The World Needs Ron Paul for US President

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:04 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378615 wrote: I don't understand what you mean by "is there a recommended best practice you abide by and can we see it?" What does that even mean?I'd imagine that even the best of best practice guidelines would only require a social marketer to acknowledge his credentials if asked point blank what they are and how he's governed. I can't see such a person joining a site and volunteering the information without any prompting.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:05 pm

Oh Spot, btw, I looked up Brigstowe, as I had never heard of it & learned it is the original name for Bristol, something I probably knew in the past & forgot in the present. I am familiar with Bristol as I lived in your country once upon a time ago. I still have dreams of climbing Glastonbury Tor again, you're not that far away.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:10 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378624 wrote: Oh Spot, btw, I looked up Brigstowe, as I had never heard of it & learned it is the original name for Bristol, something I probably knew in the past & forgot in the present. I am familiar with Bristol as I lived in your country once upon a time ago. I still have dreams of climbing Glastonbury Tor again, you're not that far away.

I'm in Clifton, near the top of Blackboy Hill, and you're quite right, it's an hour by bus and then an hour on foot to get up the Tor from here. I quite like that town.

The phrase I was fishing for was viral canvassing. I'm not sure if it's a real phrase yet, I only just made it up.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:27 pm

Ahso!, the only people who reject evolution usually do so on ultra-religious grounds, & usually are quick to reject science. The only party who is ever questioned about evolution are the repuglicans, who, with their admiration & elevation of folks such as Sarah Palin, are proud to hold such astounding views & find being stupid a "quality" to embrace. I'm sure our President doesn't belong in that category. I'm not even sure the republican politicians really do, I think they are just pandering to their base--their lowest common denominator.

Let's get something straight. You said "We'll see, won't we. if your still here after the election then I'll believe you. You're too well versed on DNC talking points." I'm here to be friendly & make new friends. Whether or not you believe me is entirely up to you. Since I was a little girl watching Walter Cronkite on a black/white TV, I've always been very interested & have cared (maybe too much) about politics.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:35 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378630 wrote: I'm here to be friendly & make new friends.I asked just in case you might have said yes, it's water under the bridge. The background, if you'd like a skim, is at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... aigns.html

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:42 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378630 wrote: Ahso!, the only people who reject evolution usually do so on ultra-religious grounds, & usually are quick to reject science. The only party who is ever questioned about evolution are the repuglicans, who, with their admiration & elevation of folks such as Sarah Palin, are proud to hold such astounding views & find being stupid a "quality" to embrace. I'm sure our President doesn't belong in that category. I'm not even sure the republican politicians really do, I think they are just pandering to their base--their lowest common denominator.So that would be an.....evading the question?

Seriously, Obama has made general statements concerning science as it relates to climate change and acknowledged Darwin's birthday once, but that hardly makes him an Evolutionist.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:16 pm

Hello again. Thought I'd stop by before I log off for a bit. Ahso!, hope you like the following, from Science & Religion Today, dated 4/14/08 & titled Obama's a Theistic Evolutionist:

"Senator Barack Obama believes science and religion—including evolution and creation—are not incompatible, according to statements he made at The Compassion Forum yesterday......There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that," said Obama, who describes himself as a "devout" Christian. 'In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.' When it comes to reconciling the Genesis creation story with our scientific understanding of the age of the universe, Obama said he believes God created the Earth in six days, but the Bible might not mean 24-hour days, the way we now think of them."

'Night.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:37 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378595 wrote: Accountable. I'll pick up where we left off yesterday.

2. Ron Paul does not believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. I've never even heard this preposterous lie being floated before. Where'd you get this?

One answer to this is that Roe v. Wade was decided as patient right to privacy in making the decision with personal physician. From Wikpedia: "In 2005 he sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act to define life as beginning at conception" & "In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion."The last sentence is the key. It's not the right of privacy that is his target, but the unconstitutional federal overreach of Roe v Wade. He's stated time and again his belief that humanity should be recognized from conception. He's also stated that abortion is not a federal issue since it is not addressed in the Constitution (although it can be more strongly argued that the Declaration of Independence does address it).

I don't want to derail this thread on this volatile issue, so I'll put a post I made recently in another forum. We can discuss it further in another thread, if you wish.

Accountable wrote: I was in a conversation with a coworker and very close friend and the issue of abortion came up. Now, I want you to understand that I know - more than believe - that a human being is a human being long before (s)he is born, draws breath, or has a discernible heartbeat. A zygote is a human by scientific definition, with DNA identifiably unique from other humans. This human has two parents, a father and a mother, both of whom have equal responsibility for producing him/her, and ought to have equal say in any decisions about him/her.

But nature doesn't work that way. Nature assigns definite and different roles regarding the early development of a child that can't be ignored.

Sparing you the details of how I came to this decision, here is the crux:

Given:

Parents are legally responsible for making the decision of whether to keep a child on life support or to turn the machine off. When the life support is provided by a man-made machine, that decision is and should be borne equally by both parents.

Given:

A human is dependent upon life support provided by the mother. The baby/zygote/fetus/whatever cannot survive without the apparatus, and the apparatus cannot function outside of the mother.

Therefore:

The decision of whether the new human remains on the natural life support provided by the womb can only be made by the mother.

Any other option is a violation of liberty resulting in what can only be described as slavery, which is illegal.

It sucks. It bites. It shouldn't be that way. But there it is. Research in the transplanting of a human, removing him/her from the womb of a woman who does not want him/her and placing him/her in the womb of a willing mother, is therefore the most important research that should be done today, and the only research I personally would support my tax dollar going to.

If you want to take issue with Dr Paul's stance on privacy, take issue with his stated belief that private businesses hold as a property right the right to allow or bar entry of anyone into their establishments for any reason.

AnneBoleyn;1378595 wrote: 3. Ron Paul does not believe the Supreme Court should be able to hear cases regarding many important civil rights issues. What civil rights issues are covered by the US Constitution? The Supreme Court should be limited to hearing those cases.

From HG Legal Directory "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places." Brown v. Board of Education comes to my mind; Roe, etc.All except for the right to equality in public places is expressly covered in the Constitution. The definition of "public places" has been twisted by various factions over the years. Are you saying that Dr Paul is against all of these issues from going before the Supreme Court?

AnneBoleyn;1378595 wrote: 4. Ron Paul is virulently opposed to abortion rights. "Virulently" meaning he doesn't think Roe v Wade is good law? It wasn't good law. He's stated very plainly that the question of abortion should be handled by the states, since it is a personal issue & not national. The other major candidates want to amend the Constitution to make abortion illegal nationwide. Is that better??

The other major candidates are as wrong as Paul, & as wrong as you. I believe strongly in a woman's right to ownership over her person. I believe in abortion on demand, no apologies, no excuses necessary. There is no use butting heads over this issue. Roe is the law.I believe I addressed this adequately earlier in this post. If not, let me know, please.

AnneBoleyn;1378595 wrote: As for states rights, I am very interested in the push for those who have carry permits for guns in their own states seeking the right to do so in states that do not recognize the permit. What about the rights of those states with strict gun laws? They no longer exist?I raised this with my fellow US gov't teachers today. It was great fun, since one's a pure academic and the other is an old-school ex Vietnam era infantryman. Through history we've cherry-picked which rights would overrule States' wishes and which we'd allow to flex State-by-State. Of course DOMA came up, and when I used 'marriage license' and 'concealed carry permit' in the same sentence I swear the lights dimmed and the birds outside grew quiet. :wah:

AnneBoleyn;1378595 wrote: 5. Ron Paul opposes strong standards of separation of church and state. I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate, please?

I'll let Ron Paul tell you in his own words: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs." From The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD.I'm not clear on whether this carries any import at all. I watched the Thanksgiving "debate" hosted by an Iowa evangelical church

Video: Watch the full Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum « 2012 Election Central (the conversation doesn't start until 30 minutes in)

and Dr Paul was the only one who was even talking any sanity or placing great emphasis on the Constitution as something to follow, rather than circumvent.

AnneBoleyn;1378595 wrote: Accountable, there are things I admire about Ron Paul. He was boldly against the Iraq War, he wants to end the Cuban Embargo, he opposes aggression & intervention without great cause, he is not afraid of the marijuana question, nor does he ever run from his positions. I have admiration for him on several levels, I would not like to see him as President.None of these things are issues President Obama is willing to touch, and he runs from every position. If you can't vote for Dr Paul, I'm afraid you're going to be frustrated for many years to come.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:21 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378645 wrote: Hello again. Thought I'd stop by before I log off for a bit. Ahso!, hope you like the following, from Science & Religion Today, dated 4/14/08 & titled Obama's a Theistic Evolutionist:

"Senator Barack Obama believes science and religion—including evolution and creation—are not incompatible, according to statements he made at The Compassion Forum yesterday......There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that," said Obama, who describes himself as a "devout" Christian. 'In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.' When it comes to reconciling the Genesis creation story with our scientific understanding of the age of the universe, Obama said he believes God created the Earth in six days, but the Bible might not mean 24-hour days, the way we now think of them."

'Night.I think I need to ask you what Evolutionary Theory By Natural Selection means to you.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:13 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378645 wrote: Hello again. Thought I'd stop by before I log off for a bit. Ahso!, hope you like the following, from Science & Religion Today, dated 4/14/08 & titled Obama's a Theistic Evolutionist:

"Senator Barack Obama believes science and religion—including evolution and creation—are not incompatible, according to statements he made at The Compassion Forum yesterday......There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that," said Obama, who describes himself as a "devout" Christian. 'In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.' When it comes to reconciling the Genesis creation story with our scientific understanding of the age of the universe, Obama said he believes God created the Earth in six days, but the Bible might not mean 24-hour days, the way we now think of them."

'Night.

As a Secular Humanist myself, the problem that I have with ALL of the candidates of faith, be they Romney with off the wall Mormonism or Barack with his religsci thinking, is the effect that these beliefs have on their decision making, and frankly, that worries the hell out of me.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:33 am

Lon;1378648 wrote: As a Secular Humanist myself, the problem that I have with ALL of the candidates of faith, be they Romney with off the wall Mormonism or Barack with his religsci thinking, is the effect that these beliefs have on their decision making, and frankly, that worries the hell out of me.
Every major US decision concerning Israel, starting with the decision to reconstitute it (if that's the right word), has its roots in religion. That's a lot of God-based killing and pain.

Most arguments against abortion are also based on religion ... except for mine.

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, but they are major biggies.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:13 am

Accountable;1378670 wrote: Every major US decision concerning Israel, starting with the decision to reconstitute it (if that's the right word), has its roots in religion. That's a lot of God-based killing and pain.

Most arguments against abortion are also based on religion ... except for mine.

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, but they are major biggies.I'd add to this by including nearly every act disrespecting any other life in order to satisfy our own sense of self importance to be based on the idea that humans are god's special creature. We are merciless towards other species in regards of sparing life with the exception of those we use to satisfy our emotional needs. The justification we employ to overcome the guilt of taking life is the belief that god put them there for our use. it's sickening IMV.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:11 am

Incidentally, we shouldn't be breeding or buying and selling these creatures either. We should cease playing god and permit them to become extinct if that's nature's (evolution's) path.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:10 am

Accountable wrote:

None of these things are issues President Obama is willing to touch, and he runs from every position. If you can't vote for Dr Paul, I'm afraid you're going to be frustrated for many years to come.
No matter who becomes President, I absolutely know I will be frustrated. It's a given. Obama frustrates me immensely on many issues. That is why any prior thought of me "working undercover" for the DNC is ridiculously absurd. The Democratic Party has a certain function in this society: I call it keeping the lid on insurgency.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:23 am

I think I need to ask you what Evolutionary Theory By Natural Selection means to you.

Well, which is it? You were asking about Obama, & I came up with a quote. I do know that anyone who denies the scientific record & thinks humans & dinosaurs walked the planet together and believes the earth is thousands of years old is............is there a polite word for flaming idiot? I don't think there is. Okay, I guess Creationist is a synonym for that. I try to mind my manners, but some subjects make that exceedingly difficult.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:35 am

Ahso!

I'll make it easy on you. Obama promised his first act as president would be to bring the troops home. Not only has Obama reneged on that promise, he went as far as attempting to negotiate a longer official presence in Iraq and also tried to have American service personal exempt from Iraqi law.

Your turn.

Thanks for making it easy for me, much appreciated, didn't want to listen to 9 minutes of RP, but I would have & you let me off! Well, the troops will be home by Xmas, the unforgiveable issue was going in the first place. I did want some kind of "revenge" on Cheney & the waterboard lawyers, and a few others but Obama let me down. I'm still going to vote for Obama anyway. I have complaints about Obama, I don't live in la-la land, but for me it is either not vote (which would make me guilt-ridden) or vote again for Obama. I was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, not happy at all that Obama was the candidate. She wasn't the greatest either, but at least I understood where she was coming from, didn't have to guess her intentions, and that was the field.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:37 am

Well, you labeled Ron Paul as ignorant for not being an Evolutionist but it appears you may not recognize an Evolutionist if you met one. That's all I'm saying. Simply because a person adopts science as their religion, or in Obama's case, co-religion, doesn't mean they understand the science they've signed onto, which makes that person no more educated (or less ignorant) than those who refuse to recognize the science on it's face. Obama, Paul and you end up in the same place on this subject. Moving on!

I take it that since you've not made any attempt to address the "troops" issue I raised, you agree Obama lied about that.

I'm not sure going forward will do much good. Shall we tackle the Obama Administration question?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:41 am

AnneBoleyn;1378721 wrote: Ahso!

.

Thanks for making it easy for me, much appreciated, didn't want to listen to 9 minutes of RP, but I would have & you let me off! Well, the troops will be home by Xmas, the unforgiveable issue was going in the first place. I did want some kind of "revenge" on Cheney & the waterboard lawyers, and a few others but Obama let me down. I'm still going to vote for Obama anyway. I have complaints about Obama, I don't live in la-la land, but for me it is either not vote (which would make me guilt-ridden) or vote again for Obama. I was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, not happy at all that Obama was the candidate. She wasn't the greatest either, but at least I understood where she was coming from, didn't have to guess her intentions, and that was the field.Well, if you vote your conscience, you can't vote Obama unless, of course, you are hell bent on voting for the guy no matter how much of a hypocrite he's proven himself to be.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:44 am

AnneBoleyn;1378721 wrote: Ahso!

.

Thanks for making it easy for me, much appreciated, didn't want to listen to 9 minutes of RP, but I would have & you let me off! Well, the troops will be home by Xmas, the unforgiveable issue was going in the first place. The funny thing is I thought you had said you had already watched the video once.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:00 pm

Ahso! You know nothing about me or my conscience. My conscience (& digestive tract) would never vote anti-choice. If I ever were a one issue voter, my one issue is a woman's sole right to choose motherhood. A woman is not a brood mare. Freedom of choice. That's what my conscience tells me.

If Obama is a hypocrite, I find him less so than anyone who will be his opposition.

About the video, yes, I watched it one time but it did not capture my interest enough to commit it to memory.

I may not recognize an Evolutionist? What I do recognize? You. A person who can't come to the point soon enough & plays games. A person who feels he won an argument by his own opinion of himself. You've won nothing Ahso!

You said "I take it that since you've not made any attempt to address the "troops" issue I raised, you agree Obama lied about that." No. What a strange conclusion.

"Shall we tackle the Obama Administration question?" Not sure if we can have this dance Ahso!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:29 pm

The world does as at least it would mean the end of american militarism, thankfully his weird domestic policies don't matter to the rest of the world.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:37 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378781 wrote: Ahso! You know nothing about me or my conscience. My conscience (& digestive tract) would never vote anti-choice. If I ever were a one issue voter, my one issue is a woman's sole right to choose motherhood. A woman is not a brood mare. Freedom of choice. That's what my conscience tells me.Abortion is a bogus issue in presidential election cycles. Roe is settled law. Since Roe, we've had as president: Carter; Regan twice; Bush Sr; Lil' Bush twice; and republican majorities in both houses of congress along with a republican president - and Roe is still the law of the land. You're focused on a bogus issue.

AnneBoleyn;1378781 wrote: If Obama is a hypocrite, I find him less so than anyone who will be his opposition.I may not agree with Paul on all issues (but who knows, perhaps it's me who needs to rethink things), but you have to admit that the guy is no hypocrite. The rest of the field? Yes. Including Obama as one of the worst ones.

AnneBoleyn;1378781 wrote:

I may not recognize an Evolutionist?My point being that you (or Obama) don't understand Evolutionary Theory any better than Paul does.AnneBoleyn;1378781 wrote: What I do recognize? You. A person who can't come to the point soon enough & plays games. A person who feels he won an argument by his own opinion of himself. You've won nothing Ahso!I'm not trying to win anything. You asked me to relate to you why I thought Obama lied and you asked me to be specific, which I've been doing. Your problem is you're trying to defend the indefensible and you're apparently becoming frustrated doing it. Blame Obama for that, not me. I'm only taking a stand against reelecting the guy.

AnneBoleyn;1378781 wrote: You said "I take it that since you've not made any attempt to address the "troops" issue I raised, you agree Obama lied about that." No. What a strange conclusion. Well then, let's hear you explain why what he said and what he did are not in conflict with one another. I'm calling it a lie. What would you like to label it?

AnneBoleyn;1378781 wrote: "Shall we tackle the Obama Administration question?" Not sure if we can have this dance Ahso!I know it's been a tough go for you, but again, you should be blaming Obama for that, not me.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:27 pm

You are right, Ahso! when you say "Abortion is a bogus issue in presidential election cycles." I would not vote for anyone who does not agree with Pro-Choice. I would not encourage any candidate who holds this view by giving them my precious vote.

I'm not trying to win anything. You asked me to relate to you why I thought Obama lied and you asked me to be specific, which I've been doing. Your problem is you're trying to defend the indefensible and you're apparently becoming frustrated doing it. Blame Obama for that, not me. I'm only taking a stand against reelecting the guy.

I'm glad you say you are not trying to win anything. I apologize for suggesting that was your attitude if it is not. And you are correct, sir, I am frustrated by the whole lot of them. I do want him re-elected. I despise the opposition.

Well then, let's hear you explain why what he said and what he did are not in conflict with one another. I'm calling it a lie. What would you like to label it?

Are you quoting from that blasted video? I thought you were kind enough to let me out of that! From watching campaigns & elections, historically that's what they all do! I can't get excited that Obama is as imperfect as the rest of those ****ers! (NOTE: after previewing this post I have learned there is no point in using the F-word here again!) And I will remind you Obama was not my candidate of choice and I did not have the high expectations other voters fantasized about. I knew he was put on a pedestal & would fall on his ass, as this is what always happens when we place hope & anticipations on humans. I always believed he was a middle-of-the-road type. So, you see, I am not so surprised at the way things worked out.

"Shall we tackle the Obama Administration question?" :-5 :-5 :-5

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:54 pm

Fair enough. I'll leave you and Accountable to the discussion then. It's been a pleasure meeting you, Anne, I hope you decide to stick around.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:19 am

The way I see it the excitement of Paul comes from the fact neither party really cares for him so if you have on the ticket either Romney/Gingrich or Obama two really bad choices Paul is something different and to most something different than two really bad choices how could you do worse right? So Paul steps in as the anything but those guys canidate and since those guys suck Paul is appealing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:12 am

littleCJelkton;1378848 wrote: The way I see it the excitement of Paul comes from the fact neither party really cares for him so if you have on the ticket either Romney/Gingrich or Obama two really bad choices Paul is something different and to most something different than two really bad choices how could you do worse right? So Paul steps in as the anything but those guys canidate and since those guys suck Paul is appealing.
Really? That's it? Nothing about his ideas, ideology, ... Just like him because he's not them?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:13 pm

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:06 am

Accountable;1378856 wrote: Really? That's it? Nothing about his ideas, ideology, ... Just like him because he's not them?

No because If I vote for him of of Ideology who is to say the minute he steps in to Office of president the Millions and billions of dollars plus not to mention the threats either just through law or personal that will come from lobbyist, bankers, the fed, etc.., won't change that Ideology real quick. I am done voting for ideology because it has not shown to be a good way to select a good canidate in to office.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:19 am

There might be a market for that much jade.

I can't find it easily, but I remember a few years back seeing where Ron Paul had stated openly that so much power might corrupt him, so you may be right.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:29 am

to littleCJelkton--you said: "I am done voting for ideology because it has not shown to be a good way to select a good canidate in to office."

Your statement is interesting. What is a good way? How do you select?

to Accountable--I didn't watch your new clip (yet) because the opinion of Chris Wallace has no influence over me. I don't exactly hold him in high esteem.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:05 pm

I just watched the video & realized I had seen Wallace live on Fox say that. I had the same reaction as you, I think, that Wallace was marginalizing Paul as a candidate for the Repug nomination. Even if I agreed with Wallace, I don't think the Iowa caucus, or any caucus for that matter, should be as seriously taken as a direct-vote primary. This was certainly true when Obama won the caucuses & Hillary won the elections. I think the caucuses are not democratic, as let's face it, most people will not participate in hours-long debates; it gives more powerful spokespeople more sway over the participants, particularly passive types; & is not necessarily reflective of how a direct vote would swing. So, I am all for diminishing the importance of caucuses in favor of direct vote. To get back to Wallace's point re: Paul, yes I can see this makes his supporters frustrated & it is condescending to Ron Paul. I agree with you here, Accountable.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378956 wrote: I just watched the video & realized I had seen Wallace live on Fox say that. I had the same reaction as you, I think, that Wallace was marginalizing Paul as a candidate for the Repug nomination. Even if I agreed with Wallace, I don't think the Iowa caucus, or any caucus for that matter, should be as seriously taken as a direct-vote primary. This was certainly true when Obama won the caucuses & Hillary won the elections. I think the caucuses are not democratic, as let's face it, most people will not participate in hours-long debates; it gives more powerful spokespeople more sway over the participants, particularly passive types; & is not necessarily reflective of how a direct vote would swing. So, I am all for diminishing the importance of caucuses in favor of direct vote. To get back to Wallace's point re: Paul, yes I can see this makes his supporters frustrated & it is condescending to Ron Paul. I agree with you here, Accountable.
What I think is far more damaging to our process of selecting political representation (legislator, judges, or executives) is the unfair status granted to the dem and repub primary votes. They are allowed to use the same voting places and the same voting machines as those used for the general elections. Partisans can talk convenience all they want, it increases their already-unfair advantage over other political parties and those who choose not to subjugate themselves to a political party. I don't think anyone would say Dr Paul is a down-the-line repub, but he would not be able to even darken the door of Congress without the party nod. That is not right.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:24 pm

Accountable;1378964 wrote: What I think is far more damaging to our process of selecting political representation (legislator, judges, or executives) is the unfair status granted to the dem and repub primary votes. They are allowed to use the same voting places and the same voting machines as those used for the general elections. Partisans can talk convenience all they want, it increases their already-unfair advantage over other political parties and those who choose not to subjugate themselves to a political party. I don't think anyone would say Dr Paul is a down-the-line repub, but he would not be able to even darken the door of Congress without the party nod. That is not right.The idea of dismantling the two party system doesn't require the dems and the repubs to vote for other candidates it requires that independents not being the deciding factor in every election Independents vote in lower numbers than do party loyalists, but, in close elections, they nearly always cast the deciding ballots. As in other recent polls, the one conducted by Democracy Corps shows President Obama in a neck-and-neck race with Mitt Romney; it finds the same result for a hypothetical contest between a generic Republican and a generic Democrat running for Congress. This means that, unless the political dynamics change fundamentally over the next 18 months, independents will be critical again in 2012The Trouble With Independents | The New Republic

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:34 pm

So where did Paul stand on the great Light Bulb bailout of 2011?

Incandescent Bulbs Spared in Tea Party Victory - Bloomberg

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:28 pm

K.Snyder;1378969 wrote: The idea of dismantling the two party system doesn't require the dems and the repubs to vote for other candidates it requires that independents not being the deciding factor in every election That wasn't my recommendation, so the rest doesn't make sense to me.

flopstock;1378976 wrote: So where did Paul stand on the great Light Bulb bailout of 2011?

Incandescent Bulbs Spared in Tea Party Victory - BloombergExcellent question!

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:47 pm

AnneBoleyn;1378930 wrote: to littleCJelkton--you said: "I am done voting for ideology because it has not shown to be a good way to select a good canidate in to office."

Your statement is interesting. What is a good way? How do you select?

to Accountable--I didn't watch your new clip (yet) because the opinion of Chris Wallace has no influence over me. I don't exactly hold him in high esteem.

I don't

this about sums it up I know it is old but it is the closest I can explain it

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:08 am

I read an interesting blurb about how republicans are desperately trying to compromise Paul's chances of becoming the nominee. They're sounding a little desperate to me.

Was this the Moment That Ron Paul Lost Iowa?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:13 pm

littleCJelkton;1379030 wrote: I don't

this about sums it up I know it is old but it is the closest I can explain it

Love that!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:31 am

Monty Python doesn't get old. Truth doesn't get old, either. But what is the message turn on/tune in/drop out (of the process)? Ignore politics, invest in your own truth? I think it must be me getting old.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:43 am

AnneBoleyn;1379170 wrote: Monty Python doesn't get old. Truth doesn't get old, either. But what is the message turn on/tune in/drop out (of the process)? Ignore politics, invest in your own truth? I think it must be me getting old.

ignore the process all together because it is totally absurd way of choosing a leader even more so when we have corporations allowed to act as people and poor money in to candidates so that they tell you what you want to hear "their Ideology" and then when elected doing what they are paid to do. I say choose your leader as you go along if you need to build a bridge let someone who knows how to build the bridge lead you to building it but since that guy doesn't know anything about farming you don't want the bridge builder leading you on how to raise a farm do you?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:52 am

littleCJelkton;1379172 wrote: ignore the process all together because it is totally absurd way of choosing a leader even more so when we have corporations allowed to act as people and poor money in to candidates so that they tell you what you want to hear "their Ideology" and then when elected doing what they are paid to do. I say choose your leader as you go along if you need to build a bridge let someone who knows how to build the bridge lead you to building it but since that guy doesn't know anything about farming you don't want the bridge builder leading you on how to raise a farm do you?Yup. I phrase it "Say whatever it takes to keep votes coming in; Do whatever it takes to keep contributions coming in."

But when you can find someone who has a record of doing the things that agree with your own ideology, and he's running against those who have a record of doing the things that go against your own ideology, I think it would be dumb not to vote for the first guy.

{aside: I know it's neither here nor there, but has anybody clicked on the "sir paul" thread in the "Similar Threads" area at the bottom of the screen? Hilarious!}

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:35 am

This showed up at a departments christmas feast yesterday. Stack was on someones desk. I asked if I could scan it and three other people asked where they got it.

His time may have come...:guitarist

Attached files

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:12 am

What are his chances do you think?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:32 am

Not sure what his chances are at this point. But last election, I thought I was the only one in the building even looking at him. We aren't into primary season here yet, this time and his name is being thrown around.

A vast improvement.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:48 pm

gmc;1379333 wrote: What are his chances do you think?
Very slim, I think. I think his biggest contribution is getting a few more people to open their eyes. Hopefully someone else will take up the banner and run for a congressional office.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:52 pm

I see where Gary Johnson says he may run on the libertarian ticket. Paul supporters should take advantage of Americans Elect.