Level-headed Leadership
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2006 22:25
VIEWED: 2995
PAGE 3 of 4
Frem,
Ron Paul is still a republican.
I think Libertarian with a capital "L" is being used to describe the party, and libertarian with a small 'l' to describe the ideology. There was a confusion about this in an earlier thread, and this is what people came up with.
That's a piratenewsish claim about nambla, but I don't feel like digging into it because i don't have the time, and also, yuck, so I'll take your word for it.
I think Paul should run on a GOP ticket. I'd vote for a ticket that had him as VP, with just about anyone (not quite anyone) as prez.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, you don't wanna wade through the slime you'd have to in order to see for yourself, I can understand that - just as I would rather not post the related data here for much the same reason.
Others can tell you, or just backcheck posts, I tend to do my homework before stating such a case, and that one struck a raw note with me because I was one of the folks makin the noise - I thought the Libertarian party had potential and that little stunt sent me into a rage, because I've been a hardcase about protecting our children since about 1994, and I keep up with most of the folk doin that work, so yeah, I knew about that when it happened.
On this one topic, i am certainly no expert, but a damned competent layman.
-Frem
Related linkage for the interested.
http://www.vachss.com
http://www.protect.org
http://www.childtrauma.org
I don't associate with NCMEC because of their ties with law enforcement leading to some shoddy casework, evidence contamination, misuse of information and the like, especially in this gestapo age - also law enforcement should be handled by LAW ENFORCEMENT, not civvie volunteers who get chopped to pieces on the stand by defense attorneys, resulting in pretty arrests for the newspapers and PR flacks, but no predators behind bars... Grrr!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry for the late reply, SergeantX. I just wanted to thank you for the information. As I have noted in other threads, when I am confronted with a body of knowledge of which I have little experience I try to identify people who have more expertise with that knowledge and pick their brains. I've identified you as my preferred expert on all things libertarian/Libertarian. Hope you don't mind 
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MHO? You all need a third party. Seriously there's too much power split between two factions (right word?) Not saying it's perfect, Lord knows Canada's been through hell with the 3 we have, but at least we have more than 2 options, and between 3 parties power is better balanced. Liberal's don't have all the seats (anymore *heh heh*) and for things to go through Parliment it's harder because one Party does not have a fair share of the votes. You really need a third part (no, not PAR-TEY. Though that would be good too)
But then what do I know, I know enough about politics knowing who NOT to vote for. *coughliberalscough*
If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
m. ahara
i agree, we need a third party. one where the view of govt. is to protect the rights of the people, and do little or nothing else. one that follows what the founding father lay down.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And in that DT, lies wholehearted 100% agreement from my end of things.
We can run our own lives thankyaverramuchly.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
A study of the 1800s in American politics reveals some shocking stuff. Slavery was almost killed very early on, peace with the indians was almost established. The republic was well on its way to being a superpower of progress and freedom. It was way ahead of where we are now in that regard.
Then corruption set it. Jackson was stupid corrupt and evil, and the republicans tried changing the rules to prevent him from becoming president, but with the vote of the ignorant, he got in. After that, America was never the same, it was endlessly descending into exactly the sort of stuff that we see now. The civil war was not the solution that we are taught in idiot-school, btu really it was the worst of that. The reconstruction was initially amazingly corrupt. But a group of people once again had sat down to construct America, and the result was a success. This should really be called "America 2.0."
Lengthing my earlier estimare, really, it took 50 years from the founding until the corruption started digging in, and about a century until the entire union was crushed by the weigh of its own lies. Now the new America lasted about 50 years after the civil war before it elected a hopelessly corrupt Wilson, and after about 100 years, America died. This means, sometime in the 60s or 70s. I cite the exact time as being Nixon's resignation. Watergate wasn't a victory for law and justice, it was the adhoc creation of powermad agenda monkeys. And I'm absolutely sure that this is right, whether one agrees with the powermad agendamonkeys or not.
To be Pirate News for a secong, there was never an election again. Which is to say, there was never a free and fair, unmonkeyed election. But more importantly, the power ranks of washington were increasingly preset, unchanging. America, dead and burried, had morphed into a weird oligarchy. Having lived way passed its own lifespan, it went on into the future as Zombiemerica. Zombiemerica has begun to rot and stink for a while now. If we let it go, eventually it'll decay into a civil war. What it needs is a reconstruction. Russia has shown us that a reconstruction can be done without a civil war. They haven't done a great job of it. But we can. We've done it before.
So, it's time for America 3.0. This time we should be able to do a better job because we have the words of the first and second teams to go by. But no one ever built a nation under an existing power structure. The revolution and the civil war provided the opportunity. Since those aren't viable options, I suggest a soviet-style collapse. With a real ninny as president, the US govt. could become totally inneffectual.
Okay, so we have a ninny. I mean a real ninny. A chimpanzee. Someone...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree.
Jackson was both good and bad.
Good in that he killed off the National Bank, tried to stuff fiat money in the trash heap of history where it belonged, and for the first, last, and ONLY time in history brought the USA out of debt.
It was this one act that so drastically angered the Whigs (later to become the ReThuglicans we all know and 'love') that they assisted, if not plotted, the very first assassination attempt on a sitting US president in american history, which failed, catastropically, as the would be assassins pistols both misfired.
The election of 1824 was a case example of the corruption leaking into our system before even Jacksons time.
That being said, he wasn't exactly a good president either, he was an uncompromising hothead (having fought several duels prior to presidency over almost ludicrous points) and Jefferson thought him unfit for presidency due to his volitile temperment.
