until he told me he had. This thread was asking for those who may support him that may not have participated in that thread simply because you and PN had infested it. Of the three of you, I actually think Antimason may be a nice guy, I may have been overreacting to the evolution thread in his case. If he wants you to be his defender, let him say it; frankly, I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Quote:
Well, actually I would. However, you claim to not be the faggot troll that I think you are.

I'm not the one that has "tagged as offensive" next to my name. And really, I don't give a damn if you think I'm a troll or not, and I doubt very seriously if anyone else cares either. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find more than a handful of your own sockpuppets that didn't think you were the biggest fungus on this board.

You contribute nothing but insults, you have disdain for everyone here (or else you wouldn't have called this "just a sci-fi website"), and you've never acted like a respectable member of the community. I can tell you right now that if I ran this board, I'd have outright banned your ass months ago.

Quote:
And then you post this thread...What a tool. You are proving to be very similar to me...only difference is your gay-ness....

Damn right I posted it, and from those folks besides you that have posted I'm seeing some serious respect for RP, which says a lot to me about the man (you wouldn't know anything about respect though, since you can't earn any). And the homophobia? Seriously, it's 3rd grade (right where I expect your intellect to be), and it's making you look like a closet case.

Only when my IQ drops 50 points, my manners go out the door, and my knuckles start dragging the ground will we ever even remotely have anything in common...

...well it's true.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:05 AM

Well said. Now go vote for Ron Paul, my little sockpuppet.....well, it's true........

"You contribute nothing but insults, you have disdain for everyone here (or else you wouldn't have called this "just a sci-fi website"), and you've never acted like a respectable member of the community.' - seven

Blah.........

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:06 AM

Quote:
posted by sevenpercent- Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories.

i dont think its a character flaw to be open minded to scientists who disagree with atheistic evolution.. IMO its no different then the global warming debate, how all dissent is squashed out by the vested money interests of academia(to protect the status quo). im not a scientist by nature... but as a christian, the bible makes the point that

Quote:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

, so i am looking through a different lense perhaps then you are.

Quote:
His religion doesn't bother me in the least, though I've said in the past that his type of conspiratorical fundamentalism makes Christians like myself look bad by association.

why? 1/3 of the bible is prophecy, and a great deal of it refers to the "day of the Lord", or the end of the age. it is certainly relevant as a christian to promote the return of Jesus to people.. and one way to do that is to be vigilant of the signs, and to interpret prophecy.. just as Jesus' example in the parable of the fig tree. a global government is NOT a conspiracy(as even RON PAUL admits), and IT IS spoken about in prophecy, so in that regard i am not ashamed to speculate and attempt to recognize the signs of the times. if you doubt that there is a luciferian, or occult element in this New World Order agenda, research the doctrines of freemasonry yourself. this is stuff all christians need to consider

you may believe that fundementalists like me make 'christians' look bad, but i disagree. if youll notice, its a lot of mainstream christians who have endorsed this muslim jihadist concept that theyre all trying to murder us to establish a muslim caliphate.. and thats HARDLY supported by biblical scriptures. rather, its the WESTERN nations that make up the final government.. so us conspiracy oriented christians are more accurate. besides, christianity needs to have believers who accept the bible as the true word of God, otherwise the part about God creating the world in 6 days(and resting on the 7th) would have been completely ommitted from doctrine by now, aswell as other uncomfortable scriptures(such as the fallen angles)

as for Ron Paul, hes not only a confessed protestant, but hes also very open to a lot of this subject matter, as any google search will reveal. so you can consider it to all to be crazy, but atleast allow some leeway for alternative opinion, because the mainstream isnt always accurate

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by sevenpercent- Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories.

i dont think its a character flaw to be open minded to scientists who disagree with atheistic evolution

Evolution is not atheistic, evolution is non-theistic. Evolution makes no statement on the existence, or lack thereof, of a god. Most religions have no problem with evolution, it just requires a slight adjustment of the way the holy texts are interpreted.

Quote:
IMO its no different then the global warming debate, how all dissent is squashed out by the vested money interests of academia(to protect the status quo).

I assume you are talking about ID? ID is ignored and rebuffed by scientists because it is not scientific, not out of a desire to protect the status quo. In fact if anyone could come up with a major revision or disproof to evolution they would become instant celebrities. The problem is that ID advocates have never done any actual science, they just repeat rebutted arguments against evolution and whine about how they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. As I said in kaneman's thread, if ID advocates were willing to do real science instead of just trying to discredit evolution then they would be accepted, they aren't willing to do that so they aren't accepted.

ID is a political and religious movement that has never been interested in science, thus scientists see no reason to take then seriously.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:35 AM

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet- I assume you are talking about ID? ID is ignored and rebuffed by scientists because it is not scientific, not out of a desire to protect the status quo. In fact if anyone could come up with a major revision or disproof to evolution they would become instant celebrities. The problem is that ID advocates have never done any actual science, they just repeat rebutted arguments against evolution and whine about how they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. As I said in kaneman's thread, if ID advocates were willing to do real science instead of just trying to discredit evolution then they would be accepted, they aren't willing to do that so they aren't accepted.

i dont want to sidetrack this discussion any further, since i was only making a point- but i still have to disagree. through your eyes, there is no real science behind ID.. but if there IS a Creator, what evidence would you look for to indicate this? for all we know the signs could be clear as day, we just dont know what to look for

Quote:
ID is a political and religious movement that has never been interested in science, thus scientists see no reason to take then seriously.

if you dont think evolution is used for political reasons too, then your being naive. sometime i will explain what secular idealogy has done to the foundations of our society(which is dependent on rights granted by a transcendant being)

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I've read and thought a fair amount about politics and libertarianism, to me, is by far the sanest and most rational of the various philosophies of government. Democrats will try to convince you that we're cold-hearted social Darwinists, and Republicans will tell you we're hedonists. Neither of those is the case.

exactly.. although, i cringe when referring to the the current crop of marxists and trotskyites as democrats and conservatives. we know the hardcore neo cons/liberals have completely abandoned any semblance of rationality that once existed in their platforms(and taken a lot of people with them). i especially appreciate Ron Paul exposing his critics, particularly within his party, for their own heresy, and neglect of constitutional principles

Quote:
I disagree with him fairly strongly on this. In my opinion, aborting may be, in the strictest sense 'murder'. But in this case, the cure is worse than the crime. If the only way a law can be enforced is to annex a woman's body, effectively making her public property, then that's a bad law.

ive struggled with this also. ive always felt that you cannot have a civil 'right', without a corresponding responsibility, and that government should protect the moral high ground on these issues. this concept fits well with alcohol or gun rights, but as a standard hasnt been applied uniformly anymore, and now certain drug, and other laws contradict that principle(unjustly IMO). anyway, i wonder where abortion truly fits in with this, because i agree that it is murder. the "right" to murder negates the responseability of preserving life. Ron Paul himself said that "i strongly believe that if you cant protect life, how can you protect liberty?" which if we agree, is fundamental to the rule of law. it seems to be in line with the constitution, i just wonder if society, in its effort to redefine traditional values, has lost the virtue to end this perpetual cycle, absent some established agreements, like that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.

but i agree with your assessment of congressman Paul, since strictly upholding the original intent is a prerequisite to trimming the fat and inconstancy in policy. im someone who believes that as much as society has/and continues to change, human beings have not, and that we possess within ourselves the ability to have a 21st century society within the bounds of the constitution

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:13 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like).

I didn't make this list?

"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 31, 2007 1:48 AM

LEADB

Jack, just scrolled thru the list; no where have you posted that you support RP; thus it would be silly for him to put you on that particular list. So, do you or don't you?

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Jack, just scrolled thru the list; no where have you posted that you support RP; thus it would be silly for him to put you on that particular list. So, do you or don't you?

