General Geoff
Member
^^Agree. My life is not so precious that I would trade liberty in order to prolong it.
Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)
- Thread starter brighamr
- Start date
- Status
samtechlan
Member
I had posted this on another thread but I figured it belonged here on the megathread as a response to all the cries about "Paul can't win" etc., etc.,
The fact is that Ron Paul does not have to win either the nomination nor the presidency to make a huge impact on this nation's politics.
Simply by changing the terms and parameters of the current political debate he can empower the advocates of limited government conservatism.
Let's look at other historical political figures (both left and right) and the legacy they left even though they ran for the presidency but never won.
Huey Long (left)--Clearly pushed the debate in the 30's toward a more big government, economic interventionist system. His perceived threat to FDR as a Dem rival is credited by some historians with radicalizing New Deal policies.
Strom Thurmond (right)--His run in 48 was the beginning of the Republican takeover of the South. When he formally became a Republican in the 60's he took a big chunk of the South (not just SC) with him.
Barry Goldwater(right)--Was crushed by LBJ in 1964 but without Goldwater the modern American conservative movement is simply unimaginable. (BTW, he was very libertarian in many ways.)
Eugene MCarthy(left)--Made the anti-war position with regards to Vietnam the mandatory Dem position. Folks remember Bobby K. but it was MCarthy who popularized the anti-war position making the MGovern nomination in 72 possible. (Interestingly enough MCarthy became very anti-immigration in his later years)
George Wallace(right)--Ran for pres three times in 68, 72 (when he was shot) and 76. Never won but made hard line conservatism possible esp. on issues like Anti-quotas, anti-affirmative action, anti-busing, anti-judicial liberalism, anti-liberal elitsm. Made it possible for many non-republicans like union members, white ethnics, rural folks in the South etc. to vote Rep for the first time (so called Reagan Democrats).
The bottom line is that Paul can be and, I believe will be, the sort of transformative politician that changes politics for a generation. The Paul movement, being both an intellectual and a populist phenomenon, being inter-generational as well as inter-party, is bigger than just one man BUT IT NEEDS THAT ONE MAN to grow, prosper and fight today's as well as tommorrow's political battles.
The fact is that Ron Paul does not have to win either the nomination nor the presidency to make a huge impact on this nation's politics.
Simply by changing the terms and parameters of the current political debate he can empower the advocates of limited government conservatism.
Let's look at other historical political figures (both left and right) and the legacy they left even though they ran for the presidency but never won.
Huey Long (left)--Clearly pushed the debate in the 30's toward a more big government, economic interventionist system. His perceived threat to FDR as a Dem rival is credited by some historians with radicalizing New Deal policies.
Strom Thurmond (right)--His run in 48 was the beginning of the Republican takeover of the South. When he formally became a Republican in the 60's he took a big chunk of the South (not just SC) with him.
Barry Goldwater(right)--Was crushed by LBJ in 1964 but without Goldwater the modern American conservative movement is simply unimaginable. (BTW, he was very libertarian in many ways.)
Eugene MCarthy(left)--Made the anti-war position with regards to Vietnam the mandatory Dem position. Folks remember Bobby K. but it was MCarthy who popularized the anti-war position making the MGovern nomination in 72 possible. (Interestingly enough MCarthy became very anti-immigration in his later years)
George Wallace(right)--Ran for pres three times in 68, 72 (when he was shot) and 76. Never won but made hard line conservatism possible esp. on issues like Anti-quotas, anti-affirmative action, anti-busing, anti-judicial liberalism, anti-liberal elitsm. Made it possible for many non-republicans like union members, white ethnics, rural folks in the South etc. to vote Rep for the first time (so called Reagan Democrats).
The bottom line is that Paul can be and, I believe will be, the sort of transformative politician that changes politics for a generation. The Paul movement, being both an intellectual and a populist phenomenon, being inter-generational as well as inter-party, is bigger than just one man BUT IT NEEDS THAT ONE MAN to grow, prosper and fight today's as well as tommorrow's political battles.
TheOtherOne
Member
Same thought here. The government could lock me in a padded room and keep me safe until I pass on naturally from old age but I would rather be out in the world going where I want and doing what I please... even if it means a terrorist might blow me up when I'm shopping in the mall. That is a chance I'm willing to take.
pcosmar
member
The story the MSN did not cover.
New Video: "Leading the Cause of Freedom in Iowa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ
*****
Ron Paul on ABC News' "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Sunday, July 8
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3352787&page=1
The grassfire is growing.
New Video: "Leading the Cause of Freedom in Iowa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ
*****
Ron Paul on ABC News' "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Sunday, July 8
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3352787&page=1
The grassfire is growing.
The cherry on the cake
After spending our Independence Day morning campaigning in Hillary country (Coralville, IA),
it seemed only fair to return the favor.
Since fortune placed us directly behind the Hillary contingent (incidentally there were more of us than them despite the fact that she was in town), we were able to retrieve a couple Hillary signs that blew off their trailer.
Well...it didn't seem right to just throw them away, particularly since they've been so gracious about us stealing so many of their supporters. So we put the signs on display for our supporters.
They're still on display (presumably). Never let it be said that Ron Paul supporters are unfair
After spending our Independence Day morning campaigning in Hillary country (Coralville, IA),
it seemed only fair to return the favor.
Since fortune placed us directly behind the Hillary contingent (incidentally there were more of us than them despite the fact that she was in town), we were able to retrieve a couple Hillary signs that blew off their trailer.
Well...it didn't seem right to just throw them away, particularly since they've been so gracious about us stealing so many of their supporters. So we put the signs on display for our supporters.
They're still on display (presumably). Never let it be said that Ron Paul supporters are unfair
samtechlan
Member
Goslash27,
What kind of firearm was used in creating that piece of art? I hope you guys used "hi cap" mags.
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
What kind of firearm was used in creating that piece of art? I hope you guys used "hi cap" mags.
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
pcosmar
member
D.S. Ambrose
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Marshall
Member
Lone, you're as bad as budney at quoting people out of context. And it appears to be a pattern with you.
The question Biker asked pertained to my confidence in the Patriot Act and if it would be the same if Hillary was President. Has nothing to do with confidence in Hillary. My reply was.........
TheOtherOne
Watch what you ask for, you might get your wish with this enemy. What is it and where is it, respectively, that you are unable to do and unable to go because of the Patriot Act?
Tex
Positive or negative liberty?
And, what essential Liberty are you giving up? What is it you can't do that is "essential"? What has changed in your life since the Patriot Act that keeps you from enjoying "essential" liberty? True stories please.
That's noble of you. What about your neighbors 7yr old daughter. Would you be so noble with her life? If an FBI agent could have listened to and tracked down a terrorist, because of the Patriot Act, that could save that little girls life, are you saying you wouldn't let that happen?
So many times I read things like this. "I would give my life in trade for liberty". Let me beat my chest and say, "me too". It doesn't make me any better than any soldier that has ever taken a battle field. But again, it's put in discussion in the context of "all liberty" or death. "My life is not so precious that I would trade liberty in order to prolong it." Got news for you, you are doing it now and have been since you've been on this earth. You didn't have complete liberty 50 years ago, you don't have it now and won't have it tomorrow. Since death is preferable................? Maybe there's a wee bit less truth to that than than you say?
brighamr
Member
continuing to pick up steam!
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
To be frank, no, I wouldn't. Bringing the proverbial "innocent child" into the argument is the last refuge of a person who's losing. That 7 year old girl's life is the responsibility of her parents, NOT the government's. Her life is not on the line here; only the question of who should be responsible.
brighamr
Member
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL.
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
please take the side conversations to a new thread or PMs
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
please take the side conversations to a new thread or PMs
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE GET TO TALK ABOUT RON PAUL
budney
member
OUCH! "You can give up that liberty--it isn't essential!" Now I've heard everything.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Marshall, I didnt take anything out of context, and understood what you meant. You are OK with the extra powers the Patriot Act gives the federal government, even if Hillary is president.
That is what you meant, right?
And there has been a change in how civil rights are treated, after the Patriot Act, though some of the abuses don't necessarily come directly from the Patriot, but instead from the general attitude and increased authority of the federal government since 9-11.
For example, some American citizens have been held indefinitely without due process of the law, such as the dirty bomber Padilla. Random bag searches on the NYC subway clearly violate the 4th Amendment. Under the Patriot Act, certain financial transactions are reported to the federal government, which also violates privacy. Habeus corpus has been compromised under this administration as well. Those are a few concrete examples of why we don't need to increase federal authority with legislation like Patriot.
That is what you meant, right?
And there has been a change in how civil rights are treated, after the Patriot Act, though some of the abuses don't necessarily come directly from the Patriot, but instead from the general attitude and increased authority of the federal government since 9-11.
For example, some American citizens have been held indefinitely without due process of the law, such as the dirty bomber Padilla. Random bag searches on the NYC subway clearly violate the 4th Amendment. Under the Patriot Act, certain financial transactions are reported to the federal government, which also violates privacy. Habeus corpus has been compromised under this administration as well. Those are a few concrete examples of why we don't need to increase federal authority with legislation like Patriot.
GTSteve03
Member
I had to fill out a freakin' form when I was buying a house because of the Patriot Act.
How in the world is buying a house in any way related with terrorist activities? Please someone fill me in here.
GTSteve03
Member
You realize that your neighbor's daughter has a much higher chance of being killed while riding in the car with mommy and daddy than she does from a terrorist attack, right?
Doesn't it make more sense to restrict our liberties when it comes to driving than it does from the Patriot Act? I mean, if you were really concerned about the girl's safety, you'd want to protect her from the thing that would be most likely to kill her, right?
samtechlan
Member
Ron Paul on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous today. Pretty good interview until the end when George S. slams Paul's chances of winning but overall it was good in that it gave the good doctor a chance to explain his philosophy unfiltered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAh9sp7ebdY
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAh9sp7ebdY
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
pacodelahoya
Member
I think that is a very succint and appropo statement.
What makes America, America? Freedom or safety?
Get your heads out of the sand people, America (as we know and define it) is in it's death throes.
Salvation may come next election, choose wisely.
Marshall
Member
You all have been arguing to the ridiculous for pages now, it's only good for your side?
I agree and disagree. Yes, indeed the protection of the little girl is here parents responsibility. However, the Govt has a responsibility to protect the citizenry from terrorist enemies both foreign and domestic that are intent on , especially in times of war, destruction of this country and it's people. We are not equipped to do so. We do not have the intelligence, the shared resources nor the weaponries, both defensive and offensive, needed to do so effectively. Why would you want to cripple their ability to do so?
Poor baby. Can I get you a Band-Aid for that?
What’s behind it? The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains the “specifically designated nationals” (SDN) list of people blocked from participating in “any transaction or dealing … in property or interests” within the United States. These people have been identified “to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism.
Although the blocked-persons list has been around in some form for about a decade, under the order private individuals (be they jewelers, pawnbrokers or suburban families) buying or selling property are now considered “financial institutions” by the government. And the responsibility has fallen to the title companies to check all parties involved in a transaction against the list. “The SDN list has been around for years. Obviously, since 9/11 the use of charities and banks and different organizations for terrorists to move money have brought it more to light. Terrorist use properties to launder money.
That's the wording Tex used wasn't it? I'm curious as to what's essential and what isn't? Positive or negative liberties? Just trying to get a real good feel here.
Do you have trouble reading and comprehending sir? I posted it twice for you, on purpose. I'll post it a third time.
I could give a sh*t. They should profile in addition. That simple enough for you.
Ridiculous again. There are innocent accidents and there are terror acts. One we can try to do something about. We even try to help with the innocent accidents through seat belts, speed limits, traffic signals, training, licensing, etc. If I could stop a car bomber from blowing her up on purpose, I'd damn sure do all I can do. And our Govt should too since we have terrorist organization/Islamic Jihadic azzholes trying to do just that.
So all I have heard so far, about specific examples of how the Patriot Act is negatively effecting and hampering your freedom & liberties, to each of you, is the filling out of form when buying house and if you ride a subway you might have to show you're not carrying a bomb, maybe.
pcosmar
member
Do you work for them or are you pushing this anti American Crud on your own.
Do you really believe this garbage from the Ministry of Truth.
The Government has NO business in my personal affairs, not my money, where I spend it, who I do business with.
They have NO business in my pockets, my home or my head.
Period.!!
Last edited:
GTSteve03
Member
OK, I'm with you at this point. So some guys at the Treasury Dept have put together a list of undesirables due to having committed or "pose a significant risk of committing" (nice bit of thought-crime there) acts of terrorism. These guys are blocked from doing stuff like, for example, buying a house.
OK, here's where you lost me. These "undesirables" can't be tracked by the Treasury Dept for one reason or another, so instead every single person (note I am NOT a family, I am a single white male who bought a house on his own) now becomes a possible terror suspect and the Government is pushing the onus of verifying my lack of "terroristic intent" onto whatever financial institution is assisting me in my purchase of a home.
Tell me in what outlandish, fantasy statist world you live in that this is a necessary and proper application of Government power in order to prevent a possible terror attack on the US? This isn't even the Government doing the work. They just made up some list of names and are forcing a bunch of private parties to do all the verification for them, in turn inconveniencing (or possibly preventing, due to who knows what kind of paperwork screwups involved) someone from purchasing a home.
TheOtherOne
Member
I don't care if things like the Patriot Act never personally effect me or even if they never personally effect any other innocent person. Even if the Patriot Act was proven to have prevented something worse than 9/11, I would still be against it. It is unconstitutional. If you think we need it, then you should work to change the constitution. Get a grassroots movement together and push to repeal the 4th Amendment and all the others our "war on terror" violates.Marshall said:
Lone_Gunman
Member
I just went to the http://www.ronpaul2008.com and donated $250, out of frustation from dealing with Marshall. I encourage others to do the same. Its a good way to get Marshall out of your system. Kind of like a laxative.
- Status
