Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Art Robinson is now the Chair of the Oregon Republican Party

  1. #1

    Default Art Robinson is now the Chair of the Oregon Republican Party

    EDIT-Here is ann article on it- http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._opponent.html

    Remember when he lost the race in February? Well, there was a recall vote today and he won, according to a Facebook status I saw.



    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._chairw_1.html
    Last edited by TaftFan; 08-10-2013 at 09:02 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Awesome news!

  4. #3

  5. #4

  6. #5

  7. #6

    Default

    Wow, great news. You're quick too... I was wondering how I hadn't heard about this yet and then found out it just happened.

    In case anyone doesn't remember, Oregon was one of the state's where they shut down the convention early when they found out they were losing.

    Our people were still able to vote a majority of Ron Paul supporters as delegates to the RNC though, and Oregon was one of the state's to put Ron's name in for nomination.

    So we already had a pretty good presence in the party, and now we have the Chair too.

  8. #7

    Default

    I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.
    Yep.

    http://www.artforcongress.com/update...mon-sense-2012

  10. #9

  11. #10

    Default

    thats excellent
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.
    Great that he is running the ORGOP then. Tough I doubt he is as liberty oriented as the elected anarchist we talk about
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    Great that he is running the ORGOP then. Tough I doubt he is as liberty oriented as the elected anarchist we talk about
    How's that guy doing?

  14. #13

    Default

    You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguinLibertarian View Post
    You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.
    Please link or explain how he is "discredited as a scientist". I will wait for you to post and answer...and you better back up your claim right now or it is going to be you who is discredited.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguinLibertarian View Post
    You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.
    Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Please link or explain how he is "discredited as a scientist". I will wait for you to post and answer...and you better back up your claim right now or it is going to be you who is discredited.
    Discredited by who? Maddow?

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?
    I agree, but the Roman Catholic church-state endorses evolution.

  19. #18

    Default

    http://www.artforcongress.com/issues/national-defense

    Art or someone representing Art agreed with a commenter who stated support for pulling out of international alliances... aside from Israel.

    I'm not really sure how steeped Art is in the philosophy of non-aggression, as opposed to (mostly) falling on the correct side of an issue due to possessing a modicum of common sense. A Gary Johnson, of sorts, with obviously different value systems. Which is nonetheless a vast improvement over essentially everyone else in the Republican party on the national level.

    If my fiancee and I decide to leave California for Oregon, I suppose this would be an added bonus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I agree, but the Roman Catholic church-state endorses evolution.
    No, it doesn't, but it does not reject the possibility of evolutionary creationism. The Church cannot make infallible pronouncements on anything but Revelation, faith and morals. That said, Darwinist evolution has been categorically denounced as incompatible with Christianity by the Church:

    All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).

    ...

    Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

    Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
    Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

    Blessed Pope John Paul II
    The Church condemns any version of evolution which omits the Creator, which reduces humans to mere animals, which rejects original sin, or which claims that we are descended from multiple humans and not just Adam and Eve.

    Any scientific theory regarding human development must conform to the following beliefs which a Catholic must accept:

    All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
    God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
    The world was created for the Glorification of God.
    The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
    God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
    God has created a good world.
    The world had a beginning in time.
    God alone created the world.
    God keeps all created things in existence.
    God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.
    The First Vatican Council in 1869 when addressing science and evolution pronounced infallibly:

    On God the creator of all things:

    If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
    If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
    If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
    If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
    If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
    So no, the Church does not endorse Darwin but leaves open the possibility of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism which is not incompatible with Scripture.
    Last edited by eduardo89; 08-10-2013 at 11:13 PM.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?
    nothing, just a paranoid concern. I recently binged on a bunch of political stuff, and "denialism" has become a small but increasingly powerful smear.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    How's that guy doing?
    Which one? There are several in NH alone. 2 of them have been talked about here several times last year and this year. My guess is you are thinking of NH State Rep Tim O'Flaherty. He is doing great. He is the highest rated Democrat on the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance 2013 Liberty Rating. He was rated 8th best out of 400 state reps and higher than all of both the Republican leadership and Democratic leadership in the House. Even the Republican House Alliance (the constititionalish conservative group) gave him a 75.8%. That's well above what most Republicans got but only the 2nd highest rating by a Democrat as another got a 87.5%.

    I'm excited to learn how Art helps bring the ORGOP in a liberty direction. I think there might be some good things possible in OR if the GOPers would just run candidates in western OR that are far left on social issues and pro-liberty on economic issues. Stuff like marijuana legalization, an income tax cut for the poor and middle class, lower pay for legislators and gambling deregulation.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    I'm excited to learn how Art helps bring the ORGOP in a liberty direction. I think there might be some good things possible in OR if the GOPers would just run candidates in western OR that are far left on social issues and pro-liberty on economic issues. Stuff like marijuana legalization, an income tax cut for the poor and middle class, lower pay for legislators and gambling deregulation.
    I agree, that's the way to sell it here. I think that anti-war, anti-wall street bailout, pro marijuana (at least medical), lower tax, cut waste/balance budget, pro-civil liberties, State's rights type Republicans would do well. The message of not letting people 3,000 miles away in Washington overturn decisions made by Oregonians would be popular.

    And for as liberal as Oregon is... outside of the Portland area Republicans actually do well. The State House is split 50/50, and the last election for Governor was 49.29% to 47.77%.

    So with the right candidates that will now actually get support from the ORGOP it should be possible to win here.

  24. #23

    Default

    Good for Art! Thanks for the post OP.

    Looks like the libs are foaming at the mouth over his win in comment sections. When you're catching flak you know you're over the target!

    Art needs to get Rand out there for a fundraiser asap. Ron endorsed Art and they are friends.
    Last edited by devil21; 08-11-2013 at 01:41 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Moon View Post
    And for as liberal as Oregon is... outside of the Portland area Republicans actually do well. The State House is split 50/50, and the last election for Governor was 49.29% to 47.77%.

    So with the right candidates that will now actually get support from the ORGOP it should be possible to win here.
    Yeah, I was just talking about western OR. Liberal city after liberal city. The House is 34 to 26 Democrat. You are still thinking about the 2010 numbers. Or maybe thinking ahead to what you want in 2014
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    Yeah, I was just talking about western OR. Liberal city after liberal city. The House is 34 to 26 Democrat. You are still thinking about the 2010 numbers. Or maybe thinking ahead to what you want in 2014
    Ha, you're right... I guess I'm still stuck in 2012 campaign mode.

    I do have hope for 2014 though, and adding Art as Chair really helps. I know that he knows Ron and was endorsed by him in his House runs... I wonder if Art can get him or Rand to come visit and hold a fundraiser for the ORGOP.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    So no, the Church does not endorse Darwin but leaves open the possibility of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism which is not incompatible with Scripture.
    As usual, you are wrong. The Catholic Catechism # 337 says:

    God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creatorsymbolically as a succession of six days of divine 'work,'concluded by the 'rest' of the seventh day.
    This is wrong because no where in the Scripture is it explained that the work of creation is to be understood as symbolic. God gave the six literal days as a pattern for the Jews to follow (resting on the seventh). Saying the genesis account is only "symbolic" leaves the door open for millions of years and leaves the door open for Darwinism.

    Then it goes on to say:
    On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to 'recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.
    So it even connects this unbiblical idea that Genesis is symbolic with our very salvation. You MUST believe in evolution and millions of years according to Rome because the subject of Rome's view of creation is "truth revealed by God for our salvation".

    Rome is Satan's perfect counterfeit to the true gospel in every way. It uses Christian sounding words while it denies the fundamental truths of Christianity. This issue of creation is no different.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    This is wrong because no where in the Scripture is it explained that the work of creation is to be understood as symbolic. God gave the six literal days as a pattern for the Jews to follow (resting on the seventh). Saying the genesis account is only "symbolic" leaves the door open for millions of years and leaves the door open for Darwinism.
    That the Genesis creation narrative is symbolic has been believed since the early days of the Church. Biblical literalism is another faulty Protestant innovation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Origen of Alexandria
    For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian
    The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years
    Many Church Fathers do not agree with the literal interpretation, and it really doesn't matter, it does not change the story nor does it force one to believe in evolution. Your exigent literalism limits God to man-perceived time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Augustine
    It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

    With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
    St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest theologian to have live (along with St. Thomas Aquinas), also commented on the "days" in Genesis:

    But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
    I trust St. Augustine over Sola_Fide and his three pound brain's interpretation of Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    So it even connects this unbiblical idea that Genesis is symbolic with our very salvation. You MUST believe in evolution and millions of years according to Rome because the subject of Rome's view of creation is "truth revealed by God for our salvation".
    Actually you must not believe in evolution or millions of years. One can certainly believe in a literal 7-day creation and be completely in line with Catholic doctrine. But let's not forget the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Genesis 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (genesis 2:17, 5:5).

    As St. Justin Martyr put it:

    "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).
    So again, we see another Church Father not agreeing with your personal interpretation. I trust him more than your little brain.

    Here is St. Augustine again:

    Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them
    So then, we have Church Fathers, including the most important of them all disagreeing with your literalist interpretation. Did some Church Fathers think it literally meant 7 days of 24 hours? Yes, but they did not call the ones who did not heretics nor was there a great controversy about this.

    284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?
    Since you're quoting from the Catechism, lets also point out that the Church does not believe the natural sciences can explain everything, particularly the creation.

    While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Rome is Satan's perfect counterfeit to the true gospel in every way. It uses Christian sounding words while it denies the fundamental truths of Christianity. This issue of creation is no different.
    Blah blah blah. You can keep believing your man-made religion which is direct opposition to Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the 2000 year witness of the Church.
    Last edited by eduardo89; 08-11-2013 at 03:28 AM.

  29. #28

    Default

    Wait! Isn't he part of the generation that some can't wait to die off so that the younger generation can fix everything?
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Wait! Isn't he part of the generation that some can't wait to die off so that the younger generation can fix everything?
    Yes, he is part of a generation which:

    a) by and large holds extremely unfortunate views, and
    b) is too old for those views to change in any significant way on any significant scale.

    The older generation hates Ron Paul; they are by far the most anti-Ron Paul demographic. The older generation consumes the most mainstream media. The older generation loves the military. The older generation will continue state-worshiping until the day they die.

    Of course, this in no way impugns Art Robinson. He is an outlier, as are we all.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Yes, he is part of a generation which:

    a) by and large holds extremely unfortunate views, and
    b) is too old for those views to change in any significant way on any significant scale.

    The older generation hates Ron Paul; they are by far the most anti-Ron Paul demographic. The older generation consumes the most mainstream media. The older generation loves the military. The older generation will continue state-worshiping until the day they die.

    Of course, this in no way impugns Art Robinson. He is an outlier, as are we all.
    There are way more of us than you think....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2013, 12:58 PM
  2. Oregon Republican Party Must Conform to State Law
    By cassielund99@gmail.com in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-18-2012, 01:27 PM
  3. Spat Inside the Oregon Republican Party
    By sailingaway in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2012, 07:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •