[meat]

Originally Posted by CSX 4039

A few civilized points to ponder…

There's no such thing as a 'civilized point' so - already - your post is both suspect and bound to be ridiculed as yet anouther Cult of Paul vacuous platitude that ultimately signifies nothing and is built on a foundation that even a house of cards engineer would look at as questionable..

There are actually currently about 12 recognized factions in the Republican Party. Alan Greenspan, September 17, 2007 on NPR, actually identified himself as, “A member of the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party”. (Google it). Of course, most of us nearly coughed up a lung when he said it, but, he did. For info on the different factions of the Republican Party, see-

Factions in the Republican Party (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Libertarian Republican - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irrelevant. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a Republican. His views are libertarian. He's run as a libertarian for president in 1988.

Furthermore, using the questionable resource of Wikipedia doesn't reinforce your argument at all. In fact, I will dismiss with prejudice any argument that uses Wikipedia as a sole source. you've just done so twice and neither of those points was connected to the FACT that Ron Paul is a libertarian. He may wear the mantle of a Republican, but he clearly doesn't adhere to the party's values, platform or the conservative underpinnings that make up the party.

What I meant by the Republicans have changed comment was, what Goldwater was saying when asked if he had swung away from the Republican Party, and he replied, "No, they swung away from me". But, in general, the history of the Party is much more complicated than the 1854 start date typically explained in most textbooks. It did not arise in a vacuum. The Republican Party of 1854 grew out of the Whig Party of 1833, which grew out of the National Republican party of 1825, which grew out of the Federalist Party of 1792, which was libertarian!

Nope. Not even close. Even the most wacky of conspiracy theorists would look at those leaps in illogic and think "wow, that doesn't make any sense."

I can understand what you're trying to do in attempting to connect the Cult of Paul to something greater than it is, but - at the end of the day - the Cult of Paul is not connected to history, it's not connected to the Grand Old Party, it's not anything other than a two-time loser candidate for President who doesn't run on his party's ticket because he clearly doesn't believe that he can win unless he pretends to be something that he's not.

That, in a (pardon the pun) nutshell, is why the Cult of Paul will fail.

However, the date of the founding of the party should be irrelevant, since the authors of the Constitution were strictly opposed to the party system and primaries we now have…. (where, usually, two dippy little states, like Iowa and New Hampshire go a long way to choosing for whom we might get to vote, [and that, only after the media has given us and vetted our choices]).

Untrue. The framers of the Constitution were quite clear in what they wrote. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything even close to being 'strictly opposed' to the party system, nor does it say anything regarding primaries.

And, now, rather than a revisionist interpretation of the purpose of our military, a word from our sponsor, the Constitution, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence:
Section 4 of the Constution - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
And, a word from Elbridge Thomas Gerry, (famous for the term “gerrymandering”- manipulation of the political process), a signer of the Declaration of Indepedence, the fifth Vice President of the United States, on the purpose of the military- “Standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism”.

oooOOOoooh. I like the tactic of stating an intention of not writing a 'revisionist interpretation of the purpose of our military' and then going ahead and picking and choosing bits that are clearly misquoted ... thus actually writing a 'revisionist interpretation of the purpose of our military.'

Perhaps you're not aware of what the Constitution clearly states; that our military consists of an army, a navy and of state militias. These services that - today - are made up of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard.

The section you've misquoted and taken out of context is from Article IV - The States.

However, Meat, I have to agree with you. With few exceptions over the last 25 years, the military has morphed into a governmental agency which protects American interests. And, by "American interests," I largely mean "the interests of major American corporations."

Well, then, you don't agree with me, and you're totally incorrect in your guess as to what the standing military of the United States actually is and what it does.

Which, as a member of the Cult of Paul, doesn't at all surprise me. And it further serves to reinforce my arguments that Ron Paul is wrong for America. All you need to do to see that my statement is correct is to look at the people who follow the Big D'oh (aka Ron Paul). Ron Paul should never be in the White House - even on a bet - and his cult should never grace any presidential Cabinet because they have no clue as to what they're talking about.

Regarding, Paul’s 1.1% of the delegates, and the topic of mental illness…

There's really nothing more to say on that subject. The Cult of Paul have - again - made my point abundantly clear. Thank you.

I’m sorry you haven’t had a paycheck for 4 months.

I didn't say that. That you would interpret what I clearly said and change it into something completely different allows me the opportunity to make the point that if you can get that confused on something as simple as what I posted to Jamo then how is anyone supposed to take your word (or wikipedia's word... ) for anything. You lose your argument.

The neocon, evangelical wing of the Republican party is socially conservative and intrusive, with newly-minted big-government fiscal liberalism.

Not even close. There's no such thing as 'neocon.' There's not such thing as the 'evangelical wing' of the Republican party. You're completely off the reservation. The Republican party pushes the conservative platform of lower taxes, less government, stronger economy, family values.

The libertarian wing of the Republican Party is socially moderate (couldn’t care less what you do in your bedroom, as long as it doesn’t violate someone elses rights) and fiscally conservative.

No. Such. Thing.

I've previously stated a simplified explanation of the general platform of the Republican party. Read it. Learn it. Live it. Get help with the big words if you need to.

As I stated at the beginning, there's no such thing as a civilized point. Points have relevance, purpose, import, and can stand by themselves without bias, bent or - in the case of your post - revision and remanufacture.

The opposite of a point in an argument is illogic. Invalid and/or incorrect reasoning. I bring up this definition to make a final, salient, point: for every argument between two parties there needs to be a point and a counterpoint. A counterpoint isn't the opposite of a point, it's sound reasoning that contrasts the point. The absence of a counterpoint creates a vacuum in the argument in which only two items can exist: point and illogic.

So far, I've been the one with the point...

Your pal,
Meat.