http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b5d87a2c-2f21-46cb-aa0f-ad942833b5c9 I agree. Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:29:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b5d87a2c-2f21-46cb-aa0f-ad942833b5c9 $item.owner.firstName 2008-11-26T22:29:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1fe30a88-8957-47d3-8177-b82dc1c120c3 I'm surprised you don't fall asleep everytime you open your mouth! Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:31:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1fe30a88-8957-47d3-8177-b82dc1c120c3 Weazie 2008-03-04T23:31:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f1c4e531-984d-4f35-b729-f962f8c7d74e > "Logic weakens me; I must flee." Weak "logic" bores me, therefore I snore. Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:04:48 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f1c4e531-984d-4f35-b729-f962f8c7d74e embersandsparks 2008-03-04T09:04:48Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#71919802-92dd-42db-b39a-1b7d434eab3c "Logic weakens me; I must flee." Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:13:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#71919802-92dd-42db-b39a-1b7d434eab3c Weazie 2008-03-04T01:13:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7b7a20a4-acfe-4e09-9a41-9694ddc9c42f Look, I'm sorry, but you're a fucking dolt. Half of what you've written here I've already addressed, and the other half is the same recitation of sources without ever citing a fact. I have no further interest in trying to hold a meaningful discussion with a zealot more interested in argument than enlightenment. In other words, you've become tiresome. I hope for your sake that there's a zionist tribe out there for you to take refuge in. At least you'd be on topic there. I hope the Fed brings you whatever you want for christmas... or chanukah, or whateverthefuckever. Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:53:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7b7a20a4-acfe-4e09-9a41-9694ddc9c42f embersandsparks 2008-02-29T05:53:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bce4bb2b-907f-4429-a7f5-cbc632369b2e [answers.com is not an encyclopedia] A very weak dodge, as it does cite numerous reference materials. Encyclopedia Britannica, Barron's Educational Series, Columbia Encyclopedia, Houghton Mifflin Company, Hoover's Profiles, U.S. History Encyclopedia, The Gale Group, U.S. Government Guide, and Investopedia...all idiots, right? But since not one of those reference materials agree with you or even acknowledges Mullins (just discredit him, let alone consider that he might be reputable), are they all Pollyanna-ish, or in on this conspiracy of bankers and academics as well? [howstuffworks is not exactly a repository of "primary sources", now is it?] Another weak dodge. How is it wrong? Why is it consistent with every other credible source on the subject, and inconsistent with Mullins? [Google is not a library. Yet.] Yet another weak doge. Are the excerpts from "The Idiot's Guide to the Fed." inaccurate? And, again, why not even a mention of Mullins? [Try reading a book sometime.] I've read many, and have yet to find one that makes a credible reference to Mullins' "work." Oh, the Internet is full of incredible references...the white supremacists, the Illuminati believers, the tax protesters, the we're-all-slaves-to-the-IMF crowd.... [Flaherty at publiceye,org corroborates all but one of Mullins' assertions.] Take off the rose-colored glasses, and try reading again for comprehension: "Myth #5. The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners." http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty5.html And in case it isn't exactly clear for you: "None of the member banks on the above list [which was very similar to Mullins' (outdated) list] have any significant portion of shares held by any foreign individual or institution. Mullins' claim that foreigners own the N.Y. Federal Reserve indirectly is also wrong." Not exactly "corroboration." [Is David Rockerfeller Jewish? I have absolutely no idea. But the guy certainly deserves all the suspicion directed at him, based on his WORDS AND ACTIONS, not on his religion.] Regardless of whether you care if Rockefeller is Jewish, the anti-Semites like Mullins sure do! Which is WHY they write what they write. Duh. [The trick is to detect it, and to be able to filter out what is information and what is propaganda.] *Irony alert!* A notorious anti-Semite propagandizes that Jewish people secretly control the Fed. A phalanx of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of information all refute that claim. Try checking your filter; its broken. Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:46:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bce4bb2b-907f-4429-a7f5-cbc632369b2e Weazie 2008-02-28T00:46:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6b867de-2a08-4712-a34e-247afdc19ab8 A. answers.com is not an encyclopedia B. howstuffworks is not exactly a repository of "primary sources", now is it? C. Google is not a library. Yet. D. Best to keep your own conspiracy theories under your hat if you want to be taken seriously. > ...yet NOT ONE MENTION of Mullins E. Try reading a book sometime. It's fun. Or read your own references. Flaherty at publiceye,org corroborates all but one of Mullins' assertions. Or is Flaherty an anti-Semite now too? F. I don't give a good god damn what religion anyone is. (I even think y'all should lay off of Mr. Cruise.) But I do care who pulls the strings of international finance, and affects the lives and welfare of billions of people in the process. Is David Rockerfeller Jewish? I have absolutely no idea. But the guy certainly deserves all the suspicion directed at him, based on his WORDS AND ACTIONS, not on his religion. G News Flash: EVERYONE has biases. Some more socially acceptable than others. (I agree that Mullins' bigotry, if accurately reported, is pretty odious.) The trick is to detect it,and to be able to filter out what is information and what is propaganda. If you casually dismiss information reported by those with a bias, you're going to be spending a loooong dark winter in that cave of yours. H. Grind your axe yourself, Bub. "For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405). Now what was it you were saying about anyone who uses the phrase "(new) world order" with a straight face ? Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:03:29 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6b867de-2a08-4712-a34e-247afdc19ab8 embersandsparks 2008-02-27T00:03:29Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a9527fdf-b7c2-499d-b977-1e18bd6007ec Multiple encyclopedia articles on the Fed.: http://www.answers.com/topic/fed-federal-reserve-system?cat=biz-fin An in-depth article: http://people.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve (via google books): http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=2ZtqHQN_Wc4C&dq=federal+reserve+idiot's+guide&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=MA2VbjBJyG&sig=eRWzLs8uXmTt45y6nsMWsR4a-OQ ...yet NOT ONE MENTION of Mullins, or your (excuse me; Mullins') conspiracy theories. But, please, continue to think he is at least credible and relevant. And I guess this is too obtuse for you, but: Mullins' "secret" about the Fed. is that it is owned by the Jews (says Mullins). That Mullins is anti-semetic makes him BIASED (in addition to repulsive). His "work" is flawed because he has an axe to grind. GIGO. Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:33:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a9527fdf-b7c2-499d-b977-1e18bd6007ec Weazie 2008-02-26T23:33:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d891d3c-f0e9-4411-a291-f7ad28e9f8c3 > You keep claiming Mullins is well-researched and reputable, yet the only > people I see citing him with approval are the white supremicists. You claim > to be into performing your own independent research, yet you couldn't find > any of the MANY criticisms of Mullins' flawed "scholarship" (as well as his > bigotry). "Hmmm." Dude, I had to dig deep for anything resembling a refutation of fact IN YOUR OWN REFERENCE. Not to mention that twice as often, your OWN "expert" concurred with Mullins' reported facts. Get a grip. > You want to dismiss the Fed. -- THE primary source on the Fed. -- as mere > PR; fine. Gee thanks for the permission. I love it when zealots deign to allow me to think for myself. Such a treat. Sure, the Fed's site is instructive. But there's there's an aspect of research that comes in really handy: It's called CONTEXT. And you can't apply it selectively. You have to take into account the self-interests of the writer no matter what their political leanings. It is valid to apply that to Mullins, and it's valid to apply it to the Fed. > You want to believe an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist is somehow credible > and respected; fine. No need. The record speaks for itself. As do his more crackpot statements. If the guy is a bigot, then I'd have little interest in having a beer with him. But what on god's green earth does that have to do with the Fed? If it's all some lame conspiracy theory, it will fall apart under it's owh weight. But the FACT is that the issues with the Fed have been raised by a wide variety of people with the entire spectrum of interests and political leanings. Make of that what you will. If you choose to shrug off the modern mechanisms of control as being nothing more than some loopy anti-semitic fringe conspiracy, well... I forget who said it, but "we get the government you deserve". And boy howdy, have we ever. It's just that I'm often rather dismayed to be included in that particular "we". Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:11:29 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d891d3c-f0e9-4411-a291-f7ad28e9f8c3 embersandsparks 2008-02-23T02:11:29Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d0e1eb8-4633-4b35-95d4-83673e0b72b8 Whoa, no way... an actual PhD? In Ecoomics? That's some arcane knowledge there, Bunky. So that pretty much settles that then, doesn't it? Well, maybe not. While I have a fair amount of respect for PublicEye, and PRA as well, that doesn't exempt them from criticism when they publish disingenuous screeds like this. Look, I'm about as lefty as they come, and I've got the lifelong credentials to prove it. And sure, the PRA does some pretty important work, keeping tabs on the right wing agenda. But the sad fact is that much of this article is disinformation at best: (from Flaherty's monograph) " Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank." Sure. He's technically correct, in part. No individuals own shares. Neither do circus animals or investment funds. But banks do. And someone owns those banks. Or are we now supposed to swallow the idea that banks (like our wonderful government) are really just benign zero-net-profit institutions god-given to us to elevate the nature of mankind? Groan. And the rest of his case is largely the same. More reassurances and platitudes, but without a lot of meat to support them. I sure respect that he seems to have actually done some of his own research. It's just that the effort he expends on corroborating or disproving facts seems awfully half-hearted when compared to his broad conclusions. To his credit, he does address the "chain of ownership" issue in a sub-page, but then undermines his credibility by only scraping one layer deep, then proclaiming victory. BZZZT. The FTC or the Washington Post could probably teach him a few basics about tracing financial interests. More errata: " Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year." Directly refuted by comments of senators of both parties holding the 1996 hearings. Maybe something has changed since then, but I'm unable to find confirmation of it if so. There are qualifiers in every other paragraph that allow Flaherty's assertions the ring of accuracy, while sidestepping the core issue(s). And honestly, there are many unsupported statements he makes which are directly contradicted buy the congressional investigation, and the findings of it's report. (No use of taxpayer funds, etc.) So if you stop and really think about it, you've got an almost hundred-year history of econimists and financiers reassuring the public and elected officials about it's noble intentions, while nearly every attempt at oversight has yielded harsh criticism of the operations and intentions of the Fed and it's management. So citing some prof of econimics telling us it's all copacetic without much other than his degree to support his opinions doesn't really add much to the debate. It's interesting, and I appreciate his low-drama tone, but there's not much concrete there, y'know? All that said, some of his footnotes are informative, and do refer to other interesting resources as well for those interested in the historuy and workings of the Fed. In the end, the bottom line is that some will support the system as they are supported by it in turn. Others will question it. But it's those that discourage the questions that arouse my suspicions most. Oh, and having actually read your reference including subpages, it's interesting to note that Flaherty freely VALIDATES Mullins' documentation and FACTS, while taking issue with his hypotheses. A welcome approach, even if I happen to disagree with some of his dismissiveness. it's a fairly grown-up way to present one's case. <hint> You strike me as someone who really wants to believe that things are ok. That people are essentially good, and that power structures are not innately sinister. I understand that completely. In fact, I feel the same way. But once you see some things that you probably shouldn't, and you are exposed to the naked truth that some people are remarkably immune to suffering, and lack compassion, it becomes much harder to see things in black and white, good and bad, let alone harbor an inner Pollyanna. If you grow up with Cointelpro, the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Iran/Contra, you'd jhave to be a monumental fool not to laugh in the face of someone asking you to take government institutions at face value. Of course, if you're a fan of Darwin or Malthus, these things have a way of straightening themselves out. Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:54:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d0e1eb8-4633-4b35-95d4-83673e0b72b8 embersandsparks 2008-02-23T01:54:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cf34f243-52e5-42c8-b5e0-a582c27dffe9 [I'm prepared to hang in there with Ron Paul till the GOP Convention.] I'm curious Beach: As a RP supporter, do you believe there will be a brokered convention (on the republican side)? If so, is this belief based more on what your heart or head says? Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:43:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cf34f243-52e5-42c8-b5e0-a582c27dffe9 Weazie 2008-02-22T23:43:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#45614b84-e47e-4f77-a0e7-f8ac66904633 I'm prepared to hang in there with Ron Paul till the GOP Convention. Afterwards I may have to bolt and vote for the “lesser of two evils” or for a 3rd Party Candidate, maybe write in Ron Paul in protest, because I still can. Both major party candidates are poor choices as Republicratic Libertarian Independents. The point is we need to un-change the mess both parties are responsible for. This is a movement that will continue to grow and become a mighty force at the polls in time. If we really believe and hold fast without dropping out we’ll succeed eventually because Washington politicians will continue to give us new members by their corruption and infringements on our rights. Back to the future ole burner boomers. Tell Em: “Make Art Not Legislation.” X’s, Life’s A Beach Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:38:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#45614b84-e47e-4f77-a0e7-f8ac66904633 Beach 2008-02-22T14:38:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#da16c1e9-99e8-4a9f-b870-7b437c3f0721 In case your superior research skills missed it, here's an actual Ph.D in Economics debunking Mullins and the rest of your "FACTS" about the Fed.: http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:49:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#da16c1e9-99e8-4a9f-b870-7b437c3f0721 Weazie 2008-02-22T00:49:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f7c1e196-b137-4441-8188-5beb5ad6bbea You keep claiming Mullins is well-researched and reputable, yet the only people I see citing him with approval are the white supremicists. You claim to be into performing your own independent research, yet you couldn't find any of the MANY criticisms of Mullins' flawed "scholarship" (as well as his bigotry). "Hmmm." You want to dismiss the Fed. -- THE primary source on the Fed. -- as mere PR; fine. You want to believe an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist is somehow credible and respected; fine. But, really, don't be surprised if people think you are anti-semitic conspiracy theorist as well. Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:29:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f7c1e196-b137-4441-8188-5beb5ad6bbea Weazie 2008-02-22T00:29:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#329e18e5-1c28-401b-b656-faa33616fb33 Dammit. Tried to correct an abridged URL link. Which worked, but created a dupe post. Gah. Sorry all. Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:18:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#329e18e5-1c28-401b-b656-faa33616fb33 embersandsparks 2008-02-17T03:18:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#10ff68db-1318-472b-91ce-f4ac76f98921 > Wouldn't this be good in the eyes of libertarians- No idea. You'll have to ask one. > It sounds like the Fed is a private corporation. Essentially correct. With a stage whispered nod to some anemic governmental oversight. But don't take my word for it... Chairman Louis T. McFadden of the House Banking and Currency Committee, addressed the House on 6/10/32: "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the U.S. for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders." --- 75 Congressional Record 12595-12603 > Why is this bad- the privatization of US currency, > in the eyes of a libertarian? Again, you'll have to ask one. Pretty sure there are a handful on here, maybe they'll chime in. Though I must admit I'm hoping that doesn't land me in (more) uncomfortable company. I can't tell you anything about good or bad. I can tell you why I think that it's not in the interest of the American taxpayer, but that is solely a fiscal argument, which I think I've already expanded on. I can offer more if you are truly interested. US Sen. McFadden probably sums up the case best. You can find his comments to Congress in full here: http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-congressman-louis-t-mcfadden-1932.html > How was US currency controlled before 1913? Who was > behind all that? Was it better back in the day? Sounds like a tortured history from what I've read. And I have to say that trying to research these issues is quite a rabbit hole. And sadly, the more I read, the more I often find questionable motivations and ideaologies underlying the efforts of the authors. So I've gotten a lot of practice seperating opinion from fact. Not that I'm always successful, but I am mindful of the problem. Which is one reason I bristle at reactionary assumptions about my own politics. Here are a few well-documented choice tidbits: When the 1816 charter [ of the third Central Bank in our history] expired in 1836, Andrew Jackson vetoed its renewal. Later he said "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..." President James A. Garfield said: "Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce". From 1863 to 1913 the money supply was governed without a central banking institution. The story goes that Lincoln couldn't conduct the war without an infusion of cash, and the lenders saw this as an opportunity to profiteer. Supposedly Lincoln found this both morally and practically repugnant, and did away with the central bank of the time, issuing "United States Notes" as legal tender. There is some fascinating information on this period about 1/3 through the page at the link given next. There is a very well-written capsule history of history of central banks in America found here: http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1192819378.php Another here (Austrian URL duly noted): http://cecaust.com.au/election/History%20of%20the%20Federal%20Reserve%20Bank.pdf There is apparently some dispute about the origination of the following widely reported quote, but it is rather startling regardless: (from an exhaustive catalog of remarkable quotes regarding the Fed at: http://www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter4.htm ) "A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities, are in the hands of a few men. We have become to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominate men . . . I have unwittingly ruined my country" -- President Woodrow Wilson (National Economy and the Banking System, Senate Documents, Col. 3 No. 23) [Editor's Note: The Federal Reserve Act was passed during his administration He is quoted by close friends and relatives as having said on his death bed, "I have betrayed my nation."] DISCLAIMER: I have not attempted to ferret out the political leanings of any of these sites whatsoever. They may be Republicans, anarchists, breatharians, ultranationalists, neonazis or CIA agents for all I know. Google supplied the link, I followed it and found what appears to be intelligent and well-referenced information. Two recent and widely-respected books have also treated this subject: Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, and Gangs of New York by Ted Nace, downloadable (free) here: http://www.gangsofamerica.com/read.html This may also be of some tangential interest (Sounds a little alarmist, but interesting nonetheless): "On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110. This Executive Order called for the issuance of new currency - the United States Note. At the time, $4,292,893 of this currency was put into circulation. This new currency was to be distributed through the U.S. Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, it was to be issued debt and interest-free. Upon Kennedy's assassination, this currency was withdrawn from circulation, never to be issued again." Startlingly, this parallels the results of Lincoln's initiative exactly. I have no idea what to make of this, but it sure strikes me as an odd coincidence to say the least. Historical research is fun. No really. Frustrating, but fun. Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:13:44 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#10ff68db-1318-472b-91ce-f4ac76f98921 embersandsparks 2008-02-17T03:13:44Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d5ad15b2-d4db-4ba2-a0d8-685d9945b573 > Thats it you have convinced me to turn Republican. Well fuck. This isn't going well. Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:08:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d5ad15b2-d4db-4ba2-a0d8-685d9945b573 embersandsparks 2008-02-17T03:08:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#61b289f0-75ca-4f13-ba04-37f465bf20d3 > Wouldn't this be good in the eyes of libertarians- No idea. You'll have to ask one. > It sounds like the Fed is a private corporation. Essentially correct. With a stage whispered nod to some anemic governmental oversight. But don't take my word for it... Chairman Louis T. McFadden of the House Banking and Currency Committee, addressed the House on 6/10/32: "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the U.S. for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders." --- 75 Congressional Record 12595-12603 > Why is this bad- the privatization of US currency, > in the eyes of a libertarian? Again, you'll have to ask one. Pretty sure there are a handful on here, maybe they'll chime in. Though I must admit I'm hoping that doesn't land me in (more) uncomfortable company. I can't tell you anything about good or bad. I can tell you why I think that it's not in the interest of the American taxpayer, but that is solely a fiscal argument, which I think I've already expanded on. I can offer more if you are truly interested. US Sen. McFadden probably sums up the case best. You can find his comments to Congress in full here: http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-congressman-louis-t-mcfadden-1932.html > How was US currency controlled before 1913? Who was > behind all that? Was it better back in the day? Sounds like a tortured history from what I've read. And I have to say that trying to research these issues is quite a rabbit hole. And sadly, the more I read, the more I often find questionable motivations and ideaologies underlying the efforts of the authors. So I've gotten a lot of practice seperating opinion from fact. Not that I'm always successful, but I am mindful of the problem. Which is one reason I bristle at reactionary assumptions about my own politics. Here are a few well-documented choice tidbits: When the 1816 charter [ of the third Central Bank in our history] expired in 1836, Andrew Jackson vetoed its renewal. Later he said "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..." President James A. Garfield said: "Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce". From 1863 to 1913 the money supply was governed without a central banking institution. The story goes that Lincoln couldn't conduct the war without an infusion of cash, and the lenders saw this as an opportunity to profiteer. Supposedly Lincoln found this both morally and practically repugnant, and did away with the central bank of the time, issuing "United States Notes" as legal tender. There is some fascinating information on this period about 1/3 through the page at the link given next. There is a very well-written capsule history of history of central banks in America found here: http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1192819378.php Another here (Austrian URL duly noted): http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:0Xkyb57B2GcJ:cecaust.com.au/election/History%2520of%2520the%2520Federal%2520Reserve%2520Bank.pdf+woodrow+wilson+National+Economy+and+the+Banking+System,+Senate+Documents,+Col.+3+No.+23&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us There is apparently some dispute about the origination of the following widely reported quote, but it is rather startling regardless: (from an exhaustive catalog of remarkable quotes regarding the Fed at: http://www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter4.htm ) "A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities, are in the hands of a few men. We have become to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominate men . . . I have unwittingly ruined my country" -- President Woodrow Wilson (National Economy and the Banking System, Senate Documents, Col. 3 No. 23) [Editor's Note: The Federal Reserve Act was passed during his administration He is quoted by close friends and relatives as having said on his death bed, "I have betrayed my nation."] DISCLAIMER: I have not attempted to ferret out the political leanings of any of these sites whatsoever. They may be Republicans, anarchists, breatharians, ultranationalists, neonazis or CIA agents for all I know. Google supplied the link, I followed it and found what appears to be intelligent and well-referenced information. Two recent and widely-respected books have also treated this subject: Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, and Gangs of New York by Ted Nace, downloadable (free) here: http://www.gangsofamerica.com/read.html This may also be of some tangential interest (Sounds a little alarmist, but interesting nonetheless): "On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110. This Executive Order called for the issuance of new currency - the United States Note. At the time, $4,292,893 of this currency was put into circulation. This new currency was to be distributed through the U.S. Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, it was to be issued debt and interest-free. Upon Kennedy's assassination, this currency was withdrawn from circulation, never to be issued again." Startlingly, this parallels the results of Lincoln's initiative exactly. I have no idea what to make of this, but it sure strikes me as an odd coincidence to say the least. Historical research is fun. No really. Frustrating, but fun. Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:03:34 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#61b289f0-75ca-4f13-ba04-37f465bf20d3 embersandsparks 2008-02-17T03:03:34Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0d17fb9a-811e-4431-9617-b56c6b80856a 'So I think we agree. The only reason I used the NFS as an example was to point out that a governmental agency's popularly understood raison d'etre is not always what it seems. To say the least. And sometimes it takes a century for the populace to figure that out, let alone protest. ' Yup- wholehearted agreement on this point. Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:45:58 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0d17fb9a-811e-4431-9617-b56c6b80856a TomCat 2008-02-17T01:45:58Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#00c93f98-274c-45ef-a7cf-f51a321725e1 > So we should abolish the National forest service? > And the land would go free? or will it be transformed > into 'what a national forest should look like' through > the invisible hand of capitalism? Say what? Did you hear me suggest anything of the sort? The "free" market is responsible for a century plus of degradation . More of the same, in any disguise, is a recipe for wiping out what little is left of the pre-colombian landscape. Environmental protection will not come in the form of privatization, fortunately or unfortunately. (Nature Conservancy exception duly noted.) So I think we agree. The only reason I used the NFS as an example was to point out that a governmental agency's popularly understood raison d'etre is not always what it seems. To say the least. And sometimes it takes a century for the populace to figure that out, let alone protest. Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:56:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#00c93f98-274c-45ef-a7cf-f51a321725e1 embersandsparks 2008-02-16T23:56:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d5773700-67d4-4499-8cce-2123f500f4ec Thats it you have convinced me to turn Republican. Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:53:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d5773700-67d4-4499-8cce-2123f500f4ec $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-16T23:53:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e39f9417-04b4-48f1-9b36-9efd41715268 > In an interview hosted on YouTube (www.youtube.com/watch > Mr. Mullins once again alleges that ritual human sacrifice is (i) > a central tenet of Judaism; and (ii) the singular source of > anti-Semitism. Yikes. I have no interest in watching the vid, but I'll take your word for it. That certainly doesn't enhance his veracity in my view (to say the least), but it doesn't say squat one way or the other about his research, sources, or techniques either. > It's usually good practice, when doing research, to use primary > sources for information. When doing a report on, say, the FBI, > you would check out the FBI website. While I certainly agree about primary sources, citing an agencies OWN website as a "primary source" may be accurate, but certainly provides zero in the way of objectivity, another primary tenet of researchers and journalists alike. There are often MANY primary sources of information aside from self-promulgated dis/information,, until we start talking about organizations which intentionally suppress debate or research. Which leads to the inevitable conspiracy-theory dismissals. Sometimes those dismissals are well-founded. MANY times, they are not. My point is that to rely SOLELY on an agency's own PR website is certainly no better than relying on some crackpot's vanity site. And I must admit that Mullins does sound like he's got a screw loose. (Hey, the guy was Ezra Pound's best friend, what do you expect?!) Nevertheless, his work on the Fed seems to be cited frequently in other works.. wither lazy journalism (a possibility I wouldn't discount), or there's substance to his research. Or both. > Books written and self published (vanity pressings) by cranky > old jew haters and other extreme ends of the spectrum (you > can include much far left and anarchist literature with that too) > are generally not considered useful as a primary information > source. Granted. With one exception. When the work is well sourced and footnoted, the personal opinions of the author tend to make little difference to a careful (and informed reader). Thanks for pointing out Mullins' potential bias. I guess I see that bias as being pretty tangential to the subject at hand, however. I try not to make a habit of quoting bigots of any sort, even when their bigotry is irrelevant to the discussion. If I haven't made it crystal clear already, I'm spupremely uninterested in discussing religion or religious bias with respect to the American economic system. It's irrelevant. Whether spouted by some journalistic cousin of Art Bell, or by a well-meaning but poorly informed idealogue on Tribe. (Not you.) The work either stands or falls on it's own. Which doesn't explain Wagner's Ring to my mind, but I trust you follow my meaning. ;) Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:38:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e39f9417-04b4-48f1-9b36-9efd41715268 embersandsparks 2008-02-16T23:38:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e21b3bd8-c7e4-4b8a-9a0c-a46772bd941c Ember said : 'Much like "National Forests" are not managed for their value as forests. They are part of the Dept. of Agriculture for a reason. And many people are SHOCKED when they first discover that there is active logging in most forests under license from the NFS.' So we should abolish the National forest service? And the land would go free? or will it be transformed into 'what a national forest should look like' through the invisible hand of capitalism? All the faults of the NFS aside, I would think the lands it manages would be stripped in a manner of days if left in the hands of ADM, or Maxxam and their 'invisible' hands of the market. Cuz you and me would never be able to afford to buy the land, or even know when it was on sale or for how much. Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:03:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e21b3bd8-c7e4-4b8a-9a0c-a46772bd941c TomCat 2008-02-16T20:03:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#582a850b-a8fa-414d-8ba8-619e5b59f431 "In 1987, Mullins authored The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History, in which he set forth the theory that an occult conspiracy founded in ancient Babylon controls the world monetary system, evidence of which he sees in Talmudic and Kabbalistic literature. [2] [3]" Mullins sounds like another cranky old man. and a jew hater: The following is an excerpt of an interview, conducted in 1993, with Mullins regarding his views: Question: Do you believe Jews are parasites? EM: Parasites? No, as I say, this was a theme that I developed in 1968 in that one book. I've never referred to it again and in fact there is nothing about Jews in my last five books in the past twenty years simply because I moved into larger spheres, the world order ... In an interview hosted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PlnFT0ksbQ&NR=1), Mr. Mullins once again alleges that ritual human sacrifice is (i) a central tenet of Judaism; and (ii) the singular source of anti-Semitism. It appears in this interview that Mr. Mullins believes that the Rockefeller/Rothschild funded Zionists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Another point: It's usually good practice, when doing research, to use primary sources for information. When doing a report on, say, the FBI, you would check out the FBI website. That is considered a primary source of information, in addition to peer reviewed books and academic journals. Secondary and tertiary sources are newspapers, magazines, and email, personal letters. Books written and self published (vanity pressings) by cranky old jew haters and other extreme ends of the spectrum (you can include much far left and anarchist literature with that too) are generally not considered useful as a primary information source. I know it sucks, but that's the rigors of journalistic integrity for ya. Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:56:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#582a850b-a8fa-414d-8ba8-619e5b59f431 TomCat 2008-02-16T19:56:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3d91752f-146b-4549-a600-627288528077 'It is essentially a privatization of the US central banking system, legalizing fractional reserve banking practices which allow banks to lend money and collect interest on deposits far in excess of what they actually hold. And you think all the profits from this exercise end up in the US Treasury? Think again. ' Let me get this straight. Most libertarians believe in the the power of capitalism remain unfettered. Letting the secret ('magic?') hand of the market control the economy without any govt involvement. You just described a private institution, privately owned, that is controlling our monetary supply. It sounds like the Fed is a private corporation. Wouldn't this be good in the eyes of libertarians- it runs independently of government controls. It's privately held. The owners can do whatever they want, responding to 'the market' and if they make the right decisions they are financially and socially rewarded. Or am I missing something? Why is this bad- the privatization of US currency, in the eyes of a libertarian? Are there other countries that do the same? Who manages the Euro? How was US currency controlled before 1913? Who was behind all that? Was it better back in the day? Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:40:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3d91752f-146b-4549-a600-627288528077 TomCat 2008-02-16T19:40:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2a9b2599-0f68-47e6-bdd3-a9f2c84c714e > Yeah, why rely on the Fed. to know what it does? For the same reason that I don't tend to check Monsanto's or Archer Daniel Midland's websites for information on the effects of their business on society. How fucking gullible ARE you ? Sure, I read the self-generated PR. But I read independent sources as well. I recommend that approach highly. Amazing what you learn. > usgovinfo.about.com/library/...81599.htm MORE propaganda from "official sources" to support your position, and sidestep the issue? Try a little Orwell with your Murdoch. > Huh? The Fed. is bad because is part of the government? The Fed is neither good nor bad. I'm not the absolutist here, in case you hadn't noticed. The Fed is simply not operated in the sole interests of the American people. THAT is my point. Much like "National Forests" are not managed for their value as forests. They are part of the Dept. of Agriculture for a reason. And many people are SHOCKED when they first discover that there is active logging in most forests under license from the NFS. Here, the only issue I;m raising is that the Fed is not some benign federal agency operating simply to ensure the fiscal stability of the American populace. If you fail to grasp that, fine. Really. It's ok. But... do YOU even HAVE a point? If so, could you state it? Because I have no idea wtf you're on about at this point. What is it that you'd like us to understand? > Mullins? Eustace Mullins? No wonder you're buying what the > anti-Semites are selling: > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eust...llegations Yawn. The FIRST line of your Wiki entry reads: " Mullins has been accused of antisemitism by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League. " First, the ADL is HARDLY a bastion of reputable journalism or research. It is a POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP. Or hadn't you gotten the memo? By the way, this is the same group that apparently conducted an elaborate domestic spying program on behalf of the Israeli government just a couple of years ago. So um.. anything they have to say about ANYONE is pretty suspect in my book. Now if Elie Weisel has something to say on the subject, I'm all ears. Second, whatever someone's predjuidices, fears, political leanings, or attitudes, facts are facts. And well-researched and documented facts speak for themselves. I didn't check Mullins' views on religious or political history before checking references to his work by other reputable journalists. And while I would be troubled by ANYONE's bigotry, it simply has no bearing on this issue that I can fathom. But if you'd care to enlighten me as to how ANY of this undermines any of his assertions or references, knock yourself the fuck out. I've listed citations for my assertions from one of the very few independent researchers whose work has been generally accepted as factual. Provide an alternative view from a knowledgeable source (other than the Fed or the US Govt itself) and I will happily consider it. I could dig up others, but the fact is that Mullins' work on the Fed is not really disputed. Do you understand what the term ad-hominem means? I don't think that you're interested in a fruitful discussion as much as winning an argument, or just being disagreeable, and either way, you're welcome to forge ahead with that on your own. Happy trails. > Yet there's still no public component to the Fed., right? Yes, essentially correct, as well documented in the Congressional Report. >>> Other than how the Fed. returns all its profits to U.S. >>>Treasury, you mean? >> >> Citation please?] > > I guess you didn't read the Fed. for Dummies, and google isn't your friend: > www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/f...ri3.htm Read your own statements before you "support them" with more internally-generated PR. The key word here being "ALL profits". This is clearly false as again documented in the Congressional Record at the link previously cited. > "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" is about as reputable > as "The Protocol of the Elders of Zion." Your opinion is duly noted. However, it differs not only with mine but with most reputable financial journalists and researchers. "Protocols" is a nasty piece of racial propaganda. "Secrets" is a somewhat scattered, but well-researched, documented, and footnoted piece of journalism. But I'm curious about how it's YOU that keeps injecting race, ethnicity, bigotry, and prejudice into the conversation. Yet somehow I'M an anti-Semite for appreciating RP noting the importance of elected politicians adhering to their oath of featly to the Constitution ?? Or for promoting the FACT that the Fed is not a public-interest branch of government ?? Dude... you have iEEEssuuues. and not the kind I'm qualified or interested in helping with. > That *anyone* can take seriously someone who unironically > uses "World Order" is sad. Uhhh... I would tend to agree, were it not for the fact that anyone who chooses not to take seriously someone like GHW Bush (CIA, US President, Carlisle Group) does so at their own peril. I wish I COULD write them off as crackpots. But you know.. he and his sons seem to have wrought quite a bit of significant change upon this nation and the world. Or... hadn't you noticed? > ownership of a member bank is passed on by inheritance > because FRB stock is owned *only* by its member banks. Do tell. And who do you suppose the owners of those banks ARE? Heavens, they couldn't possibly be ... BANKERS and FINANCIERS, could they ?? Naaaahh. > You originally asserted the Board of Governors have a fiduciary > duty to the FRB's shareholders. So why don't you try proving your > own points? You want me to prove that the primary responsibility of boards is to their shareholders? Have you met Glennzzz by any chance? I think you guys would get along well. He's convinced that Christians don't reject homosexuals. Weren't you the one asking where RP got his degree in economics? Maybe we should ask you the same question at this point. Bottom line: Prove me wrong and I will graciously concede the point. > So in 1996 Congress was stating the obvious. What is obvious is that you did not read the comments by either of the Senators conducting the investigation. Their obvious outrage HARDLY equates to "stating the obvious". > Again, those are just the negatives of your assertions, the ones > you failed provide any citation for. And what you claim is directly > contradicted by what the Fed. says about itself--so there's my citation. Noted. The Fed says everything's copacetic, so.. "move along.. nothing to see here" ?. Got it. I think I follow your line of thinking now. And btw, I provided a citation casting doubt upon EACH of your assertions. I guess you missed that part. Or was that where you went off on the ant-semitism thing again? I forget, it happened every other paragraph, so it's kinda hard to keep it all straight. > If I was member bank, I would be *required* to own shares: Duh ? And this proves... what exactly ? My point is that you can't BE a member. Why do YOU suppose that is ? > "old-world financiers" (which is YET ANOTHER code word for "Jew," Maybe for you. That's a pretty fucked up code you got there, son. Until you can support this claim, with something other than your own opinions and fearful associations, I'll simply say that I typed PRECISELY what I MEANT. That a handful of families have dominated the field of international banking since the Renaissance. I know that sounds like it must be from some crazy science fiction novel, but hey... if you care to dispute the fact, have at it. I'm listening. Now, did you hear ANYTHING about religion in this statement? For fuck's sake... what the hell is your damage? And again, if you're seriously calling me an anti-semite, well... in lieu of more choice expletives, I'll just say you're a fucking dolt. > Lookie what google found in .27 seconds: > www.observer.com/2007/hill...-territory > Oh, wait, she didn't say it "during a debate" Here's a nice summary paragraph from your cited article: " In an interview with Michael Tomasky, editor of the new Guardian America Web site, she comments forthrightly on some of those excesses and suggests that she will undo much of what her predecessors have wrought. Not only does Mrs. Clinton accuse George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of overweening conduct, but charges them with venturing far beyond their historically accepted authority." THIS is what you want to hold up as equivalent to RP vocally criticizing the other candidates and the President during a nationally televised debate for their lack of accountability to Constitutional principles? Hilary making some cautious remarks to some unknown blogger about Bush and Cheney have perhaps "overreached" their authority? Maaan... all I can say is... have fun voting for her. I;m sure she'll have lots more carefully rehearsed comforting words for you should she pry her way into office. Maybe you should take more than 0.27 seconds next time to research something. > That Ron Paul stated the obvious "during a debate" doesn't make him a good candidate. Oh shit, we agree on something. I'm embarrased. > Who the hell said the Federal Reserve Act was > unconstitutional? You, or one of your Jew-hating sources? DUDE !! WHAT THE FUCK ??? Take your religious issues and shove them up your ASS. YOU are the only one talking about this here. And that's the end for me. Waste someone else's time. Jesus fucking christ, it's as bad as the fuckwits who babble about terrorism as a blanket argument anytime they want to undermine a valid point or concern. You sure you don't wanna vote for Giuliani as a write-in? > I'll give you hint who has *never* said that: Any federal court. Oh, was there a CASE you'd like to cite? Oops, I forgot, if it's not listed on the front page of the Fed's website, it must not exist. Right. > Nope; the Fed.'s primary purpose is to maintain the stability > of America’s financial system. Byyyy... doing WHAT, do you suppose? > If inflationary policies were > required to promote that stability, then I would expect the > Fed. to allow inflation to occur. As they do. In measured doses. Or hadn't you heard of the steady increase in the CPI over the history of the country? Guess what the primary mechanism for this control is.. ? Could it be... money supply vs. INFLATION ? Ding. Guess what the Fed manages. The money supply. Hmmm. > But, hey: thanks for proving my original point: There's a reason > why the ignorant aren't in charge. Oh, was THAT your point? Cause yeah.. you've definitely supported that one well. Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:18:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2a9b2599-0f68-47e6-bdd3-a9f2c84c714e embersandsparks 2008-02-16T04:18:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0294ff0a-c2f1-497f-a5ee-832024035842 [First, while there actually is a book by that name (available online through Google Books), using the Fed's own website as reference seems a bit lazy here, to say the least.] Yeah, why rely on the Fed. to know what it does? First-hand knowledge is useless! All and those "international bankers" are all liars! Why not listen some crank on the Internet? [Nor does it even begin to answer the question asked regarding FUNCTION.] 'Cuz that's plainly obvious: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081599.htm [This is the same system which brought you Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, and other staunch Constitutionalists, (nearly including the currently cited for contempt of Congress former administration counsel Harriet Myers).] Huh? The Fed. is bad because is part of the government? The same government that you keep claiming has no role in Fed.? [By the way, the boards of the regional Feds are appointed in turn by the DC board. Want to take bets on how few board members are NOT industrialists and old-world financiers?] Instead of talking YET MORE generalities, name and document which directors are "old-world financiers" (which is YET ANOTHER code word for "Jew," yet you claim not be anti-Semitic. *shrugs*). [The US govt does NOT "appoint all it's leaders" It appoints a handful. The rest are appointed in turn by the main board.] The federal government appoints all of the Board of Governors. They in turn appoint a minority of the FRBs' directors. Congress can, at any time, can pass legislation to modify how the Fed. operates, or even if it exists. Sufficient governmental oversight there? Yet there's still no public component to the Fed., right? [> Other than how the Fed. returns all its profits to U.S. >Treasury, you mean? Citation please?] I guess you didn't read the Fed. for Dummies, and google isn't your friend: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/frseries/frseri3.htm [again from Mullins' book] Mullins? Eustace Mullins? No wonder you're buying what the anti-Semites are selling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins#Antisemitism:_evidence_and_allegations "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" is about as reputable as "The Protocol of the Elders of Zion." The Federal Reverse's own information can't be trusted, but this conspiracy-theory crap can? [Q: Who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks? A: The dynastic families of the ruling World Order, internationalists who are loyal to no race, religion, or nation. They are families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich".] SWEET JEBUS! In addition Mullins not providing citations, there's yet more of that Anti-Semitism! (You can't throw at a stone a white supremacist site without hearing about those evil Rothchilds.) That *anyone* can take seriously someone who unironically uses "World Order" is sad. [Q: Can I buy this stock? A: No. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be bought or sold on any stock exchange. It is passed on by inheritance as the fortune of the "big rich". Almost half of the owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock are not Americans.] At least Mullins is half correct: FRB stock is not publicly traded. But it is only passed on by inheritance, if it is at all, when ownership of a member bank is passed on by inheritance because FRB stock is owned *only* by its member banks. [> But the Fed.'s Board of Governors don't owe a fiscal responsibility > to the reserve bank's shareholders. Citation please?] You are asking me to prove the negative of your assertion. You originally asserted the Board of Governors have a fiduciary duty to the FRB's shareholders. So why don't you try proving your own points? [But the 1996 investigation makes it plain that Congress is well aware that the Fed creates and follows it's own agenda with impunity.] Ignoring the melodramatic "it's own agenda with impunity," the Fed. WAS DESIGNED to operate independently of the federal government, just like each branch of the government was designed to operate independently of the others. So in 1996 Congress was stating the obvious. [Are you suggesting that the Fed's shareholders expect and/or receive no return on their investment???] Nope. They receive interest on their shares. [What specific "fundamental difference" are you referring to exactly?] Perhaps if you read the Fed. for Dummies, you would know owning shares in FRB required by all member banks, the shares are nontransferable, and the amount of shares do not giving rights like shares in corporations. But if Mullins says otherwise, that's good enough for you, eh? [> Says you, as none of the federal reserve banks are private, > operated for profit, are multinational corporations, or "skim" > from the top. And your lack of references is noted. Uh... and YOUR references for ANY of the OPINIONS you've offered are... where ??] Again, those are just the negatives of your assertions, the ones you failed provide any citation for. And what you claim is directly contradicted by what the Fed. says about itself--so there's my citation. [The Fed is indeed a private corporation. You cannot buy shares. Even if you happened to be the First National Bank of Weazie.] If I was member bank, I would be *required* to own shares: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5 [Please cite any instance where any candidate for the upcoming election has floated this issue during any public debate of unconstitutional behavior by the current administration.] Lookie what google found in .27 seconds: http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-clinton-s-dry-caution-leaves-open-territory Oh, wait, she didn't say it "during a debate" (or "while wearing yellow shoes" or whatever conditional modifier you need to make yourself feel correct). That Ron Paul stated the obvious "during a debate" doesn't make him a good candidate. [What the hell does that have to do with RP shining some light on the unconstitutional nature of the act itself?] Who the hell said the Federal Reserve Act was unconstitutional? You, or one of your Jew-hating sources? I'll give you hint who has *never* said that: Any federal court. [Would you at a minimum agree that (one of) the primary purpose(s) of the Fed is to control and steady the forces of inflation on the US economy?] Nope; the Fed.'s primary purpose is to maintain the stability of America’s financial system. If inflationary policies were required to promote that stability, then I would expect the Fed. to allow inflation to occur. But, hey: thanks for proving my original point: There's a reason why the ignorant aren't in charge. Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:32:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0294ff0a-c2f1-497f-a5ee-832024035842 Weazie 2008-02-16T01:32:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a2d9bfe6-4578-474b-bfcd-1514885d7d75 "another burner for abortion..... " it's not even that....it's just that link (or ones like it) have already been posted. if you don't wanna read the thread, I understand, it's really long. but don't post your half ass pro choice link and then TELL me you're not gonna read the thread. There's been a lot of good debate on this one.... Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:25:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a2d9bfe6-4578-474b-bfcd-1514885d7d75 Jason 2008-02-15T10:25:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9ba89eda-c7d5-4d11-8a7d-033270a70813 god I'll say another burner for abortion..... all according to script..... Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:30:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9ba89eda-c7d5-4d11-8a7d-033270a70813 glennzzz 2008-02-15T07:30:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1551c605-c637-4f61-9b42-684632455751 you're late, lia Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:13:38 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1551c605-c637-4f61-9b42-684632455751 Jason 2008-02-15T04:13:38Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c03adbb9-e96d-467a-badb-d8ba94e93a8d dunno if this has been mentioned (not gonna read over 400 posts to find out), but... http://prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/paul.html Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:28:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c03adbb9-e96d-467a-badb-d8ba94e93a8d Lia 2008-02-15T03:28:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#635cde13-c6be-40dd-b100-f241045733e4 > I think everyone should go Paul just put McCain in his place. > It'd be funny! I have to deal with all the political crap all day, > every day except Sunday. WTF are you babbling about? I think I'll have to wait for glummzz to show up to translate... pretty sure he speaks this same language. Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:04:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#635cde13-c6be-40dd-b100-f241045733e4 embersandsparks 2008-02-15T03:04:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ead451d4-83b3-488e-b1a9-db8ef9584b32 > [Ah, so having read your reference, can you point out to me > how exactly the "public" portion of the Fed functions?] > > Try reading Federal Reserve System for Dummies: > www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm > > The federal government appoints Fed.'s Board of Governors, > who in turn appoint the majority of the directors of the federal > reserve banks. Nomination (and confirmation) of the Fed.'s > shot-callers is done by the federal government, i.e., the public. First, while there actually is a book by that name (available online through Google Books), using the Fed's own website as reference seems a bit lazy here, to say the least. Nor does it even begin to answer the question asked regarding FUNCTION. Which is understandable. No one is out there trying to make it easier for you to grasp exactly how you as a citizen have any influence (representative or otherwise) upon the Fed. Nor how it's actions affect the personal and collective finances of the American people. Taking the Fed at it's own word seems pollyanna at best. Try this: " the President of the United States appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, who are then confirmed by the Senate. " -- From E. Mullin's 1950's book on the Fed ( viewable online at http://www.whale.to/b/mullins5.html ) This is the same system which brought you Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, and other staunch Constitutionalists, (nearly including the currently cited for contempt of Congress former administration counsel Harriet Myers). By the way, the boards of the regional Feds are appointed in turn by the DC board. Want to take bets on how few board members are NOT industrialists and old-world financiers? > The federal government only established the Federal Reserve System, > appoints all its leaders, has oversight over its operations...isn't that > "public" enough for you? First, you are inaccurate. Here's a reference to the most recent Congressional effort to bring the Fed to heel: http://www.moneymaker.com/money/refrnc3.htm US Senator Dorgan, quoted from the Congressional Record (full text at link above): "This is largely because it is a central bank, accountable largely only to itself. It conducts monetary policy by itself and does so behind closed doors, with great secrecy." The US govt does NOT "appoint all it's leaders" It appoints a handful. The rest are appointed in turn by the main board. Basically, it's the ultimate good old boy network. And I mean that in the most literal sense possible. >> [I see no reference to the profits of the Fed benefiting >> the American people in any way.] > > Other than how the Fed. returns all its profits to U.S. >Treasury, you mean? Citation please? Here's some evidence to the contrary (again from Mullins' book, but easily cross referenced elsewhere). QUOTING ( from http://www.whale.to/b/m_q_a.html ): Q: Are our dollar bills, which carry the label "Federal Reserve notes" government money? A: Federal Reserve notes are actually promissory notes, promises to pay, rather than what we traditionally consider money. They are interest bearing notes issued against interest bearing government bonds, paper issued with nothing but paper backing, which is known as fiat money, because it has only the fiat of the issuer to guarantee these notes. The Federal Reserve Act authorizes the issuance of these notes "for the purposes of making advances to Federal reserve banks... The said notes shall be obligations of the United States. They shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the District of Columbia." Tourists visiting the Bureau of Printing and Engraving on the Mall in Washington, D.C. view the printing of Federal Reserve notes at this governmental agency on contract from the Federal Reserve System for the nominal sum of .00260 each in units of 1,000, at the same price regardless of the denomination. ************************************************************************ These notes, printed for a private bank, then become liabilities and obligations of the United States government and are added to our present $4 trillion debt. ************************************************************************* The government had no debt when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Q: Who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks? A: The dynastic families of the ruling World Order, internationalists who are loyal to no race, religion, or nation. They are families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich". Q: Can I buy this stock? A: No. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be bought or sold on any stock exchange. It is passed on by inheritance as the fortune of the "big rich". Almost half of the owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock are not Americans. END QUOTE Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how this arrangements results in "profits being returned to the US Treasury" ??? > But the Fed.'s Board of Governors don't owe a fiscal responsibility > to the reserve bank's shareholders. Citation please? I believe that you are entirely wrong about this, whether in principle or in practice. Ovbiously the BOG is meant to imply that some governmental oversight upon the Fed exists. But the 1996 investigation makes it plain that Congress is well aware that the Fed creates and follows it's own agenda with impunity. How do you expect that the board of any organization would operate without the interests of it's shareholders held primary? Can you document any such claim from any independent source? > You do understand that the nature and function of the members' > shares in the federal reserve banks is fundamentally different than > shares held in corporations? Are you suggesting that the Fed's shareholders expect and/or receive no return on their investment??? <giggle> What specific "fundamental difference" are you referring to exactly? >> [Both of which are functions which could be just as >> well performed by an agency which is not organized >> for it's member's profit, rather than a private multinational >> which skims from the top.] > Says you, as none of the federal reserve banks are private, > operated for profit, are multinational corporations, or "skim" > from the top. And your lack of references is noted. Uh... and YOUR references for ANY of the OPINIONS you've offered are... where ?? Note this: In addition to what I've just posted, any history of the Fed will recount the founding of the institution as tracing to the Jekyll Island meetings led by Aldridge and Warburg. There is no debate about whose interests Warburg represented, those of the historically dominant European banking families, the Rothschild empire in particular. No debate. The Fed is indeed a private corporation. You cannot buy shares. Even if you happened to be the First National Bank of Weazie. Oh, unless you also happen to be friends with Volker, or Rockerfellers, or some other well-established inner-circle family of financiers. Feel free to provide any example to the contrary should you find one. The fact is that the Fed IS NOT a govt institution. The most cursory research will yield this fact quickly. The Fed simply happens to have been chartered by Congress, as are all federal banks, and state banks by state govt's It is essentially a privatization of the US central banking system, legalizing fractional reserve banking practices which allow banks to lend money and collect interest on deposits far in excess of what they actually hold. And you think all the profits from this exercise end up in the US Treasury? Think again. The fact that a board exists which is appointed by the decider-in-chief HARDLY diminishes the fact that this is NOT A PUBLIC INSTITUTION, no matter how official it's seal looks, or how hard they try to convince you that they operate in your interest. Here's a quote from US Senator Reid regarding the 1996 GAO audit of the Fed (emphasis mine): "The findings of this report, if centered on a Member of Congress, or an AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, would be, for lack of a better word, scandalous." It IS private. At least, if being operated for the benefit of private stockholders (be they individuals or private institutions) still means anything. Every year the Fed returns billions to the US Treasury. AFTER expenses, operating costs, capital expenditures, salaries, benefits, etc. The assets and the bank itself is OWNED by it's shareholders. And this does not begin to address the ways in which the guidance of monetary policy benefits those in a position to invest strategically (through partners and front corporations where necessary) with full foreknowledge of that guidance. It's really not that complicated. Follow the money. Case closed. They ARE operated for profit. Where in the world do you see "non-profit" associated with anything the Fed does??? Why in the world would the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and the rest of the aristocracy engage in running the central banking system for the most economically powerful nation on earth? As a charitable exercise? Puh-leeease. If they were NOT operated for profit, they would not have turned over 33 billion dollars in REPORTED surplus profit to the US Treasury in 1996. Documentation in Congressional Record at http://www.moneymaker.com/money/refrnc3.htm . They ARE majority owned by foreign interests, and have been for at least half a century, if not from the outset. They DO collect interest on all notes issued, as "lender of last resort" to the US government. We PAY for their services. Duh. They DO "skim from the top", as can again be verified by the results of the PRELIMINARY 1996 GAO investigation (they never got around to the actual audit for some straaaannge reason) which uncovered a THREE BILLION dollar slush fund, a 90% increase in staff salaries and benefits over a period where the COLA was around 25% total, and an accompanying increase in operating budget for capital expenditures. Can anyone say "rogue agency" ? All this can be found in the congressional record documenting the hearings in 96 at the link previously given. All of these facts can be referenced easily by searching the index of Mullins' book online (Thanks Google!), but are hardly limited to his work. I chose to cite his work since it predates the current "conspiracy theory" arguments. In case you missed it, the link was posted above. Oh, and this guy was a journalist, a close associate of Pound among others, and his documentation has been generally accepted as factually accurate for scholarly purposes. That's about as good as it's likely to get when searching for an objective viewpoint where massive amounts of money are involved. Any FACTS offered in opposition will be graciously entertained. > You are parroting the EXACT same shopworn lies that are spread > on the internet by white supremacists--word for word, at points. > An easy enough search should prove enlightening > (Hint: google "federal reserve jew"). Do your own research. I am just barely curious enough about your statement to entertain any supporting proof, but I'm far more interested in the functions of the bank than in whether I sound like some Aryan skinhead or not. I know who I am, and I owe you no explanation for your own reactionary associations. But I'll happily refute them if you care to provide any evidence of your claim. While you're at it, can you look up the genealogies of all the above mentioned families and let me know if they are all indeed "Joooos"?? I'm dying to know now. As the old-money families which funded the fledgling Fed were heavily involved in lending money to both sides of the conflict in both WW1 and WW2, they are pretty repugnant whether or not they happen(ed) to be Jewish. If they were, and they nevertheless lent money to the third reich, what exactly does THAT say ? To my mind, that makes them repugnant PEOPLE, not repugnant Jews or Christians or Buddhists or whateverthefuckever. And oh, by the way... these are the same families running the political and economic systems of YOUR country at the present moment. Just a thought. So if you're playing apologist for them, what does that make you, exactly? Were you aware that Grandaddy Prescott Bush had all assets in his jointly owned bank following WW2 specifically BECAUSE they had illegally lent huge sums of money to Germany during the war? One of the very few American banks ever to have it's charter revoked and it's assets forfeited. Are you aware that Bush's fortunes were sufficient by that point to shrug off those losses? Any thoughts about how much blood stains the Bush fortune to this day? Do I still sound anti-semitic? Bleah. I think I need a shower now. (On the topic of RP raising unconstitutional presidential actions during the Republican debates): > Yeah, like no one else has EVER brought any of those subjects up. > Did Ron Paul also boldly predict that the sun will rise tomorrow? Wtf is wrong with you? Are you being belligerent for the joy of it or something? Please cite any instance where any candidate for the upcoming election has floated this issue during any public debate of unconstitutional behavior by the current administration. (Kucinich and Gravel may be the exceptions here, but they're hardly injecting the issue into the public eye with the startling effectiveness of RP doing so in the REPUBLICAN debates.) I'm not venerating the guy, I'm grudgingly giving credit where credit is due. If you don't happen to find his actions admirable, fine. Why so snarky? I'm not campaigning for the guy, and would never vote for him. What's your malfunction exactly? > But speaking of appropriation of congressional powers: * Who has the authority to abolish the IRS? * Who has the authority to abolish the Federal Reserve System? > It ain't the president. So perhaps Ron Paul doesn't really respect > the Constitution after all? Huh? Congress reserved the right to amend or abolish the Act creating the Fed to itself. What the hell does that have to do with RP shining some light on the unconstitutional nature of the act itself? As far as I know, RP didn't threaten to abolish the Fed singlehandedly... hough if he did, I think your point might well be valid. But unless you can provide a quote to that effect, he didn't, and your point ain't. I will note however, that it is common however for the president to request specific legislation, and for Congress to oblige. I will leave you with this: Would you at a minimum agree that (one of) the primary purpose(s) of the Fed is to control and steady the forces of inflation on the US economy? No controversy there, right? Cool. Now ponder this: "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, more sure way of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner in which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes I'll forego the ubiquitous Jefferson quote this time. Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:02:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ead451d4-83b3-488e-b1a9-db8ef9584b32 embersandsparks 2008-02-15T03:02:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4df014bd-0dac-4b20-8981-caaec21f83a1 [Ah, so having read your reference, can you point out to me how exactly the "public" portion of the Fed functions?] Try reading Federal Reserve System for Dummies: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm The federal government appoints Fed.'s Board of Governors, who in turn appoint the majority of the directors of the federal reserve banks. Nomination (and confirmation) of the Fed.'s shot-callers is done by the federal government, i.e., the public. The federal government has no say in, for example, Walmart's leadership, but a huuuuuge say in the Fed.'s. That the federal government has no direct say in the day-to-day functioning of the Fed. is BY DESIGN so the federal government cannot manipulate monetary policy for fiscal policy purposes. Just like how the President (with the Senate's consent) nominates judges, but has no say in how the judges can rule--checks and balances. The federal government only established the Federal Reserve System, appoints all its leaders, has oversight over its operations...isn't that "public" enough for you? [I see no reference to the profits of the Fed benefitting the AMerican people in any way.] Other than how the Fed. returns all its profits to U.S. Treasury, you mean? [Both of which are functions which could be just as well performed by an agency which is not organized for it's member's profit, rather than a private multinational which skims from the top.] Says you, as none of the federal reserve banks are private, operated for profit, are multinational corporations, or "skim" from the top. And your lack of references is noted. [As chairman of the fed, Greenspan's primary fiscal responsibility is owed to the shareholders of the Bank. Nothing magical about it, it's the same with any (non-privately held) corporate entity.] But the Fed.'s Board of Governors don't owe a fiscal responsibility to the reserve bank's shareholders. You do understand that the nature and function of the members' shares in the federal reserve banks is fundamentally different than shares held in corporations? [I have ZERO issue with the faith or ethnicity of international bankers. My issue with them is their lack of compassion and vision, not their religious beliefs.] Reeeaaaaaally. You are parroting the EXACT same shopworn lies that are spread on the internet by white supremacists--word for word, at points. An easy enough search should prove enlightening (Hint: google "federal reserve jew"). To get back on topic: White supremacists say "the Jews" run the Fed. White supremacists don't like "the Jews." Ron Paul doesn't like the Fed. White supremacists like Ron Paul. "Hmmmm." ...or is this clusterfuck of ignorance just a random occurrence? [Domestic spying, presidential signing statements, appropriation of congressional powers, I could go on... The point being that RP actually RAISED this issue vocally during the debates.] Yeah, like no one else has EVER brought any of those subjects up. Did Ron Paul also boldly predict that the sun will rise tomorrow? But speaking of appropriation of congressional powers: * Who has the authority to abolish the IRS? * Who has the authority to abolish the Federal Reserve System? It ain't the president. So perhaps Ron Paul doesn't really respect the Constitution after all? Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:17:33 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4df014bd-0dac-4b20-8981-caaec21f83a1 Weazie 2008-02-13T23:17:33Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#361b5570-1207-406f-a3a4-a905ae14a258 > The Federal Reserve System is partially private, partially public: > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve Ah, so having read your reference, can you point out to me how exactly the "public" portion of the Fed functions? Because it sure appears to me that the US GOvt appoints a board of "governors" whose role is essentially advisory. I see no reference to the profits of the Fed benefitting the AMerican people in any way. The SOLE advertised benefit seems to be that of maintaining "stability and liquidity". Both of which are functions which could be just as well performed by an agency which is not organized for it's member's profit, rather than a private multinational which skims from the top. > The Fed. is neither "expensive," nor costing "every citizen of the > US pays a percentage for the priveliege of using printed money > as legal tender. " Says you. Reference please? > And it isn't the Fed.'s job lower the national debt. Nor did I say it was. Reread the sentence. > So all that, and suggesting that Alan Greenspan suddenly and > magically became beholden to the "Fed.'s owners" As chairman of the fed, Greenspan's primary fiscal responsibility is owed to the shareholders of the Bank. Nothing magical about it, it's the same with any (non-privately held) corporate entity. It happens to be in the bank's financial interest to maintain a volitile and expanding US economy, so those interests are often aligned. Does that make it "good" ? > (oh just say it: The Jooooooooos!) indicates perhaps the grown-ups are > best left off running the monetary policy. Please feel free to fuck yourself with abandon. That was not only uncalled for, but every bit as rascist as you were trying to paint me. I have ZERO issue with the faith or ethnicity of international bankers. My issue with them is their lack of compassion and vision, not their religious beliefs. > Who is this "THEY"? The "bankers"? The politicans? The CFR? The Illuminati? Dude, READ the sentence my comment referred to. It's short. >> "If nothing else, RP does happen to be the only politician with the huevos >> to point out the appalling violations of the Constitution committed by modern >> administrations. That's BIG." > Could you be less specific? Uhhh... you need specifics in order to grok that modern administrations have run roughshod over the constitution? Could you be less obtuse? Domestic spying, presidential signing statements, appropriation of congressional powers, I could go on... The point being that RP actually RAISED this issue vocally during the debates. Whatever else I may find repugnant about some of his positions, this alone commands huge respect. It's not that complex a point. Try reading your own "reference". Then we can talk. If you promise to behave. Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:46:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#361b5570-1207-406f-a3a4-a905ae14a258 embersandsparks 2008-02-13T04:46:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0cc411e3-3f91-4ee2-8745-8887fd4a89ce I think everyone should go Paul just put McCain in his place. It'd be funny! I have to deal with all the political crap all day, every day except Sunday. It doesn't matter they are all nothing but a big group of big fat wind bags. Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:31:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0cc411e3-3f91-4ee2-8745-8887fd4a89ce Playa Mama & 2008-02-10T02:31:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#91bb5b5f-cc66-4b65-8ffe-e40ddaa954c2 In one paragraph, you completely described it. Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:25:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#91bb5b5f-cc66-4b65-8ffe-e40ddaa954c2 Scott 2008-02-10T02:25:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#878c8f91-f8b4-4bb6-80f7-521317c89b32 I doubt that you are actually interested in having this discussion. This is an entirely 'other' conversation, that is long an usually ends up with people jumping up and down and such. But to answer your question about local issues, there was not one that I saw as important in this election. Not voting is something that I don't want to talk about here. I've done it before. I'd rather talk about it. This typing thing is kinda clunky. I actually am gonna be done now, for a while. I'm gonna go traveling. See you guys in a month. I'm happy to see that people are doing and thinking and all that. I don't really care who wins or whatever... just that people aren't aptethetic. That's the real winning combination and such... Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:22:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#878c8f91-f8b4-4bb6-80f7-521317c89b32 Chicken 2008-02-08T19:22:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7153b5e7-726c-4aac-ad2d-50d0618c2a35 >>Actually, I can argue this all day. Not voting is a vote. A vote for none of the above. It is my opinion that the people who chose not to vote aren't apethetic, they just don't have a none of the above catagory. If you disagree, then it's an arguement and not a discussion. I don't vote, and I am certainly not apethitic. Anything but. << chicken, So your telling us that you don't vote at all? or just this election. Because I really cannot believe that you don't have an opionion on ANY of the issues on any given ballot, be it a presidential candidate, a local measure, or a state proposition. You're basically telling us that you would vote for "none of the above" on every single issue for every election, and because you can't do that, you simply DON'T VOTE. Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:43:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7153b5e7-726c-4aac-ad2d-50d0618c2a35 ~:B:~ 2008-02-08T18:43:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dbf5c1d4-a5c8-43a4-8470-379bae80bdc0 I had high hopes that I wouldn't click on this thread again. It's before my coffee; if tha tmakes any difference. Um. We should make political decisions based on felinemancy. We will take five feral cats and throw them in a special carpeted room. We will look at their movements and from that predict our best practice for a particular issue. You, TomCat, will not be one of the cats. Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:44:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dbf5c1d4-a5c8-43a4-8470-379bae80bdc0 Crypto 2008-02-08T15:44:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d4cd081-c253-40e6-bad3-a4338e4948be crypto- now you are being rational and realistic. I thought you were going to hold back those impulses. This thread kinda demands that and invites the lunatic fringe. Even more so than tha anarky thread gaining 'depth'. I had such high hopes for you crypto..... Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:19:54 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d4cd081-c253-40e6-bad3-a4338e4948be TomCat 2008-02-08T07:19:54Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e41cbc3a-ca9e-49ce-9594-ab5c0ad3a8a9 Credit Cards. Debit Cards. Direct Deposit. Bank Transfers. Paypal. Automatic Bill Pay. Checks. We've long since passed the point where specie currency is the major way of using money. Horse is out of the barn, cat is out of the bag. Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:45:10 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e41cbc3a-ca9e-49ce-9594-ab5c0ad3a8a9 Crypto 2008-02-08T00:45:10Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6214b135-2643-4dc7-b39f-9afe29822f82 The Federal Reserve System is partially private, partially public: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve The Fed. is neither "expensive," nor costing "every citizen of the US pays a percentage for the priveliege of using printed money as legal tender. " And it isn't the Fed.'s job lower the national debt. So all that, and suggesting that Alan Greenspan suddenly and magically became beholden to the "Fed.'s owners" (oh just say it: The Jooooooooos!) indicates perhaps the grown-ups are best left off running the monetary policy. "He knows what THEY know." Who is this "THEY"? The "bankers"? The politicans? The CFR? The Illuminati? "If nothing else, RP does happen to be the only politician with the huevos to point out the appalling violations of the Constitution committed by modern administrations. That's BIG." Could you be less specific? Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:08:42 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6214b135-2643-4dc7-b39f-9afe29822f82 Weazie 2008-02-08T00:08:42Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0dab03ca-8de8-4132-8c0a-fe29cb768032 > Even Alan Greenspan had at once time been a gold standard advocate; > yet when he was chair of the Federal Reserve (another one Ron Paul's > oddball peeves), Greenspan did nothing to attempt to return the U.S. to > the gold standard. And that should tell you something, shouldn't it? The "Fed" is a PRIVATELY OWNED FOR-PROFIT entity. As chair, AG's loyalties are now beholden to the Fed's owners. Greenspan was neither elected or responsible to the Federal Gov't once appointed. > >I asked: > 1. What is Ron Paul's education in economics? One doesn't need a PhD in economics to see the potential pitfalls of our current monetary system, or the befuddling "wisdom" of our FOR-PROFIT privatized money supply. Every citizen of the US pays a percentage for the priveliege of using printed money as legal tender. Why? Lincoln (among others) saw the pointless cost of such a system and replaced it with US Notes, govt backed currency which served perfectly well until the bankers and oligarchs snuck through ( and I do literally mean "snuck through") a bill creating the Federal Reserve. Which is neither federal, nor keeps reserves. No degree required to raise some serious questions in light of that. (Not that the gold standard is necessarily any panacea.) > What does Ron Paul know that THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IN CHARGE > OF every nations' monetary policies do not know? That is not really the issue. It's more the opposite. He knows what THEY know. That they've been milking us like a rented cow for a fucking century. And even though I would not vote for RP due to his fundamentalist leanings, I happen to think he's right on the beam with the idea of replacing the Fed. They are entirely superfluous, and very expensive. An autonomous government commission could do exactly the same thing and might put a real dent in the national debt in short order by so doing. Next up, the IRS. If nothing else, RP does happen to be the only politician with the huevos to point out the appalling violations of the Constitution committed by modern administrations. That's BIG. Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:40:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0dab03ca-8de8-4132-8c0a-fe29cb768032 embersandsparks 2008-02-07T01:40:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#85299236-c706-4420-8510-a64f09bff5dc Oh good. Because of all the ineffective, nepotistic incestuous local politicians in the East Bay, it's Nancy Nadel we should try to unseat. Did she support rent control on your spec loft or something? Maybe you should look up Ignacio's voting record before you freak out about a community activist -come-politician. Dude. You need brain food. Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:20:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#85299236-c706-4420-8510-a64f09bff5dc embersandsparks 2008-02-07T01:20:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9f4984b2-cf7c-4b99-8c16-4750c40676df Is there a Pro-Lifers who take donations from White Supremacists tribe? Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:21:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9f4984b2-cf7c-4b99-8c16-4750c40676df maxlotl 2008-02-06T22:21:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#622e1f8c-6877-429d-aec6-f394d912986d Ron Paul, aka "Mr. Last Place": http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ron.paul.html Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:17:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#622e1f8c-6877-429d-aec6-f394d912986d Weazie 2008-02-06T22:17:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#921e32a9-52c9-408f-82fb-fa48ddaf38de Neither one of you answered the questions I actually asked. And you not being economist yet claiming to know the gold standard is a good thing gives your opinion as about much weight as, well, Ron Paul's. Bush's qualifications are irrelevant; he'll never be elected to anything for the rest of his life. But, speaking of Bush, let's look the three people he has named as Secretary of the Treasury: Henry Paulson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson John W. Snow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Snow Paul O'Neill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_O%27Neill_%28cabinet_member%29 ...all trained in economics or business. All with great success and experience in the private sector. None are career politicans. If the gold standard is so great, why nary a peeps on the subject from any of these extremely qualified individuals? Was there some "secret conspriacy" to stiffle this otherwise excellent idea? Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:15:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#921e32a9-52c9-408f-82fb-fa48ddaf38de Weazie 2008-02-06T22:15:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#651e0ac5-0c91-4606-b150-666320024f0a I'm not an economist -and- I know sticking to the gold standard is smarter than every country in the world thinking that not having their money backed by money is a good thing. When did Bush get a degree in economics, or for that matter, a real degree in anything that qualifies him to be a leader of a country. He's good a running business that lose a lot of money. And, the chick answered your question. Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:08:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#651e0ac5-0c91-4606-b150-666320024f0a Too Much 2008-02-06T18:08:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#24279692-024a-40e8-b606-fc90c902f1b6 Don't know about blip but they did have a blimp which I'm sure we could probably pick up real cheap about now. Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:36:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#24279692-024a-40e8-b606-fc90c902f1b6 $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-06T03:36:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3fa8615b-d6bb-4b7a-a126-9525d77cfca4 Who the hell is Ron Paul....Is he even a blip on the radar screen?? Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:57:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3fa8615b-d6bb-4b7a-a126-9525d77cfca4 BadAss 2008-02-06T01:57:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#00d921a1-238a-4d8f-b453-c1bd30d58d8e I voted for Chicken. Twice. (For DA and Sheriff.) Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:20:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#00d921a1-238a-4d8f-b453-c1bd30d58d8e Weazie 2008-02-06T01:20:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d3c6cb09-63e1-43a0-8e8d-f249a5dafefb "Not voting is just another way of voting for whomever ultimately wins." Actually, I can argue this all day. Not voting is a vote. A vote for none of the above. It is my opinion that the people who chose not to vote aren't apethetic, they just don't have a none of the above catagory. If you disagree, then it's an arguement and not a discussion. I don't vote, and I am certainly not apethitic. Anything but. But you have to beleive that people would chose to vote for the none of the above catagory to hvae the converstaion, otherwise it's pointless... Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:25:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d3c6cb09-63e1-43a0-8e8d-f249a5dafefb Chicken 2008-02-05T19:25:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#80d2791c-b7ff-45cc-b76b-3626862167e6 Chicken, why should that be funny? It only makes good sense. There's a lot of fishermen out there of the recreational variety who want to enjoy their pasttime. To conserve and sustainably develop long-term fisheries is a good thing. Which brings us right back to Ron Paul. If he has no clue about doing the infrastructure thing the right way, he doesn't have my vote.The problem needed fixing yesterday. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:36:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#80d2791c-b7ff-45cc-b76b-3626862167e6 Rhino 2008-02-05T17:36:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5699cb8f-0814-44b5-8039-78d2846c4e2e Prioritizing undesirable choices is considered a hallmark of rational thinking. Should I: A) Give the IRS my hard-earned money, which will reduce the amount of my money; or B) Not pay, and possibly endure the IRS dragging me through the tax and/or criminal courts? A) Go to the dentist, which will be painful and possibly expensive; or B) Not go to the dentist, which will may be ultimately more painful and expensive in the long run? No one want to do either, but one is certainly smarter than the other. Not voting is just another way of voting for whomever ultimately wins. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:34:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5699cb8f-0814-44b5-8039-78d2846c4e2e Weazie 2008-02-05T02:34:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9466a9dc-7ffa-4551-b5da-a5c9e7a4ba7e I did not ask what the gold standard is, or its purported benefits. I asked: 1. What is Ron Paul's education in economics? 2. What does Ron Paul know that THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IN CHARGE OF every nations' monetary policies do not know? If it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why does no one use it? (Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Disadvantages ) Saying "politicians prefer it" is weak; in this (and many other) countries, politicians are elected by the people. Even Alan Greenspan had at once time been a gold standard advocate; yet when he was chair of the Federal Reserve (another one Ron Paul's oddball peeves), Greenspan did nothing to attempt to return the U.S. to the gold standard. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:22:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9466a9dc-7ffa-4551-b5da-a5c9e7a4ba7e Weazie 2008-02-05T02:22:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3fcb5e84-25e7-42a7-88d4-3206c3203393 95% of our water useage is not for survival but for comfort and leisure, manufacture and industry. It may even be 99%. So it's not really survival. But I see your point. I don't beleive in global warming. I don't beleive in carbon footprints will make any difference. That being said, we should do things in an ecologicly intelligent way because that is simply the right thing to do. I have no illusions that we are liveing unsustainably. That being said, Ron Paul is a fisherman. An angler. Huge lobby. Interesting that fisherman are basicly hunters. NRA guys. They are becomeing the most effective sustsinable 0environment and ecology cheerleaders. To me, that's kinda funny. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:29:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3fcb5e84-25e7-42a7-88d4-3206c3203393 Chicken 2008-02-04T19:29:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#08e5d2f1-2ab4-4a38-ad9b-669924057947 Gee, Chicken John, it seems to me you're really missing the boat. Seriously, like. <Water and sewer lines is what government is for. Obviously. Public trust. We, the public, trust these individuals with out best interests in mind. That they will make intelligent descions to keep us healthy, safe and offer releif from conflict. > I'm not sure I agree with this answer at all. The need for survival is why water is needed. The western US is using far too much water, not allowing subsurface aquifers to recharge, and that's why we need water pipelines, etc. from the east to the west. Will it be enough? It depends upon the size of pipeline. I can see why you're not excited - NOT! The transport of that water from any source will require capital investment, and somebody is going to have to PAY for that investment. Your taxes up front ain't enough. How about water user fees? Pay as you go sorta thing. And, in building the pipeline, can we use less 'cut and cover', and start using more ecologically sound methods like trenchless methods? There was a study that was announced this past week at the Underground Construction Technology Conference in Atlanta, Georgia that said that the use of trenchless methods decreases the carbon footprint of an installation by 90%!! Imagine that! A potential input removed from the global warming equation. Yep, Chicken John, it's not glamorous, and it's not a 'hot button' issue, but it MUST be looked at. Being facetiouis about it is dishonest in recognizing the need that's there. And don't think that this Rhino is dumb merely because of the name. The name was given because I have a reputation for not quitting on people - - I give a damn about my fellow man. That we can acheive statehood, abide by Larry's 10 principals and then.... oh wait.... sorry, my bad.... That we can acheive statehood, abide by the Constitution and create a public trust that will shepard the people and stuart the land, the air and the water and make us good citizens of Earth. But should the government subsidize Amtrak? How about people who have nowhere to live? Health care? How about tax cuts for your 4th and 5th home? It's all a slippery slope. As for not answering the question, I guess I wasn't that excited about it. I'm kinda into the hot button issue to see where people stand on tolerance and such as it relates to us being part of this VERY political organization, if you are me and feel that the most political thing you can do is manufacture culture. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:29:46 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#08e5d2f1-2ab4-4a38-ad9b-669924057947 Rhino 2008-02-04T18:29:46Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#21398331-cd49-4c20-95b8-c77c5a0b4ec7 Well I"m glad we got that cleared up... Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:51:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#21398331-cd49-4c20-95b8-c77c5a0b4ec7 Chicken 2008-02-04T06:51:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#efdcdac5-f51c-48c4-8724-e72778dd50ef As for answering Rhino's question... first of all, I don't like to have intelligent conversations with people who are named after dumb animals. But I'll make an exception just this once.... for the record, rhino's are much more intelligent then chickens Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:47:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#efdcdac5-f51c-48c4-8724-e72778dd50ef M 2008-02-04T04:47:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2e631038-f102-45a7-af49-a939adafef54 Actually, voting for the lesser of two evils is pretty much the reality and is the epitome of being American. See, America is made of millions of people with all kinds of political realities. That one would find a candidate that doesn't exactly represent their view on the ballot shouldn't be surprising. In fact, it should be the norm. The Democrats and Republicans are simply two different graft distribution networks. Ron Paul is a plain old lunatic. You vote for the one who suck less ... unless you are a direct part of one of those graft distribution networks. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:31:41 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2e631038-f102-45a7-af49-a939adafef54 Geekster 2008-02-04T02:31:41Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#813f0f12-2d8c-4951-9109-7bcd4a60c944 "You should never vote for anyone or anything that you dont support whole-heartedly. If you vote for someone you dont like, you aren't making a difference, youre just letting the powers that be control you." This statement is the basic fabric of democracy. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils marks you as a traitor to your country or worse. Everyone who didn't vote for Nador but instead voted for Kerry actually voted for Bush. A vote is a contract. If you vote, you enter into a contract. That whoever wins, you'll be happy with. Not voting doesn't have this same attachement. I concur with Maggot that you should never vote for the lesser of the evil. It's still a vote for evil. This is my opinion. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:26:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#813f0f12-2d8c-4951-9109-7bcd4a60c944 Chicken 2008-02-04T02:26:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#669e7c34-b3ca-4f41-b1ff-24f76ed4e264 >Don't waste your vote, make an informed decision on the realistic candidates at this point in time.< You should never vote for anyone or anything that you dont support whole-heartedly. If you vote for someone you dont like, you aren't making a difference, youre just letting the powers that be control you. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:58:10 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#669e7c34-b3ca-4f41-b1ff-24f76ed4e264 margaret 2008-02-03T18:58:10Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#666e7ca3-1ecf-4a5f-99f7-36b1b950f923 >>No- not really, but that does sound like a good conspiracy theory.<< If I let you be the tri-lateral commission, can I be the Merovingians? I always wanted to be descended from space dolphins. Anyway, here's the catch--if the office is so unwanted that scumbags aren't fighting each other for the other of winning it, then it's very likely that the office has no actual power to effect change, so why should I waste my time, running for an office I dont want to occupy and that will only take up my time and produce little to no results? I much prefer talking to regular people than not returning their phone calls because I'm "too imporant or busy" to talk to them. It's in talking to people that I feel I can be the most productive--explaining things like why decentralized governments are better for the people that centralized ones. Attacking the issue from the other direction: At least if I won a serious political post, I might be able to produce change, but then I have the problem of fighting scumbags to get the post. Why? Because if the post can result in actual change that means that somebody will present themselves with money to ask for changes in their favor--and that's why scumbags are attracted to politics. It's also one of the reasons why heavily centralized govt often fails to protect the citizens. Yes, it's a very cynical view, but I've so far seen no reason to think otherwise. The rest of my post? What do you want me to explain? Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:49:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#666e7ca3-1ecf-4a5f-99f7-36b1b950f923 margaret 2008-02-03T18:49:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4ed23a4a-aa4f-4b55-960a-a1c1f95e1746 Sorry. Here ya go. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10496#obama "Among all the candidates in both political parties, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the health care industry, having raised about $2.2 million, according to campaign finance records." If that other link I gave you is accurate (and assuming big pharma wasn't funneling funds through their employees) then Michael Moore was incorrect or being dishonest (not surprising) about the accusation. Unfortunately, a lot of people take what Moore says as gospel and spread it around and sometimes magnify it--especially when they dont have access to such scintillating information as what's on that other site. :-P I dont blame people for spreading inaccurate information if they are doing so without malice--we can fix that with better info. And we'd all have better info if we didn't act like politics is a fucking football game with one team that must win and the other team that must lose. We can all share the random bits of knowledge we've accumulated on our life's journey and see if it's possible to find a way we can all win. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:26:54 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4ed23a4a-aa4f-4b55-960a-a1c1f95e1746 margaret 2008-02-03T18:26:54Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#214d6402-d22b-4fbe-b88e-fb9ac2b78185 Let's be real, Ron Paul is a wasted vote. It was a good run, but now that is over. But you can still make a difference. McCain is a shoe-in, so that leaves Obama and Hilary to be decided. Don't waste your vote, make an informed decision on the realistic candidates at this point in time. Take this quiz and find out who matches you best: http://glassbooth.org/ Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:17:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#214d6402-d22b-4fbe-b88e-fb9ac2b78185 DreamCatcher 2008-02-03T10:17:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4f6a42a8-4a25-4534-a90e-55e9207de488 Burners for Kucinich and the Alaska Independent Party have largely thrown in for Ron Paul up here in the frozen northlands, hoping that if nothing else he will drop a massive monkey-wrench into the Republican National Convention gearbox on prime-time TV, nationwide. People who never in their lives have ever before registered as Republican are doing so in order to stand for real change (disguised as Ron Paul, we hope) on Tuesday evening. Viva le resistance! Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:48:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4f6a42a8-4a25-4534-a90e-55e9207de488 AlohaSteven 2008-02-03T09:48:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d77ff5d4-40df-4ceb-8576-4b6cb5d099d5 Yes I did call you a phony and a hypocrite and stand by those words. Nice has zero to do with it. Instead of showing proof to your claim you tiptoed around it in another long winded rant. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:08:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d77ff5d4-40df-4ceb-8576-4b6cb5d099d5 $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-03T05:08:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bf1783e9-f261-417e-bede-b27a98852f9e Well first: "And Ron Paul has taken money from White Supremacist groups. What's your point?" A white supremest that wants to give money to a political campaign is great. I mean to say, that if someone feels the need to be a white superemest, and that person want to get his or her point across, and finds a candidate that resounds their ideas... I think it's great that a white supremest gave money to a political organization. You can't claim that ALL white supremacist groups are violent. You can't claim they are all this or that or whatever. some of them have some very difficult ideas to argue. You'll find yourself doing some hard core research to find a way out of some of those arguements. Ron Paul has taken money from individuals. Not giant corperations. To me, it's a big deal. Maybe it's not to you. Maybe you would like to oppress groups that exist around the fraternaty of their race. Maybe that's whats important to you. Maybe. It's all cool to me, as long as you leave me my liberty to make my own choices to be the person I want to be and the ability to trade with others unteathered. Of course it's all more complex than that. But here we can only open things up a little. We can't go into too much detail. There simply is not enough space. The arguements are well documented. But really, no one who came in this conversation has bent a micro. Nothing. We all came here rigid in our beleif that we were doing what's right and we are still there now. All of us. We all think that the other people, if they 'understood' it the same way we do would agree. Of course. We are divided. We are conquered. I see Ron Paul as a way to eliminate us being divided, by making us all 'actually' equal. That's what I see. YOur mileage, it may vary. As for answering Rhino's question... first of all, I don't like to have intelligent conversations with people who are named after dumb animals. But I'll make an exception just this once.... Water and sewer lines is what government is for. Obviously. Public trust. We, the public, trust these individuals with out best interests in mind. That they will make intelligent descions to keep us healthy, safe and offer releif from conflict. That we can acheive statehood, abide by Larry's 10 principals and then.... oh wait.... sorry, my bad.... That we can acheive statehood, abide by the Constitution and create a public trust that will shepard the people and stuart the land, the air and the water and make us good citizens of Earth. But should the government subsidize Amtrak? How about people who have nowhere to live? Health care? How about tax cuts for your 4th and 5th home? It's all a slippery slope. As for not answering the question, I guess I wasn't that excited about it. I'm kinda into the hot button issue to see where people stand on tolerance and such as it relates to us being part of this VERY political organization, if you are me and feel that the most political thing you can do is manufacture culture. Eddie, you called me a phony. That's not nice. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:00:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bf1783e9-f261-417e-bede-b27a98852f9e Chicken 2008-02-03T05:00:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5807fdef-3b65-480a-a473-fc4d65274759 Oh fuck, I forgot and clicked this thread again. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:06:29 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5807fdef-3b65-480a-a473-fc4d65274759 Crypto 2008-02-03T03:06:29Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ba1c6bbc-e590-482b-97de-2dfa13782707 Glen- I'd have to run against Brunner. But thanks. I may hit you up on that $600 campaign contribution..... Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:02:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ba1c6bbc-e590-482b-97de-2dfa13782707 TomCat 2008-02-03T03:02:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5493eb34-e58f-4207-9592-2f03c10c93cf In some small defense of glenzzz, he DOES have some clue regarding infrastructure. Chicken John hasn't answered my queries of long ago on this thread. Whether that makes Chicken John a phony remains to be seen, but it is rather disconcerting that CJ goes for the button issue of abortion, when the sad state of our underground infrastructure (water and sewer lines) leads to more public health hazard than he can imagine in his wildest hallucinations. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:34:44 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5493eb34-e58f-4207-9592-2f03c10c93cf Rhino 2008-02-03T02:34:44Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#96c2a218-107d-4035-afc3-f038300bf189 Here for entertainment period. If you consider your weak name calling and other bs a philosophical convo more power to you. Really is that best come back you can come up for the hypocrisy of Chicken John is "what the fuck are you doing here"? Do I care about dazzling you? no. Your silly ass has been right along side of Chicken calling anybody out for posting anything suspect about Ron Paul but then you say nothing about an outright lie. That Sir(term used very loosely) makes you just as big of a phony as him. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:27:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#96c2a218-107d-4035-afc3-f038300bf189 $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-03T02:27:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#625e0797-1616-4016-9e69-86e019972448 Tomcat If you run against Nadel I will contribute to your campaign the legal limit. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:08:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#625e0797-1616-4016-9e69-86e019972448 glennzzz 2008-02-03T02:08:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#19bd8a39-f465-4077-815a-c794aeb7e9b0 I had no idea this was the chicken john that ran for mayor. Believe it or not I voted for him myself..........in protest of......something. Eddie, What the fuck are you doing here........? You have stated correctly that Ron Paul has little chance in this election. That has been your sole contribution to a somewhat interesting philosophical discussion. Your condescension has been palpable........yet there you are.........with your cookie monster eyes wide open. If you want to dazzle us........say something would ya..... Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:06:10 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#19bd8a39-f465-4077-815a-c794aeb7e9b0 glennzzz 2008-02-03T02:06:10Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ec10c4f7-2c8e-448d-a2df-57428674f031 BTW I just read this article multiple times and have yet to find where Michael Moore made the claims Chicken listed. If your talking about it coming from the comments section at the bottom then that makes Chicken posting it here even more hypocritical given his umpteen rants about false information. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:58:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ec10c4f7-2c8e-448d-a2df-57428674f031 $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-02T23:58:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4765fc7e-5ae0-4cac-949e-9abbb05a2397 "Perchance is your suggestion that I engage my time in running for crappy offices because you'd rather have me out of discussions such as this one? Do I present too much information here that contradicts your perfectly manicured vision of the how the universe should work? Am I corrupting burners with an alternate viewpoint? And libertarians in general--is it because lower offices will likely keep them mostly out of your hair? Please note that I'm not suggesting this as a personal insult, but I suspect you might be unaware of your personal motivations in making that strange suggestion out of nowhere." No- not really, but that does sound like a good conspiracy theory. There are plenty of armchair politicos in this and other tribes. I've said this and will continue to say it again: I encourage you to run for those lower elected offices. You portray them as crappy, but I find nothing crappy about mayor or city council seats. What's your beef with electoral politix? Hell, there are 2 city council seats in Oakland alone that are running unopposed. Nadel and Brunner will be re-elected because NO-ONE else will against them. Even if the platform is 'I Breathe' it will be better than complaining endlessly and saying 'libertarianism is the way'. Shit- If Jane brunner can do the city council thing on the side (she's a well paid lawyer with a large city council staff to fill in the blanks for her), why not a school teacher? It's an additional 100k a year for 4 years and once yer in, yer in. I am not running you out of anywhere. That's your issue it seems. To reiterate- I am encouraging you and anyone else with 'solutions' and 'answers' to run for local office where those solutions are most needed and will have the most impact. Returning Oakland to the Gold Standard may not be a wise move, but who knows- Oakland has made smoking in public an arrestable offense and has banned plastic bags, so legislating the gold standard into existence can't be any more nutty. I am not forcing you out of this or any other tribe. But I gotta ask- how is this gonna help Ron Paul, or the Libertarian party/movement? Right here, in the BM tribe? And with the rest of your posting: lady- whatthehell are you talking about? Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:25:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4765fc7e-5ae0-4cac-949e-9abbb05a2397 TomCat 2008-02-02T23:25:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#92f0c925-180b-4a2b-8cbc-8848ffe34f35 And Ron Paul has taken money from White Supremacist groups. What's your point? Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:26:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#92f0c925-180b-4a2b-8cbc-8848ffe34f35 EJ 2008-02-02T22:26:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c75e7cfb-934e-4585-a40b-29448a800649 I do blame Chicken though. He posted that blurb in the same manor he keeps ranting about others doing to Ron Paul. That makes him just a phony in my book. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:55:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c75e7cfb-934e-4585-a40b-29448a800649 $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-02T21:55:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#156b3351-90c3-49aa-a9cf-2ec112cf55a3 >>Bullshit Chicken. Can you say hypocrite? You keep spouting about people being truthful and making weak unsubstantiated attacks against Ron Paul and you throw that out there?? Show some proof of what you're talking about otherwise any tiny shred of credibility you had left is now out the window.<< That's gossip going around courtesy of Michael Moore, so dont blame Chicken. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/its-the-war-says-iowa_b_79820.html?load=1&page=2#comments This is what the Obama camp says: "Senator Obama does not accept contributions from federal lobbyists, corporations or PACs. All donors are required to list their employer and occupation, and that data is made public under federal law. Some private organizations use this data to track the contributions of people employed in an industry (or a profession or corporation), and then say that the “industry” has contributed." Here's a breakdown of contributions. Note that it's individuals giving the money. Of course, their bosses could have given them the money to contribute, but that's illegal. http://opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2008 BTW, according to Kelly logic, I'm now an Obama supporter! An aside: the fact that we even wonder about who is giving whom a political contribution suggests that the US govt still operates in a mercantilist fashion--not as capitalists. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:18:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#156b3351-90c3-49aa-a9cf-2ec112cf55a3 margaret 2008-02-02T21:18:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d26b500-50c4-4574-a265-276f22eb59eb Politics attracts scumbags. You didn't know? Those who aren't scumbags to begin with often turn into them. Not all of them--there are a people out there who aren't totally corrupt, but power attracts crooked people. That's a fact of life. I'm glad that Chicken ran for mayor. I even sent him a few bucks and dont consider him a scumbag--but his talents lie in creating spectacles, mine do not. So Chicken running for office makes total sense. Me? None at all. Running for office doesn't make one more special than being an educator, does it? So if my talents lie in explaining things to people that's where I should focus my talents. Or is the division of labor too capitalist for you? Perchance is your suggestion that I engage my time in running for crappy offices because you'd rather have me out of discussions such as this one? Do I present too much information here that contradicts your perfectly manicured vision of the how the universe should work? Am I corrupting burners with an alternate viewpoint? And libertarians in general--is it because lower offices will likely keep them mostly out of your hair? Please note that I'm not suggesting this as a personal insult, but I suspect you might be unaware of your personal motivations in making that strange suggestion out of nowhere. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:42:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d26b500-50c4-4574-a265-276f22eb59eb margaret 2008-02-02T20:42:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e18da30d-1f46-4686-beb4-2ac4a2df1d9b "Obama has taken tens of millions " Bullshit Chicken. Can you say hypocrite? You keep spouting about people being truthful and making weak unsubstantiated attacks against Ron Paul and you throw that out there?? Show some proof of what you're talking about otherwise any tiny shred of credibility you had left is now out the window. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:59:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e18da30d-1f46-4686-beb4-2ac4a2df1d9b $item.owner.firstName 2008-02-02T20:59:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0f70fff0-9f6d-4a8c-8f99-7f276c8d25c7 >>My brain is going to explode if I dont' stop clicking this damn link.<< :( It's like crack. No good for you but you can't stop. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:58:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0f70fff0-9f6d-4a8c-8f99-7f276c8d25c7 margaret 2008-02-02T20:58:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7ccd4003-e5ff-4e9a-a0b6-4dbe767c07cd Please dont play dumb here, that's way below your level of intelligence. The "progressives" have been just as liberal at interpreting the Bill of Rights as the conservatives have when it suits their agenda. The second amendment is quite clear: "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why? Because "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Not because they need shotguns to fetch victuals with. The militia is not regular army. It's regular citizens banded together for an emergency--as opposed to say the colonial army. Sometimes militias are subsumed into regular army in times of war. But it was clear back then that militia does not equal army. In other words, if we want to keep the freedom we have fought for--thought the founding fathers-- then the people need to keep their arms in case new politicians--perhaps still loyal to the king--decide they no longer want free citizens. The founders were looking to keep BOTH the federal govt and the state govts in check. The Bill of Rights focused on issues that the founders thought were super important because they had just fought a war of independence and knew dictatorship very well. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:55:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7ccd4003-e5ff-4e9a-a0b6-4dbe767c07cd margaret 2008-02-02T20:55:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d31879cf-1bef-4c9a-b504-835dd450c881 My brain is going to explode if I dont' stop clicking this damn link. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:40:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d31879cf-1bef-4c9a-b504-835dd450c881 Crypto 2008-02-02T19:40:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8be200de-cbbe-4d71-b4e4-115e08ec0cea my bad on the inconsistency. I guess I pulled that one out of my ass, like the abortion thing. 'The gun issue isn't a states rights issue because that right is given to the federal govt to protect in the second amendment. Duh. When you signed on to the federation, you accepted that people can have guns for protection. What were the founders worried about back then? It wasn't bears and bunnies.' So where's your consistency?' Signing on to the federation'? There's a signup list to be an american? I must have missed that in civics class. I thought it was some sort of inalienable human right. The 2nd amendment has been so liberally interpreted by so many conservatives, it makes me wonder when their brains are going to explode. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:37:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8be200de-cbbe-4d71-b4e4-115e08ec0cea TomCat 2008-02-02T19:37:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6887406d-16cd-4471-9911-ef5e483414eb So Ron Paul is a scumbag? How did Mr. Paul get his start? Did he suddenly start his political career by running for senate or the house? Or did he run for lower offices? If running for a higher office is the only 'real' way of accomplishing something, why is he part of the house/ senate? Bloviating here ain't gonna change anything. If your efforts are truly needed to 'turn america around', then you're gonna have to be a scumbag. At least chicken john ran for mayor. He lost his ass but he made an impact on the race. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:31:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6887406d-16cd-4471-9911-ef5e483414eb TomCat 2008-02-02T19:31:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#411bb42d-a0cf-4db4-9f4b-f3b0bfbb04da >>Run for a local office- whether it be the local utility or transit district, PTA chair, or local city council.<< I'd rather hang out with burners than scumbags any day, but thanks for the encouragement. :) Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:16:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#411bb42d-a0cf-4db4-9f4b-f3b0bfbb04da margaret 2008-02-02T19:16:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ba51af9d-0357-4719-a0e3-c1d32bb48c54 Uh, no "states rights" is not code for segregation. It's code for not letting the federal govt overstep its powers as curbed in the Constitution. How sick is that? People misuse and/or ignore it for their own personal whims all the time--like you, when you say that some of your personal whims should supercede what the Feds want. California emissions laws are okay to protect under the states rights clause? Abortion? Sure we agree on both there, but when it is somebody else's whim that might take precedence over yours, you suddenly back away? Why the inconsistency? The gun issue isn't a states rights issue because that right is given to the federal govt to protect in the second amendment. Duh. When you signed on to the federation, you accepted that people can have guns for protection. What were the founders worried about back then? It wasn't bears and bunnies. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:11:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ba51af9d-0357-4719-a0e3-c1d32bb48c54 margaret 2008-02-02T19:11:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#baf07ca1-905d-44da-b9f2-dd4092120bb5 >>This is basic Macro/Micro economics 101 and intro to business type community college course work. .<< I agree, but when I discuss simple economics with people, they seem to not really know the obvious. Like when people assume that mercantilism and laissez-faire capitalism are the same thing, just because people were trading more industrial products than agricultural products. From wiki: " This led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over market economies, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established. " "modern capitalist" In other words, not the laissez-faire/classical capitalism that RP and libertarians talk about but the mixed economies we have at the present time. Do you really think they US is purely capitalist? With a huge bureaucracy dedicated to wealth distribution *without* trade? Shall we tread over the rest of that quote? " first instances of significant government intervention and control over market economies" That supports my assertion that the term "modern capitalist" is not laissez-faire capitalism but an economy heavily altered by government interference. You may like that there is a lot of interference, that's your opinion, but that interference is the antithesis of a free market. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:00:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#baf07ca1-905d-44da-b9f2-dd4092120bb5 margaret 2008-02-02T19:00:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a92cda96-fde0-465a-a27a-d67ceb9894be 'States Rights' is a ruse. It's used as a cloak to defend 'our way of life'. David Duke uses it all the time. It's code for segregation. It's used selectively as an argument to justify defunding of departments. Take FEMA for example. The first Bush used the states rights argument to gut higher education, forcing many people to lose scholarships and low interest student loans int he lat 80's and early 90's. And he was the 'education' president! Suddenly W- the second bush ignored his fathers theory and decided to federally fund testing in all schools. Where's the stats right in that? Some things are better left to the states to decide for sure (like Californias greenhouse gas emissions...?) but other issues which need the federal constitution to be backed with must be taken care of by the feds. Access to abortion is one of them. The fundamentalist fringe has made that very clear. The NRA doesn't want to allow states to regulate handgun or fully automatic gun sales (when was the last time you saw Uncle Eddie go deer hunting with a 9mm? or an AK47?). How come this isn't considered to be a states rights issue? Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:48:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a92cda96-fde0-465a-a27a-d67ceb9894be TomCat 2008-02-02T16:48:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#288c3a13-fc0f-4947-8283-73701ffa68b4 Well, we all seem to have the 'answers' in the BM tribe. May I make a suggestion? Run for a local office- whether it be the local utility or transit district, PTA chair, or local city council. A libertarian or other fringe candidate mayor or city council member will get a lot more traction than the Shining Hero in Capitol Hill. It will have a lot more impact. If RP is truly speaking for the will of the people, then a local race would be the best place to start. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:37:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#288c3a13-fc0f-4947-8283-73701ffa68b4 TomCat 2008-02-02T16:37:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8f8dcaf-70ba-4937-8bd0-10ece11dd9fb marg said: 'The late 1800s ushered in mercantilism not capitalism, so it's unlikely that by turning the US into a capitalist country, we would "return" it to something considerably different.' Mercantilism was the transitional international economic structure between an agraian economy and capitalism. It was not 'ushered in' in the late 1800's. Mercantalism flourished between the middle ages (1600ish) and the industrial revolution (early 1800's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism This is basic Macro/Micro economics 101 and intro to business type community college course work. I hope Ron Paul understands economics better than his followers. There's something really scary about libertarian politics and how their faith in capitalism obfuscates every other issue. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:24:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8f8dcaf-70ba-4937-8bd0-10ece11dd9fb TomCat 2008-02-02T16:24:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#54585e56-2235-4e0e-8b3e-241998a0ecb6 "For the record, CJ, as a reluctant Democrat I favor Obama, " Do you find no favor in that Radical for Capitolism Ron Paul has taken no money from pharmasuitical companies and Obama has taken tens of millions? Even if all the politics were opposite yours, but he was his own man isn't that better then someone bought by the corperations? Really. Even if he and you didn't agree on 1 issue, but he was his own man. Wouldn't that be better? Wouldn't that pave a better way for the next guy? Largely, this is my point in support. By some coincidence, he is also Libertarian. I think. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:50:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#54585e56-2235-4e0e-8b3e-241998a0ecb6 Chicken 2008-02-02T15:50:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1a2a4bdd-7d8d-4e21-a543-dad5576db49a U.N. Troops Accused of Human Rights Violations in Haiti http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/3056.cfm Peace Process Essentially Means War: A look at UN Peacekeeping & Eritrea Ethiopia Case http://www.africanpath.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=3275 UN probes allegations of corruption, fraud (their own) http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN10215991 UN Security Council Loses Credibility Over Iran, Israel http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/9363 UN apologises for vandalism http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2262549,00.html Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:23:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1a2a4bdd-7d8d-4e21-a543-dad5576db49a margaret 2008-02-02T04:23:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#69abd92b-7779-4124-922b-8325cb9e4ee6 >>And as for the 10th amendment, the wiki article described it as a truism. I view it as being quite confused. The last phrase "or to the people" begs the question of jurisdiction, and fails to give any hints about whether a given right not enumerated by the Constitution is reserved for the individual state or the person. I understand the history behind it, but as much as I admire the framers I think that they left us a lot of work to do (or undo).<< Dont quote me but I think they added "the people" to cover things not already enumerated as being reserved to the states of the fed. It still makes the federal government subservient to the people and the states. A sentiment that the federal govt has gone to great lengths to undermine these last 2 centuries. These United States were founded to have a relationship closer that of 13 separate countries but not one country. Vaguely like what the European Union is striving for. But, think of it as a contract. You states can join our federation if you follow our consititution. If the constitution said "free speech" and a state signed on, then it is appropriate to expect the state would respect that or not join that federation. If they no longer want to follow that "contract" then they should be shown the door. Since the contract states that the federal govt isn't to take more power, then the states should have the right to secede. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:11:58 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#69abd92b-7779-4124-922b-8325cb9e4ee6 margaret 2008-02-02T04:11:58Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f44de14-fa72-4070-af9c-a2492db26a26 And it wasn't a good idea, TomCat. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:52:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f44de14-fa72-4070-af9c-a2492db26a26 Crypto 2008-02-02T03:52:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#501c67c7-ee46-4e46-83f7-e252a3e6f616 I have a problem with federal definitions of anything, but I think the federal wars on foreign countries that have done nothing to us, the federal war on drugs, homeland security war on the citizens, and a vast array of other nonsense are all more pressing issues than defining conception as the beginning of life. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:51:32 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#501c67c7-ee46-4e46-83f7-e252a3e6f616 margaret 2008-02-02T03:51:32Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9fd4852c-d5d4-4be9-a6c7-6d5b50cf3593 2) A man who believes that the UN should be disbanded to be involved in foreign relations. we already endured 8 years of a selected president with this one...... Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:39:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9fd4852c-d5d4-4be9-a6c7-6d5b50cf3593 TomCat 2008-02-02T03:39:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c78eab19-edd6-447a-b074-a1ad9b91b1f3 I try to be clear about my positions. I am not personally against Ron Paul or his supporters. I have a long time distrust of states rights, based largely on the civil rights era, but including the history before it. I do have a problem with the legislation that Ron Paul proposed giving a federal definition of the start of human life and leaving the details to the states. Besides potentially causing a world of hurt, his position appears inconsistent to me. If he had proposed leaving such a definition to the states I'd be more impressed, although still opposed. For the record, CJ, as a reluctant Democrat I favor Obama, but if people want to critique his positions (and I do not like all of them) might I suggest another thread? And as for the 10th amendment, the wiki article described it as a truism. I view it as being quite confused. The last phrase "or to the people" begs the question of jurisdiction, and fails to give any hints about whether a given right not enumerated by the Constitution is reserved for the individual state or the person. I understand the history behind it, but as much as I admire the framers I think that they left us a lot of work to do (or undo). Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:24:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c78eab19-edd6-447a-b074-a1ad9b91b1f3 dr.placebo 2008-02-02T03:24:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#659f553f-fb88-4230-98f6-afd948bbd04b By the way... First trimester abortion was legal in the US until the mid to late 19th century. What group pushed for stricter abortion laws? The American Medical Association. The people who would probably make all your personal decisions under "universal healthcare". http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:59:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#659f553f-fb88-4230-98f6-afd948bbd04b margaret 2008-02-02T02:59:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dbc39d8c-485f-47c2-b542-0a89c0b5d969 Politicans prefer to have fiat money at their disposal because that way they can print money to pay their bills when they run out of real money. So of course they dont want to be reigned in by a little thing like lack of money. http://www.kwaves.com/fiat.htm Zimbabwe is going through hyper-inflation as we speak. One of our dollars will currently buy 5.5 million of theirs. It was only a few hundred thousand in the fall. http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A696570 Basically fiat money is monopoly money that people have confidence in. When the people lose confidence in it, then people return to gold or other commodities. Or to fiat money that still retains wealth. You probably noticed that people no longer want to be paid in dollars, right? That could be the beginning of a slump that leads to a complete loss of confidence. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:47:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dbc39d8c-485f-47c2-b542-0a89c0b5d969 margaret 2008-02-02T02:47:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ee535849-0f6d-4e13-813a-67066fc8a05b >> (Of course, some Paul supporters like Margaret seem to think that the right to oppress others is very important and needs to be protected.)<< Actually, I'm more of a call you on your bullshit person than a Paul supporter, and so... I wholeheartedly believe that no one should oppress anyone else for any reason. That is the core of my personal ethics and philosophy, so it is impossible for me to think it is okay for any asshole to oppress the next person. I cannot begin to fathom the reasoning behind your assertion as I have said nothing here that supports it. What perhaps flew over your head is that I understand there are two sides to every argument. That is why I take the third direction--and have for well over 10 years-- that what we need to work on is eliminating the need for them in the first place. That is the only way all sides can be happy. Perhaps you think that is somehow oppressive? Surprise me and tell me that you dont. Unlike yourself, I actually have spent a lot of time debating this with conservatives. By debating I mean not misrepresenting people's opinion so I can just make random statements I think make me sound cool or whatever it is you feel when you misrepresent mine--I mean actually discussing the problem with a goal of not winning the debate but of creating a solution. I've also helped women get abortions--I even drove one woman, whom I didn't know, long distance to get one in a state where there are only four doctors currently--three of them in the capital. I'll do it again tomorrow, so clearly I'm not on the pro-life side of things, but I'm not going to deny people their right to express a different opinion--like you seem to be happy to do. As for Paul. He thinks nobody should tell you what to do with your body. Why does this stop at abortion? Because he thinks that you are infringing on the rights of another person when you get one. He has no desire to own your womb, but he does want to protect the rights of the individual who happened to show up--through no effort of her own--inside it. Just like he wants to protect yours. He just doesn't see the unborn as unpeople like you do. As for your states rights hysteria. You clearly dont even know what's contained in the Bill of Rights, do you? I know you wont be honest with us here, but at least be honest with yourself. Here's a starting point for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Being pro-states rights IS FOLLOWING the Bill of Rights. Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:07:20 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ee535849-0f6d-4e13-813a-67066fc8a05b margaret 2008-02-02T02:07:20Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7e3d1af1-eda5-46d6-a7d3-0fa1adc7cc75 OK, I see your point. But if not Ron Paul and his thought process, who'se? Who is it that you support for President, if you don't mind me asking.... Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:14:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7e3d1af1-eda5-46d6-a7d3-0fa1adc7cc75 Chicken 2008-01-31T01:14:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0cb13815-820d-4125-97e8-25fd2d5d2d12 If you are freezing on one side and roasting on the other then on average you are comfortable. It is far more reasonable to assume that the "red" states wold outlaw abortion and the "blue" states would permit it. Then on average a woman would be at least hundreds of miles away from a legal service. Of course, since the federal government would be vestigial and unable to intervene because the judiciary would be prohibited from ruling on such a case, that woman might be incarcerated if she made a move to leave the state, being charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Individual rights are always in danger. Blaming just the federal government ignores the coercion imposed by the states, and cities and towns, and religious groups, and by gangs, corporations, and families. Radical thinking is, of course, necessary at times. So is an appreciation of history, a flexibility of approach, and compassion for those who are suffering. To return to the Ron Paul subject (drifting back to the thread topic), I don't see enough of those qualities in his thinking. I could be wrong, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0cb13815-820d-4125-97e8-25fd2d5d2d12 dr.placebo 2008-01-31T00:58:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bc99dbbe-2bf0-4a76-8bcf-39d72e6bff6e OK. If 50% of the states make abortion illegal, and you are standing in a town with a population of more than 7,000 people you are, on average, 47 miles away from the other 50% of the states. It took some time, but we figgered that out. Give or take a mile. So. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that womans services right not are sub-optimal. Just for the sake of argument. That an abortion is hard to get. Lets just agree on that, so we can continue. I write it down, right here: WOMANS SERVICES ARE SUB-OPTIMAL AT THIS TIME. Great. So. With that information, and with the generalization that roughly half of the states would chose not to allow abortion, that brings us to the determination that the other half would. So the states that would allow abortion, it would seem, would offer better services then we have now. The question is, what would you rather have? A) better services but in only 50% of the states or B) leave things as they are with sub-optimal services In conclusion, I have decided that if passed on to states, we would rather have some services cut, so that people can 'activate' and we can increase services elsewhere. On average, 47 miles seems reasonalbe when you know that there are some states today (where abortion is legal) that you can not get an abortion. This is a great example of something that is counter-intutitive. Restricting health and reproductive services for woman sounds like a terrible idea. And can be touted that way. When when you anylise the whole thing, you start to see some clever solutions to a complex problem. Lets say that abortion is neither right nor wrong. Lets be neutral. And lets say that 50% of the people were for them, and 50% against. Why not have the states that didn't want them let them make laws against it and the states that did have laws protecting it? Would that stop the religious right from protesting at the 50% of the states that allowed it? I firmly beleive it would. Would that make the services better? Absolutly. Would it activate people. Completly. These are my opinions. I have a lot of faith in people. Your mileage may vary. The "we the peoploe" thing does have some serious opportunity for malfecance. I concur. I also keep saying that RADICAL change has to happen with the opportunity for malfecance that is not acted upon. Yes, you can do the bad thing. But you can not pass a law preventing people from potentially doing a bad thing. Opportunity for badness surround us. You can not get away from it. Like trying to keep your kid away from drugs or booze or sex or TV or violence or toxins or porn.... your kid turns 18 and doens't know anything about the world and gets eaten alive. There must be balance and guidence. The "we the people" thing is a complicated piece of legislation that is adressing concerns that may not be available to someone at first glance. This is confusing stuff. I don't agree with every word of of the guys' mouth. He prays to Jesus Chirst, so how serious can you take him?!?! But it's what he represents that I support. Radical thinking. Radical Capitolism. Free market. Your libertys first. Privacy. Small government. No tarrifs. Bla bla bla... as ideas, they are great. Implimentation would be near impossible. Especially with our spoiled rotten people. But having high ideals is noble. Or maybe just stupid. I don't really know anymore. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:48:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bc99dbbe-2bf0-4a76-8bcf-39d72e6bff6e Chicken 2008-01-30T23:48:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6bdb1069-14d1-42a7-84ca-41232cf79a6f Chicken, I'm not trying to call you stupid or anything. I just really would like to know what your interpretation of Paul's bills like the "We the People" Act are so that you consider them less than an invitation to taking away people's rights. Your arguments either seem breezily overgeneral or ridiculously disingenuous - like that silly bit about people living an average of 47 miles from a state border, so it's no big deal if a state makes abortion illegal. Try telling that to an 18 - year old girl in the middle of Texas, or in Alabama when every state on its borders has also criminalized abortion. Yeah, we can agree to disagree, but I'm still trying to figure out how you can possibly dismiss all the shit he's tried to pass into law as no big deal. What do you believe that leads you to a different conclusion? Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:27:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6bdb1069-14d1-42a7-84ca-41232cf79a6f Kelly 2008-01-30T23:27:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0e2d9289-53fd-4b08-a9a8-88fadf21a34f I completly disagree. I think you are wrong, and we have the same information. We are chosing to interput it differently. We are agreeing to disagree. If you actually beleive what you are saying, then you should come to the conclusion that you have. If I beleived it, I'd do the same. I don't think that you are stupid or unread. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:39:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0e2d9289-53fd-4b08-a9a8-88fadf21a34f Chicken 2008-01-30T22:39:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d09bb362-017d-4c9e-ac89-e3af97fbc10a Chicken, what context makes trying to abolish constitutional protection for freedom of religion and privacy acceptable? As for RP being "sinister", well I don't think he's "evil" as EJ was asserting. I do think he's a hardcore christian fundie and all evidence shows - as in his ACTIONS, not his rhetoric - that he's quite eager to rewrite the laws to accomodate his religous beliefs. The only 'sinister' thing about that is that so many people - like all his fans on this board, it seems - try to portray him as something else, but I think that's a matter of ignorance and lack of critical thinking rather than malicious intent. Dubya = malicious shitbag. Ron Paul = well meaning right-libertarian christian fanatic. Both are dangerous, in my opinion. Oh, and i think he's racist as hell, but I'm not going to get into an argument about that with people who've convinced themselves otherwise. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:56:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d09bb362-017d-4c9e-ac89-e3af97fbc10a Kelly 2008-01-30T20:56:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5844791e-3222-47b3-9803-a92a5e290b33 Kelly and Doc... I can't argue your positions. They all sound really articulate and right on when put in the frame of context that you put them in. Then I put them into the frame of context that I think they fit in better. Neither one of us is 'right'. My intention here is to mostly shed some light on the poliics I'm passionite about. It's not really a contest about who has better information. The thread is about Ron Paul. Trying to get people to be able to think like him and such. Kelly you have it in mind that he is sinister or something. I disagree. These are complex issues. Trying to simplify them isn't really working with this clunky tool. But I'm glad all this info is here. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:34:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5844791e-3222-47b3-9803-a92a5e290b33 Chicken 2008-01-30T07:34:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0358d060-913f-4ccc-8a12-f438b93bf014 "states may decide their residents have greater freedoms, but they can't have less." States don't decide...we vote on stuff. And even after voting, do we get to keep those "greater freedoms"? Did the DEA stop fucking with people who use and physicians who prescribe marijuana in CA? Last time I checked...no. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:13:46 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0358d060-913f-4ccc-8a12-f438b93bf014 Jason 2008-01-30T04:13:46Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ca62209d-3b51-4832-b5df-871f5fce5519 "Gotcha" yourself Chicken John. You evidently totally missed my post where I quoted Paul's "Sanctity of Life" Act, wherein he tried to get it written into federal law that human life begins at conception. http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#106a7ac6-c372-4991-bea5-93d54b74b5a7 I in addition to the law Dr. Placebo is referring to, I believe. Hey there are a ton of posts in this thread, it's easy to miss some, but even so I'm pretty disappointed in you, Chicken. you claim you're here for debate but you pretty much ignore example after example of Paul trying to flat out subvert the Constitution in order to impose his religious views on the laws. In instances of both gay marriage and abortion (and others), Paul has tried to create completely unconstituional laws that negate the federal courts' ability to review laws Congress passes. Hello, ever hear the term "checks and balances"? How could you possibly think that a guy who wants to pass such laws is really interested in liberty for all - as opposed to liberty of the majority to oppress the minority? (Of course, some Paul supporters like Margaret seem to think that the right to oppress others is very important and needs to be protected.) And really, are any Paul supporters SO disingenous and/or deluded to believe that a federal law declaring that human life begins at concepton wouldn't have a serious impact on abortion laws, even if that law didn't specifically try to restrict abortion? Seriously Chicken, you're sounding more and more like a zealot than a person really interested in debate. You just brush aside all the evidence that Paul isn't what you imagine like a creationist arguing the world is 6000 years old. Okay, this is the one law Paul tried to pass that is worse than any others. It's called the "We The People" Act, and Ron Paul tried to get it passed more than once. Here's the summary: H.R. 4379 [109th]: We the People Act To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes. The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS. 11/17/2005--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. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4379&tab=summary Full text here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4379 Just think about that. Say goodbye to freedom of religion - any state can make any law regarding establishment of religion it wants and no federal court could have any say - in fact, any judge who tried would have committed an impeachable offense. No privacy - your sexuality (ans sex is explicitly brought up in the bill) is completely the right of the state's to legislate. And may I remind you that that such things we now take for granted like the legality of birth control came about through the federal courts overruling state laws banning such things. This is "states rights" at its most insane - totally stripping away the freedoms gaurunteed under the Bill of Rights under the ridiculous pretext that the Bill doesn't prevent states from doing anything - which is a complete contradiction of over two hundred years of legal history. It called the doctrine of incorporation - look it up, but it essentially means that the basic rights guarunteeed by the Constitution are the baseline for ALL U.S. citizens; states may decide their residents have greater freedoms, but they can't have less. Paul would totally reverse that. And hey, if Paul can declare half the First Amendment is up for grabs, why not that part about "freedom of speech" too? And for those selfish creatures who don't care what happens in the rest of the country as long as they get to live in nice comfy Cali or some other liberal state, all I can tell you is don't relax too much. Cultures change, populations shift, and the Central Valley is filling up with all sorts of people. Do you really want to live the rest of your life just one election away from a state government being able to strip away your right to privacy with no recourse anywhere? Paul is a serious extremist, but he's not stupid. He knows he can't DIRECTLY force his religous views on Americans - he just wants to remove federal protections so that state legislatures in huge swaths of the country that agree with him can. And all the while he can go on about how libertarian he is and the suckers will believe it. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:09:40 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ca62209d-3b51-4832-b5df-871f5fce5519 Kelly 2008-01-30T03:09:40Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#932520ba-9831-4d1b-9b17-7c52c1e1857a From the Ron Paul website (assuming that it has not been hacked): "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." Once that definition is the legal standard everything else follows. Even interfering with implantation is effectively murder. And passing off the coercion to the individual states is all but mandated. HR 1094 also disallows any Supreme Court review on any state legislation prohibiting abortion (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1094). I read this as a direct attack on separation of powers. If Congress can by a simple majority strip the Supreme Court of power, issue by issue, we will lose a very significant source of protection of individual rights. And besides, coercion based on states rights is still coercion. Ask anyone who experienced the dirty end of segregation. Blaming all of this mess on the feds is besides the point. At least, that's the way I see it. You can affirm that he has placed his politics before his religion, but I see them as intertwined. You can disagree with my interpretation, but I have done my homework. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:57:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#932520ba-9831-4d1b-9b17-7c52c1e1857a dr.placebo 2008-01-30T01:57:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2c9c3082-ea66-4adf-bff8-cf892771d01a 1. No other candidate is advocating the return to the gold standard. 2. NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has its money back by anything. So: 1. When did Ron Paul get a degree in economics? 2. What does Ron Paul know that literally no one else in the world knows? Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:54:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2c9c3082-ea66-4adf-bff8-cf892771d01a Weazie 2008-01-30T01:54:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3163cdbd-77f5-42d7-9f12-787ffb556af7 [Ron Paul is president. Does he: A) pass legislation to make abortion illegal B) not pass legislation to make abortion illegal The answer is B), not pass the legislation.] Unless we're talking about the Partial Birth Arbortion Ban, then Ron Paul is all for passing that legislation. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:45:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3163cdbd-77f5-42d7-9f12-787ffb556af7 Weazie 2008-01-30T01:45:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3c4a82de-048e-4fce-b98a-928e45e792c4 Gotcha. "Starting legal protection for a human being at conception (which I believe to be a Ron Paul preference)" No. Firmly no. If that is why you don't like Ron Paul you are mistaken. You have information that is wrong. Ron Paul, me and every other libertarian beleives that the federal government should have no hand in the legal protections of a human being at conception through birth. Only after birth (no pun indended). Again: the libertarian view is "hands off". States problem. So not Ron Paul pushing "his" agenda. He wants no part of it. As president, he wishes no part in the descion making process. Just to clarify: Ron Paul is president. Does he: A) pass legislation to make abortion illegal B) not pass legislation to make abortion illegal The answer is B), not pass the legislation. Ron Paul is a christian who beleives that abortion is murder and is an act against God. Yet, his politics and his faith in democracy are alligned so that he thinks that it's a states rights issue, not a federal issue. THEREFORE: Ron Paul has (in this instance, at least) put his politics before his religion. I find that admirable. I find this to be true with many other of Ron Pauls ideology and affiliations. This is why I support Ron Paul. That and he has not accepeted tons of money from Pharmacutical companies like Barrak Obama and Clinton. I appreciate you stating that you "lean towards gradualism". I find that it is a more prudent approach to things based in reality... Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:51:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3c4a82de-048e-4fce-b98a-928e45e792c4 Chicken 2008-01-29T23:51:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c0ead52a-2663-4125-b47b-ebe1a51c1ec3 Well, CJ, we are going to differ here. I lean toward gradualism in defining life. Why at conception? Why not 30 seconds before? Why not at implantation? Why not at the first sign of brain or heart function? I understand that it is a religious belief for some people, and I realize that no amount of argument on my part is likely to change a firmly held belief. I normally don't try. But this thread has raised the issue in a political context. Starting legal protection for a human being at conception (which I believe to be a Ron Paul preference) is in my opinion an attempt to impose a religious belief on people who disagree strongly with that belief. I view it an attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce that religious belief. And I think that there is a lot of well documented suffering that results from that attempt. My wording was a bit sloppy. I don't mean to say that all people against abortion are against birth control and other measures intended to prevent conception and abortion. I do find those positions to be correlated, and also correlated with religious. And, as may be obvious, I find them to be inconsistent. The government is not doing a very good job at taking care of us, to be sure. But in my opinion the solution is not simply having less government, which opens the door to even more exploitation in the robber baron mold. What we need is better government, one that addresses our common needs. Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:17:48 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c0ead52a-2663-4125-b47b-ebe1a51c1ec3 dr.placebo 2008-01-29T23:17:48Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#440df72d-b8e0-48c3-8022-15e1e4815a87 "The "abortion is murder" folks have some funny notions about causality in other areas. " I beleive that life starts at the instant of conception. With all my heart. I beleive it. So I'm an "abortion is murder" folk. And I likely have the same affiliation to casualty's in other areas as you. They are both absolutist stances. You are generalizing and stereotyping. "These kinds of people do this. Those kinds of people do that..." Give the people some room and (it is my opinion) that they will do great things and take care of each other. The government is doing a hideous job of taking care of us. Let's stop giving them our money (taxes) so they can create more beaurocratic bla bla and lets just take care of each other. Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:15:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#440df72d-b8e0-48c3-8022-15e1e4815a87 Chicken 2008-01-29T21:15:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4c848500-e23a-4638-823f-cc3cfc68f88b >Frankly, I think I understand Ron Paul's positions. I don't find them practical.< Well sir let me tell you, in politics there are long hours in your office. Many times the job of a president involves taking a strong position for what you believe feels right for you. I’m not sure of Ron Paul’s position, but I am assuming it is the bent over and grabbing his knees. This seems to work best for long periods of political debates and the position most presidents must take to take it for the country. Its just politics. I don’t think it is so much understanding their position as much as finding one that is comfortable for you. This has been your California Gold political nugget. Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:52:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4c848500-e23a-4638-823f-cc3cfc68f88b $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-29T20:52:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#47d94365-e59d-44ce-9338-9a00ba367568 I still don't understand why handing power over to the states helps individual rights. I'm a balance of powers kinda guy. In my view the states already have plenty of power, and probably too much. The history of states rights is appalling, and not only because of racism. And it is frequently absurd. In six states one can sell guns, but not dildos. Seeing abortion as murder is an absolutist position, and is typically held by those who claim that legally protected life starts at the instant of conception, as if it were a single instant. Causing a fertilized egg to fail to be implanted then becomes a capital crime. It is absurd, but it is not especially funny. The "abortion is murder" folks have some funny notions about causality in other areas. They tend to want to restrict access to sex education and birth control, so they are unwilling to bend precisely where they could get some agreement from the abortion rights folks. Personally, I don't like abortion, and I would like it reduced, so I donate to Planned Parenthood. One can say that it is a matter of opinion, but there are some practical differences: clinics are bombed and doctors murdered, but I don't see abortion rights advocates condoning violence. Frankly, I think I understand Ron Paul's positions. I don't find them practical. I don't think that his simplistic solutions follow from an understanding of individual motivations or address complex social issues. And I do not think that he understands economic issues; I think that he has an economic belief system. We are near the end of a very damaging period of a simplistic and absolutist president. We don't need another. Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:04:29 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#47d94365-e59d-44ce-9338-9a00ba367568 dr.placebo 2008-01-29T19:04:29Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5edcec5a-253c-41e9-8cec-e76878e2ec0a Here here!!!!! Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:50:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5edcec5a-253c-41e9-8cec-e76878e2ec0a Chicken 2008-01-29T17:50:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d4737d3b-59d1-461e-9a0e-256c70d3fc71 I'm super busy this week, but I had to drop by and say a few things. Voting ends today in my state. The Democrats have stripped the state of its delegates because the primary was moved ahead of the party's schedule. In essence, they are saying your votes dont count unless you do as they say. I can think of nothing more cynical to tell a voter in this day and age, but I should not have been surprised that they dont actually care about the voters. There are some actual issues Florida is voting on today that shouldn't have to wait because the supposed Democratic Party is prissy about control. Abortion: No one is right and no one is wrong on this. People who are against abortion are not against it to control women's body parts. They are against it because they think it's murder. They think every time an abortion happens somebody got murdered--like Matthew Shepherd got murdered. They dont see the difference the pro-choicers see. They are no more right nor wrong on this point--they just have a different opinion. The only place we can find agreement is reducing the need for them. If both sides stopped being hysterical about it for five minutes, we might find a decent solution agreeable to all. Instead, we have one side trying to protect a right that isn't availabe in about 90% of the country anyway. I'm pretty sure at worst--stuffing the Supreme Court with pro-lifers--would change the map very little--unless of course, you take more rights away from the states. And, btw, if you ask pro-lifers about rape and incest, most are fine with keeping abortion legal for that. Right now. Today. The state owns my entire body, not just my womb. Legally, I'm not allowed to smoke pot. I have to pay taxes on fruits of my labor. At least I'm still allowed to move away if I want to. But, you know what? I'd rather get back the full rights to my body than have partial rights to just my womb. I know that sounds really insane to people--having the right to my whole body. Crazy talk. Now, a lot of folks are for universal healthcare here. What happens when the Federal government dictates what health care I am allowed to have. If there are no choices, they will tell me whether I am allowed to get that abortion. This same government has been waging a never ending war on the Iraq for the last 16 years. What happens when they decide they need more draftees and not enough babies are being made? So Ron Paul is a Christian. Big deal. If you ask all the candidates they will probably say the same thing even if they have to lie about it. Why would they lie? Because most Americans are Christians. I know! Shocking!!! RP is correct about the leftist attack agasint Christmas, btw. Have you heard of Kwanzaa? It was created by an American leftist as an alternative to Christmas--kinda like Christmas was invented just to supplant pagan celebrations. It has nothing to do with Africa besides it being aimed at African-Americans. As an atheist, I dont particularly care about saving Christmas, but I can see why people are annoyed by the Left going after their religion. There are actually only a couple of issues important to me in this election--the never ending war on the Middle EAst and the economy. Pretty much no one except Paul has a real grasp of economic issues and he's the only one who is actually bitching about the war in a way that is believable. Personally, I think whoever wins is going to be a one termer anyway because most of them are going to sink the economy further if they dont end the warmongering. It's not that hard to fix the economy--cut taxes and regulations and stop spreading capital in the form of shrapnel across the Middle East and South Asia. Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:44:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d4737d3b-59d1-461e-9a0e-256c70d3fc71 margaret 2008-01-29T16:44:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8fbeb5b0-7f03-4fba-9dc9-30d32cebad37 90% of all votes pass or fail by a margin of less than 5%. Just for your 411. I am unable to argue your points. They are all correct. If you beleive in them, you should hold them close to your heart. But you really aren't seeing anything I"m saying. You are not allowing yourself to, just for a moment, gain insight as to what this man is doing. Which is the purpose of this arguement. For example: I said that I don't really beleive that any state could make abortion illegal. You disagree. You want to protect your right to an abortion. I just don't beleive that anyone would take that away from you. If they did, I would become 'activated'. See how that works? And by the way, when I say that reproductive rights are substandard, what I mean is that Roe vs Wade is a piece of shit legislation and we can do WAY better. Wtih more services offered to more people. What we have now is substandard. All of it. Including your rights. Unless we come together and change the way we protect these rights, we will just fight and fight and fight and lose small battle after small battle until instead of abortion being illegal, it's just WAY too hard to get one. They know that by making it illegal, it would 'activate' us. So they only want to restrict it. It's a slimy, scummy, sickly way to push a political agenda. But they are doing it. And in my opinion... and I say this very gently.... the liberals are totally helping them. We need RADICAL change. Not to continue to apply useless pressure with bought Democrats like Clinton to stay the course. The course isn't working. We are losing more civil liberties eveyr year. And every year more laws. Without welfare, and programs like it, there would be TONS more money for people. This is an arguement that is available elsewhere and goes along with the simple fact that we live in a Capitolist country, not a socialist counrty. So socialist programs aren't what we are geared for. It becomes hurtful to the people it was trying to help. I have no problem with generosity or whatever, but welfare is poison that is ruining people's lives. Like the way people think that bio-diesel is gonna save the Earth so they don't have to car pool anymore. People say to a begger "go on welfare, that's what it's for!" Humiliating. Our system is fucked. Fucked for poor people and the middle class. Eveyrone who's rich doesn't even pay THEIR share, forget giving extra. There are no insentives for generosity and no insentive for tolerance because there is a fucking law for everything. You don't need insentive when you are over-governed. There can not just be a law for everything. there is no freedom there. You can't protect everyone from everything at all times. There has to be compromise. It's a muscle that needs to be excercized. If abortion became illegal, I would give thousands of dollars to the underground movement. lIf there wasn't one, I'd start one. In a way I think that it would, in the end, be a totally positive thing if they made abortion illegal. It would unite the left. Then we could clearly see that we were over 80% of this great nation. You wrote a scathing critique on Ron Paul. My intention is to get you into the mind of this man. To allow you to participate in his thought process a little, so you can see what he's all about. I doubt that we will ever agree on most politics and process'. Your a hardline Democrat. I'm a Radical for Capitalism. Funny thing is that we all want to end up in the same place, our conflict is on how to get there. Again, I will say that I do not beleive that any state would make abortion illegal. That is what I truely beleive. That being said, you may think I'm an idiot. And you may be right. But what I'm saying to you is that I do not beleive that any state would make abortion illegal. As in, I have faith in mankind to do the right thing. You may think otherwise. But any thinking other than one of faith and trust is 2 sides trying to out regulate the other and to pass more laws making the other side bend to their will. This is divisive. This is war. I don't like it. I honestly beleive that past an uncomfortable re-adjustment period, if we just let people alone the crime rate would drop, pollution would drop and people would be more responsable. We are training an entire generation that doesn't know how to take responsability for things. I don't know about you, but I'm not thinking about Ron Paul winning the seat. I'm thinking about Ron Paul getting people talking. Getting the true issues out. Getting people to see that Obama and Clinton are actually worse than the Bush administration. For example: right now we are dropping bombs on Iraq for oil. Oversimplification. Yes. But if we switch to vegitable oil for our fuel, it will only be a matter of time until we are dropping bombs on the country that makes the veg oil. It's all the same thing. Swichitng things up within this system just gets re-runs of the same shit. Different face of a president but same small minded thinking. Same conflicts. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, ecology getting more and more ignored all the time... sacred monuments turing into over-priced tourist traps.... on and on and on and on. In conclusion; I beleive that if left to their own devices people will do the right thing. If regulated, they will retard the legistlation and bend it to their will adn use loopholes to get more than their fair share. But in the end, I believe that the most politically relevant thing you can do it manufacture the culture of the world you want to live in. You use politics to change politics when you have no creative energy. The best way to create political change is through culture. You create the culture you believe in, become the person you wish other people would be, you treat people the way you like to be treeated and you work hard and tell it like it is. This is the most politically relevant thing you have acess to. This is why we are here in this tribe. I beleive that Ron Paul as the president of the United States of America would allow that most culture to florish. He would be most interested in preserving liberties and freedoms. All the other stuff is not as important to me. Maybe it would be if he had a chance to win. Anyhow, that's where me and people who are Libertarians are at. Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:54:20 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8fbeb5b0-7f03-4fba-9dc9-30d32cebad37 Chicken 2008-01-28T05:54:20Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3202febc-5c4c-4cc5-b2c1-eeaa65d8b01f <I don't get why this is so hard for you. > My speculations is that she needs to believe in RP so badly that she's (oh damn did I get gender right?) not going to budge. I think these fringe candidates get a lot of that kind of support; they are "outside" the "system" that annoys and dissappoints so, and so they must be "right." I know people who still feel no guilt for having voted for Nader. I do want political change, but I try and be strategic and I'll toe the line if it means keeping a whacko like Bush out of power. Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:49:40 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3202febc-5c4c-4cc5-b2c1-eeaa65d8b01f Crypto 2008-01-28T05:49:40Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#397548b2-d9c4-4590-8f1c-7aaad46d2b00 Well CJ, By your reasoning if a community decides to make you (because of your sexual orientation, race, political affiliation) illegal you should have no recourse but to obey those laws or leave. It seems that a majority of people posting here disagree with you. If we voted, would you think it was just fine to be kicked out of this discussion or tribe? Because I don't think you would agree with that, and moreover I would argue that most of the people posting here, including the people who disagree with you, don't feel that that would be just either. If you really believe in personal liberty, which is what I thought Libertarians were all about, then you have to be for everyone's personal liberty to be respected (and enforced by law if need be) everywhere all the time, no picking and choosing. The tyranny of the majority should have absolutely no power to infringe on the liberty of the individual. I don't get why this is so hard for you. Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:38:38 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#397548b2-d9c4-4590-8f1c-7aaad46d2b00 M 2008-01-28T05:38:38Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7c2d19e1-bad1-466a-9ed5-303d6afd6eba When it was put to vote in the state, it barely managed to get shot down: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/SD/2006-11-08-abortion-ban_x.htm Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:31:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7c2d19e1-bad1-466a-9ed5-303d6afd6eba EJ 2008-01-28T01:31:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#269f496a-a9be-4dce-8a2b-1c4e411e5623 <do you not remember the efforts by South Dakota's government to make abortion completely illegal?> Thank you for this EJ, I thought something like this had happened but couldnt' remember the details and was doing the "maybe that didn't really happen, it's pretty out there" thing. Glad to know I wasn't making it up. Well, not glad in the sence that I think it was a good thing to happen, but glad that my mind is screwed on straight in regards to my memory, if not in my responce to maybe being wrong and therefore not standing up for myself, and also in my use of "straight" in any context that isn't connected to geometry. Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:12:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#269f496a-a9be-4dce-8a2b-1c4e411e5623 Crypto 2008-01-28T01:12:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#61cc302d-c75b-4d81-a3df-0cae4bcfa3fd (disclosure. This is pretty much all teh comment I read, too long, but this did leap out when I was scrolling past.) <Becaause I don't really think that any state would make abortion illegal.> I in no way share your optimism. So many states have come so close recently. And again, the feds need to be more active than they are now to ensure access is preserved. I"m okay because I'm middle class and ahve resources. I could always leave my state, or even the country if I had to. If one in five children aren't getting enough to eat everyday, then we can guess that that indicates that a large number of women won't have the resources to go to the next state or for an overnight trip to the city already. And the Hyde Amendment has been killing women since the 80s. Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:05:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#61cc302d-c75b-4d81-a3df-0cae4bcfa3fd Crypto 2008-01-28T01:05:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#03c9bb09-9165-4bac-9b92-ffe834d93b55 Well, one reason I cannot even begin to see your argument is that reproductive rights are not "substandard". Period. I believe it is every woman's right to make choices about her own body and reproductive system. Where's the *liberty* in having the choice if the choice is taken away by those who want to take away individual's rights? As for your belief that "I don't really think that any state would make abortion illegal" -- do you not remember the efforts by South Dakota's government to make abortion completely illegal? And in many states, there's a single abortion clinic in the ENTIRE state -- West Virginia, South Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi, Arkansas. It's extremely difficult for any woman who is poor and has no access to a car to get an abortion in these states or even outside many metropolitan areas. If half the states make it illegal, what the hell are women who are too poor to go to another state supposed to do? Have unwanted children or die from back alley abortions? And if they have the unwanted children, how are they supposed to live if there's no welfare system? Here's a huge problem that I see with the argument of "let the states sort it out" w/ regards to homosexuality. Again, it rests on being poor or having no access to transportation. You speak flippently of homosexuals just packing up and moving out of the states that would make homosexuality illegal. Do you really realize how much money/time/resources it takes to move far away from home? Even if you have resources to move, why does someone have to give up their life and property just because their neighbors are intolerant fucktards and drive them away with anti-homosexual laws? And what are the queer adolescents who are living under their parents' roofs supposed to do? If it's illegal to be gay, then would it be ok to send these kids to therapists and church camps to torture and Jesus the gay out of them? Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:53:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#03c9bb09-9165-4bac-9b92-ffe834d93b55 EJ 2008-01-27T23:53:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42957195-d4bd-4d6f-9c44-535fea7d6d07 At this point as it has from the beginning your arguments are pointless. A dreamer is somebody who bets on a horse that has no chance of winning. A fool is somebody who continues to bet on the horse after the race is over. A bigger fool is somebody who continues to bet on the horse after the race and argues how the horse truly won by losing. Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:22:11 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42957195-d4bd-4d6f-9c44-535fea7d6d07 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-27T23:22:11Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#43ae61b2-7405-4c19-9018-5bb1d8e21c8d We are currently dropping bombs on other countries. All we have left are our manners. I appreciate all the other opinions. I am open to having my mind changed, thus this discussion. there are topics I'm inflexible on. I don't discuss them. "Really? What is he trying to do? If you deign to explain it to me, I'm willing to see what you have to say. Otherwise, if it looks like a homophobe and walks like a homophobe... " OK. Here it goes: Let's just assume, for the sake of this arguement (and only this arguement), that you agree with the following: 1) reproductive rights are substandard 2) homosexual behavior should be viewed with indifference 3) there is too much governmnet 4) things like welfare are well intentioned but don't work Just to pick a few. Lets roll with what Ron Paul is talking about. Here we go: Reproductive rights are sub-standard. We don't want back alley abortions. No one does. Not right to lifers, not pro-choicers not nobody. Remember, we are assuming that anything I type is true, for this (and only this) post at this time. Nobody wants a back alley abortion. Right. How to get reproductive rights sorted out. Give it to states to decide. On average, lets say that half the states make it illegal. That would make any woman an average of 47 miles from another state. So if abortion was illegal in 25 states, that would be a big victory for the pro lifers. Some states would change, as the administrations change. But the point is that it would be a compromise of sorts. There would be no more argueing over it. The problem with it is that people who don't like abortion don't want it in their towns. What if they are the over-welming majority? I see it as a great solution. I see it as a step backwards, in a way. But ultimatly a step forward. Becaause I don't really think that any state would make abortion illegal. When put to a blind vote, I don't think that any woman would vote to make it illegal. So that would "solve" that problem. We can not continue with the way the reproductive rights are currently. They are in jepordy. They are not safe. No one is happy. The care is sub-standard. Eveyrone is worried about people freaking out. Protesting. All that crap. The federal government should have no say in behavior in your bedroom. But states could. Getting it away from the federal level, I fully beleive that on the state level, we can excercise these demons. When it's not on the federal level, we can let people go at their own speed. Change happens slowly. Let some backwards Oklahoma rednecks vote on it. Whatever. What do you care? There would be a solution there as well, when we see how the people vote. And if being homosexual is illegal in Idaho, then when all the homo's move and their economy sucks and all that stuff... they'll learn. But right now, the homophobia and discrimination and disparaging behaviour twards the gay community needs releif. Doing nothing is just going to exaserbate things. People need to be comfortabe. State rights will help that. In my opinion. and if it blows it up, there may be some benifit there as well. There is simply too much government. Rules beget fines. Laws beget criminals. If you do not think there is enough government, I think we may be in different conversations. Welfare and all programs like it are a great way to try to get rich people to give money to poor people. But they don't work. The results are in... the rich are getting richer. Taking more of their money in taxes doesn't work. They just get their politician friends to make tax breaks and such. The poor are getting WAY poorer. Welfare isn't the answer. The ADA (American Disabilitys Act) has made millions of Americans disabled that were fine. They wer'nt disabled last week. Now they are. Because there is now a definition for it. All the trillions of dollars spend on ramps and automatic doors and handles in bathrooms and frivilous lawsuits we could have given 10 million dollars (in cash) to people who are differently abled to hire sherpas to carry them around like fucking Cleapatra. But I digress... Lets assume that this body of opinion is reasonable. Just for this post. Lets just assume that you beleived in this set of values. Just for me, just for a moment. With this set of values, and if you were Ron Paul... how would you push this agenda? This is your answer. \ What appears to be homophobia (not from Ron Paul, but from ME!!!!) is actually constitution stuff. What appears to be racism is actually just a kinda hard equality. What appears to be religious judgement (about abortion) is actually a liberty issue. The trick is to have your opinions, but that your politics are ABOVE your opinions. It is in my opinion that Ron Paul's religious views are not affecting his Libertarian commitments. That the liberty to practice your religion comes first, then your own person views. So while he is honest with his views, he will not mandate all of them and make them law. This is the thinking of the fundementalist. His thinking is more liberty first. But in order to get OUT of some of these sticky situations, you may have to take a step back first. It in not my opinon that Ron Paul thinks that homosexual behavior is anyone's business. In his opinion, he stance will help people do whatever they want. He thinks that abortion is wrong. It's murder. He is prepared to allow you to make the descion, as the woman who is pregnant, to decide that you don't want to be pregnant any longer. That is your right. Not that the right of the (what he thinks) child superceeds yours. If the child (his opinion) can not live without the 'host', that's the childs problem. If you don't wanna be pregant anymore... if you change your mind, then fine. It's your liberty to not be pregnant anymore. Crass? Yup. But that's the Libertarian stance. Bootstrapin'. A little chilling, but if you beleive that he beleives that... then you have just admitted that his loyalty to his party is greater than to his religion. Which is why he would be such a great president. That and he hasn't taken any money from the giant corperations that run the world. Which should be enough as a sinlge point. OK, enough from me.... sorry for the long post. I'm a fast typer/talker... Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:15:46 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#43ae61b2-7405-4c19-9018-5bb1d8e21c8d Chicken 2008-01-27T22:15:46Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cbf0de6d-37d3-4bd1-96fa-ff53081331dd I have to say that he's plenty old enough to have seen, and in a profession that gave him a front row seat, what happens to women who in despairation have "back alley" abortions. I find it chilling that he seems to find them worthy of death, whatever tawdry rags he dresses that in. Yeah, Sorry dr. placebo. I'm not good at the civility thing. Well, I didn't attack anyone on this thread in this post... Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:04:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cbf0de6d-37d3-4bd1-96fa-ff53081331dd Crypto 2008-01-27T10:04:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d99c8a11-bf2b-446d-9213-4447685f5b75 I absolutely agree with EJ on this. Ron Paul's positions frequently mention taking decisions away from the federal government and giving it to the states. I grew up when states rights were often cited as a justification for denying individual rights. I did not like it then, and I do not like it now. And as for the "anti-homo laws" I have another strong objection. When homophobic authoritarian people complain about the "homosexual agenda" I find it chilling. Although I'm not gay, I can describe exactly what that agenda is. It is, no more and no less, a demand to be treated as a human being, with all due rights and responsibilities. It is the same demand that all persecuted groups eventually make, and should make, until they are granted that status. To quote CJ again: "...you may see what he is trying to do." I am of the opinion that I do see it, that I have objective evidence for what I see, and that I oppose it. Finally, a comment on the value of civility. In my work I often have to cooperate with people I disagree with. I do so not to surrender my opinions, but because I value accomplishing shared goals. Civility is a very useful tool to keep it possible to discuss those goals and to reach them. Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:21:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d99c8a11-bf2b-446d-9213-4447685f5b75 dr.placebo 2008-01-27T07:21:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4731bfcf-226f-4817-937a-bf308d791818 Personally, I don't want: 1) My reproductive rights taken away by a conservative Republican in Libertarian clothing. 2) A man who believes that the UN should be disbanded to be involved in foreign relations. 3) A man who takes donations from and regularly photo-ops with white supremacists to have anything to do with policy over the American people, especially my Black self. 4) You say <<Think about it... and what about all those super right wing freedom and anti-homo laws? Are they bad? Really? Are you sure? Face value, they appear draconian. I concur. But if you actually follow them for a while... you may see what he is trying to do.>> Really? What is he trying to do? If you deign to explain it to me, I'm willing to see what you have to say. Otherwise, if it looks like a homophobe and walks like a homophobe... Besides, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being President anyway. The only reason I care about the whole thing is that seemingly intelligent people seem to be swayed by his "frank talk" and his "no-nonsense take on politics." From my view, he's nothing more than a wolf in Libertarian clothing. As for manners, from some of the responses I've seen from you earlier in the thread... well, I will refrain from comment lest you make more commentary on my manners. Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:01:14 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4731bfcf-226f-4817-937a-bf308d791818 EJ 2008-01-27T07:01:14Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a1532774-7781-48b5-a29a-34c6e37811e9 Chicken, I disagree with you big time. Not only when I wrote a coherent and thoughful response (see http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7905dd6b-0ad3-4d6f-ac9a-df2e40b8ab72 ) did you ignore it and its implications, but you keep spouting same old same old. You may indeed not be evil, you may also indeed be a "nice guy". But to be an apologetic for Ron Paul is not only less than kosher, it's dishonest. Things are indeed what they seem to be. When he says he's going to do something, believe me, he'll TRY to do it. That's what honor is all about. For Ron Paul, he probably wants to continue his lifelong service to the American People. So he's a veteran from a foreign war.....I thank him for his service. So he's a doctor......that means he's intelligent and able to understand, and perhaps to heal human beings. Indeed it's noble. Good for him. But it doesn't mean he has the intelligence or cajones it'll take to run the US. <I dislike the dismissive tones and the insults, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going to meet any of you and therefore have to teach you the lessons in manners your mother was to buzy doing god-knows-what to give ya. > My mother taught me manners, and I therefore am giving you benefit of the doubt. Just don't paint all of us with a broad brush if you don't understand us, nor care to. Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:31:54 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a1532774-7781-48b5-a29a-34c6e37811e9 Rhino 2008-01-27T05:31:54Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#72a363d7-8f93-4607-b24b-a9946c01241b EJ Thanks for posting that. One man's evil is a free nations tonic! Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:46:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#72a363d7-8f93-4607-b24b-a9946c01241b glennzzz 2008-01-26T23:46:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e7aabc7b-7002-4712-877d-246b44f5e9ee Oh, by the way Ej: " Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas: www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html he's against gay marriage: www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html" Did you actually read this links? There is nothing there that says that he is 'against' gay marraige. And what he says about religion and christmas is just simply true. It's a critique. One that I agree with. The whole PC bullshit is a waste of time and an insult to everyone's intelligence. And by the way, while I"m here... I might just add that the American Disability Act is a declaration of war on democracy. Just sayin'... Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:46:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e7aabc7b-7002-4712-877d-246b44f5e9ee Chicken 2008-01-26T08:46:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0c3219a3-e3ca-4707-a3cc-f392748e055a I couldn't stand it. I had to post. I won't condesend to you, Crypto... But in reading the post of why Ron Paul is EVIL.... I actually stood up!!!! The things that you say are the reasons why he is evil make me want to CHEER!!!!! (all except the nonsence of him being a racist, you have to be careful what you beleive when you read garbage like Salon.com). I am not evil. I'm a nice guy. I know that a lot of Ron Pauls' religious affiliations exist in a tenuious balance. It's all in there, you just may have to dig. Things are not exactly as they may seem. So lets say, pulling out of NATO. That's bad, right? But it's interesting if you follow the bouncing ball as to what would happen if we were to try that. Think about it. And the gold standard. What would happen if we went back to the gold standard? How about a silver standard? What standard do we have now? Think about it... and what about all those super right wing freedom and anti-homo laws? Are they bad? Really? Are you sure? Face value, they appear draconian. I concur. But if you actually follow them for a while... you may see what he is trying to do. Things just aren't exactly what they seem to be. Sometimes, a few layers in.... things start to flip-flop. You can trust that we have been talking about this stuff for decades. We are prepared to defend ourselves. It's just really odd how dismissive everyone is. The next person who calls Ron Paul a racist who never heard of him until 3 months ago can fuck right off. Ron Paul is a lifelong servant of the American people. If nothing else, he deserves your respect as a vetran of a forien war, someone who has the nobleist profession, a doctor and as someone who is running for this nations highest office WITHOUT TAKING ANY MONEY FROM ANY CORPERATION. You may prefer the water-down and beaten politics of the liberals. You can do that if you want, the liberals havn't taken quite all our rights away. Yet... but even if you do not agree with Ron Paul, you should be glad that someone is running to spark this debate, which I'd like to point out at this time has been a pretty good exchange of ideas. I've actually learned a few things from people here. So I'm glad for it. I dislike the dismissive tones and the insults, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going to meet any of you and therefore have to teach you the lessons in manners your mother was to buzy doing god-knows-what to give ya. But it sure is nice to know that everyone is not only an expert at Burning Man, real estate and manners... that you guys are also expert politicians and policy writers. Good on ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:28:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0c3219a3-e3ca-4707-a3cc-f392748e055a Chicken 2008-01-26T08:28:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#723cd84d-dc7b-4880-9a41-af6c80e4d6f2 You do realize that for some people those are the reasons he is the second coming? Although, i gotta wonder how quickly the economy would tank if we went back to the gold standard. I mean, how many days of normal economic activity does it take for us to run through the totality of gold in this planet, including that stuff at the earth's core that we will never get to. Oh well, I'm sure someone will condescend to explain it to me. Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:38:07 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#723cd84d-dc7b-4880-9a41-af6c80e4d6f2 Crypto 2008-01-26T05:38:07Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bc759f27-0112-42e5-9682-c3ffe933c30a The many reasons why Ron Paul is evil. Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597: build a fence along the US-Mexico border: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300 pull out of the UN: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146: disband NATO: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm end birthright citizenship: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46: deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955: and abolish the Federal Reserve: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755: in order to put America back on the gold standard: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764 Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html he's against gay marriage: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html is against the popular vote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html wants the estate tax repealed: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html is STILL making racist remarks: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/ believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231: believes in New World Order conspiracy theories: http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:53:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bc759f27-0112-42e5-9682-c3ffe933c30a EJ 2008-01-26T04:53:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ef9eaca-64cb-4601-a9d9-616d8b16dfde I just listened to the KFQD podcast and transcribed exactly that which Ron Paul said in reply to my question as to whether a cabinet-level position would be offered to Dennis Kucinich in a Ron Paul administration. Ron Paul said: "Yes, it would be. But, it would be, and, more in the foreign policy area than it would be, say, on economic issues. We’re good friends and we agree alot -and we agree alot even on the compromises. Because some of the economic and social programs we have here at home right on the top of my list, I also think we should’nt strike them before we strike the spending overseas. But he would be somebody that I would look to especially on foreign policy -and he’s good on civil liberties, too, you know, on personal liberties and privacy. So, there would be alot of room to use somebody like Dennis." Source: http://www.kfqd.com/podcast_info KFQD In The Morning Hour 1, nine minutes into the program. Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:28:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ef9eaca-64cb-4601-a9d9-616d8b16dfde AlohaSteven 2008-01-26T04:28:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#39141b7f-1f51-49e6-acb7-67e200f1cc64 > Where did you get the idea that christians think gays are > going to hell..? Oh gee... I dunno... for fuck's sake, where did you find that big a rock to live under? Maybe she got it from someplace almost as well-informed as the place that this idea came from: >> From a libertarian perspective I don't think Ron Paul cares >> whether or not gays wish to marry..............from a christian >> perspective he thinks they probably shouldn't be married in >> a church.............but he realizes his christian views are his >> own and he has no wish to impose them on anyone. Or this one: >> Ron Paul is personally against a lot of things, but has a >> voting record that reflects his understanding that >> constitutional limits preclude his imposing religious views >> on others. Which Kelly neatly labelled with a neon BULLSHIT flag thusly: > Totally untrue. Here's your evidence right here, as anyone > who bothers to do a wee bit of research on RP could see: > In 2005, Paul introduced Housebill 776, the "Sanctity of > Life Act". Go back to sleep now. The sermon's almost over. You can check your Janus fund share price on your blackberry in just a few more minutes. > sure.....it says that gay sex is a sin, but so are a lot of the things I do, and think. Psst.. you're a sinner. Deal with it. Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:13:41 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#39141b7f-1f51-49e6-acb7-67e200f1cc64 embersandsparks 2008-01-26T02:13:41Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d614f49-5f71-4f69-9853-d3a3dfa9d725 Here in Alaska earlier today Ron Paul was interviewed on news radio AM 750 KFQD, this morning between 10:05 and 10:25am. I called in and --as the very first question put to Ron Paul during the broadcast-- asked him: "Dr. Paul, Congressman Dennis Kucinich just announced he is dropping out of the presidential contest, so you will be the lone candidate remaining in the race who is not corporately funded. On Feb. 5th here in Alaska all those people who were intending to caucus for Kucinich would like to still be able to caucus for a candidate who is not corporately funded, upholds the constitution, and opposes oil wars. You and congressmen Kucinich agree on many significant issues. So, my question is, in a Ron Paul presidential administration would an invitation be extended to Dennis Kucinich for him to fill a cabinet level position?" To briefly paraphrase congressman Paul's answer, he said that yes, he has high regard for Dennis Kucinich, considers him a personal friend as well as a respected colleague, and would look for Dennis Kucinich to take just such a leadership role particularly in the areas of foreign policy and (domestically) with regard to the preservation of American civil liberties -areas on which he considers Dennis Kucinich to be highly knowledgeable and on which they agree regarding policy. Ron Paul was very respectful, complimentary, warm, and enthusiastic regarding Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul's full comments on a cabinet post for Dennis Kucinich in a Ron Paul presidential administration may be heard in their entirety direct from his own lips to your ears sometime around 6:00pm tonight when the podcast update for today's Mark Colavecchio show is posted at the KFQD website. Here is the link to the podcast- http://www.kfqd.com/podcast_info [Alaska time is one hour earlier than Pacific coast time, so 6pm in Alaska is 7pm in California] PS: I think I may have been in error about Ron Paul being the last candidate remaining who is not corporately funded: Mike Gravel is still in the race and I think I have heard he refuses corporate money as well. Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:39:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d614f49-5f71-4f69-9853-d3a3dfa9d725 AlohaSteven 2008-01-25T23:39:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#167305ed-6b0a-45eb-a0d1-f75dcfaa33a5 > You have not accurately reflected a single personal belief that I hold I'm afraid your record isn't much better glummzzz. And if anyone should know what the hell you're talking about, shouldn't it be you? Exactly what the hell ARE you mumbling about, mushmouth? Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:19:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#167305ed-6b0a-45eb-a0d1-f75dcfaa33a5 embersandsparks 2008-01-25T23:19:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b9a215fe-0d8b-4395-8fcb-cddcf8418f41 Danger Angel, No one but you mentioned leviticus.......... It's one straw man after another with you. You have not accurately reflected a single personal belief that I hold.......and the issue with fe,a;e periods is ridiculous. There are literally hundreds of old testament examples we could trot out that are every bit as unrealistic.......maybe they were metaphorical...........but please, resist the urge to translate any more text for us. I also think you have the separation of church and state thing backwards.......I believe the founders meant to protect the worshipers from the government............and people like you I might add. M. I moved.....the loft.....doubled and I doubled down........... Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:14:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b9a215fe-0d8b-4395-8fcb-cddcf8418f41 glennzzz 2008-01-23T06:14:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5f2af5ee-d383-4c37-994c-24f32684f6a2 Gee Glenzzz in the Oaktown site you say you live in Oakland, so which is it? Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:39:14 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5f2af5ee-d383-4c37-994c-24f32684f6a2 M 2008-01-23T05:39:14Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#eaf15924-8987-4fe8-b4ce-52ceba626765 I didn't say anything about gays going to hell. What I said was that every time a xtian debates gay marriage, they trot out Leviticus 18:22. Like you just did. Leviticus is a REALLY BAD rule book for modern humans. Leviticus 15 says that every time a woman has a period that she, and anyone who touches her or sits where she sat, should sacrifice two pigeons. STUPID, RIGHT? Why should anyone listen to Leviticus about anything concerning modern life? For someone to say "Gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, because the bible says gay sex is wrong." is really, really, really unconstitutional. REALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Our constitution is pretty clear about the place of religion in government. My theory on the xtian right/republican drama over gay marriage is that they are wildly homophobic. And who are the biggest homophobes? Closeted gays. Scientific fact. Henry Adams, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Georgia, did a study that showed the most virulent homophobes showed the greatest increase in penile length and girth when showed gay porn. Nonhomophobes stayed pretty flacid when showed same sex porn. So the right wing Republican gang are a bunch of repressed nancy boys.... http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/ Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:26:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#eaf15924-8987-4fe8-b4ce-52ceba626765 Danger Angel 2008-01-23T01:26:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c3d78906-4ffd-42a3-9955-ef270ccd29ee god dale and danger angel, two cynical creatures. Where did you get the idea that christians think gays are going to hell..? Who told you guys that..? I'm catholic and sure.....it says that gay sex is a sin, but so are a lot of the things I do, and think. Including what I'd like to do with closeminded twats like the both of ya. now there are of course the fringe elements that think they (gays) are going to hell, but after you throw in my drinking, former drugging, slutty behavior.....I'm probably be on that list too. So the bible says not to sleep with other dudes. I don't. Do I think what they do is worse than what I do?...........well I've certainly blown that sabbath part, coveted a lot of things, even a little adultery thrown in for good measure.........and I used to use the lords name in vain more than I should have. These are big sins.....commandments..........the gay thing isn't even a commandment is it..? so do christians think that the bible says gay sex is wrong........yeah, most do but no one is perfect and if done in a loving relationship......I think it becomes to most people just another in a litany of things we all do wrong.... PS. Crypto, if you find yourself sitting next to a guy that took a hill in Okinawa.......buy him a drink and I'll pay you back Ok. There aren't many of those fella's left. Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:31:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c3d78906-4ffd-42a3-9955-ef270ccd29ee glennzzz 2008-01-23T00:31:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b1e794b6-5f7e-4bac-bb27-b6a8a8ad25ae <If you are interested in keeping up wiht my musings or events, please visit www.chickenjohn.com, there is a subscribe button for a mailing list. I send out a post a week, usually.> Wow. that would save me going to the bar and listening to the useless man at the other end of it nattering about the hill they took in Okinawa and how kids don't have any respect today, I suppose. But then I need some sort of face to face social time, I suppose. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:41:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b1e794b6-5f7e-4bac-bb27-b6a8a8ad25ae Crypto 2008-01-22T23:41:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4233b9ee-88ce-49af-9efb-b9d777275545 "I'd rather have a Christian Fundemantalist who beleived in democracy " They don't believe in democracy - they believe in a THEOCRACY. That's what makes them a fundamentalist - they believe in the bible as the ultimate law. Islamic fundamentalists are the same way - Sharia law is the only one they will follow. They don't care about secular laws. I would rather have a bought person who used the constitution as the ultimate law (200 years old, unedited) than a Christian who uses the Bible (2,000 years old - horribly edited, translated and completely misinterpreted) as their ultimate law. Would you rather have an Islamic Fundamentalist as president? They are the same beast with different hairdos. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:54:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4233b9ee-88ce-49af-9efb-b9d777275545 Danger Angel 2008-01-22T21:54:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#685004c1-f0f1-4581-a4bf-e1e12ce6035c :"I am super-religious, republican/libertarian. I'm not in agreement with the arguements of the pro-choice people." so you agree to "radically inclusive" yet you believe gay people are going to hell, and believe that government should have control over women having abortions? "I beleive that the the free market is the only way for the poor and the powerless to have equality, to be judged on what they can do not on to whom they were born to. " a capitalist society inherently has poor people and powerless people, and you are trying to defend this system? just because they have some sort of a say in this society, do you believe that there should be these kind of people? because if you support our current system, you support having a social structure that is in place currently, which supports a system of the line between rich and poor. "I beleive that Ron Paul is WAY lesser an evil then all the others, and not bought and sold. I can not for the life of me understand how all of you wouldn't support someone who was radical, even if you didn't like what he was doing. I'd rather have a Christian Fundemantalist who beleived in democracy than fucking Obama who is totally been purchased." what? did you read what you said before you pressed submit??????? just because someone is not as bad as someone else doesnt me you should support them! wtf are you talking about? why would i support someone just because they are radical? i might as well support osama bin laden in his fight against america, his ideas are atleast TRUE and justified (to some degree atleast). and who is supporting obama?? not me atleast, who cares who has been "purchased" they are fighting for PRESIDENCY , think about it, who in the world wants to be president of this country?!?! not the right people. "Who would you want as your president if the BLM refused the permit for BM? I think only Ron Paul would take interest in Americans using the land that is their own for whatever they want without question. Without judgement.' what kind of bs reasoning is that? who the fuck is trying to refuse permit for bm...... "If you are interested in keeping up wiht my musings or events, please visit www.chickenjohn.com, there is a subscribe button for a mailing list. I send out a post a week, usually. " yeah im hoping on that plug train right now, plug whore ;) ( i may sound like i was a real asshole there, but i got love mr chicken, i just get heated sometimes in debate. but seriously, dont plug your blog during a presidency debate dude, thats very wal mart of you.) Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:17:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#685004c1-f0f1-4581-a4bf-e1e12ce6035c dale 2008-01-22T19:17:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0a786dc-737d-4581-957e-6da7b4910d37 "anyone who is a ron paul supporter is a mislead person. honestly if you consider your self apart of burning man, then how the fuck could you support a REPUBLICAN, let alone ron paul, a fascist religious rascist. get a life, realize that ALL politicians are FAKE." My last post here: I am a part of Burning Man. I am super-religious, republican/libertarian. I'm not in agreement with the arguements of the pro-choice people. I beleive that the the free market is the only way for the poor and the powerless to have equality, to be judged on what they can do not on to whom they were born to. I beleive that Ron Paul is WAY lesser an evil then all the others, and not bought and sold. I can not for the life of me understand how all of you wouldn't support someone who was radical, even if you didn't like what he was doing. I'd rather have a Christian Fundemantalist who beleived in democracy than fucking Obama who is totally been purchased. But you needn't worry about me affecting any kind of change at this time. I'm one of those wacky Libertarians that don't vote. Yet. Politics is such an interesting thing. Our culture has become so spoiled, we are so rich... it's hard to imagine that we could agree on anything. That's how special interest groups gain power. They narrrow their focus to one single thing, and try to get as many people from as many different places as possible, to show numbers. Which is all really fake, anyway. They call it the horse race, ya know... there have been upsets... it 'could' still happen... Who would you want as your president if the BLM refused the permit for BM? I think only Ron Paul would take interest in Americans using the land that is their own for whatever they want without question. Without judgement. Only when such a time comes, when we have so much respect for our peers.... that when someone comes here and says:" My name is Chicken John and I'm 100% behind the ideas that power presidental candidate Ron Paul"... and other people see that if we all support the same candidate that there could be some traction that we could make a difference... that time is not now. But in the future, when it may be more important, when there is a common issue that we all beleive in. Well, then maybe we can make a differance. But for now, this is just coffee talk. The people who own the corperations and their trillions of dollars will buy your next president, without question. You will have a choice between Coke and Pepsi and feel that you have your freedom and your cancer and your global slavery. Enjoy it. It won't last forever. In the meantime, if you want to learn anything about politics, I suggest you run for a small office in your community. Or manage another's campaign. You'll see, even on that small scale, how completly corrupt the entire system is. It will blow your mind. If you are interested in keeping up wiht my musings or events, please visit www.chickenjohn.com, there is a subscribe button for a mailing list. I send out a post a week, usually. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:42:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0a786dc-737d-4581-957e-6da7b4910d37 Chicken 2008-01-22T18:42:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b4b48c8b-d197-4e0c-b48d-430effc7d46f your right kelley, i played into some stereotypes of the typical ron paul supporter, sorry for that; good call. i was just really shocked to see anyone from a BM tribe actually supporting this guy. honestly, anyone who thinks that voting for a politician (in any circumstance) will change anything is mislead (not the generalization i used). it really gets to me that people in the so-called counter culture, actually fell for a politicians lies, but these people are everywhere i guess. IMHO a two party system will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER support the needs of the people, and i will never support such a system. i honestly believe that there will never be a candidate (other than maybe a foreigner, or someone who actually knows the true meaning of the "American dream") that actually is "progressive" or has any NEW ideas, or is willing to change legislature to support change in the lifes of the american people. you can say all the bullshit you want, but if you are republican or democrat, you have automatically placed yourself in the category of a bunch of douche bags looking for money, and if you are anyone with real philosophical thoughts about life/politics, you would never associate with EITHER group. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:26:48 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b4b48c8b-d197-4e0c-b48d-430effc7d46f dale 2008-01-22T16:26:48Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#06ac8fda-2df5-495e-bbe5-115c7d2a8a6b Sounds like political bigotry. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:58:27 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#06ac8fda-2df5-495e-bbe5-115c7d2a8a6b Beach 2008-01-22T15:58:27Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6c11714c-6520-4b21-80b3-817e6807a979 Well, that's rather too much of an overgeneralization for my taste dale. I certainly think Ron Paul is both sincere and correct in his criticism of Dubya's idiotic, illegal war and the way our foreign policy in general makes us hated in the world and I can see why people are attracted to that. I just think that anyone who thinks a religious conservative who touts states' rights is going to bring more liberty to the country needs to get out of fantasyland and start looking at his record. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:07:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6c11714c-6520-4b21-80b3-817e6807a979 Kelly 2008-01-22T09:07:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1f0dc489-58ff-44a7-842e-e0fa682db4e2 anyone who is a ron paul supporter is a mislead person. honestly if you consider your self apart of burning man, then how the fuck could you support a REPUBLICAN, let alone ron paul, a fascist religious rascist. get a life, realize that ALL politicians are FAKE. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:15:45 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1f0dc489-58ff-44a7-842e-e0fa682db4e2 dale 2008-01-22T08:15:45Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1678cd84-ac01-4c5e-8de0-ef03532e1ec9 Yup, as I said before, when his fundie beliefs come into conflict with his supposed libertarianism, the christofascist wins out every time. I actually read about ol' HR 776 awhile ago and hadn't gotten around to posting about it, partly out of laziness and partly because I was curious to see how this little discussion would develop - cause really, once this stuff Paul has tried to pass comes to light, the discussion is pretty much over. And he can't try to claim he was completely ignorant and bore no responsibility like all those bigoted-as-hell newsletters of his, it's on the federal record. Hey, for all those of you who claim that Ron Paul wants to defend the Constitution, take a look at H.R. 3313 [108th]: Marriage Protection Act of 2004 which RP cosponsored: "Marriage Protection Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny Federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of: (1) the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that provides that no State shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other State; or (2) this Act." http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-3313&tab=summary So, this goes even outside of the tired old "states' rights" arguments. This bill specifically wanted to forbid the federal courts from judging the constitutionality of a federal law, AND forbid the courts from ruling on that law in and of itself? How do you like that, a bill that is written to exempt itself from judicial review? Doesn't sound to me like the founding fathers would have liked that one. Why do you think they would have added that bit if they hadn't known their law was, y'know, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And of course, the whole purpose of 3313 was to stop the courts from taking action regarding another constitutionally controversial law - by decreeing that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, the Defense of Marriage Act blatantly defies the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State'. So you RP fans, do any of you actually think any good can come out of Congress trying to pass laws that exempt themselves from review by the courts? It's called "checks and balances" folks. Dubya did a lot of damage to them and one of the only things that's held him back is the federal courts. Start passing laws that say 'the courts can't have any say on these laws' and you'll REALLY see things go to hell. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:04:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1678cd84-ac01-4c5e-8de0-ef03532e1ec9 Kelly 2008-01-22T08:04:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#37b9d3a0-7a9e-4d21-bd11-5a74f1d304f9 "let's let this thread sink to the muck at the bottom of the page quickly." How'd that work out? Sas : ) Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:30:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#37b9d3a0-7a9e-4d21-bd11-5a74f1d304f9 Sasquatch 2008-01-22T07:30:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5364f62d-f34c-44e6-a4f0-b12e54f42945 "I felt dirty reading it......disgusting" Dirty pillows! Dirty pillows! Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:24:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5364f62d-f34c-44e6-a4f0-b12e54f42945 Danger Angel 2008-01-22T07:24:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6443fe7-c0f0-45bd-ad0f-e8870a50c36e "what an ugly thing to say, I wonder if you felt dirty typing it....... " I laughed, its hilarious. Anyone who is anti-choice is a uterine fascist... my uterus, my choice on what to do with it. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:22:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6443fe7-c0f0-45bd-ad0f-e8870a50c36e Danger Angel 2008-01-22T07:22:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5b01a9f4-fca6-4538-8c49-1d1d6bd81a37 read the act and get back to us......he was trying to remove the issue from the federal government and the judiciary. according to danger angel ron paul, a man who delivered 4000 babies into the world is a "uterine facist" what an ugly thing to say, I wonder if you felt dirty typing it....... I felt dirty reading it......disgusting Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:00:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5b01a9f4-fca6-4538-8c49-1d1d6bd81a37 glennzzz 2008-01-22T07:00:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#af1573c0-af7c-48cc-a7ad-0dbebe9d5d0d This analysis of the banker-CIA cabal clearly is "planted" theory dreamed up by the greys when they took over the trilateral commission shortly after Roswell. In their fight against the illuminati they were able to envelope the gnomes of Zurich (formerly controlled by the Elders of Zion) and enlist the aid of the forgotten gods. But It's OK now because they declared a truce at the last Bohemian Grove conference. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:33:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#af1573c0-af7c-48cc-a7ad-0dbebe9d5d0d M 2008-01-22T05:33:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#279b638f-976e-47c0-8255-4ea4029cbea1 I don't understand why everyone believes Ron Paul is for individual rights. Yeah, he spouts libertarian catch phrases here and there but when it comes down to it, he wants states to be able to regulate people and put them in their place, especially minorities. He is as much a true libertarian as Bush is a true Christian. But then Bush got the evangelicals to believe so why not Ron Paul? Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:18:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#279b638f-976e-47c0-8255-4ea4029cbea1 M 2008-01-22T05:18:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#31e48c08-c09f-4db6-92cf-5e69fd620e99 "So, here we have RP trying (the bill luckily went nowhere) to get his personal view that "human life begins at conception" into federal law AND forbid federal court from intervening in any case that involves abortion in any way, no matter how crazy the state law may be. And if you think a federal law declaring two cells "human life" wouldn't be a huge legal weapon for anti-choicers everywhere, you're fucking high." Here, Here Kelly. Ron Paul is a uterine fascist. The facts speak for themselves. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:53:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#31e48c08-c09f-4db6-92cf-5e69fd620e99 Danger Angel 2008-01-22T03:53:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#54e310e1-63a5-4f10-bb5f-cdeb59273255 "When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul or Rudy? It's a no-brainer. " You have to use a more polarizing comparison than that. The only valid argument for Ron Paul is that he won't completely hog-tie the government. If Kuncinich were elected by some odd miracle, the republicrats and democrins would fall on the floor of the senate in fits of anti-vegan fervor. At least Ron Paul would actually get some laws passed and some across the aisle work done. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him. I'm a radical activist (a category left out by you) and I can't stand any of the candidates, except for Kuncinich (he's a friend of the family) - but I wouldn't want him for president unless the rapture came and took away all the bible bashing, flag waving full quiver conservatives. The first written law in the history of the planet, The Code of Hammurabi, said "The first duty of the Government is to protect the powerless from the powerful." I don't smell a whole lot of "free market" coming off that. I don't want to eliminate government in healthcare. I want everyone to have healthcare. I want FEMA to be run like the fire department, not like a charity. I want the fucking spotted owl protected - fuck Maxxam and it's profits. The US hasn't even SIGNED the UN declaration of the rights of the child. The fucking free market does shit for the helpless and poor. I'm sorry, I don't buy deregulation. I want the powerless to be protected and that's not going to happen if the government has the soul of the marketplace. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:33:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#54e310e1-63a5-4f10-bb5f-cdeb59273255 Danger Angel 2008-01-22T03:33:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#106a7ac6-c372-4991-bea5-93d54b74b5a7 <You are debating a point I don't care to debate> Yep, that's Glenny. SAme as his "Don't talk about racism!" screeds - as a horrible racist who sees nothing wrong with the claim the 95% of black people in urban areas are criminals, he really doesn't want people to talk about racism. As someone who thinks it's just fine if the government tells a woman what she is and isn't allowed to do with her body, he doesn't want to debate abortion. And by the way, it's really time to just put a stop to this ridiculopus myth the RP fans keep pushing: <Ron Paul is personally against a lot of things, but has a voting record that reflects his understanding that constitutional limits preclude his imposing religious views on others.> Totally untrue. Here's your evidence right here, as anyone who bothers to do a wee bit of research on RP could see: In 2005, Paul introduced Housebill 776, the "Sanctity of Life Act". Summarized, it declared: "(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each State has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State. Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. " http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-776&tab=summary Full text here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776 So, here we have RP trying (the bill luckily went nowhere) to get his personal view that "human life begins at conception" into federal law AND forbid federal court from intervening in any case that involves abortion in any way, no matter how crazy the state law may be. And if you think a federal law declaring two cells "human life" wouldn't be a huge legal weapon for anti-choicers everywhere, you're fucking high. Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:31:31 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#106a7ac6-c372-4991-bea5-93d54b74b5a7 Kelly 2008-01-22T03:31:31Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#893796d9-3d23-49bf-aa39-3ad0ebd7cdb3 OK. Here is my political thoughts on allignment: There are 3 kinds of thinking.... liberal conservative radical Here are my thoughts on alignment as pertaining to our ecology conservationist environmentalist materialist For me, I'm a radical conservationist. I detest liberals. I can tolerate conservatives but only because of their relegious affiliation. Environmentalists are killing the ecology of this planet. Materialist can at least be bought. Ron Paul is also a radical conservationist. If you use my little map here... you may find that Dennis Kutchinc is your guy if you are a liberal conservationist. If you are a liberal environmentalist, you are an Obama. Clinton is your ticket if your a liberal materialist. McKain is your guy if your a conservative conservationist. Rudy is a conservative materialist. If you go to Burning Man, Ron Paul is your candidate. Anyone who says anything else just wants attention. You can bitch and moan and talk about him being a racist or a religious freak or whatever... but pound for pound, he's the most radical candidate. That you didn't support him is your loss. The alternatives to Ron Paul are disasterous. Every other politician is bought and sold. And that, is inargueable. Who cares who stands for what or whatever. If the politician is bought and sold, then they are just gonna dance the way the puppet master tells 'em to. Ron Paul is not bought and sold. So you can either get on his deal, or change his deal. But you can't change Obama's deal. He's done. He sold his soul, for campain funds. None of them can be trusted anymore. But Ron Paul is different. There is no huge interest pouring money into his campaign. Pharmacutical companies are pouring money into Obama. So do you think that he's gonna pass laws against his medicine buddies? No chance. You know all this. This is nothing new. You all will pick adn pick at the thing that isn't perfectly suited in absolute shining and glorious allignment with your values. In the end, we all fight and the machine does whatever it wants. Ever heard the term: Divide adn Conquer? Well, this thread is a great example. I dont' blame you for not likeing Ron Paul. But if you could imagine anyone being the person who has to deal with world war 3, who would it be? Clinton? McKain? Rudy? Huckabee? YOu would want Ron Paul. When it comes to health care, you would want Ron Paul. He would eliminate government in healthcare. When it comes to corn, Ron Paul would eliminate corn subsidies. Corn is what is making America obese. It's more profitable to grow the corn the is in-edible then the good stuff. When it comes to the patirot act, Ron Paul would eliminate it. When it comes to money for disasters Ron Paul would back a system that works, not FEMA... that system is people come to help and they are not turned away. When an oil tanker spills it's fuel Ron Paul would allow people to help clean gook off birds, not Newsom who didn't want to risk a lawsuit. When it comes to the facts that there are a million people in jail for minor drug charges (know anyone, anybody? I bet you do...) Ron Paul would pardon them. When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul or Rudy? It's a no-brainer. Ron Paul is a radical. His thinking is radiclly different. He has no chance to win. But, if by some stroke of luck he won the nomination, he would activate all teh voters that don't vote... and that is saying a lot. My 2 cents... Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:54:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#893796d9-3d23-49bf-aa39-3ad0ebd7cdb3 Chicken 2008-01-21T23:54:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#165b1c7c-5451-45a5-8fd4-1b9457fbfa65 ummm Rhino I think we agree on the infrastructure issue. Shhhhhh don't tell anyone...........it might get around. It (our infrastructure) has been ignored for far too long. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:45:33 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#165b1c7c-5451-45a5-8fd4-1b9457fbfa65 glennzzz 2008-01-21T23:45:33Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f074e51e-ebba-46e0-b8b9-7a1c91dd1f80 danger angel, You are debating a point I don't care to debate. Your being a mom gives you no more insight into this issue than anyone else. What does 18 weeks have to do with anything. What about 24 weeks or 32..............the answer to your little litmus test would probably be different. as I said people are polarized on this issue and debating it here will not change a single view. Ron Paul is personally against a lot of things, but has a voting record that reflects his understanding that constitutional limits preclude his imposing religious views on others. This and many others are in fact states rights issues. Don't you want someone like that in office...........? We keep getting more and more legislators who act with contempt for the constitution, and we will end up with further polarization and further erosion of personal liberties. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:43:34 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f074e51e-ebba-46e0-b8b9-7a1c91dd1f80 glennzzz 2008-01-21T23:43:34Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a5718b89-d425-4330-a6c9-e09bbcd6fbde glennzzz, The INFRASTRUCTURE is what's going to get water to California in 2010. It takes care of your sewage, your water, your gas. As far as your aging water delivery system goes, has ANY candidate said one GODDAMN WORD about ASSET MANAGEMENT? Your aging bridges.....talk to Caltrans. They are in fair to good shape, and they're designed on a maintenance schedule that includes inspection, rehab, and replacement eventually. "blah blah blah"? Yeah, just try drinking your blah blah blah, keeping your sewage from backing up in your blah blah blah, and I hope your BMW encounters those poor roadway conditions and you have to get early alighnments for the rest of its service life. Blah, blah, blah yourself. And, by the way, Fuck your day. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:30:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a5718b89-d425-4330-a6c9-e09bbcd6fbde Rhino 2008-01-21T23:30:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a9e61f51-64ef-4e4b-b8eb-f22644519473 "Whether or not you consider an unborn child to be a mere "parasite", many disagree and value it is as a human life. You can certainly acknowledge that people who differ on this issue have their reasons." Glen, I'm a mom. I've carried a baby in my uterus for 9 months. He's cute. He says great things like "I love you mom." That doesn't change the fact that, at 18 weeks in utero, he would not have survived on his own. That's a parasite. He required a host to nourish him, and it was my choice to do so. He thrived and was born. Now he's a person. At 18 weeks he was a zygote. I can understand why people say "Oh I could never have an abortion because it's a human life." Now that I'm a mom, I couldn't either. But if someone doesn't want to be a mom, than that's their choice. It's their karma, and their body. The religious right wants to stop anyone from aborting their potential child by LAW because they are going to HELL (or inspiring God's wrath for allowing abortion in this country) then that is the Church making a law. Gotta keep 'em separated. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:28:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a9e61f51-64ef-4e4b-b8eb-f22644519473 Danger Angel 2008-01-21T23:28:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#10e34f1a-418b-44dc-82b2-f34f6f6509b3 "Nothing would bring me to my knees with sheer joy than a true leader as our president." OK Monica. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:17:20 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#10e34f1a-418b-44dc-82b2-f34f6f6509b3 Danger Angel 2008-01-21T23:17:20Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f6799770-0e93-4d5c-bbcf-d76e8dba16e3 Rhino, What do you want to know about infrastructure..? I live in San Francisco where we have a city budget of 6 billion dollars and the politicians don't give a hoot about infrastructure. Money is simply something to be re-distributed. We have to ginny up direct ballot measures which treble the cost of everything after the banks collect fees for the letter of credit, law firms put the bonds together, and the interest payments to wealthy investors who love these investments as they tend to be free of capital gains taxes. Aging water delivery system aging bridges ineffective and aging municipal railway system roadways in poor condition blah blah blah What about infrastructure................ Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:09:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f6799770-0e93-4d5c-bbcf-d76e8dba16e3 glennzzz 2008-01-21T23:09:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9cee88c8-c186-444e-82c2-01b94511c132 Keep going with the high-profile touchy-feely piss people off issues, glenzzz....what about infrastructure? This is the last time I'm asking. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:32:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9cee88c8-c186-444e-82c2-01b94511c132 Rhino 2008-01-21T22:32:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d626de60-c1e9-4c30-9540-d9ec685ef345 I woke up at 5 am a few mornings ago so freakin' stoked that Ron Paul was running for President. I've been so jaded that I can't watch TV or read the paper or participate in "the normal world of credit card holding/ tax paying/ steady job" thang. I've always called myself a constitutionalists or libertarian or anarchist, but I'm pretty sure that whatever I am---RON PAUL says it all. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get this guy elected even if I have to miss Burning Man for the first time in 7 years! (Did I say that?) Nothing would bring me to my knees with sheer joy than a true leader as our president. You're a true patriot, John. I guess we're going to have to get the ball rollin' up here in Seattle with the burner scene soon. Real soon. High five, low five, on the side, Angel Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:24:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d626de60-c1e9-4c30-9540-d9ec685ef345 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T22:24:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#67468e45-12dd-4383-b1d1-0b2bc3fe080a >Definition of Libertarian:The libertarian, or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are >fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary." < >Def of republican: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a republic. >Def of a republic: A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. It would seem that State's Rights is a Republican view point where as individual rights is more of a Libertarian veiwpoint, so which is Ron Paul? He is running as a Republican, but if you go to the Libertarian party website, they are selling tee shirts that say "Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and so am I" Personally I think that the modern Republican Party has about as much to do with individual liberty as the modern Democratic party has to do with the working class i.e. not much. The answers that his supporters seem to be giving favors the idea that Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian, which makes sense - since that is what he calls himself. As far as the Constitution giving the rights to the States read from it and decide for yourself, Article IV "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". Privileges like the right to abortion, marriage? Immunities like the freedom to smoke pot? Amendment IX:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. <notice no mention of the States at all in this one, only 'the people'. Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. <Okay, this one delegates power to the States, but it also prohibits them from violating the Constitution, and the people are still in there too. To me, the debate is not about the overall Constitution, but the devil that is in the details of who shall have the rights not spelled out to the Federal Government, the people or the States? Ron Paul and Republicans favor the States. Libertarians favor the people as individuals. Ron Paul is a Republican, not a libertarian or a Libertarian, and abortion is a perfect issue to show that. If he was a Libertarian he would make sure it was the individual who decided, a Republican would make it the State that decided. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:13:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#67468e45-12dd-4383-b1d1-0b2bc3fe080a $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T22:13:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#23b686a5-bc96-4308-bb10-d1c88fdbaec1 I really don't know the guy, and I'm sure he is a stand up fellow, but let me get this straight, Burners really want RuPaul for president? He is an amazing drag queen, I just don't understand what would make him a great president. Maybe if we all want to learn to become amazing drag queens, but to run a country, this is just crazy talk. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:34:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#23b686a5-bc96-4308-bb10-d1c88fdbaec1 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T21:34:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6e0c9f16-9fb0-449f-afc3-7e93bd9c42d6 Danger Angel, The ridiculous notion that we can "pawn" off issues to the states is............of course a notion guaranteed in the Constitutional. Whether or not you feel this is ridiculous........ From a libertarian perspective I don't think Ron Paul cares whether or not gays wish to marry..............from a christian perspective he thinks they probably shouldn't be married in a church.............but he realizes his christian views are his own and he has no wish to impose them on anyone. ditto that on abortion. Whether or not you consider an unborn child to be a mere "parasite", many disagree and value it is as a human life. You can certainly acknowledge that people who differ on this issue have their reasons. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:30:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6e0c9f16-9fb0-449f-afc3-7e93bd9c42d6 glennzzz 2008-01-21T21:30:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42a5c7db-4686-4e0c-9c63-93d076db7e98 Woohoo! Go Pat Paulson er I mean Ross Perot ..oops ...GO RON PAUL!!! Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:19:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42a5c7db-4686-4e0c-9c63-93d076db7e98 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T21:19:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42d8e05a-e0f6-4a96-b5ed-0083f54018b8 >300! yay < He's going to WIN!!! Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:50:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42d8e05a-e0f6-4a96-b5ed-0083f54018b8 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T20:50:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b30f9b9a-4afa-423b-b267-fbcf97ee392a 300! yay Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:33 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b30f9b9a-4afa-423b-b267-fbcf97ee392a $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T20:39:33Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#79559637-cb21-474b-967a-827284358cf9 ". Your comment about DA runs a close second." Thanks embers! The ridiculous idea that we can pawn things off on the states like abortion and gay marriage is nothing less than cowardice. Are gay people equal? Is that for the states to decide? Or is it REALLY constitutional? Do they get the same IRS tax break as het couples, or not? This is THE civil rights issue of the century, and it's stupid that we're arguing with people who trot out Leviticus 18:22 every time the issue is raised. Leviticus also says you can trade your daughters and sisters. That's not up for debate. And abortion, annoyingly, is also a religious issue. The people who want to legislate over my body want to do so because they think that our country is going to burn in hell because we're letting women terminate their unwanted pregnancies. If they don't want to outlaw abortion for religious issues, then they want to outlaw it because they want a vast uneducated population to fight their wars for them. Don't tell me that Dick Cheney doesn't want this. Yes he does, YES HE DOES. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:26:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#79559637-cb21-474b-967a-827284358cf9 Danger Angel 2008-01-21T20:26:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0f90d4ec-c282-44c7-af24-272b00002726 Einstein. He came in fifth in three races, 4th(barely) in two and second(barely) extremely below the first place in a state where only him and the front runner campaigned. In fact he spent almost twice the campaign hours in nevada as the front runner and got 37 points less then him. The fact is he has only made it into double digits twice. I know you Paul supporters like to spin all those numbers into wins but really it is not so. This thread and the Burners for Ron Paul tribe are a perfect example of what a boondoggle(including me typing this) this is. With all the progressives and independent thinkers( you know the people Paul likes to call his base) in this tribe and with this silly thread being constantly at the top of the list only 25 out of 18000+ bothered to even join your ranks. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:19:54 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0f90d4ec-c282-44c7-af24-272b00002726 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T18:19:54Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#05a6f9fe-8fbd-474d-8aca-30b9e81c8957 <Anybody remember Ross Perot??? > Heck, I almost remember John Anderson! Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:22:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#05a6f9fe-8fbd-474d-8aca-30b9e81c8957 Crypto 2008-01-21T18:22:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#773b546f-f82c-4eab-948e-4056a266db33 > Leaving the matter to the states to decide will in fact leave > abortions available in almost every state in the union. That has got to be the single most ill-informed statement you've yet made. And that's saying a mouthful. Your comment about DA runs a close second. Which piss poor clown school did you attend again? In case you aren't aware (which is fairly plain at this point), many states have taken the initiative to do all they can shy of outlawing abortion outright without violating RvW. South Dakota, Indiana, Idaho, Alabama... look up their current laws. There's a reason that there are no providers in these states. So even WITHOUT "leaving the matter to the states", there is ALREADY an enormous burden placed upon women of many states who for whatever reason decides to end a pregnancy. Go to bed, Glumzz. Take RP's voting record with you, if you don't fall asleep first, maybe you'll see why it concerns those who feel that individual freedoms might well START with the right to control one's own body without interference from ANY patronizing government, be it federal, state or local. Let's be clear, shall we? Holding that the right to medical care of one's choosing is a "state's rights issue" is tantamount to holding that states should have the right to deny their citizens abortions or any other medical care (or sexual practice, or substance use, etc) which the state should deem objectionable. Does this SOUND like "individual liberty" to you? Now, who's the nitwit exactly? Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:49:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#773b546f-f82c-4eab-948e-4056a266db33 embersandsparks 2008-01-21T15:49:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3d88f866-658d-43a6-b036-aeda49fc151d Anybody remember Ross Perot??? KK Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:12:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3d88f866-658d-43a6-b036-aeda49fc151d Kamikaze 2008-01-21T15:12:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f8f37c5-944c-4de9-a114-77b9a6546b10 Taking the Silver in the Silver State. Ron Paul came in 2nd place in the Nevada Caucuses Statewide with 14%. He has gotten a solid 4th in almost every primary or caucus till date and is the only so called "expected not to win candidate" who is gaining in support and donations, allowing Ron Paul to continue his Presidental campaign on a much smaller but very grass roots level. For many this is a long over due movement of regaining liberty and citizen responsive but limited government. To me both parties have gotten to fat on government while we go hungry. It's my country. Below is a portion of a thank you e-letter I received from Ron Paul to the people of Nevada after the caucus. Jan. 20, 2008 "Thank you for propelling me to 2nd place in the Silver State. Your efforts made all the difference, and I am deeply grateful. What you achieved on Saturday was a historic victory for peace, sound money, and the Constitution. " Ron Back to the future! X's, Beach Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:39:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f8f37c5-944c-4de9-a114-77b9a6546b10 Beach 2008-01-21T14:39:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d69c3e91-696d-47c1-9eca-24beaae450b5 Look - the last thing we need is another president appointing judges who share their personal beliefs. Believe as hard as you can, an 18 week fetus isn't going to breathe on its own. Gasp... it's not a baby, it's a parasitical life form that requires a host. I should know, I'm a mom. And if the Feds don't grant marriage rights to gays, then they don't really have any rights, do they? I'm not a nitwit. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:31:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d69c3e91-696d-47c1-9eca-24beaae450b5 Danger Angel 2008-01-21T10:31:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c5923d06-57c4-4ce0-8c78-b8aa90e509e5 Good question Kelly, I don't have the vaguest idea why anyone would trust their own state over the feds. They are all the same buncha fuckers. I wonder why so many constitutionalists skip over the part that says the rights not spelled out for the feds (i'm paraphrasing out of sheer lazyness) will revert to the people and the states. More emphasis on the people instead of the state would be nice. How about a just keep your nose out of my body all together rule, i.e. no drug/abortion/sex/religion laws allowed. Those decisions would be left to the people (person?) and leave the state/fed/county/city government right out of all personal choice decisions. Rather than have the feds go 'Whatever the States wanna outlaw is fine with us, 'cause we're all hands off like our hero Ronald (no one's home) Reagan." Arrest me for rape, murder, theft, but let me bugger willing accomplises and shoot heroin into my eyeballs while worshiping the devil. It's a free country, right? And to those that would say the feds are forcing you to have to live next door to a satanic sodomite heroin junky, I say Love it or Leave it, my country right or wrong so move to Qatar if you want faith based law and order! Guns - n - Dope Party is our only hope. And it's about as likely as Ron Paul becoming pope. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:00:27 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c5923d06-57c4-4ce0-8c78-b8aa90e509e5 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T10:00:27Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a2586790-d1ad-4d0d-8e04-9213fae1e258 <Sorta like arguing about what a Ron Paul presidency will be like> Well, since such a thing will never happen and never stood a chance of happening and the primaries so far should have shattered any illusion otherwise, I figure the discussion has moved beyond that. I'm more interested in why people some think "states' rights" would lead to greater liberty in the U.S. despite all our history. The RP Cult of Personality is pretty interesting too... Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:41:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a2586790-d1ad-4d0d-8e04-9213fae1e258 Kelly 2008-01-21T09:41:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#135c8f3b-0ba1-4795-b601-f7cbaab8f458 glenzzz.......wake the hell up. I just told you and Chicken John yet another reason why Ron Paul is an idiot, and has no business running this country. Yet, you don't listen. You're willing to take the catchphrase issues on, but not anything of substance. Try INFRASTRUCTURE, glennzzz. Do you even KNOW what it is, and what kinds of EXPLOSIVE happenings are going on outside of your narrow view? Get real, guy! Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:28:40 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#135c8f3b-0ba1-4795-b601-f7cbaab8f458 Rhino 2008-01-21T09:28:40Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1d2aa942-9113-4905-9c83-6bc446a33227 >why don't you go back to jacking off to Limbaugh < Have you ever tried to jack off when you've taken a shit load of Vicodons? Nothing happens. It's a pointless exercize. Sorta like arguing about what a Ron Paul presidency will be like. Sorry, there is no happy ending. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:17:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1d2aa942-9113-4905-9c83-6bc446a33227 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T09:17:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fdad0f76-d210-4347-87b0-8921fdb70d7b Glennboy, why don't you go back to jacking off to Limbaugh and let the grown-up talk without your puerile interruptions, m'kay? <The states should be free do do whatever they want> On this day dedicated to Martin Luther King, maybe we should all spend a bit of time thinking what the boosters of states' rights have really wanted in our country's history. And for those who seem to think that it's fine if states start passing laws far more oppressive than current federal rules allow as long as they get to live in a more progressive state, here's a rather famous quote from MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to chew on: "I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:11:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fdad0f76-d210-4347-87b0-8921fdb70d7b Kelly 2008-01-21T09:11:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#11b84452-6d67-4693-bd04-cd044e1743ac Although allowing states to exercise these rights could result in greater polarization. Sharper "blue-red" differences. I could see California fragmenting with the major liberal centers of the Bay Area and LA separating from the rest of this State. Get outside of those metro areas and California is very conservative and mostly Christian fundamentalist. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:55:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#11b84452-6d67-4693-bd04-cd044e1743ac Gold Guy 2008-01-21T07:55:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7cb4947d-2140-4962-bf2e-e0fe2450dddc danger angel must be the 11th nitwit who has made the same inaccurate comment. Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion but thinks it is not something that should be legislated or overseen by the federal government. It should be a states rights issue. That is about as fair as someone can be about that issue. Believe it or not a lot of people feel that unborn babies are ummmmmmm babies. Gasp. Both sides on this issue are utterly polarized and it will always be that way. Leaving the matter to the states to decide will in fact leave abortions available in almost every state in the union. His position on gay marriage is perfectly clear. It is not a federal issue, and the states should be free to do whatever they want with it. You will not be able to provide a single comment to the contrary. Why would a libertarian give a toss if gays want to get married. Will churches perform gay marriages......why that is probably up to the churches. NOT the federal government. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:36:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7cb4947d-2140-4962-bf2e-e0fe2450dddc glennzzz 2008-01-21T07:36:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0dbb89b-7bc0-4995-9fff-85bf47bb87c0 "If Ron Paul were really such a Libertarian he wouldn't want to legislate against a woman's right to choose, nor would he care so much if gays wanted to marry each other." He doesn't. Why would you imply that he does? A womans' right to chose to have an abortion or to shove a sharp stick in her eye or to marry another woman is none of Ron Pauls' business. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:00:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0dbb89b-7bc0-4995-9fff-85bf47bb87c0 Chicken 2008-01-21T07:00:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ff73c134-9125-4130-a5f5-1a456589c5d5 >.44 Magnum lever-action rifle with 3X Leopold scope good enough for starters? < Yes, provided the key words are "for starters" :-) Unlike votes, we are not limited to one man, one gun. (Well, in Cali it is 'one new handgun a month') So buy another one! Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:10:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ff73c134-9125-4130-a5f5-1a456589c5d5 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T05:10:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e18d5d1d-bf77-4e3b-97e8-c46fd3a45353 If Ron Paul were really such a Libertarian he wouldn't want to legislate against a woman's right to choose, nor would he care so much if gays wanted to marry each other. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:09:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e18d5d1d-bf77-4e3b-97e8-c46fd3a45353 Danger Angel 2008-01-21T05:09:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b0dc3129-5880-476f-8467-c988f55fa314 <Oh yeah, and buy a fucking gun. > .44 Magnum lever-action rifle with 3X Leopold scope good enough for starters? Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:06:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b0dc3129-5880-476f-8467-c988f55fa314 Rhino 2008-01-21T05:06:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ec8c7081-5a82-43da-a770-6beacfe83d00 Of course you don't always get what you want when you vote. Lots of people want something other than you do. Will your vote make a difference? Depends. Voting for HIllary in the general election in California? Stay home, no worries. Voting on some local issue, well I voted yes on a bond that passed by 1 vote, so yeah, it can make a difference. Of course, Missourian's votes count a lot more thanks to the 'States rights' of the electorial college. Convince me why a North Dakotaians vote is worth many times my pitiful Cali vote in the general election, square miles of empty terrain should be represented by empty terrain, not people. To the folks that want a democracy at Burning Man, while at the same time complaining that the place is overrun with 'yahoos' 'frat boys' and 'hippies' might be just as unhappy with the democratically driven direction of Burning Man as the dictatory/comittee direction it has now, maybe even more so. What does all this have to do with Ron Paul? Nothing. Which is exactly what Ron Paul will have to do with the inevitable Mitt (of Doom) Romney presidency that we will all endure for the next 8 years. Why? Because MOST people in the USA are idiots. Of course Vote. Of course write and influence others. Change is slow, never what you expect, and will happen too late to do you any good. Get used to it and enjoy. Oh yeah, and buy a fucking gun. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:03:41 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ec8c7081-5a82-43da-a770-6beacfe83d00 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-21T05:03:41Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7905dd6b-0ad3-4d6f-ac9a-df2e40b8ab72 Chicken John, I hate to tell you this, but I live in Missouri. Things are a HELL of a lot different here. Yeah, we have the electoral college here, too. But that doesn't stop us. "Yes, that sounds great. Run for office. Propose the changes that will make big differences. Support people who aren't in it for the money. Watch you time get wasted. Write letters to elected officials OR scream into the abyss... it's all teh same." Real simple, John.....the system works here, and you're fuckin' wrong. My time didn't get wasted. Yeah, that's right WRONG! I belong to a group of malcontents called TARRIF. The acronym stands for Timely And Responsible Road Infrastructure Financing, and we beat the City of Columbia. Here, they tried to add an additional quarter-cent sales tax to pay for road infrastructure additions. ALL of us thought that the development community wasn't paying its fair share. SO, we filed papers with the Secretary of State's office to be a political action committee. And we won. We worked our asses off to get there, too. NOW, things are changing. One of our members is ON the City Council. The development community has just seen the basic development fee for a single family home go up $1500, and it's beginning to put a dent in the backlog of road repairs, sewer repairs, water line upgrades, and all those infrastructure things we take for granted. I've been working around basic human infrastructure for the last 20 years, I think I know that people want toilets that work and don't back up. They want smooth highways. They want clean water out of the tap. They want reliable electrical service and telephone service. Easy enough? And I still say that Ron Paul is not the right candidate. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:33:34 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7905dd6b-0ad3-4d6f-ac9a-df2e40b8ab72 Rhino 2008-01-21T04:33:34Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2620e962-a077-4901-a9dd-d083b7d76a74 Actually, not voting works better. I know, I know... yes, I know. I know that as well. Yes, you have a point. Now that that is out of the way... Not voting (or voting for none of the above) could (and likely will) be the way out of this. There will be a candidate someday. This candidate will activate the voters that do not vote. The ones that don't register can't be swayed. If you regester on the last day and register independant, there is no way for pollsters to know who is gonna go where.... no way for the rich guy to know where to put the ads.... no way for the machine with the money to subvert the candidate.... The arguement of not voting is well documented elsewhere. If you don't know it, and are interesed in it... there are very astute reasons to withhold your vote. I suggest you read up on it. Some pretty smart people are not voting out there.... And in California, with the electorial college, it really doesn't matter if I vote or not. Unless Ron Paul is the candidate. Then everything changes. "2) fight like a bastard possessed in local planning and zoning meetings, City Councils, environment commission meetings, and tell the truth regarding those things going wrong in your community. Think and fight local, then take it state, national, and global. " Yes, that sounds great. Run for office. Propose the changes that will make big differences. Support people who aren't in it for the money. Watch you time get wasted. Write letters to elected officials OR scream into the abyss... it's all teh same. We are attracted to the single most libertarian thing available to man and we can't agree on Ron Paul. In the end you'll all end up voting for Hillary (even though you despise her) because you don't want McKaine to be your presidnet. Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:34:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2620e962-a077-4901-a9dd-d083b7d76a74 Chicken 2008-01-21T03:34:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#630c771b-dda3-4472-8570-32bbdf5757a8 <Anyway, the only way to ensure that we dont get screwed by the state goverments isn't to give a larger bully more power, it's to make sure that we, ourselves, retain the power to say no.> And we do that in three ways: 1) VOTE! 2) fight like a bastard possessed in local planning and zoning meetings, City Councils, environment commission meetings, and tell the truth regarding those things going wrong in your community. Think and fight local, then take it state, national, and global. 3) Write letters and cards to elected officeholders who are in our camp, visit them at their seat of power, and TALK with them. Convince those who you can, and then fight like hell to get the others unelected. THAT is how this nation works. Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:06:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#630c771b-dda3-4472-8570-32bbdf5757a8 Rhino 2008-01-20T20:06:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#73956b66-ecf7-4b17-baf1-77c456ccbc5b This is the thread that never ends, It just goes on and on my friends Some people started posting here, not knowing what it was, And they'll continue posting here forever just because— Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:39:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#73956b66-ecf7-4b17-baf1-77c456ccbc5b Crypto 2008-01-18T03:39:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#93301bcb-64a5-46d9-ba39-52b63ef8c415 Sorry, I'm just not able to choke down the proposition that non-payment of parking tix is going to result in any penalty more severe than getting the boot slapped on my wheel. Not even in the most remotely unlikely "could escalate to" scenario. And for the record, I probably believe that our govt is up to more nefarious evil than would 95% of people on this list. Not that I'm advocating for more regulation/laws/legislation... I happen to think that legislative gridlock might be the single most beneficial thing that's happened in congress in 50 years... if only it had really happened. But using the Shepard lynching as an example of government regulation run amok appears irresponsible and seems to demonstrate a fairly minimal level of compassion for a horrendous violation of human rights. Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:42:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#93301bcb-64a5-46d9-ba39-52b63ef8c415 embersandsparks 2008-01-18T01:42:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1fdae50c-05f3-49e2-89f3-267f2faa9ece I think the confusion lies with you, despite the occasional promising signs of logic you almost display. > You are confusing the issue of states rights, with a subrogated > authority to curtail personal liberties, and no libertarian is going > to go there. "State's rights" advocates specifically acknowledge the probability that allowing states to set their own standards of lawful behavior may result in the curtailment of personal freedoms, with most suggesting that if you don't appreciate the limitations of local regulations, you should move to a state that cleaves more closely to your own standards. In other words, state's rights pretty much EQUATES to "a subrogated authority to curtail personal liberties" and pretty much EVERY libertarian "is going to go there". Care to provide an example to the contrary, Obi wan ? Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:25:10 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1fdae50c-05f3-49e2-89f3-267f2faa9ece embersandsparks 2008-01-18T01:25:10Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#91e49331-2d0e-4e68-b487-9cdd3ef18ccc Mitch, did you know that Pres. Lincoln promised the southern states that he would ensure that slavery stayed legal in perpetuity? The original 13th amendment would have made slavery permanent and he said he would sign it if they promised to stay in the Union. They didn't and only after that did Lincoln decide to emancipate the slaves. This is the amendment Lincoln was going to sign: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/amendre.htm There seems to be a general impression here that the Federal govt is here to protect us from overbearing state govts. As you can see from the above situation, that just isn't true. The Feds only protect us when it is in their interest not ours. It may have been the original premise, but it has long since been abandoned--at least as long ago as the Civil War--but even earlier. Taking power away from the Feds would force them to do their original duty--protecting us from states that are operating unconstitutionally. In case you are wondering what that means, here's a link to the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html A couple hundred miles south of me was a country which had one of the top economies in Latin America prior to 1960. Fairly progressive when it came to women's rights and social security too. The problem was a corrupt central government lead to another coup d'etat that instituted yet another dictator in a long line of them. This one promised social equality and public ownership of resources. Sounded great! The truth was that the jails got loaded with homosexuals and blacks in a way that makes Texas look like a beacon of sexual and racial freedom. The economy was destroyed and now they use oxen to plow farms. And, their supreme leader constantly badmouths Americans. Not to mention that all citizens are now slaves since they have to get permission to leave the plantation. Are you sure you werent talking about Castro when you described Paul as a racist, xenophobic technophobe? Anyway, the only way to ensure that we dont get screwed by the state goverments isn't to give a larger bully more power, it's to make sure that we, ourselves, retain the power to say no. Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:17:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#91e49331-2d0e-4e68-b487-9cdd3ef18ccc margaret 2008-01-17T18:17:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7a5e6a6f-8ccb-4f34-9648-138b26d6e54c glenzzz, Historically, you're inaccurate. The issue of states' rights was one of many which led to the Civil War. It wasn't all about slavery, it was about a state's people to govern themselves according to THEIR way of thinking. The strength of the American independent streak was strongest in evidence in the border wars between Missouri and Kansas that began as early as 1854. The repercussions of that tragedy lead up to today. Kansas (Union sympathies, belief in a strong Federal governmental system of control) is able to attain the necessary infrastructure taxation to produce some pretty fine highway improvements. In the meantime, Missouri (Confederate sympathies, mainly in Western Missouri and away from the Missouri River) is unable to attain the same infrastructure taxation to produce the same, because of the lingering effects of state's rights pushed by Confederate descendants. It's actually more complex than that, but I've boiled it down to essentials for your reading. "Personal liberty" doesn't equate to states rights. The reason I happen to think Ron Paul is a jackass and a moron is because he'd allow so-called 'intelligent design' to be taught in the schools as science, when it's a thinly veiled attempt on the part of the Discovery Institute (among others) to insert reworked fundamentalist evangelical Christianity into the mainstream of public school science classrooms, INCLUDING young-earth creationism. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, let alone the kind of scientific scrutiny that needs to be taught in classrooms. Libertarian = personal liberty? Great. All for it. Just make damn sure that when you exercise your personal liberties that you don't affect those of others. I've seen all too many libertarians that sock puppet the phrases to justify their own peculiarities and don't give a tinker's damn about where the rest of society is. That's not community. Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:43:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7a5e6a6f-8ccb-4f34-9648-138b26d6e54c Rhino 2008-01-17T16:43:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#619fe582-192e-4ed0-857a-612f6d584d2e Mitch Honestly, That is about as silly an objection to Ron Paul as I've ever seen. The issue of states rights is more an issue of limiting the power of the federal government in daily aspects of our lives and governance. Libertarian=personal liberty...........just because someone believes certain issues should be decided by the states themselves does not mean it would be OK to legalize slavery. come on dude.....you can d better than that. Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:19:41 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#619fe582-192e-4ed0-857a-612f6d584d2e glennzzz 2008-01-17T16:19:41Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8b039f4-9069-453c-beac-56dbea079335 I hate Ron Paul. Hes racist, xenophobic, technophobic, and just an all around bad person. His brand of hands of governing would have slavery legal in some states within the decade. I mean, it's all states rights, right? Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:48:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8b039f4-9069-453c-beac-56dbea079335 FireShaman 2008-01-17T15:48:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b5fd88ab-355a-4a5b-9171-80421fba6e6f The greatest evil should be all the "radical self reliance" folks who ostensibly vote for the most socialist candidate possible. And then wonder why their braying about the "burning man way" goes unnoticed........... Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:56:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b5fd88ab-355a-4a5b-9171-80421fba6e6f glennzzz 2008-01-17T08:56:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8331d1d6-fd7e-46f7-98f6-3ecb8ede5118 >>I think RuPaulThu is truly the greatest evil.<< He really is. I drove out of town to see him twice! That bum canceled on me both times!! Ru Paul, that is. (nice catch, Crypto) Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:45:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8331d1d6-fd7e-46f7-98f6-3ecb8ede5118 margaret 2008-01-16T02:45:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0b9b69cd-8cf8-4cc6-be99-d3ae3a611991 <Ron PaulThu> I think RuPaulThu is truly the greatest evil. Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:04:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0b9b69cd-8cf8-4cc6-be99-d3ae3a611991 Crypto 2008-01-16T02:04:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3850ec18-8198-4447-8863-446325c1c096 I'll say it again.... Re: Burners for Ron PaulThu, December 27, 2007 - 5:08 PM I guess the only answer is a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket (in either combination....) Too bad that'll never happen unless we get off the two party "democracy". Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:27:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3850ec18-8198-4447-8863-446325c1c096 Widget 2008-01-16T01:27:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#78ef5866-1419-4427-a306-7541759c34d7 Yes, Ron Paul has personal opinions of his own. He's not a robot. The question actually is whether he will use power to oppress you, Kelly. I dont see that any of the other candidates are less oppressive. Do you? Show me. Most of them are happy taking more of my money to spread more shrapnel across the Middle East and South Asia. Oppressive at home and oppressive overseas. Nice. You want the right for people not to fear police coming into their bedrooms while they are giving each other blow jobs. Admirable, but some other people dont want the police confiscating their businesses because they dont want to hire homosexuals. If you can't stand being around gay people, how is it unoppressive that there are laws forcing you to rent and hire and be around homosexuals. How do we reach a compromise on this? Just because you like the homos and hate the phobes, doesn't necessarily mean that you are right and the phobes are wrong. This is just personal opinion. That's all it is. It's kinda like me not wanting to be around people who wear patchouli. Should I be forced to work with patchoulials? How about instead of everybody using the government to oppress people they dont like (homosexuals and homophobes alike) we instead become responsible for ourselves? Remember, killing and beating up people for any reason outside of self-defense is already illegal. The government did not save Matthew Shepherd. Laws only screw shit up for people who refuse to break them. Assholes will figure a way around them or ignore them altogether. Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:59:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#78ef5866-1419-4427-a306-7541759c34d7 margaret 2008-01-16T00:59:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#466a2fc7-fa60-4e62-98e4-1b7aa7295800 Oh, and I forgot to mention: <but do you honestly think a Libertarian cares what goes on in the bedroom? A libertarian does not care if gays get married.> That part I actually agree with. RP DOES care about these issues though, which is why I don't regard him as an actual libertarian, though his views may be in accordance with the political party that calls itself Libertarian. He's against a' federal amendment forbidding it because that's against his states' rights position, but he has stated that marriage is specifically a union between a man and a woman and supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" that declared that states aren't obligated to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states. Which, by the way, is in direct violation of Section 1, Article 4 of the Constitution, which says: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." So RP is clearly letting his feelings about gay marriage usurp the very clear wording of the Constitution, and perhaps all the folks who think he's all about defending the Constitution should chew on that awhile. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:54:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#466a2fc7-fa60-4e62-98e4-1b7aa7295800 Kelly 2008-01-15T23:54:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a003fafd-d532-4d55-ab61-3896d7a508b1 >> (and you don't have to be gay for this to happen, before Lawrence v Texas several states had laws that criminalized any non-babymaking sex regardless of the particpants gender preference)<< Yeah, but this is the government doing the oppressing. Chicken is warning everyone that if you use the government to stop people from oppressing, you are only letting the government become the oppressor. Sometimes it may work in you favor and sometimes it wont. Robert Anton Wilson: "I'd like to see [government] limited. I'd like to see it pushed back to the level of the Constitution, what we usually call Jeffersonian democracy. I think it can be reduced even further. But I certainly don't like the continuous growth of the government interfering with everything." That's basically Ron Paul's view. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:10:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a003fafd-d532-4d55-ab61-3896d7a508b1 margaret 2008-01-15T23:10:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0191bc3b-5588-490b-949f-a1b30cd68bd6 Glenn, you are a cowardly loftard who knows nothing but talks incessantly and anyone who undergoes the unpleasantness of reading your collection of idiotic, antagonistic posts can see that. You can't refute a single thging I said so you just spread the bullshit around and try to derail real conversation. But since you bring up the "straw man" thing - which does not apply to me at all as I brought up very specific real life examples to demonstrate my argument - let me illustrate how it's your goddamn spcialty. As in: <the funny thing about this thread is that the very people who call the race card, are generally unable to have a legitimate conversation about the plights of inner cities/urban environments without calling someone a racist. The word rolls off their lips automatically.....................personal freedom, personal responsibility............you can bet someone is about to get nailed as a racist......... the burner mind......... > So here's a challenge Glenn: provide an actual example of someone on this thread or any other in this tribe equating calls for "personal freedom, personal responsibility" with racism. Just try it. And until you can, why don't you just go back to listening to Limbaugh and leave the discussion to grownups who don't cower behind their gated community in terror of their neighbors. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:11:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0191bc3b-5588-490b-949f-a1b30cd68bd6 Kelly 2008-01-15T22:11:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#944b9691-2d27-4ae3-8e0b-f924009092ab "The candidate Ron Paul even with no chance to win, actually does more than other candidates becasue he is ensuring that the dark future he fears does not happen." Nice spin. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:01:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#944b9691-2d27-4ae3-8e0b-f924009092ab $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-15T22:01:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d12f77e6-9f61-491a-89d4-dd3a7c60df2a You know Every time Kelly makes a posting, there are almost too many straw-men to respond. Yeah, the Shepherd analogy might have been extreme............ but do you honestly think a Libertarian cares what goes on in the bedroom? A libertarian does not care if gays get married. A libertarian does not really think borders should be closed..........they just don't think that by merely crossing the border you're entitled to free medical care, schooling, food, shelter etc. Because Ron Paul or anyone else supports states rights, does not mean that they support the curtailment of personal liberties. Just one straw-man after another with you. What does the lunch counter/blacks example have to do with Libertarian belief, not a thing. You are confusing the issue of states rights, with a subrogated authority to curtail personal liberties, and no libertarian is going to go there. Straw-men Straw-men Straw-men I am now bracing for the slew of obscenity that will surely follow. Sling away Kelly Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:50:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d12f77e6-9f61-491a-89d4-dd3a7c60df2a glennzzz 2008-01-15T21:50:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1a2784ab-4e37-481d-be99-9ebd0ec975a5 Jeez, so many different people to respond to in this thread, so little time. But since Chicken John generally the most interesting and is actually asking for debate, here goes: The analogy of Matthew Shepard/parking ticket analogy is completely full of holes, it's frankly ridiculous. Firstly, because Shepard was assualted and killed - he had NO CHOICE in the matter, whereas you can always choose to pay the fucking parking ticket. Yes, the chain of events CJ described could theoretically happen, but it would require one taking a lot of actions that any thinking person knows would put them in harm's way. Comparing the 'victim' in that situation with a young man who was attacked and murdered in a uniquly cruel way is a horrible trivialization of what Shepard suffered. Also let's not overlook the fact that there are in fact parking rules that exist for very good reasons - not blocking a hydrant or bus zone, not blocking driveways, not parking in a handicapped spot. Without the threat of a fine to keep people from breaking those rules, how do you expect to keep those rules enforced? And sorry, experience has not led me to believe that enough of the population's innate sense of civic responsiblity is greater than their feeling of short-term self interest so that the hydrants remain clear. Also, in the context of Ron Paul, anyone who thinks putting a state's rights style right-wing libertarian in power equals less oppresive laws is just living in fantasy land. For instance, in RPland, you can legally be murdered for having sex with your lover in the privacy of your own home. To follow Chicken's line of events - you're engaged in consensual sex with your lover and the police barge into your home (in the case of Lawrence vs Texas, it was because of a false tip). They see you engaging in actions that a majority of your legislature has decided is immoral (and you don't have to be gay for this to happen, before Lawrence v Texas several states had laws that criminalized any non-babymaking sex regardless of the particpants gender preference) and so try to arrest you. You protest that this is a gross invasion of privacy, you weren't doing anything wrong or hurting anybody and you're in your own private property, but it doesn't matter, if you resist enough, you'll end up being shot, just like in Chicken's parking ticket scenario. Luckily for him and for all Americans who value their freedom, John Geddes Lawrence chose not to resist arrest but did fight his conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court, who finally caught up with modern society and acknowledged that ALL Americans have a right to privacy and that states do not have either the right or any valid reason to play sexual inquisitor. And let's just make this clear for all those of the "less laws=more freedom"' persuasion - it was a federal ruling that ELIMINATED these intrusive state laws, and Ron Paul was totally against it. It was also a Supreme Court decision that overrode state's rights in 1965 to rule that a state doesn't have the authority to criminalize married couples who use birth control, and trumped states' rights again in 1972 to rule that states didn't have the right to criminalize birth control between any couples, married or unmarried. Get that? If the state's rights fans had their way, your legislature could choose to throw you in jail for using a condom. And here's another example, going back a little farther in time. Up until the 60's, a black person could be murdered for the crime of sitting at a lunch counter reserved for whites. Same pattern - being told to leave, refusing, cops come, refusing cooperate, end result being murdered - though of course most people were simply arrested and dragged off. Robert Anton Wilson writes about his experiences with this in his autobiography Csmic Trigger II, very chillingly describing his feelings of helplessness and terror of being completely in the power of the state after being arrested for a sit-in in a segregated barbershop. In this case, it was the creation of rules that resulted in more freedom, the rules being that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate of the basis of race. And let's contrast the two examples I just described with Chicken's parking ticket/building code scenario. As I said, there are valid reasons for many (not all) parking regulations and building codes, but there are NO valid reasons whatsover for the state to butt in to the private lives of consenting adults or to allow people of one ethnicity to discriminate against and oppress another. And for anyone who thinks people have some kind of inherent right to pass laws that have no other function than to allow the majority to oppress the minority (or the other way around, Mr. Botha) as long as it's done on the state level and not the national, all I can say is "piss off Klansman" and Thank Buddha that society has evolved to the point where you're in the minority. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:26:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1a2784ab-4e37-481d-be99-9ebd0ec975a5 Kelly 2008-01-15T21:26:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1d825054-7bc9-47f8-ae94-a69a525288ef Of course, but the idea here isn't how things are now... but indeed what they 'could' escalate to. Which is to say that if we keep talking about what they 'could' escalate to... they likely will not. The candidate Ron Paul even with no chance to win, actually does more than other candidates becasue he is ensuring that the dark future he fears does not happen. So it's actually working really well. This is a time for debate. I'm debating. It's all the rage... Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:46:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1d825054-7bc9-47f8-ae94-a69a525288ef Chicken 2008-01-15T19:46:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a3e6e754-03ec-43b7-b396-dbd894468788 OK, now at least I have a clue what you were trying to say. However, a lynching based on a cultural "offense" HARDLY equates (however tangentially) to the potentially escalating penalties for a legal infraction. I see the parallel you're trying to draw, I just think you drew an extremely poor and unnecessarily inflammatory analogy. Care to point out the last time someone paid the ultimate price for non-payment of parking tickets? If nothing else, doesn't the distinction between legal penalties and extralegal executions appear valid to you? Hint: One of these is MUCH easier to avoid than the other... Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:29:14 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a3e6e754-03ec-43b7-b396-dbd894468788 embersandsparks 2008-01-15T19:29:14Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4a8bd4f5-e6c1-4e22-a12e-d2a99a42647d "Okay, this one I can't wait to hear. So far, I'm beyond baffled. Homophopic lynchings equal panalties for violating gov't regulation ?? WTF ?" What the fuck indeed.... lynched by an angry mob or shot down for failure to obey a system that the shooters don't even agree with. Go try to drive a car without licence plates. YOu will find that being shot down is the ultimate penalty, if you do not subcum to their demands. Demands that you might not agree with, but that a group of thugs (like cops, for example) will enforce on you. You decide that you would like to put a wood burning stove in your house in San Francisco. All your neighbors have them, and you want one too. So you do that. A building inspector comes to your house, demands enterance to inspect so he can cite you and demand that you remove the stove. You refuse to allow him to gain enterance. He gets papers and returns with armed police. YOu refuse to open your door. They break it down. They say to you that you are under arrest. YOu refuse to co-operate. They try to take you by force, you defend yourself. They shoot you down. For a building code violation. Now this is an extreme example but it's just to make a point about liberty. Each law that is passes is a very serious thing. It demarks the bending of one's will to that of another. I feel that the lawmaking and passing machine isn't really thinking about laws in the same way I do. I feel it doesn't represent my fear and respect of laws and how they can be used by men to act "above conscience". Ron Paul agrees with that view, and wants to eliminte a ton of laws. Just because something is a little off, you don't have to pass a law about it. YOu can do education, or you can make a sign. Everything deosn't have to become illegal. Every law prohibitis and restricts your liberties... ones' you might not see are being restricted at first. You can't disagree that there are too many laws and go to Burning Man. That doesn't make sense. You can think Ron Paul is a wingnut or whatever... but to me it's just because your not used to seeing honest men speak the truth. So it seems silly. To me, there is no difference between a parking ticket and mafia style protection raquet. There is no difference in my mind between taxes and theft. Taxes could be voulentary. Parking tickets as well. There actually needent not be parking tickets, if there were less cars, which there would be if the gasoline cost the $8 a gallon it actually costs... instead of it being subsidised by our taxes... so we pay more taxes... to make gas cheaper... so more people drive.... so our mass transit sucks.... so we get parking tickets because there are too many cars.... That's not freedom, that's illusion. Things have gotten too complicated with all these special interest groups and government programs stacked to the heavens... the free market would never tolerate the war in Iraq, the failure of an auto manufacturer, and would promote actual sustainablitlity instead of this "green" fad that Larry and everyone else who subscribes to Vanity Fair is talking about like we're all "on board" to save the planet (when it's actually us we'd be saving). The free market would include a great foreign policy. The free market would encourage art, pirate utopias and innovations galore. It would promote the tolerance that is absent from the rethoric of the candidate who is so bought and sold that speaks like a commercial (Barak Obama). The free market solution is what Hillary would eventually write a book about in her 80's after everything she thought was a good idea failed (just like her husbands). Dennis Cuchinik is talking about MORE laws, MORE spending, MORE special interest groups, spending MORE money trying to fix problems that the government has no busness even knowing about forget accepting responsability to mend. I'd like to think that eliminating public schools would activate people to pour time and energy into making an education system that is nothing short of stellar. Instead, we have a shitty education system and the average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. So don't tell me we don't have time or money or whatever. I beleive that education should be something that you buy, not something that the government deals with. Why? Because we tried that and it simply doesn't work. How would poor familiys send their kids to school? There wouldn't be poor families. See how that works? Instead of building a system around all the failures of that system, just eliminate the problems. Yes, it's all very idealistic. There are ideas that are likely never going to happen. Dreams. Fantasy's. Things we talk about. Discuss. Maybe have a beer over. But this stuff can't happen in real life. Why? I dunno... it just can't. I mean, it's ridiculious to think that we can have a government that isn't corrupt top to bottom. Why, the next thing you know you'll be saying that we can bring a community of people together 60,000 strong to have a freedom and art festival in the desert... THAT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.... Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:21:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4a8bd4f5-e6c1-4e22-a12e-d2a99a42647d Chicken 2008-01-15T17:21:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#774edc1e-721b-4aa4-9248-fa79d43d3b54 I think what Chicken is trying to say is that you're "asking" for oppression when you ask the government to tell you what to do. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:19:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#774edc1e-721b-4aa4-9248-fa79d43d3b54 margaret 2008-01-15T17:19:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1a6c9e1e-bbe5-41ba-b09d-a79b45646fe4 Republicans Today In Michigan. New Democrats opt out. My Son’s Home, Mich. : Snow in Michigan (Of course) on Presidential Primary Day. Officials predicting a turnout of about 20 percent by the time polls closed at 8 p.m. Ron Paul could steal the show! Or Dennis!!! Statewide the Republican ballot is expected to attract the most voters because it has a full slate of candidates. Voters who want to vote in the Democratic primary Today 1/15/08 have fewer choices, ya da ya da, since Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot. This is just one Large State where a small number of voters can win an election. If you are a Michigan voter: No matter who you want please vote today Tuesday 1/15/08. Greet your neighbor, Vote Today. Thank You. X’s, Beach Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:28:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1a6c9e1e-bbe5-41ba-b09d-a79b45646fe4 Beach 2008-01-15T16:28:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#28670644-eeba-4a91-87cc-3ebab787254f Of course if the City were depopulated, we know who'd the mayor would be. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:23:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#28670644-eeba-4a91-87cc-3ebab787254f Crypto 2008-01-15T06:23:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9df5d5f3-9bd3-4aef-ae88-0f6a71072968 If this were true, Berkeley would be depopulated. SF too. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:22:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9df5d5f3-9bd3-4aef-ae88-0f6a71072968 Crypto 2008-01-15T06:22:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f360c125-d22e-40a7-87da-9e26dd6d9944 This should be a GOOD one. Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f360c125-d22e-40a7-87da-9e26dd6d9944 Sekani: 2008-01-15T04:23:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9227c1a0-6ce4-46f5-b0e7-7f399b1e7b7c > You think that what happened to Matt is horrific, I agree. Totally. But that is happening every time you get a parking ticket, but the outcome is different because you pay the ticket. In order for Matt to have avioded death, he would have had to be not gay or whatever. The oppression is the same, kinda. Okay, this one I can't wait to hear. So far, I'm beyond baffled. Homophopic lynchings equal panalties for violating gov't regulation ?? WTF ? Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:10:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9227c1a0-6ce4-46f5-b0e7-7f399b1e7b7c embersandsparks 2008-01-15T03:10:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9d8f9a0a-a316-4542-ae46-76e992648144 Bait, my friend... it's all just bait... But really, why not? What is the difference between what happened to Matt Shepard and a parking ticket? If you were shot and killed over a parking ticket or if you were lynced because your gay or left handed or whatever... what's the difference? You think that what happened to Matt is horrific, I agree. Totally. But that is happening every time you get a parking ticket, but the outcome is different because you pay the ticket. In order for Matt to have avioded death, he would have had to be not gay or whatever. The oppression is the same, kinda. It's just a point I'm trying to make. It's a standard Libertarian arguement. By the way, I'm baiting Brian Doherty to this conversation... not you Badger. Brian is watching and won't post because he's too smart. The ultimate punishment for a parking ticket is death. That's the consequence. By a rouge gang of thugs. Same same. Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:52:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9d8f9a0a-a316-4542-ae46-76e992648144 Chicken 2008-01-14T23:52:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#85974cd0-a513-4c58-8bfc-0d905ad5dada >If people in Texas don't like homos, they should say so. If they want to take it further, they should. They should also be ready to accpet the consequences. I Yeah, right Chicken. Why don't you talk that shit to Matthew Shepherd's family. Jesus, I can't fucking believe you wrote those words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:03:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#85974cd0-a513-4c58-8bfc-0d905ad5dada Badger 2008-01-14T21:03:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4095cc6d-a633-4abf-b6e5-881541fcdcd6 You know what one of the most offensive things ever said to me was, Chicken? When I was applying for college, my high school counselor kept reminding me to tick off "hispanic" on the forms so that I could have an easier time getting selected. That infuriated me to no end. What? Cause I'm Hispanic, I need help? Okay, I got a little lazy in 10th grade, but my SATs are stellar, lady. I still can't possibly do this on my own? That was way more deflating than anything an openly racist person could have said to me. At the other end, the funniest incident was this party I was throwing for Fred (who is Black) in Gainesville. Someone invited Fred's skinhead friends over. Racist skins, but his friends nevertheless. One schmucky white liberal came over and was offended that I had racist skins in my house and went all over town badmouthing me (and actually lying about details). "Racist" skins at a Hispanic girl's house celebrating a Black man's birthday and all the liberal white guy could do is get enraged. Talk about agenda blinding him to the fact that the racists set aside their nonsense for an evening. Had he not been so narrowminded himself, he might have used the opportunity to study how this could happen and try to make it work for other people. No, he chose to be divisive instead because deep down inside that's probably what made him happy. Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:22:08 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4095cc6d-a633-4abf-b6e5-881541fcdcd6 margaret 2008-01-14T20:22:08Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6ef52c58-a043-4e9a-a645-6ef564bc773b Guido's gonna pay you a visit, CJ KK Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:15:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6ef52c58-a043-4e9a-a645-6ef564bc773b Kamikaze 2008-01-14T17:15:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#99253bb7-7621-441c-8f73-228880ac6c2a Exactly, Margaret. I find that the squishy liberals are the most intolerant people. I do not judge people because they are racist, sexist, homophobic or narrowminded in anyway. As a matter of fact, I use the word "narrowminded" here only to make a point but do not think that someone who claims to be racist or displays racist remarks or predjudice is narrowminded. I actually think that it's really brave to speak your truth. If you don't like black people, you should say so. If people in Texas don't like homos, they should say so. If they want to take it further, they should. They should also be ready to accpet the consequences. I have found that the people that the intolerant people judge are the people the media protray as bigits or homophobes or just white trash or whatever. Have I actually experienced intolerance? Nope. Just reverse intolerance. I have never met any single person who doesn't like black people, but I've known people who don't like people who they think don't like black people. Funny how that works. There are people in the world who are confused. Passing FEDERAL laws to gaurentee someone will act with prudance and respect is a waste of everyone's time. Everyone needs time to figger things out. Follow the money. It's easy to do. We have the largest ecomomy... and we have all the homos and stuff... And here we are, the intellectuals eating each other alive... while the rich fuckers quietly and respectfully band together and act as one... we are a divided people, the left. Or whatever we are. It's confusing now that Ron Paul is running on the GOP ticket and is the most radical politician that's come along in decades. Although the Democratic Party has made my stomache sick for 20 years or so... And I guess I should admit at this time that I don't like Italians. Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:04:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#99253bb7-7621-441c-8f73-228880ac6c2a Chicken 2008-01-14T17:04:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bbed6f86-0c63-4320-860b-297e7839b5bf Choose for yourself. http://www.electoralcompass.com Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:35:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bbed6f86-0c63-4320-860b-297e7839b5bf Kacey 2008-01-14T05:35:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#55c9744a-010b-432c-8792-52160b9c8dfa "If he didn't have a unified group fighting against the South, the fight would be impossible to sustain." Actually, if he didn't suspend habeas corpus and arrest 20,000 copperheads (among any number of other unconstitutional things he did).....he wouldn't have been able to sustain the fight. But this discussion belongs on a different tribe. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:36:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#55c9744a-010b-432c-8792-52160b9c8dfa Jason 2008-01-13T21:36:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1c7b21f8-a6c2-4eee-911f-0bf4867cc557 >> trading the freedom of other people so you can maybe enjoy more of your own is the devil's bargain.<< That goes both ways. If people in Texas generally think that homosexuality is an abomination, to force them to tolerate open homosexuality is merely abrogating their freedom. It's Texas' loss if the majority want to chase homosexuals out. Like with the abortion issue, it's best to work from the bottom and show people your views than to legally pound them from above. By taking absolute power from the Feds and returning it to the states, we will get mixed up laws like no drugs and homosexuals in Texas and coked--out queens in California. That's great because when Texans see that California has got more money and influence and fun because everyone is flocking there, the people of Texas will go "shit, we were stupid" or they will go "praise the Lord we live here" and live in their backward state. They have as much right to that as gay people do to be gay. And everyone will be happier that way. Change comes faster at the lower levels. If you really want to end the drug war and make homosexuality legal in all 50 states, it will come much faster at the state level and below than by being dependent on the Feds to do your bidding. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:49:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1c7b21f8-a6c2-4eee-911f-0bf4867cc557 margaret 2008-01-13T18:49:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e64f5bf3-6038-4c09-8596-40785b6ee3ba the funny thing about this thread is that the very people who call the race card, are generally unable to have a legitimate conversation about the plights of inner cities/urban environments without calling someone a racist. The word rolls off their lips automatically.....................personal freedom, personal responsibility............you can bet someone is about to get nailed as a racist......... the burner mind......... Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:42:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e64f5bf3-6038-4c09-8596-40785b6ee3ba glennzzz 2008-01-13T18:42:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f753485e-7f99-401e-9b5f-6e77468af800 ooops! I didn't put the link thing in... http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460 Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:20:29 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f753485e-7f99-401e-9b5f-6e77468af800 Chicken 2008-01-13T18:20:29Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c4d30362-d6c0-4af4-b07f-0186e3b4bdca Matt we've already been through this. Read the thread. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c4d30362-d6c0-4af4-b07f-0186e3b4bdca margaret 2008-01-13T18:08:38Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8994b43d-49c9-4f2e-9f0e-ecfac51f385c >W's secretary of transportation is a Dem, as far as I know....none of Clinton's cabinet members were repubs. I meant way back, like Lincolns cabinet. There's a book called Team of Rivals by Ellen Fried. Excerpt : Lincoln was facing a Republican Party that was very young and whose members had come from a variety of other parties. They were former Whigs, former Democrats. By putting his rivals in his cabinet, he had access to a wide range of opinions, which he realized would sharpen his own thinking. It also gave him a way of keeping all those conflicting opinions together. If he didn't have a unified group fighting against the South, the fight would be impossible to sustain. So having all those opinions in his cabinet not only helped him; it helped the country as well. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:25:32 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8994b43d-49c9-4f2e-9f0e-ecfac51f385c Bobzilla 2008-01-13T05:25:32Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6bdb228e-fcaf-4516-8f31-87b7e061d15d Here are Ron Paul's exact words on the abortion issue..... Personally, I am pro-choice, but I agree with his view regarding the federalization of moral issues. "Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population. Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves. " http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/85/federalizing-social-policy/ Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:00:48 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6bdb228e-fcaf-4516-8f31-87b7e061d15d noiz23 2008-01-13T05:00:48Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#29dcdc6a-bac7-4785-8e9d-5b883990bdf0 How do you explain this??? http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/ Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays * Story Highlights * Ron Paul newsletters from 1990s include rants against blacks, gays * Paul repudiates racist comments, tells CNN the material wasn't written by him * One newsletter calls Martin Luther King Jr. a "pro-Communist philanderer" * Another says 1992 LA riots ended after blacks went to "pick up their welfare checks" From Brian Todd CNN WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks." CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic. None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas. Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. VideoWatch Paul's full interview with CNN » "When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said. Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself » "I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong." But that's not good enough, says one political veteran. "These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'" Paul, who is not considered a front-runner, has become an Internet phenomenon in the current race, raising tens of millions of dollars from a devoted online base, many of them young people drawn to his libertarian straight talk. See where the money is coming from » The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible." In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos." The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." In his interview with CNN, Paul said that's language he would never use. "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life." He added, "Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they're the heroes [of my life]." Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine who shares some of Paul's beliefs on big government, says he has never heard the congressman make racist comments like those in the newsletters. "What I think some people are looking for him to do is to say, 'OK, who wrote that?' I mean, there's 20 years, give or take, worth of newsletters there," Welch said. Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names." The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. "I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea." Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:34:46 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#29dcdc6a-bac7-4785-8e9d-5b883990bdf0 Matt 2008-01-13T02:34:46Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1acda3a9-c308-48b3-bd0c-56ce3247e856 Kelly, I'm not saying that I want only liberties for myself. As a libertarian, I would wish the freedom of all groups of people to practice any sort of life style that didn't hurt other "directly". I've personally be politically active to the point of organizing rallies, been on the radio, newspapers for supporting the rights of many different types of people who were not like me, including gays, youth, religious peyote users, polygamist, pot smokers, etc. It would be my dream that all states had the most liberal moral laws possible to include all types of people. So stop thinking that you know me at all because my philosophy on government is different than your own. Your name calling only implicates your own mind. Local changes in government are always easier to make than changing federal law. I also don't believe that we as a country have the right to tell another people in a country how to live or force our laws down their throats. Same goes for another state forcing their laws down another state by force of the federal government. Instead of forcing change by eracting laws upon others, let's change their mind through our culture and arts, ok? "How would you react if a church of straight-hating gay people came to power in your state and passed a law so they could throw you in jail for being with your girlfriend? Can you honestly tell us that you would regard that as their right? " I live in such a world, it's called Utah. We've also tried changing laws her to no success, yet I still feel that one of the major road blocks to any change is the federal government. Further, in certain isolated pockets of more progressives, let's say the city of Salt Lake, they can also have their own more progressive laws, then outside the city. Cities in California have done this with regards to pot, and or gay marriage. So even if states are more conservative, stoping the federal monopoly on government, allows for a system where even cities can have different laws than the state..... Cities and states would be motivated to change laws to be more progressive based on the marketplace and or really good activisism at the LOCAL level. BTW, I am moving from Utah to Cali because of the more progressive laws in Cali. So try to stick to principle and stop trying to think that you can group me into some box. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:07:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1acda3a9-c308-48b3-bd0c-56ce3247e856 noiz23 2008-01-13T02:07:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1f2578dc-ed9f-488e-bf56-63e4ddb2cd98 > Bush actually kept more than average. This much seems to be true, if barely. Bush kept 5 of 92, compared to Reagan and Clinton's 4. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:46:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1f2578dc-ed9f-488e-bf56-63e4ddb2cd98 embersandsparks 2008-01-13T01:46:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#56363db0-358f-47e3-8cdf-1c4e1087d370 @Lamb: This seems to disprove your statement "First thing Clinton did was have Janet Reno fire every single US Attorney." From Wikipedia ( I know, I know... feel free to augment with other sources): ********************************************************************* Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[69] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[70][71][70] A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."[72] In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[70][71] Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:29:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#56363db0-358f-47e3-8cdf-1c4e1087d370 embersandsparks 2008-01-13T00:29:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2c7a20b7-6bed-400d-a0ff-ea582c867e21 > Actually, no. It has never been done before or since to fire every single one of them at once Hm, the analysis I've seen/heard (mostly npr and web-media) contradicts this statement directly. Do you have a reference you could cite? Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:17:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2c7a20b7-6bed-400d-a0ff-ea582c867e21 embersandsparks 2008-01-13T00:17:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c70fc71a-1978-4ee0-b4e5-f41c7542e519 Need a link for your test, CJ. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:58:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c70fc71a-1978-4ee0-b4e5-f41c7542e519 Kelly 2008-01-12T23:58:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ede24377-37aa-435e-8b8f-87ffc5199748 all freedom for all teh people equally all the time. take this test, Kelly. please let us know how you did... I got Ron Paul, then Mcain.... Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:54:11 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ede24377-37aa-435e-8b8f-87ffc5199748 Chicken 2008-01-12T23:54:11Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2a134d81-249d-446b-bcd7-cf34238b28bb Sorry Noiz, you're just sounding loony at this point, and it's clear to me that you're just motivated by the idea that you might get a few more liberties yourself and fuck everybody else. It's the type of selfishness that seems ingrained in the American Libertarian Party and why I think they're a basically useless group. <If Texas as a people want to outlaw gay sex, then they should have that right as a state. > There it is right there. Here's a concept for you: Anyone who believes ANY government - state, federal, whatever - has the right to make private acts of sex and intimacy between consenting a crime doesn't believe in liberty at all, regardless of whether or not they call themselves "libertarian" or not. How would you react if a church of straight-hating gay people came to power in your state and passed a law so they could throw you in jail for being with your girlfriend? Can you honestly tell us that you would regard that as their right? <Move to Cali then...if you lived in Cali, what kinds of freedoms would you have? More than with the Federal govt." See, I just say fuck that shit. As I said earlier to Chicken John, trading the freedom of other people so you can maybe enjoy more of your own is the devil's bargain. Oh yeah, it's so easy: choose between your freedom or your home, family, and friends - easy for some straight white guy who'd never have to make that choice to pretend, that is. And if you employer decides to transfer you to Atlanta or Dallas or Boise, well, then you get to choose between economic livelihood and liberty. But that's all fine for folks like Noiz because they don't imagine they'll ever be to be faced with that choice. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:35:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2a134d81-249d-446b-bcd7-cf34238b28bb Kelly 2008-01-12T20:35:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#de78f012-7845-49c0-9db6-744a6daa2d3c Janet Reno was a horrible mistake.When she left for Washington, I remember thinking "at least she wont be around to screw shit up for Floridians anymore". She railroaded people into prison and was a general nuisance while in Miami. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#de78f012-7845-49c0-9db6-744a6daa2d3c margaret 2008-01-12T20:24:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0cd566a5-120e-4f17-b937-8b5131a536ab >>Does anyone find it as ridiculous as I do that this supposed libertarian personal-responsibility guy is making such lame excuses about all the vile shit in his newsletters?<< He was either being lazy or perhaps pandering to the people doling out the money. The whole "scandal" is as silly as condemning Hilary for being a Goldwater Girl ages ago. Unless you think that Ron Paul's policies are mean to purposefully harm minorities and benefit white people. That would be a different matter and certainly an important one. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:22:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0cd566a5-120e-4f17-b937-8b5131a536ab margaret 2008-01-12T20:22:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fb242559-ecbf-4acb-9ce8-7c802c970a80 Actually, no. It has never been done before or since to fire every single one of them at once and completely stack the deck. It is normal to get rid of some of the more obvious political hacks but never very many. Bush actually kept more than average. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:18:54 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fb242559-ecbf-4acb-9ce8-7c802c970a80 Lambchop 2008-01-12T20:18:54Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#73b35b6c-ed10-46fc-becc-3013dd751c05 >>free market<< You live in the marketplace. It's your choice whether you want it to be free or totalitarian or somewhere in between. In my experience, the more totalitarian it is the worse it is for all involved except for those who control the monopoly. The libertarians merely want to live in a freer society than you do. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:16:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#73b35b6c-ed10-46fc-becc-3013dd751c05 margaret 2008-01-12T20:16:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8e876f11-365f-4001-8fcb-d8e61c5c1a01 Kelly, Well, I'm not completely wrong on this. The fact that Paul as President would be able to pardon all persons who were prosecuted at the Federal level. Furthermore, the biggest road block from states changing their drugs laws is the federal government. Change the federal government position and allow states to have more direct local control is somehow bad??? please!!!! He's already stated that he thinks that the Federal Govt. should not be going against the wishes of people of California. The same would go any other type of rights, be them gay rights, etc.... He was against the Lawerance Vs. Texas not because of his own personal homosexual beliefs, but because he believes in states rights. If Texas as a people want to outlaw gay sex, then they should have that right as a state. Move to Cali then. By allowing states rights, progressives states can set up their own laws, some would be more conservative and some more progressive, but atleast we'd allow each of our voices have more influence. On the national level, I think that it's sick that we allow such issues to become wedge issues when we face so many bigger issues. If you want to live in a red state or blue state so beit. go live in the state which aligns more directly with your beliefs. Just think if the federal government was out of the business of marriage and drugs, if you lived in Cali, what kinds of freedoms would you have? More than with the Federal govt. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:25:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8e876f11-365f-4001-8fcb-d8e61c5c1a01 noiz23 2008-01-12T19:25:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ee304d31-c197-4690-b4a2-96671b488f0b <Ron Paul Would Free the Most Black Men since Lincoln> Sorry there Noiz23, but you are completely wrong about this. Yes, RP is against our idiot War on Drugs. But he wants to take the Feds out of it and leave it to the states, as he does about most things. That doesn't mean become legal, it means that the states will be putting people in jail, not the Feds. You point out yourself that "America has approximately 262,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges" that's STATE prison -RP wouldn't free a single one of them. Paul believes that a state has the right to put you in jail for giving or getting a blowjob - why do you believe he doesn't think a state has the right to lock up your stoner ass for smoking a joint? And while we're talking about misconceptions about RP, here's a biggie you posted earlier: <If we all were truly libertarian, no one would care if you were homosexual or if you were married in a church, cause marriage is removed from the government sphere...The Bill Moyer Interview with Ron Paul last night is one of the best examples of how Paul not being gay, would honor and protect your right to express your freedom as you see fit. > If you were telling the truth you would be saying "would honor and protect your right to express your freedom as you see fit unless you're a gay person wanting to make love to your partner, in which case the state has the right to lock you up." The idea that man who so adamantly opposed the Supreme Court's decision on Lawrence vs. Texas (which I referenced above) would in any way protect the rights of gay people is so far from anything resembling reality it's just farcical. Seriously folks, anyone who thinks a president who pushed an agenda of States Rights would result in a net gain of liberty for the U.S. is just delusional to the extreme - and is deluded in a way particular to straight white people who've never experienced real discrimination. (And yes, I know our most eloquent RP supporter Chicken John isn't of entirely white/European ancestry, but he also stated quite explicitly that he's never met a racist, which therefore means he's never experienced racial prejudice against him.) Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:14:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ee304d31-c197-4690-b4a2-96671b488f0b Kelly 2008-01-12T08:14:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7ed15ed1-55d4-455d-a829-2767f96bf9d0 I'd be all for a Kucinich/Paul ticket, because I think that Paul would give valuable support from the right to Kucinich for ending the Iraq War and the War on Civil Liberties Disguised as Drugs, but wouldn't be have the power to enact any of his Christofascist/Free Market Fundie States' Rights fantasies - I really don't think he'd have anywhere near the power of ol' Darth Cheney as VP. And very importantly, he'd be 74 when taking office as VP, so by the time a VP traditionally runs for the #1 spot, he'd be too old to be viable. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:34:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7ed15ed1-55d4-455d-a829-2767f96bf9d0 Kelly 2008-01-12T07:34:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#828e9a1e-3a5f-49c5-926a-b1c1a6e5dd85 Actually there Lambchop, it's normal for presidents to bring in a new slate of US attorneys when taking office - it's the same as bringing in new department heads and a new cabinet - Dubya did the same thing when he first took office and no one batted an eyelash. The scandal on the part of the shithead-in-chief now disgracing the White House is that he fired 8 (not five) US attorneys in the middle of his term for blatantly political reasons - they weren't willing to bend the law in favor of the Rethugs and go after Dubya's political enemies, so he threw them out and replaced them with apparatchiks who were more concerned with sucking Cheney's asshole than enforcing the law. THAT's the scandal. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:28:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#828e9a1e-3a5f-49c5-926a-b1c1a6e5dd85 Kelly 2008-01-12T07:28:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dc8ba500-aefa-4d6a-86a0-62ba5e9834fe Why a biscuit? Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:30:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dc8ba500-aefa-4d6a-86a0-62ba5e9834fe Jason 2008-01-12T05:30:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#27c6fdb7-38d4-4b4b-ad13-ec28741fab33 oh, and fuck ron paul with a biscuit. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:21:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#27c6fdb7-38d4-4b4b-ad13-ec28741fab33 Lambchop 2008-01-12T04:21:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3a7eec07-d37f-4c54-840a-89aed0c55c1e First thing Clinton did was have Janet Reno fire every single US Attorney. Then he got the FBI security files on every single White House staffer going back to Reagan. So he got all the dirt on all the Republicans and had a stacked the DoJ with 100% Clinton appointees (and they bitched when Bush fired something like five of them. What a laugh!). The Clintons are so smarmy, it is going to be a pleasure to have someone a little damp behind the ears like Obama in office as long as he doesn't sell the country down the river like Carter did. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:19:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3a7eec07-d37f-4c54-840a-89aed0c55c1e Lambchop 2008-01-12T04:19:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#19fca99f-c543-40a3-ba01-b8e672b4254b Kelly It's my experience that libertarians typically aren't logical thinkers. Think about it, the whole free market deus ex machina thing is a fairy tale. Once they've swallowed that, there's no end to the number of wacky beliefs they can entertain. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:10:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#19fca99f-c543-40a3-ba01-b8e672b4254b Crypto 2008-01-12T04:10:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fce3becb-76c5-4002-8e78-aaf6d3c4690e Does anyone find it as ridiculous as I do that this supposed libertarian personal-responsibility guy is making such lame excuses about all the vile shit in his newsletters? I mean, this isn't just one letter, this is multiple missives full of the most disgusting racist and homophobic shit that went out for what seems to be quite a period of time, and Paul's claiming that he's totally not responsible, that he didn't read his own newsletters - which are SUPPOSED to be for the purpose of explaining a congressman's views and actions to his constituents - and that he has NO idea who wrote them. Gee, so much for personal responsibility, let alone the radical self-reliance our RP fans here like to claim is one of the virtues he espouses. Sorry, that's just fucking LAME, and It seems to me that the fact that his supporters want to just unquestioningly accept his excuses and sweep the whole thing under the rug is just part of a pattern of wanting to ignore his staggering number of flaws and hypocracies. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:04:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fce3becb-76c5-4002-8e78-aaf6d3c4690e Kelly 2008-01-12T04:04:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a72def33-32e7-47f0-a1dd-c22646b09452 "That's interesting. There was a time when Presidents would have members of the opposing party in cabinet positions. Seems those days are gone." W's secretary of transportation is a Dem, as far as I know....none of Clinton's cabinet members were repubs. Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:07:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a72def33-32e7-47f0-a1dd-c22646b09452 Jason 2008-01-12T02:07:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f29e0f06-f803-43a3-99f6-5e571422bc8a >>Burners for Osama Bin Laden I just don't see RP in Playa fur and Blinkys. I don't think he can pull it off. I'm sticking with RuPaul!!!<< I chopped up a Ron Paul '88 sticker to read Ru Paul 88. It is amazing to see that they both have hung around for 20 years. dont think he was quite a total draq queen back then (Ru not Ron). I remember him being more of "sex freak from outer space"--so he'd totally would have fit in with the blinky crowd. Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:53:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f29e0f06-f803-43a3-99f6-5e571422bc8a margaret 2008-01-11T22:53:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dfdb4a74-a9ca-42e5-854b-5d5153842389 >>btw, what do hillbillies have to do with this?<< I was referring back to the "redneck" spammers who are spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" email. Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:49:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dfdb4a74-a9ca-42e5-854b-5d5153842389 margaret 2008-01-11T22:49:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5f4a2104-f754-41bd-9670-fa4166d71559 That's interesting. There was a time when Presidents would have members of the opposing party in cabinet positions. Seems those days are gone. Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:39:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5f4a2104-f754-41bd-9670-fa4166d71559 Bobzilla 2008-01-11T20:39:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#98aa12d1-7e48-4e08-9c96-71651c80262c Kucinich favors Paul as running mate Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:00:50 Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich lauds Congressman Ron Paul, suggesting he may be exactly what the next US administration needs. Kucinich said the libertarian-leaning Republican can provoke debate on important issues to help America strengthen its position. When asked who he would choose as his running mate if nominated, the Democrat mentioned Ron Paul describing him as a person of integrity, vision, and courage. He then pointed to the glass etching of the American eagle in the US House of Representatives and said the administration is also in need of two wings to fly, a right wing and a left wing. Kucinich said his foreign policy is very similar to that of Ron Paul's, adding that he does not want his party to just represent unilateral politics. Democrat candidate Dennis Kucinich, who opposed the war authorization bill five years ago, has repeatedly warned against launching a military attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38222&sectionid=3510203 Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:14:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#98aa12d1-7e48-4e08-9c96-71651c80262c noiz23 2008-01-11T20:14:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8ebe970-7f8b-4dce-aa7a-865f43788235 Ron Paul Would Free the Most Black Men since Lincoln America has approximately 262,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges, more than 70 percent of which are black or Latino. That means over 183,000 black and Latino citizens are serving time for non-violent drug offenses. " Recent data indicates that African Americans make up 15% of the country’s drug users, yet they comprise 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense." One can argue with the cause, is it racial, is it socio-economic? But what you can not debate is the reality. Black Americans are incarcerated disproportionately to White Americans for drug crimes. No candidate other than Paul is even discussing this issue. Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:12:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8ebe970-7f8b-4dce-aa7a-865f43788235 noiz23 2008-01-11T20:12:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#01a336ed-17d9-4344-9e50-f55227c4c129 Then I really can fly! Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:41:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#01a336ed-17d9-4344-9e50-f55227c4c129 Crypto 2008-01-11T18:41:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#44179aa4-00d8-456d-8728-2a3e426350f3 Ron Paul is no Jesse Ventura. I'd vote for Jesse of Paul anyday. Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:49:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#44179aa4-00d8-456d-8728-2a3e426350f3 ~:B:~ 2008-01-11T17:49:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#06924696-4cd4-4d1e-a6b7-df9144a1a1af I just don't see RP in Playa fur and Blinkys. I don't think he can pull it off. I'm sticking with RuPaul!!! KK Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:00:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#06924696-4cd4-4d1e-a6b7-df9144a1a1af Kamikaze 2008-01-11T14:00:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#70f1b626-acb7-4b53-89ca-ba2fc13304c4 Ron Paul could still win the nomination and The Presidency. The numbers are out there if large numbers of (live no dead) citizens choose to go to the polls and vote. Ron knows that he is a part of a major paradine political shift back to the future, and that his success is part of a movement that may not be complete yet. Look how in one political season years ago Ross Parole and Jesse Ventura defied the pundents and caused the defeat of the establishment candidate. Anything is possible in America. Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:44:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#70f1b626-acb7-4b53-89ca-ba2fc13304c4 Beach 2008-01-11T13:44:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e90363e0-b2dc-4544-8e55-790c19e1552e So how do you think RP did in the debates tonight? Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:09:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e90363e0-b2dc-4544-8e55-790c19e1552e Jason 2008-01-11T05:09:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d605369-a6b9-4788-8335-68ce7831791a >>That question has gone long unanswered in political circles. Unless it's somebody interesting, we may never know And obviously after all this time, it's not that important to Ron Paul. Whatever. He's not going to be president, and we all know this. btw, what do hillbillies have to do with this? Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:01:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d605369-a6b9-4788-8335-68ce7831791a ~:B:~ 2008-01-11T01:01:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#249fdfbe-2336-40ca-98f3-91a993b9cdc0 >>I lived during the fucking 1980s and it was more a part of the panic than demonstrated scientific fact.<< But it was the medical establishment that kept pushing that panic button. Remember dental dams for oral sex? What a waste of getting laid that was. And, I still remember when they were calling it the "gay cancer". The establishment pushed the saliva theory until they noticed it didn't really pan out. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:30:40 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#249fdfbe-2336-40ca-98f3-91a993b9cdc0 margaret 2008-01-10T22:30:40Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#95876b6c-0231-4db6-aed4-46106ee9cf04 >>Then who did write them? (not: The Who did write them!) Althought, that would be funny to find out that The Who is behind Ron Paul's demise.<< Ha ha. I'm going to start linking to this page and see if there are as many hillbillies who fall for that. That question has gone long unanswered in political circles. Unless it's somebody interesting, we may never know. What's more important is whether Ron Paul being a racist (assuming that he is) would negatively affect people. He wants to end US imperialism and unnecessary foreign wars. Since minorities tend to join the armed forces in greater proportions, it would certainly help minorities not to go off and die or get maimed in some foreign land. Economically, he believes his policies would increase overall wealth which would benefit everybody (though it might benefit white males the most). But, he also wants to stave off immigration. This would hurt people wanting to come in, but it would be a boon to those already here, so that's a wash. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:46:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#95876b6c-0231-4db6-aed4-46106ee9cf04 margaret 2008-01-10T22:46:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#36290922-9b90-4fd8-9347-50d8f33d3e56 Ron Paul is an ass monkey. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:28:40 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#36290922-9b90-4fd8-9347-50d8f33d3e56 Lambchop 2008-01-10T22:28:40Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4cfc56c7-c7e5-4ff2-b866-0edf51eb6d47 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:26:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4cfc56c7-c7e5-4ff2-b866-0edf51eb6d47 Bobzilla 2008-01-10T22:26:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#95436d04-c0c5-4b98-9d05-fc989cab191c Then who did write them? (not: The Who did write them!) Althought, that would be funny to find out that The Who is behind Ron Paul's demise. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:58:45 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#95436d04-c0c5-4b98-9d05-fc989cab191c ~:B:~ 2008-01-10T19:58:45Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b05811e0-170e-4025-89dc-036cb9e72e16 the who DID write them??? I want names. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:49:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b05811e0-170e-4025-89dc-036cb9e72e16 ~:B:~ 2008-01-10T19:49:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42ff93e6-5774-4057-858c-11a6b06ddbdf I lived during the fucking 1980s and it was more a part of the panic than demonstrated scientific fact. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:28:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#42ff93e6-5774-4057-858c-11a6b06ddbdf Crypto 2008-01-10T19:28:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5f14a34b-3727-4747-9d2e-fed330b0e51a so did I.............but we were collectively wrong I find the "radical self reliance" motto that gets tossed about by this crew to be ironic at this point.......... scared to death of the personal freedoms we were once guaranteed Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:24:27 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5f14a34b-3727-4747-9d2e-fed330b0e51a glennzzz 2008-01-10T18:24:27Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#58e6a579-559c-46e9-bed6-efcc5db5ba14 Again, Ron Paul didn't write those "nuggets". This is the same kind of gossip-mongering that is fueling the "Obama is a Muslim" emails. I expect burners to be a little swifter than rednecks. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:05:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#58e6a579-559c-46e9-bed6-efcc5db5ba14 margaret 2008-01-10T18:05:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6ea80e5a-2c87-4f3d-a0c2-9b72f2bcf62b >><"AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false> the fact that this man was allowed to practice medicine scares me.<< This was considered a medical fact in the 1980s, btw. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:53:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6ea80e5a-2c87-4f3d-a0c2-9b72f2bcf62b margaret 2008-01-10T17:53:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d45a2634-0794-405e-80df-d7e510f7991d http://s165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/mosco_wino/glitter/?action=view&current=birthday6.gif Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:20:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d45a2634-0794-405e-80df-d7e510f7991d Brande 2008-01-10T07:20:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9678efba-68ad-4e82-9664-f20250930af8 http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/mosco_wino/glitter/birthday6.gif Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:19:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9678efba-68ad-4e82-9664-f20250930af8 Brande 2008-01-10T07:19:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ef08b8e7-5269-4810-99bb-bb66e8bc56ec <a href="http://s165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/mosco_wino/glitter/?action=view&current=birthday6.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/mosco_wino/glitter/birthday6.gif" border="0" alt="happy birthday"></a> Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:19:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ef08b8e7-5269-4810-99bb-bb66e8bc56ec Brande 2008-01-10T07:19:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#076badf6-ba96-4412-bc5f-52a534f19307 [IMG]http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/mosco_wino/glitter/birthday6.gif[/IMG] Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:18:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#076badf6-ba96-4412-bc5f-52a534f19307 Brande 2008-01-10T07:18:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c9ccb722-65ae-408c-8f20-887fad7e6691 God..... the Personal Freedom crowd of Burningman........ Straight back to Godwins law of Tribe eh.......... The old strawman....... if you don't understand, are too lazy to investigate, scared of losing whatever government teat you're sucking on..... Say the magic word Say the magic word Click your heels three times and Say the magic word he is a Racist...... You'll feel better I promise.......... Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:00:10 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c9ccb722-65ae-408c-8f20-887fad7e6691 glennzzz 2008-01-10T07:00:10Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c8870dd8-2560-4333-86da-ae4a75d98120 >I don't see any real "honest" politicians to vote for. < The problem, of course, is that if there was an honest politician that espoused your views, they would never be elected in this country. Let's face it, most people don't think like you do. <This is all a projection of my feelings, actually, and has nothing to do with this poster. It may be educational none the less. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:10:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c8870dd8-2560-4333-86da-ae4a75d98120 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-10T03:10:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#503055c4-b80c-4be4-9f7e-97b1218e988d <"AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false> the fact that this man was allowed to practice medicine scares me. Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:03:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#503055c4-b80c-4be4-9f7e-97b1218e988d Crypto 2008-01-10T03:03:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#221dcaf5-a35b-4cab-bdc2-4acd4bd7bc4a Take his racist quiz! http://blogs.houstonpress.com/houstoned/2007/12/the_ron_paul_racist_quiz.php Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:33:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#221dcaf5-a35b-4cab-bdc2-4acd4bd7bc4a Fishbits 2008-01-09T22:33:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#940273aa-2b53-4df7-8353-dbd096ed3bcc not my words... found this on other site... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ For the record here's a couple of nice Ron Paul nuggets: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."... "Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday. Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community." "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom....." Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:31:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#940273aa-2b53-4df7-8353-dbd096ed3bcc Fishbits 2008-01-09T22:31:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#25db832e-7c5e-4246-b563-2275edc715b8 >I don't see any real "honest" politicians to vote for. It seems like such a farce, this whole Presidential Campaine. Where are the healthy (in >body, mind & soul) politicians? Tell me..... Dennis Kucinich. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:13:44 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#25db832e-7c5e-4246-b563-2275edc715b8 Bobzilla 2008-01-09T22:13:44Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#86abb487-ef2e-4f7d-a8b7-bf7021324288 Wow. Did you bother reading this thread before repeating this nonsense? Ron Paul didn't write this nor approved these statements. He is sorry that other people used his name to spread their own filth. The New Republic is a **pro-war publication**. They are printing these statements NOW--even though they were dismissed a long time ago--because they want to destroy the candidate they see as most likely ending the Iraq War and preventing the Iran War, the Pakistan War, the Syrian war and any other war I may have left out that the people at the New Republic would like to see happen. You fell for a very old political trick. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:48:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#86abb487-ef2e-4f7d-a8b7-bf7021324288 margaret 2008-01-09T21:48:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#24442748-d340-47c4-9574-0e0ba42e6f38 The New Republic today dug up more of Ron Paul's loathsome old newsletters. They are almost unimaginably offensive and no one is immune as the newsletters attack gays, blacks and Jews with equal relish. From the lengthy New Republic post: The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick." Referring to a one-time movement by black activists to rename New York City after Martin Luther King, the newsletter suggests these alternative names: Welfaria, Zooville, Rapetown, Dirtburg, and Lazyopolis. These latest revelations will surely be the end of Ron Paul, no matter how he tries to spin the authorship of these pieces. And just last night I watched in disgust as Paul received a fawning reception from Jay Leno on the Tonight Show. For his part, Ron Paul endorser Andrew Sullivan isn't convinced that Paul wrote the pieces, saying, "Do these sound like Ron Paul to you? I've listened to him speak a great deal these past few months and either he has had a personality transplant or he didn't write this." Sullivan adds, "I've supported Paul for what I believe are honorable reasons: his brave resistance to the enforced uniformity of opinion on the Iraq war, his defense of limited constitutional government, his libertarianism, his sincerity. If there is some other agenda lurking beneath all this, we deserve to know. It's up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past." What an "ugly, vile, despicable" place we've come to when a man like Ron Paul is the top recipient of Republican campaign donations. Just when you think we've hit rock bottom, somebody digs another hole. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:32:48 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#24442748-d340-47c4-9574-0e0ba42e6f38 Penfold 2008-01-09T16:32:48Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ade7a13-e1ae-4eda-9f4b-3f1cc566f9a9 he might eat dead animal flesh though... i hope not... or if he does... i'd like to think it's just to keep up appearances til he wins. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:13:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ade7a13-e1ae-4eda-9f4b-3f1cc566f9a9 davidsjelly 2008-01-09T16:13:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e3d54f23-52f4-44dc-9cc5-ceec4eeee0f8 seems honest. humanly so. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:03:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e3d54f23-52f4-44dc-9cc5-ceec4eeee0f8 davidsjelly 2008-01-09T16:03:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#178301f6-7a8b-4ac3-90b4-09fc8dee4ac8 I don't see any real "honest" politicians to vote for. It seems like such a farce, this whole Presidential Campaine. Where are the healthy (in body, mind & soul) politicians? Tell me..... Ron Paul seemed too good to be true, because he is prepared to stand up against the Federal Reserve and International Bankers. But I am pro-choice. I support women's issues, gay rights and I certainly support illegal immigrants. Sooo..... I am disillusioned. The world and it's political powers do not feel righteous to me. I vote for Earth. I vote for the Universe. I vote for Peace. I vote for Love. I vote for freedom and creative expression. I vote for Time as Art - not money. I vote for Communal-ism. xo Lana Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:58:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#178301f6-7a8b-4ac3-90b4-09fc8dee4ac8 Lana 2008-01-09T15:58:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d697e2cc-38e2-48c1-90f7-5f70602d53a1 doesn't he vote against choice? or am i misinformed? Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:25:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d697e2cc-38e2-48c1-90f7-5f70602d53a1 davidsjelly 2008-01-09T15:25:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7cd4781f-0fe6-4e1e-89f0-30a436f99736 "but it is sure interesting reading exactly what he says." ummmm... guys.... it's not exactly what he says. He didn't even say it. So it's not what he said, not "exactly" what he said or even what he would mean to get his very clear, very consistant point across. You guys are talking about a few sentences over the career of a guy who talks constantly. That they had to dig that much to get a few sentences that "imply" racism is something to consider. But who cares if he's a racist. Or was one. Or will be one. It's none of our business. Look at how he has voted as a Congressman, consistantly. His votes are not the votes of someone showing predjudice. His votes are not votes of discrimination. His votes are calibrated with liberty for the citizens of the USA. Because there is some bullshit on a few websites looking to sell banner ads doesn't mean you condemn a man. Again, I remind you that I ran for mayor and someone put up these websites: www.dontvoteforchicken.com www. chickenjohn.org http://www.chickenjohnformayor.org/ someone went out of their way to put up lies and bend my words out of context because they didn't like the fact that I was trying to get public financing to run for mayor. So they lied. They exagerrated my weak points. They tried to make it look like I was untrust-worthy. Tried to make it look like I was a scumbag. Other newspapers quoted them. It worked, to a degree. He started getting his websites to come up on google hits searching for chicken john. Thankfully, I had no intention to win and it was all just very funny. You must not beleive the convience that the media offers you. You should trust people who have been following Ron Paul for 20 years or more. Real people, here in your community. Friends. Saying Ron Paul "is VERY RACIST" is a stupid thing to say. You mine as well say "I'm going to vote for whoever Dick Cheney tells me to". which would also be a very stupid thing to say. But since the media is controlled mostly by the machine that profits off the wars... then there really is no difference. That the media will evicerate Ron Paul is no shock. That "burners" will buy it is, unfortunatly, no shock either. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:15:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7cd4781f-0fe6-4e1e-89f0-30a436f99736 Chicken 2008-01-09T15:15:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d368162c-3e12-4121-80b9-570640372956 yeahreally Lana. what were you thinking? he's about an obvious a ringer i ever saw. distract enough folks from considering the best candidate while blaming it all on the media. Vote in your primaries and vote for the best written, best spoken, best voting, best appearing one who appears to be the most honest. please. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:55:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d368162c-3e12-4121-80b9-570640372956 davidsjelly 2008-01-09T14:55:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7c983b9d-d2b9-4a3a-808b-a85e8e0c1ad8 Yea.... I'm seriously humbled to the floor, dam. I didn't really look past the fact that he was ready to challenge the Federal Reserve/International Bankers. The Federal Reserve has no business being involved with US. I really thought that he held the same values as JFK and LINCOLN, but I was SOoooo wrong... shit. RON PAUL IS A RACIST MAN - His own news letters reveal his personality. http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf http://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf He is right about this though: >>>>>>> http://www.tnr.com/downloads/freedomApril1978.pdf ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Where are the honest good guys in politics these days???? Ron Paul I'm so sorry that I had energetically supported this man. I am humbled. Lesson's in spontaneity... jumping in the water too fast without looking at how deep the bottom is.... (shaking my head.....) jEEEEEEZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:39:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7c983b9d-d2b9-4a3a-808b-a85e8e0c1ad8 Lana 2008-01-09T14:39:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0bfcd35-b758-4419-9fd2-a6efb847ff59 > President J. Garfield said: "Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce". He was assassinated in Office. Not to mention that Herbert Hoover, under whose leadership the act creating the Fed was enacted, later described it's passage as the biggest mistake of his presidency and felt that a great evil had been perpetrated upon the American people. PS: "Money Masters" is FASCINATING, and well worth watching. Glad to see that it's up on YouTube. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:17:07 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0bfcd35-b758-4419-9fd2-a6efb847ff59 embersandsparks 2008-01-09T02:17:07Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#82568530-18a5-42c5-a1b8-3fe93579af0c >>but it is sure interesting reading exactly what he says. the links within that page i supplied are to PDFs of his actual newsletters.<< http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108 ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115 Copyright Business Wire 2008 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:42:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#82568530-18a5-42c5-a1b8-3fe93579af0c margaret 2008-01-08T23:42:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#07682d49-3e7d-4cc8-8be7-0ac32bd56643 I'm not surprised that the New Republic went after the strongest (only?) anti-war candidate. They've been pro-war for a long time. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703010014 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:36:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#07682d49-3e7d-4cc8-8be7-0ac32bd56643 margaret 2008-01-08T23:36:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#976f3048-11a5-4064-8c45-08a92079cc71 no doubt most of what happens in politics are taken out of context. but it is sure interesting reading exactly what he says. the links within that page i supplied are to PDFs of his actual newsletters. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:22:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#976f3048-11a5-4064-8c45-08a92079cc71 ~:B:~ 2008-01-08T22:22:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fdff6225-af6c-427d-9b2b-ffea2b7737ab I try not to read The New Republic.... Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:47:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fdff6225-af6c-427d-9b2b-ffea2b7737ab Jason 2008-01-08T21:47:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d8afe568-1a78-47f6-b655-e266936f8243 Quotes taken out of context mean nothing. He doesn't seem to be a narrow-minded racist. Try this example: "Welfare disgusts me. Foodstamps could be the worst thing I have ever heard of. " You can take these statements and twist them into me being a racist. I'm not a racist. Not only that, I don't discriminate and I'm not show prejudice. I appore welfare. And I talk tough about it. The website you list has run a hit piece. You can find them on any and all Presidental candidates. Actually, you can find them on any candidate for any office. The one you listed has as much clout as this one: www.dontvoteforchicken.com This is what happens when you become a public figure. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:46:14 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d8afe568-1a78-47f6-b655-e266936f8243 Chicken 2008-01-08T21:46:14Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5a32941e-1c5c-47bf-b765-de3aa7c3cbf3 http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 has anybody read this? Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:13:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5a32941e-1c5c-47bf-b765-de3aa7c3cbf3 ~:B:~ 2008-01-08T21:13:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ffc362ed-1e83-4310-a1a2-08f51f483c87 >>And one more thing, if we go back to the 'gold standard' are we going to outlaw private ownership of bullion again? Cause the US goverment can have my Kruggerands along with my gun when they....well you know the rest.<< I've got your back, tastily flavored beverage receptacle. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:40:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ffc362ed-1e83-4310-a1a2-08f51f483c87 margaret 2008-01-08T19:40:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#71f53591-dee1-42a8-bc96-615b7b5bac4a >>Both approaches are needed and I will agree that little has been done on controlling the costs by cutting services.<< You mean cutting cuts WITHOUT cutting services, right? Cause what I am talking about has nothing to do with cutting services. Actually, it should increase services. Most government regulation is about creating medical monopolies that benefit only the lobbies that ask for them. Much like the Mass "healthcare" trial appears to be about funneling money into the insurance companies. Sure, they sell it to you as better healthcare but the consequence, unintended or otherwise, is the creation of monopolies. The drug war for instance. It's supposed to be about making the world safer for you, but all it has done is give monopoly service to the drug companies on one end and the drug traffickers on the other. Plus, you have to pay and beg a doctor to medicate you (another monopoly), even if you already know what you need, and youre forced to endure higher street crime rates. Price caps aren't the answer either as that will surely eliminate services. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:36:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#71f53591-dee1-42a8-bc96-615b7b5bac4a margaret 2008-01-08T19:36:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4a6ab46c-d73c-4874-ad7d-24f75dd78b7f Brian!!!!!!!!! I demand that you get in here!!!!!! Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:14:07 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4a6ab46c-d73c-4874-ad7d-24f75dd78b7f Chicken 2008-01-08T19:14:07Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8419fe1e-a5c7-45a1-9846-8daa38bf5bca Interesting link.... Thx. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:09:27 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8419fe1e-a5c7-45a1-9846-8daa38bf5bca Lana 2008-01-08T19:09:27Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1b359fcb-acc6-4ff4-9b99-cdb033e2037d >The key is not to find a way to pay for it, but to find out why it's all so ridiculously expensive to begin with. It really doesn't have to be this pricey and complicated. < I am partially there as I certainly believe there are costs in the system that need to be eliminated that won't affect the amount or quantity of health care given. But there is the issue of paying for it as it is costing more partly because we expect more (fertility treatments are paid for as well as making sure ones penis gets hard) and we are requiring more services because of our lifestyles (obesity). And, we are also paying for a fair amount of folks to have inexpensive gardners and food pickers. Both approaches are needed and I will agree that little has been done on controlling the costs by cutting services. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:15:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1b359fcb-acc6-4ff4-9b99-cdb033e2037d Peter 2008-01-08T15:15:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7d18b5c2-8b78-4d97-8627-b802e113fc87 You don't have to take bets......but the Rothschilds are Jewish....I'm just sayin' Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:20:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7d18b5c2-8b78-4d97-8627-b802e113fc87 Jason 2008-01-08T12:20:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d232f44b-9946-471b-bc23-ca71ce9791fe anyone wanna take bets on whether the international bankers were jewish and held secret baby eating rites? Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:49:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d232f44b-9946-471b-bc23-ca71ce9791fe Crypto 2008-01-08T10:49:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f6400983-6c6b-44f6-a591-ecd2504f59a1 Zeitgiest kinda sucks..... Money Masters is much better... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=money%20masters&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:43:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f6400983-6c6b-44f6-a591-ecd2504f59a1 Jason 2008-01-08T08:43:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f8b781e1-a527-46a6-baa5-46164d4c2f02 Is it highly unlikely I will ever get to vote for Ron Paul, but he will probably be killed by the bankers if he does win? >The only two Presidents to EX out the Feds (International Bankers) and start printing US interest free notes were assassinated not long >after they did that. And one more thing, if we go back to the 'gold standard' are we going to outlaw private ownership of bullion again? Cause the US goverment can have my Kruggerands along with my gun when they....well you know the rest. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:34:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f8b781e1-a527-46a6-baa5-46164d4c2f02 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-08T08:34:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8b85a114-d1e3-4417-a16a-57264200f686 The Federal Reserve are made up of international Bankers. The International Bankers have been here for a VERY long time under different titles, but the same blood. President Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War, and the international bankers offered him loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln balked at their demands because he didn't want to plunge the nation into such a huge debt. Lincoln approached Congress about passing a law to authorize the printing of U.S. Treasury Notes. Lincoln said "We gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they ever had - their own paper money to pay their debts..." Lincoln printed over 400 million "Greenbacks" (debt and interest-free) and paid the soldiers, U.S. government employees, and bought war supplies. The international bankers didn't like it and wanted Lincoln to borrow the money from them, so that the American people would owe tremendous interest on the loan. Lincoln's solution made this seem ridiculous. Shortly after Lincoln's death, the government revoked the Greenback law which ended Lincoln's debt-free, interest-free money. A new national banking act was enacted and all currency became interest-bearing, debt instruments, again. Don't you think it's odd? Crypto, study the history of the Feds and their forefathers. The only two Presidents to EX out the Feds (International Bankers) and start printing US interest free notes were assassinated not long after they did that. Do you know much about the Federal Reserve? Perhaps you would learn a lot if you studied it's history. As far as the CIA, I was mainly refering to JFK. Here is a quote from Andrew Jackson, 7th U.S. President, 1829-1824 (before Lincoln) concerning the "Bankers": ""The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" Later he said "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..." Actually I was wrong, there were THREE presidents assassinated for opposing the "Bankers". James A. Garfield-(1831-1881) 20th President of the United States. President J. Garfield said: "Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce". He was assassinated in Office. Look at Napoleon Bonaparte-(1769-1821) Emperor of France(1804-1815). He had a free hand in Europe as long as he borrowed from the Bank of Rothschilds. When he quit borrowing he was attacked by the English. Napoleon, a sympathizer for the international bankers, turned against them in the last years of his rule. He said: "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvT4y2vBXzk <<<< International Bankers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ojn0HSETnw&feature=related <<<<< The Federal Reserve Truth Ron Paul on Legal Tender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:11:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8b85a114-d1e3-4417-a16a-57264200f686 Lana 2008-01-08T08:11:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6b41e1d6-17de-4acf-bdab-2ccaff57489a <At least Ron Paul is brave enough to OPPOSE the FEDERAL RESERVE. I can only think of two other presidents in history who were brave enough to do that:: JFK & LINCOLN.> Lincoln managed to oppose the Federal Reserve despite the fact it was formed almost 50 YEARS AFTER HE DIED!!! (How the CIA knew to assassinate him 1965 when they didn't know that it was going to be pertinent until 1913 or that they themselves were going to be formed--oh wait, it's the CIA, they have a time machine.) Carry on. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:36:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6b41e1d6-17de-4acf-bdab-2ccaff57489a Crypto 2008-01-08T06:36:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a686dc05-8dd6-4acb-928c-0c2ec891c603 At least Ron Paul is brave enough to OPPOSE the FEDERAL RESERVE. I can only think of two other presidents in history who were brave enough to do that:: JFK & LINCOLN. Unfortunately they were assassinated. WHY? Becasue they wanted to eliminate the CIA and the Federal Reserve. Their goal was to issue Treasury greenbacks (which don’t pay interest) in lieu of financing government deficits through the Federal Reserve. And they did, for a couple brief moments in history. President Kennedy pledged himself to America and did not care how the zeolous bankers of the Fed felt. JFK, like Lincoln in the 1860's. dared to have the U. S. Treasury issue U. S. Dollars, not Federal Reserve notes, and placed them into circulation without paying interest to any bankers, just as spelled out in the U. S. Constitution. I think Ron Paul is after the same thing. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:23:41 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a686dc05-8dd6-4acb-928c-0c2ec891c603 Lana 2008-01-08T06:23:41Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#db534774-c2ad-4a53-be67-c1eb7c387050 How about the teenager who wanted to switch to alternative medicine after chemo made him very ill? He and his parents had to sue the state of Virginia for *the state's* permision to dump the chemo. WTF?!?! They weren't even paying for it. http://hamptonroads.com/2007/12/teen-hodgkin%2526%2523039%3Bs-says-he-ending-year-high-note Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:01:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#db534774-c2ad-4a53-be67-c1eb7c387050 margaret 2008-01-08T01:01:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#43170f61-0dc1-4471-ae5f-a6a658b13fd9 Health care is not a right. Yea.. it's cost, but it would cost a whole lot less without Gov interference. My daughter is a kidney patient. She is on Medicare and Medical. No insurer will take her. She gets SSI and they take out $450 a month for Medicare. She just got her second kidney. Now, would she just die without Gov. coverage? Probably not. But maybe she would. Thousands die outside the US because of kidney disease, but then in India and China they transplant all the time with way lower costs. Her anti-rejection drugs cost over $3000 a month! Is that the drug companies? probably. Do they need to cost that much? probably not. I'd like to think that doing away with Gov medical mandates and coverage would open up care and increase charity hospitals, but then I don't know what would really happen. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:59:21 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#43170f61-0dc1-4471-ae5f-a6a658b13fd9 Donna 2008-01-06T22:59:21Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e5b78bc9-c42f-44e4-97e2-ede3ea9268f3 Another example to play with: I smoke. I drink. I do coke and eat all my meals at McDonalds. I yell at everyone all the time. I'm a miserable person. Your a vegan. You meditate. You eat organic. I shoot speed and share needles. I have unprotected, drunken sex with strangers. I ride my motorcycle drunk. You take mass transit and use dental floss. I've never been to a dentist and use my roomates toothbrush. So who's gonna be more of a burden to the state if we had socialized healthcare? Well, then... how do you feel about us paying the same amount, but me using the healthcare system 50 times more than you do? This is the arguement. Which is similar to the racist arguement that black people should pay more for car insurance because statisicly they get into more accidents. How can woman pay less for car insurance I don't know... but these are the arguements. Personally, I deviate from the Libertarian approach when it comes to healthcare. There are excellent examples of a healthcare system working just fine that we can replicate, and should. While doing important work protecting other exposed and at risk liberties. I also think gun control is a good idea, but only as a temperary measure. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:18:58 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e5b78bc9-c42f-44e4-97e2-ede3ea9268f3 Chicken 2008-01-06T22:18:58Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a2b1a03b-bee9-4790-b8b9-d1951ad7a63d >>I am glad that they are taking steps to try something. Don't know if it will work or not but at least there is an experiment and we will find out. As to the notion of 'forcing everyone to buy health insurance whether they want it or need it', you can't have a system that provides a service without having everyone pay into it. Socialized medicine would just shift those costs via tax increases, everyone still pays. I'm not saying health care costs aren't out of control, what I am saying it this is the first state to take an approach at doing something different, an experiment.<< Experimentation is great. But lets be honest. Are you okay with Texas, Mississippi and Florida "experimenting" with removing healthcare access to the poor? It doesn't sound like it. Maybe if I didn't have to pay for someone else's ER healthcare I could afford my own. If we are expecting everyone to get healthcare in some way or another, I'm still going to be subsidizing healthcare for the poor whether it's through openly socialized medicine or this insurance company handout in Massachusetts. Trust me, I'm not rich in any stretch of the imagination. The key is not to find a way to pay for it, but to find out why it's all so ridiculously expensive to begin with. It really doesn't have to be this pricey and complicated. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:29:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a2b1a03b-bee9-4790-b8b9-d1951ad7a63d margaret 2008-01-06T17:29:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#00d30641-07a6-4153-8a6b-1041cbd82c9a Is this somehow related to Godwin's Law? Unfortunately, I think Rob just invoked Quirk's Exception. *slaps head* Doh! I can't believe I just joined this tribe again! Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:25:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#00d30641-07a6-4153-8a6b-1041cbd82c9a *Doll*Parts* 2008-01-06T06:25:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#16f21905-572e-49c5-ae75-29d8cd5c4821 Actually I just cited abortion as a minor example. Not my problem if that got past you. **shrugs** It was Chicken John who brought abortion into this thread with: "Ron Paul is the only person to even address the abortion issue in the election cycle." and "a medical doctor who has birthed 4,000 babies. The abortion issue is HUGE. That he delivered babies is paramount.". I could really care less that anybody following this huckster thinks I'm factually correct or not. I stand by my statements and apparently the voting public agrees with me. Now back to your regularly scheduled name calling... Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:43:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#16f21905-572e-49c5-ae75-29d8cd5c4821 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-06T05:43:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#302e3281-f0b4-4a12-8bf6-59c1747c97da Eddie, Your answer was factually dissapointing. You say Ron Paul "uses" the constitution to promote his own agenda, but in fact he has time and time again defended positions which he disagrees with personally............because of the constitution. You keep bringing up abortion as if it is the great litmus test. It should be a states rights issue, and even literate pro-choice advocates can in moments of frankness admit that roe v. wade is a rather poor piece of constitutional law. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:58:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#302e3281-f0b4-4a12-8bf6-59c1747c97da glennzzz 2008-01-06T04:58:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4b170ac9-c94f-45c4-92aa-9bbd0ef2f3bb Yep that's exactly it. You got me. ;-) BTW It's a secret ballot. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:11:08 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4b170ac9-c94f-45c4-92aa-9bbd0ef2f3bb $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-05T23:11:08Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b7f1e45a-16ad-494a-8623-3a959b9523f7 you should vote for whoever you fucking want to vote for. But you've not once posted who you would vote for, so I guess you are for the status quou? Let's only support people with ideas that are sold to us by big corporation..... let's never support an underdog, cause we only want to support the winners..... Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:07:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b7f1e45a-16ad-494a-8623-3a959b9523f7 noiz23 2008-01-05T23:07:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d9fdf4f-5ba6-403f-b77f-940d01ff1f47 Matthew, Burning Man is a libertarian type of society. It's as realistic as we choose to make it. If you keep buying into the mainstream notion that we can't change for the better than why even try. One of the biggest issues I've seen in my personal activism is when special interest only want to protect their own rights. Gay rights for gays, but hell with polygamist, or pro-legalization. Paul basing is argument on libertarian principles applies those same ideas of freedom across the board from economic to morality. We are individuals first and formost and this alone gives us rights of freedom, not cause we are a member of some minority cause. If we all were truly libertarian, no one would care if you were homosexual or if you were married in a church, cause marriage is removed from the government sphere. The Bill Moyer Interview with Ron Paul last night is one of the best examples of how Paul not being gay, would honor and protect your right to express your freedom as you see fit. The video is posted below in one of my other posts. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:03:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6d9fdf4f-5ba6-403f-b77f-940d01ff1f47 noiz23 2008-01-05T23:03:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#34b1a042-def3-48f6-b832-6ee780338fa6 So I should vote for him because Kucinich who would never be elected either backs him? Ya that makes sense. What was I thinking?? Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:03:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#34b1a042-def3-48f6-b832-6ee780338fa6 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-05T23:03:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#99df82c4-c69c-4165-b300-7158d439d9ed what is a flim flam man eddie? did you just make that up? Skewed view of history, maybe, but are you telling me that the mainstream view is right? Don't the victors always write history? He uses the constitution to promote his own agenda? He's continually bucked the GOP when it comes to many issues which he believes are unconstitutional....in his 1998 run for the house, he had all the republican establishment backing a former democrate, turned repbulican to run against him in the primaries. He's not in bed with special interest or afraid to stand on principle regardless of the mainstream party. Asked who Kucinich would have as a VP, he named Ron Paul. Asked if Ron Paul wasn't running, who he'd support, and Paul said Kucinich. Amazing how many progressives can see beyond the wedge issues and really look at the heart of a candadite like Paul. Further, he's always been against the Patriot Act and said that he'd work to have it removed as law...working with Democrats would make that very easy thing to do. Who do you have as an alternative Eddie? Who's going to get rid of the Patriot Act out right besides Paul or Kucinich? Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:56:11 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#99df82c4-c69c-4165-b300-7158d439d9ed noiz23 2008-01-05T22:56:11Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ea40d1e2-3ce0-4c47-b8d2-b00fbf425c8b > That these need to be mutually exclusive is a bit of balderdash. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive theories after all? I have a feeling that Falwell will be relieved to hear that he'll be joining Darwin in Purgatory rather than eternally shoveling coal into the furnaces of HELL. "Thank GOD... glennzz sez it's balderdash !" > Federalizing every issue creates divisiveness. Right.... no one was divided on slavery or segregation or seperation of church and state, etc etc before these issues were ruled upon at the federal level... puh-leeze. What brand of crack is it exactly that's selling on your corner? Have it tested, dude. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:38:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ea40d1e2-3ce0-4c47-b8d2-b00fbf425c8b embersandsparks 2008-01-05T22:38:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3846c45c-c1e8-4534-8137-3234c6a72403 I think he is a flim flam man personally and a poor one at that. He has a skewed view of history. He goes on and on about things he has no power to change at all. He uses the constitution to promote his own agenda. While I hate the abortion issue being brought up it is a great example of what is really going to happen. He is pro-life and claims roe v wade is unconstitutional. Yet he knows his only hope in changing abortion laws is to stack the Supreme Court with right wing pro-life judges. Now aside from abortion issue is this stacked Supreme Court going to be voting in my best interests when it comes to things like the Patriot Act? Does he have some good ideas? yes. Are his goals realistic in any way? no. Would changes he does have the power to make be in my best interests? no. Will his goals get this bogged down government working again? no. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:33:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3846c45c-c1e8-4534-8137-3234c6a72403 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-05T22:33:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f1ee828-3e69-4f85-8f7f-893d5636b73e Grumpy grumpy grumpy. Harump. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:16:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f1ee828-3e69-4f85-8f7f-893d5636b73e Chicken 2008-01-05T22:16:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8ee536e2-ca32-456d-af10-fabc0223e4b4 Ok Eddie We all get it. You think he has no chance............. But what do you think about Ron Paul?.............(your thoughts about his chances aside) You strike me as a grumpy/libertarian type....... Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:46:11 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8ee536e2-ca32-456d-af10-fabc0223e4b4 glennzzz 2008-01-05T21:46:11Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cef62932-c6c3-4315-8779-1dd4dcebec33 Clinton came in second in NH with 24%. All the polls showed him as a winner then the Gennifer Flowers incident broke days before the primary. Paul MAY be able to squeak in an extremely low third in the low teens. Comparing the two is a silly argument. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:45:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cef62932-c6c3-4315-8779-1dd4dcebec33 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-05T20:45:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a14c523c-5e5f-4285-a12b-a1e96a0cf453 one way of showing that you are really smart is not to allow wedge issues, especially one like you state below, rule who you'd be your president. there is no perfect candidate unless you were voting for yourself. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:26:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a14c523c-5e5f-4285-a12b-a1e96a0cf453 noiz23 2008-01-05T20:26:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ff32c2c-4809-4c26-8f6e-99175ba08e47 latest poll has him at 14% in NH... that is in a 6 person race, he'll get more than that come Tuesday. Ever see that Bill Clinton got 3% in Iowa in 92....and then only got 2nd place in NH. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:20:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ff32c2c-4809-4c26-8f6e-99175ba08e47 noiz23 2008-01-05T20:20:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ed1515cd-0039-496d-bf84-e35580910d7e Umm not sure where your looking but by on the rise do you mean he fell then is almost back to the extremely low number he had first? Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:45:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ed1515cd-0039-496d-bf84-e35580910d7e $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-05T19:45:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d4eb9b9a-7da8-4f75-a6da-218e939ca43a You'll bite? You were the first one to bring up the abortion issue in this thread and claimed it was important. At least have the sense to check what you have written first before going into another long winded story. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:41:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d4eb9b9a-7da8-4f75-a6da-218e939ca43a $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-05T19:41:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#15895c36-072a-49cb-9203-c89bbe8a80b5 Ron Paul is on the rise in the latest NH poll by Rasmussen http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Rep-Pres-Primary.php Regarding evolution or the abortion issue. Wouldn't it be great if we had a leader that didn't wear his personal religious views on his sleeves and actually lead by the constitution regarding the separation of state and church. That man is Ron Paul. Watch Bill Moyer's interview of Dr. Paul. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html Paul's honest message is about allowing states, and thus the individuals of each state to have more say in their lives vs. a small group of lobyst from either side control the national debate based on money.... All that I'd ask my burner family is to have an open mind in these times.... we need drastic changes in our national politics and Paul is asking questions that NO ONE ELSE is asking.... Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:26:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#15895c36-072a-49cb-9203-c89bbe8a80b5 noiz23 2008-01-05T19:26:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#35045c24-01e5-4867-b4d2-86bc2bc78c06 here here Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:35:39 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#35045c24-01e5-4867-b4d2-86bc2bc78c06 glennzzz 2008-01-05T09:35:39Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d1d92a44-80ec-4d26-98c9-5bca1c9c0597 OK, I'll bite on the abortion issue: Lets just say that I don't like Chinese people. For example. Lets say that I was beaten everyday as a child by a chinese person or something. And nothing anyone can do can make me like Chinese people. I just don't like them. I don't want to like them. The end. So lets say it was time to hire a new engineer in my company. 3 people apply for the job. One of them is Chinese. I tell my boss that I'm not the right guy to hire the new engineer. That someone else should be the one to look at the resumes and stuff. Because I don't like Chinese people and I'm not neutral. End of story. So do you hate me because I don't like Chinese people, or do you respect me because I know that my emotional angle is not shared by all the people and that it's likely illegal to not hire someone based on their ethincity and such... If you say that you hate me and that the company should fire me, this is intolerance. If you say you respect me for being honest, you are tolerating my racism. There is no law against dislike. Only hate. Predjudice and discrimination are actions. Racism is an idea. You can't "racist" someone. You can only show racism by your predjudice or by discriminating against someone. Flip it. Ron Paul beleives in little fairies or Jesus or Bigfoot. Whatever. He beleives that God wouldn't like woman to abort their fetus'. So he, if asked, would say that a woman shouldn't get an abortion. BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He has voted time and time and time again that it is not the Federal Government's business to say weather or not a woman has the right to choose. He does'nt think it's anyone's business in the federal government to make any descions about anything, when it comes to things that affect your liberties. He's a libertarian. It is a womans choice what she does with her body. Even if what she does with it is illegal, immoral, unruly, out of fashion or silly. If there would be a regulaion about this (which there of course should be, it's a medical proceedure... it needs to be done by doctors and such... it needs some regulation), it would be done on the state level. So in theory, a state could make abortion illegal. But it would be inconceiveable that all states would make it illegal. So Ron Paul may not want people to "get" abortions, but he isn't going to do anything that would "restrict" them from getting them. As a matter of fact, he would likely want people to have the education that would PREVENT the abortion from being needed in the first place, in some cases. In this post, I have eluded to the simple fact that Ron Paul has done something that is great. Greatness comes out of him. Simply stated, he put his political beleifs before his religious ones. He doesn't beleive in abortion, but when given the opportunity to vote to flip Roe vs Wade, he did not. Because he believes in basic libertarian principals. But he also beleives in Jesus or bigfoot or whatever. But politics came before his religion. And that's why he's my guy... He beleives that it's your liberty to do wrong... and face the consequences. He thinks that if you get an abortion, you will burn in hell... or that bigfoot will get you or fairies willput magic dust in your eyes forever.... whatever. But that you NEED to be able to decide for yourself. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:28:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d1d92a44-80ec-4d26-98c9-5bca1c9c0597 Chicken 2008-01-05T02:28:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#06a71ff9-aee3-4f6e-a6a6-fb170e21ddb1 Ron Paul believes abortion is a states rights issue. What is the problem with this...? The theory of evolution is a theory, albeit a generally accepted theory. It will continue to evolve as our knowledge increases. Christianity has a theory that shows someone driving the boat so to speak. That these need to be mutually exclusive is a bit of balderdash. I would rather have a candidate who understand that we are all going to have different views on myriad polarizing topics, but who trusts in the wisdom of the founders and lets states decide various issues for themselves. Federalizing every issue creates divisiveness. Federalizing anything for that matter creates problems. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:32:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#06a71ff9-aee3-4f6e-a6a6-fb170e21ddb1 glennzzz 2008-01-04T16:32:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bbc14deb-b353-48cd-9607-e26ab4a35065 > not allowed to voice coherent thoughts And somehow you of all people would know this.. because..... ? Clue: Rhetorical. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:00:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bbc14deb-b353-48cd-9607-e26ab4a35065 embersandsparks 2008-01-04T12:00:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#41757c9f-3402-40e4-8279-cc1642a8debd Wait a minute. I believe Geekster is for Giuliani. My apologies. But I'll deal with Giuliani in another post. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:51:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#41757c9f-3402-40e4-8279-cc1642a8debd M 2008-01-04T07:51:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#02c27262-8713-4217-b0f8-eac8f65122a4 Wow. Actual responses. Very cool. Alrighty, here we go. Here is my take on Ron Paul. 1) He does not believe in the theory of evolution. In other words, he thinks that the earth and all living things were created exactly 6,000 years ago. In my humble opinion, this is insane as he has been trained as a doctor. Biology, Chemistry, Geology = Science. Now how can you be trained in the 21st century medical profession and still believe in Creatism? 2) He does not believe in a woman's right to an abortion. Since he is a doctor and has experience, he expounds on the graphic details of aborting a fetus at 2-3 months. Excellent propanganda. One slight detail though. He is absolutely infringing on the woman's right to choose. Let's face it. If men could get pregnant, there would be no abortion issue. Really. Tell me I'm wrong. These are just 2 issues. There are plenty more. Chicken John, Geekster, you guys are really smart. You can do better than this. Just my opinion. Mikey Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:41:46 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#02c27262-8713-4217-b0f8-eac8f65122a4 M 2008-01-04T07:41:46Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e56e826d-d093-42a3-89b9-e704cc1a1893 You have the floor.... Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:15:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e56e826d-d093-42a3-89b9-e704cc1a1893 Chicken 2008-01-04T07:15:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9e55121e-8256-4f81-a45b-66a1b9958a1b Let's have it. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:11:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9e55121e-8256-4f81-a45b-66a1b9958a1b $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-04T07:11:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3757ac80-87e7-443c-9613-7b88de86aa21 Would anyone like to hear my opinion on Ron Paul? Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:08:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3757ac80-87e7-443c-9613-7b88de86aa21 M 2008-01-04T07:08:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b04b3a35-eedc-4909-834a-cde1b061b47a All the namecalling. I know now that I can just skip over any post by Kelly. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:55:24 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b04b3a35-eedc-4909-834a-cde1b061b47a $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-04T06:55:24Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6bfb4eb5-2010-4aff-a66a-5880f74bcde5 Oh Glenn, you're such a little reactionary cracker. The whole gun thing is such a huge morass of irrational arguments and opinions that I was just going to leave this alone, but you annoy me so much I can't help but respond. I mean, coherent? In what universe are you fucking talking about? To say: >if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control.< has got to be one of the lamest, most idiotic arguments I've ever heard a gun nut put forth. Why would any rational person think that it makes any sense to compare homicide rates in different countries by subtracting the most violence-plagued parts of the U.S.? Yeah, and the Persian Gulf is a really peaceful region if you just subtract Iraq. Not like you've got a clue about "inner city problems", Glenn. Your posts clearly demonstrate you're just a loftard yuppie hiding behind his gated development listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox, and and you don't have any more clue about the actual neighborhood you live in than an 80-year old woman who's never left the city limits of Walnut Creek. You read about crime in Oakland and are so afraid of everyone who lives outside your little enclave that you can't bring yourself to admit there's anything wrong with a political newsletter that says 95% of black men are criminals. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:31:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6bfb4eb5-2010-4aff-a66a-5880f74bcde5 Kelly 2008-01-04T06:31:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#54d27427-1283-47fa-824f-f72dc6e8288b Berrrrr.....tttt be careful there........You're not allowed to voice coherent thoughts about inner city problems in this forum. Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:45:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#54d27427-1283-47fa-824f-f72dc6e8288b glennzzz 2008-01-04T04:45:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e33edf1a-8242-4fab-8b65-683b5efe14a1 >if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control.< - Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:42:14 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e33edf1a-8242-4fab-8b65-683b5efe14a1 Peter 2008-01-03T21:42:14Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0212b86f-7ecc-4cee-8a1c-8008f368c0d1 I don't see the corrolation between less guns and fewer murders, sorry. New Zealand and Switzerland have lots of guns and similar gun laws to the US and considerably lower murder rates. South Africa has slightly more restritive gun laws and tons more murders. Of course the politcal situation in these countries are VASTLY different. Which is my point. It's not the gun laws that make for fewer murders, it's something else. Washington DC has had a handgun ban for 30 years and is always in the top couple of slots of murder rates. It's not my intention to talk you into owning a gun, Kelly, or to argue their usefulness. This is one of those arguments that would go round and round and in the end is unprovable on either side. My question was why are people on the left (which I have always considered my self a member of) so willing to give up this right? A well regulated millitia - like they have in Switzerland - would be a good idea in my book, Especially now that the National Guard has been virtually co-opted by the Federal government. I also recently read an article about a majority of people being willing to accept less than a free press if it lead to less political turmoil. Do you think that that is a good trade off also? If it saves lives by reducing terrorism? I am not saying that there is any chance of civil war with each other using the guns we have, I just wonder why that one right is the one the left gives up so easily on. I see the right give up on all sorts of rights to push their agenda also (habeus corpus, anyone). And I wonder if both sides aren't being encouraged to give up rights by trading them for what they want in the short term. If the founding fathers suspected what the USA would look like today, I doubt they ever would have written the Constitution in the first place. They certainly would have been clearer about lots of things in there. Personally I own a gun not for the reasons you offered up, but because it is my right, I enjoy range shooting and I make it a habit to exercise all of my rights as often as possible. Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:20:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0212b86f-7ecc-4cee-8a1c-8008f368c0d1 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-03T21:20:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f5c6073b-3efc-47b7-8afd-0b4be1e1ef0a <What I'd like to know is why people on the Left are so willing to give up their second amendment rights?> Well, howzabout because some of us are smart enough to look at the actual data worldwide and see that "less guns = less murders" instead of having emotional attachments to the little phallic power symbols, and we don't waste time entertaining fantasies of civil war against people with different political opinions. Please note the word "some" - I'm not claiming to speak for "the Left". Also, I rather suspect that if the founding fathers had lived in an environment without a frontier and a population as dense as the modern U.S. along with military technology so advanced that a single man with an automatic rifle was more deadly than 18th century artillery, they might well have been a LOT more clear on that "well regulated militia" part of the amendment that the gun lovers tend to ignore. Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:41:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f5c6073b-3efc-47b7-8afd-0b4be1e1ef0a Kelly 2008-01-03T20:41:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#374f8ccc-a2f5-4044-b2ec-ec23de8f5a89 haven't they BEEN running the show, since like the '70s? What I'd like to know is why people on the Left are so willing to give up their second amendment rights? Do any of you think it's better that only Libertarians and Republicans are armed? Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:18:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#374f8ccc-a2f5-4044-b2ec-ec23de8f5a89 $item.owner.firstName 2008-01-03T20:18:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d69c434f-8062-46dc-b424-e5c8b41e7203 Maybe we need our own Political Action Committee (PAC) or form the Boomer Burners Coalition Party (The Boomer Party) and force these candidates to address the largest rasing group of citizen and voters in America. Soon to retire millions "The Boomers" have the numbers, money and soon time to effect the greatest political change the world has ever seen...The caught is...They have to take the time to register and vote, and entrenched politicians have their voters line up knowing Most American's Don't Vote. Together We Can Do It! Take America Back to the Future and really Burn the Man. Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:07:45 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d69c434f-8062-46dc-b424-e5c8b41e7203 Beach 2008-01-03T13:07:45Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b75a667d-ccd8-46f2-990d-b06c06bfb4de Well, framed in that way... it's not an improvment. Agreed. But that you could move to the place that had your values is an actual step in the right direction. We can all be Americans and have different ideas about a few things... and not have to lord over each other. For example, in Alabama, abortion could be illegal. But it's legal in Florida. So that's a $40 bus ticket. Perfect? No. Close enough? Yup. This way the people who think that abortion is murder get to be right, and you get to have an abortion if you need one. Slightly regulated and functional. Ron Paul is a classic, textbook Libertarian. If you think that a Libertarian is something else, you may want to do a little research. I can think of no better example of a classic Libertarian thinker. Not LP, either... actual Libertarian guy. Of course, this is just my opinion. I've been a Libertarian since 1986, whaddo I know... ;) Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:51:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b75a667d-ccd8-46f2-990d-b06c06bfb4de Chicken 2008-01-03T06:51:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0b9c1a5d-a342-4aa7-9c81-38dc6f97fab6 <<Ron Paul is a real libertarian and has been only that for 30 years or more. He is pro-life. He thinks that abortion is murder. But doesn't think that the federal government has any business regulating it. Or anything else..>> I think I just disagree with your view of libertarianism. In my world, it doesn't matter if it's the feds or the states are the ones who want to create oppressive laws, it's still oppression. Ron Paul has said clearly many times that he thinks the states DO have the right to regulate people's private lives - abortion, sodomy laws, etc- and the feds have no right to stop them, because his interpretation of the Constitution has no privacy rights. How is this an improvement? Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:41:14 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0b9c1a5d-a342-4aa7-9c81-38dc6f97fab6 Kelly 2008-01-02T22:41:14Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9787d5ee-b1f2-456b-8dad-b5f077a1ab3d Actually, Ron Paul is a real libertarian and has been only that for 30 years or more. He is pro-life. He thinks that abortion is murder. But doesn't think that the federal government has any business regulating it. Or anything else. He may be religious, but doesn't think that the federal government has any business regulating that either. He probably doesn't like homo sex , but doesn't think that the federal government has any business thinking about that. Less laws, more accountablility to people. more freedom more responsibility... but more liberty. More laws more controls. More controls more criminals. More criminals more crime. More crime more cops. More cops more arrests. More arrests more laws. More laws more laywers. more lawyers more lawsuits. More lawsuits more lawsuit abuse. More lawsuit abuse higher costs for goods and services. Higher costs for G&S more importing G&S. More imports more tarrifs. More tarrifs more government to impliment them. More government more imbalance. From this imbalance we get a system gone so crazy we drop bombs on other nations so they can't hurt us in the future. I'ts all connected. RP and other libertarians wish to disconnect it all. Ron Paul is a friend to a friend who says he's a very nice man. That freind is reading this right now. Why don't you chime in, old friend.... Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:05:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9787d5ee-b1f2-456b-8dad-b5f077a1ab3d Chicken 2008-01-02T22:05:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1efbd6bb-2924-4293-8f59-fc37165436b7 Hey there, Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to call being a libertarian "delusional" or anything. I'm just having a hard time understanding why so many folks like Chicken actually think RP is a real libertarian candidate who would bring greater freedom, liberty, etc. Let's be clear - the guy is a religous conservative Texas states-rights Republican with some libertarian ideals, but his record clearly shows that his fundie Christian beliefs - about abortion, people's private sex lives, etc - will always win out over any libertarian ideals if they come into conflict. Also, I really don't understand why people thik that less federal government is going to equal more liberty. More often than not, the last six decades have seen the feds overruling state laws that been discriminatory and oppressive. And yes, RP is wants to repeal the Patriot Act, but so do other candidates (cough, Kucinich, cough) who DON'T think your neighbors have the right to put you in jail for giving a blowjob. And how about liberty to breathe clean air and drink clean water? If you take a look at RP's website ( http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/ ), he thinks it's all about private property and he advocates geting rid of "premptory regulations" in favor of people having the right to sue polluters "if your property is damaged". Does anyone here prefer having to take a giant corporation to court over having the EPA enforce environmentla regulations? And yes, too often the governemnt is too cozy with the very corporations that pollute, but doesn't it make a lot more sense to put people in the governemnt who will actually enforce the laws rather than say "you're on your own"? And if you're talking about, say, an endangered species, who's side do think a big private property rights advocate is going to be on? And for the folks who think that RP's extremism would be limited by Congress etc, let me remind you that it's the executive branch that staffs the Department of Justice, EPA, etc. Dubya has proved that if you fill a department full of idealogically driven people who are more interested in their agenda than the law, then their ain't much the other branches of government can do about it. Yeah, RP has gotten people talking and that's good, and I even prefer him to a lot of the other Rethugs running, but in the final analysis he'd be bad news. His appeal seems to me to be largely emotional. So was Reagan's, and look how well that worked out. Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:50:59 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1efbd6bb-2924-4293-8f59-fc37165436b7 Kelly 2008-01-02T21:50:59Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d819f72-6947-4b0b-9d67-33a0cf55093e Yea. It's like, I'm learning the same lessons over and over. I'm seeing the same patterns in almost everything. This education is kinda sad, but I'm DEFINATLY on to something... but the commodification of culture is (to me) our single greatest threat. What happened in NYC in the early 90's, what is happening to SF right now, what happened to BM and Bread and Puppet... on and on... cacophony, CELL space, the Marathon.... and all the other stuff I don't even know about. It's all the same thing. Control. Which is funny because freedom is what activates us, then we all go to the freedom and someone rises up to control it. Then we go somewhere else. I'm still young. I don't have to suffer losing it all again to someone's misguided and egomanical control. At some point, I'll throw in to something that has a constitution that I can get behind. Which is why I like a Constitutional presidental candidate. But yea, it's interesting. It's a lot of work to think about all this stuff, and it mostly seems like a waste of time. I can see clearly now things that were cloudy before. I"m starting to "get it". I have also become interested in the 10 commandments of God (not Larry), in responce to what christian values there are. If it's been a while since you've read them, I'll include them here. It's actually a kind of great constitution, if your into control.... The Ten Commandments I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. It's actually more like 16 passages or something, but to get them into the "spirit" of what they are talking about, here is an astute breakdown regarding the "control" angle. And when you look at it like this... if you substitute 'freedom' for 'god'... well we'll have another disucssion on our hands. Check this out: For those Christians who believe that the Ten Commandments continue to be binding for Christians (see also Old Testament—Christian view of the Law and Cafeteria Christianity), their negative and positive content can be summarized as follows. : Preface: vs 1–2 Implies the obligation to keep all of the commandments of God, in gratitude because of the abundance of his mercy. Forbids ingratitude to God and denial that he is our God. vs 3 Enjoins that God must be known and acknowledged to be the only true God, and our God; and, to worship him and to make him known as he has been made known to us. Forbids not worshiping and glorifying the true God as God, and as our God; and forbids giving worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone. vs 4–6 Requires receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has appointed; and zeal in resisting those who would corrupt worship; because of God's ownership of us, and interest in our salvation. Prohibits the worshiping of God by images, or by confusion of any creature with God, or any other way not appointed in his Word. vs 7 Enjoins a holy and a reverent use of God’s names, titles, attributes, ordinances, Word, and works. Forbids all abuse of anything by which God makes Himself known. Some Protestants, especially in the tradition of pacifism, read this Commandment as forbidding any and all oaths, including judicial oaths and oaths of allegiance to a government, noting that human weakness cannot foretell whether such oaths will in fact be vain. vs 8–11 Requires setting apart to God such set times as are appointed in his Word. Many Protestants are increasingly concerned that the values of the marketplace do not dominate entirely, and deprive people of leisure and energy needed for worship, for the creation of civilized culture. The setting of time apart from and free from the demands of commerce is one of the foundations of a decent human society. See Sabbath. Forbids the omission, or careless performance, of the religious duties, using the day for idleness, or for doing that which is in itself sinful; and prohibits requiring of others any such omission, or transgression, on the designated day. vs 12 The only commandment with explicitly positive content, rather than a prohibition; it connects all of the temporal blessings of God, with reverence for and obedience to authority, and especially for father and mother. Forbids doing anything against, or failing to give, the honor and duty which belongs to anyone, whether because they possess authority or because they are subject to authority. vs 13 Requires all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others. Forbids taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor, unjustly (Just taking of life includes self-defense and times of War.); and, anything that tends toward depriving life. vs 14 Enjoins protection of our own and our neighbor’s chastity, in heart, speech, and behavior. Forbids all unchaste thoughts, words, and actions. vs 15 Requires a defense of all lawful things that further the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others. Prohibits whatever deprives our neighbor, or ourselves, of lawfully gained wealth or outward estate. vs 16 Requires the maintaining and promoting of truth between people, and of our neighbor’s good name and our own, especially in witness-bearing. Forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name. vs 17 Enjoins contentment with our own condition, and a charitable attitude toward our neighbor and all that is his, being thankful for his sake that he has whatever is beneficial to him, as we are for those things that benefit us. Forbids discontent or envy, prohibits any grief over the betterment of our neighbor's estate, and all inordinate desires to obtain for ourselves, or scheming to wrest for our benefit, anything that is his. ************************************************************************* Back to supporting Ron Paul: what you see above is a constitution of sorts. One that if followed, would make Ron Pauls America doable. And wouldn't you like to live in a place that all the people generally abided the above constitution? Sure, without the God stuff. But if you switch the God stuff to freedom or think of yourself and your liberty and your conscience as the "God"... just as an idea, for the purposes of a disscussion, of course.... then there would be need of very few laws. There certainly would be no need for a welfare state or military state and war would certainly be given the respect it has been starved. So why doesn't the Christian body support Ron Paul? Because they don't know he exists. If they did, they would support him. And if the Christians support him, and the radicals support him, and the industrialists support him, and the environmentalists support him.... well who's left to support the other guy? That is how my narrowminded path sees it. The only reason to not support absolute liberty and the abiding principals of our constitution is because it's not realistic that a candidate running on that platform could win. I see that logic as insanity and treason. But I also understand that reality is what is actually happening and changing things is hard like cold steel. So no judgement... But it sure is interesting... Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:37:53 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4d819f72-6947-4b0b-9d67-33a0cf55093e Chicken 2008-01-02T19:37:53Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#221cd5fe-a317-46f4-9bd7-b3b0b0b998cf Chicken John: > was in NY for Kotch and the Dink. More crime? Maybe. Dirtier? Definatly. But WAY more interesting, more of a melting pot and TONS more art and culture adn fun and units of interesting... Gulliani killed NYC. Did he do so to make it safe? Hardly. He killed NYC because that's what mayors do. They allow developers to develop. Because that's what developers do.< So... Are you saying that Rudy was the NYC Larry? Or just that NYC underwent a "Burning Manization" because all the "art and culture and fun and units of interesting" attracted the hipsters and developers who saw that they could make a buck off of the "interesting"? Interesting... Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:34:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#221cd5fe-a317-46f4-9bd7-b3b0b0b998cf Chris Jus'thinkin! 2008-01-02T16:34:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#787f1d8c-182e-48ed-b6e8-29e856f50f88 At Least Ron Paul Got Us Talking! Only a Constitutional President Candidate stimulates Constitutional discussion and lively open debate by the citizens and electorate who have the power to change, limit and guide it’s governments. It’s not what you can do for your government or what your government can do for you! We have the Power to Vote real change. Back to the Future, X’s, Beach Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:19:41 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#787f1d8c-182e-48ed-b6e8-29e856f50f88 Beach 2008-01-02T14:19:41Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7d34543f-1154-4daf-a3f0-7915868f8224 >You're glad that instead of fixing the problem--costs so out of control that poor people can't afford basic healthcare--the state of Massachusetts is forcing everybody to buy health insurance--whether they want it or even need it? < I am glad that they are taking steps to try something. Don't know if it will work or not but at least there is an experiment and we will find out. As to the notion of 'forcing everyone to buy health insurance whether they want it or need it', you can't have a system that provides a service without having everyone pay into it. Socialized medicine would just shift those costs via tax increases, everyone still pays. I'm not saying health care costs aren't out of control, what I am saying it this is the first state to take an approach at doing something different, an experiment. Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:27:34 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7d34543f-1154-4daf-a3f0-7915868f8224 Peter 2008-01-02T13:27:34Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5cb9ac57-bb72-4e06-9988-ddf8e11d351e Back and forth, up and down... Margret can argue the points on a case by case basis better than me, but I got the "spirit" thing down. The arguement vollys back and forth like a tennis ball, with everyone pretty much having valid points. In the end I see it as everyone having great points, but corruption finding it's way in wherever it can. I see the libertarian path as being less corruptable, because there is less government mass. If we, as a human beings, can not be trusted to do the right thing... if we need to be monitored and checked and watched... then that is sad. I'd rather a system of honor that didn't work then a system of control that didn't work. At the end of the day, the honor system has a better chance. And we are back to argueing all my BM points. I just don't beleive that control is good for any of us. And I don't think that control is why we were called to this beacon. And if RP isn't perfect, and BM isn't perfect and punk rock sold out and cell phone company's are using culture jamming ideas as advertisements and hundreds of santas as a christmas protest now become a tradition and apathy at an all time high... I don't think we are gonna get any of the freedom and tolerance ideas back by control. I see us, as a country, getting our integrity back using the tool of unrestricted generosity. Not by lawyers suing for the rights, but indeed by people just doing the right thing because they want the right thing done to them. I see the revolution happening without name or leader. A gracious revolution. It was my intention to create the culture of the world I wanted to live in. Without controls. And I did. Then someone took it away, and controls it. I see the corralation between BM and the the founding fathers and RP and Rudy... it's all there. The same story. If the founding fathers could have imagined a professional politician, they may have offfered better releif from that... remembering of course that congress used to use sortition as a selection process.... they drew straws. Whoever lost went to congress. The butcher, the baker, the candlestickmaker. We live in a completly different world then the one imagined by our founding fathers. Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:29:56 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5cb9ac57-bb72-4e06-9988-ddf8e11d351e Chicken 2008-01-01T21:29:56Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#883dd43d-6059-4e8a-9621-dbc019f31b9d >>I do, and am glad that everyone now has to pay for health care rather than just those insured in the past.<< You're glad that instead of fixing the problem--costs so out of control that poor people can't afford basic healthcare--the state of Massachusetts is forcing everybody to buy health insurance--whether they want it or even need it? Insurance does not equal decent healthcare. This is more corporate welfare than universal healthcare. Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:19:20 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#883dd43d-6059-4e8a-9621-dbc019f31b9d margaret 2008-01-01T15:19:20Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#df18f00d-1571-4b1c-be8f-47087e3ab981 "as important as i think electing a woman or a black man is" Why is that so important? Why put a person's gender or race ahead of their political viewpoint? Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:21:44 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#df18f00d-1571-4b1c-be8f-47087e3ab981 Jason 2008-01-01T00:21:44Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b6294dfb-680a-4b63-9bbc-37e2cf1ab571 I do, and am glad that everyone now has to pay for health care rather than just those insured in the past. As far as the net result being that the costs of health insurance skyrocketing, well as the new law doesn't go into affect until 2008 then the rise in insurance has to do with everyone not paying into the system. and yes, we can feel good that we did something. What's happening in your state.. 'To get a sense of just how backward we're becoming on these matters, consider that in places like Texas, Florida and Mississippi the politicians are dreaming up new ways to remove the protective cloak of health coverage from children, the elderly and the poor. Texas and Florida have been pulling the plug on coverage for low-income kids.' http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E2D71738F93BA15755C0A9629C8B63 Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:40:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b6294dfb-680a-4b63-9bbc-37e2cf1ab571 Peter 2007-12-31T21:40:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0173efb0-8a8a-4005-876d-8587d764fe5c What Massachusetts apparently did was *not* enact universal healthcare but enforced health insurance. But now they can say "more people are insured in Mass" and feel good about themselves, while people who would have rather spent the money on a something else are hurting. I dont live there, so I haven't researched it to any degree of real familiarity. If anyone directly affected can chime in, I'd be interested in listening. **The net result is that costs for health insurance are skyrocketing.** http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8TSLG1O0.htm http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&innID=722587313 "The proposal, modeled on a Massachusetts law, fails to acknowledge the affordability crisis already faced in that state. Coverage in Massachusetts is already much more expensive than promised and insurers, whose premiums are not capped or regulated, have indicated rates will increase again next year." Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:32:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0173efb0-8a8a-4005-876d-8587d764fe5c margaret 2007-12-31T21:32:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#46619ba7-75d5-4060-963f-76330cca6858 'For example: I like the idea of socialized health care. That if you get sick, you'll be taken care of. Makes sense to me. But also the free market makes sense to me, as an idea' Move, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5330854 MA also allows same sex marriage Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:47:11 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#46619ba7-75d5-4060-963f-76330cca6858 Peter 2007-12-31T20:47:11Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0bdfc617-a47d-444b-9ac8-d716206aeaa8 >> Yeah the feds have fucked up a lot - especially the last seven years under the shithead-in-chief - but historically, it's been the feds who've ended up ensuring greater individual freedom against the wishes of states. << This is what its job is supposed to be and what its job might be if we took away the excessive power that it has created for itself since the beginning of the republic. The fact is that since the very beginning, the federal government "forgot" that it was supposed to protect the citizens from the state governments and instead has forcibly extracted money from the citizenry to fund unnecessary foreign wars and bribed large segments of the population into electing corrupt politicians, who have only furthered this trend in order to fatten their wallets and egos. Following the Constitution and returning powers to the states that dont belong at the federal level would be a step in the right direction. Remember, the Feds could just as easily ban homosexuality at this point if it wanted to. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:24:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0bdfc617-a47d-444b-9ac8-d716206aeaa8 margaret 2007-12-31T20:24:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#752d461e-d1be-4ab1-a61d-92efa8167cc5 Kelly, first of all I'd like to say that I appreciate your tone in this discussion and I surrender to my mis-information about the sodomy thing. I guess my info is out dated. Apologies. But that up until 2003 or whenever it was sodomy was illegal is still my point. There also seems to be the fact that you probably have more citable facts then I do. Good on ya. But the spirit of these ideas is what I'm into discussing. These ideas will NEVER take hold. You say that I'm delusional, and I would concur... if i was thinking that this guy was gonna be president or that Libertarian ideals would flow through the veins of the governing apparatus of this country. That Ron Paul is homophobic, racist, sexist, a child molester, a terrorist and doesn't call his mother is of no concern to me. He is talking about radical change, and I'm a radical change guy. For example: I like the idea of socialized health care. That if you get sick, you'll be taken care of. Makes sense to me. But also the free market makes sense to me, as an idea. We have neither. So if you were to plot out all the different ways to design an intelligent health care system, the one we have now wouldn't be one of them. Our heathcare system needs radical change. Here is another example that I was baiting for before: death is the punishment for a parking ticket. Slavery. When you have no choice, it's slavery. Because somone else said you can't park there. Who? What if they are wrong? No matter. If they try to take your car becuse you didn't pay the ticket and you try to physically stop them from taking your property, they will shoot you down with guns they bought with your tax dollars. Again, all just ideas. None of these would impliment well, but to keep a clear conscience I like to fantasize... but if Ron Paul got the nomination, we all would have some serious thinking to do. Hillary Clinton does not activate me for or against her. But that America would be ruled by 2 rich, white familys for 28 years doesn't sit well with me. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:19:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#752d461e-d1be-4ab1-a61d-92efa8167cc5 Chicken 2007-12-31T20:19:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a7e27a8f-2868-498c-995f-aa380f3d38d0 The NY Times had to admit it screwed up by posting white supremacist allegations about Ron Paul--without factchecking them. Amazing. "The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul." http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/ Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:07:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a7e27a8f-2868-498c-995f-aa380f3d38d0 margaret 2007-12-31T20:07:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2f18ee4c-0754-4341-aece-f9b2c8295055 It takes a lot of guts: No matter whether you understand, agree or support Ron Paul's understandings, views and beliefs on the Constitution and Federalism. He is the only major candidate who is openly and vocally expressing concerned about returning America back to a Constitutional Republic where individuals and local governments from the bottom up and back down answer to the citizens under a living but limited Constitution and set of federal laws. Non of the candidate are perfect or great but one is going to be the next President of the United States of America. Wouldn’t it be nice to get “Back to the Future” of making America the land of opportunity for all Americans. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:11:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2f18ee4c-0754-4341-aece-f9b2c8295055 Beach 2007-12-31T14:11:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a0c0d5b0-e1ba-49e7-afcc-f86e2bd0e0cb Oh, looking around a bit further I found RP's OWN WORDS about why he thinks Lawrence vs. Texas is wrong: "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas." http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html Also, RP is full of shit about the ninth amendment, which says zero about states: "Amendment Nine The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and only partly right about the tenth: "Amendment Ten The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." RP, however, seems to think that states have the right to regulate anything not specifically under the feds purview according to his reading of the Constitution. If you think that's a recipe for greater freedom, well, I think you're totally delusional. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:48:40 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a0c0d5b0-e1ba-49e7-afcc-f86e2bd0e0cb Kelly 2007-12-31T08:48:40Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8d2c08eb-5938-4342-95af-657fd384dc04 Chicken, I find myself agreeing with you about all sorts of stuff and appreciate that you take the time to write such extended essays in this here little discussion group, but I think you are dead wrong here. Not just that I disagree with your opinion, but it seems to me that you're basing your opinion on some serious misinformation. To wit: <Libertarians don't like control. Next thing you know, sodomy is illegal. Can you imagine if there were laws against certain kinds of consenual sex between a married couple? Well there are.> The truth is, there *were*, until recently. Not anymore, thanks to Lawrence vs Texas, decided by the Supreme Court in 2003. They ruled that Texas law against gay sex was unconstitutional, and also that all state laws that criminalized certain sex acts between consenting adults - gay or straight - were a violation of people's right to privacy. Just to be clear: there were no FEDERAL laws against sodomy etc, but there were state laws, and it took the federal government to (finally) get rid of them. The idea that limiting the power of the feds will automatically equal more freedom has, I'm afraid, very little basis in reality. Ron Paul is not a "get rid of oppressive laws" guy, he's a "let the states do what they want" guy. And what that means a hell a lot of the time is "state's rights" equals people getting to oppress their neighbors who are different than the majority. It's the feds who enforced desegregation laws, it was the Supreme Court who declared state laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional, also the right of a woman to choose whether she wanted to let a clump of cells in her body turn into a baby for her to carry around until the agonizing process of giving birth instead of giving that right to the state. Yeah the feds have fucked up a lot - especially the last seven years under the shithead-in-chief - but historically, it's been the feds who've ended up ensuring greater individual freedom against the wishes of states. And it's absolutely true that some progressive states lead the way before the feds, and it's true that the feds have been totally screwed in some areas - the bullshit War on Drugs is one of the most obvious examples - but to embrace "states' rights" as the solution is just making a bargain with the devil. It means if you live in Cali or some other progressive state you might be better off, but you are doing so knowing that many people in the rest of the country are going to be much much worse off. And if your job happens to transfer you to Atlanta or Boise, well, you're fucked, aren't you? Folks have tried to downplay the fact that all these white supremest groups like Ron Paul. Why don't we stop and think of WHY they do. On his website, RP proclaims that government is "is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations." Well that's totally fucked. First, because while government may not be able to turn a KKK thug into a Quaker, it CAN shield people from the consequences of said bigotry by enforcing laws against discrimination in employment, housing, etc. Second, by enforcing desegregation laws racism is combated by bringing people of different ethnicities together on equal terms, as opposed to loftards like Glenn who hide in their gated cocoons and convince themselves that 95% of the African Americans living in their neighborhood are criminals. Does anyone really want to support a candidate who will make it easier for white Christian men to hold on to power and privilege at the expense of everyone else, which is exactly what these groups want and why they support RP? Yeah, I agree with RP completely about American Imperialism and how it's caused so much of the world to hate us, and a number of other issues as well. But believing he's make the nation a better place is totally delusional - you'd just be trading one kind of demon for another. If you want to support a long-shot candidate who really believes in freedom for all and wants to reign in the military and the corporations, I suggest you support Dennis Kucinich. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:14:30 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8d2c08eb-5938-4342-95af-657fd384dc04 Kelly 2007-12-31T08:14:30Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4a01265a-3c72-4e06-812d-b1b267839a4a sodomy was illegal until three years ago. and largely the same people fighting against gun control were the people fighting for sodomy legislations. "Next thing you know, sodomy is illegal." Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:06:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4a01265a-3c72-4e06-812d-b1b267839a4a automatthew 2007-12-31T08:06:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#30a70123-2ff9-4eaf-8e21-386a9a8c852f as a gay person, it's difficult for me to be enthusiastic with libertarianism, no matter how sympathetic i am with it. basically, homophobia, like sexism and racism, is so nearly universal, that in any kind of power structure individual homosexuals would be subject to the violence of individuals. individuals that are in the majority and because of homophobia and patriarchy will probably have positions of power within any kind of decentralized power structure, and will thus be likely to get away with that kind of subjugation. of course i still think ron paul would be a good president, if only because i don't think he'd be able to alter the pre-existing structure that exists, but would make as many beneficial changes as he could. also, i just don't think that libertarianism is very realistic. power will inevitably have tendencies to centralize. and i think that creating a structure that mediates between that centralization of power and the participation of the people in it is necessary. we have to be ever vigilant that centralizing power centers don't sabotage that barrier, but some kind of institutional coordination of the population is necessary. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:01:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#30a70123-2ff9-4eaf-8e21-386a9a8c852f automatthew 2007-12-31T08:01:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c49bc7d5-0995-4207-9d9e-60e098c7d2bb i would vote for paul or kucinich over any major candidate. as important as i think electing a woman or a black man is, stopping an uninterrupted history of rich while male leadership is not insignificant no matter how symbolic it is, the fact that only by getting someone with such a singular and fundamentally well intentioned vision in there are we ever going to have real change. that said i think i'll probably cry if any of the democrats actually pull this off. when it comes down to it whoever is most likely to win and who is not a republican is what matters. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:53:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c49bc7d5-0995-4207-9d9e-60e098c7d2bb automatthew 2007-12-31T07:53:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4197679b-8021-4a78-9e57-f0a3ecdfa6b8 > wading into the deepend whilst admitting he doesen't know how to swim. Perfect. Resort to ad hominem rather than address the issues. Thanks for playing, moron. > Never been to New york, I said I don't LIVE there. Learn to read, zoo parade breath.. maybe something on sentence construction? > really doesen't know anything about Rudy's record Nor did I claim to. I made it quite clear what I was basing my opinion on. Read again, fuckwit. > that city is eminently more livable now than before his tenure......the subject is quantifiable in many ways You're making a quantitative argument with a qualitative statement? You're fucking hopeless. > you keep talkin freedom............but it scares ya.................. I'm not afraid. Of you, of the deep end, of discussing things I'm not an "expert" on, or of freedom of all things... jesus, buy a fucking clue. And I SURE don't need to vote for some kinda poor man's Swartzenegger to "protect" me from those same freedoms. Maybe try reading some Ben Franklin this time? If you wanna vote for him, knock yourself out. I didn't criticize you for having an opinion, I simply offered my own perspective. Sorry if it offended your sensibilities. Not. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:41:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4197679b-8021-4a78-9e57-f0a3ecdfa6b8 embersandsparks 2007-12-31T07:41:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d1c8dd63-c156-479d-8ec7-339861a50f66 burners with too much to say. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:32:27 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d1c8dd63-c156-479d-8ec7-339861a50f66 offendo 2007-12-31T07:32:27Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f98ace87-56d3-4309-bc56-8faebd8a2819 Embersandsparks....... wading into the deepend whilst admitting he doesen't know how to swim. Never been to New york, really doesen't know anything about Rudy's record.............typical burner here................. that city is eminently more livable now than before his tenure......the subject is quantifiable in many ways..............and for the people living there.........its really not much of a debate ..........open your mind brah.................Chicken was trying to show you the way.............you keep talkin freedom............but it scares ya.................. radical self reliance...............it won't hurt.............. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:19:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f98ace87-56d3-4309-bc56-8faebd8a2819 glennzzz 2007-12-31T07:19:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0bb05bf6-f246-484d-a9de-f6812c87b52c Since I don't live in NY, I can't judge what he did or didn't do for it's citizens. Nor did I attempt to. I simply listen and respond to what he SAYS, and what he bases his desire for votes upon. And the predominant theme in his campaign seems to be that HE was the guy who stood firm in the face of terrorism, and showed courage and staunch Amurricun idealism in refusing to back down in the face of fundamentalism. Which all traces directly to the fact that he was in office. Not anything he actually did to protect, defend, or rebuild the city, or assist it's citizens or the thousands of courageous emergency personnel who were permanently injured in the line of duty due to the FAILURE of the CITY to protect them from the horrendous toxic pollution of the Trade Center area. In fact, they LIED about the results of initial testing and declared the area safe for rescue and salvage efforts to proceed. Both the city and the EPA are being sued for those decisions, and rightly so. They failed their very purpose for existing. So when Rudy promises that his tough guy image is somehow going to keep us all safe, I can hardly even keep a straight face. This guy doesn't care about us, about you. He doesn't give a SHIT. Not that any of the others do either, but most of them haven't had an opportunity to prove it. Rudy has, and failed. Utterly. What he says is laced with fear. Terrorists, porn dealers, drugs/pushers/addicts, terrorists, criminals, loose morals, trash, terrorists, etc etc. ad nauseum. This guy reminds me of Dan Lundgren.. three strikes anyone? He's the worst kind of demagogue in my opinion, and I wouldn't vote for him if he were running unopposed. But that's just me. I'm a hell of a lot more frightened of my own gubmint than any gol durn terrrrrsssts. And scared shitless of the govt we're about to get. (Regardless of who "wins") The next term will take us right up to 2012. That's just poetically perfect. Talk to people who protested at the NYC Repub convention. Ask them how the City dealt with them exercising their first amendment rights to protest what was at the time an extremely contentious set of issues. The city was sued (successfully, I believe) for the violation of the rights of those citizens of NY and the rest of the country. The plan for law enforcement and civic response during the convention came directly from the mayor's office of emergency services or some such bullshit starchamber. If you saw what happened on the streets, I ask you... is this the kind of country you wish to live in ? Is this the kind of president you want ? One who'll contract ever more authority to Blackwater and Pinkerton and the like? On YOUR dime? Who do you think Guiliani will be first to toss under the bus when push comes to shove? The guy sells himself based on his willingness to preserve ORDER and CONFORMITY above all else. Sure the streets will be cleaner. The suburbs quieter. The downtown and business and developer interests happier. Would that make YOU happy though? Sounds kinda Stepford to me. > Rudy is probably the only guy running for office who has dealt with actually running a large economy Probably not. Romney, Huckabee, Gilmore, Thompson, Vilsack, Dean, Warner and Richardson. ALL governors. Of whole states. Three of those names remain in the race at present. > the statement that he was merely in office when the city blew up is kind of silly. And not a serious statement in what has been a somewhat deliberative string. I was deadly serious. And would welcome any evidence to the contrary. Whether you CHOOSE to take it seriously is entirely your prerogative. I repeat: I see no evidence of any accomplishment on Guiliani's part which would qualify him to represent the entire country aside from his assertion that his actions as mayor during 9/11 entitle him to our undying respect and gratitude. An assertion I find tasteless, arrogant, and patronizing. I don't need a president to clean up 42nd street or the rest of the country for me, or to protect me from anything offensive or unsettling. I need one who will commit to pledging not to DO anything morally reprehensible or inhuman in my name. And I'm NOT talking about seducing pages or boffing secretaries here. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:40:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0bb05bf6-f246-484d-a9de-f6812c87b52c embersandsparks 2007-12-31T05:40:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ad679944-e910-4fb5-b546-9b1cf4fee981 Iris, I'm not racist, sexists, elitist and I helped start the event of the tribe you are typing in and if elected as a representitive in any position of power I would eliminate any and all unions, abolish the minimum wage, disband the military and eliminat welfare, ADA laws and probably most everything else. Because that is what Libertarians think about. Now of course none of this is going to happen, this is just an exchange of ideas. But it's important to understand that teenagers are "fleet-footed". Black, white, purple, orange... whatever color. Saying that a certain percentage of black men are criminals is unseemly, and kinda dumb. So lets say that RP is kinda dumb. Lets say he's a dummy. Lets say he's a racist, dumb, woman-hater. For the sake of arguement. lets say he's a piece of shit. He still beats Rudy. Romney. All of 'em. he's PROGRESSIVE, by being coservative. He wants to champion a certain set of ideals that most liberals are uncomfortable in admitting they are behind. Because it sounds mean to not want to just give away money and resources to people less fortunate. Sounds good, but doesn't work. RP is all about freedom. Gun control is not freedom. Gun control is control. Libertarians don't like control. Next thing you know, sodomy is illegal. Can you imagine if there were laws against certain kinds of consenual sex between a married couple? Well there are. Hell, pornography is still illegal. These are controls. The fact that you HAVE to file a tax form, even if you don't work is slavery. That you *HAVE* to register you car and insure it is slavery. An example, one I like very much: what is the ultiimate punishment for a parking ticket? Mulitple choice: A. $35 B. they tow your car C. thousands of dollars in fees D. fines and/or jail sentence E. they confiscate all your property F. death Somebody choose..... Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:52:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ad679944-e910-4fb5-b546-9b1cf4fee981 Chicken 2007-12-31T03:52:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1e0b31d1-43a7-4b07-9969-9cb8f80bdfcf Not sure if I was the one "talking out of my ass" that you referenced. I got bored w/ this thread. But there is a search engine called Google. Get to know it. Try this <ron paul report 1992 race>. I only got 91,000 hits. Also I didn't say RP said it, but that it was in his Polital Report newletter. If you weren't referencing me, sorry. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:28:42 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1e0b31d1-43a7-4b07-9969-9cb8f80bdfcf Kurt 2007-12-30T21:28:42Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7526903b-1f63-46a6-807e-27a76eb3b580 damn I'm trying to stay out of this, as RP supporters tend to make me want to bash my head against a wall and I've got other things to worry about today. a short bit of research came up with articles referencing "Ron Paul Political Report" from 1992 I believe. This is the one stating that one can assume that 95% of black men are criminal or semi-criminal. It's not hard to find. Ron claims it wasn't written by him but written by one of his employees but it sounds strange that he wouldn't keep up with what was being put out there as his words. It's out there because a few white supremecist liked the speech so much they decided to archive it. Other sources have found other times in which he would bring up race unnessarily (something about anyone who's been mugged by a black teenager in los angeles would know they are fleet-footed, wtf?). I wouldn't say from this that RP is a hateful man but certainly an ignorant one. I'm not interested with more ignorance in the white house. Perhaps no one held your hand to find it because it is incredibly easy to do oneself. Isn't RP about self-reliance? If you really need resources I can find where RP has put pen to paper to be anti-women (pushing for votes to the state about female rights is not desirable, also pushing to define a life from conception is incredibly ignorant and obvious step towards banning abortions), attempts to remove minimum wage and allow more ease for companies to remove unions (enough with big corporations). I even found somewhere in which he wanted to lift the gun ban in school zones. If you need links to these I can find it but it could take a couple days. I'm a bit busy but it's out there, I've found it at least once. As far as it's worth my vote is still in the air. There's just something about how RP carries himself that reminds me of GWB, this is my instinct and can be considered talking out of my ass . . . but it's a nice ass I swear. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:13:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7526903b-1f63-46a6-807e-27a76eb3b580 Iris 2007-12-30T17:13:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#102988e1-b05c-4d42-9111-7d7260aba65e So it's been a couple of days since I asked for a reference to the supposed racist quote by RP with no answer. Just as I thought, another person talking thru their ass with no proof. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:27:17 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#102988e1-b05c-4d42-9111-7d7260aba65e Flamingo 2007-12-30T16:27:17Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d5fbcb5e-1ad1-4761-97ec-b37f6946fb5c Talk is cheap. I hope you are registered to either vote in your Party Caucus and/or State Primary. Some of which start next week with Iowa. In the west the first State Caucus is in Nevada January 19,2008, where I live and plan to chair my caucus and vote for Ron Paul in the Nevada Republican Party Caucus January 19th, 2008. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:22:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d5fbcb5e-1ad1-4761-97ec-b37f6946fb5c Beach 2007-12-30T16:22:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#343937a0-3023-457f-9534-e212d0bf89d0 What runs through my head whenever I hear or see RP. http://youtube.com/watch?v=0PY7N4iRgLQ Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:56:42 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#343937a0-3023-457f-9534-e212d0bf89d0 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-30T14:56:42Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#68303f0f-dc9a-4ce6-8dd6-2c17fb53943e ok, so i'm a registered dem who votes at every election -local, state and national. i don't like Hillary (many of my fellow dems would hang me for that) but the truth is i lean more toward libertarian. ron paul doesn't have much chance because although his values are common among americans most americans vote extreme instead of intelligent. just my opinion... Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#68303f0f-dc9a-4ce6-8dd6-2c17fb53943e tracy 2007-12-30T11:58:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0165d930-5eef-4673-9902-32971fd76046 I was in NY for Kotch and the Dink. More crime? Maybe. Dirtier? Definatly. But WAY more interesting, more of a melting pot and TONS more art and culture adn fun and units of interesting... Gulliani killed NYC. Did he do so to make it safe? Hardly. He killed NYC because that's what mayors do. They allow developers to develop. Because that's what developers do. NYC is also the most top-heavy civic apparatus in place in the US. The mayor has less ppower there then say Chicago or SF. There is a council with bourough presidents which are like little mayors and it's hard to get things done that are unpopular. Rudy also tried to suck another term out of 9/11. He tried to cancel the election in Nov. 2001, saying it wasn't safe and that the terrorists would see that we were weak adn would strike again. I don't like to be talked to like an idiot. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:32:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0165d930-5eef-4673-9902-32971fd76046 Chicken 2007-12-30T09:32:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3b8345cd-3daf-45f1-9877-0b79940f6808 I don't think you know much about New York or Guliani.....................although I am on the fence about him......... Were you ever in New York under Dinkins or Koch.................crime ridden, dangerous place.........unions had a garrote around the city budget and services.............. Rudy is probably the only guy running for office who has dealt with actually running a large economy, lowering taxes, improving city services, cutting crime (dramatically) You can say you don't like some of the things he stands for but the statement that he was merely in office when the city blew up is kind of silly. And not a serious statement in what has been a somewhat deliberative string. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:15:55 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3b8345cd-3daf-45f1-9877-0b79940f6808 glennzzz 2007-12-30T07:15:55Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#58da00c0-bd49-40e7-b27b-3de0afc5e4c0 No dude, if there's a loon in the house, it's this guy and his friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY A guy whose highest accomplishment seems to be that he was in office when his city blew up just buys him the sympathy vote. The rest he has to get through blatant fear mongering. Not that I'm feeling too warm and fuzzy about RP either... but at least the guy seems to grasp the issues. Given what passes for debate these days, whether I happen to agree with him or not almost seems a minor point Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:14:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#58da00c0-bd49-40e7-b27b-3de0afc5e4c0 embersandsparks 2007-12-29T17:14:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c8949968-1d07-4da5-a04d-2b23307413e0 "Even worse--I heard that wifebeaters and dogfuckers like him." That was priceless... Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:22:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c8949968-1d07-4da5-a04d-2b23307413e0 Jason 2007-12-28T18:22:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8c6fa8f-b84d-4191-8c1f-08c1fdefb0ad >>Mr. Geek, that I even (out of nowhere) insinuate that you are a wife beater makes you a wife beater. That I insinuate that you fucked your dog make you a dirty dicked dog fucker.<< Even worse--I heard that wifebeaters and dogfuckers like him. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:38:34 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e8c6fa8f-b84d-4191-8c1f-08c1fdefb0ad margaret 2007-12-28T17:38:34Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fd4e81ab-414b-4057-bce1-c3ec6819989c Maybe a million and a half women had an abortion this year. Compare that to the number of glaucoma, epilepsy, cancer, arthritis, etc. patients and it becomes a lot easier to pick one over the other. Not that it would ever come down to that anyway. Also, it is unlikely that abortion for the health of the mom, sick fetus, rape or incest will be outlawed even in states where it is nearly impossible to get an abortion today. I'm pro-choice and dont smoke, in case you think either my motivation. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:24:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fd4e81ab-414b-4057-bce1-c3ec6819989c margaret 2007-12-28T17:24:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#50b1c9d1-6157-42e3-8224-73a3470458f5 Wow... while I follow your logic, I can't believe that you actually think Giuliani would unite ANYone. Before you re-register, you might wanna skim this story: We Must Bomb Iran, Says US Republican Guru http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/27/4847/ Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:05:06 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#50b1c9d1-6157-42e3-8224-73a3470458f5 embersandsparks 2007-12-28T16:05:06Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f47ae88-6fbc-47ce-a083-f9526739ab59 > Given the choice of legal abortions or medical marijuana, I'll take the latter. Wow. Just... wow. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:43:20 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7f47ae88-6fbc-47ce-a083-f9526739ab59 embersandsparks 2007-12-28T11:43:20Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c3cab227-4854-45dd-b87c-ec6bd58f54b4 So true about the abortion issue. When I tell people I am for a womens right to choose but strongly believe that Roe V. Wade should be overturned the look of confusion is priceless. On another point I have been following this thread and have read the quotes put out that RP supposedly said but I havn't seen any recfrence or proof that RP said it. Did I miss it? Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:15:33 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c3cab227-4854-45dd-b87c-ec6bd58f54b4 Flamingo 2007-12-28T11:15:33Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#45f3b517-a70e-43df-905b-c18b5bf72819 "I think Goodwin's law in Burner form is simply substituting racist and hate for nazi." Pretty much, yeah. Being "racist" is the cardinal sin in this country.... Why is this even a thread? Because ALL the other candidates are cookie cutter gingerbread men with NO new ideas. On both sides. The Democrats: Nothing new to offer. Same old bullshit. Republicans: Same old bullshit EXCEPT for Ron Paul. But of course, some of you have that whole abortion litmus test thing to deal with. I mean, he's clearly insane if he's not pro choice. Just an fyi...there are some prominent legal scholars who believe that even though a woman should have the right to choose... Roe v. Wade was a terrible LEGAL decision. All of the other candidates don't even PRETEND to want to reduce the size of the government.....doesn't that tell you something? I expect better from burners..... But that word "republican" is just sooo nasty to some of you that you resort to quips about "fantasy land", "racist neo nazi", and tell yourselves "it'll all be over soon". That's just pathetic. If there is no one on the Republican ticket that you could stand, by all means, tell us: Who is "Ron Paul" on the Dems ticket? Who? Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:38:27 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#45f3b517-a70e-43df-905b-c18b5bf72819 Jason 2007-12-28T09:38:27Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f6208fd0-9f44-4a86-a95a-43566fd3c9b3 Ha, Rob That was funny. I think Goodwin's law in Burner form is simply substituting racist and hate for nazi. As I said before it is the singular method employed by those bereft of coherent thoughts, to end arguments they are otherwise losing........ Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:57:32 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f6208fd0-9f44-4a86-a95a-43566fd3c9b3 glennzzz 2007-12-28T07:57:32Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cffab261-d8cd-4f7f-9202-9689408bbc4a Tony, I've never spoken to you. Take it easy on the bourbon. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:54:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cffab261-d8cd-4f7f-9202-9689408bbc4a glennzzz 2007-12-28T07:54:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#26301a7f-3b97-4011-b2bc-70449acd7933 Rudi? Are you kidding me? He may have did an acceptable job during 9/11, but be for real. RP actually makes some decent points. But he's going to have to change parties to get into the finals. I don't know you Glenzzzz so please don't talk to me ever again. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:46:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#26301a7f-3b97-4011-b2bc-70449acd7933 Tony 2007-12-28T07:46:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2cc8063f-456e-40c9-b416-a83368efa167 Hey, around here lately, that's progress. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:36:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2cc8063f-456e-40c9-b416-a83368efa167 Crypto 2007-12-28T07:36:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f95ec72b-dde0-49e3-aaf9-4764e33925c7 Aren't politics great? We can all be pissed at each other over something that is probably not gonna happen. A few points about Ron Paul. 1. how do you get rid of birthright Citizenship without changing the Constitution? 2. His quote from his own site “The people know much better how to spend their money than the government” Says a couple of things, he hasn't watched an episode of "Cribs" or "Pimp my ride", he hasn't walked through a McMansion development and more importantly, he feels the Government and The People should continue to be separate entities. I see this again and again in political speech and news reporting. It would be nice if we could at least pretend - or better yet acutually move towards - a Government that was the people. Pipedream, I know, but so is returning to the gold standard and closing our borders. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:22:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f95ec72b-dde0-49e3-aaf9-4764e33925c7 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-28T07:22:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#26f352f0-01d1-4fe2-acfd-078aa7d5cf6b Mr. Geek, you would vote for Ron Paul if you had the chance. I beleive this with all my heart. There is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. So there. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:02:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#26f352f0-01d1-4fe2-acfd-078aa7d5cf6b Chicken 2007-12-28T07:02:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a06a454e-884a-4226-8a10-dfff7a2a3479 Glen, re: your comment to Geek... Is this somehow related to Godwin's Law? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:10:43 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a06a454e-884a-4226-8a10-dfff7a2a3479 Rob 2007-12-28T06:10:43Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6e9e198-d712-4639-8934-b46e161baf52 I don't have to, I am not the one running for President. He is and as far as I am concerned is a freaking lunatic. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:30:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6e9e198-d712-4639-8934-b46e161baf52 Geekster 2007-12-28T05:30:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#92a51a6b-e94f-4fdc-8ef7-716357e171a5 Ok GEEKSTER Why don't you write something intelligent about the plight of inner city blacks then. You keep harping on this quote that probably never happened........but nonetheless. What is a sensible way of dealing with the underachievement, high rate of incarceration, black on black violence, overwhelming rate of illegitimacy............ Should this not be a topic among presidential candidates...? Oh let me guess, you're empathetic because you say it's institutional racism. That is the burner copout of all time. Fuck, go see the Denzel movie this weekend. There are plenty of blacks that are as smart as anyone else, and they were achieving fantastic things way before the civil rights act. Black educational achievement was probably higher as a group when there was institutional racism. They don't need white hippie burners advocating that we build big big towers to house them in. Or give them special set asides they didn't earn...............And the excuses for poor behavior only help them land in jail. Fuck, one of my partners is a black doc and he thinks you guys are lunatics................. So what say you...........you keep bringing it up....... Oh I get it....its easier to not NOTHING.......and just call the guy that brings it up a racist.........he is full of hate......(the two magic bullets of burner debate) time for some coherence........ Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:20:49 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#92a51a6b-e94f-4fdc-8ef7-716357e171a5 glennzzz 2007-12-28T05:20:49Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#78de4082-f395-49aa-8513-d5308fbbaea8 Shhh don't worry yourself over it Geekster. In another two to three weeks it will all be nothing but a silly memory. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:42:37 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#78de4082-f395-49aa-8513-d5308fbbaea8 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-28T03:42:37Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bed70302-a350-4bb4-ac8b-67dcd8b55e31 And then there is this: quote Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable. Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions end quote Are you SURE you support this guy for President? Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:21:32 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#bed70302-a350-4bb4-ac8b-67dcd8b55e31 Geekster 2007-12-28T03:21:32Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0032e1c3-f877-4830-bd40-d8a8b737cb82 I am just saying that the Kos article links to Paul's OWN WORDS. They aren't anyone else's words. Let me give you some quotes ... what Ron Paul has to say about black people in Washington DC: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." What does he say about black men in general? " We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." And why is he getting publicity shots done with the owner of one of the largest hate sites on the Internet (stormfront)? Look, none of this is what other people say about him, it is what that racist lunatic has said himself. The man is insane. He is a nut. And frankly, I shouldn't say anything about it because having him attract other lunatics to his cause gives them a place to go so we don't have to deal with them in the other major party constituencies. Let Paul collect all the idiots. I will be greatly surprised if he manages to collect one percentage point of the vote in the primaries. In other words, he will be about as significant as a hair on the ass of a flea. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:07:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0032e1c3-f877-4830-bd40-d8a8b737cb82 Geekster 2007-12-28T03:07:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0234f83f-141b-44a8-8562-80007e66eb78 I guess the only answer is a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket (in either combination....) Too bad that'll never happen unless we get off the two party "democracy". Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:08:36 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0234f83f-141b-44a8-8562-80007e66eb78 Widget 2007-12-28T01:08:36Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f2844b45-ffe8-482e-8950-0d926e4f14d1 << Just about every hate site on the internet has endorsed Paul. >> Big deal. What lunatic doesn't like a president that tries to get the government out of everything? However, "neo-Nazis like Ron Paul" does not allow to deduct "Ron Paul is a neo-Nazi", that's not how logic works. Just because RP stands for things that neo-Nazis like (such as no gun control, no affirmative action, loosening U.S. ties with Israel) does not mean that RP stands for these things because neo-Nazis like them. Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:03:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f2844b45-ffe8-482e-8950-0d926e4f14d1 (evil) Stefan 2007-12-28T01:03:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#62f7773f-d342-4982-b7d2-69e711aca1a3 Quoting 15 year old statements not made by the canidate out of context is not a very strong argument. AT LEAST include the first sentence of the segment that goes: "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America." Whoever wrote that piece, my interpretation is that he's blaming the white folks for it. Oh my god, it's a black supremacist!!!1111 Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:56:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#62f7773f-d342-4982-b7d2-69e711aca1a3 (evil) Stefan 2007-12-28T00:56:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a31562f3-377f-461b-b40c-c01a8d39552a Actually, I don't need you to respond. Mr. Geek, that I even (out of nowhere) insinuate that you are a wife beater makes you a wife beater. That I insinuate that you fucked your dog make you a dirty dicked dog fucker. That you insinuate that Ron Paul's only support is from racists is the same, lame, boring, ugly trick. It is simply not true. And citing "Daily K O's" is like citing Fox. Just ripping people apart. You just implied that everyone who is a Libertarian is a racist. Preposterous. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:47:45 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a31562f3-377f-461b-b40c-c01a8d39552a Chicken 2007-12-27T20:47:45Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dbd290c3-3f1d-4cb0-a718-55dcd712606c Here's a link to an article on Norman Podhoretz, one of Giuliani's foreign policy advisers: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/27/4847/ Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:40:15 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dbd290c3-3f1d-4cb0-a718-55dcd712606c M 2007-12-27T20:40:15Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b465dbdb-1e0f-49b4-9f30-f031f003c647 Mr. Geek, are the allegations that you beat your wife and fuck your dog true? Please answer yes or no. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:24:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#b465dbdb-1e0f-49b4-9f30-f031f003c647 Chicken 2007-12-27T20:24:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3158c69f-7e1a-485b-ad1a-b5674326826c Oh, I don't disagree with what you wrote. It is just a matter of proportion. If a candidate has wide support that includes white supremests, that is one thing. If a candidate has broad white supremest support and practically nothing else, that isn't a good sign. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:23:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3158c69f-7e1a-485b-ad1a-b5674326826c Geekster 2007-12-27T20:23:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ac4a117-6fdc-49e6-aa94-f9a87d60c554 'The current group of republicans don't practice fiscal restraint, are nearly as enamored of entitlements as democrats, and practice a somewhat overly pious form of christianity that would probably appall the founders' Which is exactly why RP is a conversation at all. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:21:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1ac4a117-6fdc-49e6-aa94-f9a87d60c554 Peter 2007-12-27T20:21:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5d0bff4c-f6a9-401c-8950-9b9619d0daaa I concur with the racist staement. I am going to be 40 years old and still have not met a racist besides a few people in my family. I just don't think I've ever met an actual racist. To call someone a racist is a very loaded thing to do. And certainly a low road to take. I appreciate it, though. Tells a lot about the person who weilds such a weapon. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:15:44 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#5d0bff4c-f6a9-401c-8950-9b9619d0daaa Chicken 2007-12-27T20:15:44Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0ffb9f85-72c3-4a39-b475-8e81792c06f3 I kow of very few people that live in NY and think that Rudy is a uniter. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14952564/giuliani_worse_than_bush Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:10:08 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0ffb9f85-72c3-4a39-b475-8e81792c06f3 Peter 2007-12-27T20:10:08Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#211686c5-6b31-4d57-890d-ed4a4b7f8a94 I think the Libertarians tend to attract a lot of people enamored of the constitution and what the republican party used to be. The current group of republicans don't practice fiscal restraint, are nearly as enamored of entitlements as democrats, and practice a somewhat overly pious form of christianity that would probably appall the founders. I think guys like Jefferson and Hamiltion who were usually at odds would agree that the current crop of "christian" republicans are a bit sectarian in their approach to religion and too readily involve it in decisionmaking, or try to appear so. Ron Paul has voted No time and again when the issue at hand was inherently unconstitutional in its mission, or its applicability. But hey Geek, you get to end the argument with the Burner Magic words..........there are only two but they are truly mystical in their power. When bereft of thought but determined to "win" the debate, one must merely throw in the words racist and/or hate. Like a master chess player executing the Latvian Gambit the burner must skillfully insert one or both of the magic words.................all debate will immediately cease as the scuttled opponent retreats back into the hippie shell of appearing empathetic to all. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:02:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#211686c5-6b31-4d57-890d-ed4a4b7f8a94 glennzzz 2007-12-27T20:02:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e754595d-faec-49cb-ae0e-9e094555b1d7 I firmly beleive that a white supremist's vote is equally as valuable and important as mine. I actually think that if a white supremist and I support the same candidate that that's a good thing. I am very comfortable in the fact that I am not a white supremist. I"m not even white, really. Rudy outspent the Democratic candidate by like 20-1. Whoever spends more, wins. That's usually the case. I am an intelligent person. I'm against unions, as a rule. Would never join one. Your mileage may vary. Ron Paul isn't a racist. Or at least he doesn't claim to be. It's OK if he is. That's his choice. You can be too if you want. It's not illegal. Actually, if you beleive that one race is superior to another and you beleive it with all your heart... and you say so publicly... Well. That's gotta be pretty brave. And if you started a group or something... like lets say: "White people for the advancement of white people". And were non-violent and law abiding... well then being racist isn't really that bad now, would it be? It's the rouge racists that are violent that DISCRIMINATE AND EXERT PREDJUDICE... these are the *bad* people. I'm just making a point about freedom. I beleive in so much freedom, that the templet for good and bad is out of calibration. THe free market would never allow the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, the free market would have ended most wars. There is no need for a war with Iraq if we had the 250 MPG car that we all know we have but aren't driving for obvious reasons. With 250 MPG cars we don't need foriegn oil. Period. Just an example. It's a complicated issue, the abortion thing. No one is *for* abortion. No one wants to get one. I think that if we left it up to individual states, that less then half of the states would make it illegal. But I know that I would give $100 a year to the bus service that brings young girls to the state that does give them. So problem solved. Everyone gets what they want. The religious people get to live somewhere where abortion is illegal and if you want one it's a 200 miles bus ride round trip (on averge) or less to go get one with tons of support. That sounds like a great option to me. I'm sure it's not perfect. But the real issue is getting the education out so that unwanted pregnacy drops. Ron Paul would be all about that. Not that he would support it, he just wouldn't pass legistlation to stop it. So that's how things get done in this templet. With more freedom and less laws... things become easier. But for both sides. Just a few points. Anyone who says that a 73 year old man is a studdering idiot should be ashamed of himslef. You will be that old one day , be nice. He doesn't beleive in evolution. Do you think he's lying? Do you think he's kidding? Let him beleive whatever he wants. I think it's kinda cute. In the end, he's got a small chance to do anything. But if it happens and he gets the nomination... I'm right there. my 2 cents... Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:01:45 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e754595d-faec-49cb-ae0e-9e094555b1d7 Chicken 2007-12-27T20:01:45Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ea6b6895-2fd9-44b2-82aa-30e44a49e27f What logic? Just about every white supremest and neo-Nazi group in the country has come out in support of Ron Paul. Also he is no libertarian (small "l") , yes, he was for a while affiliated with the Libertarian (big L) party. The Libertarian Party tends to attract a lot of nuts and idiots and very few actual libertarians. There's no "logic" to it, it isn't anything I figured out, I was making a statement of physical fact. Read the Kos article I linked to in another posting. And there's a ton more out there. Just about every hate site on the internet has endorsed Paul. He is a lunatic and I am getting the same impression of most of his support out there. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:48:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#ea6b6895-2fd9-44b2-82aa-30e44a49e27f Geekster 2007-12-27T19:48:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c8e93c56-adb8-4b2e-8f33-604110b96176 << I just can't take a candidate seriously who is supported by the white supremest community. >> untill you said this I was with you. however your logic needs work. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:19:09 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c8e93c56-adb8-4b2e-8f33-604110b96176 Alex 2007-12-27T19:19:09Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2050f73c-7f40-49d4-94e7-56399f024521 Geek makes some good points about Rudy. He did oversee the budget and oversight of one of the largest economies in the world. Say what you will about New York or Rudy but the city is cleaner, lightyears safer, and much better run from a fiscal standpoint. No one else really has that type of legitimate experience save Romney or Huckabee to a much lesser extent. The Dems have Bill Richardson but he isn't getting any serious play...........as they prefer to court a man who was recently a board alderman and a first wife.......... Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:06:08 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2050f73c-7f40-49d4-94e7-56399f024521 glennzzz 2007-12-27T19:06:08Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c66deb32-62c7-4391-bba7-406b6c454ce4 <Tony, and the Geek show up with the typical burner political discourse which consists of 2nd grade name calling.......... > Something to which glennzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz has never stooped. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:31:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c66deb32-62c7-4391-bba7-406b6c454ce4 Crypto 2007-12-27T18:31:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#417b23f5-ed5f-442c-a109-99e4667a724b I hope Rudy runs. I really like his style in how he turned around NYC. Let me put it this way: For the most part NYC are Democrats. And they are not bumpkins either, they are metropolitan Democrats and politically savvy. They put Rudy in office twice over Democrat candidates. That says something to me. They were voting for the person, not the party. Rudy has shown himself to be a candidate that people of both parties can vote for and quite frankly I am tired of all the divisive politics. Clinton is a polarizer. She will inflame emotions and divide people more. I see Rudy as a candidate who could bring people together over common issues. More of a uniter than a divider and I personally am ready for that. Oh, and check this out Re: the Paul campaign: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/85617/090 Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:15:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#417b23f5-ed5f-442c-a109-99e4667a724b Geekster 2007-12-27T18:15:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0a65be8c-df65-46b8-99e9-ab9808cd9d41 I completely hear ya. This is just my opinion on how I think things will shake out. You're right, given the reality of our political system anything could happen. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:01:51 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0a65be8c-df65-46b8-99e9-ab9808cd9d41 Bobzilla 2007-12-27T18:01:51Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e9a4358d-736f-4ba3-96b9-7e45582e98d6 Clinton is a high possibility. Giulliani keeps looking more and more doubtful. Unless you own a working crystal ball there is no way to predict that outcome this early. It only takes one tiny misstep to destroy a campaign. Howard Dean was a shoe in until he yelled "yeehaw" too loudly. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:56:33 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e9a4358d-736f-4ba3-96b9-7e45582e98d6 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-27T17:56:33Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c19047d2-4476-4ec3-8e16-8ea7cadd0879 At the end of the day it's gonna be Giuliani vs Clinton. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:44:31 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c19047d2-4476-4ec3-8e16-8ea7cadd0879 Bobzilla 2007-12-27T17:44:31Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e230e0a7-ee9d-423b-acd4-5c7cad8a7ef5 What I have to say won't matter. You will see all you need to see when the people go to the ballot boxes. That is the only poll that matters. What I can't understand is why the handful of Paul people go running around pretending that there is actually any support for their lunacy in either of the major parties. I just can't take a candidate seriously who is supported by the white supremest community. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:25:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#e230e0a7-ee9d-423b-acd4-5c7cad8a7ef5 Geekster 2007-12-27T17:25:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6cb8ca1b-dd6b-4d72-bcf3-688bb3b1e08c Predictably Tony, and the Geek show up with the typical burner political discourse which consists of 2nd grade name calling.......... Eddie dismisses his candidacy outright and gives what is probably an accurate version of what will happen to his campaign, yet he too is too careless to deal with the somewhat constitutional approach to governance that has so many excited about a truly different candidate. Carry on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:19:10 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6cb8ca1b-dd6b-4d72-bcf3-688bb3b1e08c glennzzz 2007-12-27T17:19:10Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c604f3c5-e535-484c-8a48-e8fe610f66db Ron Paul is a combination of Ross Perot and Lyndon LaRouche. Someone should fill that blimp with hydrogen. I thought it interesting that his icon is a gas bag. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:00:25 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c604f3c5-e535-484c-8a48-e8fe610f66db Geekster 2007-12-27T17:00:25Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#af027f8a-9512-40a7-b1a3-9ceca5605a61 I doubt he will even show up as a blip in Iowa and will rapidly go down hill from there. While he has a very vocal block of supporters on the interwebs flooding every forum I don't see many of them actually voting. A good portion won't and/or never have voted and another good portion isn't even registered as republican to vote for him in the first place. Personally think anybody who registers as a Republican to vote for this hack is just being used by the Republican Party. If a flood of voters suddenly register rep. whoever actually wins the nomination will be waving that sudden boost as a flag of support. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:52:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#af027f8a-9512-40a7-b1a3-9ceca5605a61 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-27T16:52:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cddc6f07-ad35-4621-b9c0-b983f18a5120 You are so deluded Chicken. So are the rest of you that think RP might win. If anything all that wang bone will do is siphon a few votes off the other special interest corporate puppets that are both sides of the same coin. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:06:00 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#cddc6f07-ad35-4621-b9c0-b983f18a5120 Tony 2007-12-27T15:06:00Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2988ba85-c778-4eec-8d0f-1ef712f562d3 all ive got to say is fuck what everyone says Ron Paul is going to win Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:12:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2988ba85-c778-4eec-8d0f-1ef712f562d3 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-27T06:12:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#51ebabb5-9855-427d-84b0-c96ef651560d >>So, if i believe that unfettered capitalism (free market) is a recipe for returning to the glory days of the late 1800's extreme economic inequality, then my opinion is nonsense?<< The late 1800s ushered in mercantilism not capitalism, so it's unlikely that by turning the US into a capitalist country, we would "return" it to something considerably different. As for some of the other commentary (sorry not to quote and credit everyone): Paul is against elective abortion, but that does not necessarily translate into anti-abortion legislation at the Federal level. In all likelihood, it would revert to the states, which is a good thing. States where it is already nearly impossible to get an abortion are probably the only states where it would get banned, if any actually do ban it. Actually, the map of abortionists would probably not change very much. But, reverting these issues to the states would make things like medical marijuana raids a thing of the past and that healthcare issue affects way more women than the abortion one. Given the choice of legal abortions or medical marijuana, I'll take the latter. Unions. Collective bargaining is great. I'm sure Paul is not against that, but what the "unions" have turned into in some states ain't so hot. They force you to join them and pay them fees for services that you may not want. That's just transferring the potential for abuse from the one entity to another. That's not what collective bargaining was intended for. States where unions are not legally empowered to force you to basically work for them are called "right to work" states and many workers actually prefers this. I dont know Paul's views on African-Americans. Lots of people have negative knee-jerk reactions to other people (republicans and christians for instance) and it doesn't matter. A smaller government means less opportunity for racism to be a part of the bureaucracy no matter the variety of asshole in in the oval office. Giuliani. He seems to already have lost Florida so he's out. The snowbird masses who are supposed to be his block dont support him. Maybe they aren't so hot for him back home either. I think that's it. I just gotta call to go to Club Deuce and that's way more important than another politics argument on the BM tribe. ;) Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:38:52 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#51ebabb5-9855-427d-84b0-c96ef651560d margaret 2007-12-27T02:38:52Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4db0bf80-6fb6-490e-a783-6ad10f34db1a I should have known....... that we would A. go immediately to abortion B. immediately call someone racist if they refuse to excuse the self-destructive, or criminal behavior of a certain segment of society. yes, lets move on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:30:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4db0bf80-6fb6-490e-a783-6ad10f34db1a glennzzz 2007-12-27T01:30:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#99b9329c-2826-4dfc-bb81-bf9ff3c7bab0 >> I think Crypto was right.............this went straight to a third grade level.......and probably should have been avoided. It's a politics discussion in the Burning Man tribe. Did anyone seriously expect a different outcome? Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:07:03 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#99b9329c-2826-4dfc-bb81-bf9ff3c7bab0 (evil) Stefan 2007-12-27T01:07:03Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a7118a4c-49a8-487e-a933-ec2237acd988 Ok, Glenn, I'll bite. <Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. > So, if i believe that unfettered capitalism (free market) is a recipe for returning to the glory days of the late 1800's extreme economic inequality, then my opinion is nonsense? Who says? Many people who are much smarter and more learned than I hold this view. I don't agreee with the above opinion, however I wouldn't call it nonsense. Then again I'm not a know-it-all. Apparently, RP isn't so hot on individual liberty if he can't trust women with decisions about thier own reproductive health. Hippocrite. <I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. > WTF. Do I really need to address this statement. The part of the article that is missing comes to the 95% figure with some pretty convoluted juggling of statistics. Including people who have been "arrested". Not convicted, arrested. So you are a "semi criminal" if you are arrested. It doesn't make distinctions for what type of "crimes" for which they were arrested. Ever been pulled over for speeding, Glenn? You too may be a "semi-criminal". Maybe even "entirely criminal". Complete bullshit. <We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.> This one is my favorite, the old standby of racists everywhere. I doesn't take into account economic status or opportunity. Race seems to dissappear when these factors are taken into account. Fear is the favorite tool that the thieves in charge use to keep thier power. Since 1992 they tend to prefer brown to black (Mexicans, Middle-Easterners). Tends to work perfectly to distract racists while the pols suck you dry. The vast majority of serial killers and mass murders in the U.S. are white males. Does that mean that everyone should fear me? If anyone wishes I can post links from multiple sources for the cited article (don't know how to post a link). It is from RP's self-produced newsletter. Shockingly, RP refuses to release this archive to the public. It had his tacit approval, at least, whether or not he wrote the words himself. How's that Glenn? Fuck, I feel like Adam with all the < >, and a little dirty. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:03:23 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a7118a4c-49a8-487e-a933-ec2237acd988 Kurt 2007-12-27T01:03:23Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4eb7c0c5-7ef8-4309-b356-ca8e1cf1146c Dodge and weave Glenn, dodge and weave... Before *I* pointed out that RP claims not to have actually made the refernced statement, your reply to Kurt was: <<Instead of presenting his views and merely saying you think they are stupid, why don't you deconstruct them and dazzle us with some WHY. Many of us actually live in a culture of evidence, and need to hear more than a simple dismissal with prejucide. >> It sounds to me that you were demanding evidence that 95% of black men in D.C. are NOT criminals. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:41:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4eb7c0c5-7ef8-4309-b356-ca8e1cf1146c Kelly 2007-12-27T00:41:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c0c3d17d-15ec-462c-ae2c-ad1e12f73aa9 sometimes things are what they are.......... Calling someone a racist almost always ends a discussion that can often be useful......................and a discussion that probably needs to occur. So moving right along............. any other Ron Paul stances to discuss? I think Crypto was right.............this went straight to a third grade level.......and probably should have been avoided. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:41:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c0c3d17d-15ec-462c-ae2c-ad1e12f73aa9 glennzzz 2007-12-27T00:41:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#af1831d1-c15c-46b7-b6c7-8f90732f8981 So you are asking for me to deal with a statement the guy never made? Not sure I see the point. so what are you looking for....an excuse to dismiss someone as racist. If he said black males graduate high school and college in numbers far less than caucasian or asian males is this a racist statement. If he said black males are far likelier to commit crimes vs. caucasian or asian males is this a racist statement.. If he said that according to FBI crime and victim reports In the case of interracial murder for 2004, where the race of victim and perpetrator is known, more than twice as many whites were murdered by a black than cases of a white murdering a black. (from williams) Is this a racist statement.............. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:38:35 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#af1831d1-c15c-46b7-b6c7-8f90732f8981 glennzzz 2007-12-27T00:38:35Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#16f2539c-7c80-44ce-b3b8-990b5268b049 >Are you telling us that you see nothing inherently problematic about that statement? Indeed that question remains. Responding with rhetoric is a copout as well. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:31:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#16f2539c-7c80-44ce-b3b8-990b5268b049 Bobzilla 2007-12-27T00:31:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dc4619b8-7c9d-4d03-b01d-4b028818061d Glenn, Kurt quoted a statement from a Ron Paul newwsletter that stated it was reasonable to assume (i.e. pre-judge) that 95% of black men in D.C. and probably other urban areas are criminal. Are you telling us that you see nothing inherently problematic about that statement? Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:29:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#dc4619b8-7c9d-4d03-b01d-4b028818061d Kelly 2007-12-27T00:29:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8d1d5b32-f90e-4a5a-81c2-6bbe7d1c6dc6 My mistake apparently this was attributed to a RP staffer. My apologies. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:28:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#8d1d5b32-f90e-4a5a-81c2-6bbe7d1c6dc6 Bobzilla 2007-12-27T00:28:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#84ac9987-cc78-43d2-914c-8ad520c3da11 Well Kelly's post, that you responded to above has that quote. Did you not read his post? You responded to it I assumed you read it. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:26:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#84ac9987-cc78-43d2-914c-8ad520c3da11 Bobzilla 2007-12-27T00:26:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a4f5b128-01d1-4a49-86b0-2b064c352209 Did Ron Paul say that...........not that I've heard......... If he did make a statement you disagree with please tell us why. Is it inaccurate.? Merely dismissing someone as racist is a copout. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:14:02 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a4f5b128-01d1-4a49-86b0-2b064c352209 glennzzz 2007-12-27T00:14:02Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#427f2537-549b-486a-b0e6-0d229e975026 >” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. Do you not find this to be racist? Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:02:44 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#427f2537-549b-486a-b0e6-0d229e975026 Bobzilla 2007-12-27T00:02:44Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c46da600-96ad-4273-8208-140c92c7192c Kelly If you guys want to criticize Ron Paul please pick a point, any point and tell us where and why you find his views objectionable. Not that you think he is "dumb" or an "idiot" and certainly not by posting something he didn't say. I give you credit for noting that. I haven't decided if I can vote for him yet, but none of the republicans are exactly dazzling me...........and the democrats just keep on keepin on........... Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:50:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#c46da600-96ad-4273-8208-140c92c7192c glennzzz 2007-12-26T23:50:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7ab7e784-a5b6-4bf3-b209-b88919296420 Translation: Glenn needs it to be explained to him what's wrong with assuming that 95% of black men in D.C. are criminals...and yet he whines about prejudice and those nasty white liberal racists all the dern time... Also note that lovely math in Kurt's RP quote: Only 5% of black people have "sensible" political opinions (i.e. agreeing with RP about everything), and 95% of black men in D.C. and probably other urban areas are criminals - doesn't leave much room for a middle ground, does it? Black men who aren't "enlightened" enough to believe what RP believes are criminals - at least in the cities. Basic arithmatic. Now, I've read that this quote is actually attributed to a RP staffer and RP himself has distanced himself from it. The funny part is that there are actually folks who claim to be unprejudiced and "live in a culture of evidence" who demand proof that 95% of urban black men AREN'T criminals... Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:41:50 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7ab7e784-a5b6-4bf3-b209-b88919296420 Kelly 2007-12-26T23:41:50Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a7383867-382d-4e06-a7e7-8909318dc393 Maybe because as "Doctor" we should expect him to be a man of science and not somebody believing in fairy tales? Not trying to speak for Kurt just a hunch. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:30:47 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a7383867-382d-4e06-a7e7-8909318dc393 $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-26T23:30:47Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2f8868f0-2df0-4130-8d65-c5a71b79068a So Kurt. Instead of presenting his views and merely saying you think they are stupid, why don't you deconstruct them and dazzle us with some WHY. Many of us actually live in a culture of evidence, and need to hear more than a simple dismissal with prejucide. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:20:22 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#2f8868f0-2df0-4130-8d65-c5a71b79068a glennzzz 2007-12-26T23:20:22Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4965a6e2-ea28-4bf8-b6af-edb11c3ecfa1 <McCain might have wide appeal, but he seems to have fallen off the map> And here lies a tale that RP supporters (even those who get their news from Fox) might want to consider. Every couple of election cycles we have a dark horse candidate who grabs all sorts of attention early in the race, even win a couple of the primaries in some case, but who fades away later in the race, and four or eight years later can't even get traction, as he (usually male) is outshone by a new dark horse. The less we know about these men, the easier they become a rorschack blot for our hopes to be projected on. When Quinn the Eskimo gets here, everybody's gonna jump for joy. Really changing the system is going to take more than a political Prince Charming riding up on his white horse. Get the fucking money out of politics. Corporations aren't people and don't have the same free speech rights. Perhaps we shouldn't simply limit how much they can give to each candidate, but put a cap on how much they can give out altogether. Of course, that would require (gulp) enacting more laws. They say that negative campaign ads cause a decrease in voter turn out. What if we couldnt' certify elections that had less than a 80% turn out among registered voters? That might cause more lasting change than buying a ticket on the 80-to-1 odds horse in the race. it would probably take one or two revotes, instead of the instantanious deus dex machina of those dreams, but the gods are fickle. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:48:11 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#4965a6e2-ea28-4bf8-b6af-edb11c3ecfa1 Crypto 2007-12-26T22:48:11Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3f00dddf-6b31-41da-be25-9c96d95780e3 Oh yeah, here's a gem of a quote from Ron Paul's self-published newsletter from 1992. <Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.> Nice, huh. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:28 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#3f00dddf-6b31-41da-be25-9c96d95780e3 Kurt 2007-12-26T22:46:28Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#82116fd3-c6d9-4b07-903a-95feec0f3a08 Spot on Eddie. Did you see him on Meet the Press last week. I would say blithering idiot. An MD who doesn't believe in evolution, an OB who doesn't believe that women should have control of thier reproductive decisions (Libratarian?). WTF?? Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:41:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#82116fd3-c6d9-4b07-903a-95feec0f3a08 Kurt 2007-12-26T22:41:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0a3dad83-791e-4ae5-9653-771f108833af <<"Ron Paul is the founding father of the new America" Welcome to Fantasyland. >> SPOT. EFFING. ON. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:26:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#0a3dad83-791e-4ae5-9653-771f108833af $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-26T22:26:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fb797968-fdd6-494f-9b0a-b3509fd45b04 For once I find myself in agreement with Eddie. Ron Paul looks good at first glance - his views on Iraq and the sham of the drug war are certainly in accord iwth most folks here, I'm guessing, but he's also consistently anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-union (which I always find funny among libertarians, as you'd think they'd support such basic freedoms as freedom of association and freedom to organize themsleves as they see fit, but somehow most libertarians always seem to think the rights of business owners to make as much money as possible money are more important than the rights of their employees), and anti-almost all legislation that protects minority rights. Even his views about Iraq look less appealing when you realize that they are just part of his general isolationism - I happen to think we should be doing more to help in places like Darfur, but RP would have us doing even less. Ayway, it seems pretty much all the GOP candidates are fatally flawed (short analysis: Giuliani would drive away the religous right base that has come to dominate the party, and the others would alienate everyone else. McCain might have wide appeal, but he seems to have fallen off the map.) Worthwhile political activism would seem to involve getting a Demo other than Clinton nominated, IMHO. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:30:48 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fb797968-fdd6-494f-9b0a-b3509fd45b04 Kelly 2007-12-26T21:30:48Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6117701b-5263-44da-9c4f-10847b9a07a8 thanks. i really can't get enough alice cooper.... Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:04:16 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6117701b-5263-44da-9c4f-10847b9a07a8 Jason 2007-12-26T21:04:16Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#835a5631-5d11-4513-8c2e-f00404ef0a98 I'm top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice I wanna be elected I'm Yankee Doodle Dandy in a gold Rolls-Royce I wanna be elected Kids want a savior, don't need a fake I wanna be elected We're all gonna rock to the rules that I make I wanna be elected Respected Selected Call 'em collected. I wanna be elected. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jggm7VWqhLs Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:29:12 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#835a5631-5d11-4513-8c2e-f00404ef0a98 Rockstar 2007-12-26T20:29:12Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#61e44c70-80de-4c2a-9939-54ac2a2dd7d8 Well it is a horserace, but that's how I see it. Of course, there are others... FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Dec. 18-19, 2007. N=315 Republican voters nationwide. MoE ± 6. . "If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were [see below]?" Names rotated. Results from 9/07 & earlier calculated using second choice of Gingrich supporters. . 12/18-19/07 11/13-14/07 10/23-24/07 10/9-10/07 9/11-12/07 % % % % % Rudy Giuliani 20 33 31 29 34 Mike Huckabee 19 8 5 5 2 John McCain 19 17 12 12 16 Mitt Romney 11 8 7 11 8 Fred Thompson 10 12 17 16 22 Ron Paul 3 3 1 2 2 Duncan Hunter 2 3 3 1 3 Tom Tancredo 1 1 2 2 1 Other (vol.) - - 2 1 1 Unsure 13 13 16 17 11 Wouldn't vote (vol.) 1 2 4 3 1 Sam Brownback n/a n/a n/a 2 1 Chuck Hagel n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 8/21-22/07 7/17-18/07 6/26-27/07 6/5-6/07 5/15-16/07 % % % % % Rudy Giuliani 30 27 31 24 25 Fred Thompson 15 17 18 14 9 Mitt Romney 12 10 8 12 10 John McCain 7 17 18 15 18 Mike Huckabee 3 3 3 3 1 Ron Paul 3 2 - 2 1 Sam Brownback 1 1 1 - 2 Tom Tancredo 1 1 1 1 1 Chuck Hagel - - 1 1 - Duncan Hunter - - 1 1 1 Other (vol.) 2 2 1 - 2 Unsure 24 20 12 21 26 Wouldn't vote (vol.) 3 2 3 3 2 Tommy Thompson n/a 1 2 3 2 Jim Gilmore n/a n/a - 1 1 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:16:26 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#61e44c70-80de-4c2a-9939-54ac2a2dd7d8 Chicken 2007-12-26T20:16:26Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9558656f-128a-4f81-877a-12f94e7d5f7e Low? He is fifth at best! Nice claim though. Silly but nice. Yes I have heard him speak. He is a stuttering idiot and we already have one of those. You keep bringing up abortion but leave out that he is pro-life, voted against embryonic stem cell research and expanding the stem cell lines. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:15:07 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#9558656f-128a-4f81-877a-12f94e7d5f7e $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-26T20:15:07Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6c618453-c50a-46d0-a96c-22bc0ce0dbfa Are you saying Gulliani is the only viable republican candidate? Or did I read you wrong. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:00:58 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#6c618453-c50a-46d0-a96c-22bc0ce0dbfa Dusty Nipples (Kim) 2007-12-26T20:00:58Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7b1e4c9d-0f59-4bc1-bd01-3d4d35f85bd3 "Welcome to Fantasyland." Hardly. The polls show Ron Paul low, but they are wrong because the system that polls can't calibrate to him. If it's not totally rigged, Ron Paul will get the nomination. If Gulliani gets it, you know it's totally rigged. There is no fantasy here. Ron has been a congressman for eons. He has made excellent connections and is a medical doctor who has birthed 4,000 babies. The abortion issue is HUGE. That he delivered babies is paramount. People will want to vote for a man with a noble profession. Have you heard him speak? He's great. He has raised more money in one day than any other presidental candidate ever. like 7 million dollars. In one day. He has the best thing that a politician can have today: the support of the disenfranchised. In SF, 17% of the registered voters voted in the election last month. That's why I ran for mayor, because I knew that it would be like that. To make a point. The whole USA is going to experience the same thing if it's Hillary vs Gulliani next year. If you don't want Ron Paul to be president I can understand. But right now he's running againt Gulliani. I'm sure we can all agree that Ron vs Rudy is a no brainer. Rudy Gulliani is a joke. I heard him talk for 13 minutes about how he protected NYC from the Terrorists. Twit. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:59:05 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#7b1e4c9d-0f59-4bc1-bd01-3d4d35f85bd3 Chicken 2007-12-26T19:59:05Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1c9aa094-fcce-4c39-9d91-80a60008ba03 >If Hillary Clinton becomes president for the next 8 years, that will mark 28 years of our country being controlled by 2 families< Very good point that few are even talk about. We, the USA, left a country because we didn't want to be ruled by the same family yer after year. 200 years later we created ourselves in the image that we left. Ron Paul has a lot of interesting things to say. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:04:57 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#1c9aa094-fcce-4c39-9d91-80a60008ba03 Peter 2007-12-26T14:04:57Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0d5c4e4-a11b-4052-a27d-a5a172f3461f "Ron Paul is the founding father of the new America" Welcome to Fantasyland. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:34:18 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#f0d5c4e4-a11b-4052-a27d-a5a172f3461f $item.owner.firstName 2007-12-26T09:34:18Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6216db6-9275-4c55-a9e7-9258fc66d082 My name is Chicken John and I am 100% behind the ideas that make the man Ron Paul tick. I am a libertarian. Or a Republican. Whatever you prefer. So is everyone else that is in my close circle of friends. Brian Doherty who wrote the book: This is Burning Man, is the editor for a Libertarian magazine called Reason. The only person close to me that is *not* a stanch Libertarian is John Law. Who is a Republican who doesn't vote. Ron Paul is the only person to even address the abortion issue in the election cycle. He's the only candidate who is actually taking sides on everything. If Hillary Clinton becomes president for the next 8 years, that will mark 28 years of our country being controlled by 2 families. It's gross. Ron Paul, if chosen for the Republican nomination, will split the left and the right in the most interesting way. He is SO very much the lesser of the evils, as well. But you can not support him. Because you are not a registered Republican. But interesting to watch. I would also like to point out that I think that most Libertarian ideals have no place in modern day America. And would get in the way and make a nightmare out of our legal system and create divisions and such unlike we have ever seen. But I believe in those ideas. I just don't see a way to implement them. Like rent control. I'm firmly against it. You know the argument. But am I against it as in the idea or am I for passing legislation that will take it away now that we have had it for all these years? I'm just against the idea. I wouldn't take it away. But I'd not make that mistake with other things, if I was in a position to make those designs. The most relevant political thing that is likely to happen in your lifetime (in America) is if Ron Paul gets the nomination. It will activate everyone. It is the only clear path I see to regaining our Democracy. Of course, Larry is a Hillary supporter. Always wants to be on the winning team, that one. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will turn BM into a political organization with or without the Borgs consent. I will rally, organize and blow the next year of my life holding Ron Paul up as high as I can within whatever power I weild. Ron Paul is the founding father of the new America, or so says my grandkids 50 years from now... Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:22:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#a6216db6-9275-4c55-a9e7-9258fc66d082 Chicken 2007-12-26T09:22:04Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d36d15bb-c6d4-4e22-8a52-d1cdef9aaeaf We had a long string about Radical self reliance and whither its applicable to the outside world. Libertarians certainly think there is a vaulable lesson there........... Many when challenged in the greater context could not let go of liberal canards and said no, Burning Man is a party.... I say Go Ron Paul Wed, 26 Dec 2007 07:35:19 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#d36d15bb-c6d4-4e22-8a52-d1cdef9aaeaf glennzzz 2007-12-26T07:35:19Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#715d6a20-985d-43d6-9b72-5e6b1be10565 *twitch* my heart does twitch when I think of Ron Paul. Burning Man is one of the most Libertarian social experiments that I can think of... radical self-reliance peer pressure to deal with moop instead of Burner Police individual expression and the right to express as long as you harm no one else gifting vs. state welfare decentralized community, let's give back the voice to the people at the most local level, which in many ways has it's own version with multiple camps vs. one big BORG. radical inclusion.... a libertarian philosophy allows radical inclusion, but not forcing one group to conform to a larger groups ideals, only because the larger group has more numbers.....Ron Paul's message of freedom is bringing together a wide range of concerned about the road we are going down as a country and society....he is by far the most inclusive and radical choice we have had in many years. while there maybe differences in opinion like there is at BM about how to appropriate the funds, the essences of the arguments is to allow such decisions to be made closer to home at the local level. No matter what Ron's personal or religious opinions are regarding moral issues like reproductive rights, he wants such choices to be made at the micro level vs. the macro level. Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:29:01 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#715d6a20-985d-43d6-9b72-5e6b1be10565 noiz23 2007-12-26T06:29:01Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fca7cbbf-933c-4a5e-8575-4bfcd119db19 Iris, I essentially agree, but let's let this thread sink to the muck at the bottom of the page quickly. Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:14:20 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fca7cbbf-933c-4a5e-8575-4bfcd119db19 Crypto 2007-12-25T17:14:20Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#863feba8-daed-457f-9e4c-86dc82656687 *twitch* Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:13:13 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#863feba8-daed-457f-9e4c-86dc82656687 Iris 2007-12-25T17:13:13Z http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fbb36607-acc6-473a-8ec0-53255a8d6ff4 Come join our tribe!!! http://tribes.tribe.net/burners4ronpaul Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:52:04 GMT http://bm.tribe.net/thread/573ffd71-884b-4c5b-910d-c08a93cc6df4#fbb36607-acc6-473a-8ec0-53255a8d6ff4 noiz23 2007-12-25T16:52:04Z