BTW, McCain in this here election (a huge compromise on my part).
I saw nobody in the last year who was conservative enough for my tastes. Thompson was gravitating in the vicinity of my views, but he failed to get out of bed.
You're right, he isn't what Republicans are, but he is what they were.
Untrue.
The Republican party was formed prior to the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president elected.
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, not a Republican. He claims libertarian philosophy, NOT Republican philosophy.
Quote:
And you're right, most amerikans are so fuqqin socialist, they would have fought for the British in 1776.
Untrue.
Generally, the number of left-leaning socialists in the U.S. is smaller than the number of right-leaning anarchists. Most Americans tend to be more moderate, and are proud to be Americans who would fight for their country rather than against it.
Quote:
Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he's a lot better than than the other three, who are all on the same team
I'll agree with you - and even go further and say that Ron Paul is as far from perfect as a political candidate (even a democrat) can be. ESPECIALLY when he goes 'off the script' and starts talking (or rather 'babbling incoherently') about his screwy philosophies.
Using Alex Jones the conspiracy goofball in conjunction with an endorsement of Ron "D'oh!" Paul seems oddly fitting. Maybe there's a comet out there with both their names on it ...
Quote:
Honestly, I would have thought that CC, where people drive cars without airbags, that fly in the face of government regulations, would have been a bastion of libertarianism
Why? There's a significant difference between the nutty screwballery of fringe groups like libertarians and groups of automobile enthusiasts. Driving a car without airbags doesn't make one a ralph nader endorsing, ron paul loving, goose stepping thug. Thankfully.
Quote:
But, you're right. Only 16 delegates get it.
16 out of 1,349, or, roughly 1.1%.
That's an interesting statistic, and I'll tell you why: 1.1% of Americans suffer from some type of serious and debilitating mental illness. Coincidence? I think not...
No, but he thinks we should get out of Korea. (That "war" ended 50 years ago). He thinks those soldiers should defend our borders not S. Korea's. I agree. Don't you?
No, I do not agree, and I'll tell you why: with the notable exceptions of the National Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard, our military doesn't exist to defend our BORDERS it exists to protect our INTERESTS.
Quote:
if you know his issues and platform, about what part do you disagree?
I disagree with ron paul - the person. He's got the Crazy Eyes, he babbles, he's not presidential material, and his cult of followers clearly shows what kind of person he appeals to. I don't want moonies, Heaven's Gaters, People's Temple members or Manson Family-like cultists in the White House.
Plus - as I've said before - he's not a Republican. If he'd run as what he is rather than what he wants to be that would have said more about him. Obviously, he knows that being a libertarian is a HUGE strike against him.
I have, and always will represent management exclusively. I eat labor unions for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I've done so for three decades.
Could you do me a favor and maybe have a light breakfast of the Writers Guild of America sometime soon? They suck ass and made me have to wait four months to get a check.
Meat no likey unions. They're from a bygone and best forgotten era.
Actually, it's funny...the one area where I actually help someone who's in a union is the entertainment industry. I've got a good friend (a tv/movie actor) in the Screen Actor's Guild. Course, they suck too.
A few civilized points to ponder… 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-
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!
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]).
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”.
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." That the military has become an instrument of corporate protection is illustrated not only in how it is used, but in how it is maintained. There is a decrease in the number of military contractors, as military contracting has been concentrated into the hands of a very few huge corporations. Some of this is unmitigated corporate welfare, to enrich the bank accounts of a few corporate executives, paid for by you and me. Meanwhile, paychecks to soldiers (you know, the people who actually have to do the fighting) have been barely keeping pace with inflation. So, it seems to me that, to an extent, the military has become just another tool of the corporate elite. He11, Cheney owns half of Jackson Hole now.
Regarding, Paul’s 1.1% of the delegates, and the topic of mental illness… Actually, on any given day, about 10% of the nation’s population fits a DSM-IV criterion for mental illness. Which is to say that the other 8.9% of the crazies voted for the candidates- Clinton, Obama, McCain or Huckabee.
I’m sorry you haven’t had a paycheck for 4 months. That sucks. After Hillary/Obama gets in, you’ll really hate the unions. But, the liberal writer’s you work with have so redefined the meaning of the moderate American opinion, that when someone puts forth a centrist position, they are now branded jack-booted thugs.
The neocon, evangelical wing of the Republican party is socially conservative and intrusive, with newly-minted big-government fiscal liberalism. 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. If there’s a comet flying by somewhere that has such a system, let me know where it is, and beam me up, Scotty.
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..
Quote:
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-
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Whether it be me, Wikipedia, Ron Paul, or his supporters, you have successfully incorporated Ad Hominem into every paragraph. A remarkable achievement.
Congratulations.
__________________
My carbon footprint is bigger than your carbon footprint.
Please tell me this isn't true.
(I actually know of some of the Applewhite family [of Heaven's Gate infamy]. 30 years ago they owned a transmission repair shop in San Antonio off Bandera Road.)
__________________
My carbon footprint is bigger than your carbon footprint.
Linear Mode
