Ron Paul - Help Wanted by SevenPercent

Me, I gots a real simple policy on this.

Keep yer "God" outta my life, and I keep my boot outta yer arse, that work for ya ?

Believe what you will, allow me to do likewise.
Simple, really.

-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

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:55 PM

Quote:
Sergeantx- This is the kind of equivocation I'm talking about. Sure, they're both worldviews. They're also both words. But they're fundamentally different words. The element of faith celebrated in christianity and most other religions makes them distinctly different from science where the goal is to understand things, as much as possible, without faith.

thats the "goal", certainly... but people are by nature imperfect, and not all scientists can keep their own personal bias' seperate from their work. i believe thats true a lot of the time.. as you can tell with "global warming" or any other controversial subject(including abortion). IDs platform is that IT should be obvious that an intelligence crafted the universe, since we probably didnt coincidentally appear in this perfect place(in the solar system), with relatively utopic conditions, and an abundance of emotions intelligences and experiences. could i be wrong? certainly.. i bet the universe has an abundance of life.. but i cant prove that. thats not science.. thats speculation.

what im hearing from people is "you can believe in God, but dont you think, or even attempt to prove it, cause God doesnt exist, and its impossible"! believe me, thats the message. well maybe the evidence has been there all along, and we just didnt know, or refused to see what was there in front of us. in light of some pretty interesting, but especially credible historical evidence, the ID view seems more likely then what i consider to be beyond chance or odds or mathematical randomness that anything even exists AT ALL

Quote:
The faith of religious belief is something above and beyond what can be proven with science.

says you though. NOBODY knows that for sure. look i know youre a smart guy, 'cause i agree with you a majority of the time ;). but that takes complete material and immaterial understanding of the universe to know that

Quote:
Why would you want to cheapen it by saying it's no different than faith in a theory.

i dont, by any means.. i feel it is cheapened when it pawns off unproven theories as incontrovertible fact. can we be honost about that, that even findings change and theories are disproven over time? i think many people are not as open as they should be about this, considering the positions they take

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

The First Amendment prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government, teaching a religion in public schools is the government promoting a religion.

until as recently as the 1960s, we still had bible study and prayer in schools. it wasnt curriculum, it was being practiced freely, as the first amendment grants. but a series of secular activists in the supreme court have since taken that right away. its just when the government is prohibiting 'religion', then its ok, 'cause thats where religion belongs, 'behind close doors where no one can see or hear you'. regarding the first amendment, we should accept that the pilgrims were escaping religious persecution from the catholic church, and that many of the ideas that motivated colonial society were attributed to protestant reformationist theology. thats why we have a bill of rights and constitution, because we actually had moral and ethical standards, and absolutes, that we believed were divinely granted to each person, as a sovereign being. the abortion debate is a perfect example: the sanctity of human life means nothing if we cannot establish absolutes. if we are no more then animals, then the law of the jungle prevails, and we are entitled to nothing.

Quote:
The only way around it is to teach all religions which would take an enormous amount of time away from actually learning useful things.

except that America was a christian nation from its founding, that was the backdrop of colonial AMerica that inspired the constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independance. having ignored this, we've lost all national identity, and have likewise completely neglected our founding principles. we now want to go back and remove that influence, and attempt to purge any remaining influence from public life.. and then wonder where are our collective morality went?

Quote:
People tried repeatedly to confirm the stories of the Bible using science, they all failed.

archeological evidence constantly confirms the bibles accuracy. as far as our origins, you cant prove that we came from apes, any more then i can that God created us UNIQUELY among his creatures(but actually, i think the circumstantial evidence is in my favor)

Quote:
The evolution side isn't the people making a religious problem out of this, there are plenty of people who accept evolution and believe in the Bible, it's the religious people who say the two are incompatible.

IDers and Creationist agree with evolution, we disagree on the extent to which it operates. we DONT believe that it is the sole force in the universe, that in essence non living matter spun life, and created itself.

Quote:
Explanation please? At what point is religion necessary to the continuance of the government?

im not advocating a "religion", as much as a worldview that includes transcendant laws established by a higher power. as far as our constitutional republic, the reason for this is clear as day. take a look at the democratic party: they have no platform, because they do not have a uniform set of principles. as an atheist, what DO you believe? what IS your moral code? its completely relative to your own personal opinion! a republic cannot exist without established standards, but more specifically rights granted to the individual by his Creator. if we're just a couple steps above a primate, good luck convincing other men to grant you what God believes your entitled to. take a look at secular societies through history, you dont own land, you dont own your money, you dont own shit! a perfect example is the 2nd amendment, which doesnt exist in other countries because they dont believe you have the right to defend yourself! if its not pretty clear already, ill be sure to elaborate again sometime

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:09 PM

Quote:
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 call whiffs of BS on that one.

Our founding fathers were mostly diests and athetists, with a passionate skepticism if not outright derision for religion.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed?"
John Adams

“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”
Ethan Allen

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
Ben Franklin

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
James Madison

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Thomas Jefferson

That one being may favored quote there, and I will deliberately refrain from quoting Thomas Paine because he was rather less tolerant of it.

You'll also note that their concept was more 'natures god' or 'whatever you believe created you' than a any specific deity.

The basic premise of the Founders was more that you could not protect liberties without SEPERATING religion from the process utterly, and yet they still found a way to respect and allow it in any form without promoting or forbidding it - an utterly neutral expression that to this very DAY, in the form of this thread even, has proven to be a wise and solid bulwark against the attempts to advance a theological agenda on this country.

Believe you me kiddo, be thankful for the way it is, cause if my beliefs rode to the top and were state sponsored, I'd be bringin back the lions, because it strikes me as a whole that when the state is willing to sponsor christians, they're all for it, but when it dares even *respect* the beliefs of a non-christian, they're all hell and fire for a stricter enforcement - and you can not have it both ways.

That single point, btw, fully convinces me that AS A WHOLE (individually I can and will make an individual assessment) and AS A BELIEF... Christians, no matter how they cloak it, want the scepter of power in order to scourge the world of us heathen unbelievers, making them dangerous lunatics this world is better off without.

For that reason I will not discuss ID/Evo with em, and the next time you decide to arrogantly decide for yourself what our founding fathers thought and said, why don't you do a little homework and see for yourself - they respected religion, a good bit of em, but they damned sure didn't want it anywhere NEAR their Government, and folks like you are why.

And if you wanna thread about this, go make one instead of derailing a useful one damn you.
(pun intended

)

-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

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:19 PM

i love it... i can find just as many quotes from christians, like George Washington or John Adams or James Madison. but we can pretend like christianity wasnt the predominant belief in the region, thatll really advance this discussion. besides, most of the diests were prescribed Freemasons, which IS a religion, and does recognize a higher power. most of their objections were to the Catholic church, who as everyone knows, especially John Wycliff and Martin Luther, that it was the 'beast' on earth

*"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."

John Adams

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:23 PM

i wonder why Ron Pauls a christian?(or any of the other pro-constitutional republicans for that matter?) someone should ask him that

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:38 PM

ok... but Deism is still a belief in a God! its still not atheism! that is highly significant. just read about why Karl Marx became an atheist, Lenin said "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." do you know why that is??

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

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:00 PM

Learn to read.

Quote:
they respected religion, a good bit of em, but they damned sure didn't want it anywhere NEAR their Government, and folks like you are why.

Also Diesm includes, quite specifically.. "I don't know" as effective Diesm because it involves the personal search for, and resolution of, those questions and answers without regard to an established religion.

Frankly, your coming off as exactly the kind of psycho that I take most christans for once the phony mask of tolerance and understanding slips, showing the iron-fisted dogma underneath, and thus I do not think this conversation and topic are productive in any way and will end it here.

