Show 215

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:31 pm

StCapps wrote:@wise_owl
The fact you think Ron Paul could pass anti-civil rights and anti-gay legislation through congress makes you naive. Even if he wanted to pass such legislation he would never be able to do so. So why are you so damn worried?




Why couldn't he, hell if you dress the rational up in the right language you Can pass anything, like the PATRIOT act, or similar such things. Hell a anti-civil rights bill would be meaningless when compared to some of the things that recent presidents have passed.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:36 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:
StCapps wrote:@wise_owl
The fact you think Ron Paul could pass anti-civil rights and anti-gay legislation through congress makes you naive. Even if he wanted to pass such legislation he would never be able to do so. So why are you so damn worried?




Why couldn't he, hell if you dress the rational up in the right language you Can pass anything, like the PATRIOT act, or similar such things. Hell a anti-civil rights bill would be meaningless when compared to some of the things that recent presidents have passed.
Because the vast majority of Americans wouldn't support it no matter how well you try to dress it up. He could maybe get parts of the south but would get slaughtered in any coastal state and win over a minority of the rest of the country. That shit ain't happening will never get the votes because Paul can't play to the war on terror issue which is the key to passing the kind of legislation you mention. Even if he could play to that issue there is still would be no guarantee it would work.
Last edited by StCapps on Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:39 pm

This is why I consider it a mistake to pass civil rights as an act as opposed to an amendment.

The problem is that the ninth amendment is not well-understood. You have a lot of these retarded "Amendment X" people who probably don't even know there is an "Amendment IX" that states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thus we clearly have rights that are no specifically enumerated by the Constitution. We choose to recognize civil rights as intrinsic human rights. But apparently there still exist racists and ignorant Americans who would erase a century of progress in human liberties in order to fulfill an absurd totalist ideology like market libertarianism. We should have made it an amendment to the Constitution. We should have made the American with Disabilities Act an amendment to the Constitution. We should also have established and Economic Bill of Rights (which presumably would have contained both acts as amendments, as well as our right to collective bargaining).
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:42 pm

StCapps wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:
StCapps wrote:@wise_owl
The fact you think Ron Paul could pass anti-civil rights and anti-gay legislation through congress makes you naive. Even if he wanted to pass such legislation he would never be able to do so. So why are you so damn worried?




Why couldn't he, hell if you dress the rational up in the right language you Can pass anything, like the PATRIOT act, or similar such things. Hell a anti-civil rights bill would be meaningless when compared to some of the things that recent presidents have passed.
Because the vast majority of Americans wouldn't support it no matter how well you try to dress it up. He could maybe get parts of the south but would get slaughtered in any coastal state and win over a minority of the rest of the country. That shit ain't happening.



Do you think the vast majority of Americans would have supported the National Defence authorisation act? Do you think they would have supported the right of the president to assassinate American civilians at a whim? All it require is the key words (terrorism, socialism ect) and the majority of your public being uninformed and a modern American president could pass act banning vodka because it funds a socialist state with links to terrorism. Hell a few years back water was almost banned due to a prank bill that used big sentifc words to confuse and terrify Congress, and you are telling me that a anti civil rights bill would not be passed?
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:53 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:
StCapps wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:

Why couldn't he, hell if you dress the rational up in the right language you Can pass anything, like the PATRIOT act, or similar such things. Hell a anti-civil rights bill would be meaningless when compared to some of the things that recent presidents have passed.
Because the vast majority of Americans wouldn't support it no matter how well you try to dress it up. He could maybe get parts of the south but would get slaughtered in any coastal state and win over a minority of the rest of the country. That shit ain't happening.



Do you think the vast majority of Americans would have supported the National Defence authorisation act? Do you think they would have supported the right of the president to assassinate American civilians at a whim? All it require is the key words (terrorism, socialism ect) and the majority of your public being uninformed and a modern American president could pass act banning vodka because it funds a socialist state with links to terrorism. Hell a few years back water was almost banned due to a prank bill that used big sentifc words to confuse and terrify Congress, and you are telling me that a anti civil rights bill would not be passed?
Again Ron Paul can't play to the War on Terror issue which would be the key to getting an anti-civil rights bill passed. It was also the key to getting the Patriot Act and the NDAA passed. Socialism can't be played to on the civil rights issue and you overstate it's strength in the post USSR US politics. That's why.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:59 pm

StCapps wrote:Again Ron Paul can't play to the War on Terror issue which would be the key to getting an anti-civil rights bill passed. It was also the key to getting the Patriot Act and the NDAA passed. Socialism can't be played to on the civil rights issue and you :twisted: overstate it's strength in the post USSR US politics. That's why.



Well socialism and terrorism are just the some of the most common scare words, Ron Paul no doubt has monster that he aims to slay (reduce the size of government ect) all he needs , or any president needs, is a political monster to slay (or something the public fears, a president can do a complete 180 by saying "the silent a majority has begged me to...) and a good speech/bill writer and its bye bye civil rights or anything he doesn't like, while i am not saying that it will happen i am saying it could happen again given human nature and past presidents.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:07 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:
StCapps wrote:Again Ron Paul can't play to the War on Terror issue which would be the key to getting an anti-civil rights bill passed. It was also the key to getting the Patriot Act and the NDAA passed. Socialism can't be played to on the civil rights issue and you :twisted: overstate it's strength in the post USSR US politics. That's why.



Well socialism and terrorism are just the some of the most common scare words, Ron Paul no doubt has monster that he aims to slay (reduce the size of government ect) all he needs , or any president needs, is a political monster to slay (or something the public fears, a president can do a complete 180 by saying "the silent a majority has begged me to...) and a good speech/bill writer and its bye bye civil rights or anything he doesn't like, while i am not saying that it will happen i am saying it could happen again given human nature and past presidents.
That's the thing though all of Ron Paul's political monsters that need slaying either do not line up passing an anti-civil rights bill or they aren't shared by enough of congress or the senate to pass it. The political monsters of the status quo that need slaying either can't be used for that issue or they can't be used by Ron Paul himself without doing a political 180. The risk is not really worth worrying about so take a chill pill.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:21 pm

StCapps wrote:That's the thing though all of Ron Paul's political monsters that need slaying either do not line up passing an anti-civil rights bill or they aren't shared by enough of congress or the senate to pass it. The political monsters of the status quo that need slaying either can't be used for that issue or they can't be used by Ron Paul himself without doing a political 180. The risk is not really worth worrying about so take a chill pill.


Dont underestimate humanity, its a dangerous action that can lead to disaster. For a start a candidates political monster can be stretched, warped, enlarged, shrunk and completely changed in order to fill a political justification. For example here in NZ during the cold war the then current government twisted the other main party (left) into demonic commissars who wanted to spread Communism and eat puppies, in truth the labour party wasn't Communist at all and was slowly becoming less socialist. You also see the warping of political monsters during the Indian wars where American politicians would make the native Americans out to be spawn of satin on order to achieve political gain (although that example may be null because of the very different times they lived in). What is key to remember is that 180 turns in humans political view points are not impossible, absolute power corrupts and the American presidents have absolute power, no one is immune to the corrupting influence of the power of the US presidents, even Ron Paul. But thankfully he probably doesn't even know NZ exists so i need no worry, or take a chill pill.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:32 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:
StCapps wrote:That's the thing though all of Ron Paul's political monsters that need slaying either do not line up passing an anti-civil rights bill or they aren't shared by enough of congress or the senate to pass it. The political monsters of the status quo that need slaying either can't be used for that issue or they can't be used by Ron Paul himself without doing a political 180. The risk is not really worth worrying about so take a chill pill.


Dont underestimate humanity, its a dangerous action that can lead to disaster. For a start a candidates political monster can be stretched, warped, enlarged, shrunk and completely changed in order to fill a political justification. For example here in NZ during the cold war the then current government twisted the other main party (left) into demonic commissars who wanted to spread Communism and eat puppies, in truth the labour party wasn't Communist at all and was slowly becoming less socialist. You also see the warping of political monsters during the Indian wars where American politicians would make the native Americans out to be spawn of satin on order to achieve political gain (although that example may be null because of the very different times they lived in). What is key to remember is that 180 turns in humans political view points are not impossible, absolute power corrupts and the American presidents have absolute power, no one is immune to the corrupting influence of the power of the US presidents, even Ron Paul. But thankfully he probably doesn't even know NZ exists so i need no worry, or take a chill pill.
Ron Paul has an over three decade long voting record that says he doesn't do many political 180s and compared to other politicians in this regard he is as good as it gets by a significant margin regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:37 pm

StCapps wrote:Ron Paul has a few decades long voting record that says he doesn't do many political 180s and compared to other politicians in this regard he is as good as it gets whether you agree with him or not.



The cunning will use every chance they get to disguise their real intent, while it its true that people with a few decades of staying true to their courses don't often pull 180s, the idea should not be discarded. After all no one expects some as rigidly aligned as Ron Paul to completely change the targets of his political wrath. I never thought Obama was the type to be able to have people killed on a whim, (all those speech's against dictatorships and the Taliban, which were pretty much dictators) but he does now.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:39 pm

Who needs new monsters when Ron Paul already has to battle "evils" like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:48 pm

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Who needs new monsters when Ron Paul already has to battle "evils" like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.
Ron Paul considers MLK a personal hero of his and voted to make MLK day a national holiday you troll. The only time he ever voted for something unconstitutional because he thought it that important I might add.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:58 pm

Doesn't sound like he found MLK to be a hero to me:

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.


http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ang ... n?page=0,2



At least.. not until his white nationalist background began to cause problems for him.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby NickDupree » Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:10 pm

On Tuesday (in 2 days) they're holding the Iowa caucuses, and all this Ron Paul stuff will be decided one way or the other, Paul will either move forward or be voted off the island. I know I'm ready. The past few days on the DCF I'm feeling stampeded by the anti-Paul horde, then skull-raped by ravenous, blind, and drooling pro-Paul zombies who won't concede a single flaw in their Messiah. Anybody else ready for this pain to come to a close? Elect Ron Paul the Republican nominee...or don't...just make it stop. Make it stop.
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)
User avatar
NickDupree
Resident Medicaid Wonk
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:11 pm

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Doesn't sound like he found MLK to be a hero to me:

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.


http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ang ... n?page=0,2



At least.. not until his white nationalist background began to cause problems for him.
Yeah but you are one of like 3 DCF members (including one rather notorious forum troll) who think it's more likely Ron wrote those newsletters himself as opposed to Lew Rockwell or some other ghostwriter. So you opinion is quite "fringe" around these parts.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

PreviousNext

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest