PDA

View Full Version : What is a constitutionalist and do they want to restore slavery?




BlackTerrel
11-08-2008, 03:47 AM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

LibertyEagle
11-08-2008, 04:03 AM
I'm way too tired to write much at this time of night, but since no one else had come along yet, I at least wanted to say something.

Primarily, it means the federal government should only be doing those things strictly enumerated in the Constitution. All else should be left to the states and to the people. The federal government has gotten way out of control and is leaps and bounds more powerful than our Founders ever intended them to be. This is not a thorough enough answer and I realize that, but I'm too tired to say much more right now.

No, no one wants to go back to slavery. The Constitution is for everyone and all men are created equal.

Others will be along to give you a more thorough answer.

Welcome to the Forums, Terrel. :)

DamianTV
11-08-2008, 04:08 AM
If you believe in the constitution, then you are a TERRORIST!

http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/fbi-leaf2.jpg

and just out of curiosity, what the fuck is that emote icon on our right of our text field supposed to be?

:bunchies:

LibertyEagle
11-08-2008, 04:17 AM
Terrel,

Here's a site that has a collection of Dr. Paul's speeches and articles. You might enjoy reading some of them. If you do, you will get a better understanding of what this movement is all about.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

LibertyEagle
11-08-2008, 04:18 AM
and just out of curiosity, what the fuck is that emote icon on our right of our text field supposed to be?

:bunchies:

His name is "Bunchies". People were asking Josh to add him as an emoticon, so he did. :)

Truth Warrior
11-08-2008, 05:26 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constitutionalist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constitutionalist)

HollyforRP
11-08-2008, 05:53 AM
Hey Terrel.

Ron Paul agrees with practicing civil disobedience which is more libertarian than it is liberal. Liberals have just come in and declared any progress regarding movements as their own when it's more of a libertarian approach.

Libertarian is about freedom.

The constitution gives us rights and sets limits for governments into our lives and in a way that is simple to read and understand.

There is a big HOWEVER.

People have decided to skew and twist what the constitution states in order to suit their own nefarious agendas such as seperation of church and state just so they can have everything their way only.

The constitution reads regarding this issue:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



The problem is that suppressing people's rights to prayer under new political correctness is unconstitutional.

Without our rights in America and with the constitution not being followed correctly, this opens the pathway to more rules not being followed.


America is growing and changing. That doesn't mean our rights have to go away and change too.

Freedom of religion is one that is in danger just so one group, the atheists can have it just their way and they know by attacking schools and suppressing the youth's right to pray and threatening lawsuits that it will create a future of more atheists to suit their agenda.

Meanwhile, it's unconstitutional.

Even though the constitution was written in a time of slavery and oppression of women, it does not mean revert to slavery.

The constitution is not a racist or sexist document. It just defines the rights and when followed limits government control over what religion you follow, the right to bear arms, fair trial, no cruel or unusual punishment excessive bails and fines

See how some of this is not being followed as of today?

Does it mean the constitution should be re-written? No.

The constitution is what should never go out of style. Also with civil war of the past, blacks and whites both came together to declare war against slavery.


Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

allyinoh
11-08-2008, 06:23 AM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

Are you serious? Do some research on your own and you'd find that Ron Paul (as do many others) think racism is the most deplorable thing. So why would you assume that since he is a Constitutionalist that he supports slavery? Get out of here.

I'm sorry but that's about as ignorant as Whoopie Goldberg asking McCain if he would make her a slave again.

Would it be acceptable for me to say that now that Barack Obama is going to be president that I am afraid as a white person that I'll have to go out in the fields to pay for the sins of people I never knew nor anyone else did? Or that I will have to pay reparations to black people just because I'm white?

robert4rp08
11-08-2008, 06:25 AM
It is against the principles of freedom to promote slavery. In no way, has Ron Paul ever stated that slavery should be reinstituted. When Paul promotes the founding fathers, he is referring to their intentions for the role of government in our personal lives as strictly limited by the Constitution itself. As far as I know, the only time slavery came up during the campaign was when he spoke out against the Civil War by saying something like, "Slavery could have been abolished without the Civil War. It would not have cost 600,000 lives and would have been cheaper to just buy the slaves and release them." Other countries were able to non-violently abolish slavery, and Lincoln actually tried to buy & release the slaves before the Civil War, but did not get the necessary support. But of course the media had to twist his Paul's words around to make it sound like he wanted slavery again.

At the end of the Civil War, the Constitution was amended to prohibit involuntary servitude for law-abiding individuals:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Obama's proposed (compulsory) community service program: (http://change.gov/americaserves)

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Now, it's not entirely clear what being 'called on' means, but that's 300 hours in middle/high school. That's 100 hours in college for a $4,000 credit. That credit equates to $40 / hour for the individual. However, that money will be taken through taxation or borrowed by the government. Universities will no doubtedly increase their tuition much like they do with government guaranteed student loans. Therefore, anyone that does not participate in the program will face a choice of paying a higher tuition or enrolling in the program to keep up with the tuition hike.

Rahm Emanuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel) (Obama's chief of staff) wrote a book called "The Plan: Big Ideas for America". In the book he outlines a Universal Civil Service program:

It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.


The idea of civil defense training appeals to me. I'd like to attend to better be prepared in the case of an emergency. However, I'd like to attend on my own choosing, and not by the government's force. And I do not want my tax money to go towards a compulsory volunteer (oxymoron?) program.

Truth Warrior
11-08-2008, 06:27 AM
Slavery in the USA was just a holdover from the Brits. It was a "deal breaker" issue for getting the Southern colonies support for the Declaration of Independence, so the Northern slavery abolitionists just caved on it, in order to pass it. The D of I had to be unanimous for all of the American colonies.

I don't like it, but it makes sense. In hindsight, what else could have been done, at that time?

liberteebell
11-08-2008, 07:37 AM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

In short, it means to go back to limiting the federal government to its true function, and that is to protect Life, Liberty and Property for ALL. The federal government doesn't grant rights (no matter what anyone's high skool gubmint teacher says); those certain unalienable rights exist by virtue of the fact that you're alive. They are natural rights or rights endowed by your Creator.

Maximum freedom and voluntary associations benefit us all. Will some bad things happen? Sure. But bad things happen now, even with all the cumbersome laws in place that purport to prevent them.

If you had heard the Tavis Smiley debate last year, Ron Paul very eloquently addressed two of the most racist things the federal government does.

One is the War on (some) Drugs; more blacks are in jail or prison due to the WoD and many are imprisoned for what amounts to a vice (victimless "crime") rather than for any force or fraud against anyone else. If you haven't yet come to the conclusion that the WoD is a failure, ask yourself about the disparity between time served for crack -vs- cocaine.

The other is some of the restrictions on the 2nd amendment in urban areas. Why shouldn't everyone have the ability to protect himself, regardless of color and regardless of where they live?

How many other presidential candidates did you hear address these issues in any way, shape or form?

Ron Paul has spoken very highly of Dr. Martin Luther King on many occasions, especially regarding his peaceful civil disobedience to promote change.

Incidentally, not to diminish the actual slavery that existed in our country's history, but we're all slaves now if you define the taking of one's labor by force (taxation). Consider the social security taxes. Statistically, black men die younger than other groups and the money stolen from them doesn't even go to their heirs.

But don't take my word for all this, do your own reading and research and ask plenty of questions.

BlackTerrel
11-08-2008, 01:48 PM
One is the War on (some) Drugs; more blacks are in jail or prison due to the WoD and many are imprisoned for what amounts to a vice (victimless "crime") rather than for any force or fraud against anyone else. If you haven't yet come to the conclusion that the WoD is a failure, ask yourself about the disparity between time served for crack -vs- cocaine.

The other is some of the restrictions on the 2nd amendment in urban areas. Why shouldn't everyone have the ability to protect himself, regardless of color and regardless of where they live?

I agree on both these issues. Especially the war on drugs. Thanks for your responses.

For the couple that got mad at me, or questioned how I could be so dumb... well, just think about. I have heard a number of Ron Paul people, especially the man himself heap praise on the founding fathers and basically talk about how these guys were perfect. It's not a leap to assume that these people are racist since well the founding fathers were racist and if all their ideas are perfect well I guess racism is perfect too.

SnappleLlama
11-08-2008, 02:08 PM
I agree on both these issues. Especially the war on drugs. Thanks for your responses.

For the couple that got mad at me, or questioned how I could be so dumb... well, just think about. I have heard a number of Ron Paul people, especially the man himself heap praise on the founding fathers and basically talk about how these guys were perfect. It's not a leap to assume that these people are racist since well the founding fathers were racist and if all their ideas are perfect well I guess racism is perfect too.

Don't let people get you down. We're obviously all still frustrated at the way things are going right now, but it is definitely awesome to see another person on the forums who has taken an interest in Ron Paul and the Constitution. Welcome!

:bunchies:

Bunchies says hello!

Kotin
11-08-2008, 02:27 PM
I agree on both these issues. Especially the war on drugs. Thanks for your responses.

For the couple that got mad at me, or questioned how I could be so dumb... well, just think about. I have heard a number of Ron Paul people, especially the man himself heap praise on the founding fathers and basically talk about how these guys were perfect. It's not a leap to assume that these people are racist since well the founding fathers were racist and if all their ideas are perfect well I guess racism is perfect too.

I understand where your coming from.. when we praise the founding fathers, we are not praising them for their supposed moral clout, we don't even know what they were really like, what we are praising them for is their establishment of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights.. where our rights are stated plainly(not given, for they are given by God) we admire them for standing up against tyranny and despotism to form the most Freedom-minded country in the world.

It is the Constitution and Bill of Rights that sets us apart from the world.. we admire the founding fathers for their dedication to Liberty and Freedom. we don't want slavery back, we are all about personal responsibility and equality.

we just want the Government out of our lives and our rights respected and protected.

Cowlesy
11-08-2008, 02:55 PM
I understand where your coming from.. when we praise the founding fathers, we are not praising them for their supposed moral clout, we don't even know what they were really like, what we are praising them for is their establishment of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights.. where our rights are stated plainly(not given, for they are given by God) we admire them for standing up against tyranny and despotism to form the most Freedom-minded country in the world.

It is the Constitution and Bill of Rights that sets us apart from the world.. we admire the founding fathers for their dedication to Liberty and Freedom. we don't want slavery back, we are all about personal responsibility and equality.

we just want the Government out of our lives and our rights respected and protected.

Well said Kotin

Truth Warrior
11-08-2008, 03:00 PM
I agree on both these issues. Especially the war on drugs. Thanks for your responses.

For the couple that got mad at me, or questioned how I could be so dumb... well, just think about. I have heard a number of Ron Paul people, especially the man himself heap praise on the founding fathers and basically talk about how these guys were perfect. It's not a leap to assume that these people are racist since well the founding fathers were racist and if all their ideas are perfect well I guess racism is perfect too. They were just men of their times, as we are just men of our times. Judging the past by today's standards is very often a mistake.<IMHO> Times change. ;)

yongrel
11-08-2008, 03:09 PM
From the Introduction to Jon Stewart's American, written by Thomas Jefferson:

"Not that we weren't awesome. We wrote the Constitution in the time it takes you nimrods to figure out which is the aye butting and which is the nay button. But we weren't gods. We were men, We had flaws. Adams was an unbearable prick and squealed girlishly whenever he saw a bug. And Ben Franklin? If crack existed in our day, that boozed-up snuff machine would weigh 80 pounds and live outside the Port Authority. And I had slaves. Damn, I can't believe I had slaves!"

tropicangela
11-08-2008, 03:41 PM
Constitutionalists certainly do not want to restore slavery; however, Rahm Emanuel might. http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d6-Obamas-chief-of-staff-choice-favors-compulsory-universal-service

eOs
11-08-2008, 05:59 PM
BT, We believe that the constitution should be held sacred here in the U.S.A. While it isn't perfect, and has had many flaws, it is the law of our land and we should not be trampling on it like the current administration and soon to be president elect obama will be doing. We are not racists and we believe all men and women are created equally which is a birth right.

Bruno
11-08-2008, 06:05 PM
I like this video, BT. Welcome to the forums. Hope you stick around.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

BlackTerrel
11-08-2008, 07:03 PM
Thanks for all the replies... much appreciated. I like discussing politics, might stick around for a bit :)

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-08-2008, 09:14 PM
People have decided to skew and twist what the constitution states in order to suit their own nefarious agendas such as seperation of church and state just so they can have everything their way only.

The constitution reads regarding this issue:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



The problem is that suppressing people's rights to prayer under new political correctness is unconstitutional.When and where has your right to pray been infringed upon? I see Christians periodically make this accusation and not once has it been substantiated.

As far as I can see, that's one of the few rights we have left. And perhaps that could give you some clue as to why others in this movement are bothered by the overt presence of religion.

Kotin
11-08-2008, 09:56 PM
Thanks for all the replies... much appreciated. I like discussing politics, might stick around for a bit :)



Please do, we need more thinkers.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-08-2008, 10:04 PM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

Well, I gues you have a new Founding Father in President Obama. Look, I'm not getting paid to teach you anything. So, go to school and pay someone to do that. In the meantime, I'm going fishing.

Kotin
11-08-2008, 10:15 PM
Well, I gues you have a new Founding Faher in President Obama. Look, I'm not getting paid to teach you anything. So, go to school and pay someone to do that. In the meantime, I'm going fishing.

wtf is that?


why not try actually adding to the conversation.. why did you even post?


it does no good and helps no one to be an asshole to a new poster who wants to learn about what we believe..

sheeesh.. are you the one going around giving us Ron Paul supporters a bad name?

heavenlyboy34
11-08-2008, 10:22 PM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

IMHO, the reason the "racism" wound up in the constitution is more because of cultural norms at the time than racism on the founders' part. (remember, Jefferson freed the slaves that he inherited from his daddy-in-law and abhorred slavery) Farmers held significant sway back then, just as they do now because they are the foundation of free market-in that they produce basic goods that all people need (on paper). So, there has always been pandering to the farmer constituents.

Just a cultural trend thing (IMHO).

literatim
11-08-2008, 10:24 PM
The only people that want to bring back slavery are the socialists.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-08-2008, 10:36 PM
wtf is that?


why not try actually adding to the conversation.. why did you even post?


it does no good and helps no one to be an asshole to a new poster who wants to learn about what we believe..

sheeesh.. are you the one going around giving us Ron Paul supporters a bad name?

All men are created equal. Our "gentlemen" Founding Fathers created our nation while playing the part of commoners (The People).
Slavery existed in Africa. Most blacks transported to the United States did not know how to get along in a civilization because they had never lived in a civilization while in Africa but served in one as slaves under a master class.
Gee. There is so much that this fellow doesn 't know. This is why I recommended that he go to school. Going fishing would be better.

Driftar
11-08-2008, 10:43 PM
All men are created equal. Our "gentlemen" Founding Fathers created our nation while playing the part of commoners (The People).
Slavery existed in Africa. Most blacks transported to the United States did not know how to get along in a civilization because they had never lived in a civilization while in Africa but served in one as slaves under a master class.
Gee. There is so much that this fellow doesn 't know. This is why I recommended that he go to school. Going fishing would be better.

I'm not certain you're qualified to make such generalizations on African History. And i doubt you're attitute is helping spread the message or get liberty canidates in office.

One thing i've learned in this campaign is you catch more flies with honey, and ususally when people learn a bit about the movement and liberty, they stick around.

hypnagogue
11-08-2008, 10:48 PM
A fair warning Terrel; this is the internet and resultingly much of what you may find on these forums is angrier and crazier than what you will find hanging out with your average Constitutionalist/Ron Paul supporter. Thankfully, this thread has been pretty accurate and civil.

revolutionary8
11-08-2008, 10:50 PM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-- Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

"Honest" Abe was not who/what the Founding Fathers were fighting for. HE WAS THE EPITOME OF WHAT THEY ESCAPED AND WERE FIGHTING AGAINST.

Fuck Lincoln and the neocons he rode in on.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-08-2008, 10:54 PM
IMHO, the reason the "racism" wound up in the constitution is more because of cultural norms at the time than racism on the founders' part. (remember, Jefferson freed the slaves that he inherited from his daddy-in-law and abhorred slavery) Farmers held significant sway back then, just as they do now because they are the foundation of free market-in that they produce basic goods that all people need (on paper). So, there has always been pandering to the farmer constituents.

Just a cultural trend thing (IMHO).

Racism is in the Constitution? The Constitution is interpreted. The only self-evident truth existing beyond interpretation is in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A self-evident truth existed beyond an ideal to the extent that it was a natural right. A natural right was more solid than a civil right in that it existed beyond even an idea. It reduced unalienably like DnA to be written on the soul (the conscience) of every human-being both king and peasant alike. Because he chose to remain ignorant of this self-evident, unalienable right in and of every human being, our Founding Fathers established King George as a tyrant and had his rule nullified.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-08-2008, 11:12 PM
I'm not certain you're qualified to make such generalizations on African History. And i doubt you're attitute is helping spread the message or get liberty canidates in office.

One thing i've learned in this campaign is you catch more flies with honey, and ususally when people learn a bit about the movement and liberty, they stick around.

Democracy did not exist in Africa south of Alexandria, Egypt. So, if Democracy didn't exist, then they had to have tribal caste systems of masters and slaves. What else would it have been?
I didn't say that Africans lived violently in these types of systems. This wasn't true. The masters and slaves in Africa were quite content in their relationship together. Their slaves didn't receive an education just as slaves didn't receive an education in other primitive caste systems around the world. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Apparently, white men weren't as good of masters as their African counterparts.

liberteebell
11-09-2008, 05:25 AM
wtf is that?


Why not try actually adding to the conversation.. Why did you even post?


It does no good and helps no one to be an asshole to a new poster who wants to learn about what we believe..

Sheeesh.. Are you the one going around giving us ron paul supporters a bad name?

+2008

NYgs23
11-09-2008, 06:29 AM
Why has no one simply quoted the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So the whole concern in moot because the Constitution does ban slavery explicitly.

In any case, that's not the point. No one is saying that the Constitution is not a flawed document. I can point to numerous things in the Constitution I'd like to see changed: abolish the income tax, restore state appointment of senators, term limits in the House, clarify the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, clarify the commerce clause, explicitly ensure the right of habeas corpus, explicitly ensure the power of jury nullification, prohibit the draft, abolish the vice-presidency (it's redundant--just draw the line of succession through the Secretary of State), get rid of the power of weights and measures (completely unnecessary)...

So, you see, no one's saying that the Constitution is Holy Writ. The point is that we believe in the Rule of Law. Because if you don't have the Rule of Law, you have Rule of Men, and that's very dangerous, as we have seen. And the Constitution just happens to be our Law. If it were the Articles of Confederation or the Magna Carta and English common law, the principle of obedience to it would still be the same because there can be no exceptions to adherence to the Rule of Law.

nobody's_hero
11-09-2008, 08:16 AM
To the O.P., I'd like to give a thank you for coming here and trying to find out for yourself, rather than just believing everything the media/elite has told you. I'd like to share this video with you (not made by me), which compiles a good number of quotes by the founders on the issue of slavery (some of these quotes scroll rather quickly, so you might have to pause it at times to digest what is being said):

Founding Fathers: The immoral institution of slavery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jM7ccgj6c)

In a way, it is sad, when you step outside of the box and consider the time in which they lived. You almost detect a sense of helplessness in their words, and while there were in fact people at the time who fought King George III for their own freedoms, many did not acknowledge those freedoms for everyone. While they made great efforts to move this country in the direction of freedom, it is up to their posterity (our generation, and the ones to come after us), to promote it for everyone.

I wish I could find the "wolf by its ears" quote. Anyone know the one I'm talking about?

Here's another video not directly related to slavery or racism, but it's a good one that I found very inspiring:

Declaration of Independence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyttEu_NLU) (Hollywood actually does something that helps society, :D)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-09-2008, 08:40 AM
Why has no one simply quoted the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So the whole concern in moot because the Constitution does ban slavery explicitly.

In any case, that's not the point. No one is saying that the Constitution is not a flawed document. I can point to numerous things in the Constitution I'd like to see changed: abolish the income tax, restore state appointment of senators, term limits in the House, clarify the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, clarify the commerce clause, explicitly ensure the right of habeas corpus, explicitly ensure the power of jury nullification, prohibit the draft, abolish the vice-presidency (it's redundant--just draw the line of succession through the Secretary of State), get rid of the power of weights and measures (completely unnecessary)...

So, you see, no one's saying that the Constitution is Holy Writ. The point is that we believe in the Rule of Law. Because if you don't have the Rule of Law, you have Rule of Men, and that's very dangerous, as we have seen. And the Constitution just happens to be our Law. If it were the Articles of Confederation or the Magna Carta and English common law, the principle of obedience to it would still be the same because there can be no exceptions to adherence to the Rule of Law.

It is a matter of perception. Are laws made with the happiness of people as their existential purpose? Have we suspended the prerequisite that we first quench our thirst for contentment at the dinner table before we set about eating responsibly? Will the vast majority of us have to suffer and do the responsible thing in this cruel world while the Obamas still leisure in it? Why yes, of course we will.
The cruel world has always been a cruel world with endless reasons to neglect the contentment of the people.
Authority exists to dispense happiness to the people. Not to make them responsible.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-09-2008, 09:06 AM
To the O.P., I'd like to give a thank you for coming here and trying to find out for yourself, rather than just believing everything the media/elite has told you. I'd like to share this video with you (not made by me), which compiles a good number of quotes by the founders on the issue of slavery (some of these quotes scroll rather quickly, so you might have to pause it at times to digest what is being said):

Founding Fathers: The immoral institution of slavery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jM7ccgj6c)

In a way, it is sad, when you step outside of the box and consider the time in which they lived. You almost detect a sense of helplessness in their words, and while there were in fact people at the time who fought King George III for their own freedoms, many did not acknowledge those freedoms for everyone. While they made great efforts to move this country in the direction of freedom, it is up to their posterity (our generation, and the ones to come after us), to promote it for everyone.

I wish I could find the "wolf by its ears" quote. Anyone know the one I'm talking about?

Here's another video not directly related to slavery or racism, but it's a good one that I found very inspiring:

Declaration of Independence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyttEu_NLU) (Hollywood actually does something that helps society, :D)

When a woman marries a man, she marries what she believes is a refined gentleman. Certainly no woman willfully marries a pig.

Our founding fathers were American "gentlemen" who believed, to a large part, that they were born into that stature. There were limited ways back then in which men could advance in society. The most common way was by position of birth. The first born often went into service for the king and his monarchy while the second born went into service for the pope and his church. The rest of the children were left to tend to the illegal business of survival which got taxed and penalized as a result by both the king and the church.

Anyway, the beauty in the performance given by our "Lordly" Founding Fathers is that they chose to play the role of the "commoner" people in both the documents of The Declaration of Independence, our formal divorce decree from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, our formal marriage decree to a new government.
Our founding fathers established a self-evident truth that 'all men are created equally' by narrowing down scientifically through the use of the process of natural law to isolate that which is common in every human-soul -- "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This performance by our Founding Fathers helped put that hideous classification of "gentleman" to death.

Read "Remains of the Day" to get a sampling of the differences between the "master gentleman" in Europe and the equivalent "master gentleman" in America.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-09-2008, 09:17 AM
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-- Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

"Honest" Abe was not who/what the Founding Fathers were fighting for. HE WAS THE EPITOME OF WHAT THEY ESCAPED AND WERE FIGHTING AGAINST.

Fuck Lincoln and the neocons he rode in on.

If, as an American, you are left with nothing but empty pockets and with fucking Lincoln himself, then you still have it better than those Americans who died for your freedom.

humanic
11-09-2008, 12:07 PM
BlackTerrel: You ought to read Ron Paul's latest book, The Revolution: A Manifesto (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226255488&sr=8-1). I think you'll find it very enlightening. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone here had an extra copy lying around that they would would be willing to send you in exchange for a promise that you'll read it.

demolama
11-09-2008, 01:07 PM
I've never understood the logic behind the constant rebuttal to anyone who says that they want to return to the Constitution. "oh you want us to go back to the Constitution?... does that mean you want to bring back slavery?"

I can not tell you how many times I've heard this line and it just really frustrates the hell out of me. Do people not recognize that the 13th amendment is apart of the Constitution? How could something apart of the document you want to return to bring back something that is outlawed by it?

strapko
11-09-2008, 01:13 PM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

The constitution did not allow Slavery. Fact of the matter... Slavery was a social problem, so no, there would be no slavery. So if the there was no racial prejudices in colonel times, I am pretty sure there wouldn't of been slavery.

RonPaulNewbee
11-09-2008, 02:06 PM
Hey BT, there are some good responses here and some pretty bad ones. The Constitution was supposed to guarantee natural rights and limit government. You will have to study it yourself and make your own mind up in the long run. But, despite what some around here will tell you, it is in fact a LIVING document. But only in one way: the amendment process. Slavery, as you know, was around for at least 5000 years at the time the Constitution was written. I consider its take on slavery one of its few flaws.

The Amendments 12-16 tried to codify into law something that needed correction but they got it wrong on several counts. After the Civil War, Amendments were passed under duress, and they were falsely ratified in some cases. You'll have to dig deep to find it anymore. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and he absolutely knows his shit. You will have to take some of our posts with a grain of sand here though many mean well ... they are just fed up. My hope is that we all will take what we know and become part of the solution.

But back to your question specifically, I'd suggest doing a search on Original Intent. That will get you to your answers quickly enough. Good luck reading, and I hope you will post here again.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-10-2008, 07:08 AM
Hey BT, there are some good responses here and some pretty bad ones. The Constitution was supposed to guarantee natural rights and limit government. You will have to study it yourself and make your own mind up in the long run. But, despite what some around here will tell you, it is in fact a LIVING document. But only in one way: the amendment process. Slavery, as you know, was around for at least 5000 years at the time the Constitution was written. I consider its take on slavery one of its few flaws.

The Amendments 12-16 tried to codify into law something that needed correction but they got it wrong on several counts. After the Civil War, Amendments were passed under duress, and they were falsely ratified in some cases. You'll have to dig deep to find it anymore. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and he absolutely knows his shit. You will have to take some of our posts with a grain of sand here though many mean well ... they are just fed up. My hope is that we all will take what we know and become part of the solution.

But back to your question specifically, I'd suggest doing a search on Original Intent. That will get you to your answers quickly enough. Good luck reading, and I hope you will post here again.

Once again, a "natural right" is a natural law that need not be guaranteed. A natural right is the greater power that the people have over the corrupt power of tyranny. A natural right is the common, self-evident truth unalienably written onto the soul of every human being. It isn't a matter of a theory, of an idea, or of an opinion.
That is how science worked back in that day. Evidence was reduced down to undeniable terms and then, because most of the time such terms were incomprehensible, they were then presented with an explanation, an analysis if you will, which, hopefully anyway, would define a conclusion beyond any misinterpretation. This two part need of both reducible terms and analysis became the catalyst that created atomic propositions and linguistics.
Modern slavery was reconstituted with the movement of the Vikings. Just consider that the terms slavery or slave gets its modern usage from the derogatory name that people once gave any lowly person who exhibited the traits of a Slav or Slavic person.
In the literal sense, a slave during the time of Christ was someone who, legally speaking, didn't own their own soul even to the point that their master could end it.
This would mean most blacks were legitimate slaves when they had lived prior in their indigenous land of Africa while they should have been rated greater than that designation once they were traded and then transported to America and Europe; for the reason that it was against the law for a master to kill his or her slave or slaves in such places.
Or, figure it this way, a slave in Africa was worth about 1/6th to 1/12th of a horse to the African chiefs who were selling them (12 human souls were traded for a horse), while, once arriving in America, their souls were worth far more to the people who purchased them. Could a African man kill a horse? Yes. So, what could he do to the soul of a man worth less than a horse?
Also consider that the slaves shipped to America had no education. The master class in the tribal caste systems did not educate the slave class for the reason they didn't want them rebelling. So, the idea of freedom did not originate from the minds of the uneducated, black slaves in America. The idea had to be taught to them. Where did that idea originate?
Two answers: Moses in the old testament and Socrates in the dialogue of Meno.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-10-2008, 08:08 AM
I've never understood the logic behind the constant rebuttal to anyone who says that they want to return to the Constitution. "oh you want us to go back to the Constitution?... does that mean you want to bring back slavery?"

I can not tell you how many times I've heard this line and it just really frustrates the hell out of me. Do people not recognize that the 13th amendment is apart of the Constitution? How could something apart of the document you want to return to bring back something that is outlawed by it?

A self-evident truth and unalienable right is not something that has to be returned to. Such natural laws exist beyond opinions, ideals and theories.

Even today, most lawyers believe that corruption is the one true power. They use this long standing tradition as legal precedence to manipulate and persecute people by imprisoning and torturing them while ignoring the greater power of the self-evident truths and natural rights. Yet, because they reduce down to what is unalienably common in every human soul, these natural laws trump the corrupt legal precedence established by long standing traditions.

acptulsa
11-10-2008, 10:25 AM
Haven't read your whole thread, as I really don't have time right this second, but I saw that the first couple of people haven't answered your question. I apologize for that.

Dr. Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and so am I. When you say he wants to "return to the Constitution". We can't "return" to it--it's still in effect. And there is no slavery. This is because of the Thirteenth Amendment. If this weren't the case, Ron Paul would not be a strict Constitutionalist and neither would I.

Thomas Jefferson said, "We might as well expect a man to wear the suit of clothes he wore as a boy as to expect a people to live under the laws of their barbarous ancestors." He owned slaves, and he knew he was barbarous for doing it. So, he helped set up the amendment process so that those barbarous things could be corrected later, when we grew up a little more.

The Fourteenth Amendment eliminated slavery. So, slavery is now unConstitutional, though you can't tell to read the original text.

Thanks for popping up. Hope you read some more threads!

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 11:18 AM
Haven't read your whole thread, as I really don't have time right this second, but I saw that the first couple of people haven't answered your question. I apologize for that.

Dr. Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and so am I. When you say he wants to "return to the Constitution". We can't "return" to it--it's still in effect. And there is no slavery. This is because of the Thirteenth Amendment. If this weren't the case, Ron Paul would not be a strict Constitutionalist and neither would I.

Thomas Jefferson said, "We might as well expect a man to wear the suit of clothes he wore as a boy as to expect a people to live under the laws of their barbarous ancestors." He owned slaves, and he knew he was barbarous for doing it. So, he helped set up the amendment process so that those barbarous things could be corrected later, when we grew up a little more.

The Fourteenth Amendment eliminated slavery. So, slavery is now unConstitutional, though you can't tell to read the original text.

Thanks for popping up. Hope you read some more threads! Ron fights the battles one way, others choose different strategies and tactics. ;)

Mortikhi
11-10-2008, 02:11 PM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T
You're an idiot.

acptulsa
11-10-2008, 02:15 PM
You're an idiot.

No, he isn't. I don't know if you've noticed, but idiots don't want to overcome the brainwashing. The difference between the ignorant and the ignorant idiots is that the ignorant go looking for information. Just as Terrill did.

SeanEdwards
11-10-2008, 03:03 PM
(remember, Jefferson freed the slaves that he inherited from his daddy-in-law and abhorred slavery)

No, Jefferson didn't free his slaves. He had claimed to want to do that, but in the end, he was incompetent at business, died in debt, and his slaves were seized and sold off by his bankers.

RonPaulNewbee
11-10-2008, 03:26 PM
Once again, a "natural right" is a natural law that need not be guaranteed. A natural right is the greater power that the people have over the corrupt power of tyranny. A natural right is the common, self-evident truth unalienably written onto the soul of every human being. It isn't a matter of a theory, of an idea, or of an opinion.
That is how science worked back in that day. Evidence was reduced down to undeniable terms and then, because most of the time such terms were incomprehensible, they were then presented with an explanation, an analysis if you will, which, hopefully anyway, would define a conclusion beyond any misinterpretation. This two part need of both reducible terms and analysis became the catalyst that created atomic propositions and linguistics.
Modern slavery was reconstituted with the movement of the Vikings. Just consider that the terms slavery or slave gets its modern usage from the derogatory name that people once gave any lowly person who exhibited the traits of a Slav or Slavic person.
In the literal sense, a slave during the time of Christ was someone who, legally speaking, didn't own their own soul even to the point that their master could end it.
This would mean most blacks were legitimate slaves when they had lived prior in their indigenous land of Africa while they should have been rated greater than that designation once they were traded and then transported to America and Europe; for the reason that it was against the law for a master to kill his or her slave or slaves in such places.
Or, figure it this way, a slave in Africa was worth about 1/6th to 1/12th of a horse to the African chiefs who were selling them (12 human souls were traded for a horse), while, once arriving in America, their souls were worth far more to the people who purchased them. Could a African man kill a horse? Yes. So, what could he do to the soul of a man worth less than a horse?
Also consider that the slaves shipped to America had no education. The master class in the tribal caste systems did not educate the slave class for the reason they didn't want them rebelling. So, the idea of freedom did not originate from the minds of the uneducated, black slaves in America. The idea had to be taught to them. Where did that idea originate?
Two answers: Moses in the old testament and Socrates in the dialogue of Meno.What a great response! Funny how we go round and round and do deep historical analysis just to answer a simple question. Haha! I was trying to be simple. I was also trying to make a distinction about a government giving rights and privileges versus a state reserving and preserving rights. But since we are going deeper, it would be nice to compare our government to others that do abridge (or don't recognize) what we consider Natural Rights. I wonder if Gay Marriage would be considered a Natural Right. I would also like to hear more about the Nature's God and the scientific theory of Natural Rights, Uncle Watkins! ;)

Danke
11-10-2008, 03:38 PM
You're an idiot.

Very persuasive technique. Congratulations!

You earn a double Bunchies.


:bunchies::bunchies:

decatren
11-10-2008, 03:44 PM
His name is "Bunchies". People were asking Josh to add him as an emoticon, so he did. :)

Bunchies for president 2012 :bunchies: :D

A. Havnes
11-10-2008, 03:54 PM
Just wanted to welcome you to the forums, BlackTerrel! Glad to see our message is spreading and people are becoming interested in freedom again.

Mortikhi
11-10-2008, 04:30 PM
Very persuasive technique. Congratulations!

You earn a double Bunchies.


:bunchies::bunchies:

Just pointing out the obvious.

Troll bait.

Mortikhi
11-10-2008, 04:31 PM
No, he isn't. I don't know if you've noticed, but idiots don't want to overcome the brainwashing. The difference between the ignorant and the ignorant idiots is that the ignorant go looking for information. Just as Terrill did.

He is trolling.

Anyone with a 1/2 functioning brain would know that being a Constitutionalist doesn't mean you're pro-slavery and anti-women voting.

Kotin
11-10-2008, 04:33 PM
He is trolling.

Anyone with a 1/2 functioning brain would know that being a Constitutionalist doesn't mean you're pro-slavery and anti-women voting.

:rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 04:38 PM
He is trolling.

Anyone with a 1/2 functioning brain would know that being a Constitutionalist doesn't mean you're pro-slavery and anti-women voting. Only a 1/4 functioning brain doesn't already know that The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

Mortikhi
11-10-2008, 04:39 PM
Only a 1/4 functioning brain doesn't already know that The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
True that.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-10-2008, 05:42 PM
He is trolling.

Anyone with a 1/2 functioning brain would know that being a Constitutionalist doesn't mean you're pro-slavery and anti-women voting.

:bunchies::bunchies:
:bunchies::bunchies:
:bunchies::bunchies:
:bunchies::bunchies:
:bunchies::bunchies:

BlackTerrel
11-10-2008, 06:57 PM
A fair warning Terrel; this is the internet and resultingly much of what you may find on these forums is angrier and crazier than what you will find hanging out with your average Constitutionalist/Ron Paul supporter. Thankfully, this thread has been pretty accurate and civil.

Angrier/crazier or simply more truthful? People express on the internet what they believe but are afraid to say in day to day life, so I trust it more.

But no worries, y'all have been pretty nice for the most part. I'll admit I'm not really a Ron Paul guy, didn't even hear about him till recently. Just came to learn more, interesting so far.

BlackTerrel
11-10-2008, 07:01 PM
I've never understood the logic behind the constant rebuttal to anyone who says that they want to return to the Constitution. "oh you want us to go back to the Constitution?... does that mean you want to bring back slavery?"

I can not tell you how many times I've heard this line and it just really frustrates the hell out of me. Do people not recognize that the 13th amendment is apart of the Constitution? How could something apart of the document you want to return to bring back something that is outlawed by it?

Ok let me answer this. First I'm pretty young and generally not as educated as I'd like to be in political matters. I usually stay out of politics, this election I was kinda dragged into it by everyone I know telling me it was my duty to vote for Obama, so I'm trying to learn more.

I don't know about the 13th ammendment. I do know that when this country was founded blacks were slaves. So when someone says "we want to return to the constitution" or "we want to return this country to the way it was when the founding fathers started it" I kind of see that as code for racism. That's how I initially saw it at least, I'm (thankfully) seeing that I was wrong, but I don't think you should be surprised that certain people see it that way.

Bruno
11-10-2008, 07:03 PM
Angrier/crazier or simply more truthful? People express on the internet what they believe but are afraid to say in day to day life, so I trust it more.

But no worries, y'all have been pretty nice for the most part. I'll admit I'm not really a Ron Paul guy, didn't even hear about him till recently. Just came to learn more, interesting so far.

Glad you stuck around. :) There's two kind of people: Ron Paul supporters and those that don't yet know enough to be Ron Paul supporters. ;)

There's sure a lot to learn here, and about Ron Paul in general. For example, I just learned how to make a Ron Paul Smoothie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QvfdONnfNs

Bruno
11-10-2008, 07:10 PM
Ok let me answer this. First I'm pretty young and generally not as educated as I'd like to be in political matters. I usually stay out of politics, this election I was kinda dragged into it by everyone I know telling me it was my duty to vote for Obama, so I'm trying to learn more.

I don't know about the 13th ammendment. I do know that when this country was founded blacks were slaves. So when someone says "we want to return to the constitution" or "we want to return this country to the way it was when the founding fathers started it" I kind of see that as code for racism. That's how I initially saw it at least, I'm (thankfully) seeing that I was wrong, but I don't think you should be surprised that certain people see it that way.

I'm not surprised, appreciate your viewpoint, and am glad you are educating yourself more and may be changing your views. I've learned a lot in the past year myself. I backed Richardson initially, before I found Ron Paul.

It's easy to get caught up behind a candidate without really looking at their views, especially in our two-party system. We've been programmed for decades to do so, and the media spends literally 95% of the time covering the "horse race" and not the candidates viewpoints. The talk centered around what one candidate said or did 20 minutes ago and how it will affect this or that voter pool in this or that state. Lame. It didn't help educate the public at all. Most Americans knew very little about either candidate because they got all their info from TV, which covered very little.

Most Dems will never vote for a Rep for Pres, and vice-versa. You were not alone.

tonesforjonesbones
11-10-2008, 07:26 PM
Terell...glad to have you here. Pay no attention to these meanies. They want to run me off every day..but i'm too stubborn! LOL. Seriously, the Constitution and Declaration are for all Americans! Although slavery wasn't addressed in the original documents...the Founders knew it had to be addressed somewhere down the line. They left room for the document to be amended as time passed. The 13 and 14 amendment address slavery..nobody can be a slave ever again in the USA. Even though the 10th amendment is about states rights...the 13th amendment says the states may NOT bring back slavery. So,...fear not! The Constitution protects you like it protects me...i'm a woman..and we didn't get to vote until the 19th amendment! The Founders were good men who risked their lives to give us The American Dream...which are the Declaration of independence and The Constitution...our freedom and liberty. They signed it, knowing if the King could have gotten his hands on them, they would have been hung. To be truthful, most of them were killed after or during that war. I hope you stick around. It's good to have ya! Tones

JeNNiF00F00
11-10-2008, 10:10 PM
Ok I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen. When Ron Paul says he wants to restore the constitution and go back to the value of the founding fathers what does that mean?

Where I stand it sounds like some BS. Am I the only one that noticed that the constitution allowed slavery and the founding fathers were racist (they definitely didn't believe that blacks were equal or could become president). So what does that mean when Ron Paul praises them and says he wants to back to their values?

I'm willing to hear y'all out. Want to hear it from y'all before I make up my mind.

-T

Today in the year 2008 we continue to have a form of slavery that does not look at the color of ones skin. Anyone who pays an income tax is a slave. Slavery never went anywhere after the civil war, it just exchanged hands from private ownership to governmental ownership.

More govt = tighter chains through govt. regulation and taxation :(

As for Ron Paul, he wants ALL of us to be FREE from the government. :D

ClockwiseSpark
11-10-2008, 11:42 PM
Ok let me answer this. First I'm pretty young and generally not as educated as I'd like to be in political matters. I usually stay out of politics, this election I was kinda dragged into it by everyone I know telling me it was my duty to vote for Obama, so I'm trying to learn more.

I don't know about the 13th ammendment. I do know that when this country was founded blacks were slaves. So when someone says "we want to return to the constitution" or "we want to return this country to the way it was when the founding fathers started it" I kind of see that as code for racism. That's how I initially saw it at least, I'm (thankfully) seeing that I was wrong, but I don't think you should be surprised that certain people see it that way.

Here you go.

I think I can speak for most people here when I say; As a human being you have the same rights as any other human being, regardless of race, color, creed or religion.




XIII Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

pacelli
11-11-2008, 12:44 AM
Angrier/crazier or simply more truthful? People express on the internet what they believe but are afraid to say in day to day life, so I trust it more.

But no worries, y'all have been pretty nice for the most part. I'll admit I'm not really a Ron Paul guy, didn't even hear about him till recently. Just came to learn more, interesting so far.

Some on the internet are more truthful, and, some very honest & sincere people in day to day life become pathological liars online.

Welcome aboard! :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-11-2008, 09:50 AM
Terell...glad to have you here. Pay no attention to these meanies. They want to run me off every day..but i'm too stubborn! LOL. Seriously, the Constitution and Declaration are for all Americans! Although slavery wasn't addressed in the original documents...the Founders knew it had to be addressed somewhere down the line. They left room for the document to be amended as time passed. The 13 and 14 amendment address slavery..nobody can be a slave ever again in the USA. Even though the 10th amendment is about states rights...the 13th amendment says the states may NOT bring back slavery. So,...fear not! The Constitution protects you like it protects me...i'm a woman..and we didn't get to vote until the 19th amendment! The Founders were good men who risked their lives to give us The American Dream...which are the Declaration of independence and The Constitution...our freedom and liberty. They signed it, knowing if the King could have gotten his hands on them, they would have been hung. To be truthful, most of them were killed after or during that war. I hope you stick around. It's good to have ya! Tones

Actually, the "The Declaration of Independence" was written for all human-beings. A self-evident truth reduced unalienably like DnA onto the conscience of every human-soul beyond any ideal, any concept, any opinion, any theory, any judgement, beyond every principality and power for that matter save God Himself. This was the significance of Locke's "Natural right." It wasn't something arrived at with emotion. It was established through the use of the science of that day which used "natural law" or the "law of nature" to arrive at a conclusion.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 10:38 AM
Also, there's no shame in having voted for Obama. I came "this close" to voting for him instead of Baldwin. I ended up part of the .03% of my county's 1600 voters (overwhelmingly republican ... 3 out of 4) who voted for Baldwin. In fact. that .03 may represent my vote! I didn't like a few things about Baldwin, mostly that he is a theocrat. However, I had to take emotion out of it and think about the cold hard fact that Obama is a typical lifetime-politician who wants one world government. His landslide election I think gives him a mandate though and he has got to be aware that Americans are relying on him to do the right thing by the Constitution. People have hope because of him, and if he successfully reverses Bush's bad policies alone he will be successful. I will be at the Inauguration Ceremony because this is historic!

Even so, it is important to see what a president actually does and decide for yourself if it constitutional. For instance, did you know that Obama caved to Bush and voted for Domestic Spying? What do you think about it? Read up here:



Waiting until after the vote to take a position on the bill, Obama has finally come forward and issued a statement - looks like Obama reversed his prior strong opposition to both retroactive immunity for criminal acts by telecoms and expanded domestic spying powers. According to Glenn Greenwald at Salon:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

"Barack Obama got around to issuing a statement and -- citing what he calls "the grave threats that we face" -- he just announced that he supports this warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty bill:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. . . .It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people." [end Obama statement quote]

"Telling Americans that they have to give up basic constitutional rights in order to save ourselves from "the grave threats we face" sounds awfully familiar. Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states."
(Greenwald)

Truth Warrior
11-11-2008, 10:41 AM
Another turnip truck casualty. :( :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-11-2008, 11:10 AM
Also, there's no shame in having voted for Obama. I came "this close" to voting for him instead of Baldwin. I ended up part of the .03% of my county's 1600 voters (overwhelmingly republican ... 3 out of 4) who voted for Baldwin. In fact. that .03 may represent my vote! I didn't like a few things about Baldwin, mostly that he is a theocrat. However, I had to take emotion out of it and think about the cold hard fact that Obama is a typical lifetime-politician who wants one world government. His landslide election I think gives him a mandate though and he has got to be aware that Americans are relying on him to do the right thing by the Constitution. People have hope because of him, and if he successfully reverses Bush's bad policies alone he will be successful. I will be at the Inauguration Ceremony because this is historic!

Even so, it is important to see what a president actually does and decide for yourself if it constitutional. For instance, did you know that Obama caved to Bush and voted for Domestic Spying? What do you think about it? Read up here:

The President doesn't have to do anything. The Limo can break down on the way to the inaguration. Washington can shut down. People on the state and local level can mostly take care of themselves. We should convert the vast majority of Washington into a museum. Taxes on the people, who represent future small businesses, should be cut in half, then half again and yet half again. Working for the government should pay poorly without health insurance to the point where people who work for it are the ones who love serving the people.
The toil and sweat of local inventiveness should be valued more than lobbying on the Federal level. How long will we continue buying this empty box of Federal goods? Don't we all have state and local governments? If not, we need to get some and ask them to grow some balls.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 11:19 AM
The President doesn't have to do anything. The Limo can break down on the way to the inaguration. Washington can shut down. People on the state and local level can mostly take care of themselves. We should convert the vast majority of Washington into a museum. Taxes on the people, who represent future small businesses, should be cut in half, then half again and yet half again. Working for the government should pay poorly without health insurance to the point where people who work for it are the ones who love serving the people.
The toil and sweat of local inventiveness should be valued more than lobbying on the Federal level. How long will we continue buying this empty box of Federal goods? Don't we all have state and local governments? If not, we need to get some and ask them to grow some balls.

That's a nice ideal but there are services the government provides which are important. Basic Research for example. Why should the government do basic research? Universities do a little, corporations do a little. That is what the federal government pays me to do. Science is important and has been responsible for the well-being of citizens in the food supply and in life-saving drugs. It was a step backward to deny funding in stem-cell research. Now going to space, one can argue that. But relying on the private sector to selfishly fund only applied research is a bit short-sighted.

Carry on ...

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-11-2008, 11:26 AM
That's a nice ideal but there are services the government provides which are important. Basic Research for example. Why should the government do basic research? Universities do a little, corporations do a little. That is what the federal government pays me to do. Science is important and has been responsible for the well-being of citizens in the food supply and in life-saving drugs. It was a step backward to deny funding in stem-cell research. Now going to space, one can argue that. But relying on the private sector to selfishly fund only applied research is a bit short-sighted.

Carry on ...

Oh for cripes sake. I'll take the base of the University of Texas at Dallas and the company of Texas Instruments in the research center of the Telecom Corridor over Harvard and M.I.T. in Boston any day.

The worst cataclysmic catastrophe to hit a region of the United States is the socialism poisoning its northeastern region.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 11:29 AM
Perhaps you've not yet heard of Biology.

AutoDas
11-11-2008, 02:46 PM
That's a nice ideal but there are services the government provides which are important. Basic Research for example. Why should the government do basic research? Universities do a little, corporations do a little. That is what the federal government pays me to do. Science is important and has been responsible for the well-being of citizens in the food supply and in life-saving drugs. It was a step backward to deny funding in stem-cell research. Now going to space, one can argue that. But relying on the private sector to selfishly fund only applied research is a bit short-sighted.

Carry on ...

Don't you think the profits that these medical and chemical corporations make would be best decided by themselves instead of the Government provisions or do you just think all of these companies would just say "darn it, we aren't receiving any Government funding, let's pack up". A country has to be wealthy before it can even think about funding anything and a prosperous country is a generous one.

The_Orlonater
11-11-2008, 03:07 PM
The Federal Government is responsible for 4% of the drugs on the market.

mconder
11-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Slavery was a remnant brought over from England. Slavery would have ended peacefully the way it did in England. The revisionists like to paint Jefferson and Washington as monsters, when in fact Jefferson introduced some of the first legislation to end slavery. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, but they lived in a different time and mindset. We don't understand their world and they wouldn't understand ours. Most of us think slavery is wrong and we are right. Most of them thought powerful centralized government is wrong and they were right. Today, most worship at the feet of all powerful government and who's to say that's not a greater evil than slavery...who's to say it isn't a form of slavery? Additionally, most of us don't think it's wrong to buy products from countries with Totalitarian governments. Places where people are lucky to live on 2 or 3 dollars a day. Many of the raw materials for modern convenience comes from the third world, places like Africa where the Chinese have bought up rights from the local governments to exploit their own people and pay slave wages to extract the wealth of the earth. Eventually we benefit from this, thus we are all very much complicit in what I view to be slavery. So, here's to the slave holder in all of us! We are all guilty.

liberteebell
11-11-2008, 03:12 PM
That's a nice ideal but there are services the government provides which are important. Basic Research for example. Why should the government do basic research? Universities do a little, corporations do a little. That is what the federal government pays me to do. Science is important and has been responsible for the well-being of citizens in the food supply and in life-saving drugs. It was a step backward to deny funding in stem-cell research. Now going to space, one can argue that. But relying on the private sector to selfishly fund only applied research is a bit short-sighted.

Carry on ...

Basic research is in the Constitution? That's news to me.

And what about fundingfor research? Do you really think it's ok to take money by force from the taxpayer and spend it on research (or any other unconstitutional project)? What about someone who objects to stem cell research on religious/moral grounds?

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 07:10 PM
Basic research is in the Constitution? That's news to me.

"Promote the general welfare" can pertain to health and liberty. This is what I'm talking about.


What about funding for research? Do you really think it's ok to take money by force from the taxpayer and spend it on research (or any other unconstitutional project)? What about someone who objects to stem cell research on religious/moral grounds?

Research does not have to be unconstitutional just because you think govt. should do absolutely NOTHING to help. Human disease is worth curing.

Agricultural disease is also worth curing. What happened to the chestnuts? They are gone! Timely research could have saved them. They are extinct. Now we import them from China. Is that what you prefer? Oranges are about to become extinct. Really, you haven't heard? MSM at it again? Well, guess what? Your government is at work trying to save them from the South American disease threatening their extinction. Say goodbye to your morning orange juice ... without government scientists. And by the way, those scientists rely on all the basic research that went on before them. They are trying to solve this problem before it's too late, as with the chestnuts. There are numerous examples.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 07:14 PM
Oh, and objecting to curing my child's very real disease because of your stupid religious morality doesn't phase me at all. Thankfully our country ends up doing the right thing in the long run thanks to science and discovery. Puritanical sensibilities can stay on the Amish compound or whatever they call it. I'd say be more concerned with the living.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 07:19 PM
Don't you think the profits that these medical and chemical corporations make would be best decided by themselves instead of the Government provisions ...

I don't know what this means. Please explain.



...or do you just think all of these companies would just say "darn it, we aren't receiving any Government funding, let's pack up". A country has to be wealthy before it can even think about funding anything and a prosperous country is a generous one.

Again, please be specific. If you are talking about curing alzheimers, parkinsons, downs, lymes, diabetes, cancer and those kinds of things, what you don't realize is that companies, universities and governments (all around the world) are working on them right now. Thank your stars.

Apologies for letting this go off topic (slavery) but I welcome the chance to educate people on some of the good things our government can do ... and it's constitutional!

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 07:20 PM
I meant to say companies, universities and governments are working on these diseases TOGETHER!

liberteebell
11-11-2008, 07:22 PM
"Promote the general welfare" can pertain to health and liberty. This is what I'm talking about.



Research does not have to be unconstitutional just because you think govt. should do absolutely NOTHING to help. Human disease is worth curing.

Agricultural disease is also worth curing. What happened to the chestnuts? They are gone! Timely research could have saved them. They are extinct. Now we import them from China. Is that what you prefer? Oranges are about to become extinct. Really, you haven't heard? MSM at it again? Well, guess what? Your government is at work trying to save them from the South American disease threatening their extinction. Say goodbye to your morning orange juice ... without government scientists. And by the way, those scientists rely on all the basic research that went on before them. They are trying to solve this problem before it's too late, as with the chestnuts. There are numerous examples.


Sorry, but I don't believe the general welfare clause should allow for taking taxpayer dollars by force and doing research (or any number of other programs) no matter how good it sounds or feels.

And, by the way, disease, both human and agricultural are worth curing. That's not my point. My point is that this research should be wholly funded privately. Period.

And by the way, I used to work in agricultural research.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 07:28 PM
What if private industry will only participate in the kind of research where you have to buy their seeds every year? What if, while government is trying to lobby industry to take up the cause of research everybody and all natural foods die? What then? That is what is happening. You should know that.

AutoDas
11-11-2008, 07:35 PM
Research does not have to be unconstitutional just because you think govt. should do absolutely NOTHING to help. Human disease is worth curing.

Agricultural disease is also worth curing. What happened to the chestnuts? They are gone! Timely research could have saved them. They are extinct. Now we import them from China. Is that what you prefer? Oranges are about to become extinct. Really, you haven't heard? MSM at it again? Well, guess what? Your government is at work trying to save them from the South American disease threatening their extinction. Say goodbye to your morning orange juice ... without government scientists. And by the way, those scientists rely on all the basic research that went on before them. They are trying to solve this problem before it's too late, as with the chestnuts. There are numerous examples.

"To save their $9 billion industry, Florida citrus growers have shifted money to a huge research program from advertising. Spending will triple to $20 million next year and support more than 100 research projects, said Mr. McClure, who is chairman of the Florida Citrus Production Research Advisory Council."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26citrus.html

Gee, a group of private citrus owners voluntarily cooperated with each other to find a common goal. Myopia is nigh!

liberteebell
11-11-2008, 07:40 PM
What if private industry will only participate in the kind of research where you have to buy their seeds every year? What if, while government is trying to lobby industry to take up the cause of research everybody and all natural foods die? What then? That is what is happening. You should know that.


I'd say that Big Agra and their DC cronies, plus a number of other things directly related to the fed.gov, have done more harm to agriculture in the US than most people could imagine.

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 08:21 PM
I'd say that Big Agra and their DC cronies, plus a number of other things directly related to the fed.gov, have done more harm to agriculture in the US than most people could imagine.

I won't disagree, but that's quite a claim. Care to back it up? At first I thought you were going to say "done more harm than the govt. has helped" but you didn't actually say that. Can you list all the positives the govt. has contributed to agriculture and list all the negatives so we can judge for ourselves?

RonPaulNewbee
11-11-2008, 08:24 PM
"To save their $9 billion industry, Florida citrus growers have shifted money to a huge research program from advertising. Spending will triple to $20 million next year and support more than 100 research projects, said Mr. McClure, who is chairman of the Florida Citrus Production Research Advisory Council."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26citrus.html

Gee, a group of private citrus owners voluntarily cooperated with each other to find a common goal. Myopia is nigh!

I guess chestnuts didn't have a lobby to save them. Maybe they just weren't good enough. Or important enough. Hell, it's okay with me if all unimportant species are wiped off the earth due to disease or invasive organisms. After all when Jesus reigns he will make the earth whole for a 1000 years.

AutoDas
11-11-2008, 08:34 PM
I guess chestnuts didn't have a lobby to save them. Maybe they just weren't good enough. Or important enough. Hell, it's okay with me if all unimportant species are wiped off the earth due to disease or invasive organisms. After all when Jesus reigns he will make the earth whole for a 1000 years.

Shit has been going extint before humans. And that is not a lobby. kthxbai

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-12-2008, 08:18 AM
Slavery was a remnant brought over from England. Slavery would have ended peacefully the way it did in England. The revisionists like to paint Jefferson and Washington as monsters, when in fact Jefferson introduced some of the first legislation to end slavery. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, but they lived in a different time and mindset. We don't understand their world and they wouldn't understand ours. Most of us think slavery is wrong and we are right. Most of them thought powerful centralized government is wrong and they were right. Today, most worship at the feet of all powerful government and who's to say that's not a greater evil than slavery...who's to say it isn't a form of slavery? Additionally, most of us don't think it's wrong to buy products from countries with Totalitarian governments. Places where people are lucky to live on 2 or 3 dollars a day. Many of the raw materials for modern convenience comes from the third world, places like Africa where the Chinese have bought up rights from the local governments to exploit their own people and pay slave wages to extract the wealth of the earth. Eventually we benefit from this, thus we are all very much complicit in what I view to be slavery. So, here's to the slave holder in all of us! We are all guilty.

Slavery ended in England? Excuse me? Slavery ended in England?
The Queen Mother still eats her biscuits in the morning while servants clean up the crumbs. When we talk about slavery, we talk about a caste system of master and slave. Does the Queen mother eat with the serving class?

Doing away with slavery requires binding the master class just as much as it requires freeing the slave class. This nation truely freed the slaves because of the horrific pain and suffering we have gone through in both binding the master class and freeing the slave class.

Thanks to our wonderful Founding Fathers, to be an American is to prefer to refer to oneself as a commoner member of "We the people . . .." Europe is still divided up into Lords and commoners.

mconder
11-12-2008, 08:44 AM
Does the Queen mother eat with the serving class?

Do you eat with your serving class? The people making the same bowls, spoons, & forks you feed you ignorant face with? Do you buy Chinese made slave goods? Do you think just because we call it off shoring or cheap labor, it's not actually slavery?

James Madison
11-12-2008, 09:05 AM
Do you eat with your serving class? The people making the same bowls, spoons, & forks you feed you ignorant face with? Do you buy Chinese made slave goods? Do you think just because we call it off shoring or cheap labor, it's not actually slavery?

That's comparing apples to oranges. The Queen behaves in this manner to her own countrymen, who receive little more than a place to stay. Whether or not you approve of working conditions in China, the workers there (for the most part) aren't forced to work in a factory. It's their personal choice. You know, individual responsibility?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-12-2008, 11:43 AM
Do you eat with your serving class? The people making the same bowls, spoons, & forks you feed you ignorant face with? Do you buy Chinese made slave goods? Do you think just because we call it off shoring or cheap labor, it's not actually slavery?

Yes, in my American heart I always think of myself as a commoner member of "We the people . . .."
I would assume that ignorant means deliberately ignoring an obvious truth.
To sit at a national dinner table entails the people to exercize the power to bind the master class at the table while the slave class are granted the liberties to sit at that very same table. A divided national table would ignore the modern concept of positive government to return us to the old, primitive caste systems of master and slave.

RonPaulNewbee
11-12-2008, 07:18 PM
"To save their $9 billion industry, Florida citrus growers have shifted money to a huge research program from advertising. Spending will triple to $20 million next year and support more than 100 research projects, said Mr. McClure, who is chairman of the Florida Citrus Production Research Advisory Council."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26citrus.html

Gee, a group of private citrus owners voluntarily cooperated with each other to find a common goal. Myopia is nigh!

I'll try this again. Florida citrus growers sure are blessed to have a 9 billion dollar industry to be able to fund a huge research program with. Maybe it is in part because of U.S.D.A. breeders who helped develop the highest quality, highest yielding, sweetest tasting, best selling orange products. After all, oranges themselves are part of our every day lives and for good reason. They are a key part of the public's general welfare in good health and disease prevention.

That chestnuts are extinct only really diminishes us around Christmas time when we reach for them during The Christmas Song. They were not important enough to preserve.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-13-2008, 07:42 AM
I'll try this again. Florida citrus growers sure are blessed to have a 9 billion dollar industry to be able to fund a huge research program with. Maybe it is in part because of U.S.D.A. breeders who helped develop the highest quality, highest yielding, sweetest tasting, best selling orange products. After all, oranges themselves are part of our every day lives and for good reason. They are a key part of the public's general welfare in good health and disease prevention.

That chestnuts are extinct only really diminishes us around Christmas time when we reach for them during The Christmas Song. They were not important enough to preserve.

Perhaps you will be more sober in the morning of economic calamity.