The media brain surgeons who can't count to four are probably graduates of the no child left behind program. Or , members of the vast right wing conspiracy.
I guess I must be an idiot too. No only do I care about the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I carry them. Seriously , in paperback form . I also care enough to know the two party system wouldn't know either document if they were smacked in the face with them. The two parties want REAL CHANGE ? How about living according to the laws our country was founded upon.
"Buy the ticket,take the ride"
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
"If I wanted you to understand, I would have explained it better"
Johan Cruijff
Regarding the argument over the one man one vote vs. the vote for representatives who then vote for you argument. One point that I feel should've been brought up that wasn't is that one of the reasons the US has the electorate, from my understanding, is due to the fact that if it were a direct vote the heavily populated areas such as California and New York would be pandered to by the politicians running for office and other states in the Midwest such as Minnesota and even Ohio would be disregarded (not that that doesn't currently happen). The electorate system is supposed to work such that the voices from those less populated areas are heard. You go to a direct vote and you basically have a handful of states deciding who the next leader could be even if a majority of the states dissent but have less of a population overall.
That's just one of the reasons I've heard, anyway.
Regarding the argument over the one man one vote vs. the vote for representatives who then vote for you argument. One point that I feel should've been brought up that wasn't is that one of the reasons the US has the electorate, from my understanding, is due to the fact that if it were a direct vote the heavily populated areas such as California and New York would be pandered to by the politicians running for office and other states in the Midwest such as Minnesota and even Ohio would be disregarded (not that that doesn't currently happen). The electorate system is supposed to work such that the voices from those less populated areas are heard. You go to a direct vote and you basically have a handful of states deciding who the next leader could be even if a majority of the states dissent but have less of a population overall.
That's just one of the reasons I've heard, anyway.
That's all fine, but I dont see why these delegates should be free to vote their opinion, if they essentially have been chosen in order to vote for one particular candidate. Or for that matter why delegates are even needed. You could just have a point system pr state or something.
My beef is with the impression I get from drifting, that the delegates semmingly can do as they please after being elected. If delegates are to be used they should be bound to their candidate, at least up to the point where it is clear at the meeting that he's not going to win.
As for states being counted seperately and weighed differently, that I have no problem with in itself.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Ok, I'm very sick and running a fever, but I felt compelled to respond. Just because someone does not share your views on the matter, it does not mean they are 'genuinely unconcerned about the destruction of the constitution and personal rights.' This is an ad hominem if I've ever seen one and does nothing to help your 'cause.'
The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, to look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. Now this isn't to say that it doesn't beg the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but you and other libertarians seldom get this far.
I've posted this before, but here's a little something from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Who is telling you you are an idiot for caring about the constitution? Could it be they only disagree with your 'plain meaning?' Well intentioned people can disagree on 'plain meaning' endlessly, as we can see in any non-unanimous court decision. Just because one does not agree with you doesn't mean they don't care about it.
As for 'getting all philosophical'..........one can't really avoid that when discussing libertarianism, esp when concepts such as 'natural rights' or 'negative rights' are being discussed. ffg and I had a good debate on this very issue. You see, you have to get to the meat of the matter because Libertarianism, though morally austere, has a certain plausibility. But is my opinion that once you look at the philosophical arguments, it is mistaken. Communism looks plausible on the surface as well.
As far as your negative rights, I would argue that libertarianism limits liberty. Like I mentioned above, I have had extensive debates with ffg about this. I'd be willing to discuss this with you (or find old threads with ffg and I) if you are interested.
There is really no reason for the ad hominem attacks. I (and I'm sure others) listen to you and others like you and consider your case. The attacks are counter productive. Trust me, I get as frustrated as you, but that doesn't mean we can't all have a reasonable debate on the issue. It is much more fun that way.
Those weren't ad hominems those were accurate descriptions of debates i've had on here. I've had more than a few people tell me essentialy "Its just a goddamn piece of paper" and that it was outdated ... writen by old white men who were elitists and therefore it was a bad text to even support ... that it didn't matter what the constitution said because you can just ammend it ... that we should scrap it and rewrite it all together ...
i've heard all these arguments and more, and i think its fair for me to say in the context of the discussion concerning political opinions that i don't realy place much value in those of people who do not even support the basic tenants of our system of governance.
Look at Outofbreath ... i'm taking heat for defending the very process our founders intended to PROTECT liberty, and he arguing we should abandon it in favor of a system that they knew to be one of the greatest threats to true liberty! Why do I, as a patriotic american, have to assign value to that? Isn't it fair for me to comment that the people who are acusing me of being wrong-minded are in fact not in agreement on the basic ideals our country was founded on?
Again, this isn't a fault of the system we have set up, it is a fault of corporate corruption, in bed with an entrenched group of neer-do-wells within the government itself. The system does guarantee liberty only so long as the people are informed on the true meaning of liberty and get off their ass to actualy secure it.
I think that is the process we are seeing take place with the Ron Paul "Revolution", and it is the reason the establishment is so fucking freaked out. They may be losing their grip! Ron Paul is a sign of the apocalypse as far as they are concerned! If he wins, ALL IS LOST! Over 100 years of ploting and scheming will be for not!
Concerning the constitution and Jefferson and progress, yeah yeah sure. of course. The ammendment process stands for a reason. I'm talking about people who actualy think that the whole thing is junk and not worth keeping, i take EXTREME exception to that line of thought. In fact, i think some of the ammendments themselves are what need to be pulled\rewritten more so than any original texts. The 14th ammendment now incetivises illegal immigrants with citizenship rights for their children, when all it was intended to do was give slaves' children citizenship! The 16th ammendment, best i can make from history was glaringly misinterpreted by the courts to the deliberate advantage of the statists, when the original intent as per President Taft's Letter To Congress was simply to CLARIFY the Federal Governments EXISTING taxation authority ... although he does seemingly imply that he hopes the courts WILL misinterpret it someday in the future to grant them previously unconstitutional powers. Pretty fucked up if you ask me.
As far as OOB\Dan and the legitimacy of a system that denies the plebian people their inherent democratic rights ... man i don't know what the fuck to tell you ... our system is perfectly fair in that if you care about the vote and the process, you are more then welcome to march down to the GOP or DNC and VOLUNTEER to run for the delgate process and directly influence the vote. The process provides you the opportunity to be involved with the delegate process, just as it provides you the opportunity to cast a paper ballot. Your argument that it overextends power to whichever elite happens somehow manipulate it is bogus on the grounds that if there was REAL debate happening right now, Ron Pauls rabid supporters would be MATCHED by someone else's rabid supporters ... "We can't let those damn ron paul folks win!" ... the fact that this is NOT really happening (except in ole Louisiana where the LAGOP tried to pull one over with this Pro Life \ Pro Family delgate slate bullshit) is only demonstrating that there is no real coutnerbalance right now. You have a lot of idiot button pushers who are voting just because they think they should but clearly don't care enough one way or another to go stand up as a delegate nominee ... and then you have the Ron Paul people ... the people who are in a fucking fervor over their liberties ... the very fucking people the system is set up to PROTECT ... imagine a system set up to protectthe liberty of the MINORITY actualy working out to do just that ?!? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Like i said, if there was real adamant opposition to Ron Paul in the PUBLIC realm, that public would be going ape shit trying to get its own delegates. As it stands, Ron Paul people themselves are the only opposition, and what they are opposing are those who want to muder the liberty of the masses!
Any how get well Baraka, and yes i need to work on my temper and tolerance for other POVs. That will probably be a lifelong goal.
I'm going to get my belated good nights sleep now. From 11am until 3pm.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Look at Outofbreath ... i'm taking heat for defending the very process our founders intended to PROTECT liberty, and he arguing we should abandon it in favor of a system that they knew to be one of the greatest threats to true liberty! Why do I, as a patriotic american, have to assign value to that? Isn't it fair for me to comment that the people who are acusing me of being wrong-minded are in fact not in agreement on the basic ideals our country was founded on?
I do not revere the founding fathers all that much, you know. And so any lines of "our founding fathers would have meant" reasoning I find uninteresting. Rich white landowners 200 years past did not nail it for eternity. Not in the US, not anywhere.
As far as OOB\Dan and the legitimacy of a system that denies the plebian people their inherent democratic rights ... man i don't know what the fuck to tell you ... our system is perfectly fair in that if you care about the vote and the process, you are more then welcome to march down to the GOP or DNC and VOLUNTEER to run for the delgate process and directly influence the vote. The process provides you the opportunity to be involved with the delegate process, just as it provides you the opportunity to cast a paper ballot. Your argument that it overextends power to whichever elite happens somehow manipulate it is bogus on the grounds that if there was REAL debate happening right now, Ron Pauls rabid supporters would be MATCHED by someone else's rabid supporters ... "We can't let those damn ron paul folks win!" ... the fact that this is NOT really happening (except in ole Louisiana where the LAGOP tried to pull one over with this Pro Life \ Pro Family delgate slate bullshit) is only demonstrating that there is no real coutnerbalance right now. You have a lot of idiot button pushers who are voting just because they think they should but clearly don't care enough one way or another to go stand up as a delegate nominee ... and then you have the Ron Paul people ... the people who are in a fucking fervor over their liberties ... the very fucking people the system is set up to PROTECT ... imagine a system set up to protectthe liberty of the MINORITY actualy working out to do just that ?!? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Like i said, if there was real adamant opposition to Ron Paul in the PUBLIC realm, that public would be going ape shit trying to get its own delegates. As it stands, Ron Paul people themselves are the only opposition, and what they are opposing are those who want to muder the liberty of the masses!
You are still essentially saying zealous people count more. Look, if a state with 20 delegates have a vote, and the results indicate 10 for candidate A 5 for B and 5 for C, it is not very democratic that the delegates then can change their mind and instead end up, say 7/6/7 instead. Then the 20 delegates have essentially overruled the vote of thousands of voters. Fucking over candidate A and his voters. Meaning, the politicking elite (who also have to have the time to stand around arguing for hours, I guess) are the true deciders. It is not then fair play for people saying they'll vote for A and get chosen for that, to then turn around and choose C instead. Then a certain amount of thousands have just been fucked over essentially. That is my objection.
Of course, in practice it might not be so bad, but since we're on about principles anyway...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
No Dan, i'm not saying the voices of zealots count more.
I'm saying the voice of ANYONE who gets off their ass and participates in the process counts more than someone who doesn't.
That is how a republic works ... you have to take some action to be heard.
As far as your primary complaint, delegates are either bound or unbound, based on state rules, but usualy MOST of them are bound, and that means that when they get to the national convention -- as i've said on here before -- they must VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY WERE ELECTED TO VOTE FOR! UNLESS 50% OF THE VOTE ON THE FIRST GO ROUND DOES NOT END UP GOING TO A SINGULAR MAJORITY! ...
if someone doesn't win with > 50% of the vote on the first National Convention vote, they go to extra voting rounds where ALL DELEGATES ARE RELEASED FROM BINDING.
Does that put you at any more ease?
And to Baraka and the others who questioned my comments concerning those on here who have no taste for the basic tenants of our system of governance, you heard it right here ... just look up one post. The guy flat out says exactly what i said some were saying ... "Rich white men suck, and shouldn't be trusted to do anything of worth" ... :rolleyes: ...
Our founding fathers certainly were not perfect in their belief systems ... but that doesn't mean they weren't real life heros who risked life and limb in a clash with oppressive Monarchial tyranny ... rich white men who had the best interest of their future sons and daughters at hear when they penned our great constitution. Sure they forgot a few things, but they made the process amendable, and for the most part, IMHO, they were on the money.
Clearly there is a bit of a culture difference, me being an American, and you being an Noweigian. I am sorry i don't view Socialism as a solution for Americas woes.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No Dan, i'm not saying the voices of zealots count more.
I'm saying the voice of ANYONE who gets off their ass and participates in the process counts more than someone who doesn't.
That is how a republic works ... you have to take some action to be heard.
As far as your primary complaint, delegates are either bound or unbound, based on state rules, but usualy MOST of them are bound, and that means that when they get to the national convention -- as i've said on here before -- they must VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY WERE ELECTED TO VOTE FOR! UNLESS 50% OF THE VOTE ON THE FIRST GO ROUND DOES NOT END UP GOING TO A SINGULAR MAJORITY! ...
if someone doesn't win with > 50% of the vote on the first National Convention vote, they go to extra voting rounds where ALL DELEGATES ARE RELEASED FROM BINDING.
Does that put you at any more ease?
A little, I suppose. I still don't see the need for delegates at all. But it can perhaps be tolerated as an amusing anachronism from back in the day.
And to Baraka and the others who questioned my comments concerning those on here who have no taste for the basic tenants of our system of governance, you heard it right here ... just look up one post. The guy flat out says exactly what i said some were saying ... "Rich white men suck, and shouldn't be trusted to do anything of worth" ... :rolleyes: ...
That's not what I said actually. I was just outlining how a collection of pretty similar folks should not decide for eternity what is right or not in the world. No women or blacks back then were asked. No small-time farmers, no industrial workers. They feared direct democracy that gives power to the people. They were rich land and slave owners. I see a real connection of real interests here.... That doesnt say that there weren't idealists or good men among them, but be sure that the end result did nothing to hurt these people nor their positions either.
Our founding fathers certainly were not perfect in their belief systems ... but that doesn't mean they weren't real life heros who risked life and limb in a clash with oppressive Monarchial tyranny ... rich white men who had the best interest of their future sons and daughters at hear when they penned our great constitution. Sure they forgot a few things, but they made the process amendable, and for the most part, IMHO, they were on the money.
Nor does it mean that they were heroes by default. They were an elite, wanting to shake off another elite back in England. Lot of nice ideas found their way into the document, and it was enormously progressive for it's time. No doubt. But no sense in canonizing them as saints either. They were idealists and looking out for their own interests. Their fear of direct democracy really tells it as far as I'm concerned. They feared the true participation of the people without it being mediated through an elite. Which is pretty much what you too have expressed in several posts here. You may agree with them, but they were no messiahs, no saints and no supernatural insight on their part made the document.
Some insight in history quickly dispells any impulse to glorify the people that made history. History is a dirty struggle, where the winners write it, and their descendants idolize the winners.
Clearly there is a bit of a culture difference, me being an American, and you being an Noweigian. I am sorry i don't view Socialism as a solution for Americas woes.
Clearly there is a difference, and some of it is likely culture. But mostly just completely different understanding of the world and how it is nailed together really. Neither do I see any sense in winding back legal and social evolution of the last 200 years in order to go back to an ideal that never truly existed except in print. I dont necessarily see socialism as a solution either, although I am partial to some of the ideas put forward by socialists.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE
WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!
WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!
I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.
:(
Well, in reality, I know you support Paul, but it's going to come down to only 2 McCain and Romney. And if things keep going the way they are, they are going to get really interesting. Romney is up 40-32 in California in the latest poll. It might have been a mistake for McCain to campaign in Boston to try and rub in Romney's face last night - especially if he lose California where he was solidly up last week.
WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE
WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!
WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!
I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.
:(
Wrong.
There are realistically only 2 candidates left in the race.... Huckabee doesn't stand a chance.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The corporate owned media cannot be trusted, period! One of the biggest stories of this generation is unfolding before our eyes and hardly anyone is paying close attention and knows what it's all about. The reason for that is the media has failed to inform the public. When things begin to unravel for the Justice Department and the Bush administration, this will go down as "the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil" [quoting Jim Lampley].
You must understand that I'm posting the link to my thread in attempt to educate an uninformed public. Please read it. There's much knowledge to be gained and little to lose (some of your time) by reading it and following the links that are provided. The House Juduiciary hearings are scheduled to resume this Thursday. Learn what they are all about. Ken Blackwell has been asked to appear before the committee on Friday.
WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE
WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!
WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!
I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.
:(
it's the way the game is played, drifting. quit bellyaching, for crissake. the same argument can be made for the fact that they pretty much ignored john edwards and are STILL ignoring mike gravel on the dem side. for various reasons, the media latches on to certain figures and never lets go, and others they treat like lepers.
just a question- have you done anything- besides posting here incessantly- to support the paul candidacy? i don;t just mean financially, i mean, have you actually gone out campaigning for him? joined the supporters at the grassroots level, gone door to door? even licked postage stamps in a freaking gymnasium somewhere, whatever- anything. i'm just wondering, since you're so passionate about it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
all primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day, just like the general election. that way, the media has no chance to spin the polls and exit polls and state by state and day by day. let them all campaign until day X, then have everybody vote on day X + 1. i believe this would yield a truer result, and guys like ron paul would have a more equal chance...
the primary/caucus system as it stands is stupid, imho
Nobody right now is running for President though. They are running for the nomination of their respective parties. Why should the Government take over the selection process of a private organization?
Comments
I guess I must be an idiot too. No only do I care about the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I carry them. Seriously , in paperback form . I also care enough to know the two party system wouldn't know either document if they were smacked in the face with them. The two parties want REAL CHANGE ? How about living according to the laws our country was founded upon.
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
"If I wanted you to understand, I would have explained it better"
Johan Cruijff
That's just one of the reasons I've heard, anyway.
My beef is with the impression I get from drifting, that the delegates semmingly can do as they please after being elected. If delegates are to be used they should be bound to their candidate, at least up to the point where it is clear at the meeting that he's not going to win.
As for states being counted seperately and weighed differently, that I have no problem with in itself.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Those weren't ad hominems those were accurate descriptions of debates i've had on here. I've had more than a few people tell me essentialy "Its just a goddamn piece of paper" and that it was outdated ... writen by old white men who were elitists and therefore it was a bad text to even support ... that it didn't matter what the constitution said because you can just ammend it ... that we should scrap it and rewrite it all together ...
i've heard all these arguments and more, and i think its fair for me to say in the context of the discussion concerning political opinions that i don't realy place much value in those of people who do not even support the basic tenants of our system of governance.
Look at Outofbreath ... i'm taking heat for defending the very process our founders intended to PROTECT liberty, and he arguing we should abandon it in favor of a system that they knew to be one of the greatest threats to true liberty! Why do I, as a patriotic american, have to assign value to that? Isn't it fair for me to comment that the people who are acusing me of being wrong-minded are in fact not in agreement on the basic ideals our country was founded on?
Anyhow.
BACK TO THE SUBJECT:
National Ledger Article -- "Ron Paul and How the Media Pick the Candidates" ... all about how Ron Paul is being UNFAIRLY treated by the media ... and deliberately so.
Again, this isn't a fault of the system we have set up, it is a fault of corporate corruption, in bed with an entrenched group of neer-do-wells within the government itself. The system does guarantee liberty only so long as the people are informed on the true meaning of liberty and get off their ass to actualy secure it.
I think that is the process we are seeing take place with the Ron Paul "Revolution", and it is the reason the establishment is so fucking freaked out. They may be losing their grip! Ron Paul is a sign of the apocalypse as far as they are concerned! If he wins, ALL IS LOST! Over 100 years of ploting and scheming will be for not!
Concerning the constitution and Jefferson and progress, yeah yeah sure. of course. The ammendment process stands for a reason. I'm talking about people who actualy think that the whole thing is junk and not worth keeping, i take EXTREME exception to that line of thought. In fact, i think some of the ammendments themselves are what need to be pulled\rewritten more so than any original texts. The 14th ammendment now incetivises illegal immigrants with citizenship rights for their children, when all it was intended to do was give slaves' children citizenship! The 16th ammendment, best i can make from history was glaringly misinterpreted by the courts to the deliberate advantage of the statists, when the original intent as per President Taft's Letter To Congress was simply to CLARIFY the Federal Governments EXISTING taxation authority ... although he does seemingly imply that he hopes the courts WILL misinterpret it someday in the future to grant them previously unconstitutional powers. Pretty fucked up if you ask me.
As far as OOB\Dan and the legitimacy of a system that denies the plebian people their inherent democratic rights ... man i don't know what the fuck to tell you ... our system is perfectly fair in that if you care about the vote and the process, you are more then welcome to march down to the GOP or DNC and VOLUNTEER to run for the delgate process and directly influence the vote. The process provides you the opportunity to be involved with the delegate process, just as it provides you the opportunity to cast a paper ballot. Your argument that it overextends power to whichever elite happens somehow manipulate it is bogus on the grounds that if there was REAL debate happening right now, Ron Pauls rabid supporters would be MATCHED by someone else's rabid supporters ... "We can't let those damn ron paul folks win!" ... the fact that this is NOT really happening (except in ole Louisiana where the LAGOP tried to pull one over with this Pro Life \ Pro Family delgate slate bullshit) is only demonstrating that there is no real coutnerbalance right now. You have a lot of idiot button pushers who are voting just because they think they should but clearly don't care enough one way or another to go stand up as a delegate nominee ... and then you have the Ron Paul people ... the people who are in a fucking fervor over their liberties ... the very fucking people the system is set up to PROTECT ... imagine a system set up to protectthe liberty of the MINORITY actualy working out to do just that ?!? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Like i said, if there was real adamant opposition to Ron Paul in the PUBLIC realm, that public would be going ape shit trying to get its own delegates. As it stands, Ron Paul people themselves are the only opposition, and what they are opposing are those who want to muder the liberty of the masses!
Any how get well Baraka, and yes i need to work on my temper and tolerance for other POVs. That will probably be a lifelong goal.
I'm going to get my belated good nights sleep now. From 11am until 3pm.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Of course, in practice it might not be so bad, but since we're on about principles anyway...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm saying the voice of ANYONE who gets off their ass and participates in the process counts more than someone who doesn't.
That is how a republic works ... you have to take some action to be heard.
As far as your primary complaint, delegates are either bound or unbound, based on state rules, but usualy MOST of them are bound, and that means that when they get to the national convention -- as i've said on here before -- they must VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY WERE ELECTED TO VOTE FOR!
UNLESS 50% OF THE VOTE ON THE FIRST GO ROUND DOES NOT END UP GOING TO A SINGULAR MAJORITY! ...
if someone doesn't win with > 50% of the vote on the first National Convention vote, they go to extra voting rounds where ALL DELEGATES ARE RELEASED FROM BINDING.
Does that put you at any more ease?
And to Baraka and the others who questioned my comments concerning those on here who have no taste for the basic tenants of our system of governance, you heard it right here ... just look up one post. The guy flat out says exactly what i said some were saying ... "Rich white men suck, and shouldn't be trusted to do anything of worth" ... :rolleyes: ...
Our founding fathers certainly were not perfect in their belief systems ... but that doesn't mean they weren't real life heros who risked life and limb in a clash with oppressive Monarchial tyranny ... rich white men who had the best interest of their future sons and daughters at hear when they penned our great constitution. Sure they forgot a few things, but they made the process amendable, and for the most part, IMHO, they were on the money.
Clearly there is a bit of a culture difference, me being an American, and you being an Noweigian. I am sorry i don't view Socialism as a solution for Americas woes.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That's not what I said actually. I was just outlining how a collection of pretty similar folks should not decide for eternity what is right or not in the world. No women or blacks back then were asked. No small-time farmers, no industrial workers. They feared direct democracy that gives power to the people. They were rich land and slave owners. I see a real connection of real interests here.... That doesnt say that there weren't idealists or good men among them, but be sure that the end result did nothing to hurt these people nor their positions either.
Nor does it mean that they were heroes by default. They were an elite, wanting to shake off another elite back in England. Lot of nice ideas found their way into the document, and it was enormously progressive for it's time. No doubt. But no sense in canonizing them as saints either. They were idealists and looking out for their own interests. Their fear of direct democracy really tells it as far as I'm concerned. They feared the true participation of the people without it being mediated through an elite. Which is pretty much what you too have expressed in several posts here. You may agree with them, but they were no messiahs, no saints and no supernatural insight on their part made the document.
Some insight in history quickly dispells any impulse to glorify the people that made history. History is a dirty struggle, where the winners write it, and their descendants idolize the winners.
Clearly there is a difference, and some of it is likely culture. But mostly just completely different understanding of the world and how it is nailed together really. Neither do I see any sense in winding back legal and social evolution of the last 200 years in order to go back to an ideal that never truly existed except in print. I dont necessarily see socialism as a solution either, although I am partial to some of the ideas put forward by socialists.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, in reality, I know you support Paul, but it's going to come down to only 2 McCain and Romney. And if things keep going the way they are, they are going to get really interesting. Romney is up 40-32 in California in the latest poll. It might have been a mistake for McCain to campaign in Boston to try and rub in Romney's face last night - especially if he lose California where he was solidly up last week.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Wrong.
There are realistically only 2 candidates left in the race.... Huckabee doesn't stand a chance.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You must understand that I'm posting the link to my thread in attempt to educate an uninformed public. Please read it. There's much knowledge to be gained and little to lose (some of your time) by reading it and following the links that are provided. The House Juduiciary hearings are scheduled to resume this Thursday. Learn what they are all about. Ken Blackwell has been asked to appear before the committee on Friday.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=271695
it's the way the game is played, drifting. quit bellyaching, for crissake. the same argument can be made for the fact that they pretty much ignored john edwards and are STILL ignoring mike gravel on the dem side. for various reasons, the media latches on to certain figures and never lets go, and others they treat like lepers.
just a question- have you done anything- besides posting here incessantly- to support the paul candidacy? i don;t just mean financially, i mean, have you actually gone out campaigning for him? joined the supporters at the grassroots level, gone door to door? even licked postage stamps in a freaking gymnasium somewhere, whatever- anything. i'm just wondering, since you're so passionate about it.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Ron Paul is still a very viable Candidate
Vote Ron Paul
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Nobody right now is running for President though. They are running for the nomination of their respective parties. Why should the Government take over the selection process of a private organization?