-F

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:37 AM

Quote:
FremDFirma- Also Diesm includes, quite specifically.. "I don't know" as effective Diesm because it involves the personal search for, and resolution of, those questions and answers without regard to an established religion.

ok.. but lets concede, thats still not atheism. i think its quite insulting as an American to listen to people deny our heritage like has been done by secular revisionist historians

Quote:
Frankly, your coming off as exactly the kind of psycho that I take most christans for once the phony mask of tolerance and understanding slips, showing the iron-fisted dogma underneath, and thus I do not think this conversation and tpic are productive in any way and will end it here.

and now its time to attack the messenger. well i could say the same for you Frem. it seems like splitting hairs to me when people go to such lengths to deny any christian influence among our founders, only to claim they were "deists". its just a complete misunderstanding of the circumstances. and youre not acknowledging the POINT, which is the neccessity for a higher power, with specifically defined moral absolutes. check out the definition of atheism, it has no set standards of ideals. the founders understood this, and fashioned our government around established theistic/deistic principles, regardless of the peoples attempts to marginalize(and undermine) this bit of truth

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ok... but Deism is still a belief in a God! its still not atheism! that is highly significant. just read about why Karl Marx became an atheist, Lenin said "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." do you know why that is??

True, but what you neglect is that most folks that are 'deist' or even Christian who don't have a severe fundamentalist, 'need to literally interpret the bible' don't really have a problem with the teaching of evolution, etc. They recognize that science is nothing more than attempt to explain natural order (quite possibly established by God). They have no need to pretend that science is a religion, or mince words like 'world view'. ID, as a wedge method, is not science, it's a device to get religion into school. And not just any religion, but Christianity. And not just any particular form of Christianity, but a very Fundamentalist, literal bible interpretation perspective.

I went to Catholic Schools for 8 years, including High School when science tends to hit on the "Darwin stuff". They really managed to not so much as cross their eyes on these topics that have you in such a bind. Do not even pretend to speak for all Christians. And speaking for Diests, I'd have to laugh at you being a spokes person. Again, one simple step is all it takes, 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.' To me, that is -all- science is doing; the more accurate it becomes, the better it serves its purpose. There is -nothing- about science that denies the -existence- of God. Your stating otherwise is simply a matter of your opinion.

====
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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i think its quite insulting as an American to listen to people deny our heritage like has been done by secular revisionist historians

Fair enough, but this can be reversed as well. The founders of our nation were free-thinking, enlightenment philosophers who sought to create a government that refrained from endorsing religion in general, much less any particular brand. It's fair to say that most of the people coming to America at the time were christians, so naturally you're going to see a lot of that influence. But the founders deliberately created a government free from any particular religious influence. It's just as insulting to hear religious revisionist historians try to pretend that the radicals who started our country were good christian boys.

Regardless, the alliance between the two - free thinkers and fundamentalist christians - was crucial to the make up of our nation. The combination is central to our greatest strengths (and weaknesses). The goal that they shared was religious freedom. The freedom to worship in any way we choose, and the freedom to openly question religion as well.

It's interesting that the two groups I mention above - free thinkers and fundamentalists - make up two of the most enthusiastic camps in the libertarian cause - which is the beauty of staying out of each others business. We CAN live together, each holding radically different beliefs. It's when we forget that it's about the freedom that things become a problem.

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm 150% for Ron Paul 45% of the time. But I wonder how he views the role of government in protecting individuals from corporatism? I know that our government has leaned very heavily towards supporting corporations and withrawing those privileges would be a refreshing change, but at this point the corps are so internationalized that establishing some "balance of power" may require a more active stance that "lack of support for".

Comments?

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

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:02 AM

Ron Paul is very much opposed to corporate welfare. Moreover, he sees our interventionist foreign policy as a direct outgrowth of corporate control over our government. We're out there fighting wars to protect the foreign markets of our corporations.

The problem you'll have with his POV will be similar to the disagreements we've had over the years. He sees the usual liberal approach to the problem as naive and counterproductive - in much the same way that they neo-cons approach to terrorism is naive and counterproductive.

Government regulation as a means to control corporate abuses usually follows the same path. A group of experts are brought together and rules are hashed out that will, presumably, protect the interests of the public while allowing companies to do their necessary work. The problem with this is that the process of creating these rules is intensely political. That can't be avoided. And the vested interests in a given business will be sure to influence that process in a way that benefits them, often in a way that reduces competition from upstart companies as well.

Anyway, you'll find plenty about Ron Paul that you won't like. There are several things about him I'm less than enthused about, but politicians are always a package deal. The one thing you will get is a very clear picture of his ideology. He doesn't formulate opinions based on polls and public whim and he's not for sale. That makes him unique as a politician in my book.

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:08 AM

O, right. Ron Paul.

I have to agree, it's a concern for me. The company I work for just shifted 6 jobs from Canada to India; and another 8 from the US to India.** I'm one of the few US workers left in my department. And these are good paying jobs which require a college degree. On the flip side, if you are going to let companies simply "start anew" in a foreign country and compete for the work my company is now doing (computer services), what choices do the companies have? Not sure what sort of 'protection' you can put in place that will help the workers and not cause problems for companies that ultimately are forced to compete with foreign providers? Anyone happen to know where Dr. Paul is on this one?

**Edit: Clarification; the company moved a ton more jobs than that, I was just referring to those in my dept. as I don't have figures 'over all'.

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 9:04 AM

Quote:
posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'

we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?

Quote:
To me, that is -all- science is doing; the more accurate it becomes, the better it serves its purpose. There is -nothing- about science that denies the -existence- of God. Your stating otherwise is simply a matter of your opinion.

I, never said otherwise. i think you are referring to some others around here who have made that claim

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:00 AM

Antimason,
I would like to leave this thread for the RP folk to discuss RP; I think we have cleanly broken from that topic. I've opened a thread here and invite you to join me there:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29034

(and anyone else wishing to air a position, as well)

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

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:00 PM

FREDGIBLET

@mason

I'm replying to your post here in the other thread.

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

Sunday, June 3, 2007 6:29 AM

This web site seems interesting; and a direct link to Ron Paul's 'review' there:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Reading thru this and other sites, my guess is he would tend to not take much action regarding trying to retain jobs in the US; I believe he would indicate that a 'free market' is the best overall long term economic approach.

And while I'm posting, from Ron Paul's site:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/Issues_fx.html

====
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, June 5, 2007 4:33 AM

This video clip sums RP up in 8min.

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Reading thru this and other sites, my guess is he would tend to not take much action regarding trying to retain jobs in the US; I believe he would indicate that a 'free market' is the best overall long term economic approach.

That's true as a principle, but the key issue here is how much we indirectly subsidize corps moving offshore - specifically through our foreign policy which fights to protect corporate interests in other countries. I'm pretty sure RP's point of view would be that if companies want to take advantage of the lower labor costs (or whatever else entices them) from moving offshore, they'd better be willing to take their lumps if the country nationalizes their holdings. We certainly shouldn't ask our soldiers to die for corporate profits.

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, June 5, 2007 5:56 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

“Here comes the Bandwagon…” it’s so much fun, everyone wants a place on it… until the wheels fall off and then no one wants to help push….

It pays to do your homework – I have to admit that I saw in Dr. Paul, an honest and reasonable man who seemed to have answers to the questions I was asking… until I found a few things that seem to have been swept under a rug in a dark corner of the closet…

Some informative reading on Dr. Paul - as well as links to further information can be found here:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html
(a liberal blog, sure, but information that cannot be disputed..)

example:

Quote:
Through the 90s, Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.

plenty more where that came from…

Now, I have no doubt that some of you here, hell, maybe a lot of you, will have no problems with this stuff….. me, well let’s just say that I may be looking for the wagon to slow down a bit so I can jump off…

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
Now, I have no doubt that some of you here, hell, maybe a lot of you, will have no problems with this stuff….. me, well let’s just say that I may be looking for the wagon to slow down a bit so I can jump off…

Yup... that'll happen. The libertarian ideology doesn't have wide appeal in this country. Not yet anyway. But I do think a lot of people are beginning to see the dangers of big, centralized government, especially in the excesses of the Bush administration. The Democrats no doubt think this is merely a problem of leadership. Some of us think there are serious problems in the basic concept of strong centralized government.

One thing though. I don't think it's accurate to call his ideology 'far-right'. In many ways it's more liberal than most of the Democratic platform.

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, June 5, 2007 7:50 AM

The reason some of those kooks like RP so much is the same reason anyone else does - he doesn't wanna legislate what they think, feel or believe.

Sure, you think they're kooks and racists, hell, so do I - but the underlying REASON most of them folk like him, is that unlike most do-gooder politicians, RP draws the line at one's ACTIONS, rather than attempting to invasively make other peoples decisions for them.

Just because some people you do not like support him, does not mean he supports them or their agenda, it only means THEY like him, and often for reasons that have jack damn all to do with their ideology.

You don't see me baggin on the guy because christians support him, do ya ?

That's cause he respects their right to believe as they wish, AND mine to believe as *I* wish, in spite of the fact that we may disagree with each other over it.

He also votes his duty even when he does not necessarily agree with the concept, for which I personally, have tremendous respect for the man - he does the right thing even when it costs him something.

-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

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 11:51 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Just because some people you do not like support him, does not mean he supports them or their agenda, it only means THEY like him, and often for reasons that have jack damn all to do with their ideology.

Frem, you make some valid points. Of course I don’t write off Dr. Paul simply because I do not agree with some of his supporters. Even though that support comes from people like David Duke, Larry Pratt and Pete Peters (leader of Christian Identity, a white supremacist organization). However it certainly concerns me that Paul does very little to distance himself from these types, and concerns me even more to think that they may hold some influence on his political leanings.

I refuse to believe that my own political ideology could even remotely cross paths with groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens, John Birch Society or any neo-Nazi, white supremacist organization. And if this is the base that Paul hopes to pander to, I cannot support his candidacy.

“Speaking Truth to Power” is the popular catch phrase being so over-used these days, but I’ll admit that when I hear someone go against the grain of the current administration or their ineffectual opposition (the Dems), I pay attention to that speaker – Ron Paul has done something that few candidates are willing to do, he has become the anti-candidate – someone neither party wants to acknowledge and indeed may be just a little afraid of… Paul’s campaign is effective because it connects with a group of citizens, including myself, who feel that the two major parties have failed this country. His straightforward message seems to ring true. But until he addresses his past ties to the above-mentioned groups and his intentions regarding their political aspirations, I will remain skeptical.

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
But until he addresses his past ties to the above-mentioned groups and his intentions regarding their political aspirations, I will remain skeptical.

What ties are you talking about? As far as I know (and as far as I can google), Ron Paul has exactly nothing to do with David Duke. Where are you getting this info? Neo-Nazi???

Edit to add:

There was a really good op-ed piece done back before the 2004 election that focused on the growing divide between (for lack of better words) conservatives and liberals. The interesting bit was how the article traced the roots of the divergence back to the early periods of settling the country. The currently political divide breaks roughly along that original divergence between puritan pilgrims and political revolutionaries.

Interestingly, what made it work for so long was the commitment to freedom shared by both groups. As long as 'live-and-let-live' is held above other concerns, we're able to get along in a pluralistic society. But that ethic has been fading for some time now. Your reluctance to support someone you agree with, merely because people you disagree with also support him, is indicative of the polarization we're living through.

I think Ron Paul's ability to draw from such a wide range of people is a strength. His message is one that recalls the 'live-and-let-live' ethic that served us well for a very long time. I think a lot of people are beginning to realize that freedom for you and yours depends on your willingness to grant that freedom to others, even those you don't like or agree with.

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, June 5, 2007 1:01 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
Even though that support comes from people like David Duke, Larry Pratt and Pete Peters (leader of Christian Identity, a white supremacist organization). However it certainly concerns me that Paul does very little to distance himself.

Dead......it's not like RP has Skinheads going door to door campaigning for him. He can't help it if idiots and wackos like what he says, when something makes plain sense to everybody, wackos will like it too. And to take the time to "distance" himself from them only calls more attention to it. Thats what his oponents would like. I'm dissapointed that you would fall into the discrediting RP rhetoric. RP is the only one NOT spewing electioneering BS!!!! I knew it had to start sooner or later I guess........No offense Dead, I quit smoking 4 days ago and I'm testy.

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:09 PM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Serge & Mal… anyone else offended by my post – the material I found about Dr. Paul came from a liberal blog, namely Orcinus, here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html and at first I took at as just a left wing smear, but after following some of the links I was able to access some pretty ugly, hard core white supremacist web sites.

Another Liberal blog, DailyKos has a series of stories on Paul.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

I don’t know who the hell phenery is (not a Ron Paul fan for sure), and I am not a regular visitor to Kos, but going through the material and following links provided, is disturbing, at least to me – and look I don’t like this any more than you guys – I would like for Dr. Paul to be the real deal, a good guy we could support, and for many of you he may be, all I’m saying is we need to be careful who we put our trust in before learning as many facts as we can about him. We’ve had one major fuck up in Washington long enough; I just hate to make that mistake again.

I am not going to judge Paul on these accounts alone. I will do what I can to disprove phenry’s attack on Dr. Paul, but the more you dig the dirtier you get.

Don’t shoot the messenger – and Mal, good luck with kicking… you can do it.

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:25 PM

I'd read the newsletter quotes from the eighties that had racially questionable comments and they don't set well with me. Dr. Paul has addressed those and made clear that he is no way a racist. Take that as you will. I'm still hopeful about the guy. Regardless of other mis-steps that may come to light, his political philosophy is the one our country is most in need of. And it's far, far closer to my idea of righteous government than anyone else we've heard from.

As far as the rest of the insinuations, they seem to be only that. Dr. Paul can't prevent David Duke or far-right Christians from liking his message. The fact that such a wide variety of people do appreciate what he's saying - from left wing peace activists, to right wing fundamentalists - speaks to the universality of his politics.

OH, and I wasn't offended by your post at all. Thanks for commenting!

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, June 5, 2007 6:33 PM

Frankly, I would say skepticism of anyone running for office is both justified and wise, and RP would likely tell you exactly the same thing.. the primary check against politicians running over the will of the people, as it were.

Remain skeptical and never fear to question, it's our failure as a people to do that, which got us into this mess.

Unilateral unthinking support is idiotic.

-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, June 6, 2007 6:03 AM

ron paul for prez..........

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

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:27 AM

Osamas'own words Ron Paul is correct........

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

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 8:30 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
Don’t shoot the messenger – and Mal, good luck with kicking… you can do it.

Hah! That's not Mal anymore! Thanks for the support Dead

Thanks for clearing that up a bit Dead...At any rate...We will have to expect the political electioneering machines to start turning up the heat soon for all candidates. Oh it's coming! They can't sling thier turds too soon, or they'll be standing there closer to election time without a turd unflung, when turd flinging is at it's best, but not before the end when polticians are more easilly forgiven for turd covered heads

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

Friday, June 8, 2007 3:28 AM

CANTTAKESKY

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/07/the-ron-paul-‘phenom’/
#comments

The Ron Paul "Phenom" reported by CNN

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

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

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:28 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/07/the-ron-paul-‘phenom’/
#comments

The Ron Paul "Phenom" reported by CNN

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

should be

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/08/

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:42 PM

love this one.......

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"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.............

