Why CAN'T Ron Paul be President?

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Thursday, March 26, 2009 18:35
VIEWED: 15149
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:25 PM

Quote:
I'm plenty open to criticism

guffaw!!!

... Sh*t, now I have to clean my keyboard

Okay, to put this politely... you hold most peeps in utter disdain. It shows in all of your posts. You think you're being a Libertarian, but what you REALLY look like is a snobby elitist.

There! Was that constructive enough for ya???
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:30 PM

"... but for her it's all about personal attack"

I actually come here to study people. And I have lots of good things to say about many people here. Even 6-String.

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

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:38 PM

"I actually come here to study people. And I have lots of good things to say about many people here. Even 6-String."

Im sure he'll be overjoyed to hear that..

hehehe.....

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:48 PM

You do realize you've just exposed your own hypocrisy, cruelty and arrogance with your little flake out on Jack, right ?

You might hide it well, but it's there - that automatic assumption that how YOU feel, what YOU believe, is more important than what anyone else does.

And now you've even shown both intent and desire to use force when you don't get your way - the very thing you're flaming those who don't agree with you for, while denying in yourself.

You might wanna take a powder and patch up the mask doll, cause it's looking a bit ragged as of late.

There's other people in the world, doll - and really there's only two ways to deal with them, either negotiate, or use force.

And your own actions in this very thread show your true colors as preferring the latter, resorting only to the former when forced to.

Despite all your pretenses, it went right back to me-have-bigger-club didn't it ?

And folks call ME a barbarian, meh.

EDIT: The irony of you, at this point, flaming anyone else for holding other people in disdain...

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

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:58 PM

Ok,

As for me, I know I have my faults....but it seems to me, that making someone quit doing something that isn't harming YOU in any way is a bit Nazi-like.

Oh, but wait! "SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLS!" Maybe,maybe NOT. Either way, just move in any direction...oh say.. 3 FEET and it wont even bother you.

But thats not good enough, is it? Because YOU have to have YOUR way. Because YOU think you know what is best for ME?

For all Liberals scream "Stay out of my Bedroom"! They have no problem doing the same thing everywhere else.

At least Libertarians don't do that. They leave you the fuck alone. To go your own way.

Which, is the best way YOU can choose.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:04 PM

Quote:
[They leave you the fuck alone.

I wish.
I already answered that... it depends on how constrained I am to being near you. If we're both in a bus-stop shelter, why are you forcing ME to participate in something that I don't want to?

Whatever happend to common sense, and common courtesy?

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

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:10 PM

Even when I DID smoke, I wouldn't smoke in the bus stop shelters. That's an asshole thing to do.

In that ISOLATED case, its more about common courtesy, than anything else.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:12 PM

What happened to the repeated statements by both myself and Jack that we do NOT light up in confined areas for that very reason ?

You're not that stupid, or that forgetful, you dismissed them out of hand cause you wanted to make a point - and then made it by basing on a deliberately, nay, maliciously, false assumption for the purposes of astroturfing yourself some supposed moral high ground.

And that, you fully deserve to be called out on, as it is one of the very tactics you claim to dislike so intensely when someone else does it to you.

Neither me nor Jack would light up in a confined area with other people, and would very likely, despite being smokers ourselves, bitch out someone else who did cause it's just plain rude and smacks of a personal disrespect that's against our very nature.

Hell, this is one reason I have no issue with airplanes being a nonsmoking environ - the ventilation system just plain can't handle it, and it's a needless safety hazard besides.

Anyhows, bad enough to make an assumption to fake moral high ground, but to do so in a fashion that contradicts the well known and obviously, repeatedly, stated postions of the people you're making it about is strawmanning at it's worst, and you know better.

-Frem

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

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:15 PM

Go get'em Frem.

lol

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:
What happened to the repeated statements by both myself and Jack that we do NOT light up in confined areas for that very reason ?

I recall Jack having a snit over the fact that he couldn't light up in bars.

And the remainder of my post still stands... Squirting soemone with a hose is like standing upwind when you're smoking, even if you're outdoors. True, water carries farther and it's more directed, but it was Jack's contention that the OTHER person should move. No common courtesy there!

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:23 PM

Now now, Wulf - I'd trying to drag this back into reasonable and civil, futile that it seems.

Honestly though, common courtesy and common sense, interesting that these things are mentioned, cause they exist outside the bounds of law, do they not ?

People have tried to legislate them, but it never works, cause they're social bonds, not legal, and thus inapplicable in that system.

But they're there, aren't they ?

Perhaps not to the degree we'd like, but they exist, and they exist universally in every country, every culture, crossing all boundries of language and politics - a truly universal force, are they not ?

For my part, the BEGINNING of what needs to happen to elevate, or evolve, rather, humankind to a level where they no longer need Government, is to raise the concept of "Do not harm your fellow man for gain or pleasure" from a mere concept of law to a universal social perspective as strong as "Do not kill and eat your fellow man".

Get THAT done, and all the rest will naturally follow without having to do much at all.

But it's damn hard in a society which honors and venerates, even celebrates, the concept of doing harm unto your fellow beings for profit or pleasure - something that every form of media today seems hell bent on reinforcing, too.

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

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:29 PM

"But it's damn hard in a society which honors and venerates, even celebrates, the concept of doing harm unto your fellow beings for profit or pleasure - something that every form of media today seems hell bent on reinforcing, too."

Aint it the truth? We go from the Mario Brothers, to GTA.

Pick ANY 80's movie, and then compare it to "Hostel".

Its actually kind of sick.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:35 PM

I was calling Jack on his apparent lack of common courtesy.

It STILL seems to be that he lacks it, at least as far as smoking goes.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:35 PM

Siggy?!

Quote:
True, water carries farther and it's more directed, but it was Jack's contention that the OTHER person should move. No common courtesy there!

And now when I call you out on what you DID do, you resort to downright lies ?

Come on now, don't get all Rappy on us.

His OWN words tell a different tale, and express a keen interest in both common courtesy AND a desire to negotiate a workable compromise.

And I know you didn't miss or forget them, so what could it be other than deliberately misrepresenting someone else's position to make yourself look better- i.e. Strawmanning.

Jack's own words on the matter defy your very statement utterly.

Quote:
I don't smoke at work in the office. I don't want to put people out. I had no problem with having to go to the 4' x 4' heavily ventilated room to have a smoke on my break

==========

Quote:
I don't smoke in front of other people, unless they inject them into a situation outside of work or family life where it is expected, at least at a reasonable amount of establishments, to partake in.

Like I said, at work, a 4 x 4 room until the new management came in and nixed it.

If I was living by the lease my new management wanted me to sign, which I didn't sign, I wouldn't be allowed to smoke in my own apartment which I pay $750 a month to live in and have been "Grandfathered" in.

In my Grandma's town, you can't smoke outdoors without risking a ticket now. Where would that put me now if that happened in my town and I signed that lease addendum?

I do want to work on a fair compromise for all parties, regarding when and where it's acceptable and taxwise, but from where I stand I have no choice but to keep getting beat down by the 75% or more majority on the matter.

==========
Dunno bout you, but that sure as HELL doesn't sound like a lack of common courtesy or a contention that others should bow to his whims - it sounds to ME like he's trying to be reasonable about it in the face of people who, like you, do not seem to be willing to be reasonable themselves.

And as for privately owned businesses, shouldn't it be the property owners decision, with the caveat that if they allow it, they should have a ventilation system that's up to the job of dealing with it* ?

-Frem
*(And again, any place that has cooking equipment should have an adequate ventilation system for safety reasons even if it's a nonsmoking establishment, which many, sadly enough, do not.)

RUE

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:43 PM

"... that automatic assumption that how YOU feel, what YOU believe, is more important than what anyone else does ..."

You talking to me ?

I make no such assumptions. I have conversations with people. I tell them what I see, and what I think. They can respond, or not. They can read, or not. It's all the same to me.

I'm not speaking about people by category, by group, or by any collective isms. I'm not making assumptions. I'm relating to what they say and do here. And I'm going by the only metrics than any one of us has - what we perceive, and how we interpret that. If you think I shouldn't be doing that, then you think I shouldn't be doing what all humans do.

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:46 PM

Yanno, apparently I confused Jack with Wulf.

Sorry 'bout that!

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

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:48 PM

Evens still, what *I* said was along the same lines as Jack.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:49 PM

Wulf ?

Guilty pleasures...
I happen to like GTA:San Andreas because I can vent my nastier impulses in a safe environ where it harms no one and this does a wonderful job of relieving the stress of dealing with people.

By driving downtown in game and KILLING THEM ALL, BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!
*throws a couple molotov and follows up with the minigun*
RRrrrARRRGHHH!!!

Seriously though, I hated Jack Thompson quite passionately, anyone who's gonna be that affected by a mere video game has some damn serious unaddressed problems in the first place.

They can be a great release valve though, and some of them DO have some pretty good role models, Yuna from FFX/X-2 and Ramza Beoulve from FF Tactics come to mind as some of the better ones - and there's also the very useful theraputic value, not sure if you remember but my nephew almost lost some fingers getting his hands crushed in a wood splitter, and we got him a new copy of Guitar Hero cause it's the perfect physical therapy, being that he's not likely to shirk it.

My sisters horde of brats loves it when I come down there cause I know all the good classic guitar work, and their friends just stare in awe when they rock out with their crazy old uncle on two player.

Video games can be a powerful positive influence too, yanno.

-F

RUE

Friday, March 6, 2009 9:50 PM

"But it's damn hard in a society which honors and venerates, even celebrates, the concept of doing harm unto your fellow beings for profit or pleasure - something that every form of media today seems hell bent on reinforcing, too."

A perception I share.

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

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, March 6, 2009 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

O2B- You're a jackoff.

Only with YOUR fist or another anatomical item that you've offered...

Well , actually , I'm not even into that...

I wouldn't touch you with a dog's dong on a ten-foot stick of bamboo...

You wouldn't even make a pretty lesbian...Explains your chronic hostility toward manly thinking-folk like myself...

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, March 6, 2009 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno, apparently I confused Jack with Wulf.

Sorry 'bout that!

Plainly , you don't know Jack...

Or Wulf...

Or any other *anything* worth knowing...

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, March 6, 2009 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
They leave you the fuck alone.
I wish.
I already answered that... it depends on how constrained I am to being near you. If we're both in a bus-stop shelter, why are you forcing ME to participate in something that I don't want to?

Whatever happend to common sense, and common courtesy?

I don't like YOUR smoke , SickyNym...

Would you please stop trying to blow it into my tailpipe ?

Why don't you go on an extended search for that courtesy and 'common' sense that you want ?

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, March 6, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Democracy? You mean this past election?

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Obama won using the same techniques Hitler did. Propaganda mixed with charisma.

Good times.

Good Point .

Obama, Democrats bow to banks on housing “rescue”

By Tom Eley
5 March 2009

'...On Wednesday, the Obama administration released guidelines on its plan to stem the collapse of the housing market with its "Making Home Affordable" initiative, or Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan (HASP). The plan claims to offer "assistance to as many as 7 to 9 million homeowners."

'...The newly-announced guidelines pertaining to private lenders make clear that the program's primary aim is not to assist homeowners , but to further prop up the banks.'

World SOCIALIST Website :

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/hous-m05.shtml

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 7, 2009 12:59 AM

Quote:
As for me, I know I have my faults....but it seems to me, that making someone quit doing something that isn't harming YOU in any way is a bit Nazi-like.

Oh, but wait! "SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLS!" Maybe,maybe NOT. Either way, just move in any direction...oh say.. 3 FEET and it wont even bother you.

If it's truly not harming me... have at it. But if for some reason I CAN'T move that three feet... I'm standing in line, for example, would YOU move that three feet? Or temprorarily put out that cigarette in deference to the other peeps that HAVE to be around you when you smoke?

If you'd accomodate other peeps, then... fine. If not, that's a problem.

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 7, 2009 1:04 AM

From what I've read of the "homeowner's rescue", it sucks. Big time.

Time to put a boot in Obama's *ss.

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, March 7, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I suppose it depends on whether I'm constrained to be in that area. If we're both in a bus stop shelter and its raining, I can't really avoid your smoke, can I?

You're absolutely right Signy. To do so to you would be just plain rude. I won't go as far as to say somebody should be ticketed for it, but it would warrant a beatdown in my eyes if you asked me to stop and I told you to f-off or blew smoke in your face.

I'm not inconsiderate of others around me. I would never do that to somebody. I know I'm completely free to smoke at my friend's house when we play poker, but every time I ask his wife if it is okay before I start lighting up. (I actually do feel a bit guilty, but they don't have children and we don't play there often and I've always done it with her blessing). Although I feel most comfortable when I can lounge at somebodies house that allows it, I do my duty as a human being and step outside (or better yet, a garage) and smoke out there.

I also have no problem with not being allowed to smoke in the office while working. I didn't see a problem with having a well ventilated smoke room, but they nixed that (not because anyone was complaining, but because it's a fire hazard, mind you).

All I would like is some consideration reciprocated while I have to work 12 hour shifts in Wisconsin winters and see the bastards spring for a smoking shelter. Hell, I even said I would pay for it myself when they were telling me it was a budgetary concern and then I got an angry email from one of the uppermanagement guys when my excange with the facility department was forwarded on to him saying that it is a liability for the company to have one outside and that I'm never to ask about it again.

Being that I'm living in a US that might have 15% unemployment and I'm only about 8 months away from getting another week of vacation, I just shut my mouth then and stood out in the -40 degree winter to smoke.

This is the great disconnect Signy. I think that many people think that I smoke, therefore I'm rude. This is just not the case. I just can't believe that the pendulum has swung so far the other way right now that everyone who wants can be just as rude to me verbally or through company policy and I don't have any way to retort in any meaningful manner.

It's really sad, because I do have a lot of support for the idea, and mostly from non-smokers at work. None of them, except for the most self-rightous nannys out there want to see me freezing out there.

As for the bars, I don't see why there couldn't be incentives to open a non-smoking bar/restaurant that would encourage people to open them or go smoke free. There would obviously be a big market out there for non-smoking establishments like this. I just don't think that state-wide bans are the answer. (Kinda how like I'm 100% against abortion because I believe that you're killing somebody, but I support Choice 100% and I would never call somebody out in a nasty way for having done it if I knew about it, although I would break up with a girlfriend or get a divorce if I knew the woman I was with did it after the fact.)

I've thought about opening a non-smoking bar in Milwaukee myself even. I have the startup money to do it and I believe I would be able to get the credit given my work history. I think it would be a great story that the owner of the new non-smoking bar in Milwaukee steps outside into the smoke shelter every hour for a puff.

This way, you wouldn't be forced to be around me smoking, and I wouldn't be forced to smoke at home. Win/win, I say.

~6

P.S. Thank you Frem and others for pointing out my real side of the story where it may have been overlooked in my absence. And thank you Signy for realizing that I'm not the inconsiderate ass that you were portraying me to be (if you weren't being sarcastic). I don't want to smoke in your bar, I just want to be able to smoke in my bar... get it?

"A government is a bod

WULFENSTAR

Monday, March 9, 2009 12:49 AM

btw....

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/03/08/hughley.ron.paul.
cnn

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:14 PM

Bump

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:04 PM

Sorry man. I think I killed your thread.

I have a knack for doing that, although I never quite figured out why it happens.

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:14 PM

Quote:
You're absolutely right Signy. To do so to you would be just plain rude. I won't go as far as to say somebody should be ticketed for it, but it would warrant a beatdown in my eyes if you asked me to stop and I told you to f-off or blew smoke in your face.

I'm not inconsiderate of others around me. I would never do that to somebody. I know I'm completely free to smoke at my friend's house when we play poker, but every time I ask his wife if it is okay before I start lighting up. (I actually do feel a bit guilty, but they don't have children and we don't play there often and I've always done it with her blessing). Although I feel most comfortable when I can lounge at somebodies house that allows it, I do my duty as a human being and step outside (or better yet, a garage) and smoke out there.

I also have no problem with not being allowed to smoke in the office while working. I didn't see a problem with having a well ventilated smoke room, but they nixed that (not because anyone was complaining, but because it's a fire hazard, mind you).

You're sh*ttin' me! WOW! THAT'S brainless of them!

Quote:
All I would like is some consideration reciprocated while I have to work 12 hour shifts in Wisconsin winters and see the bastards spring for a smoking shelter. Hell, I even said I would pay for it myself when they were telling me it was a budgetary concern and then I got an angry email from one of the uppermanagement guys when my excange with the facility department was forwarded on to him saying that it is a liability for the company to have one outside and that I'm never to ask about it again.

Oh... my. I can't imagine what's going thru their heads. I'm sorry if that's your situation!

Quote:
Being that I'm living in a US that might have 15% unemployment and I'm only about 8 months away from getting another week of vacation, I just shut my mouth then and stood out in the -40 degree winter to smoke. This is the great disconnect Signy. I think that many people think that I smoke, therefore I'm rude. This is just not the case. I just can't believe that the pendulum has swung so far the other way right now that everyone who wants can be just as rude to me verbally or through company policy and I don't have any way to retort in any meaningful manner.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Not an issue here is SoCal... I mean, it's hardly ever so nasty here that peeps CAN'T smoke outside, but I know about that cold weather ya got!

Quote:
It's really sad, because I do have a lot of support for the idea, and mostly from non-smokers at work. None of them, except for the most self-rightous nannys out there want to see me freezing out there.

I hear ya on that one too!

Quote:
As for the bars, I don't see why there couldn't be incentives to open a non-smoking bar/restaurant that would encourage people to open them or go smoke free. There would obviously be a big market out there for non-smoking establishments like this. I just don't think that state-wide bans are the answer. (Kinda how like I'm 100% against abortion because I believe that you're killing somebody, but I support Choice 100% and I would never call somebody out in a nasty way for having done it if I knew about it, although I would break up with a girlfriend or get a divorce if I knew the woman I was with did it after the fact.)

I see your point.

Quote:
I've thought about opening a non-smoking bar in Milwaukee myself even. I have the startup money to do it and I believe I would be able to get the credit given my work history. I think it would be a great story that the owner of the new non-smoking bar in Milwaukee steps outside into the smoke shelter every hour for a puff. This way, you wouldn't be forced to be around me smoking, and I wouldn't be forced to smoke at home. Win/win, I say.

Uh.... if you already have a statewide ban, save your money.

Quote:
P.S. Thank you Frem and others for pointing out my real side of the story where it may have been overlooked in my absenc

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:42 PM

Um... wow.

Thanks Signy.

There's not a ban in Wisconsin, but they're raising the taxes another 75 cents this month (on top of the federal tax and Altria raising their cost per pack another 70-80 cents, making it over 2 dollars more a pack by next month) and they're going to try to pass the ban again. It will probably get shut down, but the tax will get through.

I grew up in Illinois though, and they've been smoke free for over a year now. I still know a few places that will let you do it though.

I think opening a non-smoking bar up here and smoking outside myself would be a good way to get this idea across. Maybe if I feel ambitious I might really pursue it.

Take it easy,
~6

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:03 PM

Just to bring the conversation back to the title...

Wake up.

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:13 PM

"Why CAN'T Ron Paul be President?"

I thought that was answered a long time ago - because most people don't agree with him, and thus, he isn't going to get elected to the office.

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

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:17 PM

Or, as H.L. Mencken said,

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

or George Bernard Shaw,

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:22 PM

Exactly.

Too bad Sarge and Wulf aren't in charge to tell us what to do.

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

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:34 PM

Off topic, but still along the same line:

If you could construct your perfect president, what policies would she\ he put in place ?

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

Anyone care to hazard a reply ?

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:34 PM

Yeah Sig,

Im sure you'd much prefer your MN to tell you what to do.

IM NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO.

Just that you should THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:36 PM

Because the people HAVE thought for themselves and came up with an overwhleming answer - NOT Ron Paul ! But you seem to have an issue with their conclusion.

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:37 PM

BTW- Let me be clear: I think most peeps ARE sheeple. I think "we" have an inherent tendency to "follow the leader", to cooperate well beyond the point of self-interest. (War, BTW, demands incredible cooperation and self-sacrifice. Think about that.) In our long and storied history, the human species has demonstrated over and over again the overwhelming ability of ignoring what's plainly in front of our senses in favor of various forms of religion (whether they be theocratic, economic or cosmological). It is both our necessary strength- allowing us to pass on abstractions such as "electron"- and our fatal weakness. Only about (roughly) 10% of "us" look outward rather than towards the herd to define "reality".

However, I make no pretense of being a great liberator when I say this. I have no illusions that humans are just itching to free thmeselves from the bonds of... anything, really. And my proposals would be both painful and unpopular.

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

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:37 PM

Off topic, but still along the same line:

If you could construct your perfect president, what policies would she\ he put in place ?

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

Anyone care to hazard a reply ?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:38 PM

Quote:
IM NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO.

EXCEPT

Quote:
Just that you should THINK FOR YOURSELF.

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:39 PM

"Because the people HAVE thought for themselves and came up with an overwhleming answer - NOT Ron Paul ! But you seem to have an issue with their conclusion."

Yeah, right.

Lol.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:41 PM

Please see my previous post about human history. This is one of the few issues where I will argue "human nature". but if you have ANY data that shows that people ROUTINELY think beyond the herd, let me know.

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:42 PM

Where to begin?

That we fought off the chains of oppression from both Britain and Germany?

That we walked on the moon?

That we were willing to bleed for the ideal that we are all free?

EDIT: I argue for your freedom, that you can do as you see fit, so long as you don't force your beliefs on anyone else...but you argue against that.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:46 PM

Aside from sporadic revolutions, human history is swathed in centuries of unbroken kingships, monarchies, and empires. Every once in a while, when the circumstances are right and the cost of oppression too high, the lid blows off the kettle.

That walk on the moon?

That's that 10%'s accomplishments.

In our long and storied history, the human species has demonstrated over and over again the overwhelming ability of ignoring what's plainly in front of our senses in favor of various forms of religion (whether they be theocratic, economic or cosmological). It is both our necessary strength- allowing us to pass on abstractions such as "electron"- and our fatal weakness. Only about (roughly) 10% of "us" look outward rather than towards the herd to define "reality".

There are very few "free thinkers" around so stop banging your head against the wall.

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:51 PM

Dammit Sig, Im arguing FOR YOU.

So long as you dont force your beliefs on ME, Im all FOR YOU HAVING YOUR BELIEFS.

I AM the 10%. and dont think I dont know what that means.

Edit: The days of pretending are over.

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:57 PM

Rue:
Because the people HAVE thought for themselves and came up with an overwhleming answer - NOT Ron Paul ! But you seem to have an issue with their conclusion.

Wulf:
Yeah, right. Lol.

You see - because you don't agree with WHAT they concluded, you thus don't agree with HOW they thought, and you dismiss their DECISIONS.

And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant Hilter wanna be.

The vast majority (99%) of people looked up from their lives, said - meh, NOT Ron Paul - and moved on. And you would dismiss them, their thoughts, and their conclusions ... as not worthy of your eminence. And apparently dismiss them as not fit to vote, or even call themselves human.

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:57 PM

Hey, I'm one of those 10%. Or at least I think I am. And I'm not arguing against you, just providing some advice.

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:04 PM

"And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant Hitler wanna be."

Fuck you Rue. You are still angry that I called you a "stupid Pollock". Which I apologized for. I was angry and bitter, and lashed out at you.

My apology still stands.

No, the people did not choose. They were given a choice between to glasses of dirty water, and they chose the one that appeared LESS dirty.

But BOTH are.

There are more than 2 choices, dammit.

And as God is my witness, I will make the ignorant public see that.

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Or, as H.L. Mencken said,

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

or George Bernard Shaw,

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

Funny stuff. You realize that you are one of the "common people" Menken spoke of?

I think of democracy as "The least government for the most people." But it never seems to work that way - either end.

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:04 PM

Wulf

I think of myself as one of those 10%. But at a certain point you have to understand that the large sway of humanity is moved only by great effort, extreme circumstances, and/ or inspired insight.

Rather than think of virtually everyone you share the planet with as being subhuman, it might be nice to put aside your overlarge ego and try to address the nature of the situation.

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

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:06 PM

Read my post

Edit: I don't care what you believe. You can believe what you want, so long as you don't FORCE it on anyone else.

Believe me, when I say I would fight and die for that right.

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:12 PM

"No, the people did not choose. They were given a choice between to glasses of dirty water, and they chose the one that appeared LESS dirty.
But BOTH are.
There are more than 2 choices, dammit.
You are still angry that I called you a "stupid Pollock"."

Not angry.

It's why I put in that 99% NOT Ron Paul figure.

Obama or Clinton ? McCain or Romney ? Obama or McCain ? Dark charcoal grey or pinstrip dark charcoal grey ?

At any point in that decision tree you can say that the choices are marginally different from each other. You could argue that people were swayed by circumstances, by media, by secondary or tertiary factors.

But a 99% NO Ron Paul vote repeatedly over the whole process is pretty conlusive. It's a lesson that you need to pay attention to. That 99% NO is telling you something important - something you need to acknowledge. You need to figure out what that is. And once you figure it out, go to work on it.

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:
And as God is my witness, I will make the ignorant public see that.

With THAT attitude????

Good luck on that!

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:18 PM

"With THAT attitude????

Good luck on that!"

Yeah, I know.

But I look at a mountain as waiting to be climbed. Not as as an insurmountable object.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:27 PM

Which is why I'm trying to give you some advice.

BTW.. you seem totally unaware of the inherent contradiction of trying to "force" Libertarianism on everyone. Please note that your Lib buddies are strangely silent....

---------------------------------
I'd hate to be leading a parade and find that there's no one behind me.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:27 PM

bump

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:29 PM

"I'd hate to be leading a parade and find that there's no one behind me."

Not I.

I would rather lead a parade of ONE, and be RIGHT...than follow a magical ANYBODY, and be wrong.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:31 PM

All I'm saying is... even your Lib buddies aren't following you into this minefield....

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

CITIZEN

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Not I.

I would rather lead a parade of ONE, and be RIGHT...than follow a magical ANYBODY, and be wrong.

Everyone in a parade thinks they're right. Who's to say.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:29 PM

"Everyone in a parade thinks they're right. Who's to say."

Damn right.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:32 PM

Yanno Wulf, with your "I know what's right for them and I'm gonna make them see it, the ignorant slobs" and "Everyone should be made to join the military" philosophy, I don't think you're a Libertarian.

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:36 PM

When you know you will die, when you accept it, when it no longer terrifys you, then you are free.

And, as a free man, what you do from that point forward, defines who you are.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:37 PM

Sig,

"Everyone should be made to join the military" philosophy...

I've backed off that philosophy.

I believed that the military could teach the people the will to continue, and give them the teeth to fight for the future.

But to FORCE people into that is wrong.

I've stated that and let it be the end of it.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:52 PM

My whole point...is that Ron Paul CAN be President.

If I, someone who admittedly is fraked beyond all reason, can see him as being a leader of actual HOPE...than so can all the sheeple.

"When I was a young boy,
My father took me into the city
To see a marching band.
He said,
"Son, when you grow up,
Would you be the saviour of the broken,
The beaten and the damned?"
He said
"Will you defeat them,
You demons, and all the non believers,
The plans that they have made?
Because one day I'll leave you,
A phantom to lead you in the summer,
To join the black parade."

"Do or die, you'll never make me
Because the world, will never take my heart
Go and try, you'll never break me
We want it all, (we'll carry on) we wanna play this part
Do or die, (we'll carry on) you'll never make me
Because the world, (we'll carry on) will never take my heart
Go and try, (we'll carry) you'll never break me
We want it all, (we'll carry on) we wanna play this part"

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:01 PM

"My whole point...is that Ron Paul CAN be President."

Then you'll have to figure out how to change people's minds.

".. then so can all the sheeple."

Not a great start to winning heart and minds.

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
When you know you will die, when you accept it, when it no longer terrifys you, then you are free. And, as a free man, what you do from that point forward, defines who you are.

I agree.

Maybe you weren't here several years ago when I was making that same point. It's three ayem and there's nothing to respond to... no bosses, no TV commercials, no nothing... and if you STILL can't think like a free person because you can't even face your own fears....

But I don't think I'm going to "make" people see that. I hope they do. For the sake of future, I surely do. But if COULD "make" them see that, then I'm not going to call myself a liberator. I'll be a tyrant.

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:10 PM

I realize that my earlier post may have missed its mark on some folks around here.

The new generation must never forget those that came before.

So here.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:21 PM

".. then so can all the sheeple."

Not a great start to winning heart and minds."

Rue, you are right.

The first step, the VERY FIRST STEP, is to change the people from sheeple...into wolves.

Give people their teeth back, and then we can start the charge to fight back for our freedoms.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:35 PM

But Wulf... (interesting name)... most people don't WANT to be wolves. And they don't HAVE to be. The greatest change comes about when everybody takes one step in the same direction. Just one. Not when a vanishing minority run a marathon. So, you're right, in a way: The first thing you have to do is convince peeps of the viability of your cause. Because if you're gonna ask them to slit their wrists... ain't gonna happen!

BTW- Successful movements have room for both the heroes AND less heroic. The outre AND the more conventional. Now, YOU may be constitutionally-suited to tackle the world with a knife between your teeth, but that's not most peeps. So if you're going to build a successful movement, (That's what you're trying to do, right?) you have to have some ALTERNATE activities besides storming the Bastille.

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

RUE

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:58 PM

Also Wulf,

If you're going to look on yourself as SO superior and everyone else as SO inferior (something that comes out in all your posts, and which other people have pointed out) - you're not going to get very far. People notice. And it won't endear you OR your message to them.

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

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"My whole point...is that Ron Paul CAN be President."

Then you'll have to figure out how to change people's minds.

".. then so can all the sheeple."

Not a great start to winning heart and minds.

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

Silence is consent.

I can almost hear Wulfie giving his first speech in support of Ron Paul:

"Ahem... Is this thing on? Good. Okay, LISTEN TO ME, YOU BUNCH OF IGNORANT SLOBS! ALL YOU SHEEPLE, YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK OR HOW TO THINK, AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU BOTH! VOTE RON PAUL! DON'T ASK WHY, JUST TRUST ME WHEN I SAY HE'S THE ONE! BELIEVE IT! DON'T BE SHEEPLE! FOLLOW ME!"

I'm guessing that speech will go over pretty well. Who knows, in a couple days you may even be able to walk again...

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rather than think of virtually everyone you share the planet with as being subhuman, it might be nice to put aside your overlarge ego and try to address the nature of the situation.

Why don't you go back to calling Auraptor, et al, dogs.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 AM

Actually, I think he probably should be, not just because he's the best candidate. I think he had the most support, and probably, cheating aside, got the most votes, especially when you consider that only he, Dennis and Mike Gravel were running for the job, aside from the 3rd party candidates. Everyone else said "If elected I will" they were running for dictator.

Honestly, I think McCain was probably ineligible to run. Panama is not the US, no matter how you slice it. If we accept it, Obama was born in the US, but only just. He might have been born in Jakarta, he wasn't born in Kenya, but he wasn't really running for president so much.

But of course, democracy is a total illusion. I called Obama/Clinton in 2004, or I guess I posted it here in 2005, because of the media opinion. I know what really drives the election, it's why it was an easy pick. the problem was Obama wouldn't take hillary as a vp, even though she came in 2nd, because he probably thought she would kill him and take his place, which she probably would.

Give Barry a while. I said everyone gets 18 months unless they attack american citizens. Then you can abandon them. But Obama hasn't bombed America, so he gets 18 months, then we can evaluate his job performance. I did as much for Bush, who now I would say, at least people in his govt *did* attack America, so I probably shouldn't have, but follow this logic.

The incoming president, pork bailouts aside, writes the next years budget, and usually policies, taxes, etc. It takes 2 years for the new head of state's policies to be fully in place, or at least 18 months. I think 18 months in, you can judge how things are going. Before that, I think people are just being partisan.

All that said, I think Ron Paul is still the voice of reason in the US govt. His speech on the bailout, the fraudulent nature of the debt and the irrationality of American empire was awesome.

We're going to lose, but lets lose for who we really are, and on that subject, can we get rid of these fakers, pork pigs, and jackasses on the right, the war-nuts, and anti-conservationists, everything that is just corporate greed with a thin cloak.

Oh, and could someone do me a personal favor and take Jabba the Limbaugh and transport him to limbo? I don't want to hear another peep from that shmuck about anything, and I don't want him to stand for conservatives, and I actually don't want him in the news any more than Paris Hilton, they deserve the same amount of respect: zero.

One more thing, Steele. I guess this is par for the course, he's like the GOP's Howard Dean. At least Steele hasn't called our president "Osama bin Laden" yet. That puts him one up on Dean. (I actually worked for Dean, he was an ass then, too.) Steele I don't know, but before the GOP actually wants to win an election, they might want to hire someone with some backbone. Just a thought. Personally, I don't care. He can stay if someone gets rid of Limbaugh. Oh, and if you have an extra shot, take out Coulter, too. If you're lucky, you can get Ann and Bill Maher in one shot :)

Non-terrorist disclaimer, not suggesting shooting anyone, just put them on -ignore /always

RUE

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:14 AM

BigBM

"Why don't you go back to calling Auraptor, et al, dogs."

I reserve that for Rap. It's very specific to him. I don't call ALL people with whom I disagree sheeple, or dogs. Unlike of course Wulf, who prefers to think of himself as the uber Wulf to the sheeple with which he's surrounded, and whom he feels he has the right to demean.

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

And please, PLEASE, for the love of god, learn to read ! M-kay ?

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:20 AM

"I can almost hear Wulfie giving his first speech in support of Ron Paul:

"Ahem... Is this thing on? Good. Okay, LISTEN TO ME, YOU BUNCH OF IGNORANT SLOBS! ALL YOU SHEEPLE, YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK OR HOW TO THINK, AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU BOTH! VOTE RON PAUL! DON'T ASK WHY, JUST TRUST ME WHEN I SAY HE'S THE ONE! BELIEVE IT! DON'T BE SHEEPLE! FOLLOW ME!"

Ok, this was kind of funny...

BUT, I don't think people are all ignorant, slovenly, idiots who should just do what I say.

JUST that you need to wake up and realize that its WAAAAY past time to put politics aside and actually do the right thing for the country as a whole.

And FOR ME, that is getting back in line with the Constitution....and being for the one guy who has ALWAYS been FOR the Constitution.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Why don't you go back to calling Auraptor, et al, dogs."

I reserve that for Rap. It's very specific to him. I don't call ALL people with whom I disagree sheeple, or dogs. Unlike of course Wulf, who prefers to think of himself as the uber Wulf to the sheeple with which he's surrounded, and whom he feels he has the right to demean.

But it's not demeaning when your buddy Signy says it, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- Let me be clear: I think most peeps ARE sheeple. I think "we" have an inherent tendency to "follow the leader", to cooperate well beyond the point of self-interest.

Might want to bone up on your own reading skills Rue.

RUE

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:38 AM

This was your post directed to ME - remember ?

"Rue
Why don't you go back to calling Auraptor, et al, dogs."

I haven't called anyone else a dog. Nor have I called any group sheeple. Also, I was answering a post directed to ME and answering for ME. And now you want me to answer to your post to ME for --- SignyM ?

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

Is someone ELSE typing your posts for you ? B/c clearly, you are not reading your own posts with any comprehension.

RUE

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:45 AM

S'wenyways Wulf

You got a lot of 'splainin' to do about this:

"If I, someone who admittedly is fraked beyond all reason, can see him as being a leader of actual HOPE...than so can all the sheeple."

Presumably, all those 99% of sheeple who voted NO on Ron Paul.

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

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:16 AM

While I think it's true that a majority of voters would not be in favor of Ron Paul's ideology - even if they were presented with a clear choice - I do think he'd garner a lot more support (my gut feel is in the thirty percent range) if his message was allowed through. But the really important thing is who doesn't want Ron Paul to be heard, and that's the leadership of both parties.

More than probably any other national politician, his message threatens the charade that keeps the vested powers vested. He speaks truth when it's not popular, when it's not convenient, and when his fellow party members don't want us to hear it. And that's probably the biggest reason he'll never get his due.

The two major parties worked hard over the last century to build up the wall that keeps out all substantial opposition. They will remain in power until that wall is breached. And that's not going to happen with a grassroots voter movement unless its accompanied by major structural upheaval.

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This was your post directed to ME - remember ?

"Rue
Why don't you go back to calling Auraptor, et al, dogs."

I haven't called anyone else a dog. Nor have I called any group sheeple. Also, I was answering a post directed to ME and answering for ME. And now you want me to answer to your post to ME for --- SignyM ?

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

Is someone ELSE typing your posts for you ? B/c clearly, you are not reading your own posts with any comprehension.

Slick.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:38 AM

Yes, I think most people tend to follow the leader. I use the term "sheeple" as a term that Wulf would recognize, seeing as he uses it rather often.

What I'm trying to point out is that people are not wolves, or tigers, or eagles, or bears, or any other large carnivore. We're a SOCIAL species. Relatively defenseless in our naked state, with infants who remain helpless for years and years. We got where we got by cooperation. Or sociality is both our curse and our strength.

Deal with it.

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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I'm trying to point out is...

Yes, you've pointed that out most effectively, and most repeatedly. And what you don't seem to understand is that we're not complaining about the point you're making. Yes, humans are social creatures, cooperation is necessary, and community is necessary and desirable. But that's not the same thing as a corrupt political structure dominated by corporate interests who'd rather keep consumers blindly turning the wheels of the war machine. Ron Paul isn't shut out of the process because he threatens civil, social cooperation. He's shut out because he promotes it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Deal with it.

Or defeat it. Ron Paul may not get elected. But those of us ready for real change won't shut up just because what he's saying makes the old guard uncomfortable.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:05 PM

Quote:
They will remain in power until that wall is breached.

Pffth, we don't NEED to breach it, just grow strong enough, tall enough, in and of ourselves to simply step on over it, and just keep walkin.

"Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit"
- Philip Pullman; The Subtle Knife

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But a 99% NO Ron Paul vote repeatedly over the whole process is pretty conlusive. It's a lesson that you need to pay attention to. That 99% NO is telling you something important - something you need to acknowledge.

No it's not. It's asinine to say when 9 out of 10 people you ask don't even know who the man is. It's hard to be voting against somebody you don't even know exists.

They had two candidates (3 if you include Hillary) that were beat down into our subconscious, and aside from a few republicans vying for the position, there was little real choice in the matter.

You can't honestly say that you agree with McCain on more things than you do with Ron Paul, could you?

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:22 PM

Quote:

They had two candidates (3 if you include Hillary) that were beat down into our subconscious, and aside from a few republicans vying for the position, there was little real choice in the matter.

You're blaming the media for his failure, when in fact you really should be blaming him and his organization (or lack thereof) for not getting his message out and for not running a good grass-roots campaign. If he'd been an effective campaigner and had people behind him who were worth a damn, his message surely would have gotten out to more than 1% of the "sheeple".

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:26 PM

ahem.... 10% of the sheeple.

You'll see. When Obama fails just like Bush did.

There's no room for other voices now. The people just aren't inconvenienced enough to be meaningfully pissed off yet.

Paul's no savior. I believe he is special, but there are plenty of others like him. It won't be a two party race much longer.

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ahem.... 10% of the sheeple.

You'll see. When Obama fails just like Bush did.

There's no room for other voices now. The people just aren't inconvenienced enough to be meaningfully pissed off yet.

Paul's no savior. I believe he is special, but there are plenty of others like him. It won't be a two party race much longer.

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

Okay, ten percent. That's a huge difference, but not really. Wiki pegs his popularity at around 7% AMONG REPUBLICAN VOTERS, so he didn't really have more than single-digit support even in his own party.

And in terms of electoral votes, Ron Paul really didn't do that well either. He spent some $28 million on his campaign, and got ZERO electoral votes. To borrow a line from Dennis Miller, I wasn't even running, and I tied him.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a good message or some valid points. What I *AM* saying is that he and his staff did a really shitty job of putting it out there and getting noticed. If 90% of the American public didn't have any idea who he is, is that THEIR fault, or his?

On your other point ("You'll see, when Obama fails just like Bush did.") I also disagree. I think Obama will fail in ways completely different from Bush, possibly ways completely new to America! But who knows? He might just pull it off. Don't hold your breath. :)

As for your overall point, that there are others like Ron Paul and it won't be a two-party race much longer, I'd like to believe you. I *HOPE* you're right, and I'm hoping to bring more third-party candidates into power soon, but I'm starting at the local, county, and state level. Before you can build a new house, you need a solid foundation; we'll build that foundation, THEN we'll work on winning national elections. These things take time.

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

KELKHIL

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Doesnt mean he won't be in the future.

Remember who you are dealing with on this site.

BrownCoats = Diehards.

Yeah but think about it... we couldn't even keep a TV show going. All that needs is a few million viewers on any given week. Being Prez... taht take a few million in Each state. Not gonna happen.

Zombie Killing, Ninja in Training Kelkhil
The Shirtless Forsaken

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:55 PM

Quote:
and got ZERO electoral votes.

And he won't, ever, unless we get underneath it and start ripping the guts out of it at the state level.

Ummm, you DID see my post further up in this thread on March 4th about why that can NOT happen in our current system, right ?

When you play a rigged game at the card sharpers table with his deck - expecting to do anything but lose is asinine.

You got to palm some cards yourself to even stand a chance.

-F

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Okay, ten percent. That's a huge difference, but not really. Wiki pegs his popularity at around 7% AMONG REPUBLICAN VOTERS, so he didn't really have more than single-digit support even in his own party.

I was just saying that, at best, 10% of the American public was even aware of who the man is. He had support among Democratic voters as well. Of the people who I knew that knew who he was and liked his message, I can say they both were pretty happy to see support coming from the other side.

Quote:
didn't do that well either. He spent some $28 million on his campaign, and got ZERO electoral votes. To borrow a line from Dennis Miller, I wasn't even running, and I tied him.

With Miller's quote, and I say this being a fan of Miller myself, you prove the point I'm trying to make. If the little converage anyone ever sees of the man is that it's futile for him to win and he's the champion of the "lunatic fringe", how much money would you suspect needs to be thrown at that problem to make it go away?

Ron Paul ran on a rigidly responsible fiscal policy, and he wasn't going to ask Barack Obama to bail him out when he spent ten times his net worth in campaign expences al la Hillary.

I'm sure Dr Paul cringed at spending even 28 million dollars, but until true campaign finance reform comes this was big proof that we're still just entrenched mindlessly in the 2 party race. He couldn't even sneak his way in by pretending to be a Republican.

The sad thing about him "pretending" to be Republican, is that he's the one who most closely follows and believes in their ideals of small government and free market, he's the one laughed at like an old clown wearing depends.

Quote:
I'm not saying he doesn't have a good message or some valid points. What I *AM* saying is that he and his staff did a really shitty job of putting it out there and getting noticed. If 90% of the American public didn't have any idea who he is, is that THEIR fault, or his?

I'm not sitting here being judgemental of the proles. Things are just to easy enough collectively, even in these tough times, for us to start looking for true alternatives and change. It's nobody's fault. We're just proving the fact that there are natural leaders and natural followers. We're just doing what we're told to do, with a little bit of "choice" thrown in to blind us from the fact that until we stand together and demand it that there really is no choice.

Quote:
On your other point ("You'll see, when Obama fails just like Bush did.") I also disagree. I think Obama will fail in ways completely different from Bush, possibly ways completely new to America! But who knows? He might just pull it off. Don't hold your breath. :)

I didn't mean "LIKE" Bush did... I just mean that he will fail, and is already failing. Borrowing a way out of a problem is what got us here. We are all cheering him on as he sells our grandchildren into slavery. Bush didn't start that fire either. He just gave it a hell of a workout. Obama's now giving it the "Sammy Sosa" treatment.

Quote:
As for your overall point, that there are others like Ron Paul and it won't be a two-party race much longer, I'd like to believe you. I *HOPE* you're right, and I'm hoping to bring more third-party candidates into power soon, but I'm starting at the local, county, and state level. Before you can build a new house, you need a solid foundation; we'll build that foundation, THEN we'll work on winning national elections. These things take time.

The ground up is the way to do it. The top is way too heavy and corrupt and the foundation is weak and pliable. I do believe that a government can truly function to serve the people, but it will forget what it was designed to do when the people fall asleep.

Here's hoping the adrenaline shot that the people need isn't as severe as previous shots needed to be to get the desired effect.

But we know better than that, don't we......

Good luck Mike,
~6

htt

RUE

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:17 PM

I based my 99% NO vote for Ron Paul on a calculation: his fractional repubican support x fraction of declared repubican voters x fraction who vote. And I came up with a number less than 1% who supported Ron Paul (and gave him the benefit of the doubt by boosting it 50% to 1%). Now, this is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and you can argue whether it's less than 1% or up to 7% - but either way it a VERY SMALL NUMBER. In truth, it's a DECISIVELY small number.

Was it bad campaigning or a message out of tune with what the vast majority want ? Think of ALL the alternatives who, unlike Ron Paul, are well known who also didn't get many votes - Ralph Nader, anyone ?

So, what can be learned from low numbers of out-of-mainstream candidates ? It's that people right now are not looking for 'different'. They're looking for 'better'.

Maybe in a few years things will be so bad people will want to chuck all the old faces and old ideas. But then, and I have to be the one to bring bad news, that will also mean Ron Paul - a member of which well-established party, again ?

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.

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. If you want to establish an alternate party, it needs to be done in a big way to make any headway against either party. Chipping around the edges to marginally improve Ron Paul's popularity isn't going to do it. B/c, in the end, he will still be a marginal player at the edges.

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

Silence is consent.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:58 PM

Wow... can you plug any more sound bites from 40 years ago Rue?

Idiot.

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Wow... can you plug any more sound bites from 40 years ago Rue?

Idiot.

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

Not sure I follow you on this, Jack.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:47 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:05 PM

Anyway, I'm 100% behind about 30% of what Ron Paul says. The other 70% I'm 90% against, which pretty much means I'm not only "not for" RP I'm actually against him.

There are other politicians and non-mainstream candidates that I like a whole lot better than RP, including Ralph Nader and Russ Feingold. So if I'm gonna daydream I may as well come up with something way more agreeable.

Sarge... my point about peeps being cooperative is that we seem to cooperate waaaaay beyond immediate self-interest. Look at all the enduring societies that practiced human sacrifice, or engaged in endless wars. You won't get peeps to agree with you by rippping off their blinders and having them suddenly raise their hands up to the sky, praising freedom. Change is scary. Peeps need to see it will make a material improvement in their lives.

BTW- I find it interesting that I hear more from Ron Paul on that "liberal" show "Real Time" (Bill Maher) than I do thru any of the Republican "conservative" shows. Why he doesn't have the stones to break with the Repubs is beyond me 'cause the only thing they do for him is to bury him. Maybe if he ran as an independent he'd get more coverage.

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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I find it interesting that I hear more from Ron Paul on that "liberal" show "Real Time" (Bill Maher) than I do thru any of the Republican "conservative" shows. Why he doesn't have the stones to break with the Repubs is beyond me 'cause the only thing they do for him is to bury him. Maybe if he ran as an independent he'd get more coverage.

You mean like that other guy that ran independent? The one that no one at all heard about?

This issue was a pretty common discussion topic amongst those of us who supported Ron Paul's message. But, futile as his attempts to gain the Republican nomination might have been, it got more coverage than a third party, or independent run, ever would have. The defining moments of his campaign happened in the Republican primary debates, where he essentially gave the middle finger to the party establishment in their own backyard. That would have never been possible if he'd run as an independent.

The truth of the matter is the two parties have the process sewn up tight. Voters and, more importantly, media know this and they won't give more than token coverage to anyone outside of that process because, by definition, they aren't "viable".

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

RUE

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:45 PM

"The truth of the matter is the two parties have the process sewn up tight. Voters and, more importantly, media know this and they won't give more than token coverage to anyone outside of that process because, by definition, they aren't "viable"."

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.

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

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:59 PM

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:
The defining moments of his campaign happened in the Republican primary debates, where he essentially gave the middle finger to the party establishment in their own backyard. That would have never been possible if he'd run as an independent.

Well, THAT seems pretty pointless! To stay in a party just to say Nyah nyah nyah! I told you so!???

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

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE