* Login   * Register
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:18 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:00 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 5404
Location: Austin, Texas
...Which becomes impossible when you declare your intention to vote for a member of one of the partisan factions. What I don't understand is why everyone is surprised that Obama takes the stands he does. He merely does what every President before him has done; expand the powers of his office into the areas staked out by the previous administration. You point it out the podcast Dan, and then declare that this completely predictable and predicted act is enough to make you partisan...

(as if even suggesting that Newt Gingrich, the spectre of his nomination being enough to cause the sitting administration to high-five at the phone in race that would follow it, might be better than Obama. He stood up and disavowed science in favor of superstition, just like the rest of them on the platform. Any of that group would be a catastrophe for the US)

...how cheaply you sell out your credentials as "non-partisan". You've drank the cool-aid. I'll bet Chris Matthews is looking for a young protege, you might try applying at MSNBC. You can counterpoint him...

(and simper at the camera like the rest of the Gingrich defenders, who lie to our faces about the promise of a Gingrich nomination. He was bought and paid for when Obama was still in diapers)

...when he goes into his nightly tirade about the demon who is Newt Gingrich.

The real current of discussion though, Dan. How can you consistently miss it? Dylan Ratigan talks about it daily, right before he hands the channel back to the old-media that is Chris Matthews. http://www.dylanratigan.com/ Lawrence Lessig was talking about it on The Daily Show two days ago http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-d ... view-pt--1 and if you want a guest suggestion, or a reading suggestion, you could do worse than him, or his book Repulic, Lost because he carries on the theme, that theme you used to mention every episode for a very long time, government corruption, and the reason for it.

Rather than getting on that Libertarian bandwagon of crybabies who will settle for nothing less than complete anarchy, perhaps you should step back from the subject matter of rights and actually look at it from the perspective of tools in a toolbox. Yes. There will be cameras everywhere. There already are in most of the cities of Europe, it's only a matter of time. Yes, there are files being kept by government agencies, files that include sensitive personal information. Yes, cash is the only way to keep your purchases secret; it's why the government and corporations want you to use cards and electronic transactions for everything. There's value in that information. This is why they've also gone out of their way to destroy all non-government controlled currencies; because, by definition, all transactions conducted in those currencies is money-laundering, since they can't trace where that money comes from or goes to; and that can't be allowed.

None of this is surprising, or particularly unexpected if you've been reading speculative fiction in the last 30 to 40 years. The problem isn't that they have these tools to use; the problem is the use they are put to, and by whom. If there are people fomenting the violent overthrow if the US government, when that violence is visited on them in turn I don't see the problem with that, even if those people are US citizens. People willing to use violence to achieve political goals should be visited by their own violence at every turn (I've said it before, I shed no tears for dead dictators) it's when the creep starts, and they start detaining people indefinitely on some shadowy suspicions (When. Hah. Already happening) is when we should be outraged. But how do you change anything, if the defense contractors have already bought your Congressman? If the prison corporations already have Senators in their pocket? If the Police unions and the drug cartels both purchase influence in Congress in order to maintain their profit margins and job security?

...what do we do then?

Vote for Ron Paul? He's one man. Obama was one man, and he said similar things right up to the point where he got the nomination; and then his tune changed. Will Ron Paul's change if he is nominated? Or will he catch a stray bullet like potential nominees of the past have done? Would he be able to do anything other than bring the entire house of cards down, alone and in the Presidential hotseat, like an American Gorbachev?

The President is nothing more than a figurehead. Ask Obama, he'll tell you the same. He dances the tune he's told to dance. He fell asleep taking the oath of office, and didn't wake up again until the prospect of the re-election campaign surfaced; now you can see the fire again. But the visible fire calls into question a large percentage of his actions of the last few years, and makes me wonder just how much of it he would disavow were he given the liberty to do so. Like Romney backpedaling from Mass-Care, how long till we see Obama trying to say "but I didn't..."

We have to change the terms under which we converse with our government, or the rest of this is only so much noise. We have to take it back from the corporations and the trust fund babies and make it serve our needs instead of theirs. If we fail in this task the future looks pretty bleak. Ask any of those writers we're both fond of, what the future holds if we let the Republic fall.

...And it will fall, if we don't do something to correct it's course. Voting Republican isn't going to fix it.

_________________
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:37 am 
Offline
Master of Ceremonies
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 11264
As I said in the show...the vote is not to expect him to fix anything in office (I really don't believe he can win) it is to get him in a position to inject these questions into the national debate. Make the President and the Republican nominee deal with them! (Is Paul a good enough debater to turn questions from a debate moderator unrelated to these issues into forms that then force a response from one of his Big Two party opponents? I don't know...). I would have voted for Kucinich for the same reason.

Now...I usually say that I am a "political independent"...not non-partisan per se. But I think the parties are one of the largest reasons for the problems not getting solved (and thereby getting worse) in our country. As I said in the show, I expect a Ron Paul to run as an Independent, and in that context I was going to vote for him. Now, Harry K. made a point on this board a while back, that if I was to be conscientious about it, I should register Republican so I could vote for the person I wanted to vote for in the general elections. I thought about that. It's a fair point. That's where the primary voting side of that idea came from. Don't you agree he has a point?

And are you saying that if I found someone who I thought would help make things better for the country that I couldn't vote for them because of my politically independent label? Or are you just saying that TELLING you all my intention is to lose any credibility as an even broker?

If I keep saying that "(Problem X) will ruin us if we don't address it", and only one candidate in either party is even touching on it obliquely, am I supposed to say "Yeah...I would vote for him. He's saying important stuff that the others are ignoring...but I can't. He's a Republican. That's bad for my image and conflicts with my values" In truth though, my voting for him was more based on him running as an Independent, and then considering Harry K's point about intellectual consistency. So the "values" I would be compromising have more to do with Harry K's point about registering Republican to vote in the primaries or not. What is the consistent and principled stand to take when values and stances collide?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:20 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
If RP is your guy and you do not live in an open primary state and you haven't registered Republican, then you are not doing yourself or those that think along the same lines any benefit.

But look on the bright side, you only have to bend your values/principles a smidgen in order to reach your objective. Afterwards you can easily revert back the your former party line status.

Until I hear a news story of record breaking citizens registering Rep and RP's #'s go up in the polls, it will be a long 2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:39 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 5404
Location: Austin, Texas
I had so many different issues with this episode, it's hard to name them all, Dan. Inalienable rights come from god? No. They are emergent principals of human nature, ergo "human" rights. If you want to say that comes from god, that's your business. But god didn't have a damn thing to do with it from my perspective, or from the perspective of the constitution, which does not mention god anywhere in the text.

Whinging on about your total disgust with Obama. Worse than Bush? Worse than the administration who's footsteps he's following in? Hardly. Troops are home from Iraq, Bin Laden is dead; now if he'd just wrap up Afghanistan before it bankrupts us like it did Russia (land war in Asia? Anyone?) and actually shut down Gitmo instead of expanding it...

...or maybe stop harassing States that have decided to nullify federal drug laws like his predecessors did, or perhaps actually not hand over the entirety of the US healthcare system to private insurance companies, or a plethora of other issues that he's been paid handsomely to support or at least leave alone...

...I might actually have to grant that the man has been an effective administrator. He's at least slowed the buses breakneck pace towards the cliff's edge. Too bad we'll still go over it before the next 4 years are up.

Am I trying to tell you that you shouldn't vote for the "right candidate" even if he is party affiliated? No, what I'm saying quite explicitly is that declaring that you need to register as a Republican pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of "non-partisan" (and I've heard you use that as a self-descriptive phrase before) Personally, I get appeals letters from the Dems, the Reps and the Libs, because at some point I've participated in all of their nomination processes. The parties being the problem though Dan. No, they are a symptom. It's exactly like professional wrestling, they know the contests are faked, but they have to engage in them anyway. The public expects a circus; it's the only explanation for "the Dons" high support levels in the early polls. It certainly isn't because he brings any substance to the discussion of issues. It also explains everything Gingrich, and why he doesn't have a chance. The bad boy will not win, no matter how popular he is.

Yes, we are pathetic in this country. We'll buy anything so long as the players will lie to us and tell us we're great. Meanwhile the fix is in, because the criminals run the government, bribing politicians to support them and their issues in exchange for campaign support. Let's see how much longer they can milk us before the whole thing falls apart. Anyone want to take any bets on that?

Speaking of the federalist papers and the Republican messiah Alexander Hamilton; as a history buff you do realize that he was the first founder to defile the Constitution by reading in powers that weren't explicitly granted to the government? That he had designs on being an American Bonaparte, had he not been shot dead by Aaron Burr in that duel? We should probably thank Burr for saving us from that fate. Now if we could only find our way out of this one...

_________________
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 7893
Dan wrote:
What is the consistent and principled stand to take when values and stances collide?


The President's party should be irrelevant to you. I could understand you saying that you wouldn't vote for RP for Congress if he was GOP vs. Independent because you might not want to give a majority to the GOP if you disagree with them on certain core issues.

But for the President....party makes less difference.

If RP is your man, you should try to get him elected. If that means registering R for the primary, then do it. You can always change your registration. And even if you can't change your registration, you can always vote for whomever you want come election time.

_________________
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:21 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 4:37 pm
Posts: 25573
Location: Seattle
I'm with Dan.
Let's all be non-partisan and vote Republican this year.
:lol:

_________________
In my defense . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:44 pm 
Offline
Master of Ceremonies
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 11264
(My answers in color...RAnthony's points in b&w...sorry to color blind individuals...)


I had so many different issues with this episode, it's hard to name them all, Dan. Inalienable rights come from god? No. They are emergent principals of human nature, ergo "human" rights. If you want to say that comes from god, that's your business. But god didn't have a damn thing to do with it from my perspective, or from the perspective of the constitution, which does not mention god anywhere in the text.

Well...I have no dog in that fight. We have said dozens and dozens of times in the shows that this simply means that these rights are intrinsic to your being...and are not granted by any human agent. To think I am all of a sudden forcing "God" on you is to ignore all the other shows you have ever heard me do about this question. :roll:



Whinging on about your total disgust with Obama. Worse than Bush? Worse than the administration who's footsteps he's following in? Hardly.

:lol: Who is worse...the original violator of the law or the person who lets the violation stand, makes no one answer for the violations and then makes those violations legal after the fact (so they can be done again...legally...forever)?

Plus, he hasn't just codified the Bush violations...he's built on them. More secrecy...assassinations...no holding of anyone like the financial industry responsible...I do shows on this all the time.


Troops are home from Iraq, Bin Laden is dead; now if he'd just wrap up Afghanistan before it bankrupts us like it did Russia (land war in Asia? Anyone?) and actually shut down Gitmo instead of expanding it...


...I might actually have to grant that the man has been an effective administrator. He's at least slowed the buses breakneck pace towards the cliff's edge. Too bad we'll still go over it before the next 4 years are up.


What has he done to slow the bus? He's pushed stuff like the War on Terror farther...he hasn't reigned it in. How has he been any better on the issues relating to Civil Liberties or rolling back Bush Administration constitutional abuses (which was a HUGE part of his campaign)?



Am I trying to tell you that you shouldn't vote for the "right candidate" even if he is party affiliated? No, what I'm saying quite explicitly is that declaring that you need to register as a Republican pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of "non-partisan" (and I've heard you use that as a self-descriptive phrase before) Personally, I get appeals letters from the Dems, the Reps and the Libs, because at some point I've participated in all of their nomination processes. The parties being the problem though Dan. No, they are a symptom. It's exactly like professional wrestling, they know the contests are faked, but they have to engage in them anyway. The public expects a circus; it's the only explanation for "the Dons" high support levels in the early polls. It certainly isn't because he brings any substance to the discussion of issues. It also explains everything Gingrich, and why he doesn't have a chance. The bad boy will not win, no matter how popular he is.

Yes, we are pathetic in this country. We'll buy anything so long as the players will lie to us and tell us we're great. Meanwhile the fix is in, because the criminals run the government, bribing politicians to support them and their issues in exchange for campaign support. Let's see how much longer they can milk us before the whole thing falls apart. Anyone want to take any bets on that?

So...When Harry K challenged me to support what I was saying in the show (which had been: "If Ron Paul runs as an Independent, I will vote for him") by voting for him in the Republican primaries (because, after all, that might be the only chance TO vote for him), what should I have said? I still haven't made up my mind what I will do. I'm not sure what the moral or consistent (or, most importantly, most helpful) approach is. If this ruins my "Non-Partisan image"...well...luckily my beliefs in trying to do the best thing trumps any "image" or whatnot. As I have said in many shows: this isn't contrived to make a good show. The show is ME. When I change...or when I sincerely am not sure what to do...you hear that. I don't say "Oh no! What if the listeners won't like me anymore of I say this?" That road eventually leads to ruin (because you are faking it). If I am not entirely consistent in the show...it is because this is a representation of life. I am trying (as are you all) to get a better life for my kids...and to keep things from going off the deep end here in 21st Century America. I don't always know what the best way to do that is. I sure as hell am not going to NOT do something I feel is right (when I can figure out such things) because it conflicts with some show imaging or perceived hypocrisy.

I am honest. Not fake. What you may deem "inconsistency" may in fact be uncertainty on my part. I feel that those in Media who act as though they are always certain and convinced in the righteousness of their chosen courses of action are usually ideologues more than thinkers. I do my best to belong to the latter category, rather than the former (although, none of us is perfect...)



Speaking of the federalist papers and the Republican messiah Alexander Hamilton; as a history buff you do realize that he was the first founder to defile the Constitution by reading in powers that weren't explicitly granted to the government? That he had designs on being an American Bonaparte, had he not been shot dead by Aaron Burr in that duel? We should probably thank Burr for saving us from that fate. Now if we could only find our way out of this one...[/quote]

:lol: Of course I know this about Hamilton. I also know that he spent a lot of time talking about constitutional mechanisms. Why are you suggesting that this means he cannot be trusted when discussing how human nature (in this case, the desire for branches of government to protect their own "turf" and authority) is built into the constitutional design? John Adams enacted the sedition acts...but he still had a ton to say about the Constitutional ideas and he's relevant and vital in such a discussion. Hamilton is as well. If you say he isn't...that's a lot of foundational stuff you just write off that he's responsible for...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:01 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 4:37 pm
Posts: 25573
Location: Seattle
Image

Be sure to grab one of the new Holiday Shirts!
:snicker:

_________________
In my defense . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:46 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:16 pm
Posts: 309
I don't see how it can be considered partisan to consider voting for a person rather than a party. If Dan was saying that the Republicans seemed to have the answers then you'd have a point, but that's not how I understood it.

Partisan to me is that ra-ra my party right or wrong, the other guy is wrong because he isn't from my party etc etc type of thinking.

Anyway you could always look at it as a covert mission. Subvert the Republicans from within one vote at a time. :lol:

_________________
To hell with you Old Man! We're eating fish!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:32 am
Posts: 9647
Location: Dragonstone, Iowa
If Ron Paul is nominated (which he won't be) I will vote for him as well and for the same reasons as Dan.

_________________
"No man grows rich by kindness."-Jorah Mormont

"True heroism is you, alone, in a designated workspace. True heroism is minutes, hours, days, year upon year of the quiet, precise, judicious exercise of probity and care, with no one there to see or cheer." The Pale King, by D. F. Wallace.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:58 pm 
Offline
Master of Ceremonies
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 11264
Waleis wrote:
If Ron Paul is nominated (which he won't be) I will vote for him as well and for the same reasons as Dan.


We would both for Kucinich too in the same situation I would bet (or Nader).

Again...I don't expect these people to win...but to simply raise the profile of the Constitutional/civil liberties questions in the media while the campaign is being waged would help a ton (potentially. As I have said..."Shine the light on these issues" and we could possibly get some traction with average Americans...).

And while DB's jabs are understandable (certainly) one wonders about the original question. DB, if I would vote for Paul if he ran as an independent, would that make me hypocritical (or an idiot) to not try to do what I could to vote for him in the primaries? I didn't think so when I first told Harry K that answer to that question he posed. But, the more I thought about it, the more I wondered.

What do YOU think? :geek:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:26 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 4:37 pm
Posts: 25573
Location: Seattle
Dan wrote:
And while DB's jabs are understandable (certainly) one wonders about the original question. DB, if I would vote for Paul if he ran as an independent, would that make me hypocritical (or an idiot) to not try to do what I could to vote for him in the primaries? I didn't think so when I first told Harry K that answer to that question he posed. But, the more I thought about it, the more I wondered.

What do YOU think? :geek:


I think if you're considering registering Republican so you can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries on account of : "...the vote is not to expect him to fix anything in office (I really don't believe he can win) it is to get him in a position to inject these questions into the national debate.", then I'm not really sure what you're standing for these days.

Maybe I'm in need of one of those 'restart' type shows where you lay out all the things you believe in, and outline how strongly they matter to you. Seems like you'd be folding on a long held belief that 'the duopoly is the problem' and marching headlong in to that trap of supporting (R) because you don't like (D). How many times have you warned your listeners about that . . . and yet here you are.

Let me ask you this: What would 'General Dan Carlin' think of attempting this maneuver on the political battlefield? What do you stand to sacrifice, what do you stand to gain? Best scenario case you don't alienate a bunch of your listeners and Ron Paul gets another opportunity to repeat the same tired stuff he's been repeating for the last several years . . . again . . . on TV. What's the worst scenario case looking like?

Is it worth it?

/shrug

But I'm just the jester around here . . . if you want the philosopher you're looking for the other Archon.

:altwink:

_________________
In my defense . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:51 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:09 am
Posts: 508
I think the idea is that Paul is a rebel within his own party. None of the party establishment want him or agree with his major points. He's only running as a Republican because if he ran as a Libertarian we wouldn't be talking about him right now.

Thankfully I don't have to register with any party to vote. He'll get my vote in the NH primary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:21 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 5404
Location: Austin, Texas
DBTrek wrote:
But I'm just the jester around here . . . if you want the philosopher you're looking for the other Archon.
His floppy shoes and clown nose are better than yours, if only that most people don't notice he's wearing them; but then I do appreciate the ironical in life.

...I'm not going anywhere (except back for another glass of Cognac) But I would like a substantive answer to my question, rather than a defensive knee-jerk response like this one;
Dan wrote:
I have no dog in that fight [where rights come from]
...and yet you provide cover for the religionist and the stupid (but then I repeat myself) who see your abbreviated reference as some sort of statement of support that all things stem from their Bronze-Age Hebrew deity. In the same way you give cover to Republicans by stating that a candidate of theirs holds the answers to questions facing us today (an assertion that I've yet to see substantiated) albeit a candidate they like to pretend doesn't exist. Like Buddy Roemer doesn't exist. Like Gary Johnson doesn't exist. They squander the best answers to the problems with the status quo, because they are in bed with the status quo themselves. He'll not win because they'll not let him really speak; or any of the others speak, and he's already stated he won't run third party. He already knows the fruitlessness of that effort.

Dan wrote:
What has he done to slow the bus? He's pushed stuff like the War on Terror farther...he hasn't reigned it in. How has he been any better on the issues relating to Civil Liberties or rolling back Bush Administration constitutional abuses (which was a HUGE part of his campaign)?
I know better than to fall for this. If you're the one trick pony this argument shapes you up to be, you aren't nearly the person I've come to know over the years. There's so much more at stake here than the (truly horrendous) record of undermining our rights that can be laid at the feet of the leadership in Washington. I'm just not willing to get on the "hate the president" bandwagon this time. Maybe I'm just too tired or too old to care anymore, or maybe I've finally found that I no longer buy into the popular "President is Goldstien" attitude amongst the yah-hoos on the political fringe. I'm saving my energy for the real fight, and I pointed out what that is in the first post.

Dan wrote:
So...When Harry K challenged me to support what I was saying in the show (which had been: "If Ron Paul runs as an Independent, I will vote for him") by voting for him in the Republican primaries (because, after all, that might be the only chance TO vote for him), what should I have said?

I am honest. Not fake. What you may deem "inconsistency" may in fact be uncertainty on my part. I feel that those in Media who act as though they are always certain and convinced in the righteousness of their chosen courses of action are usually ideologues more than thinkers. I do my best to belong to the latter category, rather than the former (although, none of us is perfect...)
You answered your own question, you should be honest about what your thoughts are. But again, it puts a nail in the coffin of non-partisanship if you honestly believe that voting Republican will change anything. I've voted for all of them at various times in the past; I can't honestly say I ever thought it would make a difference, but I felt it was my obligation to at least participate in the process. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore. If your asking me what my response would be, I'd have told him "closed primaries will invariably nominate the candidate that most appeals to the base of the party; that person, if the election were held today, is Newt Gingrich. I don't see the value in participating in that effort." That's my answer. Open primaries, like in Texas, are far more malleable, and prone to outside influence. Those it's worth it to cast a vote, if the vote looks like it will be close. Doesn't sound like that's the case where you are. Wouldn't waste my time.

Dan wrote:
Of course I know this about Hamilton. I also know that he spent a lot of time talking about constitutional mechanisms. Why are you suggesting that this means he cannot be trusted when discussing how human nature is built into the constitutional design? John Adams enacted the sedition acts...but he still had a ton to say about the Constitutional ideas and he's relevant and vital in such a discussion. Hamilton is as well. If you say he isn't...that's a lot of foundational stuff you just write off that he's responsible for.
Adam's record speaks for itself, the good and the bad. I was speaking more to the point that a would-be dictator would of course misjudge the drives of the more average man, and his willingness to allow others to take responsibility for actions that might get him into trouble. That sort of cowardliness is prevalent throughout society today, it's hardly restricted to members of Congress. It was probably less prevalent then than now; blame population pressure if you have to blame something. Still, he would have missed it, being willing to take on all the responsibility that anyone else might trust him with. The more responsibility, in his mind, the more power he can wield. Ah, the mind of the megalomaniac.

_________________
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 214-Remaining Non-Partisan
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:30 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
It is not my place to convince, cajole, nor tell anyone who they should vote for or which party to join in.

But in order for Ron Paul to have any chance of getting the nomination he needs numbers. And I'm talking people who are not party affiliated need to make a choice wait for others to vault him to the top or actively help him.

I don't think there is any candidate that I can support in this cycle. But in this forum the only current candidate that ever gets a positive response is him.


And I must say, DB's suggestion to do a "reset" may help you decide what's best for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: smrk and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us