Just so this is perfectly clear, again (and thanks leadb for the assist here), when I posted this thread, the last time I had checked the "RP Quotes" thread Kaneman had posted 4 or 5 times, Antimason twice, and PN once. Only when Sarge pointed out that he had posted did I see that a couple others had added their names to that thread, because after that initial list of names I didnt go back to check it again. If you support RP and werent't in that trainwreck of a thread, I'd like to hear your opinion.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I didn't make this list?

Do you really want to?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I dunno, maybe you missed the original thread, Seven - but it was me, who originally started trumpeting the fact that RP signed for a presidential exploratory.

And a lotta folk threw in right after, imma see if I can necromance the thread for ya.

And Six ? he didn't say "Asshole" and "Wackjob", so I figure you and I weren't included.

I'm a bad, bad little man, yes.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

EDIT - Actually it was CTS who posted the original topic, stand by for necromancy!
MOLARAM, SALARAM, HUH, HUH!

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:41 AM

EARLY

[

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

First and most central to me is his seeming disconnect that assumes there is any difference between intrusive Federal Governments running people's lives or state governments doing so, or corporations for that matter.

I partially agree and so does Paul. he doesn't want state governments running our lives any more than the feds, but when he talks about the federal and state questions he's looking at it from a constitutional stance. The good thing about federalism is that people can live in a state that fits more to their view of the world. For example, if you hate guns you can live in a state that has strict gun control etc. But you must realize that everyone doesn't feel the same way you do so why force all 50 states to follow the same exact rules. But Paul doesn't want the states to run our lives he just believes, and the constitution backs him up, that a large number of decisions should be left to the states. But these decisions still can't violate the constitution particularly section 5 of the 14th amendment which the Sup. Ct. has ruled guarantees the same basic rights as under the Federal constitution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Could any libertarian please step up and explain to me how Ron Paul's solution to some ailing Government programs is that they should be privatized is in-fact a good solution?

This is hard because it takes a certain mindset to agree to it, and one that I don't think you have.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Haven't we been seeing way too much of that? Isn't there example enough of unregulated companies doing what they want when they want and giving us the bill? That's the problem I see right here. If he thinks our lives will be meddled with less in an unregulated world, he's forgotten shanty towns and black-lists, and now private contractors used in both Iraq and Katrina who are not regulated by any military code of justice.

first you need to understand that Paul wants to get rid of corporate welfare. our country has merged corporations with the state in a way that approaches the fascist model. No better example of this can be found than Enron and Haliburton. The NSA gave Enron almost half a billion dollars to build a power plant in India. The plant failed because the cheap oil that was expected to be flowing from the Caspian sea region couldn't get there due to the instability in Afghanistan through which the pipeline was to be built (this was pre-911, during the Clinton years). This pipeline was so important to Enron, Haliburton and Union Oil of California that they tried to get the US to back the Taliban in the civil war to bring stability to the region. it almost worked to. (Bill Richardson even met with the Taliban, something that was technically illegal) That is way too much influence for corporations to have, and that’s the type of "evil corporations" that the left is always screaming about. So it seems that the corporations run our lives now. But Paul wants the corporations out of bed with the government, and does not want them running our lives. When the government stops giving money to corporations and stops no-bid contracts etc. the corporations will actually shrink and their influence will be less, not more. One example he likes to talk about is currency regulation. The Federal Reserve (Fed) prints more money causing inflation. then the banks that run the Fed. invest the money before it has been devalued. By the time we get the money it has been devalued. The Fed is private, and Paul wants to get rid of it, so he is not wanting corporations to run our lives as you seem to think. When he talks about privatizing he wants the market to work certain things out, like wages for example. There is also issues with programs that have no business belonging to the Federal government, such as education. And you have to realize that if the feds didn’t tax us so much to pay for everything under the sun then the states could get more to pay for education etc. and not have to get money from the feds. The system has evolved to make the states completely dependant on the federal government.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Next, he seems to think that racism is something that will go away if we stop trying to address it. That neglects 200 years of our history dealing, and mostly not dealing, with this very real problem.

I agree with him on that. If people didn’t constantly talk about race, maybe we would stop thinking about it all the time. The 200 years you speak of was different because our society has now evolved to be pretty much color blind. That was not true even 20 years ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

And last, he thinks that fetus's are human beings, and that States should be able to decide whether or not to allow abortions, which certainly isn’t liberal, and frankly isn't very libertarian. Why should states individually have the right to make laws that intrude upon the rights of the individual? He would argue that this isn't a "victimless crime" I suppose, but the science isn't on his side here as to whether a fetus is a person.

No its not liberal, and Paul has never claimed to be a liberal. It is also not libertarian by many people’s definitions of libertarianism, but Paul has never claimed to be the picture perfect libertarian either. The point here though, is that here’s a man who is pro-life, but does not want the Federal government to outlaw abortion. That demonstrates better than anything just how honestly he’ll follow the Constitution. And states should have the right to make those laws because of the 10th Amendment. It all revolves around the perspective of when life begins (I’m pro-choice by the way). So if you think a fetus is a baby then yeah the state should be able to make a law to ban abortion and if you think its not then the state shouldn’t. That’s where the beauty of federalism lies. You can live in a state that supports your view. But don’t try to force your view on everyone in America.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Half of what he says he’s going to do I disagree with. What recourse do I have when I vote somebody into office that does what he says he’s going to do?

Since the Presidency has evolved into the very powerful executive that it has I can see why you made this error. But remember that Paul wants to bring the power of the Presidency back down to fit with the constitution. Meaning he realizes that he can’t pass a law without Congress. Electing Paul to the Presidency won’t change the fact that Congress will disagree with him on may issues. What this will do is bring balance back to our government. Trust me, as much as it sucks, electing Paul would not transform the US into a libertarian society. But it will reduce the power of the presidency, keep us from picking fights all around the world, and reduce spending to more manageable levels. The country is running out of money fighting all these wars, giving money away to other countries and corporations, and trying to support and regulate everything. If we don’t reign in the spending we’re going to be in deep trouble in 10 years. I haven’t heard anyone else talking about that.

www.RonPaul2008.com

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:02 AM

EARLY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the Constitution strictly interpreted in a 200 year old context would actually work very well. There are a lot of "actors" in place that simply didn't exist in the 1780's including multinational corporations, companies treated as people and changes to the rules of usary that could infringe on practical personal liberty in the absence of a strong government.

Then amend the constitution. Thats exactly why the framers made amendments possible. But if you don't follow the constitution then there is no reason to have one.

www.RonPaul2008.com

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:17 AM

"But remember that Paul wants to bring the power of the Presidency back down to fit with the constitution. Meaning he realizes that he can’t pass a law without Congress."

Another reason he is getting my vote....Oh, Seven

Love always kaneman

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:53 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Jack, just scrolled thru the list; no where have you posted that you support RP; thus it would be silly for him to put you on that particular list. So, do you or don't you?

Not on this thread, but here is evidence of Jack's support for RP.
http://www.fireflyfan.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=28565

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I dunno, maybe you missed the original thread, Seven - but it was me, who originally started trumpeting the fact that RP signed for a presidential exploratory.

And a lotta folk threw in right after, imma see if I can necromance the thread for ya.

I did miss that; please do the necromancy that you do so well.

Thanks in advance,
7%

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Done - actually that thread is referencing an even older one that's below the archive threshold, cause I know I was discussing him before he even thought of running.

-F

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I didn't make this list?

i know... well, you can always criticize evolution, that rubs people the wrong way.(or if you really want to tip the boat, become a Creationist). that.. and find a way to squeeze something about freemasonry or the NWO into every post, then youre sure to make the list next time

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

Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

LOL... I just read this post Antimason and I had to respond quick. I think I did do a fair job of critisizing Evolution, or at least questioning the rediculous belief that Evolution is somehow more valid than a belief in God (or vice versa) since both take a leap of faith, or bringing up the question of why couldn't both have happened hand in hand. I was there for all of that.

I'm also no fan of Illuminated Freemasonry or the inevitable New World Order either, but what are you going to do?

I'm kind of disappointed I didn't make this list. Maybe I'm better at standing on the brink of insanity without coming off as a complete wack job than I give myself credit for.

