Ron Paul - Help Wanted

POSTED BY: SevenPercent
UPDATED: Friday, August 31, 2007 20:14
VIEWED: 12322
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:24 AM

Help me out here, someone.

Now, I've seen Ron Paul on a few shows now, and I've kind of liked what the man had to say. I'm still a little unsure, given some things I've heard (not to mention the least of which is he's from Texas, the state that gave us Bush, Waco, and a McDonald's served counter of death sentences), but nothing too serious on that front.

But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like).

And they all support Ron Paul.

Is there anyone rational out there who thinks he's a decent guy, and who may have some links I can check out on him? I'd especially like opinions or links from our more conservative folks; Hero (God help me for asking), Finn, and AuR (my disagreements with you may have been legendary, but I respect your opinions), but I'll accept info from anyone.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:31 AM

I support him Seven. Can I be on your 'loon list'? :)

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

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:42 AM

I don't know if you think I'm rational but here goes, I think he's a decent choice who has the right idea but maybe takes things too far. However his more radical ideas probably wouldn't get past Congress so I'm not worried about that too much. All in all I wouldn't feel bad about voting for him but I don't know if hes going to be the best choice yet (and I won't until it's down to the final two) but I certainly don't think he'll be a bad choice given the people who we already know are going to be running.

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Can I be on your 'loon list'? :)

No. You can't be on the loon list. Sorry Sarge, but I have to put my foot down on this one.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

PENGUIN

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:56 AM

“Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.” Gore Vidal

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

LEADB

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:07 AM

There's a wikipedia entry (no idea how biased it is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
reads a little too much like campaign literature for me to be sure it is not biased (on the flip side, it's at least -good- campaign literature).

Its too early to say I'm 'for' him; been a life long democrat when it comes to presidential vote casting; but I must admit he'd tempt me. The main thing I'd like to see is exactly what he wants to cut. I probably have too much bias toward some form of universal health care to end up voting for him; but put the wrong democrat up against him, I could see voting for him.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:20 AM

Okay Seven. I think I'm somewhat qualified to answer your questions. I've not followed Ron Paul's career especially closely, but I've been in and out of the Libertarian party for years. And that's the first thing you need to understand about Ron Paul. He's a Libertarian in Republican clothing.

I think that's great, but it's likely to present some scary issues to many folks. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll hit on all the scary stuff that'll possibly make him unelectable in the end.

Libertarians believe in minimal government. They mean it. Ulitimately they'd pare government down to the bare essentials (defense and basic laws preventing violence and theft). What the bare essentials are is debatable, and not even all Libertarians agree where that line should be drawn, but they hope to push the pendulum a good distance in the other direction.

In short, they believe the government has no business interfering with anyone unless they are harming or threatening another. This simple notion is applied to pretty much every political issue a Libertarian considers. They are against 'victimless' crimes and most regulation. They're against drug laws and laws pertaining to consensual sex.

These issues will be used by Democrats and Republicans to scare middling voters away. Scaring people has proven a very effective, and spectacularly easy, way to manipulate the American public. You can bet they'll turn it up to eleven if push comes to shove.

I've read and thought a fair amount about politics and libertarianism, to me, is by far the sanest and most rational of the various philosophies of government. It's not perfect, but it's not nearly as scary as they'd have people believe. Democrats will try to convince you that we're cold-hearted social Darwinists, and Republicans will tell you we're hedonists. Neither of those is the case.

Lastly, while libertarianism is remarkably consistent as a political philosophy, there are a few issues that don't fit nicely into the basic framework. One of those issues, abortion, happens to be where I disagree with Dr. Paul (actually a majority of the Libertarian party does as well, but there is a sizable pro-life contingent).

His views on abortion are roughly thus: He believes it is wrong - it's initiation of force against a person (unborn). But he doesn't think think it should be a federal issue - only states have the right to pass such laws.

I disagree with him fairly strongly on this. In my opinion, aborting may be, in the strictest sense 'murder'. But in this case, the cure is worse than the crime. If the only way a law can be enforced is to annex a woman's body, effectively making her public property, then that's a bad law.

But as president he'd actually have very little say on this issue, by his own reckoning of constitutional law. He's specifically against federal mandates to the states and he's made very clear it should never be a federal issue. So I've convinced myself it's a moot point.

Well, those are the scariest positions I can think of. There may be others that seem benign to me, and not so much to your ear, but I can't think of anything else that would cause you grave concern.

EDIT to add: Applied thoroughly and consistently, libertarian ideology implies some pretty radical changes to the make up of our federal government. If they had their druthers, in the long run Libertarians would abolish the IRS and many other government bureaucracies. They'd get rid of the Department of Homeland Security. They'd dismantle perhaps two-thirds of the federal government, eliminating many institutions that most people now see as synonymous with government.

Of course, none of this would ever happen without a massive shift in the public's preferences, regardless of who is elected.

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

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:43 AM

Liberal Playboy Pajama-Party Jew Bill Maher LOVES Ron Paul, as did the ENTIRE audience, who gave Dr Paul a long standing ovation last week:

Quote:

VIDEO: Ron Paul On Real Time With Bill Maher (05/25/07)

VIDEO: Bill Maher stands up for Ron Paul
www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52096/

Jew Ben Afflack also clapped for Dr Paul.

But Dr Paul is pulling his punches re 9/11 (trying to keep the CIA assassins at bay), and Paul wants a criminal investigation into the 9/11 Massacres, which would result in the arrest of Mafia mayor Ghouliani and the Bushes, who led the attack, with zero Muslim "hijackers", just like Pentagon's declassified Operation Northwoods.
www.piratenews.org/911con.html
www.september911surprise.com

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:26 AM

PN, you should reconsider Giuliani. I think he's truly your candidate!

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

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:56 AM

Quote:

"Ron Paul is my new hero. What is so sad to me is this guy is saying truth, and they're treating him as a crazy person."
-Bill Maher

VIDEO: www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52096/

As for the hero worship of Rotton Reagan:

Quote:

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."
-President Ronald Reagan

When Reagan said that on live TV, my job for Uncle Scam was loading nukes targeted at US troops and allies in Western Europe.

As for Ghouliani Knight of the British Empire:

Quote:

"Mayor Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who won notice for 'pursuing' the Mafia — had relatives linked to organized crime, including a mobbed-up cousin who was gunned down by FBI agents in 1977, a new book says. Lewis D'Avanzo, a son of the mayor's uncle and a guest at Giuliani's first wedding in 1968, was a 'ruthless and widely feared mob associate' who headed a massive stolen car ring, according to FBI documents and interviews detailed in Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, by Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett. Due in stores next week, the book sketches a largely unflattering portrait of the clan, depicting his father, Harold, as a hothead and the "muscle" behind a brother-in-law's loansharking operation, run out of a Brooklyn bar. Along with cracking heads, it says the mayor's father served time in state prison for a stickup, rarely held an on-the-books job and once was a gunman in a mob shootout in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. According to the book, Giuliani's cousin Lewis D'Avanzo was known as "Steve the Blond" and listed as armed and dangerous in FBI bulletins. His criminal record included a 10-year federal sentence for the armed hijacking of a truck loaded with $240,000 worth of mercury. The book alleges that he was suspected of taking part in several murders. D'Avanzo was gunned down by the FBI in October 1977, when he tried to run down an agent after being stopped on a warrant that accused him and two associates of transporting 100 stolen luxury cars. Quoting an unnamed friend of D'Avanzo, the book describes a 1962 shootout pitting a local mobster against the mayor's father and Leo D'Avanzo, Lewis D'Avanzo's father. The book says Leo was later sanctioned by mob bosses for shooting at a Mafia member. Leo D'Avanzo, who was known in family circles as a black sheep, ran loansharking and gambling operations out of a Brooklyn bar where Giuliani's father worked as a bartender. In his role as debt collector, his father 'broke legs, smashed kneecaps, crunched noses.' Joan Ellen D'Avanzo, a cousin who at one time lived with Giuliani when he was a youngster, became a drug addict who was beaten to death in 1973 at age 34. Her cause of death was listed as undetermined, but several family members said she was murdered."
—Michael R. Blood, New York Daily News, "Rudy's Kin Tied to Mob", July 06, 2000

"The father he celebrated so often was a pathological predator. His extended family harbored a junkie, a crooked cop and a murky mob wing. He dissolved his first marriage with a lie so he could appear Catholic when he remarried. The very personal jewelry his first wife found in her bedroom wasn't hers...."
—Wayne Barrett, Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Guiliani, "All in the Family: Crooks, Cops and a Junkie" (co-author of City for Sale)

Donald Trump sucks Rudy's tits

NYC TV News: Ghouliani ambushed by 9/11 Truthers
http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=112179

Queen Rudy's private company bombed London on 7/7, which is why the German queen of England knighted him. He's also helping the king of Spain annex all highways in Texas, for the www.SPP.gov Trans Texas Corridor for Mexico to Canada, as part of the British Commonwealth.

"You can't stop the signal! But if you make me wear a dress it'll kill me."
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PI

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:15 AM

Quote:
sevenpercent- But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like).

you know sevenpercent, im actually a little hurt by that comment... although i havent narrowed down whether im the "idiot", "nuts", or the "douchebag"(but ill assume theyre in order).

in our defense, Ron Paul finally vindicates the arguments we've made that their IS an agenda for a global government, and that it is being coordinated by the central banks. i mentioned the illegality of the federal reserve, and the IRS many times, and a lot of people around here outright dismissed my comments as absurd... but now that Ron Paul is speaking out, maybe these subjects will be taken seriously. us "conspiracy theorists" have had concerns about national ID cards, and abuses of the Patriot act and Military commissions act since 9/11, and we've only been criticized... but again, Ron Paul agrees with us 100%!!! so atleast ive been consistent, and im confident as time passes my stance will only be further justified

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:18 AM

Well, Seven, there's the rub...

You have straight-up conservatives that support him because he, unlike the neocons, is actually conservative, and respectful of the constitution in that he believes in limited government.

You have liberals that support him because he values and respects privacy, and plans to rein in and/or eliminate many of the government alphabet-agency shocktroops.

You have libertarians who support him because of the reasons Sarge stated.

Thing is, nobody likes the govt all up in their business, and nobody likes the taxman either, and Ron plans to take corrective action on both of those fronts.

I myself am an Anarchist, with heavy retro-antifederalist leanings, and am willing to support Ron Paul because I can acknowledge that americans in general desire an orderly structure, whether I agree or not - many hardcore Anarchic type would be annoyed with me for supposedly 'supporting the state machinery' but thing is, americans want that framework, and if someone took it down, they'd only put something even less viable back up in it's place, so I will take what I can get, you understand ?

Hell, I don't even have that much of an issue with taxes so long as they are reasonable, used for the public good, and above all, used efficiently - many of my arguments here have reflected this.

Above all, this is a man with tremendous credibility, and a history of putting his vote where his mouth is, thus earning him the title "Dr. No." from his fellow congressfolk.
So when he says he intends to do something, and something in keeping with the views and actions of his entire career - I am thus more inclined to believe him.

And many of the things he is planning to address are matters that piss off the *entire* political spectrum, from the staunchest conservatives, to the most radical liberals, so he has support amongst every single political community, I know I am not the only Anarchist who'd break form and drop a vote for him - hell I plan to do that even if I have to write it in.

Also, he has the knack for getting folks who don't necessarily agree with all of his intent to support him because he is willing to address OTHER concerns held by those folk, I know I do not necessarily agree with all his economic policies, but am willing to give them an honest shot as opposed to the ruinous ones we have now.

In essence, this is a guy who's addressing AMERICAS problems, not one party, not one PAC, not one foreign country who's mostly financing their campaign... but AMERICAS, yours, mine, his, hers... OUR people's problems, and dealing with them as an immediate priority.

And THAT message rings through loud and clear, causing americans in general to support him regardless of current political affiliations.

He plans to address MY problems, and unlike the others promising to do so, has enough history, reputation and credibility to make that claim solid, and thus, he gets my vote.

Simple enough ?

-Frem

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

EARLY

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:16 PM

Some people worry that Paul is too radical for America but remember this, a President needs Congress to pass laws, and unlike Bush, clinton etc. Paul doesn't like Executive orders so he'll use them sparingly. Having a libertarianesque President will balance out the government when the Congress still remains big government, big spending etc. I agree with Gore Vidal in the above quote, but remember when you have a candidate like Paul, (or Gravel or Kucinich) you know he doesn't "want" to be President the same way the establishment candidates do or else he'd be willing to sell out his principles in order to get more votes. since Paul's voting record actually backs up what he says this is proven to not be the case. But my favorite thing about him is that he will vote against something he thinks is a good idea simply because its not constitutional. As SargeX mentioned his stand on abortion. He is very pro-life, but he will NOT try to federally outlaw abortion. people have given him crap because he voted against giving a medal to Rosa Parks, but what they forget is he votes against giving medals in general (though I don't think this includes military medals like the medal of honor which since the military is constitutionally federal he would consider constituional). you don't have to agree with every vote he makes just understand that our freedoms are in danger and we need a president who wants to stop that.
You asked for some links:
Some articles and speeches at LRC http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Ron paul 2008 http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Daily Paul http://www.dailypaul.com
Texas straight talk http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:18 PM

"But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like)."

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag. Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Now, I've seen Ron Paul on a few shows now, and I've kind of liked what the man had to say.

I'm a little underexposed to his entire platform, but I agree with you in that "I've kind of liked what the man had to say". He seems to refrain from the canned dribble that most politicians must say in order to not offend anyone. When RP was on Maher, he stated his opinions and backed them up with historical fact, and they made good sense to me. I kept waiting for the spew to start, and it didn't. You gotta love that! I can see why the Repubs feel threatened, and the dems. As for the media...he doesn't seem to have skeletons in his closet, and he isn't in favor of wars for them to cover night and day. Don't let the "he'll never win" and "he's too much of a crackpot" people sway you. They're just worried that they'll no longer be able to sell you what they're selling you now if RP were to become President.

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:30 PM

Paul has stated that he will run as an Independent... (one o'em in'penents..) and i beleive the odds are staked against him winning the Republican nomination....

i really like his, seemingly, honest approach and could support him if he runs as an Independent...

(sticker is on the jeep already...)

big edit... Paul stated that he will NOT run as an independent...

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:08 PM

He only says that he will not run as an independent, because he is seeking the repub nomination...If he doesn't get it and changes his mind...I'll forgive him.........

Sevenpercent

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:34 PM

i gotta say Kaneman, that it's a little scary being in agreement with you on Paul.... but not so much that i would change my mind - (so do you really have a heart of gold.... and not coal as i have suspected..?)

the thing is - both parties are really the same - i learned that on May 24th when the Dems caved to Bush and voted for the supplemental funding bill... they had their chance to stand up and they failed - they failed everyone who wants to end the war in Iraq and they failed everyone who elected them last November to do just that...

i regret all the donations i have made to the DNC, DCCC and various congressmen seeking election or reelection... i have stopped supporting the Democratic cause competely... and have sent donations to Ron Paul's campaign... i have supported many failed canidates in the past so why change now..? Men like Paul are not made in the mold of many of the career politicians that have ruined our system of government (IMO)... and they never seem to get the support of the people who they want to help the most - it's all about the 30 or 60 second sound bite anymore - many folks make snap decisions on who they will vote for on the basis of these stupid talking points and not the real issues -

i hope, for the future of this country, that people will wake up and realize that if they choose either Republican or Democrat, they are asking for more of the same status quo of the past.

We need a viable third party in this county to counter the other two.

I hope Paul runs as an Independent. I will vote for him.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag. Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

I suspect that it's more the conspiracy theories then the religion (though the two overlap sometimes).

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag.

No. You pretty much fit trolling douchebag. This post is just another example.

Quote:
Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Degenerate? There's a good one, coming from someone who routinely posts gay sex fantasies in response to other people's posts on this board. If I was a degenerate, I'd probably be tagged as, oh, I dunno, offensive? But I havent been. Somebody else here has been though...wonder who that is?

Quote:
Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

I don't need help to decide about him, I want to know more about him from people who already have an opinion on him. I understand how google works, numbnuts; I want opinions and reasoning. I can easily track a voting record, it's a lot harder to track the why of the voting record. I'm looking for people in the area he's represented or for opinions of people who've followed his career over the years. I'm also tracking commentary on a number of other sites and places.

Unlike you, you festering, pustulent, pea-brained boil on the ass of humanity, I like to make informed decisions, not just read one link and make up my mind. I like to consider things for a while. It even took me two or three of your posts to decide you were an ignorant troll (shouldn't have taken me that long, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt).

Quote:
On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

Nice. Good imagination you have there. It's okay to come out of the closet, Kaneman.

Oh, and instead of replying to a second post of yours?

right back atcha.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:04 PM

Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories. His religion doesn't bother me in the least, though I've said in the past that his type of conspiratorical fundamentalism makes Christians like myself look bad by association.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag.

