PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul gaining credibility and backers on freerepublic.com




Zydeco
06-26-2007, 10:14 PM
Interesting development over at conservative message board site freerepublic.com: Ron Paul's popularity there seems to be growing.

Free Republic started off as an old-school conservative website, but its readers largely followed Bush's lead after September 11th. They overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq, for example, and most still do, although there has been growing skepticism, and their support for Bush on this issue led many to look the other way when he went big government on domestic issues like the prescription drug benefit, illegal immigration amnesty, etc.

When Ron Paul threads started to show up a couple of months ago, he was usually hacked to pieces with charges of being a "crank" or having "crazy ideas."

But I've noticed a distinct shift there over the past month, as more and more posters are becoming Paul defenders and fans. They tend to present more coherent arguments than the somewhat robotic he's-crazy-and-can't-win charges of Paul opponents, and are getting better organized and reacting more quickly to (often grossly uninformed or unfair) attacks on Paul. I'd say the anti-Pauls and the pro-Pauls are now evenly matched in thread comments, but the trend is toward us.

Free Republic also has a function where you can see how long a poster has been a member, and these Paul fans are generally not new members; the majority I have checked on have been members since 2005 or long before (I found a few from the late '90s).

So while we know RP has crossover appeal to Democrats and firm support with libertarians and paleocons, we still have to deal with a large segment of the Republican Party whom I would label misled by the neocon establishment. This Free Republic shift shows me these Republicans are open to being re-convinced that the conservatism they knew before 9/11 should not have been abandoned after it, and are looking at RP as a guy who might be right about a lot of things. At the very least they want to know more about him.

I think this obnoxious amnesty bill and its process are opening a lot of eyes on the right.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?q=quick&m=all&o=time&s=ron+paul

angrydragon
06-26-2007, 10:19 PM
Hey that's great...we're winning the fight for liberty.

Noodles
06-26-2007, 10:20 PM
Thanks. You always seem to find the cool stuff. :cool:

Spirit of '76
06-26-2007, 10:29 PM
Man, if this is true, it's the best news yet.

CJLauderdale4
06-26-2007, 10:33 PM
I think this obnoxious amnesty bill and its process are opening a lot of eyes on the right.
[/QUOTE]

I think this amnesty bill will be the end of John McCain. I can't see how people will contribute to him knowing he's fully behind this bill...

One down, few more to go...

Zydeco
06-26-2007, 10:45 PM
It's a real trend, here's a typical change of heart in progress:

The income tax amounts to 1/3 of all taxes. We limit government the way it should, and the income tax wouldn’t be necessary.

This is where conservatism is getting killed though. 50% of us pay 96% of all income taxes. We are in a a system where general welfare is an enumerated power and half of the population doesn’t pay income tax.

And then we wonder why spending can’t be controlled and oru party keeps moving left.

I’m liking Dr. Paul more and more actually!
51 posted on 06/26/2007 9:40:14 PM PDT by eboyer

Silverback
06-26-2007, 10:47 PM
I hang out on gun boards, which tend to be extremely pro-Bush, pro-war, so on.

In other words the people I do my message board campaigning to fall into the mislead Republican camp, mostly they just went along with W and are too proud to admit what a huge mistake that was.

Except lately they've been admitting just that.

The majority aren't ready to admit they've been completely wrong on foreign policy yet, but it's coming, you can feel it. Bush has alienated everyone at this point and it's only a matter of time before the ranks start to question the last policy they're still happy with him about.

There are many Paul supporters on the boards I frequent, the only other candidate with any support is Fred Thompson.

LibertyCzar
06-26-2007, 10:48 PM
I'm thinking we are seeing the beginning of a snowball effect. Ron Paul can literally shoot up like Howard Dean did in 2004. And he is smart enough not to make the same mistakes that Howard Dean made.

But in the meantime, I am content to see the supposed "frontrunners" tear each other apart. It does our work for us. :D

BillyBeer
06-26-2007, 10:51 PM
Wow. Freepers have always been Bushbots.

kylejack
06-26-2007, 10:52 PM
Yeah, but is it converts or an invasion of our operatives (as is usually the case with these communities)?

LibertyEagle
06-26-2007, 10:52 PM
Guess what the first article on FreeRepublic is... Doesn't exactly sound too good.

Ron Paul praises convicted tax evaders
Posted by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
On News/Activism 06/26/2007 6:50:48 AM PDT · 50 replies · 841+ views

WCAX TV 3 News (Vermont) ^ | 26 June 2007 | AP Staff Writer
New Hampshire's convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown have gained a new supporter: presidential hopeful Ron Paul. In an interview with RogueGovernment.com, the Texas congressman compares the Browns to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior. He says the Browns are suffering like those leaders. The Browns are holed up in their Plainfield (New Hampshire) home and have threatened violence against federal officials if marshals come to arrest them. They were convicted of an elaborate scheme to hide millions of dollars in income. Their protest has become a rallying cry for anti-tax activists and militia members.

SCrevolution
06-26-2007, 10:54 PM
This is glorious news!
-Tobias Fünke

austin356
06-26-2007, 10:55 PM
I think we can (to an extent) thank this immigration bill as something that is removing the wool from people's eyes. The immigration issue is not something he can trick people into believing, and all it has done is show he is not conservative. Once his followers lose respect for him there, combined with liberal spending, liberal this, liberal that, his foreign policy credibility is gone. Though FP will be last to go; Iraq will be second last.

Zydeco
06-26-2007, 10:59 PM
Yeah, but is it converts or an invasion of our operatives (as is usually the case with these communities)?

As I mentioned above, it's not operatives, all but a very few of these posters are longtime Freepers.

My sense of the mix of Paul backers and defenders is that there are some libertarians, about as many old-school conservatives who are re-emerging into the debate after being shouted down by the MbN's (Misled by Neocons) for the past few years, and a small but growing number of MbN's who are beginning to make the journey back to the palecon/paleolibertarian fold, but they are understandably sheepish about the return trip.

It's important to be welcoming, many know they were wrong on Bush and Iraq but shouted loudly about it and are now a little embarrassed; but for many of them this amnesty bill is the final straw and they are ready to re-examine Bush in a less rose-colored light.

They still have a strong desire to support the troops in Iraq themselves, though they sense the internal contradictions involved in supporting the troops but not the mission.

Highmesa
06-26-2007, 10:59 PM
I let myself be sucked into reading a couple threads. One was about the war and Paul's legislation to issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go after Bin Laden

I was laughing hard when I read this comment from one of the resident Bushie brain surgeons: "Had to look up what a Marque and Reprisal was before I found out Ron Paul didn’t know what he was talking about."

Yeah doof. Because you googled it, you know more about it than Ron Paul who submitted the legislation.

You know, I've never voted for a democrat in my life and long believed that there was more intelligence within the GOP. But the more I read some of these neo-con message boards, I think that trend has long left the dock. Being a libertatrian (no vested interest in either party), I really haven't followed the development of the GOP over the past decade, but there are some seriously stoopid people in that party now. I mean seriously f'ed in the head, brain damamged stupid.

I don't know if it was the war, or talk radio that brought these morons out of the woodwork, but that party has jumped the shark. I will be holding my nostrils tight when I register to vote in the primary.

angelatc
06-26-2007, 11:01 PM
In other words the people I do my message board campaigning to fall into the mislead Republican camp, mostly they just went along with W and are too proud to admit what a huge mistake that was..

That's a key point. When the towers were attacked, if I had heard Ron Paul saying that we needed to use the Marque of Reprisal to hunt the men responsible down I would have scoffed.

I wanted to see something turned into a huge pile of rubble in the Middle East.

Turns out that I was wrong and Ron Paul was right though. That's why he should be President and I shouldn't.

Zydeco
06-26-2007, 11:02 PM
Guess what the first article on FreeRepublic is... Doesn't exactly sound too good.

Right, it's the tax evader-praising smear from AP. But notice the commenters did a respectable job of pointing out the quote was removed from its context by the MSM; two months ago it wouldn't have been nearly as effective a defense. And then notice the discussion turned to the realm of ideas and ended with newly-potential Paul voter eboyer's statement I cited upthread that he's liking RP more and more.

Once the discussions move past the personal and get to ideas, RP usually wins. :D

LibertyEagle
06-26-2007, 11:34 PM
If you read the comments, we have a LONG way to go. Most people are still against him.

billv
06-26-2007, 11:41 PM
Man, if this is true, it's the best news yet.

I completely agree.

Zydeco
06-26-2007, 11:54 PM
If you read the comments, we have a LONG way to go. Most people are still against him.

If it's most, it's not most by much, and it's nowhere near what it was a couple of months ago.

Did you notice the difference in quality of arguments I mentioned? An anti-Paul argument is typically "he's loopy" or an unsupported "there's no way I'm voting for Paul." But once the reasoning and logic gets whipped out, you can sense the slow shift in perception.

LibertyEagle
06-27-2007, 04:40 AM
I hang out on gun boards, which tend to be extremely pro-Bush, pro-war, so on.

In other words the people I do my message board campaigning to fall into the mislead Republican camp, mostly they just went along with W and are too proud to admit what a huge mistake that was.




There are some interesting things about 'ol Fred's anti-gun moves on this site.

http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/

LibertyEagle
06-27-2007, 04:46 AM
If it's most, it's not most by much, and it's nowhere near what it was a couple of months ago.

Did you notice the difference in quality of arguments I mentioned? An anti-Paul argument is typically "he's loopy" or an unsupported "there's no way I'm voting for Paul." But once the reasoning and logic gets whipped out, you can sense the slow shift in perception.

You're doing a wonderful job over there, don't get me wrong. But, even though they can't put up much of an argument, many still don't like him. Maybe it's because it is so hard for them to admit they have been sold a bill of goods for a number of years.

nayjevin
06-27-2007, 04:50 AM
freerepublic has mirrored the history of the united states

started with almost libertarian ideals
slowly run over with neo-con fear-based arguments from big gov't supporters
slowly turning back because of RP! (and reason)

BTW i switched to www.libertyforum.org 5 years ago and freerepublic is pretty much a dirty word to me

it would be neat if it came back to promoting a free republic.

denvervoipguru
06-27-2007, 05:04 AM
Well, I hope that's true. I was banned from FreeRepublic in May after 8 years as a member and over 1000 posts, including many in support of Ron Paul.

They banned me because I had a quote from G.W. Bush in my profile...

"The Constitution is Just a Goddamm piece of paper"

:D

berkeleybound
06-27-2007, 05:11 AM
I've been on FreeRepublic since before the first Bush election in 2000. From my perspective, members on the board who know who Ron Paul is are supportive of him. However, the anti-war position is not liked by many FreeRepublic members.

IRO-bot
06-27-2007, 05:33 AM
I still see alot of anti-paul support on there. Check out this post.

Like me, you've been here a long time. I've tried to get the Paul supporters to explain how he would get us back to the Constitution and restore the Republic. I got one dialog going where the Paul supporter had some good facts, and we went a few rounds. Another dialog died when the supporter admitted he lacked the scholarship in pre-Civil War American history to maintain the dialog. (I sent him to the library with a reading list). Along the way, a Paul detractor, one of our more obnoxious long-time FReepers, took a personal shot at me. So here goes, again.
I have assumed from the beginning of Dr. Paul's candidacy that his goal is to return to the America that existed before the Civil War -- minus slavery, of course. The America we lost was defined by a Constitution written for a republic of farmers. But long before the Civil War, the nation had industrialized, and most of its basic concepts had changed, thanks to the work of Webster and Clay. We are the America that Hamilton created, not the America that Jefferson wanted to preserve. If I understand what a Paul administration would look like, we could expect the following:

The restriction of the federal government to the 5 explicit powers and 7 implied powers granted it by the Constitution. That means only 3 federal crimes -- treason, piracy and counterfeiting. All other responsibilities would devolve to the states. Entitlements would either be run by the states, or handed over to churches, charities and benevolent associations.
The end of federal taxation as we know it and a return to excises, imposts and dunning the states for their share of the federal budget. With most items devolved to the states, the federal budget would be small, and Congress would meet for 6 weeks a year and then go home.
The end of the fiat dollar, paying off of the national debt and returning to the gold standard. The London Bill Market, closed since 1914, would be reopened, and real bills maturing to gold coin would circulate along with gold coin itself.
The end of our large standing army, which the Constitution permits to exist for only a 2 year period anyway. We would have a Coast Guard to protect our shores and some kind of air defense system, but the Army would return to the state militias that existed before the National Guard system was created in 1910.
American foreign policy would become isolationist. We would come home, close our borders, guard our shores, expel the UN and mind our own business. We would no longer use our dollars or military to take over various sectors of the planet. We would have a much smaller global footprint and would end any dream of an American world empire.
My area of expertise is the period between the Revolution and the Civil War, and I find a return to the America of Monroe and Jackson to be a very seductive concept. I would be quite comfortable in the America that existed before Lincoln, provided it were possible to return to those halcyon days -- minus slavery, of course.

The US shipped its manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Third World, and we now make our money moving piles of electronic currency around -- something that Hamilton, a believer in manufactures, would have frowned upon. The problem we face is that the changes sought by Hamilton and wrought by Webster, Clay and Lincoln are irreversible. So let me pose some observations and questions:

Corporations were strictly regulated by the states before the Civil War. Afterward, we were pretty much governed by Big Business in general and the railroads in particular. With the states' rights position discredited by the Civil War, Jeffersonians turned to using Lincoln’s powerful federal government for the people, i.e. using Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. This was what the Progressive agenda was all about. Franklin Roosevelt built on that to define a whole new paradigm of democratic socialism -- using government as the tool of the people's will to control the forces of the market. This raises the question of a power vacuum. Should the federal government retreat to only those powers granted by the Constitution, then who gains control? In a global marketplace, the states are going to find themselves powerless in regulating corporations. One would probably end up with some form of corporate fascism, sometimes referred to humorously as "Proctor and Gamble with the death penalty". This would indicate that even under a Paul administration, it would be necessary to utilize a loose construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause to prevent the undermining of democratic rule.
With the American people believing that only Big Government can protect them from Big Capitalism and that Big Government is the proper means by which the American people take care of each other, how does one convince the American people to go back to the days of Alexis de Toqueville and his classic tome Democracy in America? We have lost the ancient American trait of self-reliance, as Hurricane Katrina proved. How do you convince the American people to give up the protections they have relied upon from their federal government? Most people have based their retirement on those government checks.
You would need a worldwide financial crash and the involuntary imposition of a worldwide gold standard to get people to rethink the role of the modern state in their lives. How do you return to a hard money standard without inflicting massive pain?
After the War of 1812, even President Madison, father of the Constitution, believed we needed a standing army. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Macchiavelli says someone is going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (after relocation to Geneva)? It's a question that has to be answered.
To return to those less complicated days of Monroe and Jackson, the question arises, How can it be done without the kind of pain we experienced from 1929 to 1940 -- or the pain we experienced from 1861 to 1865? While I'd like to go back to the way things were, I fear the events that could force it to happen.

Returning to original intent is the purest definition of conservatism. But how do you get to there from here, and how do you get the American people to change their collective mindset?




How would you reply to that?

Zydeco
06-27-2007, 06:01 AM
You're doing a wonderful job over there, don't get me wrong. But, even though they can't put up much of an argument, many still don't like him. Maybe it's because it is so hard for them to admit they have been sold a bill of goods for a number of years.

I don't actually post on FR, LibertyEagle, just lurk. I used to post a little years ago but it got too BushBot for me, though as I say times appear to be slowly changing.

Zydeco
06-27-2007, 06:06 AM
Evan,

Many people who are interested in libertarianism judge it by its most extreme forms, which is something I think we have to nudge potential converts away from. There's a lot in your post and I certainly don't know RP's positions on most of it, but in general he's a gradualist and realist, understanding that the federal bureacracy took decades to build and will take years and decades to pare down to an ideal size. Once people hear that RP is a gradualist (and would be restrained from too-radical efforts to downsize by congress anyway) they are more amenable to his arguments.

I'm not sure RP wants us to go back to pre-1861 government, but pre-1913 monetary policy for sure (i.e. phasing out the federal reserve).

beermotor
06-27-2007, 06:07 AM
Wow. Freepers have always been Bushbots.


So were a lot of the folks who are members (and active contributors) here.

:)

rg123
06-27-2007, 06:15 AM
Interesting development over at conservative message board site freerepublic.com: Ron Paul's popularity there seems to be growing.

Free Republic started off as an old-school conservative website, but its readers largely followed Bush's lead after September 11th. They overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq, for example, and most still do, although there has been growing skepticism, and their support for Bush on this issue led many to look the other way when he went big government on domestic issues like the prescription drug benefit, illegal immigration amnesty, etc.

When Ron Paul threads started to show up a couple of months ago, he was usually hacked to pieces with charges of being a "crank" or having "crazy ideas."

But I've noticed a distinct shift there over the past month, as more and more posters are becoming Paul defenders and fans. They tend to present more coherent arguments than the somewhat robotic he's-crazy-and-can't-win charges of Paul opponents, and are getting better organized and reacting more quickly to (often grossly uninformed or unfair) attacks on Paul. I'd say the anti-Pauls and the pro-Pauls are now evenly matched in thread comments, but the trend is toward us.

Free Republic also has a function where you can see how long a poster has been a member, and these Paul fans are generally not new members; the majority I have checked on have been members since 2005 or long before (I found a few from the late '90s).

So while we know RP has crossover appeal to Democrats and firm support with libertarians and paleocons, we still have to deal with a large segment of the Republican Party whom I would label misled by the neocon establishment. This Free Republic shift shows me these Republicans are open to being re-convinced that the conservatism they knew before 9/11 should not have been abandoned after it, and are looking at RP as a guy who might be right about a lot of things. At the very least they want to know more about him.

I think this obnoxious amnesty bill and its process are opening a lot of eyes on the right.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?q=quick&m=all&o=time&s=ron+paul

I'm suprised at that because they banned my account from posting when I used to defend Ron instead of Fred or Rudy there about 3 months ago it got real nasty because they kept insisting that Ron was a kook and I did not take it too well the constant bashing they did on him and I mean it was real bad how they bashed and bashed Ron to the point I quit reading at their site. I found them to be along the lines of Sean Hannity, Michelle and the constant neocon crap associated their views. as you pointed out. I will check them out again

Silverback
06-27-2007, 06:26 AM
There are some interesting things about 'ol Fred's anti-gun moves on this site.

http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/

I've posted links to that site.

They really don't seem to care about any of that stuff. FT supporters seem to be completely blind to his failings, perhaps willfully so.

It all boils down to foreign policy for a lot of these guys, they see FT as their only hope of continueing along the current path, and absolutely nothing else matters.

They're terrified the "Islamofascists" will take over the world if we don't.

That's going to be the battle in the primaries IMO, RP vs. FT, a new direction vs. stay the course.

The big question is where the voters are in Jan. I think they'll be with us.

Zydeco
06-27-2007, 06:41 AM
The big question is where the voters are in Jan. I think they'll be with us.

Yup. I relish it coming down to Fred Thompson vs. Ron Paul.

nayjevin
06-27-2007, 06:55 AM
How would you reply to that?


I have assumed from the beginning of Dr. Paul's candidacy that his goal is to return to the America that existed before the Civil War -- minus slavery, of course.

nope. just return to respecting the constitutional mandate for the necessity to amend through state ratification. there are some new technologies that may require amendment. it's just that current administration doesn't feel the need to go the proper routes to adapt -- amendment through ratification.

we used to respect the constitution enough that we amended it for a simple alcohol prohibition. Nowadays all kinds of big time federal involvement bills get passed that are not strictly constitutional.

it's largely a balance of powers thing. the founders intentionally made it very difficult to implement a federal law, but executive orders etc have made it too easy.

he's a realist enough to realize we can't just turn off the switch. he doesn't even want to end welfare immediately. but he's a principled man who believes the founders had a better context to frame a government -- having recently extricated themselves from an oppressive one -- than current lobby driven politicians do. in short, RP believes the framers were pretty smart, and we should be very careful to try to 'improve' upon their model with new legislation.


If I understand what a Paul administration would look like, we could expect the following:

The restriction of the federal government to the 5 explicit powers and 7 implied powers granted it by the Constitution. That means only 3 federal crimes -- treason, piracy and counterfeiting. All other responsibilities would devolve to the states. Entitlements would either be run by the states, or handed over to churches, charities and benevolent associations.
The end of federal taxation as we know it and a return to excises, imposts and dunning the states for their share of the federal budget. With most items devolved to the states, the federal budget would be small, and Congress would meet for 6 weeks a year and then go home.
The end of the fiat dollar, paying off of the national debt and returning to the gold standard. The London Bill Market, closed since 1914, would be reopened, and real bills maturing to gold coin would circulate along with gold coin itself.
The end of our large standing army, which the Constitution permits to exist for only a 2 year period anyway.

There's nothing horribly inaccurate here that I know of, but I know nothing of the London Bill Market.


We would have a Coast Guard to protect our shores and some kind of air defense system, but the Army would return to the state militias that existed before the National Guard system was created in 1910.

The argument for which being that the smaller the group, and the more local, the more efficiently it runs, and the more chance for different models of structure/planning to evolve. Thus others can emulate those that work best. If there is only one policy, and it's bad, we're all screwed. If there are 50 different attempts, the best policies become apparent quickly, and others will fall in line.


American foreign policy would become isolationist.

nope. mischaracterization. RP is non-interventionist, not isolationist.
isolationist = closed borders, no trade
non-interventionist = no nation building, meddling in governments

Nations should be protected just like people. Stay out of other people's business until they get into yours. Your right to nuke ends at the border of my country. RP fully supports raining down hellfire on those who use force on us. He will not, however, go after the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, or harm innocents unnecessarily.


We would come home, close our borders, guard our shores, expel the UN and mind our own business. We would no longer use our dollars or military to take over various sectors of the planet.

We don't own land beyond our borders. we have no right to infringe upon another's property.

Closing our borders is not accurate. that is isolationist. immigration is fine, through legal paths. trade is fine, in fact encouraged by an RP administration.


We would have a much smaller global footprint and would end any dream of an American world empire.

yup, to the tune of thousands of saved american lives, and many, many thousands of lives around the world. oh yeah, and billions of dollars per day.


Returning to original intent is the purest definition of conservatism. But how do you get to there from here, and how do you get the American people to change their collective mindset?

through the power of the concept of individual liberty. small examples. when thinking in terms of policy, don't think of an entire country, boil it down to what rules you would have for your own home.

don't try to tell your neighbor what their rules should be, but kick their ass if they screw with your property.

oh yeah, and vote for Ron Paul!

Trance Dance Master
06-27-2007, 07:36 AM
All Truths go through three stages:

1. Ridicule

2. Violent Opposition

3. Accepted as Self-Evident.

We're getting closer and closer to stage three here!

LibertyEagle
06-27-2007, 10:18 AM
I've posted links to that site.



It works better for me if, on this, I do a cut-and-paste and force them to look at it.

Original_Intent
06-27-2007, 10:43 AM
I let myself be sucked into reading a couple threads. One was about the war and Paul's legislation to issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go after Bin Laden

I was laughing hard when I read this comment from one of the resident Bushie brain surgeons: "Had to look up what a Marque and Reprisal was before I found out Ron Paul didn’t know what he was talking about."

Yeah doof. Because you googled it, you know more about it than Ron Paul who submitted the legislation.

You know, I've never voted for a democrat in my life and long believed that there was more intelligence within the GOP. But the more I read some of these neo-con message boards, I think that trend has long left the dock. Being a libertatrian (no vested interest in either party), I really haven't followed the development of the GOP over the past decade, but there are some seriously stoopid people in that party now. I mean seriously f'ed in the head, brain damamged stupid.

I don't know if it was the war, or talk radio that brought these morons out of the woodwork, but that party has jumped the shark. I will be holding my nostrils tight when I register to vote in the primary.

Makes you realize why public schools have been "dumbed down".

In the 40's the average 4th-6th grader had a vocabulary of 25,000 words.

Today the average 4th-6th grader has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words.

Proficiency in science and math has been pushed, they want us to be productive after all. But proficiency in history and English (i.e. the ability to reason, have cognitive thoughts, and make an argument) those abillities have been (I would say intentionally) left largely undeveloped.

They don't want a citizenry that knows HOW to think, they want a citizenry that can be told WHAT to think.

It's what makes the job we have - waking people up - so hard. The one hope we have is I believe those cognitive abilities are still there, just latent.

ARealConservative
06-27-2007, 11:05 AM
I hate to burst bubbles, but I'm eboyer.

If you thought I was a new convert then my message reads precisely the way I wanted it to.

I have userid's at various boards that I created years ago for this very thing. :D