To those who enquired, I do plan on responding to other posts and offering my thoughts on Ron Paul when time permits.

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

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Seven,

I support Ron Paul. I consider myself a left libertarian, concerned about social and environmental issues, but wanting to use govt solutions as a last resort.

Govt is force. Force is expedient, but oppressive. Freedom loving folks look for alternatives to force, which sometimes are more complicated and less convenient and less effective. But in the long run, these less oppressive alternatives allow for the technological and creative growth that underlies economic supremacy. Our country's forefathers had the prescience to institute the least oppressive govt there was, at the expense of the comforts in Europe--which resulted in the long run in our developing the technologies and arts that resulted in our being a superpower today.

Think Firefly. Life in the outer planets is dangerous and onerous compared to living on a comfortable Alliance controlled central planet. But some people prefer freedom to comfort and security.

This is the "heart" of the libertarian philosophy. The libertarian utopia isn't going to be better, not right away. In fact, it would be harsher. But libertarians believe it is right to be free, and in the long run, freedom does and will yield concrete economic and social benefits over force.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
...or bringing up the question of why couldn't both have happened hand in hand.

It's called theistic evolution, it's the belief that most people who accept evolution have, the only people who have a problem with it are people like Dawkins who have a problem with religion itself.

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:49 AM

I don't have a problem with religion, but I do have a problem with people who try to equate a 'belief' in evolution with a belief in religion - trying to say they are equally questions of faith. It's actually demeaning to the religious concept. In religion, faith is the idea of believing in something regardless of it's provability or evidence. 'Believing' in evolution (or any theory of science) is of a completely different character than believing in a god. It seems like mudding this distinction is a clear goal of the ID movement. Why?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It seems like mudding this distinction is a clear goal of the ID movement. Why?

The goal of the ID movement is to replace science with religion (specifically fundamentalist Christianity), particularly in schools. They can't do this legitimately because teaching religion violates the First Amendment and because evolution is founded on good science and is pretty damn solid. So without any legitimate means to attack evolution they go about it by spreading misinformation (to the point of blatantly lying quite frequently), and attempting to muddy the issue.

Muddying the issue makes it easier to convince people that they are being persecuted or unjustly ignored when neither is true. They attempt to paint science as something that is believed in the religious sense because then it makes scientists the bad guys since they are too wrapped up in their religious belief in science to accept ID, when the reality is that ID fails as science and isn't needed, so no reputable scientists want to waste their time on it. Painting acceptance of evolution as a religious belief was a tactic that has been tried before (not sure if they're still using it) in an attempt to get evolution removed from schools for being religious, which is patently absurd.

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:35 PM

i disagree Fred- we dont want to replace science with religion. we want science to stick with what it can prove. IMHO, you cannot prove that man ever came from a primordial stew millions of years ago. thats my objection.. i agree 100% with microevolution, its not debatable.. but macro evolution and abiogenesis have not been proven sufficiently for the claims being made by scientists. thats my only objection, when science leaves proven theory and extends into stating hypothesis as fact.

also, i dont believe teaching Creation violates the first amendment.. i believe it protects our right to teach it. government cannot endorse any particular belief, but it cannot prohibit the excercise either.. and up until the scopes trial, the bible was allowed in schools, and existed along side proven science JUST fine. as AMericans, we will never preserve our constitutional republic if we continue to publicaly deny the theology which was an essential backdrop to our founding.

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Painting acceptance of evolution as a religious belief was a tactic that has been tried before (not sure if they're still using it) in an attempt to get evolution removed from schools for being religious, which is patently absurd.

what is a religious belief? its a worldview! what is evolution? its a worldview! its a view of mans origins, therefore it is incredibly significant to ones mindset, and how the world is viewed. the founders were certainly of the opinion that you could not protect liberties without the belief in a transcendant Creator which endows every man with inalienable rights. i would argue that the atheistic evolution view, or the secular concept of the world, is detrimental to the security of our republics ideals, and is fair game to scrutinize as a worldview

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 1:32 PM