No. You pretty much fit trolling douchebag. This post is just another example. Now pickle licker....stay on topic.......

Quote:
Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Degenerate? There's a good one, coming from someone who routinely posts gay sex fantasies in response to other people's posts on this board. If I was a degenerate, I'd probably be tagged as, oh, I dunno, offensive? But I havent been. Somebody else here has been though...wonder who that is?

Quote:
Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

I don't need help to decide about him, I want to know more about him from people who already have an opinion on him. I understand how google works, numbnuts; I want opinions and reasoning. I can easily track a voting record, it's a lot harder to track the why of the voting record. I'm looking for people in the area he's represented or for opinions of people who've followed his career over the years. I'm also tracking commentary on a number of other sites and places.

Unlike you, you festering, pustulent, pea-brained boil on the ass of humanity, I like to make informed decisions, not just read one link and make up my mind. I like to consider things for a while. It even took me two or three of your posts to decide you were an ignorant troll (shouldn't have taken me that long, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt).

Quote:
On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

Nice. Good imagination you have there. It's okay to come out of the closet, Kaneman.

Oh, and instead of replying to a second post of yours? right back atcha.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

Sure. Like I start threads that wrongly list only three RP supporters and then call them idiots, trolls, and nut cases. Well, actually I would. However, you claim to not be the faggot troll that I think you are. And then you post this thread...What a tool. You are proving to be very similar to me...only difference is your gay-ness....

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:22 PM

As a liberal, Ron Paul presents me with a true philosophical dilemma.

I like the man, because I think he is honest and has integrity, something most politicians on both stages could not say. He doesn't seem to shy away from saying something unpopular, whereas Obama and Clinton are masters at avoiding anything provocative, even when they know its the truth.

Granted, they both went on record as being against the recent democratic cave to Bush over timetables, but they would never say what Ron Paul was brave enough to say, because they know, or believe, that would end their bid for the Presidency.

They are classic examples of the political institution. It's not clear to me whether they even truly want change, or if they're really truly willing to fight for it. The status quo keeps them in power as courters of the middle. I'm not sure they even want to end the war in Iraq,

or whether the dissent they voiced in congress was because they knew it was safe, without actual effect beyond political pandering. After all, they know who's going to get blamed when things go even southerer in Iraq after an American pullout, so maybe they'd rather leave this disaster to Bush, even while people in the real world are dying because of their inaction.

But if Obama or Clinton were to beat out my favored choices, Edwards(not that he has nothing to answer for on this war), Kucinich, and hell, even Gravel, I would still vote for them over any Republican candidate, yes including Ron Paul.

This is a painful statement for me, because I want honest governorship. I don't know what it says about me frankly that I would choose less then genuine articles over Paul, but Ron Paul does scare me. He scares me because while he gets our problems with the Middle-East, and he gets that all Americans need health care(I assume this is not a job for the government), there's too much I think he doesn't get...there's too much at odds with my sense of the world. and of our nation’s problems.

First and most central to me is his seeming disconnect that assumes there is any difference between intrusive Federal Governments running people's lives or state governments doing so, or corporations for that matter.

Could any libertarian please step up and explain to me how Ron Paul's solution to some ailing Government programs is that they should be privatized is in-fact a good solution?

Haven't we been seeing way too much of that? Isn't there example enough of unregulated companies doing what they want when they want and giving us the bill? That's the problem I see right here. If he thinks our lives will be meddled with less in an unregulated world, he's forgotten shanty towns and black-lists, and now private contractors used in both Iraq and Katrina who are not regulated by any military code of justice.

Next, he seems to think that racism is something that will go away if we stop trying to address it. That neglects 200 years of our history dealing, and mostly not dealing, with this very real problem.

And last, he thinks that fetus's are human beings, and that States should be able to decide whether or not to allow abortions, which certainly isn’t liberal, and frankly isn't very libertarian. Why should states individually have the right to make laws that intrude upon the rights of the individual? He would argue that this isn't a "victimless crime" I suppose, but the science isn't on his side here as to whether a fetus is a person.

Here's my fundamental dilemma. Obama and Clinton say they mean to end the war. They very well could be lying to me. Ron Paul tells me he wants to let states have the rights over women's reproductive system. I believe him when he tells me this.

Half of what he says he’s going to do I disagree with. What recourse do I have when I vote somebody into office that does what he says he’s going to do?

Of course, its a fair question to pose to me, what recourse do you have when you vote somebody into office and they don't do what they say they are going to do? don't know exactly.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:47 PM

He's an honest man who stands for his convictions, you don't have to agree with him to respect him.

I think his interpretation of Constitutional issues are pretty true to the framer's thoughts on the matter. I understand that he doesnt like fudging constitutional ussues or either judicial rewrites or SCOTUS being asleep and letting bad laws go unchallenged.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the Constitution strictly interpreted in a 200 year old context would actually work very well. There are a lot of "actors" in place that simply didn't exist in the 1780's including multinational corporations, companies treated as people and changes to the rules of usary that could infringe on practical personal liberty in the absence of a strong government.

One thing is true though and that is that we need more guys like him.

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Sure. Like I start threads that wrongly list only three RP supporters and then call them idiots, trolls, and nut cases.

At the time I looked at it, you three were the only three that had posted to the original RP thread. I didn't know Sarge had until he told me he had. This thread was asking for those who may support him that may not have participated in that thread simply because you and PN had infested it. Of the three of you, I actually think Antimason may be a nice guy, I may have been overreacting to the evolution thread in his case. If he wants you to be his defender, let him say it; frankly, I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Quote:
Well, actually I would. However, you claim to not be the faggot troll that I think you are.

