Wow, even the neo-cons on Free Republic are against the Patriot Act now

[Zap!]

I'm shocked, are they finally waking up? I also noticed many were moving toward Ron Paul recently as well, until he voted to end the military gay ban (big mistake on his part, he should have just not voted that day and said he was busy). Anyway, enough of me rambling on, read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2670229/posts

[Athena]

I'm shocked, are they finally waking up? I also noticed many were moving toward Ron Paul recently as well, until he voted to end the military gay ban (big mistake on his part, he should have just not voted that day and said he was busy). Anyway, enough of me rambling on, read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2670229/posts

I don't think it was a mistake for him to vote that day. Dude's honesty is a LOT of his appeal. He's not a sell-out. One of very few politicians who aren't. I wouldn't like him if he was.

[lynnf]

I'm shocked, are they finally waking up? I also noticed many were moving toward Ron Paul recently as well, until he voted to end the military gay ban (big mistake on his part, he should have just not voted that day and said he was busy). Anyway, enough of me rambling on, read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2670229/posts


they probably are starting to realize the drag on their usual agenda that is being created by the "Patriot" Act. just like when on a sinking lifeboat in the ocean, the fluff gets jettisoned first in order to try to keep the lifeboat afloat.

lynn

[Zap!]

I don't think it was a mistake for him to vote that day. Dude's honesty is a LOT of his appeal. He's not a sell-out. One of very few politicians who aren't. I wouldn't like him if he was.

I understand his honesty is unmatched, but I personally know of many who were disappointed with his vote, some so much they now won't vote for him. He's not gonna get any liberal voters for that vote, they still hate him on Democratic Underground.

Look at it this way: Paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan types) are (were?) solid Ron Paul supporters. They are also the most anti-gay rights voters around. Personally, I still love Ron Paul, but wish he would have stayed home that day. He didn't have to vote against it, just not for it. I am deeply involved in the Constitution Party and know how many feel.

[Athena]

I understand his honesty is unmatched, but I personally know of many who were disappointed with his vote, some so much they now won't vote for him. He's not gonna get any liberal voters for that vote, they still hate him on Democratic Underground.



He's not hated by most (some, but not most) on firedoglake. I don't even know any leftists who take democratic underground seriously. Read at firedoglake if you want to see (and especially the "myfiredoglake" section) what the free thinking progressives are thinking and talking about. We want to dialogue with you libertarians, and call a truce on the "taxation is theft" notion.

The Constitution party are essentially theocrats, aren't they? (I'm willing to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.) I don't think you can be a civil libertarian who supports theocracy???

[Golding]

I understand his honesty is unmatched, but I personally know of many who were disappointed with his vote, some so much they now won't vote for him. He's not gonna get any liberal voters for that vote, they still hate him on Democratic Underground.

Look at it this way: Paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan types) are (were?) solid Ron Paul supporters. They are also the most anti-gay rights voters around. Personally, I still love Ron Paul, but wish he would have stayed home that day. He didn't have to vote against it, just not for it. I am deeply involved in the Constitution Party and know how many feel.I disagree. He made the right vote, and shouldn't sacrifice that for the sake of appeasing any one group of people. People who campaign by their votes don't stand for anything. Ron Paul stands for something.

[RM918]

I understand his honesty is unmatched, but I personally know of many who were disappointed with his vote, some so much they now won't vote for him. He's not gonna get any liberal voters for that vote, they still hate him on Democratic Underground.

Look at it this way: Paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan types) are (were?) solid Ron Paul supporters. They are also the most anti-gay rights voters around. Personally, I still love Ron Paul, but wish he would have stayed home that day. He didn't have to vote against it, just not for it. I am deeply involved in the Constitution Party and know how many feel.

If people are going to ignore the only guy out there talking about ending the wars, ending the income tax, ending the drug wars and stopping an economic collapse because they just can't stand gays in the military, we're good and fucked already.

[Athena]

I disagree. He made the right vote, and shouldn't sacrifice that for the sake of appeasing any one group of people. People who campaign by their votes don't stand for anything. Ron Paul stands for something.

Exactly. And even if he dies before he makes it to the whitehouse, the flame of passion for honest politicians has been lit. He will have a legacy. His "The War That's Not a War" speech, which appeals to all informed, good, honest people of all political persuasions, will be live on in history.

If Ron Paul hadn't shown up to vote that day, he'd be a POS like every other POS in Washington. But he doesn't play that messed up game, ever, which is why he rocks.

[Athena]

If people are going to ignore the only guy out there talking about ending the wars, ending the income tax, ending the drug wars and stopping an economic collapse because they just can't stand gays in the military, we're good and fucked already.

That, too.

[Sola_Fide]

The Constitution party are essentially theocrats, aren't they? (I'm willing to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.) I don't think you can be a civil libertarian who supports theocracy???

1. No, the Constitution Party is not totally comprised of theocrats. There are some theocrats, but there are also constitutionalists, right-leaning libertarians, pro-life libertarians, paleocons, etc.


2. Yes, civil libertarianism is compatible with theocracy. One of the biggest misunderstandings of theocracy is that it is statist. Theocracy (as defined by Rushdoony, Sandlin, DeMar etc.) is not statist....it recognizes that the government is not God, only God Himself is, so it is not the business of government to police lifestyles or deny personal and private liberties.

Theocracy emphasizes familial and patriarchal government as the bedrock of society.

[jmdrake]

I'm shocked, are they finally waking up? I also noticed many were moving toward Ron Paul recently as well, until he voted to end the military gay ban (big mistake on his part, he should have just not voted that day and said he was busy). Anyway, enough of me rambling on, read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2670229/posts

I'm not surprised that conservatives are against the Patriot Act now that you have a democrat in the Whitehouse. When Bill Clinton tried to pass his version of the Patriot Act it was the conservatives who put the brakes on. That's why it was such a good thing that McCain lost. But let the wrong republican retake the presidency and many of these same people will go back to their liberty hating ways. It might require another terrorist attack, but they'll do it. Even in opposition to the TSA screening, many of these fake conservatives still are for restricting freedoms through supporting "profiling" because they are dumb enough to think it will only be applied to those "eeeevil mooselims".

Oh, and on the gay issue, just show folks who are upset about that where Ron Paul supports DOMA.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

(Of course you might tick off some pro gay folks in the process. That's the way the cookie crumbles).

[jmdrake]

He's not hated by most (some, but not most) on firedoglake. I don't even know any leftists who take democratic underground seriously. Read at firedoglake if you want to see (and especially the "myfiredoglake" section) what the free thinking progressives are thinking and talking about. We want to dialogue with you libertarians, and call a truce on the "taxation is theft" notion.

The Constitution party are essentially theocrats, aren't they? (I'm willing to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.) I don't think you can be a civil libertarian who supports theocracy???

You do realize that in 2008 Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate for president right?

[Athena]

You do realize that in 2008 Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate for president right?

No, I didn't know that.

It only slightly changes my opinion of RP, tho. (although I thought RP himself was running right up until the end.)

[Athena]

1.


2. Yes, civil libertarianism is compatible with theocracy. One of the biggest misunderstandings of theocracy is that it is statist. Theocracy (as defined by Rushdoony, Sandlin, DeMar etc.) is not statist....it recognizes that the government is not God, only God Himself is, so it is not the business of government to police lifestyles or deny personal and private liberties.

Theocracy emphasizes familial and patriarchal government as the bedrock of society.

You're running with a really weird definition of theocracy there.
Here's the commonly accepted understanding:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy


: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

[johnrocks]

Their "team" isn't in charge, things the Patriot Act and TSA were swimmingly good when their team captain was probing our prostate gland with his middle finger but now that the Democratic team captain is in charge...it's touched a nerve.


I so want to say to them "told's ya so" but alas, that's not how to win friends and influence people.

[Sola_Fide]

You're running with a really weird definition of theocracy there.
Here's the commonly accepted understanding:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy


No. You are running with a weird definition of theocracy.

I just showed you that you had the mistaken view that civil libertarianism is incompatible with theocracy. I then gave you 3 authors (who are theocrats) that define theocracy in the way that I am talking about.

If you want to attack the idea of theocracy, then you should at the very least aquaint yourself with the arguments put fourth by the adherents of theocracy.

The dictionary is not going to get you anywhere.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No. You are running with a weird definition of theocracy.

I just showed you that you had the mistaken view that civil libertarianism is incompatible with theocracy. I then gave you 3 authors (who are theocrats) that define theocracy in the way that I am talking about.

If you want to attack the idea of theocracy, then you should at the very least aquaint yourself with the arguments put fourth by the adherents of theocracy.

The dictionary is not going to get you anywhere.

How selective of you. Our resident Theocrat would have State-genocide against LGBT so that flies in the face of your civil libertarianism Christian Theocracy. I could just imagine the state of things with an Evangelical Theocracy.

I'd imagine State-punishment would be doled out for those who had sex outside of marriage.

[Sola_Fide]

How selective of you. Our resident Theocrat would have State-genocide against LGBT so that flies in the face of your civil libertarianism Christian Theocracy. I could just imagine the state of things with an Evangelical Theocracy.

I'd imagine State-punishment would be doled out for those who had sex outside of marriage.


You are equating the Mosaic Law code with "theocracy". It is not the same.

I have a more Lutheran view of the abiding nature of Old Testament Civil Law than a Calvinistic view like our resident Theocrat does.

[sailingaway]

Excellent. Post the downsizedc link for getting in touch with Congressmen about it.

I cannot imagine why C4L doesn't have a link up: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/do-you-need-the-patriot-act

Well, actually, I guess I can, given the timing of CPAC. They don't staff up year round enough to make CPAC a blip in their schedule. I'm sure it's all hands on deck, all the time.

[Sola_Fide]

And secondly, you still have the incorrect assumption that theocracy is top-down and statist.

Theocracy is bottom-up...change comes from the people, not government force. Theocracy completely de-emphasizes civil government in favor of familial and self-government.

[sailingaway]

I understand his honesty is unmatched, but I personally know of many who were disappointed with his vote, some so much they now won't vote for him. He's not gonna get any liberal voters for that vote, they still hate him on Democratic Underground.

Look at it this way: Paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan types) are (were?) solid Ron Paul supporters. They are also the most anti-gay rights voters around. Personally, I still love Ron Paul, but wish he would have stayed home that day. He didn't have to vote against it, just not for it. I am deeply involved in the Constitution Party and know how many feel.

Keyes hated him anyhow, and not for policy but because Ron sucks all of the oxygen out of the room. It is merely sour grapes.

[sailingaway]

No, I didn't know that.

It only slightly changes my opinion of RP, tho. (although I thought RP himself was running right up until the end.)

Strangely, just before he endorsed them, the C party changed its platform and took the theocratic stuff I had previously objected to out. (I don't object to being religious, I am myself in my own way, but I do care about not forcing it on others.) And Chuck Baldwin was pretty good, given the alternatives. It isn't like he endorsed Keyes, or anything.

[jmdrake]

If people are going to ignore the only guy out there talking about ending the wars, ending the income tax, ending the drug wars and stopping an economic collapse because they just can't stand gays in the military, we're good and fucked already.

Putting together a coalition of people who both want to end the foreign wars and drug wars (usually on the left) and end the income tax (typically on the right) and do what's necessary to stop the economic collapse (everybody wants to stop it, but Ron Paul's position is on the right) is itself a task somewhere between Herculean and Quixotic. People on the right who have been supporting Ron Paul have not done so in general because they "woke up" to the fact that he's right on foreign policy. They've done so because they know he's right on economics and being an outspoken opponent of the Bush bailouts and other Bush era excesses is one of the few people on the right with any real credibility. These people can tolerate Paul's position on foreign policy since it's not a big deal with Obama being in the Whitehouse and Obama basically taking the Bush position. But for Paul to take the Obama position on DADT is a lighting rod for some folks. The "Southern Avenger" wrote a good article that touches some of these themes. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1320

[jmdrake]

Their "team" isn't in charge, things the Patriot Act and TSA were swimmingly good when their team captain was probing our prostate gland with his middle finger but now that the Democratic team captain is in charge...it's touched a nerve.


I so want to say to them "told's ya so" but alas, that's not how to win friends and influence people.

Exactly! I wish the OP had put the stuff about DADT in a different thread because that's a distraction. The key thing to realize is that we have a small window of opportunity to get the zombies on the right to realize that the Patriot Act is bad news because you can't always guarantee that someone you trust will be president. I tried to tell right wingers this during the Bush years by saying "Imagine if Hillary Clinton becomes president and inherits this kind of power"? But alas they couldn't think that far ahead. :(

[jmdrake]

Excellent. Post the downsizedc link for getting in touch with Congressmen about it.

I cannot imagine why C4L doesn't have a link up: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/do-you-need-the-patriot-act

Well, actually, I guess I can, given the timing of CPAC. They don't staff up year round enough to make CPAC a blip in their schedule. I'm sure it's all hands on deck, all the time.

I don't know. But do you have a C4L account? If so, blog about it there.

[sailingaway]

I don't know. But do you have a C4L account? If so, blog about it there.

Hm. I never have blogged there, but I guess that doesn't mean I can't.... good idea!

[Zap!]

Putting together a coalition of people who both want to end the foreign wars and drug wars (usually on the left) and end the income tax (typically on the right) and do what's necessary to stop the economic collapse (everybody wants to stop it, but Ron Paul's position is on the right) is itself a task somewhere between Herculean and Quixotic. People on the right who have been supporting Ron Paul have not done so in general because they "woke up" to the fact that he's right on foreign policy. They've done so because they know he's right on economics and being an outspoken opponent of the Bush bailouts and other Bush era excesses is one of the few people on the right with any real credibility. These people can tolerate Paul's position on foreign policy since it's not a big deal with Obama being in the Whitehouse and Obama basically taking the Bush position. But for Paul to take the Obama position on DADT is a lighting rod for some folks. The "Southern Avenger" wrote a good article that touches some of these themes. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1320

You said it a lot better than I could, +1776. Hell, his vote bothers me. Not to the point of not voting for him, but if Pat Buchanan were running, I would choose him first. There was no need for him to vote, he should have stayed home and kept his support to himself.

[Brett85]

I think my dad is probably the last Republican voter left who actually supports the Patriot Act. He's about as neo-con as you can possibly get.

[NYgs23]

No, I didn't know that.

It only slightly changes my opinion of RP, tho. (although I thought RP himself was running right up until the end.)

Of course, you couldn't have had a worse Libertarian Party candidate at the time, who he otherwise might have endorsed.

[AGRP]

"...our job really is spreading ideas and those ideas being so pervasive that they will influence not only the parties, but the Tea Parties." - Ron Paul

[HOLLYWOOD]

LIVE on C-SPAN US Senator Leahy wants provision permanent and US Senator Dianne FeinStein want longer extensions to most Patriot Act provisions (library roving wire taps)

http://c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

YOU CAN CALL NOW during the vote:

202-585-3885 Republicans
202-585-3886 Democrats
202-585-3887 Independents

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And secondly, you still have the incorrect assumption that theocracy is top-down and statist.

Theocracy is bottom-up...change comes from the people, not government force. Theocracy completely de-emphasizes civil government in favor of familial and self-government.

Tell that to the Iranians. The fact of the matter is, that a Theocracy is heavily dependent on the views of the religion. An Islamist Theocracy is going to be far different than a Norse Pagan Theocracy, just as it will be different than a Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy, or a Hindu Theocracy. Besides, in pretty much all Theocracies it is ruled by the Church (Mosque/Synagogue/Temple/etc.), which isn't exactly 'bottom-up', since it is only members and usually high-ranking ones that can interpret the revealed script.

[Athena]

Tell that to the Iranians. The fact of the matter is, that a Theocracy is heavily dependent on the views of the religion. An Islamist Theocracy is going to be far different than a Norse Pagan Theocracy, just as it will be different than a Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy, or a Hindu Theocracy. Besides, in pretty much all Theocracies it is ruled by the Church (Mosque/Synagogue/Temple/etc.), which isn't exactly 'bottom-up', since it is only members and usually high-ranking ones that can interpret the revealed script.


I was raised Evangelical, in a school and church that taught me that the US was destined by God to be not only a Christian nation, but also a world power making the entire globe Christian. The church was/is a mega-church, with seating similar to a stadium. Thousands in attendance every Sunday. Thousands of little Christian children being taught (in just that one church) that God has assigned America with the duty to Christianize the world, by war if necessary.

This is what I believed (along with millions of others) until I was in my late 20's. The theocrats don't believe in separation of church and state. They see in the US constitution an unofficial Book of God, and hallucinate in it their Christian Empire goals.

The theocrats come up with elaborate justifications for and ways of not openly admitting that their true goal is instituting Old Testament law in the US first, and globally second. Evangelical theocracy is, I guess, maybe slightly less tyrannical than Muslim theocracy, but it's a close call.