Just bumping so the troll(sevenpercent...this whole thread was an attack on myself, PN, and anti..this tool could care less about RP) gets to read the all time favorite amongst Kman fans.........Thanks for the e-mails..........

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:29 PM

SEVENPERCENT

And here I was deciding just to ignore you after all this summer. Good thing I clicked on this, now I have something to do, you half-witted, basement-dwelling, closet-living jerk-off.

Don't worry about bumping this one up, I'll go ahead and attack you in all the other threads too.

Oh, and when your mommy grounds you for using her computer to write nasty messages on the internet, tell her my dog says hello.

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

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:41 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Thanks for the e-mails..........

Yeah, all the emails.

"Kaneman - You rock. Love, Kaneman"

"Kaneman - You're the greatest. Keep it up. Your friend, Kaneman."

"Kaneman - That was a great joke that nobody laughed at but us. You're the funniest ever. Truly, Kaneman."

"K-Man. Keep it real. Just like always. Your biggest fan, Kaneman."

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

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:08 PM

Hey Seven, here's a vid of RP on the Colbert Report if you're still interested.

http://thedailyreel.com/spotlight/tv/archive/2007/06/14/ron-paul-on-th
e-colbert-report

Kaneman?

How is it you think you can be a rude dick to people whenever you feel like it and then make a pretense at righteous indignation whenever you get some of it back? I've got nothing against you but hey, if you don't like it, don't fling it.

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007 7:12 PM

hey thanks, i hadnt seen that one yet.

i am doing my best, as with all other RP supporters, to stay current and continue to spread the message and persuade support. im continuously enamoured with his arguments, i respect his premise of the rule of law, the constitution and divine rights, and he is very knowledgeable about anything ideologically in conflict with them. does anyone around here not support RP? if so, why, and who DO you agree with?

this movement is building momentum, and according to Alex Jones 'we have them running scared'. i hope thats true, since i do not want a NWO, but my fear is that a government sponsored terror event, around the elections(way worse then 9/11), will be orchestrated to freighten the public back into this 'war on terror', perpetual warfare mentality. obviously a lot of important issues are present, like this amnesty bill that their trying to force on us, an Iranian war, etc, that this seems like a worst case scenario. but it really depends on how complicit the government was in 9/11, and whether this truly is a battle for liberty and freedom(which i believe it is). i think some people around might agree with me, but who knows..

also, what democrat should we put up against Paul? hypothetically.. to gain our objective, if even by default

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

Friday, June 15, 2007 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...also, what democrat should we put up against Paul? hypothetically.. to gain our objective, if even by default

I'd like to see Gravel for the Democrats and Paul for the Republicans. It'd be nice to see a real liberal go toe-to-toe with a real conservative.

If we get the more likely lame-ass choice of Guiliani vs. Clinton, I'll just vote Libertarian - or not at all. I hate wasting my vote.

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 15, 2007 3:43 AM

I wouldn't mind seeing both on a split ticket, myself.

As for the other, like my grandpappy used to say, there's no way to leave a poop throwin contest without stinky hands... I hope they make themselves out to be the morons I know they are, Ghouliani's already made great strides in that respect, as has McCain... loved that fast 180 he made on Iraq when the AIPAC money started flowing into his campaign coffers... *grumble*

-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

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

You are like a puppet on strings....tampon strings.

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

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:54 AM

"How is it you think you can be a rude dick to people whenever you feel like it and then make a pretense at righteous indignation whenever you get some of it back? I've got nothing against you but hey, if you don't like it, don't fling it."

Sarg,
No pretense at righteous indignation. I just like to get that nutter all fired up. She's like puddy in my hands. Or just a pud I guess. And her threats are Hilarious. So, whenever I get bored I call her like my pet....

"Here seven seven seven...here girl."

Like a good little girl, she always comes running....

*KICK*

Well, you asked..........

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 5:05 AM

Paul on NPR 6-21-07 Part 1 of 8

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 4:19 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Fuck Iowa.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/20/111439.php

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

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

Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:20 PM