How my hope for this country was restored

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

Actually, more accurate is that there is a faction of the party which seems to believe Populist themes and attitudes are more important than principle. Huckabee, for example.

They are not all that way, thankfully. Maybe you've just been brainwashed by the MSM's pimping of the populist candidates.

Yep. There are plenty of us Conservative Republicans who are pushing for smaller gov't. Just because there have been some Republicans who are closet liberals doesn't mean the Republican base has abandoned it's principles.

Oh? How the fuck can you say that after 8 years of Bush? Those "closet liberals" are now running the party.

Uh, because Bush doesn't speak for the base? The leader wandering off the plantation doesn't mean the base abandoned it's principles. Sheesh.

Except the base did abandon their principles. Every Republican in congress is in lockstep with Bush. Massive spending, increasing debt, huge increases in the size of the federal government, unnecessary wars. There's nothing conservative about the Republican party anymore, unless you include hating gays and abortion.

Pay attention much? I guess not. The base has not been pleased at all with Bush on quite an array of issues. Just because some/most/whatever support the war along side Bush does NOT mean they are lockstep with Bush. Sheesh. Immigration, Pork, etc. The base is not exactly pleased with Bush.

Whatever you say. :roll:

If people were displeased with Bush, why are they all voting for Bush 2.0? How are the current frontrunners in the GOP any different than Bush? No, the GOP is quite pleased with Bush. If you don't see that, it's worse than lacking vision, you're completely blind.

:roll: There is no Bush 2.0 running. There are candidates that are similar to Bush but all have quite stark differences with him. So just because they don't support RP2 doesn't mean they are abandoning principles or "quite pleased with Bush".

Thats debatable. Bush 2.0 may mean just another politician thats going to tell us a bunch of shit and then do whatever the fuck he wants once he takes office. Could be that all the candidates (except one) wants to increase government control instead of decreasing it. Bush 2.0 could also mean a continuing war effort or lining the pockets of corporations. Its hard not to see any candidate that sets himself apart besides one. I'll let you figure out who.

You know - it's people like you that really turn me off to RP2.

Just as it is debatable that there is a bush 2.0, the same can be said about Ron Paul being a quite bit different that Ross Perot. The circumstances (currently at war), the media (more corporate bias), and the impact of the internet (most free speech anywhere in the U.S.).

EDIT: Your eyes shouldn't be on the supporters, we aren't who you are voting for.

It's statements like "base did abandon their principles" that makes you people look stupid and turn people off to your guy.

Well the "base" had to abandon their principles for something liek the patriot act to be passed. It wasn't just the republican party. I know of a congressman who is a republican and did vote against it

Wake up - open your eyes - think outside the cult. Sheesh. I mean - he's fine and all and I agree with a lot of what he says but that doesn't mean I can't support someone I think is better suited for the job.

Well thats your right as a citizen, more power to you. But it is you and others along with the media making Ron Paul supporters "fringe" "cult". Those are your labels. The MSM does the same thing, it paints Paul as a "long shot" and a "fringe candidate". If you are a normal citizen and looking about different media outlets to decide who you are going to vote for, and you see all these slurs thrown out, you aren't going to willingly want to be a "fringe" supporter. You will want to be a "winner". Therefore without even knowing what he stands for, they tell you what to think of him first. Some of us have set aside the labels and researched him ourselves, but the majority will be swayed by corporate influence.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: There is no Bush 2.0 running. There are candidates that are similar to Bush but all have quite stark differences with him. So just because they don't support RP2 doesn't mean they are abandoning principles or "quite pleased with Bush".

You know - it's people like you that really turn me off to RP2. More than likely we agree on 80%+ of the issues but yet you can't see how anyone could support anyone but RP2. It's statements like "base did abandon their principles" that makes you people look stupid and turn people off to your guy. Wake up - open your eyes - think outside the cult. Sheesh. I mean - he's fine and all and I agree with a lot of what he says but that doesn't mean I can't support someone I think is better suited for the job.

You're free to your opinion, even if you're wrong.

 

[Nebor]

Wouldn't it be Bush 3.0?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Wouldn't it be Bush 3.0?

Hehe, good point. But at least the first Bush wasn't the complete fuckup Jr. is.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Nebor
Wouldn't it be Bush 3.0?

Hehe, good point. But at least the first Bush wasn't the complete fuckup Jr. is.

"George, where is Jr?" "Oh he's out back playing war in the sandbox."

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

:laugh: That's what they said about Perot... and he created a whole new party.

 

[Nemesis 1]

PC Surgeon . I to want the republic restored.

Even if Ron Paul Won it can't happen . You can't believe for 1 second the laywers on both sides of the Isle would allow their powers to be deminished. Come on they ALL been bought and paid for By big business on both sides og the Isle.

THis here right here is all just a dream now. WE THE PEOPLE no longer applies get over it.

Look at the Democratic side . They are talking about putting a woman in office that couldn't keep her husband happy. Hows she ever going to please Americans.

PC Sureon make no mistake about it . The next president will not be a republican. Unless Hillary isn't the one running. Than maybe just maybe people will talk publicly that they will vote oneway. But when they get in that booth . They could very well vote another way.

Either way its going to be the biggest election turnout by far.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Derek

Go ahead and read Craig's recommendations, but I'd recommend you balance his socialist slant and read The Law by Federic Bastiat.

You don't know what the word socialist means. Can I call your recommendations Satanist/Nazi?

Not that socialists are the equivalent to those in evil, but simply for the inaccuracy of the labels to match. It's the ignorant who tend to misuse such words trying to attack.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You lying sack of shit. Ron Paul didn't write those words and you know it. Prove he wrote them here and now or stop trolling.

They appeared in HIS newsletter. He's responsible for the content published in his name, whether he penned it or not. And Paul has admitted that he should have done a better job overseeing the newsletters.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You lying sack of shit. Ron Paul didn't write those words and you know it. Prove he wrote them here and now or stop trolling.

They appeared in HIS newsletter. He's responsible for the content published in his name, whether he penned it or not. And Paul has admitted that he should have done a better job overseeing the newsletters.

That means he was a poor editor, it does not make him a racist.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
That means he was a poor editor, it does not make him a racist.

Can you show me where I claimed he was a racist?

I'm simply pointing out that the newsletters in question exist, their content exists, and Paul himself admitted to it. Much to the dismay and constant spin of the Paulbots.

Can you imagine if a more notable candidate had written a series of newsletters like that? What do you think the response would be?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You lying sack of shit. Ron Paul didn't write those words and you know it. Prove he wrote them here and now or stop trolling.

They appeared in HIS newsletter. He's responsible for the content published in his name, whether he penned it or not. And Paul has admitted that he should have done a better job overseeing the newsletters.

That means he was a poor editor, it does not make him a racist.

What about the ones he wrote? Or the ones written by people still on his staff? Also, for 30 years he put them out. I could see one or two slipping through, but his excuses are pure BS.

Do you need a nap PC Surgeon, you seem to be getting cranky. Also, those quotes were from George Wallace, and if you actually tried reading what someone posted you would have seen that. I was remarking on the similarity of the their platforms.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

most strikingly in his creation of the social security trust fund for the government to borrow hundreds of billions annually 'off the books', piling up trillions in IOU's to crash the system when the baby boomers retire

http://www.optimist123.com/opt...6/the_social_secu.html

tell me where he is wrong.

 

[amdfansftw]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
That means he was a poor editor, it does not make him a racist.

Can you show me where I claimed he was a racist?

I'm simply pointing out that the newsletters in question exist, their content exists, and Paul himself admitted to it. Much to the dismay and constant spin of the Paulbots.

Can you imagine if a more notable candidate had written a series of newsletters like that? What do you think the response would be?

he didn't WRITE any of it. he was the editor.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: amdfansftw

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
That means he was a poor editor, it does not make him a racist.

Can you show me where I claimed he was a racist?

I'm simply pointing out that the newsletters in question exist, their content exists, and Paul himself admitted to it. Much to the dismay and constant spin of the Paulbots.

Can you imagine if a more notable candidate had written a series of newsletters like that? What do you think the response would be?

he didn't WRITE any of it. he was the editor.

Hahahah, sure. Thats believable.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

There are plenty of agencies directly under the control of the president, in addition to the president being Commander in Chief. The president could, on day one, order the various branches of the military to being planning immediately for orderly withdrawal from Iraq
Yes, he could that.

and in the next sentence disband the DEA,
I doubt he could do that. I thought these agencies, eveb if under the Exec branch, were established by Congressional authority. I'm thinking an act of Congress may be required to disband such agencies


and follow that up with instructions to the FBI to no longer enforce congress' unconstitutional drug laws.
Being sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the USA etc, that may well be an impeachable offense. (Anti-) Drug laws have not been found to be unconstitutional. (As you may know, I disagree with the WOD etc.)

I sometimes to think we here ascribe too much authority to the POTUS, and often forget that Congress is, to a large extent, complicit in many things people object to.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Except the base did abandon their principles. Every Republican in congress is in lockstep with Bush. Massive spending, increasing debt, huge increases in the size of the federal government, unnecessary wars. There's nothing conservative about the Republican party anymore, unless you include hating gays and abortion.

The "base" is not polititions, but voters.

Personally, I don't think that it's Congress (when the Repubs held a majority) that was in lock-step with the Pres, but rather he (GWB) failed to veto his own party's pork laden bills.

Proof of the "base's" disapproval is the ousting of many incumbant Repubs. Over here in my district, the Repub incumbant was replaced with a Blue Dog Dem (socialy & fiscally conservative).

For the portion of the Repub base that is fiscally conservative, what to do if your Repub Congressperson spends like an old-time Dem? Not much choice really - don't vote or vote 3rd party. Sadly, not much difference between those two choices.

I suppose you could vote Dem as a protest, but that's a poor choice for a fiscally conservative person. There's very little, no none, trust in them being fiscally conservative. And unlike wars which tend to always end, entitlement programs never do, they just keep growing.

While we can all point to military downsizing and budget cuts, can't say the same thing for entitlement programs.

Personally, the only way I can see one of the current repub candidates acting like Bush 2.0 (or 3.0) is if the Repubs win control of Congress and they all forget the lesson of the '06 election.

Frankly, I hope no one party gets control. And yeah, I'd like RP in the WH cuz I know he'd veto all kinds of stuff.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: amdfansftw
he didn't WRITE any of it. he was the editor.

A distinction without a difference, when the newsletter bears his name.

Paul is ultimately responsible for the content, whether he wrote it or not.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Whatever you say. :roll:

Just as it is debatable that there is a bush 2.0, the same can be said about Ron Paul being a quite bit different that Ross Perot. The circumstances (currently at war), the media (more corporate bias), and the impact of the internet (most free speech anywhere in the U.S.).

EDIT: Your eyes shouldn't be on the supporters, we aren't who you are voting for.

It's statements like "base did abandon their principles" that makes you people look stupid and turn people off to your guy.

Well the "base" had to abandon their principles for something liek the patriot act to be passed. It wasn't just the republican party. I know of a congressman who is a republican and did vote against it

Wake up - open your eyes - think outside the cult. Sheesh. I mean - he's fine and all and I agree with a lot of what he says but that doesn't mean I can't support someone I think is better suited for the job.

Well thats your right as a citizen, more power to you. But it is you and others along with the media making Ron Paul supporters "fringe" "cult". Those are your labels. The MSM does the same thing, it paints Paul as a "long shot" and a "fringe candidate". If you are a normal citizen and looking about different media outlets to decide who you are going to vote for, and you see all these slurs thrown out, you aren't going to willingly want to be a "fringe" supporter. You will want to be a "winner". Therefore without even knowing what he stands for, they tell you what to think of him first. Some of us have set aside the labels and researched him ourselves, but the majority will be swayed by corporate influence.

When an individual like Ron Paul declares his candidacy for president, the media (and everybody else) will call his run "unlikely", "improbable", a "long-shot". That's because, at the beginning, candidates like Paul have little money and little national recognition. Paul temporarily shifted his status towards mainstream once his "Money Bombs" hit, but after being crushed in Iowa and NH, he has reverted to being a long-shot to win. If Ron Paul wants to stop being declared a long-shot then he needs to prove that more than 8% of the country agrees with what he says.

Instead of facing up to the fact Ron Paul has shown he has some electibility issues, Ron Paul fans place the blame elsewhere - not enough media coverage, people are blinded by corporations, people are afraid of change. In fact, it seems as though they're willing to place the blame anywhere but with the candidate himself. Part of being president is convincing about 1/2 of America that you are worthy of being elected. Ron Paul has been completely, utterly incapable of addressing this issue in his candidacy. Certainly, some candidates go too far trying to please everyone (John Kerry comes to mind), but being elected is a game and, so far, Ron Paul sucks at it.

Nobody is keeping Paul out of office save himself and his policies. There isn't a grand conspiracy, he's just unpopular. I'd encourage you to examine Ron Paul's platform and come to understand why his message is not sitting well with most Americans and I'd be happy to outline what I see as the major problems for Ron Paul, but I won't bother typing it all up if you have no interest in reading it.

Let me know.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
With all due respect, I'd say I'm glad you have taken the first step out of the complacent bubble of the Republican party, but encourage you to keep going on your education.

You will find some surprising things, if you ask the questions. For example, you say the democrats are 'bad for the economy'.

One day, out of curiosity, I picked a variety of economic measures - growth, employment, stock market, well-distributed income, and so on, and did a comparison.

Luckily, (not for the country, but for my comparison), each party had 5 presidents of the last ten. That's a pretty good sampling.

What I found greatly surprised me - not that the democrats did clearly better, but that it was so strikingly better - close to a 1-5 ranking for the democrats again and again.

This told me something about myths, and raises questions about how 'common knowledge' can be pretty dangerously wrong.

Try reading some of the better liberal books, and you will get an education, and grow out of the Ron Paul phase that so many go through in getting politically informed.

I'll recommend one I have yet to read, because I know the author's writings well enough - Paul Krugman's latest, "The Conscience of a Liberal".

I'd also like to add:
Fast Food Nation, which goes into detail about how the policies of various administrations have destroyed the independent farmers and meat packers of the country and replaced them with mega corporations, underpaid and unorganized labor, and monopolistic trade practices that SERIOUSLY mislead and harm the consumer. What a shock - most of it happened during republican administrations, where CEO's of these monopolies were made cabinet members.

A Peoples History of the United States. Yeah. Too much to go into here. What a sham our educational system is when it comes to history lessons.

What Orwell Didn't Know. Collection of essays going into great detail analyzing the nature of contemporary political discourse and propaganda. Astounding.

There are a lot of ignorant and misinformed liberals. I think it's up to an individual to be informed and critical of a number of issues, not to just align themself with an ideology and call it good. That said, I've really come to believe that if you're a republican, you're either in the top 5% of the wealthy, a white evangelical christian, or a misinformed individual. I think that conservatism can pay off if done properly, but this republican party has too much blood on its hands to be allowed to continue doing business as usual.

Ron Paul may very well be a good, honest man who won't pander to the interests of the wealthy few, but I'm far too cynical of his chosen party and their framework to ever vote for him. I'm cynical as to whether or not he would have the ability to deviate from their political tradition, even if he wanted to. Far too many wrongs, far too much history to forget.

 

[jonks]

wrong thread

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

i will be doing the same.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: DerekWilson


And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Of course he shares the beliefs of the people who did his newsletter, because he not only wrote articles in it, but he published it with his name on it. For decades. This wasn't a simple one issue thing, this was over decades of letting people write articles under his name, and people involved in those articles continue to work in his campaign staff.
Try this, send out a email newsletter and make it look like Anand is writing it. Now, fill the letter with articles calling MLK a gay pedophile, or calling all black people animals. See how long it takes until you a fired. Now, the complete opposite happened with the Paul newsletters.

Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

Wow... Below is a snippet from the Wiki on that Bill...

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced.

I say no thank you. :thumbsdown:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Nobody is keeping Paul out of office save himself and his policies. There isn't a grand conspiracy, he's just unpopular. I'd encourage you to examine Ron Paul's platform and come to understand why his message is not sitting well with most Americans and I'd be happy to outline what I see as the major problems for Ron Paul, but I won't bother typing it all up if you have no interest in reading it.

If you want to know why Ron Paul won't be elected, read the quote in my sig.

Ron Paul believes in limited government. Only a small percentage of people actually want that. They all want big government and are quite pleased with big government when it aligns with their views and piss and moan when it doesn't. The same big government that could provide UHC today can start a war with Iran tomorrow. People think they can control the beast, but they're wrong and probably won't realize it until the US as a superpower is just a distant memory.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: DerekWilson


And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Of course he shares the beliefs of the people who did his newsletter, because he not only wrote articles in it, but he published it with his name on it. For decades. This wasn't a simple one issue thing, this was over decades of letting people write articles under his name, and people involved in those articles continue to work in his campaign staff.
Try this, send out a email newsletter and make it look like Anand is writing it. Now, fill the letter with articles calling MLK a gay pedophile, or calling all black people animals. See how long it takes until you a fired. Now, the complete opposite happened with the Paul newsletters.

Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

Wow... Below is a snippet from the Wiki on that Bill...

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced.

I say no thank you. :thumbsdown:

i see no problem with this bill. this is a state issue anyway and that is what RP believes in. putting the power back in the states not the federal government.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/5/2007--Introduced.

We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.

Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.

Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.

Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

Yes, the first time I read this bill I thought it was rather ludicris.

But in researching the 2nd Amendment found that this was exactly how the Constitution was understood from it's creation till about the 1870's. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 changed pretty much everything.

Until the 14th the Coinstitution was basically a pact between the federal government and the states. And yes, it was a limitation on the fed gov. It was NOT seen as a pact between the federal gov and citizens. Each state had it's own Constitution - that was the pact between citizens and their (state) government.

Concepts like freedon of speech and the right to bear arms were not seen as rights that could be guaranteed to citizens because they were seen as God-given inalienable rights that were supra-Constitutional (i.e., exceeded anything that could be guaranteed by a constitution - you can't guarantee what is beyond you).

The effect of the 14th, and how it has been interpreted, has greatly weakened states' rights, our own rights, and significantly changed the political process resulting in the supremecy of the two-party system IMO. I recognize the civil attrocitites it corrected, but the manner in which it acheived was il-conceived and I think could have been done without the attending negatives.

In sum, Ron Paul's position is "old school" constitutionally correct.

Fern

well said. it appears that the people in here dont agree with our the USC and want a big federal government to run everything. they love the idea of taking away states rights and citizens rights. they call RP a whack job but his ideals are based strictly out of the USC. whould these same people call the founding fathers of our country whackjobs?