And what he did to the native americans is both shameful and unforgiveable, but my main beef with ole Andy was the "Spoils System" - the concept of replacing current employees with family or political favorites and supporters, or even in exchange for political favors... for that one i'd like to see how spin on a rotissere in hell for a little while, given all the trouble it has caused since.
His radical anti-nullification/anti-secession stance would also be held by others, and soon, in the hands of Lincoln, lead to the greatest horror this country has ever known, an unfettered Federal Goverment with no true check against it's usurpation of power.
So to me the scales balance, Jackson was a sign of his own times, and did as much good as he did ill, alas that the ill he did lasted far longer than the good - but that was because men after him perpetuated it, so we cannot wholly blame him.
Ironically.. Jackson was the beginning of the split that eventually created the Democrats and Republicans, he was often referred to his critics as "Jackass" and depicted so in political cartoons, and being amused as much as insulted, took the jackass as his personal symbol, later to be adopted by the Democratic party.
Ergo - I take issue with stupid and greater issue with evil, as being applied to the man, he was anything BUT stupid, and while as corrupt as anyone else, and far less than some, in the politics of that day, was not anything I would consider evil.
Quote:
republicans tried changing the rules to prevent him from becoming president, but with the vote of the ignorant, he got in.
So, it's ok for the Rethugs to illegally fiddle with government and run roughshod over the restrictions in order to prevent the ignoramouses of the non-elite from actually enforcing the will of the people ?
How dare we mere people interfere with the whim of the elite, oh dear, oh my.
Nice to know where YOU stand, isn't it now - how are you so very different from our other resident drumbangers again ?
Honestly dude - that's the most offensive thing I have EVER heard you say.
And it wasn't Jackson that lead to the civil war, although he did indeed express similar sentiments, it was that Rethug dictator wanna-be that symbolises everything that party stands for... Lincoln.
He knew what he was doing, and it was entirely deliberate - and BOTH parties are to blame for it, but any attempt to deny that Lincoln was a meglomaniacal nutwad who wanted an america that was FAR from the vision of our forefathers will fall flat in the face of historical evidence - and yet, if it wasn't Lincoln, it would have been another... the rich and powerful elite would have their day, and they meant to have it.
Wilson was indeed corrupt, I wouldn't dispute that a minute, and he was hardly alone in that, even now.
Quote:
Watergate wasn't a victory for law and justice, it was the adhoc creation of powermad agenda monkeys. And I'm absolutely sure that this is right, whether one agrees with the powermad agendamonkeys or not.
Then shut up and jump in with the Bush cartel where you belong, because Nixon fri
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tommy Chong 
It never got weird enough for me.
-Hunter S. Thompson
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
later to become the ReThuglicans we all know and 'love'
Hey!
Jackson was of course, the first Deathocrat.
But partisanship aside, I think that the so called corrupt bargain (1824) was not corrupt at all. This was simply a ruling on how to handle a three way split which should have stuck. I think it's a better solution. If you have a split, then the fringe players should choose Mr. 1 or Mr. 2. And it should be obvious to the voters. I don't think the voters for Clay and Crawford thought that the split would elect Jackson. I think they assumed that Jackson with his 41% could not walk into the whitehouse without majority support. He was able to politically manipulate the situation and get elected in 1928.
Quote:
in the hands of Lincoln, lead to the greatest horror this country has ever known
No argument from me on this one. I think this is probably why both major political parties are shot. They were ushered into office by real losers.
Quote:
Ironically.. Jackson was the beginning of the split that eventually created the Democrats and Republicans, he was often referred to his critics as "Jackass" and depicted so in political cartoons, and being amused as much as insulted, took the jackass as his personal symbol, later to be adopted by the Democratic party.
He was a jackass. I read that the think dated back to an 1882? political cartoon in harpers, and that the jackass was the democrats who were trying to get people to fear republican dominance with a fearmongering campaign not unlike what we see today. But you could very well be right, the jackass may have been an earlier reference. Do you have a source?
The part you're missing is that GOP didn't used to be evil. It's just gotten that way lately. I think it was a commie infection I call neocons.
Quote:Quote:Honestly dude - that's the most offensive thing I have EVER heard you say.
with the vote of the ignorant, he got in.
You don't think this is true? Jackson totally snowed the public with his corruption story, and played up the idea that they hadn't chosen the republican ticket, which actually they had. When people believed that they had not elected Adams, who was after all the son of a president, they began to see him as a usurper, with all of the aristocratic trappings.
But this is what jackson won the election on. It was a masterful manipulation, but it relies heavily on an ignorant public. It wasn't based on the issues. If educated people had looked at the policies, I think they would have chosen Adams.
I think if you look at the results, you'll find this is true. The more educated you were, the more likely you were to vote for Adams. I don't see how that's offensive. I think it's just a statement of fact.
Quote:
And it wasn't Jackson that lead to the civil war, although he did indeed express similar sentiments, it was that Rethug dictator wanna-be that symbolises everything that party stands for... Lincoln.
Well gee, this is turning into a pointless partisan debate. But this isn't actually true. I'm not going to defend lincoln, who was appalling, but he did inherit the war, and of course, the situation. He handled it very badly.
It's not that I'm saying that democrats, as a party, caused the decay of america in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, which led to the civil war, I'm saying that politics steered off course. There's plenty of republican/whig blame to go around. The right had proposed the partitioning of the west as a direct attempt to marginalize the southern democratic vote. Admittedly, the main issue was slavery, but there is a corruption here of trying to make a permanent senate majority. It was funny to hear democrats last year stand up and protect the sanctity of one state two votes on moral grounds. I wondered if they realized how corrupt a system it was? The partition plan did, of course, go through, after the war, but it was the proposal which actually sparked the war. The confederates all say so in their declarations of independence. They were of course, r
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME