Why CAN'T Ron Paul be President? by Wulfenstar

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then Ralph Nader should never have been interviewed.

Then H. Ross Perot did something literally impossible.

So, if you can figure out how they did it anyway, you have a template.

Did what exactly? Proved my point?

Perot was actually the impetus for many of the changes that lock out third parties today. Up until Perot's run, presidential debates were traditionally run by the League of Women voters. After Perot gave them a good scare, the two major parties agreed it was in their mutual interest to avoid anything that would give third parties a shot in the future. The changes they implemented, in part, prompted the LoWV to drop support for the debates stating:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public"

Since then, the leaders of the two parties control the debates, eliminating, for all practical purposes, any chance of a third party candidate participating in the debates.

If our national media had the "balls" or the integrity of the League of Women Voters, they'd refuse to cover the debates and insist on an open, fair process. But they don't. And they won't.

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

Interesting. I did not know that.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

It reminds me of the Ron Paul rally we had here last year.

Google Ron Paul Revolution March...

Something in the range of 75 thousand people were marching the streets.

What did the media cover? Dead ducks. I shit you not.

We walked by them asking if they wanted to cover ALL these people and what we stood for.

Naw...ducks were what they were after.

Even here in DC, a march of that size was HUGE...and yet not one single blurb...

It was amazing.

Plenty of cops with cameras tho. And helicopters.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:48 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Plenty of cops with cameras tho. And helicopters.

Yeah.... I often joke that I have my own satellite.

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

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's why I can't decide whether to laugh or cry when peeps talk about the "liberal" media. Trust me, if you had been tear-gassed, shot at, beaten and arrested you STILL wouldn't have made the news! 10,000 people were, and nary a peep.

Mayhem in Miami: Amidst Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Democracy Now! Reports From the Streets of the FTAA Protests
www.democracynow.org/2003/11/21/mayhem_in_miami_amidst_tear_gas

Been saying all along, the problem is the media. Demonstrations and rallies are useless w/o media coverage, and the media has no intention of being anything other than a pro-corporatist corporation. The successful candidates have learned to use the internet to their advantage. If RP stays in the Republican Party just so he can get to the TV screen in the primaries, the problem is that his TV-watching audience is mostly repubs. He needs peeps with internet savvy in his campaign. Take a page frm Obama's playbook: Use the internet to raise money, and use that money to BUY your way into the media. Obama was in the Dem Party but don't forget: He was not The Anointed One. He BOUGHT himself a 30-minute commercial, which helped seal the deal

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Not sure I follow you on this, Jack.

Me neither.

Seems like Rue's point was pretty on-point and laid out and you came up with....

HUH?????

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Quote:
The Ruemeister: Aside from those factors, Ron Paul has a lot of baggage - the racism posted on HIS website under HIS name, and his stand on abortion, for starters.

What racism? I believe you may be thinking of some supposed stuff he wrote in class years ago that were put out there to sully his rep. I got yelled at by my white math teacher in my all white class in my all white junior high school for making up a character named "Tyrone" that could barely speak English, for some stupid "role playing" crap my Junior High teacher taught to us like we were still in kindergarten. I was probably 8 years old when I saw my first "black person" when I went to downtown Chicago.

I was emulating stereotypes about somebody that I knew nothing about. You love kids Rue... you going to hold that against me?

But if you're talking about how he wants to keep any more foreigners out, you're damn right I'm behind that. We have to become a socialist system to support the ones that are already here.

The same goes for his desire to pull out any troops and dismantle US embassys in countries we don't belong in, seeing as how we weren't intended to be the machine to build a world empire from the start.

What is your belief that his stance on abortion is Rue?

I bet it's wrong....

He doesn't agree with abortion anymore than I do because it is murder, but he doesn't believe it's a federal decision and that those decisions should be made locally. Kinda like my smoking thing, if somebody couldn't get an abortion in one place, there would be other places that accomodated them. That way, people who didn't want babies murdered in their town didn't have to and people who wanted to murder their baby, for whatever their uniquely valid reasons were, would be able to do so.

With all the real problems we have in this country and world today, you're really hung up on things he said in a thesis about people he didn't know 50 years ago, his desire to start balancing the budget by not paying for healthcare or school for people who just swam over here, or the fact the guy doesn't like the idea of idiots killing babies, even though he's not telling idiots they can't kill babies?

Geez.... you got a one track mind Rue. Your way or the highway.

Quote:
I believe we have a two party system b/c our 'winner take all' government structure leaves no room for the opposition, or for coalitions.

Possibly... But I'd like to think that the two parties are in league with each other and let the trivial pendulum swing back and forth like a mesmerizing crystal dangling in the cleavage of the most beautiful hypnotist in the world while the everyday breeches on civil liberties move forward unhindered as we collectively sleep.

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

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:56 AM

So, using your own logic, and Ron Paul's, if you want to be able to smoke at work, why don't you just move, or get a job where you can smoke? It's just that damned simple, right?

I mean, if someone finds herself in a position that abortion is the only choice she comes to, your position is that it's perfectly fine with you if she needs to go some 2000 miles to get one, right?

Growing up in West Texas, I can tell you for a FACT that people had to go over 200 miles to obtain such a service - which ain't easy if you're poor and don't own a car! I knew a couple girls who made the trip, and drove one of 'em myself, because her worthless boyfriends bugged out the second he heard she was preggers.

Rather than let it be decided LOCALLY, why not let it be decided PRIVATELY, between a woman and her doctor? Why not make RU-486 available over the counter, since it's nobody's business but the people intimately involved in the situation in the first place?

Seems to me that getting that involved with a woman's body and what she chooses to do, isn't really very libertarian at all. A *REAL* libertarian would say, "Ain't nonna my damn business, 'less it's my kid."

Quote:

Possibly... But I'd like to think that the two parties are in league with each other and let the trivial pendulum swing back and forth...

Yeah, you'd like to think so - but that don't make it so. I've tried to explain that to PN for years - you might think it, you might even believe it, but that doesn't PROVE it. :)

Mike

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:26 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Actually, RPs point is this...

he can be against abortion as much as he wants to. He can hate it and think its the worst thing in the world...

But as President, he CANNOT DO A DAMNED THING ABOUT IT. He doesn't have that kind of authority.

Same with drugs or anything else you do to your body. The President doesnt have the right to get involved, AT ALL.

If a local district wants to make it legal to smoke weed, the federal government doen't have the right to tell them no.

Same for everything else.

Its suppossed to come down to local choices.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Seems to me that getting that involved with a woman's body and what she chooses to do, isn't really very libertarian at all. A *REAL* libertarian would say, "Ain't nonna my damn business, 'less it's my kid."

Ayup. RP's got it wrong on this one. I can respect the views of those who think that abortion is murder, and depending on how the argument is phrased, I can even agree. But the question becomes, how much wrong can we prevent with the power of law? How much do we want to?

We could, in theory, prevent all parental child abuse by installing cameras in every household and monitoring parents 24/7, but would we want to? What if we could implant a chip in all humans that caused them to fall unconscious at the mere thought of violence. Would we do that? The point is, sometimes the harm done in attempting to right a wrong is worse than the crime. In the case of abortion, we have a conflict between the right of a person to control the contents of their own body (the ultimate private property), and the responsibility of the law to protect all people.

We can argue all day about whether a fetus is a "people", but my point is that in attempting to save it we violate the inner workings of a woman's sovereignty over her own body completely. Saving potential life, or unborn children, isn't worth establishing a woman's womb as state property.

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, March 12, 2009 5:49 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"What racism? I believe you may be thinking of some supposed stuff he wrote in class years ago ..."

Ron Paul and racism:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic."

And so on. I went to check it out when this hit the news early in the campaign, and followed the trail all the way to the original pdfs, which I read. It was pretty bad. It wasn't one sentence or one phrase - it was an entire racist rant. Multiple times. (BTW it was in part the reason why RP was sunk nationally.)

It took me about as long to find it as to type it. If you had an OUNCE of curiosity you would have found it too.

It seems to me that the people who complain the loudest about Obama being 'The One' don't have a problem with human deity worship - they just have a problem with the choice. They have their OWN deities they want worshipped !

***************************************************************

So get with the program !

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:01 AM

Quote:

It seems to me that the people who complain the loudest about Obama being 'The One' don't have a problem with human deity worship - they just have a problem with the choice. They have their OWN deities they want worshipped !

Notably, an awful lot of them worship at the feet of Rush Limbaugh. (Not saying Kirk or Sarge or Wulf do that, but SOME in these parts definitely do)

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:04 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So...when there is overwhelming evidence that Ron Paul is the best candidate for President out there...what do the ultra-liberals do? Scream "HEs A RACIST!"

Same thing they always do.

The problem, and I don't think they see it, is that their last ditch smear tactic is no longer working.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It seems to me that the people who complain the loudest about Obama being 'The One' don't have a problem with human deity worship - they just have a problem with the choice. They have their OWN deities they want worshipped !

Most of the libertarians and Ron Paul supporters I know are cautiously hopeful about Obama. They may feel his economic solutions are just as bad as Bush's, but his foreign policy is only 75% as bad and he's looking somewhat better on the "homeland insecurity" front as well. They're certainly not the ones spreading rumors about him being the anti-christ. Most of us like seeing someone who isn't a complete asshole running things, even if we don't agree with his political ideology.

As to the racism stuff and RP. It is ugly, and it's one of the reasons I support him 80-90% rather than 90-100%. The fact that the tone of the newsletter articles, their language and rhetoric, are antithetical to everything else I've read or heard from RP convinces me that he's telling the truth when he says he didn't approve of the articles. But, at the very least letting them get printed in his publication was sloppy and I don't think he adequately answered the racism charges publicly. If he'd become a serious challenge to the nomination, I'd have expected something more substantial in the way of distancing himself from any hint of racism.

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, March 12, 2009 6:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Notably, an awful lot of them worship at the feet of Rush Limbaugh. (Not saying Kirk or Sarge or Wulf do that, but SOME in these parts definitely do)"

I bend my knee to no man. Especially to a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh.

Again, Ron Paul has stated that the Presidents personal beliefs do not (should not, can not) have anything to do with his job as President. Period.

Heres what I don't get. If things were right, and Constitutional, everyone would be happy. Heres the scenario:

Town A: Does not allow abortion, drinking on Sundays, or any drugs to be consumed.

Next door:

Town B: Allows abortion, all drugs are legal, and the laws on carrying a gun are so stringent that no one legally does (but people are allowed to do so under the Second Amendment).

Town C: Allows abortion, most drugs are legal, carrying a weapon is encouraged, and the local authority must have miles of paperwork before they can even think of hasseling you.

You have the choice on where you want to live. If you don't like what the local authority is doing, you can move across the town lines to someplace you feel more comfortable.

Done. Thats how the Constitution was set up. The Federal authorities don't have the right to interfere or MEDDLE in peoples lives.

We can govern ourselves.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Heres what I don't get. If things were right, and Constitutional, everyone would be happy. Heres the scenario:

Town A: Does not allow abortion, drinking on Sundays, or any drugs to be consumed.

Next door:

Town B: Allows abortion, all drugs are legal, and the laws on carrying a gun are so stringent that no one legally does.

Town C: Allows abortion, most drugs are legal, carrying a weapon is encouraged, and the local authority must have miles of paperwork before they can even think of hasseling you.

You have the choice on where you want to live. If you don't like what the local authority is doing, you can move across the town lines to someplace you feel more comfortable.

Done. Thats how the Constitution was set up. The Federal authorities don't have the right to interfere or MEDDLE in peoples lives.

We can govern ourselves.

The Constitution is also an agreement amongst the member states to adhere to universal concepts of individual rights. That's what the Bill of Rights was all about. Local and state governments have a broader ranges of services they can provide and legislation they can impose, but they have to follow the nationally established norms of basic human rights.

Abortion laws are substantially different from zoning ordinances or trash pickup. To look at it another way, if you're of the opinion that abortion is murder, would you be ok with letting laws against murder be locally decided?

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, March 12, 2009 6:26 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok. How about this then..

Every law currently on the books must be looked at from the perspective of whether it infringes on a persons freedoms.

Abortion is the freedom to have a medical procedure. It is also a moral issue. However, the local/state/federal governments do not have the right to choose morals for the people.

Same with drugs. Freedom of body. Should you become intoxicated and harm another (and ONLY IF YOU HARM SOMEONE ELSE) then the law can be involved. Drunk driving checkpoints are an example where the government tries to nanny the people (and make money), while also depriving them of their civil rights.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If a local district wants to make it legal to smoke weed

And if they want to impose the death penalty? Or institute an Official Chruch?

You're re-treading the same ground that the FF did when they dreamed up teh constitution. One of them... I believe it was Adams but I could be wrong... made a POINT of saying how local prejudices and interests could be extreme and dangerous, and how items taken to the nationl level would have parochial agendas averaged out.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"And if they want to impose the death penalty? Or institute an Official Chruch?"

Then the people of that local, confined, area would have the right to vote yea or nay to it. And live with the consequences. Until those same people decided to do something different.

What we are retreading here, I believe, is the actual cause of the Civil War.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So...when there is overwhelming evidence that Ron Paul is the best candidate for President out there...what do the ultra-liberals do? Scream "HEs A RACIST!"

Same thing they always do.

The problem, and I don't think they see it, is that their last ditch smear tactic is no longer working.

Wulfie, is it "smearing" somebody if they're an actual racist? Would it be "smearing" if you were to call into question Louisiana Representative David Duke's history as a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? Is that a "smear"?

If someone honestly did these things, said these things, and wrote these things, then that becomes part of the public record. You don't seem to get that. The best thing for Dr. Paul to do, if he did indeed write these things, would be to stop trying to sweep them under the rug, and come out and explain them. Say, "I was an idiot. I was uninformed, and I'm more enlightened than that now."

I'm not saying he is or isn't a racist, but you screaming "that's what the liberals ALWAYS do, and it's nothing but a smear tactic!" is no better than someone else saying that Ron Paul is a racist.

ETA: I'm not familiar with the racism charges against him, so I can't say one way or another whether he's a racist. I *can* say that it played no part in whether I supported him or not in the last election.

And having read some more here, it appears that it wasn't articles that Dr. Paul himself wrote, but that he published in his newsletter, and which were written by someone else. If that's the case, I'd say he's guilty of, at worst, bad judgment. After all, it doesn't make me a communist if I read Das Kapital, and it doesn't make me a nazi if I read Mein Kampf.... Being associated with these things doesn't necessarily imply adherence to their tenets.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulf
---------------------------------------
Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
---------------------------------------

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf
A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism
The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know, if we did not before, that we are under assualt from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/january1994.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1994.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January1995.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/reportoct1992.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/freedomApril1978.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdfdownlo
ads/RPIL12_86_1.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/reportapril1989.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL387.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/misesmarch95.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/secession.pdf

ENJOY ! Wulf. His bigotry is right up your alley.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_Church_Racism/2008/01/07/62285.ht
ml

http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/Story?id=4443788&page=1

http://gawker.com/5156142/eric-holder-calls-us-nation-of-cowards

http://www.newsmax.com/putnam/barack_obama_wright/2008/03/28/83739.htm
l

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/02/is_obama_racist.php

* Sorry, I'm actually on my lunch break, so this is the most I could come up with on short notice...

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"And if they want to impose the death penalty? Or institute an Official Chruch?"

Then the people of that local, confined, area would have the right to vote yea or nay to it. And live with the consequences. Until those same people decided to do something different.

What we are retreading here, I believe, is the actual cause of the Civil War.

I've got a couple of questions.

1) You're okay with ANYTHING that a local government decides to do, then? You say that having an "official church" is fine by you, right? So what if your local area decides that the "official" church is radical Islam? You going to join, or are you fine with being forced to sell your house and move out of the area?

2) Why are you okay with LOCAL government telling you what to do, but not FEDERAL government? Is there an inherent difference that you see? I mean, if it's not okay for one government to tell you how to live your life, why is it okay for another government to do so? And if you say that you can always move to another area, I'd counter by saying that you can always move to another country, too. I hear there's still some "wild west" available in large parts of Africa. Why not head there, where you can REALLY put your theories to the test? Just something to think about...

I'm not trying to be a dick about this; I'm trying to ask pointed questions, and to point out what I see as flaws in your logic. As to the whole leaving the country thing, I'm not suggesting that you "love it or leave it" - only that it's a possibility you seem to have not considered. I know it's a possibility, because I've been told many, many, MANY times here on this site that I should get the hell out of America if I hate it so much. So I do really, seriously know that it can be done.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"And if they want to impose the death penalty? Or institute an Official Chruch?"

Then the people of that local, confined, area would have the right to vote yea or nay to it. And live with the consequences. Until those same people decided to do something different.

Wulf, I think you're overlooking some of the reasoning behind having a national government in the first place. It's more than just national defense. The national constitution sets limits for government in general - at least in terms of individual rights. I'm certainly not "OK" with a neighboring state legalizing slavery, for example. I don't think the Civil War was the best solution, but belonging to a nation means some agreement on basic human rights if nothing else.

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, March 12, 2009 7:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok, Kwicko, fair enough. I'll answer.

"1) You're okay with ANYTHING that a local government decides to do, then? You say that having an "official church" is fine by you, right? So what if your local area decides that the "official" church is radical Islam? You going to join, or are you fine with being forced to sell your house and move out of the area?

2) Why are you okay with LOCAL government telling you what to do, but not FEDERAL government? Is there an inherent difference that you see? I mean, if it's not okay for one government to tell you how to live your life, why is it okay for another government to do so? And if you say that you can always move to another area, I'd counter by saying that you can always move to another country, too. I hear there's still some "wild west" available in large parts of Africa. Why not head there, where you can REALLY put your theories to the test? Just something to think about..."

No, Im not Ok with a local authority telling me what to do. However, I do know that I have more power over them, than I would over the Federal government. And more of a chance of chaning my current situation, by garnering the support of my neighbors, than I would taking on a huge conglomerate.

Look at it this way...if you are sad enough to be shackled with an HOA, you CAN change them, just by getting with your neighbors and throwing the bums out.

Also, establishing a "local Church authority" violates the Constitution, so that would not be a consideration.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:15 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"ENJOY ! Wulf. His bigotry is right up your alley."

Nice one, Rue. I did not take it to a personal level, but you did. Just can't help yourself can you?

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulf

If Obama had printed that stuff under his name I'd say you MIGHT have a point about Obama. (That stuff by the way had nothing bad to say about whites, gays, women or --- anybody --- as a function of their race, orientation or sex.) But he didn't, and you don't.

Ron Paul is bigoted in so MANY ways.

But I guess that makes him OK with you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:43 AM

Wulfie, I couldn't get past the first sentence of the first article in your first link.

Quote:

Imagine if Mitt Romney’s church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”

Is this something that the Mormon Church would even have to proclaim? A church that didn't even accept black members until, what? 1979? A church that in many places STILL preaches that the sin of miscegenation (the mixing of racial groups, such as you and your Dominican wife) should be punished by death, on the spot.

Yeah, why haven't they proclaimed themselves unashamedly white? ;)

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:49 AM

Quote:

Also, establishing a "local Church authority" violates the Constitution, so that would not be a consideration.

I was wondering if you were going to catch that, since you said earlier you'd be okay with it, as long as it was done on a local level...
chose it as their local religion?

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:49 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Umm, let me guess...you've never known any Mormons, right?

Little history on Wulf here, I worked FOR a Mormon company (for a little over 3 years) a while back. Met a bunch of nice folks, 2 of which have been great friends to me and my Dominican wife.

Yeah, I will admit, their Church is....strange. Their beliefs are...strange. BUT, at least they had the balls to say that the teachings they held to in the past were wrong.

And, on that front, they changed them.

Also, there are 2 main denominations among the Mormons. The actual Church...

and the other ones who still believe in plural-marriage, and the mark of Cain.

Dammit, read a book man!

Edit: Btw, 2 of the people I worked with, who were Mormon, were African...

lol...

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"ENJOY ! Wulf. His bigotry is right up your alley."

Nice one, Rue. I did not take it to a personal level, but you did. Just can't help yourself can you?

Ummm... Wulfie? Somethin's buggin' me here about this post. You claim you DIDN'T take it to a personal level. Yet in your response to Rue about her questions regarding Ron Paul's alleged racism, this was your response:

Quote:

So...when there is overwhelming evidence that Ron Paul is the best candidate for President out there...what do the ultra-liberals do? Scream "HEs A RACIST!"

Same thing they always do.

The problem, and I don't think they see it, is that their last ditch smear tactic is no longer working.

So in response to legitimate questions about actual issues, YOUR response was to blast Rue with the "ultra-liberals", "screaming", "last ditch", and "smear tactics" take.

I think just about anybody could construe that as taking it to a personal level against Rue. Or would her reply to you after that be LESS personal if she'd said, "His bigotry should be right up the alley of all ultra-conservives screaming out their racism and using smear tactics against any opposition"? After all, if it doesn't accuse YOU PERSONALLY of being bigoted, it's not personal, right? It's just saying that anyone who supports Ron Paul is bigoted, which is, like, totally different, right?

So when you decide to blast someone by using a gross generalization, don't try to bullshit them later by saying that you didn't go personal on them. That's disingenuous, and if you're going to insult someone, I'd prefer you just come out and do it.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So when you decide to blast someone by using a gross generalization, don't try to bullshit them later by saying that you didn't go personal on them

yes, thank you.

Wulfie, go stand in a corner and repeat ten times I will not be a hypocrite

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Noooo.... if I was going to hit Rue on a personal level, I would just do it. Anyone here knows that is the truth..

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Also, establishing a "local Church authority" violates the Constitution, so that would not be a consideration.

No, it doesn't. It prohbits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from establishing a religion. It is a matter of coincidence that most STATE constitutions have the same or similar provision.. which, BTW, only prohibits that STATE from establishing a religion.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hooookay... then, here's a personal comment: Wulf, you're a bigoted proto-fascist hypocrite who deserves no more of anyone else's time here.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Umm, let me guess...you've never known any Mormons, right?

Ummmm... wrong. My best friend's youngest sister converted to Mormonism, and of course then set about trying to convert everybody she ever knew or encountered, including me. It didn't take.

Quote:

Little history on Wulf here, I worked FOR a Mormon company (for a little over 3 years) a while back. Met a bunch of nice folks, 2 of which have been great friends to me and my Dominican wife.

Yeah, I will admit, their Church is....strange. Their beliefs are...strange. BUT, at least they had the balls to say that the teachings they held to in the past were wrong.

And, on that front, they changed them.

Also, there are 2 main denominations among the Mormons. The actual Church...

Would that be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the Reorganized Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Both claim to be "the actual Church..." - as do all of the several fundamentalist sects.

Quote:

Dammit, read a book man!

How 'bout The Doctrine and Covenants, one of the two main books that Mormon is founded on?

Quote:

Edit: Btw, 2 of the people I worked with, who were Mormon, were African...

Get out! Next you're going to tell me they didn't know how to give gifts!

Mike

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:23 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ha....ha.....*sigh

"How 'bout The Doctrine and Covenants, one of the two main books that Mormon is founded on?"

Ok...or the Pearl of Great Price...

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

............ and silence.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nobody is interested in one-upmanship on apparently irrelevant esoterica. So, if you care to enlighten us all as to WHY your reading list is so important...

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Nobody is interested in one-upmanship on apparently irrelevant esoterica. So, if you care to enlighten us all as to WHY your reading list is so important... "

Yet....its ok for you and Rue to make this a personal attack. Hey no problem.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I think y'all are being too hard on Wulf, and it'd be awfully nice if when you DO try to educate the guy, that you leave the snark out of it cause it drives things personal and poisons the well.

That said...

I do second their reccommendation to read through the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, as many of these issues are discussed at length, in detail, and hashed out quite reasonably and effectively.

It's a right bitch of a read, and difficult besides cause the language and terms are archaic, but it's well WORTH the trouble despite being a massive amount of stuff to plow through.

But you will learn an amazing amount of info about how our political system is SUPPOSED to work (and don't) as well the historical background and details to support every argument within, and WHY those arguements were raised.

And if that ain't enough to convince you, ponder for a moment that Ron Paul can probably quote it to you entire, cause for DAMN sure the man has not only read em, but picked at them enough to truly understand them in full detail.

Regardless of how backhandedly it was delivered, that was good advice.

-F

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
............ and silence.

About? Oh, what? My reading list?

Yeah, I confess I didn't finish D&C. It bored me. I got more from Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith than I ever did from any of the "official" histories of Mormonism in America. And I never tried Pearl. I moved on to other things. As a youngster, I was lost, and casting about for some kind of belief system. Tried a lot of 'em, and didn't ever find one that fit.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nobody is interested in one-upmanship on apparently irrelevant esoterica. So, if you care to enlighten us all as to WHY your reading list is so important... " -Signy

Yet....its ok for you and Rue to make this a personal attack. Hey no problem- Wulf

Wulf, you seem to think that knowing about Mormonism was important to the topic (locally-imposed religions). I don't see how that is relevant, but maybe I missed a turn somewhere so I gave you an opportunity to explain to us WHY. So you choose to see it as a personal attack??? Really, all I was asking is: What's your point?

Explain, or not.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:58 AM

BTW, sorry for cutting out earlier - I was on my lunch break, then had a 53' truck come in. In the rain. Oh, joy... So I've been trying to get 14 pallets of product inside and out of the rain, and trying to figure out how I'm going to wedge it into a space about 10' x 25'. In other words, a fun afternoon! It's all in now, and if I turn sideways, I can even wiggle through to get from the bay door to my desk!

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:20 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No, Sig, I got pulled off topic.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay. Glad that got cleared up. Thanks!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, Sig, I got pulled off topic.

Yup, me too.

So what were we talking about?

Mike

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

Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So what were we talking about?

The undeniable righteousness of my opinions.

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, March 13, 2009 2:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"What racism? I believe you may be thinking of some supposed stuff he wrote in class years ago ..."

Quote:
Rue: Ron Paul and racism:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic."

Seems like the truth to me. It was black people who were rioting and when the government gave them money they went back home. At least the Government didn't go all "Kent State" with guns blazing and wipe them all off the streets of LA. I'm absolutely sure that they could have at that point, but we hadn't degraded that much as a noble country to start doing that to our own citizenry..... yet.

How is this racism? Funny how truth can so easily be garbled enough to look like racism.

Sorry Ron Paul doesn't coddle your delicate sensibilities and sugar coat the truth like Obama or McCain Rue.

Quote:
And so on.

Don't stop there.

Quote:
I went to check it out when this hit the news early in the campaign, and followed the trail all the way to the original pdfs, which I read. It was pretty bad. It wasn't one sentence or one phrase - it was an entire racist rant. Multiple times. (BTW it was in part the reason why RP was sunk nationally.)

It took me about as long to find it as to type it. If you had an OUNCE of curiosity you would have found it too.

I've read them Rue. You know that. I just wanted you to point them out, and that was the best quote you could come up with. Show me the dirty stuff.

Quote:
It seems to me that the people who complain the loudest about Obama being 'The One' don't have a problem with human deity worship - they just have a problem with the choice. They have their OWN deities they want worshipped !

I've already told you rue that although I think the man is special, he's not "unique". He surely wouldn't be spending your grandchildren's labor right now like the current Idiot in Cheif, and he would be taking real steps to restore our nation. Not printing money and making the idiots begging for jobs subservient to the new world order.

There will be others like him, and they will get much more support. Things haven't gotten bad enough for you to come to the middle yet. I left the Rethugs years ago. Many dems and reps left their "sides" to come to common sense. Next time it will be more.

They both want to see us subservient.

***************************************************************

Quote:
So get with the program !

Your sig says it all Rue. Your way, or the highway.....

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

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

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seems like the truth to me.

THAT is the essence of racism. To castigate an entire group pf people by their race, based on an unsupported belief. (Blacks are shiftless and lazy. Too lazy to even riot properly against the gubmint. 'cause they're only interested in free money.) Jack, have you ever talked to blacks about US foreign policy? Or what it means to live in a police state? A lot of blacks "get it". They do. They would be the Libertarian's natural allies except is seems the Libertarians are a white middle-class group throwing a hissy-fit.

But let me 'splain why it's prolly not true: The peeps rioting were primarily young males. The peeps getting the welfare check were primarily female. It's not like some 40-year-old taking care of her grandchildren stopped in the middle of throwing a molotov, checked her watch and thought "OH DARN! I GOTTA STOP THIS AND GET DOWN TO THE OFFICE TO PICK UP MY CHECK!"

SO, there's ANOTHER reason why Ron Paul won't be President. (

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:37 AM