PDA

View Full Version : EVERY party appears to be FUBAR'D




Matt Collins
06-01-2008, 02:05 AM
Yeah - that's right.


Ever major political party in this country seems to be FUBAR'd.

The Dems - NO party unity. They chose the two WORST candidates to run. A woman who is 1 step away from Satan incarnate and who is hated by almost everyone. A young black Senator who is a step away from being a socialist and has ZERO experience.

The Repubs - They chose the candidate who will alienate their base. There is serious talk among Conservative Christians of just sitting out the election

The Libertarians - I haven't kept up but there seems to be GREAT discontent that Barr was nominated. Even Mary Ruwart is starting another campaign.


SHHESH.... IS ANYONE HAPPY THESE DAYS?!?!!? :confused:



But it lends the question... with EVERY SINGLE PARTY THAT MATTERS in such disarray what does the future hold? I mean both Dems and Repubs are at a serious disadvantage and the Libertarians who are like herding cats are apparently even more fractured than normal. NO ONE HAS THE UPPER HAND!!!


I am only 26 but I am thinking this could be the most insane election season I've ever seen and ever will see.

ronpaul4ever2008
06-01-2008, 02:16 AM
Right now it may seem that way, but come November I assure you it won't. Once the Democrats officially nominate Obama, they will unite because the last thing they want to do is screw it up again and give away another election.

John McCain will do the best he can to sway those Christian conservatives. Give him a couple months to pander to them and tell them why Obama is their worst nightmare. We'll see where they stand in November. McCain will make this election close, but Obama will probably end up taking it.

The Libertarians did the best they could with Barr who actually has a name for himself. Whoever they nominated wasn't going to win anyway so it doesn't really matter. They were never going to have the upper hand on anything.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 02:30 AM
The CONSITUTION Party people are quite happy with their choice of Chuck Baldwin. And many RP people are also happy with that choice and are supporting him. If nothing else, it certainly keeps the emphasis on THE CONSTITUTION, instead of on a bunch of other "libertine" non-issues.

The main people who seem UNhappy with Chuck Baldwin are the die-hard Big "L" Libertarian Party loyalists (who strangely enough tell everyone who is NOT an LP member to "butt out" -- but then seem to have no compunctions about "butting in" to both the GOP's business {else why are they on here about RP?} and the Constitution party {they're all HATE'IN on Chuck Baldwin because... well because they hate him, that's why!} -- but I guess there is no accounting for a lack of principle).

The only other people who are VERY unhappy with Chuck Baldwin as the Constitution party nominee are the people I would call the "militant zeitgeist atheists" -- who (based mainly on a weirdo hypno-suggestive propaganda film) hate ANYONE and everyone** who is a "Christian" (or apparently any other religion) as we are all part of some vast-conspiracy to violate their psyche's or something.


**But somehow (cognitive dissonance?) they don't hate Bob Barr (who is a true TheoCrat -- witness his DOMA legislation) and they don't hate Ron Paul (who they seem to think is an atheist, despite his public profession of Christianity).

FireofLiberty
06-01-2008, 03:56 AM
If Baldwin is on the ballot in my state (I don't think he will be) then I will vote for him. If not, I have no idea what I'll do, but after the recent comments made by WAR I simply cannot bring myself to vote for Bob Barr. I was leaning towards doing so, despite some concerns I have about him, now I can't do it.

Where's the "none of the above" option when you need it? Maybe I'll write in Ron Paul afterall.

Conza88
06-01-2008, 04:17 AM
Ron Paul running independent... seems the only sane thing to do. Seriously, then I can see Barr dropping out - the Libertarian party telling all their members to vote for Ron Paul. The Constitution party does the same. I think he could really kick ass.

Seriously though, in terms of losing his congress seat... Why can't he run as an independent in his district? And get it back?

Kludge
06-01-2008, 05:09 AM
The CONSITUTION Party people are quite happy with their choice of Chuck Baldwin. And many RP people are also happy with that choice and are supporting him. If nothing else, it certainly keeps the emphasis on THE CONSTITUTION, instead of on a bunch of other "libertine" non-issues.

The main people who seem UNhappy with Chuck Baldwin are the die-hard Big "L" Libertarian Party loyalists (who strangely enough tell everyone who is NOT an LP member to "butt out" -- but then seem to have no compunctions about "butting in" to both the GOP's business {else why are they on here about RP?} and the Constitution party {they're all HATE'IN on Chuck Baldwin because... well because they hate him, that's why!} -- but I guess there is no accounting for a lack of principle).

The only other people who are VERY unhappy with Chuck Baldwin as the Constitution party nominee are the people I would call the "militant zeitgeist atheists" -- who (based mainly on a weirdo hypno-suggestive propaganda film) hate ANYONE and everyone** who is a "Christian" (or apparently any other religion) as we are all part of some vast-conspiracy to violate their psyche's or something.


**But somehow (cognitive dissonance?) they don't hate Bob Barr (who is a true TheoCrat -- witness his DOMA legislation) and they don't hate Ron Paul (who they seem to think is an atheist, despite his public profession of Christianity).

I dislike Bob Barr AND Chuck Baldwin..... :cool:


I'm holding out for a Ruwart indy run to continue what Ron Paul won't.

Matt Collins
06-01-2008, 10:24 AM
Where's the "none of the above" option when you need it? Maybe I'll write in Ron Paul afterall.

Seriously - see this:
http://www.votenoneoftheabove.us/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

Matt Collins
06-01-2008, 10:26 AM
Seriously though, in terms of losing his congress seat... Why can't he run as an independent in his district? And get it back?Liberman did that. Of course he is a bit more of a superstar with big money behind him than is Dr. Paul.

But the affection for Ron in his own district is HUGE and of course he would have virtually unlimited funds (us). I would LOVE to see that happen.

However I think Ron has made some statements that he wants to remain a Republican.

RevolutionSD
06-01-2008, 10:41 AM
Yeah - that's right.


Ever major political party in this country seems to be FUBAR'd.

The Dems - NO party unity. They chose the two WORST candidates to run. A woman who is 1 step away from Satan incarnate and who is hated by almost everyone. A young black Senator who is a step away from being a socialist and has ZERO experience.

The Repubs - They chose the candidate who will alienate their base. There is serious talk among Conservative Christians of just sitting out the election

The Libertarians - I haven't kept up but there seems to be GREAT discontent that Barr was nominated. Even Mary Ruwart is starting another campaign.


SHHESH.... IS ANYONE HAPPY THESE DAYS?!?!!? :confused:



But it lends the question... with EVERY SINGLE PARTY THAT MATTERS in such disarray what does the future hold? I mean both Dems and Repubs are at a serious disadvantage and the Libertarians who are like herding cats are apparently even more fractured than normal. NO ONE HAS THE UPPER HAND!!!


I am only 26 but I am thinking this could be the most insane election season I've ever seen and ever will see.

It's finally time to give up on electing our masters.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only answer. We tried a constitutional republic, we tried democracy, and it didn't work.

Let's get back to a free and voluntary society. It's not perfect but it's at least 1000x better than what we have now.

inibo
06-01-2008, 11:15 AM
The CONSITUTION Party people are quite happy with their choice of Chuck Baldwin. And many RP people are also happy with that choice and are supporting him. If nothing else, it certainly keeps the emphasis on THE CONSTITUTION, instead of on a bunch of other "libertine" non-issues.

As I've said elsewhere (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1488825&postcount=28), I like Chuck Baldwin. Of all the "other candidates" he seems closest to Ron Paul, but the Constitution Party does not make me feel warm and fuzzy:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For those of us who are not Christians (http://inibo.livejournal.com/?tag=qabalah,spiritual,thelema) that is some scary stuff.

RevolutionSD
06-01-2008, 11:44 AM
The CONSITUTION Party people are quite happy with their choice of Chuck Baldwin. And many RP people are also happy with that choice and are supporting him. If nothing else, it certainly keeps the emphasis on THE CONSTITUTION, instead of on a bunch of other "libertine" non-issues.

The main people who seem UNhappy with Chuck Baldwin are the die-hard Big "L" Libertarian Party loyalists (who strangely enough tell everyone who is NOT an LP member to "butt out" -- but then seem to have no compunctions about "butting in" to both the GOP's business {else why are they on here about RP?} and the Constitution party {they're all HATE'IN on Chuck Baldwin because... well because they hate him, that's why!} -- but I guess there is no accounting for a lack of principle).

The only other people who are VERY unhappy with Chuck Baldwin as the Constitution party nominee are the people I would call the "militant zeitgeist atheists" -- who (based mainly on a weirdo hypno-suggestive propaganda film) hate ANYONE and everyone** who is a "Christian" (or apparently any other religion) as we are all part of some vast-conspiracy to violate their psyche's or something.


**But somehow (cognitive dissonance?) they don't hate Bob Barr (who is a true TheoCrat -- witness his DOMA legislation) and they don't hate Ron Paul (who they seem to think is an atheist, despite his public profession of Christianity).

I do not believe in Jesus Christ, therefore, I would never vote for a CP candidate.

literatim
06-01-2008, 01:31 PM
It is obvious the elite are worried that the Republican Party is going to crumble and one of the two conservatives parties would rise up in its place. So they decided to put up candidates in both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. The Constitution Party snubbed the elite's candidate, Alan Keyes. The Libertarian Party decided to nominate the elites running in their party.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 01:34 PM
I do not believe in Jesus Christ, therefore, I would never vote for a CP candidate.


Much like a white man who would NEVER vote for a black man; Or a black man who would NEVER vote for a white man -- both are RACIST.

And thus you reveal that YOU are inherently a THEOCRAT, who desires to impose his OWN religious views via the political realm.

Sad. Very Sad.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 01:36 PM
As I've said elsewhere (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1488825&postcount=28), I like Chuck Baldwin. Of all the "other candidates" he seems closest to Ron Paul, but the Constitution Party does not make me feel warm and fuzzy:

For those of us who are not Christians (http://inibo.livejournal.com/?tag=qabalah,spiritual,thelema) that is some scary stuff.

Go read some history then... it is not altogether that different from the various speeches and writings of a number of "classic" American political figures (including many of the founding fathers).

HenryKnoxFineBooks
06-01-2008, 02:31 PM
Much like a white man who would NEVER vote for a black man; Or a black man who would NEVER vote for a white man -- both are RACIST.

And thus you reveal that YOU are inherently a THEOCRAT, who desires to impose his OWN religious views via the political realm.

Sad. Very Sad.

I have to ageree with WR on this one. It's another form of religious prejudice.

inibo
06-01-2008, 03:15 PM
Go read some history then... it is not altogether that different from the various speeches and writings of a number of "classic" American political figures (including many of the founding fathers).

I have no problem with people who believe that Jesus is King of America, I used to believe it myself. My problem is with people who want to enshrine it in law. The Constitution Party is flirting with Dominion Theology (http://www.biblicist.org/bible/dominion.shtml). Judged by R.J. Rushdoony's standards I would be regarded as a heretic at best, more than likely an apostate, and my spiritual practice would be classified as sorcery or witchcraft. You'll excuse me if I'm a little reluctant to lend my support to an ideology that says I should be put to death for something that is none of anyone's business but my own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU

Peace&Freedom
06-01-2008, 05:09 PM
I have no problem with people who believe that Jesus is King of America, I used to believe it myself. My problem is with people who want to enshrine it in law. The Constitution Party is flirting with Dominion Theology (http://www.biblicist.org/bible/dominion.shtml). Judged by R.J. Rushdoony's standards I would be regarded as a heretic at best, more than likely an apostate, and my spiritual practice would be classified as sorcery or witchcraft. You'll excuse me if I'm a little reluctant to lend my support to an ideology that says I should be put to death for something that is none of anyone's business but my own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU

Actually, Christian/biblical doctrines WERE enshrined in early American law, in the early treaties and several state constitutions. Somehow the galaxies didn't explode, and liberty flourished. The founders (except for Paine) were probably closer to the Dominionism you speak of than the draconian secular theocracy being pushed nowadays. How is the modern high holy doctrine of mass abortion, that legalized child-killing is all hunky-dory, an improvement over extreme opposition to sorcery?

Yes, it's true Jefferson supported a law in 1786 calling for the castration of male homosexuals, but that's about as bad as it ever got. Biblically based government is not incompatible with liberty, in fact it is structurally the foundation for the liberty concepts founding America and the English common law. It is the current authoritarian version peddled by the Huckabees et al that is the problem. The assertion of man-based tyranny merely CLOAKED in Christian or secular garb leads to disaster, whether humanist or God-based in rhetoric.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Actually, Christian/biblical doctrines WERE enshrined in early American law, in the early treaties and several state constitutions. Somehow the galaxies didn't explode, and liberty flourished. The founders (except for Paine) were probably closer to the Dominionism you speak of than the draconian secular theocracy being pushed nowadays. How is the modern high holy doctrine of mass abortion, that legalized child-killing is all hunky-dory, an improvement over extreme opposition to sorcery?

Yes, it's true Jefferson supported a law in 1786 calling for the castration of male homeosexuals, but that's about as bad as it ever got. Biblically based government is not incompatible with liberty, in fact it is structurally the foundation for the liberty concepts founding America and the English common law. It is the current authoritarian version peddled by the Huckabees et al that is the problem. The assertion of man-based tyranny merely CLOAKED in Christian or secular garb leads to disaster, whether humanist or God-based in rhetoric.

QFT.

Good to see someone who has done some substantial reading.

And of course the stance of the FEDERAL government regarding religion was significantly less important or intrusive in that era -- no Department of Education, no Department of Health and Human Services, etc.

No major concern with whether there should be "prayer in schools" -- because first of all there was no COMPULSORY schooling, secondly schooling was not paid for by public dollars (so no government involvement), and finally it was essentially considered a component of religious work (and therefore out of bounds via the establishment clause and the reasoning behind it).

Finally, there was also no need for such close "scrutiny" of 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations being tax exempt -- because in their wildest nightmares, the founders could not have imagined such complex and intrusive things as income tax forms and withholding...

The STATE governments varied. But the colonists had their own recent experiments with STATE-driven religion, and for the most part were quite sick of it, and certainly were not going to sit for a FEDERAL level "choice" on such matters.



Again, nice to see someone else versed in the founder's era works. (And the aside about "Satan's Spawn" himself, Mr. Thos. Paine [poor guy, he really stepped in it] -- regarding which, have you had the chance to read "The Age of Reason" ? Interesting work, and vastly superior to the "zeitgeist" propaganda tripe, but sadly probably beyond most people today... as I suppose it was then also.)

Peace&Freedom
06-01-2008, 08:55 PM
No, I've read excerpts of Paine only, from various histories of the founding period. What is interesting is the lack of reading of the anti-CP set here, who have sought to impose a one-size-fits-all 'evil theocrat' label on all Christians who assert a friendlier relationship between God and government. I thought a lot of that went away when religion-friendly Paul was actively running, and was clearly equally acceptable to both the LP and CP. Apparently the fears and distrust are still running below the surface, underlying many of the disputes argued over in RPF threads between libertarians and patriot movement factions, and still needs resolution.

UnReconstructed
06-01-2008, 09:14 PM
Why even have a party? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or a Constitutionite (don't know what they call themselves). I'm just me... a pissed off Southern White Male that wants to be left the hell alone.

None of these groups represent me fully so I subscribe to none of them.

inibo
06-01-2008, 09:25 PM
Well, I have problems with both the CP and the LP.

Anyway you seem to have set up a false dichotomy were the only alternatives are either abortion-on-demand or "extreme opposition to sorcery." How about neither?

Let me ask straight out: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

WRellim
06-01-2008, 09:29 PM
No, I've read excerpts of Paine only, from various histories of the founding period.

Really... you're missing a special treat, then.. Especially the opening of Age of Reason:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

Virtually ALL of Thos Paine's works are online (so price is FREE ...much easier than when I first wanted to dig them up and read them 20 years and more ago... harder to find such things back then, and Age of Reason was a "costly" rare book -- perhaps because so many copies had been burned?).


Complete Works of THOMAS PAINE Online (FREE!) (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/index.htm)

CONTENTS
The website contains these complete works of Thomas Paine, pamphleteer, patriot, dreamer (1737–1809)

• COMMON SENSE (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/commonsense/index.htm) (1776)
Paine's call to arms for America.

• THE CRISIS (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/crisis/index.htm)[PAPERS] (1776-77)
"These are the times that try men's souls."

• THE RIGHTS OF MAN (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/index.htm) (1791-92)
Paine's reply to an attack on the French Revolution by Edmund Burke.

• AGE OF REASON (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/index.htm) (1794, 1796)
Paine's biting criticism of the Bible and religion.


Highly recommended reading (but you gotta have a quiet place to read them... deep stuff). Crisis Papers -- which kind of read like a series of Blog entries -- are where you find the "Summer Soldier" quote (whereas everyone thinks it's in Common Sense).


What is interesting is the lack of reading of the anti-CP set here, who have sought to impose a one-size-fits-all 'evil theocrat' label on all Christians who assert a friendlier relationship between God and government.

Don't know that it can be said of just any group -- think its rather a more universal phenomenon these days -- so few people seem to want to bother to read anything of substance. We're living in a "soundbite" age. (I made the same complaint on the ManOfCommonSense (http://www.ManOfCommonSense.com) website, so I suppose I'm repeating myself... a habit of the old I guess.)


I thought a lot of that went away when religion-friendly Paul was actively running, and was clearly equally acceptable to both the LP and CP. Apparently the fears and distrust are still running below the surface, underlying many of the disputes argued over in RPF threads between libertarians and patriot movement factions, and still needs resolution.

I'm not so sure it really "went away" as it was put in "suspended animation" temporarily in the exceptional case of Ron Paul. (Although interestingly enough, I recall a LOT of griping by Libertarians about him being both Pro-Life AND a "Republican" back when he ran in 1988... 20 years later and apparently nostalgia overtook them?)

Seriously, a lot of the "accessory DVD's" that made their way around the Meetups and board & such -- especially the "zeitgeist" propaganda piece (but also Russo's "Freedom to Fascism") seem to have been the MAIN way that people formed a lot of their opinions -- even though BOTH of those were flawed pieces (but in different ways and to vastly different degrees -- FtF containing a lot of minor errors, ZG being a wholesale fraud.)

So if you think about it -- I guess the "Michael Moore" style docudrama (docu-ganda?) DVD's are the way people "read" nowadays... all prepackaged and safely walks you through from assertions, purported "debate" to conclusion, whithout ever really having to "think" about anything. Hmmm ...I guess I hadn't really thought of it in that way before... but THAT is what is "moving" people and supplanting/replacing the TV as the driving force in shaping opinions and such these days. Hmmm...

Mini-Me
06-01-2008, 09:31 PM
Meh...everyone needs to understand that no matter what, neither Barr nor Baldwin are going to win. Therefore, your vote counts for only one thing this year: Sending a message.

I don't trust Bob Barr, and I feel that voting for him will send the message, "I may not vote for the lesser of two evils, but I WILL vote for the least of three evils!"

With Ron Paul, I decided that never again will I vote for someone I can't stand just because I hate the other side even more. Yes, I'll vote for a candidate who isn't perfect, because after all, nobody is. However, Barr strikes me as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He seems like he's the guy that's meant to distract and placate those who won't be distracted or placated by McCain or Obama.

If a lot of people vote for Bob Barr, will the Libertarian Party's position be strengthened? Yes, it will. In fact, it could even start a scenario in which, every election, the Libertarian Party becomes more and more prominent. Unfortunately, the candidates will get worse and worse until, by the time the Libertarian Party actually starts winning elections, it's just another clone of the Republicans and Democrats. The government didn't take away habeas corpus and half of the Bill of Rights overnight - we're being boiled slowly. Similarly, the erosion of the Libertarian Party's principles will happen ever-so-slowly so that people don't realize what it has become until it's too late...just like the Republican Party. In other words, it seems like the establishment might be hedging its bets and taking over another party, since it's realizing that the Republican Party may be losing its base.

I kind of like Chuck Baldwin and I think he's a good man ("the real deal," so to speak), but the Constitution Party as a whole scares the crap out of me with their overall platform of forcing "moral behavior" on people through government, even if they might not intend to do it at the federal level. As such, I feel like voting for Chuck Baldwin might be sending the message, "Theocracy, woo-hoo!" If Baldwin actually had a chance at winning, I'd vote for him, but in terms of just sending a message and making a point with my vote, I'm not exactly sure that's the point I most want to make.

It's looking more and more likely that I'll be writing in Ron Paul, although Mary Ruwart doesn't really bother me either. She's a bit out there by considering children to be completely capable of entering into binding contracts with adults, which I wholeheartedly disagree with (although I'm also against the witch-hunt for "sexual predators" and such), but...I feel relatively assured that she'd never have enough of a following to turn that into law. ;)

All that said, if Ron Paul gives his blessing to anyone, that candidate will be much easier to unite behind.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 09:35 PM
Well, I have problems with both the CP and the LP.

Anyway you seem to have set up a false dichotomy were the only alternatives are either abortion-on-demand or "extreme opposition to sorcery." How about neither?

Actually, the dichotomy you are citing is set up by the parties, not by me.

And I think you are the one constructing fabricated extreme scenarios... but for the sake of debate, I will play along.


Let me ask straight out: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Civil law at what level, Federal, State, or Local?

OptionsTrader
06-01-2008, 09:38 PM
Should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

No.

driller80545
06-01-2008, 09:51 PM
One of the things that I like about RP is that he seems to very carefully not use religion as an excuse or reason to do anything having to do with law. I don't see that he believes in legislating morality and understands that along with charity (welfare) and other things are the business of the church and individual families. When people want to use religion as wording for law, I close the door. Your religious expirience may be different than mine, and I can't compromise my beliefs. Any candidate for office who expouses his or her beliefs in a religion as a bases for law will never get my vote.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 09:54 PM
Meh...everyone needs to understand that no matter what, neither Barr nor Baldwin are going to win. Therefore, your vote counts for only one thing this year: Sending a message.

I don't trust Bob Barr, and I feel that voting for him will send the message, "I may not vote for the lesser of two evils, but I WILL vote for the least of three evils!"

With Ron Paul, I decided that never again will I vote for someone I can't stand just because I hate the other side even more. Yes, I'll vote for a candidate who isn't perfect, because after all, nobody is. However, Barr strikes me as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He seems like he's the guy that's meant to distract and placate those who won't be distracted or placated by McCain or Obama.

If a lot of people vote for Bob Barr, will the Libertarian Party's position be strengthened? Yes, it will. In fact, it could even start a scenario in which, every election, the Libertarian Party becomes more and more prominent. Unfortunately, the candidates will get worse and worse until, by the time the Libertarian Party actually starts winning elections, it's just another clone of the Republicans and Democrats. The government didn't take away habeas corpus and half of the Bill of Rights overnight - we're being boiled slowly. Similarly, the erosion of the Libertarian Party's principles will happen ever-so-slowly so that people don't realize what it has become until it's too late...just like the Republican Party.

I kind of like Chuck Baldwin and I think he's a good man ("the real deal," so to speak), but the Constitution Party as a whole scares the crap out of me with their overall platform of forcing "moral behavior" on people through government, even if they might not intend to do it at the federal level. As such, I feel like voting for Chuck Baldwin might be sending the message, "Theocracy, woo-hoo!" If Baldwin actually had a chance at winning, I'd vote for him, but in terms of just sending a message and making a point with my vote, I'm not exactly sure that's the point I most want to make.

It's looking more and more likely that I'll be writing in Ron Paul, although Mary Ruwart doesn't really bother me either. She's a bit out there by considering children to be completely capable of entering into binding contracts with adults, which I wholeheartedly disagree with (although I'm also against the witch-hunt for "sexual predators" and such), but...I feel relatively assured that she'd never have enough of a following to turn that into law. ;)

I agree with most of what you've written, but would like to comment on the section that I bolded.

I think the message that is sent by voting for the candidate of the CONSTITUTION party is vastly simpler... its sends a message of "OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!"



To me, having read through the CP platform, and substantial works by Baldwin (not enough time in the day to read ALL of it -- the guy is a prolific writer) -- anyway I think the fears of "theocracy" are mainly a "fear-mongering" red-herring being thrown out by the militant atheist element of the Libertarian Party. (The opposite would be the MIS-characterization of the LP as advocating a "child-pornocracy.")



Now, granted I could really WISH that a lot of the overt "phrasing" in the CP platform would be reworded and generalized a bit more (some of it is over the top)... but it does not strike me as anywhere NEAR as dangerous as GW Bush's "faith-based" BS from 2000 -- which was the LITERAL (and wholly unconstitutional) advocation of the government establishing and funding various "acceptable" religious groups via tax dollars.

And of course, I can also wish that a lot of Ruwart's points on the problems created by the slew of Gov't "professional licensing" thus engendering unnatural monopolies could be included (alas, her points on this seem to be missing from ALL parties and all debate these days)... (Alas I fear that our society at large is not YET ready to even begin addressing the concept of devolution of "licensing" -- the ground has to be tilled for that, which will take years).

But hey, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

brandon
06-01-2008, 09:55 PM
It is obvious the elite are worried that the Republican Party is going to crumble and one of the two conservatives parties would rise up in its place. So they decided to put up candidates in both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. The Constitution Party snubbed the elite's candidate, Alan Keyes. The Libertarian Party decided to nominate the elites running in their party.

Well said. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe this is exactly what happened.

slacker921
06-01-2008, 10:10 PM
It is obvious the elite are worried that the Republican Party is going to crumble and one of the two conservatives parties would rise up in its place. So they decided to put up candidates in both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. The Constitution Party snubbed the elite's candidate, Alan Keyes. The Libertarian Party decided to nominate the elites running in their party.

... or.. they had nothing to do with Barr and Baldwin. But now they're actively trying to discredit Barr so that the LP doesn't grow stronger..
.... or.. they had nothing to do with Barr and Baldwin. But now they're trying to push both Barr and Baldwin so that the conservative vote will be split evenly between Barr and Baldwin and therefore they'll both be totally ineffective.
... or.. they had nothing to do with Barr and Baldwin. But they want the race to be split 4 ways so the percentage of the vote for McCain and Obama will be lower and easier to manipulate without drawing attention.
... or....... we need to stop with the conspiracy theories.

inibo
06-01-2008, 10:41 PM
Actually, the dichotomy you are citing is set up by the parties, not by me.

And I think you are the one constructing fabricated extreme scenarios... but for the sake of debate, I will play along.

Well, it was Peace&Freedom who asked "How is the modern high holy doctrine of mass abortion, that legalized child-killing is all hunky-dory, an improvement over extreme opposition to sorcery?" Whether intentional or not that certainly seems to imply that the only way to be safe from one is to allow the other and you seem to be in agreement with him--at least generally speaking.


Civil law at what level, Federal, State, or Local?

At any level. You tell me at what level government has a right to interfere in non-violent consensual behavior.

I subscribe to the Zero Aggression Principle (http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html) and the Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I).

In that respect I do accept Biblical principles in that those of the (Protestant) Ten Commandments which apply to relations between people--6, 8 and 9 (violence, theft and fraud)--are crimes against life, liberty and property and should be either punished or recompensed. These things are crimes, not because the Bible tells me so, but because they violate individual sovereignty. Had the Bible never been written they would still be crimes.

The others which are not specifically Godward--5, 7 and 10 (filial and maternal piety, adultery and envy)--are simply a good way to live and conducive to a harmonious life. Violating them brings their own punishment in the form of misery and discord. Again, had the Bible never been written this would still be true. In that respect they are spiritual failings, but not crimes--though it could be argued adultery has to do with fraud if it involves deception or the violation of a voluntary contract.

1, 2, 3 and 4 (Faithfulness, idolatry, blasphemy and ritual observance) are matters of one's understanding of and relation to deity and consequently the concern of the individual and deity and nobody else's business, especially not the business of someone who has a different opinion of what they comprise.

I do not discount the Bible, I just do not regard it in accordance with the Five Fundamentals (http://www.martygrant.com/christian/fundamentals.htm).

american.swan
06-01-2008, 10:54 PM
All this Constitution and Libertarian Party mess is doing more for the Neo-cons and globalist pigs than anything else. Why? Their dividing us. Causing arguments. Splitting our votes.

What ever happened to just sticking GOP? Do your research vote for your city council and other stuff on the ballot and just skip the presidency portion of the ballot all together.

Try to be a poll watcher for the GOP!!! Make sure all the sheeple get their votes counted properly. This will also get you to "work the room" of the GOP insiders. Go to all the GOP meetings you can.

I am not voting for any one. Baldwin might be the closest because he supported Ron Paul, but I am going to follow the wise man himself and stick to the GOP.

bojo68
06-01-2008, 11:57 PM
As I've said elsewhere (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1488825&postcount=28), I like Chuck Baldwin. Of all the "other candidates" he seems closest to Ron Paul, but the Constitution Party does not make me feel warm and fuzzy:


For those of us who are not Christians (http://inibo.livejournal.com/?tag=qabalah,spiritual,thelema) that is some scary stuff.

Repulsive and stomach turning would be my description. They've got some good ideas, but they always insist on dragging their religious garbage with them.

WRellim
06-02-2008, 12:51 AM
Well, it was Peace&Freedom who asked "How is the modern high holy doctrine of mass abortion, that legalized child-killing is all hunky-dory, an improvement over extreme opposition to sorcery?" Whether intentional or not that certainly seems to imply that the only way to be safe from one is to allow the other and you seem to be in agreement with him--at least generally speaking.

As debating a combination of several such emotionally based "scapegoat" and "red herring" issues is problematic, I will aver (at least for the present case) to not debate those issues, but will instead contain the current discussion to the main question you asked, for which, see the below...




Inibo Asked:
Let me ask straight out: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

WRellim queried: Civil law at what level, Federal, State, or Local?

At any level. You tell me where any level of government has a right to interfere in non-violent consensual behavior.

To me these are distinct questions in our current Constitutional republic because they were distinct questions at the time the republic of the "States of America, United" was formed.

FEDERAL level

The FEDERAL civil law was to be constrained by the limitations on it's powers put in place by the compact colloquially known as "The Constitution."

As that compact confers absolutely NO such powers on the Federal government, and indeed, in the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically PROHIBITS the Federal government from acting in areas it is not expressly empowered to act (reserving all such of those additional powers to the various States, and ultimately to "the people") therefore the Federal civil law can place NO such constraints.

Therefore the Federal government can NOT create any VALID laws or crimes concerning consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use, period.

STATE level

This becomes slightly more complex, because there are 50 separate SOVEREIGN states, each with its OWN such "Constitution" and with variously different (some slightly some more significantly) allocations of powers and guarantees of rights.

To "generalize" to what seems to be the most common aspects of the State Constitutions, powers, and reserved "Bills of Rights" is perhaps the best we can do in a debate such as we have here.

And on THIS, the individual State level it is very likely that these three areas become DISTINCT, to wit:

non-violent witchcraft -- this is addressed by the fact that most states have a clause or other reservation of the "Freedom of Religion" enshrined within them that would prohibit the STATE (and most likely also the LOCAL) governments from constraining this in any fashion -- (with the provision that VIOLENT crimes are "non-religious" aspects and therefore governable, but that is a digression from our subject).

consensual homosexual behavior -- Alas, there is significant precedent for the STATE level (and the LOCAL level) of government being involved in governing this. Most states had laws in effect governing "sexual behavior" both PRIOR to and FOLLOWING their construction and the adoption of their Constitutions. And per that, most of them do NOT contain any "guarantees" that constrain them in this regard. I do not say that I like this, nor that I agree with it, merely that it is fact and legally VALID within most of the states for them to in fact make certain "sexual acts" crimes. The solution to this, however, is to seek to ADD such amendments to the STATE level constitutions, or to move to a state that either already HAS such guarantees, or which does NOT choose to make a crime of such activities. (Per example, Nevada allows prostitution legally -- my state makes it a crime. I can fight to change the law in my state, I can fight to amend the Constitution in my state. Or, should I wish to engage in such activity, I am free to move to (or visit) Nevada do so there.

recreational drug use -- Again, similar to the above, very few states contain Constitutional limitations of powers or guarantees of "reserved" rights that would preclude them from regulating such activities. The solution also is likewise... change the law in your state (or locale), seek to amend your State's Constitution to add such constraints or guaranteed "reserved" rights, or avoid the problem and move.


LOCAL level

This is potentially even MORE complex, as with 50 states, each having numerous counties or parishes, and each of them having further numerous municipalities -- all with their own law-making abilities.

But (if we generalize and ignore the exceptions) in practice this is actually simpler than the previous, as the Constitutions of those 50 states tend to enforce uniformity within the state, concentrating CRIMINAL law statues at the STATE level, and PRECLUDING such lower governmental entities from making such activities crimes, or if allowing such laws and regulations placing a constraint or limit on the characterization of such laws and the subsequent punishments.

However -- not all states have such "preclusions" and in those cases the LOCAL governmental entities MAY in fact have the ability to create "crimes" from activities that are NOT so characterized at the state level.


Now regarding those things above -- I am describing the state of the LAWS in our current society -- and am emphatically not talking about the ACTUAL PRACTICE (which is inverse, indeed "perverse" as described below) -- and I certainly am not speaking of my OWN philosophy -- for I would have ALL THREE of those areas you describe be STRICTLY RESERVED to the people, and would see us have GUARANTEES of those INHERENT (and IMHO, INALIENABLE) RIGHTS as constraints against legislative and administrative powers AS AGAINST ALL LEVELS of government.


But as I said the above is the state of the VALID LAW (Constitutionally derived), but not the current ACTUAL PRACTICE or current "case law" (judgments of courts, sometimes known as "precedents" or "stare decisis"). The point in the above is that in ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, the STATES were "supremely sovereign" -- and the Constitution was merely another form of "confederation" allowing for the existence of a more formal "federal" government. At that time, other than the specific powers granted to the Federal entity -- many mainly to do with ensuring citizens rights to travel and trade between and amongst the stated -- all powers were at the STATE level.

Thus there was NO such concept as the "US Supreme Court" making a ruling that could invalidate a STATE law -- unless that state law crossed into the territory of one of the SPECIFIC Federal powers, or directly interfered with the needs of the election of Federal officeholders.

And likewise typically on down the line... thus the crimes and regulations would be MOST burdensome at the LOCAL level, and less so at each increasing level.

An excellent example of how this DOES remain in effect in many areas is the ability of convicted criminals to vote -- in some states, once a convict has completed the terms of his sentence (jail, prison, probation) he is again eligible to vote in both state AND federal elections; but in other states, once convicted, he loses that ability to vote (within the jurisdiction of that state) forever if convicted of a certain level of crime (typically called a "felony" variously, but most commonly defined as any crime with a potential penalty of more than a year of incarceration). Thus there are different "standards" of practice in different states, with each state allowed to define its own voting limitations in this regard.

There are some other "archaic" remnants of this in various parts of the country -- for example some towns or municipalities are "dry" in that they allow no SALES of liquor or alcoholic beverages; most other such local governments simply limit the number of such establishments via licensing and permitting; still others have no such regulations at all. But freedom of movement still allows one to simply drive to the next town or locale and purchase such beverages there, consuming them within that locale, or optionally bringing them back (whether the latter is legal is a bit fuzzier and will vary from state to state, locale to locale).

The PROBLEM with the above began really with the Civil War era and the desire of the Northern "Free" states to use the Federal government to MANDATE things regarding slavery, etc down onto the state level in opposition to the Sourthern states differing laws. (The entire "States Rights" issue). With the end of the confederacy, the "occupation" of the south and the "reconstruction" of the southern states (with entirely NEW State Constitutions written by "carpetbagger Yankees") this MANDATE ability of the Federal government became a fait accompli in a de facto sense, if not yet in a de jure sense.


SIDENOTE: As Ken Burns so eloquently noted in his commentary on his "Civil War" series -- a grammatical error was introduced that reflects a profound change, and 180 degree turn in mindset, of the form of our government; prior to the Civil War, it was proper English to say"The United States ARE a nation" -- gramatically correct because the term "United States" is actually a PLURAL term. However, after the Civil War, it became acceptable and even standard to say "The United State IS a nation" even though doing so is grammatically incorrect. This reflects the change from thinking of oneself as a "Citizen of Virginia" or a "Citizen of New Hampshire" to instead being the more federally minded "Citizen of the United States."

But the vestiges of States Rights endured in CASE LAW for well over another 50 years -- it was really only under FDR in the late 1930's -- using the "Crisis" of the prolonged Great Depression (ironically prolonged by FDR's own actions) -- that with the threatened "court packing" he was able to get the US Supreme Courts' consent and "approval" of dramatically increasing Federal "mandate" power via the overly broad (some would say the "overly FRAUD") use of the Commerce Clause to produce the current situation where FEDERAL law constrains, overpowers and overrides State and Local laws.

And with the height of the socialist, environmental and activist movements in the 1960's we are now in the strange quandary of a place of relying on the Federal government's overly broadened (and unconstitutional) powers to INHIBIT and LIMIT the additional overreaching grasp of the STATES and LOCAL governments, as they would seek to burden us with ever increasing laws and regulations of minutiae. (Though again, some, myself included, would say that this "inversion" is a natural consequence of the "frustration" of the State's laws -- since they are precluded from acting in the areas they were originally empowered to act -- is it any wonder that they have ventured increasingly to encroach upon the people themselves? Governmental and bureaucratic power, like water, seeks the path of LEAST resistance.)


Alas, thus we find ourselves in our current Dungeon; "a maze of twisty little passages, all alike" confronted by legal barriers no matter which corner we turn.

But because of the huge volume of existing case law, resorting to the the court system with the expectation of an enforcement of any of these "limits" has reached the point where doing so is almost a worse risk than placing a bet on a roulette wheel in Vegas, especially when the rulings of the lower courts are bound by the maze of the rulings of higher courts, and the higher courts' rulings are a complex maze of their own, motivated by prior political alliances, existing political alliances, and the fear of future political shifts; with the underlying principles of the Constitution and its CODIFIED limitations of governmental powers all but abandoned, except as the basis for the construction of some newer and even more complex maze structure. This problem -- the "trap" of stare decisis (http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm) {<<<< IMPORTANT LINK} means we must attempt OTHER avenues of returning to Constitutional limitations... as the linked article states: "[...] members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, and passing the duty to the federal courts of striking legislation that should never have been passed in the first place."

POSSIBLE solutions? Again from the above link: "There would appear to be only two ways out of our present predicament: Either the people must start electing different members of Congress, and demand that they strictly comply with the Constitution, or else the courts, especially the Supreme Court, need to start issuing sweeping opinions which overturn past precedents and strike down entire blocks of legislation."

Since the chances of the latter are slim to none, we must (until and unless we can find a better solution) confine ourselves to pushing for the former.

Conza88
06-02-2008, 12:54 AM
:eek:

WRellim
06-02-2008, 12:55 AM
All this Constitution and Libertarian Party mess is doing more for the Neo-cons and globalist pigs than anything else. Why? Their dividing us. Causing arguments. Splitting our votes.

What ever happened to just sticking GOP? Do your research vote for your city council and other stuff on the ballot and just skip the presidency portion of the ballot all together.

Try to be a poll watcher for the GOP!!! Make sure all the sheeple get their votes counted properly. This will also get you to "work the room" of the GOP insiders. Go to all the GOP meetings you can.

I am not voting for any one. Baldwin might be the closest because he supported Ron Paul, but I am going to follow the wise man himself and stick to the GOP.

And thus remove yourself from the equation altogether.

Loyalty to your local party GOP people -- and voting (and working) for the campaigns they recommend is equivalent to turning your brain off.

Yes, work within the GOP but unless you have an AGENDA of concerns and a direction you are working towards... (and a means of OBJECTING and registering a vote of "protest" when your party goes astray) then you will be nothing more than a piece of flotsam floating along with the waves... blown whichever way the current winds push you.


BTW the fact that we have reached the point of needing to make a CHOICE does not necessitate "arguments" -- it should engender DEBATE. It is merely a sad fact that MOST individuals in our society are unable to (or unwilling to) actually DEBATE things in a formal manner, nor are they willing to educate themselves or to research or even think through the choices at hand, and instead sink almost immediately to vain ARGUMENTS, logical fallacies, reiterating talking points, pushing emotional issue "hot buttons", resorting to personal biases, or using ad hominem attacks.

That is the state of our society. SAD, but true. Absenting yourself from the entire debate is (IMHO) really just an even MORE cowardly and lazy act than those who resort to mere argumentation.

WRellim
06-02-2008, 01:11 AM
Repulsive and stomach turning would be my description. They've got some good ideas, but they always insist on dragging their religious garbage with them.

But the opposite is just as true. "They've got some good ideas, but they always insist on dragging their ATHEISTIC garbage along with them."

How does this help the debate? You are merely resorting to your own personal biases to avoid doing the actual research and reasoning involved in debating the candidates on their merits, positions, policies and character.

Saying you won't vote for a "Christian" -- or will vote ONLY for a "Muslim" -- or AGAINST any "Buddist" -- or ONLY for an "Athiest" -- any and all of these things are equivalent to voting FOR or AGAINST people for some other aspect of their freedom. It is the virtual equivalent of being a racist.

WRellim
06-02-2008, 01:15 AM
:eek:

I know... TL/DR... and "Pearls before Swine" -- but I didn't really post it with the expectation that everyone would read it... just that inibo would (and I know that means we are having a private conversation in public, but hey you're free to listen in if you want... we've got nothing to hide). :)

Unless your "EEK" meant something entirely different. :(

Conza88
06-02-2008, 01:50 AM
I know... TL/DR... and "Pearls before Swine" -- but I didn't really post it with the expectation that everyone would read it... just that inibo would (and I know that means we are having a private conversation in public, but hey you're free to listen in if you want... we've got nothing to hide). :)

Unless your "EEK" meant something entirely different. :(

It did.. it meant; thats some big ass text I know isn't gonna add to my knowledge or help me in anyway shape or form, so I'm not gonna even read past the first few sentences. :)

WRellim
06-02-2008, 02:08 AM
It did.. it meant; thats some big ass text I know isn't gonna add to my knowledge or help me in anyway shape or form, so I'm not gonna even read past the first few sentences. :)

So in other words it has to be in video or sound bite form or you refuse to bother with it? :(

If so, I weep for mankind.



Seriously, though, you OUGHT to read it (people tell me that I actually AM a good writer -- well sometimes anyway -- and there is some serious thought provoking stuff in this one... while it is an answer to inibo, it WOULD in fact add to your knowledge as well). :cool:


I'm curious... are you just a non-reader of long text online? Did you buy a copy of Ron's latest book? Did you buy it to read it? Or just as a means of "supporting" the movement... and perhaps earning brownie points??? :confused:

inibo
06-02-2008, 02:28 AM
I didn't really post it with the expectation that everyone would read it... just that inibo would

Read it I did. You actually addressed my concerns pretty well, at least as far as you as an individual. (Now if we can just get you to take an English composition class. :D) I would like to see a similar position stated by the CP itself. It would go a long way toward lessening my concerns. However, I spent enough time among fundamentalists, having been one myself for many years, to know that there will always be those who have, as Mencken said, "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Given enough time and numbers those dour folks eventually resort to the gallows to exorcise their own insecurities resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will. Based on my own experience and my reading of web sites like News With Views* (http://www.newswithviews.com/), they seem to be well represented in the CP.

*I'm not painting NWV with a broad brush. They often have very good articles, but from time-to-time they give a platform to some of the most hateful rants I've ever read. (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan50.htm) Even though I often agree with their basic premise--as in the example cited--I want to tell them to sit down an STFU, you are not helping.

Conza88
06-02-2008, 03:08 AM
So in other words it has to be in video or sound bite form or you refuse to bother with it? :(

If so, I weep for mankind.

Seriously, though, you OUGHT to read it (people tell me that I actually AM a good writer -- well sometimes anyway -- and there is some serious thought provoking stuff in this one... while it is an answer to inibo, it WOULD in fact add to your knowledge as well). :cool:

I'm curious... are you just a non-reader of long text online? Did you buy a copy of Ron's latest book? Did you buy it to read it? Or just as a means of "supporting" the movement... and perhaps earning brownie points??? :confused:

In other words, you were quoting inibo, the whole thing was addressed to him from what I gather. Why waste my time, on something thats POINTLESS in regards to me. Cry away.. won't change anything.:rolleyes:

Ok so it adds something? LoL - I'll reconsider when I'm bored.

I'm just curious... have you taken a look at the sticky in 'General Politics' recently?
:rolleyes: I am a non-reader of long pointless online text, sure. Bought the book, read the book, passed the book along to my fellow family members. Brownie points? :rolleyes: If you mean, using it as a tool to wake others up... yes. :rolleyes:

WRellim
06-02-2008, 03:24 AM
Read it I did. You actually addressed my concerns pretty well, at least as far as you as an individual. (Now if we can just get you to take an English composition class. :D)

Was it that bad? :(

I know internet style writing HAS infected and corrupted me (how can it not, we're in a forum with [QUOTY] things and all the rest of the doodads. At least I don't wrie posts on an iPhone and use texting abbreviations! WL NT NRMLY.)

I could wish it had been shorter -- and indeed it is a first draft, subsequent revisions would probably be edited down (then expanded & re-edited, ad infinitum) -- but the question while seemingly simple, covers a pretty complex subject area. IMO, sound bite length answers would be worth a lot less.


I would like to see a similar position stated by the CP itself. It would go a long way toward lessening my concerns.

So would I, but alas I don't speak (or write) for the Constitution Party, only myself. ;)


However, I spent enough time among fundamentalists, having been one myself for many years, to know that there will always be those who have, as Mencken said, "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Given enough time and numbers those dour folks eventually resort to the gallows to exorcise their own insecurities resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will.

SNORT... I always LOVED that quote and thought it very apropos of so MANY denominations. (BTW, excellent book "Real Christians Don't Dance" (http://www.ccel.us/dance.toc.html) would argue that such "legalisms" are an attempt to shortcut and avoid REAL spirituality.) Here's a favorite passage (from Chapter 15)


[...]replied the old man. "It remains what it has always been. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. In fact, it's the legalist who destroys the Law."

"Wait a minute ... wait a minute. The legalist destroys the Law? How can that be? Law is his middle name!"

"The legalist always reduces the requirements of the Law. He has no choice but to shrink it to something that he can maintain so that when he compares himself to another, he will always win. He counts on God to grade on the curve."

The old man let that one sink in for a moment and went on,

"Remember how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees? He reinterpreted the Law to them. He made it harder, putting the Law back up where it belonged. He redefined murder as hate and adultery as lust, and suddenly the old buzzards were back on the hook."

Likewise with the experience among "fundies" of several varieties (had one pastor who thought cards, ANY physical deck of cards, were a tool of the devil to lead one into gambling -- a different pastor at a different church was adamant about dancing being evil, even his 3 year old daughter was not allowed to "bounce" or "swirl" around the living room to music... often wonder how many years of counseling THAT eventually wrought!)

I often took sheer pleasure in (literally) blowing smoke in their direction during outside activities. (Knew my Bible well enough -- plus debate and extemporaneous expertise -- so even the pastor feared to try upbraiding me regarding tobacco, best they could do was the secular "health" concerns.) :D

SHUDDER thinking of all of that again...

So completely freeing to be out and away from all of it. Quaker quietness and peace is just... well, wonderful by comparison. :)

(But, sadly as I have learned, you cannot really FREE others in the same way -- they have to seek it on their own. Only thing sadder is those who put themselves needlessly BACK under that that yoke. :( )


Based on my own experience and my reading of web sites like News With Views* (http://www.newswithviews.com/), they seem to be well represented in the CP.

*I'm not painting NWV with a broad brush. They often have very good articles, but from time-to-time they give a platform to some of the most hateful rants I've ever read. (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan50.htm) Even though I often agree with their basic premise--as in the example cited--I want to tell them to sit down an STFU, you are not helping.

EEEK! Alang Stang... Egads, Run for your lives... "Mother, Hide the Children, NOW!"

Yeah I know what you mean... WND (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/) is a similar mix... intermixing some VERY good stuff with a whole lot of absolute CRAP.

Whole history of ALL religions though (and societies? organizations? mankind in general?) are replete with such demagogues.

I really get the impression that Chuck Baldwin is NOT among them. Firm in his beliefs, yes, and a "fundie" in that regard -- "evangelical" in wanting to share his beliefs (but aren't RP supporters "evangelical" and always wanting to "share" -- and sometimes IMPOSE -- their "Good News" onto others? <grin>). But he DOES seem to be well aware of the dangers of government imposed religious values (dangerous to HIS OWN BELIEFS as well as other peoples).

<soapbox>
RE that, one of the things that constantly amazes me with the "Bush supporters" is that they do NOT seem to even think -- not even for a second -- what his expansion of Presidential authority would mean if say HILLARY were to gain the office (much less someone worse). How short ARE their memories? Were they not (just a few years ago) DAMNING Clinton for the same kinds of excesses? And when you try to explain or even question this point... they dismiss you out of hand. Brainless.
</soapbox>

WRellim
06-02-2008, 03:33 AM
In other words, you were quoting inibo, the whole thing was addressed to him from what I gather. Why waste my time, on something thats POINTLESS in regards to me. Cry away.. won't change anything.:rolleyes:

Ok so it adds something? LoL - I'll reconsider when I'm bored.

I'm just curious... have you taken a look at the sticky in 'General Politics' recently?
:rolleyes: I am a non-reader of long pointless online text, sure. Bought the book, read the book, passed the book along to my fellow family members. Brownie points? :rolleyes: If you mean, using it as a tool to wake others up... yes. :rolleyes:

Well, you were the one who posted just a :eek: in reply. (Had you not done that I would never have been the wiser. :) )

Sadly, I have recently spent too much time on here already I don't have time to read everything (especially when composing the LONG posts takes so long). :D

I didn't mean the questions on your reading as a dig or insult. Just that some people who LOVE reading books and such yet HATE reading more than a few sentences online. I was wondering which you meant by not liking long text. (I've had some people gripe about my long posts... and then a few days later get a PM from the same person saying "thank you, that was very informative" -- and I've often wondered if they printed it out or something... I've been known to do that -- somehow paper makes the difference -- and thought that might be the case with you.) ;)

Cheers!

Peace&Freedom
06-02-2008, 09:53 AM
Read it I did. You actually addressed my concerns pretty well, at least as far as you as an individual. (Now if we can just get you to take an English composition class. :D) I would like to see a similar position stated by the CP itself. It would go a long way toward lessening my concerns. However, I spent enough time among fundamentalists, having been one myself for many years, to know that there will always be those who have, as Mencken said, "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Given enough time and numbers those dour folks eventually resort to the gallows to exorcise their own insecurities resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will.

This alarmism about some latent lethality behind fundamentalism has always been inflated, as the alarmism is disproportionate to the actual deaths produced by fundamentalist adherents (rare, compared to 100 million deaths from secular communism). My own concerns are that there are way too many secular puritans out there who hold a haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be holy. My use of the abortion example was to point out the root of the issue was authoritarianism, not the injection of God in to a philosophy of government. Murderous authoritarian doctrines have and will result (probably more easily) in the ABSENCE of biblically-based principles, rather than due to their presence. The complicating factor of people confusing their own law for God's law has been what has made applying those principles to politics unattractive to some, but that misunderstanding does not make those principles false or irrelevant, any more than the dislike of gravity makes gravity irrelevant.

Rule by God or rule by Man may be authoritarian or non-authoritarian in character, but the nature of either rule is to PLAY God by acting as the final or ultimate authority in the civil arena---intrinsically, an act of theocracy. All governments are de facto theocracies, either of the biblical kind, or the humanist kind (treating God as God, or Man as God). The fear of 'theocracy' is basically a fear of the other side's theocracy. Either God is ruler of the nations, and we actually believe it, or not, and Man will play God in so ruling. Given the blunt choice (and given the history of the last century) of opting to live in the biblical theocratic time of the Founders where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will," versus a humanistic theocracy where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of Progress," I choose the former. Think about the Stalin et al body counts---that was an awful lot of insecurity being exorcised, all of it secular.

acptulsa
06-02-2008, 09:58 AM
I am only 26 but I am thinking this could be the most insane election season I've ever seen and ever will see.

I'm almost two decades older and it beats all in my experience, too. On the one hand, I want to say it's the craziest I'll ever see. On the other hand, I hope not--I hope 2010 and 2012 turn the whole damned world on its head!

inibo
06-02-2008, 06:14 PM
This alarmism about some latent lethality behind fundamentalism has always been inflated, as the alarmism is disproportionate to the actual deaths produced by fundamentalist adherents (rare, compared to 100 million deaths from secular communism). My own concerns are that there are way too many secular puritans out there who hold a haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be holy. My use of the abortion example was to point out the root of the issue was authoritarianism, not the injection of God in to a philosophy of government. Murderous authoritarian doctrines have and will result (probably more easily) in the ABSENCE of biblically-based principles, rather than due to their presence. The complicating factor of people confusing their own law for God's law has been what has made applying those principles to politics unattractive to some, but that misunderstanding does not make those principles false or irrelevant, any more than the dislike of gravity makes gravity irrelevant.

Rule by God or rule by Man may be authoritarian or non-authoritarian in character, but the nature of either rule is to PLAY God by acting as the final or ultimate authority in the civil arena---intrinsically, an act of theocracy. All governments are de facto theocracies, either of the biblical kind, or the humanist kind (treating God as God, or Man as God). The fear of 'theocracy' is basically a fear of the other side's theocracy. Either God is ruler of the nations, and we actually believe it, or not, and Man will play God in so ruling. Given the blunt choice (and given the history of the last century) of opting to live in the biblical theocratic time of the Founders where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will," versus a humanistic theocracy where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of Progress," I choose the former. Think about the Stalin et al body counts---that was an awful lot of insecurity being exorcised, all of it secular.

You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

It took a bit of wrangling, but I finally got a sense of where WRellim is coming from. I also had to drop a few preconceptions in the process. I guess I'll pose the question I posed to him to you: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Sidebar: I hope people don't think I'm hijacking this thread. It's not my intention. The original post was about how screwed up all the parties are. I'm trying to examine the accuracy of that assessment with respect to one of them, the Constitution Party. If we don't kill each other in the process maybe we can get around to the others as well.

armstrong
06-02-2008, 06:21 PM
Man I so wish Ron Paul would get Jesse Ventura as his running mate and go independant the would win hands down,,,a land slide,,,,,wishfull thinking,,,will have to write in RP or go with baldwin if he is on the ballot in oregon if not and no write in for RP then I will sit this one out I think

inibo
06-02-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm almost two decades older and it beats all in my experience, too. On the one hand, I want to say it's the craziest I'll ever see. On the other hand, I hope not--I hope 2010 and 2012 turn the whole damned world on its head!

My earliest recollection of presidential politics is JFKs reelection campaign speech at the W.Va. centennial celebration in Charleston. I was only eight years old so it is all just fleeting impressions. The have been many strange twists and turns since, but I'm really getting a sense that things are rapidly spinning out of control and pieces are going to start flying off in every direction. We are approaching a phase transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition) and I'm not entirely optimistic about what's on the other side of it.

WRellim
06-03-2008, 04:39 AM
You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

It took a bit of wrangling, but I finally got a sense of where WRellim is coming from. I also had to drop a few preconceptions in the process. I guess I'll pose the question I posed to him to you: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Sidebar: I hope people don't think I'm hijacking this thread. It's not my intention. The original post was about how screwed up all the parties are. I'm trying to examine the accuracy of that assessment with respect to one of them, the Constitution Party. If we don't kill each other in the process maybe we can get around to the others as well.

I would say that ALL tyrannies are GODLESS tyrannies... and at the same time they all THINK that they are HOLY.

(Consider the Soviet's virtual "canonization" of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even Stalin).

For another example in a different thread her on RPF, a person purporting to be a Libertarian goes to extensive lengths to say that ALL children should NOT be subjected to the "Christian" religious beliefs of their parents, but should instead be raised as atheists. And he is not merely stating it as his "preference" but rather a policy he would like to see in place by a "Libertarian Government."

All that is (at its root) is yet another claim to holding of the "absolute truth" (albeit in this case the "sect" of atheism), and then using the brute force of the state to compel others to follow a specific set of beliefs (i.e. a state religion), in other words nothing but a THEOCRACY.

Truth Warrior
06-03-2008, 04:55 AM
SNAFUBAR, by design.

Enter the NWO to "fix", set things straight and to save the day, just in the very nick of time.

Just like Cavalry did in the old western movies.

WHEW! Are we lucky or what? :rolleyes:

ORDO ab CHAO, my ass. :p

constituent
06-03-2008, 05:52 AM
Was it that bad? :(

1) I know internet style writing HAS infected and corrupted me (how can it not, we're in a forum with [QUOTY] things and all the rest of the doodads. At least I don't wrie posts on an iPhone and use texting abbreviations! WL NT NRMLY.)

2) I could wish it had been shorter -- and indeed it is a first draft, subsequent revisions would probably be edited down (then expanded & re-edited, ad infinitum) -- but the question while seemingly simple, covers a pretty complex subject area. IMO, sound bite length answers would be worth a lot less.


.......

<soapbox>
RE that, one of the things that constantly amazes me with the "Bush supporters" is that they do NOT seem to even think -- not even for a second -- what his expansion of Presidential authority would mean if say HILLARY were to gain the office (much less someone worse). How short ARE their memories? Were they not (just a few years ago) DAMNING Clinton for the same kinds of excesses? And when you try to explain or even question this point... they dismiss you out of hand. Brainless.
</soapbox>

1) English is dead. Any attempt to sculpt the language (properly) is an attempt to create equine statuary from genuine dead horses. You can do it, but it's gonna smell like shit.

2) There's a saying that English teachers like to use, I forget the exact expression. Something along the lines of "never use a big word when a small one will do." This applies to grouping your thoughts for readers as well.

<SOAPBOX>
In conversation, you will only hold a persons attention for <30 sec. The same is usually true for writing, though you may get a little longer. Often, if you phrase your thoughts in more than a couple of sentences, your reader's eyes will continue to scan the words, but their thoughts will no longer be registering.

If they register, they will not compute.

Sound bites are your friend.
</SOAPBOX>

constituent
06-03-2008, 06:17 AM
Actually, Christian/biblical doctrines WERE enshrined in early American law, in the early treaties and several state constitutions. Somehow the galaxies didn't explode, and liberty flourished.

Bullshit.

I dislike the new American religion more than I dislike the old Christian one.

Both require that the individual view history w/ rose-colored glasses to not see the obvious.

LittleLightShining
06-03-2008, 06:22 AM
For those of us who are not Christians (http://inibo.livejournal.com/?tag=qabalah,spiritual,thelema) that is some scary stuff.Forgive me here, because I've only just started reading through this thread, but I don't understand what's so scary about the Gospel other than at the end every person will be judged according to their faith. If you don't believe then what's to fear?

The Gospel is about loving your neighbor, forgiving each other and faith. The dogmatic things that many Christians adhere to come largely from Paul, not from Christ. Paul is not the author of the Gospel.

True Christianity looks a whole lot more like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin than James Dobson and John Hagee.

Conza88
06-03-2008, 06:26 AM
Nice constituent.

A quote from Churchill comes to mind, but I can't find it. :(

Paraphrasing - "If you want me to talk for 2 minutes, give me two weeks preparation. If you want me to speak for 2 hours, tell me when to start."

LittleLightShining
06-03-2008, 06:28 AM
Let me ask straight out: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?I'll say no. They shouldn't. Unless there is an act of violence, damage or theft of property involved. Then there is a crime.

LittleLightShining
06-03-2008, 06:47 AM
I know... TL/DR... and "Pearls before Swine" -- but I didn't really post it with the expectation that everyone would read it... just that inibo would (and I know that means we are having a private conversation in public, but hey you're free to listen in if you want... we've got nothing to hide). :)
Thank you for writing it, WR. If there were such a thing I would nominate it for "All-time Best Post on RPF".

Nickel
06-03-2008, 10:55 AM
Go read some history then... it is not altogether that different from the various speeches and writings of a number of "classic" American political figures (including many of the founding fathers).



The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Just don't read any Franklin, Jefferson or Adams (later in life) who all rejected the divinity of Christ. Also, ignore Madison, who became increasingly influenced by Deists through out his life. He was adamant about separation of Church and state ("When in doubt err on the side of separation").

The Constitution Party preamble really makes a mockery of what the Founders actually set up.

Can people from other Religions join the Constitution Party? Maybe as long as they acknowledge "the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States". :rolleyes:

WRellim
06-03-2008, 12:58 PM
You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

It took a bit of wrangling, but I finally got a sense of where WRellim is coming from. I also had to drop a few preconceptions in the process. I guess I'll pose the question I posed to him to you: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Sidebar: I hope people don't think I'm hijacking this thread. It's not my intention. The original post was about how screwed up all the parties are. I'm trying to examine the accuracy of that assessment with respect to one of them, the Constitution Party. If we don't kill each other in the process maybe we can get around to the others as well.

I would say that ALL tyrannies are GODLESS tyrannies... and at the same time they all THINK that they are HOLY.

(Consider the Soviet's virtual "canonization" of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even Stalin).

For another example in a different thread her on RPF, a person purporting to be a Libertarian goes to extensive lengths to say that ALL children should NOT be subjected to the "Christian" religious beliefs of their parents, but should instead be raised as atheists. And he is not merely stating it as his "preference" but rather a policy he would like to see in place by a "Libertarian Government."

All that is (at its root) is yet another claim to holding of the "absolute truth" (albeit in this case the "sect" of atheism), and then using the brute force of the state to compel others to follow a specific set of beliefs (i.e. a state religion), in other words nothing but a THEOCRACY.

Peace&Freedom
06-03-2008, 01:02 PM
Bull****.

I dislike the new American religion more than I dislike the old Christian one.

Both require that the individual view history w/ rose-colored glasses to not see the obvious.

So, the galaxies DID explode? In early America, tyranny flourished? Does your mere dislike of the faith color your glasses such that you can ignore the actual facts of history?

Peace&Freedom
06-03-2008, 01:12 PM
You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

My view is not Manichean, as I do not concede that biblical theocracy is innately 'tyranny.' From the raw evidence of history we have done alot better with biblically based civil government (if we are to have government at all) than the secular humanist counterpart. The alarmist objections to it are disproportionate to its actual performance in the real world---it has been the secular state that has proven to be more prone to drift into tyranny. It is the AUTHORITARIAN expression of either type of state that leads to the negative problems, but those negative outcomes are overwhelmingly found when a state is established on the secular side.

WRellim
06-03-2008, 01:34 PM
Just don't read any Franklin, Jefferson or Adams (later in life) who all rejected the divinity of Christ. Also, ignore Madison, who became increasingly influenced by Deists through out his life. He was adamant about separation of Church and state ("When in doubt err on the side of separation").

The Constitution Party preamble really makes a mockery of what the Founders actually set up.

Having read all of the above (and much more) probably before you were out of diapers, I can honestly state that you are mistaking the separation of "organized religion" for the exclusion of the underlying moral principles.

The "founding fathers" all understood and were in substantial agreement about the need to prevent a STATE RUN CHURCH (which, BTW, would include the modern "Church of Atheism" propounded by so many these days.)


Can people from other Religions join the Constitution Party? Maybe as long as they acknowledge "the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States". :rolleyes:

But conversely, it seems that the Libertarian Party (or at least many of its members) will soon be preparing gas chambers for anyone who does not subscribe to the "Worship of NOTHINGness" and the "Holy Scripture of the ZeitGeist Film" that is the current form of modern militant atheism.

"Libertarians" my a**.

WRellim
06-03-2008, 01:47 PM
1) English is dead. Any attempt to sculpt the language (properly) is an attempt to create equine statuary from genuine dead horses. You can do it, but it's gonna smell like shit.

2) There's a saying that English teachers like to use, I forget the exact expression. Something along the lines of "never use a big word when a small one will do." This applies to grouping your thoughts for readers as well.

<SOAPBOX>
In conversation, you will only hold a persons attention for <30 sec. The same is usually true for writing, though you may get a little longer. Often, if you phrase your thoughts in more than a couple of sentences, your reader's eyes will continue to scan the words, but their thoughts will no longer be registering.

If they register, they will not compute.

Sound bites are your friend.
</SOAPBOX>


Of course the prohibition of definitive terms (because they contain more letters than "Dick and Jane" readers) is merely a lie that your English [sic] teacher told you because they themselves had a very limited vocabulary, and probably had not progressed further than the typical 5th grade reading level required to get a modern "edumacators certifimacate" from the local state teacher's college.

Indeed, one of the values of "biggum" words is that they befuddle the fools (like your so called "English" teacher) who refuse to turn on their brains or consult one of Webster's tomes, but instead simply discard or ignore all words with more than 7 characters.

And, as I so clearly stated, my post was not intended for the general ADHD audience that needs < 30 second "soundbites" and video clips.... it was written to answer a specific (and complex) question from another erudite poster, one inibo -- and as he was capable of reading and comprehending the same, it achieved the intended purpose; whether others should care to read it is inconsequential, although it might prove to inure to their benefit should they endeavor to undertake the effort involved.
;)

Nickel
06-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Having read all of the above (and much more) probably before you were out of diapers, I can honestly state that you are mistaking the separation of "organized religion" for the exclusion of the underlying moral principles.


For someone so well read, you completely missed my point. Not all Founders would have subscribed to the preamble of the Constitution Party.




The "founding fathers" all understood and were in substantial agreement about the need to prevent a STATE RUN CHURCH (which, BTW, would include the modern "Church of Atheism" propounded by so many these days.)


Do you consider Patrick Henry a Founding Father? Wasn't he for tax-supported religion for Virginia (which was defeated). Doesn't sound like "all'" to me. "All Founders" is a bizarre statement. I thought they were individuals.




But conversely, it seems that the Libertarian Party (or at least many of its members) will soon be preparing gas chambers for anyone who does not subscribe to the "Worship of NOTHINGness" and the "Holy Scripture of the ZeitGeist Film" that is the current form of modern militant atheism.

"Libertarians" my a**.

I don't recall mentioning the Libertarian Party... they don't have anything to do with my initial point. Neither does "Church of Atheism".

inibo
06-03-2008, 02:40 PM
Forgive me here, because I've only just started reading through this thread, but I don't understand what's so scary about the Gospel other than at the end every person will be judged according to their faith. If you don't believe then what's to fear?

The Gospel is not scary at all. An organization that bases it's platform on the idea that Jesus is the King of America is. If a political party espoused the idea that Allah were the sovereign authority of the United States and all laws were to be derived from the Qur'an would that scare you?


The Gospel is about loving your neighbor, forgiving each other and faith. The dogmatic things that many Christians adhere to come largely from Paul, not from Christ. Paul is not the author of the Gospel.

According to the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration all parts of scripture are equally inspired and equally true, so if you are basing civil law on the scriptures the writing of Paul, or even Moses for that matter, would have as much weight as the words of Jesus.


True Christianity looks a whole lot more like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin than James Dobson and John Hagee.

Since Christians can't agree on what constitutes "true Christianity," if Christianity became the basis of civil law then civil law would be subject to change based on which faction was in control--sort of like we have now. If it were that of Chuck Baldwin or the pastor of my last church it might be tolerable; if it were disciples of J.R. Rushdoony or Fred Phelps that would be a different story.

As I said in earlier posts, my problem is not with Christians or Christianity, it is with people who want to imbue a puritanical moral code with the force of law, who want to base law not on whether a particular behavior does or doesn't "break my leg or pick my pocket," but whether or not it violates scriptural precepts which even committed Christians can't agree on.

kombayn
06-03-2008, 02:43 PM
I don't know where people get this Barack Obama is Mr. Socialist, if you watch is Talk@Google interview, he actually comes off as a Liberal Conservative (I know, I know, oxy-moron). He does tend to be more pro-business then he lets on.

I truly think Obama is pandering to the Democratic base, but I've heard Obama more than once say he considers himself a conservative on the business platform. He got ripped to holy hell for citing Ronald Reagan as a good president. He had to retract the statement because the Uber-Liberals of the Democratic party flipped out. Trust me, Obama has been pandering to the extreme left, but don't be surprised once you see people like Chuck Hagel and Christine Todd Whitman on his Administration staff.

Truth Warrior
06-03-2008, 02:49 PM
I don't know where people get this Barack Obama is Mr. Socialist, if you watch is Talk@Google interview, he actually comes off as a Liberal Conservative (I know, I know, oxy-moron). He does tend to be more pro-business then he lets on.

I truly think Obama is pandering to the Democratic base, but I've heard Obama more than once say he considers himself a conservative on the business platform. He got ripped to holy hell for citing Ronald Reagan as a good president. He had to retract the statement because the Uber-Liberals of the Democratic party flipped out. Trust me, Obama has been pandering to the extreme left, but don't be surprised once you see people like Chuck Hagel and Christine Todd Whitman on his Administration staff.

The ADA score reveals all, Grasshopper! :)

kombayn
06-03-2008, 04:14 PM
I found this...

http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=IL&pg=2&id=26&year=06&congress=s

To be really confusing. Why can't they just do Yes or No and not the R's & W's?

inibo
06-03-2008, 06:07 PM
I found this...

http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=IL&pg=2&id=26&year=06&congress=s

To be really confusing. Why can't they just do Yes or No and not the R's & W's?


I'm assuming R=Right, W=Wrong. The reason, I once again assume, is that the AFL-CIO does not want people to think for themselves so they have to tell their members what's right and what's wrong. They assume either stupidity or compliance on the part of their membership. Sort of like a couple of mainstream political parties I know of.

kombayn
06-03-2008, 06:22 PM
Actually on some it says R=Y, W=N and vice-versa R=N, W=Y and I don't know. It's really confusing that whole website.

Kludge
06-03-2008, 06:25 PM
Actually on some it says R=Y, W=N and vice-versa R=N, W=Y and I don't know. It's really confusing that whole website.

I'd imagine that they declare what the right vote would have been, whether yea or nay.

Truth Warrior
06-03-2008, 06:50 PM
The AFL-CIO probably should change and use smiley faces :) for good and frowny faces :( for bad.

:D