Who is for Ron Paul and Why? by Wulfenstar

I intend to vote for him even if I have to write him in, and imma Anarchist.

A - He believes in Constitutional Compliance.

Meanin the Gov needs to actually OBEY the Constitution instead of distorting it's meaning or ignoring it to justify almost anything...

Being as that is my MINIMUM level of tolerance for Government, he's prettymuch it, as far as potential candidates go.

B - He does what he says.

Ron puts his vote where his mouth is, none of this mealy-mouthed doubletalk, he votes in strict accordance with the US Constitution 98.5% of the time, and he will vote "NO" on anything that isn't Constitutional even if he is the ONLY one on the hill voting that way.

In fact, they call him "Doctor No." up on the hill for that very reason.

When the man says he'll do something, he'll damn well TRY - and since most of what he wants to do is in absolute accord with what *I* want, he has my support.

-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

Monday, February 4, 2008 1:28 PM

FLETCH2

I can't vote for him, but I believe him to be honest, which is rare enough in a politician to be worth supporting. Don't agree with him on a whole lot of things but admire the fact that he believes in something and backs what he says with what he does. He's had my respect on that basis alone for many years.

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

Monday, February 4, 2008 2:06 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

I think the federal government has gotten too big. We've sacrificed too many personal liberties for my taste. So, I'm supporting Paul because he's a libertarian. I trust him to do or try to do what he says he will.

I agree about the drop to 80%.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

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

Monday, February 4, 2008 2:21 PM

ANTIMASON

Sargeant you dont leave much else to be said.. thats a pretty fair summation. although i personally would go as far as to say that im almost in complete argreement with him, especially where it counts(anti-NWO)

i checked out some of Rons interviews from 1988, and you just have to admire someone who can remain consistent and principled for so long. hes a breathe of fresh air, amidst his competitors like Romney and McCain who change positions by the election cycles..

but most of all, finally, we so called 'conspiracy theorists' have a voice, and one that lends validity to arguments that we have been adamant about for a long time. where are all the 'loony' accusations about the Fed, or the NAU now?? Ron broke through the elite/media barrier, so i see this as our chance to restore our country before we pass the point of no return(if we arent their already).

what amazes me the most though are the hypocrisies coming out of the the republican party. to shun a libertarian the equivalent of a constitutional prophet really says a lot about where their 'money is', and its not where their 'mouthes' are. at the end of the day, the wealthy are too apathetic and complacent to see that the middle class IS being wiped out, and tinkering around the edges of the current (illegal) system isnt going to work. thats why this election is pivotal, because this country cannot stand 4 more years of spending and deficits, before we have an outright revolution.

i see the RP campaign as our non-violent attempt at change, and by that i mean constituional 'restoration'. if we get a socialist like Obama or a psuedo-con like Mitt, then things may get ugly

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

Monday, February 4, 2008 4:04 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Just wondering where he stands on things....heard some garbage that he doesn't believe in evolution...is this true?

Still not as scary (IMO) as this gem from 2003:

Quote:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God [what?!], would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

And, for somebody who likes the Constitution so much, he's really against Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (add the colon back at the end or the links don't take you anywhere):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.j.res.00046:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.j.res.00046:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.42:

Even if libertarianism was something I thought would work in America at the present time (I'm all for small goverment, just not that small), Ron Paul strikes me as an odd character.

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

Monday, February 4, 2008 6:04 PM

SERGEANTX

Well, I guess if it's a choice between someone who doesn't accept evolution and someone who thinks we should kill for the oil companies, I'll choose the former.

Seriously, he may be an 'odd character' (honesty is particularly 'odd' by Washington standards), but he's not a power-hungry liar and that's a lot more important to me.

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, February 5, 2008 2:59 AM

FLATTOP

Ron Paul may not be 'quite right', but that beats the 'completely wrong' proposed by the rest of the candidates.

----------
Remember to vote! http://www.usbmicro.com/misc

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

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

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 3:30 AM

CHAPTERANDVERSE

Wow. a political discussion that is even-handed and informative. I had begun to believe it impossible. Hats off to you all.

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I intend to vote for him even if I have to write him in, and imma Anarchist.

A - He believes in Constitutional Compliance.

Meanin the Gov needs to actually OBEY the Constitution instead of distorting it's meaning or ignoring it to justify almost anything...

Being as that is my MINIMUM level of tolerance for Government, he's prettymuch it, as far as potential candidates go.

B - He does what he says.

Ron puts his vote where his mouth is, none of this mealy-mouthed doubletalk, he votes in strict accordance with the US Constitution 98.5% of the time, and he will vote "NO" on anything that isn't Constitutional even if he is the ONLY one on the hill voting that way.

In fact, they call him "Doctor No." up on the hill for that very reason.

When the man says he'll do something, he'll damn well TRY - and since most of what he wants to do is in absolute accord with what *I* want, he has my support.

-Frem

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

Heyo Frem!
I'm new here, and I've never posted on the RWED, and didn't really expect to be doing so, or atleast not this soon.
I only say this because I don't know the dynamics of discussion here, or everyone's comfort level with being put on the spot.
That said, your post post sparked my interest, and I was curious about a few things.
First, I noticed your "anarchist propaganda minister" title, then I noticed your the proud exclamation of being an anarchist.
It being established that you are an anarchist, I can't help but wonder how you can support Ron Paul.
I'm gonna slide right over the denied racism and homophobia right off the bat, I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt for discussion sake. The thing that shocked me the most, and I was a bit disturbed to see it, was how you are using the platform of being an anarchist to influence other people's vote.
Voting establishes the relationship of power a democracy has over its people. A democratic election is no different than any other form of government control.
Whether it be a dictatorship, monarchy, republic, or any other form of government, the result is the same. We as a people are, once again, offering up the control of our lives to be controlled by a few, instead of fighting to get that control back.
The reason why most anarchists choose not to vote is because voting is the ceremony in which that atrocity takes place.
That is why I found it difficult to understand using your anarchist label toward encouraging others to vote for anyone, let alone Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a double-edged blade.
He is very seductive to those who are desperate to see revolution in their lifetime, those that believe someone FROM the government will save us from the mistakes OF the government, and those who prefer to take a step back a couple hundred years in terms of policy.
Ron Paul also is a strong supporter in free trade. In fact libertarian economics is one of the most irresponsible, and heartless, when it comes to offering the worker fair compensation for the contribution to nation and economy.
As for ending the war in Iraq, that's all great, however, with free trade, and minimal government regulation on corporations, including multi-national ones, I highly doubt that we wouldn't be driven to another economic war shortly thereafter.
That may be a bit of a stretch for most to make, so even if you won't consider that, consider this.
Not only will the companies here be exploiting third world nations as they always have done, they will have all the opportunity in the world to exploit its domestic workers. How would you like to be working under the same terms as those who farm for border foods or mc donalds overseas do currently? A worker makes $50 for every 2 tons of tomatoes he or she picks. Not only that, but unions will be a thing of the past. All the struggles the labor and fair trade movements have made will be gone with one oath over a bible.
While Ron Paul may end the war over seas for America, there will be plenty of wars over seas for American corporations, as well as the war at home.

The only cost of the Ron Paul revolution is going to be the working class. As an anarchist I stand in solidarity with the working class, and would never trade them off for any type of revolution.

I hope you consider what I've said, and like I said, I don't know much how these threads tend to run, so I understand completely if you don't.
However, if you don't consider it, remember. The anarchists will be on the people's side of the barricades come the Republican National Convention on September 1 at St. Paul, and I guarantee you, there will be no anarchists with Ron Paul at the RNC, all the anarchists are gonna be on the streets, shutting it down.

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 8:23 AM

FREDGIBLET

Molotov:

The point Frem has made repeatedly is that despite the fact that he is an anarchist he intends to vote for Ron Paul because Paul is just that awesome. In short he's willing to buy into the system (even if just for a moment) in order to vote for Paul.

As for the generalized anarchist vs. government points, my take on it is this, if you don't think that we should have a government (i.e. you are an anarchist) then you should be voting more zealously then regular people for every candidate or law that reduces the size or impact of the government. Refusing to vote because it's part of the existing system merely ensures that your opinion on the matter won't count (though it probably won't count for much even if you do vote).

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 10:04 AM

EARLY

The Republicans were asked at the first debate who did not believe in evolution and Ron Paul did not raise his hand.

Anyway, he's a good guy that truly wants to help the country, not just his business friends and political contributors. He's been in DC for years but is hardly a Washington insider. And finally he actually votes the way he says he will. Honesty is a rare thing in a politician.

As far as abortion is concerned, why shouldn't it be a state issue? The beauty of the federal system is that you can move to a state that supports your views without leaving the protection and comfort of your home country and its Constitution. The more local the government the more intune with the wishes of the people. As the medical marijuana issue has demonstrated, politicians in DC do not understand what the people in California want. But at the same time certain protections, such as those in the Constitution, are universal to prevent the states from oppressing the people. The system is wonderful when actually used correctly, but unfortunately we don't.

www.RonPaul2008.com

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 10:15 AM

SERGEANTX

Welcome, Molotov. You should definitely post here more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Molotov:
I don't know the dynamics of discussion here, or everyone's comfort level with being put on the spot.

Around here, you're pretty much on the spot as soon as you dare to post.

I don't call myself an 'anarchist', but my sympathies are in that direction. I'd love to see a society that can live that way. But I think it would take a long time, likely many centuries, to develop the communal values that would sustain it. Until that happens, the biggest bullies on the block, and their friends, will be forming governments.

I can't speak for Frem, but I suspect he acknowledges that sad reality at some level. Libertarian society, on the other hand, isn't such a stretch. It's possible, though unlikely, that our nation will grow tired of mob rule and return to a constitutionally limited government. It might not be ideal, but it'd be a hell of a lot better than the free-for-all that we're currently slogging through.

Quote:
...minimal government regulation on corporations, including multi-national ones, I highly doubt that we wouldn't be driven to another economic war shortly thereafter.

I'll suggest that you're missing the point of 'free' markets. Corporate capitalism, especially as it currently operates, is an anathema to free trade. It establishes, through government decree, privileged entities that then use government regulation to further their own aims at our expense. The government and its military are the tools they use to dominate us.

It really doesn't matter whether it's the corporate world, or organized religion, or whatever - when you focus enough power in government there will be those who seek to manipulate it and use it to control others. It's the goal of libertarianism to make government as weak possible, and thus a less likely tool for corruption and greed.

Quote:
Not only will the companies here be exploiting third world nations as they always have done, they will have all the opportunity in the world to exploit its domestic workers.

Those companies don't have armies to enforce their will. You might point to token 'security forces', but the fact is, our own government and military are what make the kind of abuses you're concerned about possible. It's why we went to war in Iraq and has been the driving force behind most of the wars we've been involved in.

Ron Paul wants to dismantle the support system for the multinationals and return our troops to a mission of protecting our nation, not our corporation's overseas interests. He wants to dismantle the bureaucratic morass of government agencies that are inevitably overrun and controlled by corporate lobbyists. He wants to end the dependency established and encouraged by those who would control us.

Quote:
All the struggles the labor and fair trade movements have made will be gone with one oath over a bible.

These movements are inevitably unwitting support for the very thing that presume to be fighting. Look closely at every attempt to 'level the playing field' and you'll see wealthy, powerful people who are reaping its benefits - at the direct expense of the people they claim to protect.

Quote:
While Ron Paul may end the war over seas for America, there will be plenty of wars over seas for American corporations, as well as the war at home.

That's likely, but with a truly libertarian government, they'll be on their own. If they find benefit in taking advantage of poverty in third world countries, they'll be subject to the will of those nations. And when their factories get nationalized and they get run out of town, they will be wasting their time whining to our government about their 'unfair' treatment.

Quote:
As an anarchist I stand in solidarity with the working class, and would never trade them off for any type of revolution.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You're saying you're against reducing government power because you're an anarchist? Hmmm... I don't get it. Could you explain further?

Quote:
The anarchists will be on the people's side of the barricades come the Republican National Convention on September 1 at St. Paul, and I guarantee you, there will be no anarchists with Ron Paul at the RNC, all the anarchists are gonna be on the streets, shutting it down.

Except that they won't. Be shutting anything down, that is. Likely they'll just be getting beat up. That's why I prefer trying to undermine them from the inside. Ron Paul's approach seems more likely to make real progress toward changing the direction of things. Although we're all in for an uphill battle in that regard.

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 10:22 AM

EARLY

Molotov,

I'm confused. You're an anarchist who wants government regulation? Did I read that wrong? Please explain.

www.RonPaul2008.com

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 11:15 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
The anarchists will be on the people's side of the barricades come the Republican National Convention on September 1 at St. Paul, and I guarantee you, there will be no anarchists with Ron Paul at the RNC, all the anarchists are gonna be on the streets, shutting it down.

Except that they won't. Be shutting anything down, that is. Likely they'll just be getting beat up.

I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.

Quote:
That's why I prefer trying to undermine them from the inside. Ron Paul's approach seems more likely to make real progress toward changing the direction of things. Although we're all in for an uphill battle in that regard.

Indeed, if you want to impose change from the outside you are in for a long bloody fight, and to be quite honest the people arrayed against you are better organized, better armed and probably more numerous.

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 11:27 AM

Heh, Molotov...

It would depend on your perception of anarchy, and whether people in their hearts are generally good or bad - to understand my position.

I am a Kropotkinist-Anarchist, I believe that removing coercive government structures would not in any way destroy the social bonds that hold us together, it would simply be removing a middleman who has forced his way into our lives at gunpoint and intervenes in every way, skimming his own cut off of everything and pretending he's helping you, when he's actually harming and exploiting you for his own benefit.

I am also a realist, no, I don't believe in Government - however, since the american people at this time are too damn gutless and mentally co-dependant on their abuser, I have to work with what is available, and of all the potential candidates, Ron Paul is the only one wishing and willing to cut back Government intervention into our lives... eliminating it would be ideal, but cutting back on it is at least progress.

Manipulating a corrupt system you have not the current ability to destroy does not legitimize it, one is just using the tools available, even the other guys.

I play "rough" but I also play SMART - and I am willing to both vote for the man, AND push barricades over at the RNC to make a point if I have to, bend the ear or arm of politicians, and raise holy hell among the people when something unacceptably out of line is done.
(See Also: Genarlow Wilson)

Bob Jackson down at STR wrote two columns relative before I got to it, and he did a better job of it, so here.

When Voting Is Defensible
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/jackson/jackson1.html

The Reality of Self-Defense Voting
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/jackson/jackson2.html

It's like Judo, using the states own apparatus to befoul it - FremGirl actually votes tactically for candidates in a willful attempt to CAUSE gridlock and jam the gears.

The first logical step in moving towards an Anarchist or MinArchic society is improving the mental health and stability of the people in it by not demolishing their humanity, empathy and reason starting at the cradle - people as a whole are NOT mentally "ready" for such a sea change of things, it would be a total fregmekkin disaster.

Second step is CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE - start ramming the bloated monster back into it's own bounds and lock the damn doors.

Then perhaps taking the Anti-Federalists wise advice (being that they were almost universally correct in their assessment of the US Constitution as offered) and transition to a Confederation of Voluntary States, and so forth and so on.

I realize that is a process which will take decades, at least, but barring an all out total social and economic implosion and civil war which would be just as ruinous to all we mean to save as it would be to anything else, no other viable option currently presents itself.

As far as worker unity and solidarity, I am fully aware of our noble history dating back to the earliest age of industry here in america, and have commented and expounded on it here to a great degree, as well as being a member of the only union that isn't a corporate control system to better stifle and sabotage the working grunts.

http://www.iww.org/
Yes, I carry the red card - and yes, it scares the piss out of those bastard corpies.
(Heeeyyyy STARBUCKS!!

)

I understand where yer comin from, but sometimes you need to take the long view, survey the big picture, and do things that pay off heavy down the road even if you don't like the taste of em at the time.

And if you plan to aggressively assert your right to free assembly and free speech at the RNC - be damned well willing and prepared to ante your life and freedom and DO IT, instead of talking a good game and then running like a pansy when the riot clubs come out, reinforcing the message that oppression works for all to see like those morons did in Florida.

If yer gonna do that, just stay home.

-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, February 6, 2008 2:47 PM

Heh!
Great to see a wobbly Brown Coat(Yay, IWW)!
I've been doing some work recently with the MN chapter of IWW, and they are getting ready to march on the RNC this year as well. I'm excited to see a large worker march this year, and optimistic of the outcome (Minnesotans have been planning the RNC protest for the past 2 and a half years).
Thank you for explaining your post.
I understand your reasoning a bit better.
Though, being an Anti-Capitalist, and Anti-Fascist, I obviously disagree with the Ron Paul's free trade over fair trade stance.
I'm glad to hear your reasons, and it was refreshing to hear them.
Although I would expect you to be as critical of any candidate, as you are of the current power structure.

Now to address some other things I heard.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.

You mean as in "VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!11" spammed on any youtube video, news story comments, or just the internet in general?
I can not be responsible for your perception of anarchists.
Especially when it's clear the only perception you have on them as a whole is the one the profit run media has given you.
I encourage you to look in your city, I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find some excellent anarchist fueled institutions somewhere near you.
Maybe it's sustainable education, maybe it's a food not bombs (free food sharing), maybe it's a worker run co-op business. Anarchy isn't only about protesting.
Protests are just where we all get together.
Shut things down to open things up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
Molotov,

I'm confused. You're an anarchist who wants government regulation? Did I read that wrong? Please explain.

I don't want government, period.
If I'm going to have to put up with a government that protects companies, corporations, and they're property more than the people themselves, I would expect to see the people that are in the working force of America to stand up, and fight back to ensure the progress in labor, and fair trade, is upheld, and constantly reassessed.
That is what I'm trying to say.

SeargentX,
I notice you tend to have represented very libertarian views, and I encourage the discussion between anarchists and libertarians.
However Ron Paul isn't just a Libertarian, he's a conservative, capitalist, libertarian. There is a big difference, and a distinct danger when combining those three standings.
As for undermining from the inside, that's great, however doing it from the inside only gives you so many options. Plus I would hardly call voting for Ron Paul, undermining american government.
I encourage everyone to fight from the inside if that is the only level of resistance they are comfortable in doing. However that's exactly what fighting from the inside is. Comfortable. I don't doubt that you'd have a lot to lose if you were to be arrested and put on trial for direct action against the state, however some of us don't have as much to lose, or we empathize with them to the point where fighting from the inside becomes irresponsible.
The truth of the matter is, we are all in the same fight. We are fighting for the right to control our own lives. While you may have some control of it now, know that there are more and more that find themselves having less and less control of their destinies. Don't be surprised if one day you find yourself there, and if you ever do, I'll see you in the streets.
Rock on Brothers!
Speaking of brothers, where are all the sisters at?
Yin Yang brought up some great points that were pretty much just ignored. How do other women feel about Ron Paul? Most of the supporters I see are either conservative men fed up with the republican party, or male college "bros" and internet types that have gotten bonerific over this years election.
Or maybe this doesn't concern the males that support Ron Paul?

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 3:11 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Molotov:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.

You mean as in "VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!11" spammed on any youtube video, news story comments, or just the internet in general?

Actually, yes. But the more egregious examples are for instance your planned attempt to shut down the RNC, what will that accomplish? Nothing. Even if you manage to shut it down all you've done is deprived the Republicans of a night of mutual masturbation over how great they are, the party will still make the same decisions they would have made otherwise. The most you will do is mildly annoy the would-be attendees, get some cops some overtime pay and probably end up with a few thousand dollars worth of property destruction and a bunch of people spending the night in jail. You will not convince anyone of the value of your opinion and in fact will likely alienate the people whose support you need to see your goals realized.

Quote:
Anarchy isn't only about protesting.

Of course not, but the protests are what make the news and the protests are the most likely part to affect me and most of the population.

Quote:
Protests are just where we all get together.
Shut things down to open things up.

Shut things down to mildly annoy people and alienate them from your point of view you mean.

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Molotov:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.

You mean as in "VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!11" spammed on any youtube video, news story comments, or just the internet in general?

Actually, yes. But the more egregious examples are for instance your planned attempt to shut down the RNC, what will that accomplish? Nothing. Even if you manage to shut it down all you've done is deprived the Republicans of a night of mutual masturbation over how great they are, the party will still make the same decisions they would have made otherwise. The most you will do is mildly annoy the would-be attendees, get some cops some overtime pay and probably end up with a few thousand dollars worth of property destruction and a bunch of people spending the night in jail. You will not convince anyone of the value of your opinion and in fact will likely alienate the people whose support you need to see your goals realized.

As a Minnesotan, this protest is personal, we don't want them coming here, and we are protesting their ignorance to our requests on our own land.
Symbolism is part of it, but a small one.
Some of the largest efforts have been in talking with our communities, so we can respect them while fighting for them. As for why you haven't heard of those efforts, well, the media would never let you know we live along side law abiding citizens on a daily basis. Just know that locally we are supported in this action. Beyond that, our hopes are that we can protect our radical institutions and diverse neighborhoods, from the corporate gentrification and relocation that has been occurring recently.
There are real tactile goals attached to this protest, shutting it down is not the only one we have.

Quote:
Of course not, but the protests are what make the news and the protests are the most likely part to affect me and most of the population.

I wish I could say that the only thing that affects me is what makes the news, then the only thing I'd have to worry about is heath ledger dying. However, if you truly believe that this protest is meaningless, and anarchists are an annoyance and not a legitimate counter point, you have nothing to worry about.
Btw, big ups to the double speak in your posts.

Quote:

Shut things down to mildly annoy people and alienate them from your point of view you mean.

No, I meant exactly what I said. Do not try to mix my words to say what you want. Trivializing my thoughts only to fire back a completely opposite and neophyte point of view is a cheap tactic, and maintains the standing that you're here to dominate discussion, not participate.

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 7:07 PM

Oh God.....

I never watch the news when I'm off of work so I have no clue what happens. It's like a mini-vacation every week from your people's world.

I wake up tonight to go to work, and I can't find my car. I literally cannot find it. Is it stolen? No. It's buried in 16 inches of snow. 16 INCHES OF SNOW!!! So... I was a little late for work.

I can say from experience that global warming is bullshit. I'm going to use my A/C constantly this summer to do my part warming the planet.

And where the hell did McCain come from? Great. Just freakin' great. Globalist McCain vs Osamabama for 2008. Why don't we just give the country to China and Mexico now and get it over with?

I'm just going to move into my underground bunker. See you all in 50 years.

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

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 7:25 PM

Well, ya got heart kid, I'll give ya that...

Although you might be soon wishing you had taken Kittens advice, for we play rough here in RWED, although your Anarchic heart will jump for joy at the advisement that this board is almost wholly unmoderated - that does mean you're gonna catch the business end of a flamethrower if you haven't thought it through before posting, heh.

I might not wholly agree with Ron's positions on free trade, but I do know that if you remove corporate welfare, subsidies and gov-protection for exploitive monopolies, that'd be a start...

And if Ron's policy is to keep the Gov OUT of a Corp-Workers brawl, then it's down to the IWW to put the squeeze on those bastards, isn't it ?

The only reason Unions never got a square deal from the corpies was intervention by the Gov whenever the corpies were losing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

In spite of the revisionist-deletionist jerks trying to make it dissappear, using this list for research will show you that historically, every time Unionists had the edge, the Gov came down with both boots - and if Ron takes a hands-off policy on Corps that are not critical to our infrastructure, which I suspect he might, that's the go signal, and they'll never know what hit em till our demands are on the table.

While I am not in favor of direct action protests, the idea of begging permission to protest in some "free speech zone" five miles away in the basement of a parking garage is ludicrous to the whole concept - and if when enforcing your own right to free speech and assembly you are attacked by jackboots of the state, I would say you've every right to stand and deliver, although I would draw the line at deliberate property damage, if at all possible.

I also will state that playing hardball on that field DOES work, it worked in Seattle and sent a very clear message to the WTO that they and their ruinous operations were unwanted in that town.

Conversely, attempts to play "nice" in Florida were met with MORE violence, initiated without question by the state, buried in the media, and completely failed in that objective.

So I figure if you're gonna get your ass kicked, spend a night in jail with a concussion and get slapped with a fine EITHER WAY - you might well consider not just curling into a ball and giving up when your peaceful protest is stomped on by the stormtroopers.

The key to a solid protest is not harming or annoying, when possible, the ordinary citizens trying to go about their biz, which blocking traffic and senseless destruction often do - and yes I know they plant folks to provoke it, but make sure your folks have the discipline not to fall for that shit.

And above all, document everything, cameras galore, so that when the jackboots overstep themselves, and when they lie their ass off in court later, you have a record, and place it in the hands of deniable, anonymous folk with enough legal protection to stall off attempts to seize and destroy it - don't count on any journalistic protection, this is an administration who's thrown mainstream journalists in prison for not playing ball, they wont have any mercy on you.

If you can find any with any guts, you might try convincing a mainstream journalist or stringer for them to accompany you - it will help offset the usual "terror-symp-traitors who only want to destroy" bullshit that you KNOW you'll hear from the other sides pet media the instant they spot you.

If yer gonna do it, do it right, is all.

-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, February 6, 2008 7:54 PM

Yeah, I was in Miami for the FTAA(an utter failure), and I was at the WTO in Cancun just prior to it. 2003 was a year that taught us a lot about what works and what doesn't.
I may be a kid to some(I'm 24, and I probably AM younger than most here), however I've had my fair share of summit hopping experience all over the globe.
I've worked with liberal groups, social groups, local groups, and the international radical community.
However, we know that the RNC will not be a peaceful protest.
The city's police have already released a statement saying they are committed to a successful convention, an are aiming to shut down any legitimate protest attempts, Minnesota knows this, and that is why we have had such a warm response from the local communities.
My tip for anyone that wants to protest is to respect the different zones of the protest.
There are no risk zones, probably risk zones, and guaranteed risk zones. Be aware of when they change, and if you realize that you are in the wrong zone, say something, and someone will help you link up with the blocs you are comfortable with.
Thanks for the tips with the media, unfortuneately outside of the indymedia, most profit run media will be embedded with the police. If you would like to see an example of how that changes coverage, google video an indymedia video called 'the miami model.'
While independent journalists are encouraged to come stand on our sides of the barricades, most are unaware of the risk it entails. As far as the police are concerned, if you're not embedded with the police, you might as well be another protester, ripe for the beating.
I would be surprised if anyone from here was showing up for it, but if they are, I would be more than happy to give more information to you on how to stay safe and informed during the protest.
Thanks for your response Frem
As for the property damage thing, maybe that's something I'd discuss the philosophy behind off the boards. ;)

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

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 8:24 PM

Well, if you've no issue with smaller media aimed at a bi-lingual immigrant audience, I do believe I can be of some assistance on that front - and they are most certainly NOT police-friendly after what happened on May Day 2007 in California.

Some of our guys (May Day is kind of a tradition for Anarchists, find a protest and join it, kinda thing..) got caught up in it, and the police beat the living crap out of a bunch of reporters, which later got some help from my folks arranging and assisting with security contracts, so they might be amenable to sending someone to cover the protest side - I will pass the word and see.

I cannot be PMed as the email addy to this name has been dead for years - just try not to smash up uninvolved businesses, we both know the PD's plants are gonna try to make that happen, but good discipline will minimize that problem.

And while I would not identify myself directly, just look a really 'dark' black bloc lead by a huge ethnic fellow of really dark complexion who sounds like a cross between Samuel L Jackson and R Lee Ermey - that'll be Augustus, and I'll be with him... somewhere.

Also, do you have some freq-hoppers to monitor communications ?

Having that evidence, of intentional provocation and military involvement during seattle was *critical* in getting a lot of charges dropped, as we had absolute proof of agents provocateur and their actions, which could not then be blamed on us.

-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, February 6, 2008 11:23 PM

Moltov could be an O'Brien Frem. Watch your back.

Then again.... I've always suspected in the back of my mind that you might be as well.

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

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

Thursday, February 7, 2008 5:33 AM

FLETCH2

You mean the Irish guy from Star Trek? Hummmm, can't really imagine Frem in a Jeffries tube.

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

Thursday, February 7, 2008 8:59 AM

There is that, Jack, but good advice is just that, besides, better the devil you know (and can feed disinfo) than one you can't see, right ?

The pieces for the RNC issue have been laid out for a while, all that's really left is playing the chess game - and I really don't want some wilder with a hair up his nose getting sucked into senseless destruction by police plants in the protestor ranks - that'd really piss me off, and I am not at all above dragging one of my own off for a 'nice quiet chat' somewhere out of public view if needs be.

To quote from Drake's Belisarius series.

"Every plan gets fucked up the moment the enemy arrives, that's why he's called the enemy."

A certain amount of chaos is anticipated and expected, when your dealing with Anarchists, after all, but I bow to no master in the zen art of cat-herding.

Properly done, this is a lot like akido, the more force they bring to bear, the more harm they'll do themselves in trying to use it.

-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

Thursday, February 7, 2008 9:22 AM

CREVANREAVER

Let me write that I'm ecstatic that that chickenhawk piece of shit Romney is out of the race. Fuck him (and his coward sons).

By the way, I'm for Dr. Paul for all the reasons Sergeantx listed. He's genuinely the only candidate in either major party truly committed to the U.S. Constitution and the values of liberty on both social and economic issues.

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

Thursday, February 7, 2008 10:12 AM

VINCENOIRROCKNROLLSTAR

ron paul is actually top gears the stig

what is important is to spread confusion ,not eliminate it -salvador dali

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

Thursday, February 7, 2008 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You mean the Irish guy from Star Trek? Hummmm, can't really imagine Frem in a Jeffries tube.

Ha! How is it that amidst all of our insulting each other, I never realized what a sense of humor you had? I think the only things that would have to watch their back around him would be the sheep when he's wearing a kilt.

Nope... not that O'Brian.

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

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

Thursday, February 7, 2008 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You mean the Irish guy from Star Trek? Hummmm, can't really imagine Frem in a Jeffries tube.

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

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Nope... not that O'Brien.

He's referring to the government plant that ends up entrapping and pinching Winston, in Orwell's 1984.

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 1:42 AM

Right you are Molotov....

No offence intended... unless of course you are O'Brien

Perhaps I'm O'Brien....? Sure as hell would throw most people around here for a loop if I were to be Big Brother's #1 meat puppet.

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

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 2:01 AM

There's also the concept of using an O'Brien position and facade to keep the powers that be out of your hair as you actively recruit the dangerously effective ones for your own purposes - while handing over the clueless boneheaded idealists to make points and keep them from screwing your plans up.

Winston didn't make the cut, he was too damn co-dependent, needing a dangerous level of continual positive reinforcement in order to continue resistance activity - and he really did not have the complexity of persona required to effectively sham the system for any length of time, nor the strength of character to feed disinfo to an interrogator and make it believable.

The key to dealing with such, is to play the game from the side of the table, rather than the ends, leaving them always guessing and wondering, never quite sure who's side you're on or what angle you're playing.. until it's too damn late to do anything about it.

-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, February 8, 2008 2:07 AM

So......

I guess we're doing a pretty damn good job doing whatever it is we're doing for whoever it is we're doing it for. If it is that we are doing anything at all for anyone in the first place.

Down here, we're all mad Alice

Afterthought: .... Maybe that wasn't the real end to 1984. Maybe O'Brien wasn't really an O'Brien at all and it was Winston's own co-dependancies and shortcomings that did him in at the end. Would certainly make the story a happier ending for me, anyways.

I never looked at it that way Frem. Thanks for that point of view.

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

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:10 AM

"I never looked at it that way Frem. Thanks for that point of view."

Something to keep in mind always.

Ponder this.. in V for Vendetta what do you think V might have *done* IF, when the pressure was on, Evey sold him out right up front ?

For all his charisma and logic, V was NOT a very nice person - she'd not have left that place alive, that being the case, I assure you.

O'Brien may well have been playing both ends of the game, his cryptic comment to Winston near the end is very telling.

(Winston) "Does the Brotherhood exist?"

(O'Brien) "That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind."

Because Winston can't keep his mouth shut, be discreet, and doesn't even have the sense to NOT ASK that question, especially not in a monitored environment.

Would YOU have told him ?

-F

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:28 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok, another question. Does Ron Paul really have a chance this time?

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
O'Brien may well have been playing both ends of the game, his cryptic comment to Winston near the end is very telling.

(Winston) "Does the Brotherhood exist?"

(O'Brien) "That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind."

Because Winston can't keep his mouth shut, be discreet, and doesn't even have the sense to NOT ASK that question, especially not in a monitored environment.

Would YOU have told him ?

Wow....

Frem. No matter what anybody ever says about you, you're one hell of a guy. You may very well have changed my life right there. I'll indulge you a bit more on the whys if we ever have the pleasure of sharing a bottle of whiskey

Now I've got to read that book again. Funny how the way you go into something can have a dramatic effect on what you may take out of it in the end...

O'Brien may have very well surpassed Shepard Book as the most profound and mysterious character I've ever had the pleasure of knowing through my short, boring and relatively naive existence.

There is a whole 'nother book to be written.

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

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

Friday, February 8, 2008 5:12 AM