I'm not the one that has "tagged as offensive" next to my name. And really, I don't give a damn if you think I'm a troll or not, and I doubt very seriously if anyone else cares either. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find more than a handful of your own sockpuppets that didn't think you were the biggest fungus on this board.

You contribute nothing but insults, you have disdain for everyone here (or else you wouldn't have called this "just a sci-fi website"), and you've never acted like a respectable member of the community. I can tell you right now that if I ran this board, I'd have outright banned your ass months ago.

Quote:
And then you post this thread...What a tool. You are proving to be very similar to me...only difference is your gay-ness....

Damn right I posted it, and from those folks besides you that have posted I'm seeing some serious respect for RP, which says a lot to me about the man (you wouldn't know anything about respect though, since you can't earn any). And the homophobia? Seriously, it's 3rd grade (right where I expect your intellect to be), and it's making you look like a closet case.

Only when my IQ drops 50 points, my manners go out the door, and my knuckles start dragging the ground will we ever even remotely have anything in common...

...well it's true.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:05 PM

Well said. Now go vote for Ron Paul, my little sockpuppet.....well, it's true........

"You contribute nothing but insults, you have disdain for everyone here (or else you wouldn't have called this "just a sci-fi website"), and you've never acted like a respectable member of the community.' - seven

Blah.........

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:06 PM

Quote:
posted by sevenpercent- Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories.

i dont think its a character flaw to be open minded to scientists who disagree with atheistic evolution.. IMO its no different then the global warming debate, how all dissent is squashed out by the vested money interests of academia(to protect the status quo). im not a scientist by nature... but as a christian, the bible makes the point that

Quote:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

, so i am looking through a different lense perhaps then you are.

Quote:
His religion doesn't bother me in the least, though I've said in the past that his type of conspiratorical fundamentalism makes Christians like myself look bad by association.

why? 1/3 of the bible is prophecy, and a great deal of it refers to the "day of the Lord", or the end of the age. it is certainly relevant as a christian to promote the return of Jesus to people.. and one way to do that is to be vigilant of the signs, and to interpret prophecy.. just as Jesus' example in the parable of the fig tree. a global government is NOT a conspiracy(as even RON PAUL admits), and IT IS spoken about in prophecy, so in that regard i am not ashamed to speculate and attempt to recognize the signs of the times. if you doubt that there is a luciferian, or occult element in this New World Order agenda, research the doctrines of freemasonry yourself. this is stuff all christians need to consider

you may believe that fundementalists like me make 'christians' look bad, but i disagree. if youll notice, its a lot of mainstream christians who have endorsed this muslim jihadist concept that theyre all trying to murder us to establish a muslim caliphate.. and thats HARDLY supported by biblical scriptures. rather, its the WESTERN nations that make up the final government.. so us conspiracy oriented christians are more accurate. besides, christianity needs to have believers who accept the bible as the true word of God, otherwise the part about God creating the world in 6 days(and resting on the 7th) would have been completely ommitted from doctrine by now, aswell as other uncomfortable scriptures(such as the fallen angles)

as for Ron Paul, hes not only a confessed protestant, but hes also very open to a lot of this subject matter, as any google search will reveal. so you can consider it to all to be crazy, but atleast allow some leeway for alternative opinion, because the mainstream isnt always accurate

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by sevenpercent- Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories.

i dont think its a character flaw to be open minded to scientists who disagree with atheistic evolution

Evolution is not atheistic, evolution is non-theistic. Evolution makes no statement on the existence, or lack thereof, of a god. Most religions have no problem with evolution, it just requires a slight adjustment of the way the holy texts are interpreted.

Quote:
IMO its no different then the global warming debate, how all dissent is squashed out by the vested money interests of academia(to protect the status quo).

I assume you are talking about ID? ID is ignored and rebuffed by scientists because it is not scientific, not out of a desire to protect the status quo. In fact if anyone could come up with a major revision or disproof to evolution they would become instant celebrities. The problem is that ID advocates have never done any actual science, they just repeat rebutted arguments against evolution and whine about how they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. As I said in kaneman's thread, if ID advocates were willing to do real science instead of just trying to discredit evolution then they would be accepted, they aren't willing to do that so they aren't accepted.

ID is a political and religious movement that has never been interested in science, thus scientists see no reason to take then seriously.

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:35 PM

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet- I assume you are talking about ID? ID is ignored and rebuffed by scientists because it is not scientific, not out of a desire to protect the status quo. In fact if anyone could come up with a major revision or disproof to evolution they would become instant celebrities. The problem is that ID advocates have never done any actual science, they just repeat rebutted arguments against evolution and whine about how they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. As I said in kaneman's thread, if ID advocates were willing to do real science instead of just trying to discredit evolution then they would be accepted, they aren't willing to do that so they aren't accepted.

i dont want to sidetrack this discussion any further, since i was only making a point- but i still have to disagree. through your eyes, there is no real science behind ID.. but if there IS a Creator, what evidence would you look for to indicate this? for all we know the signs could be clear as day, we just dont know what to look for

Quote:
ID is a political and religious movement that has never been interested in science, thus scientists see no reason to take then seriously.

if you dont think evolution is used for political reasons too, then your being naive. sometime i will explain what secular idealogy has done to the foundations of our society(which is dependent on rights granted by a transcendant being)

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I've read and thought a fair amount about politics and libertarianism, to me, is by far the sanest and most rational of the various philosophies of government. Democrats will try to convince you that we're cold-hearted social Darwinists, and Republicans will tell you we're hedonists. Neither of those is the case.

exactly.. although, i cringe when referring to the the current crop of marxists and trotskyites as democrats and conservatives. we know the hardcore neo cons/liberals have completely abandoned any semblance of rationality that once existed in their platforms(and taken a lot of people with them). i especially appreciate Ron Paul exposing his critics, particularly within his party, for their own heresy, and neglect of constitutional principles

Quote:
I disagree with him fairly strongly on this. In my opinion, aborting may be, in the strictest sense 'murder'. But in this case, the cure is worse than the crime. If the only way a law can be enforced is to annex a woman's body, effectively making her public property, then that's a bad law.

ive struggled with this also. ive always felt that you cannot have a civil 'right', without a corresponding responsibility, and that government should protect the moral high ground on these issues. this concept fits well with alcohol or gun rights, but as a standard hasnt been applied uniformly anymore, and now certain drug, and other laws contradict that principle(unjustly IMO). anyway, i wonder where abortion truly fits in with this, because i agree that it is murder. the "right" to murder negates the responseability of preserving life. Ron Paul himself said that "i strongly believe that if you cant protect life, how can you protect liberty?" which if we agree, is fundamental to the rule of law. it seems to be in line with the constitution, i just wonder if society, in its effort to redefine traditional values, has lost the virtue to end this perpetual cycle, absent some established agreements, like that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.

but i agree with your assessment of congressman Paul, since strictly upholding the original intent is a prerequisite to trimming the fat and inconstancy in policy. im someone who believes that as much as society has/and continues to change, human beings have not, and that we possess within ourselves the ability to have a 21st century society within the bounds of the constitution

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like).

I didn't make this list?

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

LEADB

Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:48 AM

Jack, just scrolled thru the list; no where have you posted that you support RP; thus it would be silly for him to put you on that particular list. So, do you or don't you?

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Jack, just scrolled thru the list; no where have you posted that you support RP; thus it would be silly for him to put you on that particular list. So, do you or don't you?

Just so this is perfectly clear, again (and thanks leadb for the assist here), when I posted this thread, the last time I had checked the "RP Quotes" thread Kaneman had posted 4 or 5 times, Antimason twice, and PN once. Only when Sarge pointed out that he had posted did I see that a couple others had added their names to that thread, because after that initial list of names I didnt go back to check it again. If you support RP and werent't in that trainwreck of a thread, I'd like to hear your opinion.

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I didn't make this list?

Do you really want to?

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:38 PM

I dunno, maybe you missed the original thread, Seven - but it was me, who originally started trumpeting the fact that RP signed for a presidential exploratory.

And a lotta folk threw in right after, imma see if I can necromance the thread for ya.

And Six ? he didn't say "Asshole" and "Wackjob", so I figure you and I weren't included.

I'm a bad, bad little man, yes.

-Frem

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

EDIT - Actually it was CTS who posted the original topic, stand by for necromancy!
MOLARAM, SALARAM, HUH, HUH!

EARLY

Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:41 PM

[

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

First and most central to me is his seeming disconnect that assumes there is any difference between intrusive Federal Governments running people's lives or state governments doing so, or corporations for that matter.

I partially agree and so does Paul. he doesn't want state governments running our lives any more than the feds, but when he talks about the federal and state questions he's looking at it from a constitutional stance. The good thing about federalism is that people can live in a state that fits more to their view of the world. For example, if you hate guns you can live in a state that has strict gun control etc. But you must realize that everyone doesn't feel the same way you do so why force all 50 states to follow the same exact rules. But Paul doesn't want the states to run our lives he just believes, and the constitution backs him up, that a large number of decisions should be left to the states. But these decisions still can't violate the constitution particularly section 5 of the 14th amendment which the Sup. Ct. has ruled guarantees the same basic rights as under the Federal constitution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Could any libertarian please step up and explain to me how Ron Paul's solution to some ailing Government programs is that they should be privatized is in-fact a good solution?

This is hard because it takes a certain mindset to agree to it, and one that I don't think you have.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Haven't we been seeing way too much of that? Isn't there example enough of unregulated companies doing what they want when they want and giving us the bill? That's the problem I see right here. If he thinks our lives will be meddled with less in an unregulated world, he's forgotten shanty towns and black-lists, and now private contractors used in both Iraq and Katrina who are not regulated by any military code of justice.

first you need to understand that Paul wants to get rid of corporate welfare. our country has merged corporations with the state in a way that approaches the fascist model. No better example of this can be found than Enron and Haliburton. The NSA gave Enron almost half a billion dollars to build a power plant in India. The plant failed because the cheap oil that was expected to be flowing from the Caspian sea region couldn't get there due to the instability in Afghanistan through which the pipeline was to be built (this was pre-911, during the Clinton years). This pipeline was so important to Enron, Haliburton and Union Oil of California that they tried to get the US to back the Taliban in the civil war to bring stability to the region. it almost worked to. (Bill Richardson even met with the Taliban, something that was technically illegal) That is way too much influence for corporations to have, and that’s the type of "evil corporations" that the left is always screaming about. So it seems that the corporations run our lives now. But Paul wants the corporations out of bed with the government, and does not want them running our lives. When the government stops giving money to corporations and stops no-bid contracts etc. the corporations will actually shrink and their influence will be less, not more. One example he likes to talk about is currency regulation. The Federal Reserve (Fed) prints more money causing inflation. then the banks that run the Fed. invest the money before it has been devalued. By the time we get the money it has been devalued. The Fed is private, and Paul wants to get rid of it, so he is not wanting corporations to run our lives as you seem to think. When he talks about privatizing he wants the market to work certain things out, like wages for example. There is also issues with programs that have no business belonging to the Federal government, such as education. And you have to realize that if the feds didn’t tax us so much to pay for everything under the sun then the states could g

EARLY

Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the Constitution strictly interpreted in a 200 year old context would actually work very well. There are a lot of "actors" in place that simply didn't exist in the 1780's including multinational corporations, companies treated as people and changes to the rules of usary that could infringe on practical personal liberty in the absence of a strong government.

Then amend the constitution. Thats exactly why the framers made amendments possible. But if you don't follow the constitution then there is no reason to have one.

www.RonPaul2008.com

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:17 PM

"But remember that Paul wants to bring the power of the Presidency back down to fit with the constitution. Meaning he realizes that he can’t pass a law without Congress."

Another reason he is getting my vote....Oh, Seven

Love always kaneman

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Jack, just scrolled thru the list; no where have you posted that you support RP; thus it would be silly for him to put you on that particular list. So, do you or don't you?

Not on this thread, but here is evidence of Jack's support for RP.
http://www.fireflyfan.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=28565

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I dunno, maybe you missed the original thread, Seven - but it was me, who originally started trumpeting the fact that RP signed for a presidential exploratory.

And a lotta folk threw in right after, imma see if I can necromance the thread for ya.

I did miss that; please do the necromancy that you do so well.

Thanks in advance,
7%

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

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:25 PM

Done - actually that thread is referencing an even older one that's below the archive threshold, cause I know I was discussing him before he even thought of running.

-F

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I didn't make this list?

i know... well, you can always criticize evolution, that rubs people the wrong way.(or if you really want to tip the boat, become a Creationist). that.. and find a way to squeeze something about freemasonry or the NWO into every post, then youre sure to make the list next time

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:18 AM

LOL... I just read this post Antimason and I had to respond quick. I think I did do a fair job of critisizing Evolution, or at least questioning the rediculous belief that Evolution is somehow more valid than a belief in God (or vice versa) since both take a leap of faith, or bringing up the question of why couldn't both have happened hand in hand. I was there for all of that.

I'm also no fan of Illuminated Freemasonry or the inevitable New World Order either, but what are you going to do?

I'm kind of disappointed I didn't make this list. Maybe I'm better at standing on the brink of insanity without coming off as a complete wack job than I give myself credit for.

To those who enquired, I do plan on responding to other posts and offering my thoughts on Ron Paul when time permits.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Seven,

I support Ron Paul. I consider myself a left libertarian, concerned about social and environmental issues, but wanting to use govt solutions as a last resort.

Govt is force. Force is expedient, but oppressive. Freedom loving folks look for alternatives to force, which sometimes are more complicated and less convenient and less effective. But in the long run, these less oppressive alternatives allow for the technological and creative growth that underlies economic supremacy. Our country's forefathers had the prescience to institute the least oppressive govt there was, at the expense of the comforts in Europe--which resulted in the long run in our developing the technologies and arts that resulted in our being a superpower today.

Think Firefly. Life in the outer planets is dangerous and onerous compared to living on a comfortable Alliance controlled central planet. But some people prefer freedom to comfort and security.

This is the "heart" of the libertarian philosophy. The libertarian utopia isn't going to be better, not right away. In fact, it would be harsher. But libertarians believe it is right to be free, and in the long run, freedom does and will yield concrete economic and social benefits over force.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
...or bringing up the question of why couldn't both have happened hand in hand.

It's called theistic evolution, it's the belief that most people who accept evolution have, the only people who have a problem with it are people like Dawkins who have a problem with religion itself.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:49 PM

I don't have a problem with religion, but I do have a problem with people who try to equate a 'belief' in evolution with a belief in religion - trying to say they are equally questions of faith. It's actually demeaning to the religious concept. In religion, faith is the idea of believing in something regardless of it's provability or evidence. 'Believing' in evolution (or any theory of science) is of a completely different character than believing in a god. It seems like mudding this distinction is a clear goal of the ID movement. Why?

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

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It seems like mudding this distinction is a clear goal of the ID movement. Why?

The goal of the ID movement is to replace science with religion (specifically fundamentalist Christianity), particularly in schools. They can't do this legitimately because teaching religion violates the First Amendment and because evolution is founded on good science and is pretty damn solid. So without any legitimate means to attack evolution they go about it by spreading misinformation (to the point of blatantly lying quite frequently), and attempting to muddy the issue.

Muddying the issue makes it easier to convince people that they are being persecuted or unjustly ignored when neither is true. They attempt to paint science as something that is believed in the religious sense because then it makes scientists the bad guys since they are too wrapped up in their religious belief in science to accept ID, when the reality is that ID fails as science and isn't needed, so no reputable scientists want to waste their time on it. Painting acceptance of evolution as a religious belief was a tactic that has been tried before (not sure if they're still using it) in an attempt to get evolution removed from schools for being religious, which is patently absurd.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:35 PM

i disagree Fred- we dont want to replace science with religion. we want science to stick with what it can prove. IMHO, you cannot prove that man ever came from a primordial stew millions of years ago. thats my objection.. i agree 100% with microevolution, its not debatable.. but macro evolution and abiogenesis have not been proven sufficiently for the claims being made by scientists. thats my only objection, when science leaves proven theory and extends into stating hypothesis as fact.

also, i dont believe teaching Creation violates the first amendment.. i believe it protects our right to teach it. government cannot endorse any particular belief, but it cannot prohibit the excercise either.. and up until the scopes trial, the bible was allowed in schools, and existed along side proven science JUST fine. as AMericans, we will never preserve our constitutional republic if we continue to publicaly deny the theology which was an essential backdrop to our founding.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Painting acceptance of evolution as a religious belief was a tactic that has been tried before (not sure if they're still using it) in an attempt to get evolution removed from schools for being religious, which is patently absurd.

what is a religious belief? its a worldview! what is evolution? its a worldview! its a view of mans origins, therefore it is incredibly significant to ones mindset, and how the world is viewed. the founders were certainly of the opinion that you could not protect liberties without the belief in a transcendant Creator which endows every man with inalienable rights. i would argue that the atheistic evolution view, or the secular concept of the world, is detrimental to the security of our republics ideals, and is fair game to scrutinize as a worldview

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 1, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what is a religious belief? its a worldview! what is evolution? its a worldview!...

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

Even if you take up the metaphysical point that any trust in your own perceptions requires a kind of faith, you're still talking about something completely different from religious faith. It's always seemed to me that that's what separates religion from science. The faith of religious belief is something above and beyond what can be proven with science. Why would you want to cheapen it by saying it's no different than faith in a theory.

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

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i disagree Fred- we dont want to replace science with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
YOU might have different intentions then the ID movement but the motives of the ID movement are a matter of record.

Quote:
but macro evolution and abiogenesis have not been proven sufficiently for the claims being made by scientists.

Macroevolution has been clearly observed repeatedly, abiogenesis to the best of my knowledge has never been claimed as fact, merely the best current scientific explanation that we have.

Quote:
also, i dont believe teaching Creation violates the first amendment.. i believe it protects our right to teach it. government cannot endorse any particular belief, but it cannot prohibit the excercise either

The First Amendment prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government, teaching a religion in public schools is the government promoting a religion. The only way around it is to teach all religions which would take an enormous amount of time away from actually learning useful things.

Quote:
and up until the scopes trial, the bible was allowed in schools, and existed along side proven science JUST fine.

People tried repeatedly to confirm the stories of the Bible using science, they all failed. The evolution side isn't the people making a religious problem out of this, there are plenty of people who accept evolution and believe in the Bible, it's the religious people who say the two are incompatible.

Quote:
as AMericans, we will never preserve our constitutional republic if we continue to publicaly deny the theology which was an essential backdrop to our founding.

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

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what is a religious belief? its a worldview! what is evolution? its a worldview!

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

Quote:
the founders were certainly of the opinion that you could not protect liberties without the belief in a transcendant Creator which endows every man with inalienable rights.

Which is a non sequitur, religious belief is not necessary to protect liberty and in fact the enforcement of religious belief is anti-liberty.

Quote:
i would argue that the atheistic evolution view, or the secular concept of the world, is detrimental to the security of our republics ideals, and is fair game to scrutinize as a worldview

Feel free to argue that, I'm listening.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:10 AM

Me, I gots a real simple policy on this.

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

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

-Frem

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:55 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:09 AM

Quote:
the founders were certainly of the opinion that you could not protect liberties without the belief in a transcendant Creator which endows every man with inalienable rights.

I call whiffs of BS on that one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:19 AM

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

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

John Adams

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:23 AM

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:38 AM

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

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:00 AM

Learn to read.

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

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

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

-F

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:37 PM

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

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

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

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

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:08 PM

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

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

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

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:16 PM

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

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

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:28 PM

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

Comments?

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

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:02 PM

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

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

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:08 PM

O, right. Ron Paul.

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

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:04 PM

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

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

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

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

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 9:00 PM

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

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

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:00 AM

@mason

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

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:29 PM

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

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

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

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

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

KANEMAN

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:33 PM

This video clip sums RP up in 8min.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:52 PM

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:56 PM

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

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

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

example:

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

plenty more where that came from…

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

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:27 PM

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

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Frem

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

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:51 PM

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

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

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

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

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 10:06 PM

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

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

Edit to add:

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

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

MALBADINLATIN

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 11:01 PM

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

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

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:09 AM

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

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

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

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

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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:25 AM

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

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:33 AM

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

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

Unilateral unthinking support is idiotic.

-Frem

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

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:03 PM

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

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:27 PM

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

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:30 PM

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

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

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

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 8, 2007 1:28 PM

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

The Ron Paul "Phenom" reported by CNN

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

FLETCH2

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:28 PM

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

The Ron Paul "Phenom" reported by CNN

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

should be

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

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:42 PM

love this one.......

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"But part of the reason I'm unsure is because of who on this board supports him. The "Ron Paul Quotes" thread really made me nervous. The only people coming out in favor of the guy were three of the biggest loons on this board: PN, Kaneman, and Antimason. Frankly, I think one's nuts, one's a trolling douchebag, and one's an idiot (place those tags where you think they most apply - even mix-and-match if you'd like)."

I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag. Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.

Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.

On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............

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

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, June 15, 2007 2:29 AM

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

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

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

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

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

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, June 15, 2007 2:41 AM

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

Yeah, all the emails.

"Kaneman - You rock. Love, Kaneman"

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

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

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

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 15, 2007 3:08 AM

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

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

Kaneman?

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 15, 2007 5:12 AM

hey thanks, i hadnt seen that one yet.

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

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

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 15, 2007 12:31 PM

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

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

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

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 15, 2007 1:43 PM

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

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

-Frem

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

KANEMAN

Friday, June 15, 2007 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

KANEMAN

Friday, June 15, 2007 1:54 PM

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

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

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

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

*KICK*

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

KANEMAN

Friday, June 22, 2007 3:05 PM

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 23, 2007 2:19 AM

Fuck Iowa.

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

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

LEADB

Friday, August 31, 2007 2:20 AM

So, anything good on Ron Paul lately?

On the democratic side, Chris Dodd had an interesting writeup in Newsweek. He's taken some relatively strong stands on repairing the constitutional damage done by Bush and friends. Though I'm not sure anyone has a chance to edge ahead of the Ex first lady or the senator from Illinois. So anyone want to quote odds on a Paul/Dodd faceoff on the final election? (Not who would win, but that combination of republican/democrat in the final election)

ERIC

Friday, August 31, 2007 4:34 AM

You want a REAL race, think about Kucinich & Paul. That would be interesting in the extreme. I think they should set up a debate between just the two of them, with no asshole George Stephawhateverpolos whoring for the MSM in the way.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE