Originally posted by RodneyPorterI agree with the Libertarian party on social issues. Apparently Ron Paul doesn't since he's against abortion. Maybe that's why he switched to being a Republican.
I understand your concerns but my concerns about the situation we are in are much greater. It's possible I could be let down in the improbable event Ron Paul is elected president, but if he is NOT elected my disappointment is an absolute certainty. Do you see what I mean?
I dont put my faith in politicians. I have some confidence that the philosophy ...[text shortened]... ereignty fast or slow. Not good enough. I do not blame those who seek another option. Do you?
But I absolutely despise the Libertarian stance on economic issues. They are anathema to me on this ground.
If you want a third party, then vote Green. But we all saw just how effective that was in the Bush/Gore election. Yeah, vote third party and help get your worst enemy elected. Just suck it up and vote Democrat.
I went through this exercise in a work shop, where everyone had 60 sec
to write down the first words that came to mind when it came to Asians,
then Hispanics, then older white males, on to women, blacks,
homosexuals and elderly.
After we wrote them out the cards were collected once that was done
we were paired up, and assigned to write all the responses about each
group on a large piece of paper and assign positive or negative to each
response and to number each time the same word was used to describe
the group we were assigned too. So if the negative word lazy came up 6
times you would see “Lazy 6”, if the positive work intelligent came up
3 times you’d see “intelligent 3” and so on. There were about 40 of us
the distribution of people in the room was a real mix of people from
several different countries and nationalities.
Once the grading of the words given was done and we finished our
lunch break, we came back to examine the papers and the grades. The
whole point was, do we view people as people equally, or do we give
some a more positive or negative view out of the block?
I don’t think we could pull off same type of thing here since everyone
got to see all the responses of everyone before them so the later people here
responded the more others could have affected the choice of words they
might have used had they just did it cold.
I think it is still telling nonetheless that we could view people so positively or
negatively in such strong terms just on the two words Republican or
Democrat. I think the more negative we view one side the less likely
we are to get anything that might be a real positive out of them, and
the more positive we view one side the less likely we are to see some
of the negatives they might have too. Since people are people and
being either a Republican or Democrat does not change one’s DNA
or make one automatically righteous or evil, which means that people
are still just people. I think we have our news outlets and political
talking heads to thank for the division we have among ourselves now.
What are your thoughts?
Kelly
Originally posted by MacSwainSure, I gave the reason for this already now so it may color your
Yep Shav...it's strange but true. They have evolved, do you suppose Darwin could have been correct after all. 😀
thoughts even more. I was going grab them all and line them
up but think the jest of it all is clear as it is now anyway so I'm
not going to.
Kelly
"I agree with the Libertarian party on social issues. Apparently Ron Paul doesn't since he's against abortion. Maybe that's why he switched to being a Republican."
Dr Paul is a constitutionalist. (Rule of Law.) I think I heard him say the STATES would be the appropriate level of govt to contemplate any laws touching abortion, just as the laws against murder are state laws, not federal. It highlights the fact that he supports a reduced federal role in our lives.
Why switch to Republican Party? I think he has always been a Republican. Did run on Libertarian ticket once. Let's face it NEITHER of the major parties is good enough - not by a long-shot. They have us in zugzwang. That's why Dr Paul is running. Listen to his speech he gave to congress opposing the invasion of Iraq - called Neoconned! You can tell he wrote it himself. Its very good. If you will learn more about the man I think youll agree with me. Im no joiner but I am very impressed with Paul and Im happy to have such a good candidate running.
Originally posted by RodneyPorterHe may be all right on a few social issues (though he's one strike in the hole with abortion), however when it comes to economics, I think he's bat-caca crazy.
"I agree with the Libertarian party on social issues. Apparently Ron Paul doesn't since he's against abortion. Maybe that's why he switched to being a Republican."
Dr Paul is a constitutionalist. (Rule of Law.) I think I heard him say the STATES would be the appropriate level of govt to contemplate any laws touching abortion, just as the laws against ...[text shortened]... ner but I am very impressed with Paul and Im happy to have such a good candidate running.
Originally posted by RodneyPorterI know enough about Ron Paul to know that although I do agree with him on many issues, there are too many others where I bitterly disagree with him. And I think that if the voters realized the full implications of his positions they would be horrified by the prospect of having him as a President. Ron Paul isn't going to be your savior.
"I agree with the Libertarian party on social issues. Apparently Ron Paul doesn't since he's against abortion. Maybe that's why he switched to being a Republican."
Dr Paul is a constitutionalist. (Rule of Law.) I think I heard him say the STATES would be the appropriate level of govt to contemplate any laws touching abortion, just as the laws against ...[text shortened]... ner but I am very impressed with Paul and Im happy to have such a good candidate running.
Gentlemen and or Ladys - everyone - - -
"He may be all right on a few social issues (though he's one strike in the hole with abortion), however when it comes to economics, I think he's bat-caca crazy." --- telerion
"I know enough about Ron Paul to know that although I do agree with him on many issues, there are too many others where I bitterly disagree with him. And I think that if the voters realized the full implications of his positions they would be horrified by the prospect of having him as a President. Ron Paul isn't going to be your savior." --- rwingett
rwingett & telerion [sorry for the rambling post - Im in a bit of a hurry - will stop by later and pick up the mess 🙂]
---even Dr Paul's critics in congress acknowledge his economic basis is sound - you lose some on the gold issue - but its simply irrefutable and the evidence is all around us - plunging dollar - soaring oil - that question is in bed already...IMO
---not looking for a savior - looking for a candidate the establishment hates - looking for someone the banks hate - looking for someone the media hates - looking for someone the corporations hate - someone the Dept of Education hates - Dept of Energy - Dept of Commerce - Veterans Affairs - DoJ - HUD - FBI - CIA (all the myriad intel services which did such a bangup job on 9/11/01) [listens for heads rolling.....nope] BATF - DEA - IRS - well, all the alphabet depts of the cabinet - someone the WTO hates - NAFTA - the mafia, including the army of freelance independent contractors providing sales support for the products the mafia, the colombian cartels, our govt and the others provide to our people - the black market - with the attendant degradation of cities -the turf-wars - the gangs - the drive-bys - and a lot of the misery attending the current criminal underground of drugs, prostitution, etc (not saying all the gang violence and such would be eliminated but a lot would be) big pharma - and so forth - (not sure how big oil would take a Ron Paul presidency but I expect they would load their pants for a number of reasons) - I may be looking for a candidate YOU would hate - but Im not sure of it - because you havent been specific - you floated the abortion issue as a deal-breaker and I explained to you that it probably would not be - you claim to have lots of other deal-breakers but you havent provided them - gimme gimme gimme - Ive talked to several people who thought they had strong objections to Paul on many grounds and in some cases every objection was the product of a misimpression of his positions - anyone who holds out the possibility of purging the bloat, the delirium and the fascism out of this govt is going to be met, at the end of the day, with the most effective propaganda machine in the history of the world (good enough to actually make people think everything is just fine - haw!) remember, the MEDIA hates him - and they do - at the corporate level - they loathe him - lol - it would be funny if THIS was not the very phenomena which is destroying this wonderful country - and Im not exaggerating - if our direction is not turned around soon - this country is over - that's my opinion - more, I know it's true
read what Dr Paul has written - listen to the video of his "Neoconned!" speech to congress as he laid out why we should NOT invade Iraq on the eve of our invasion - Ill be back in a bit - unless distracted by serious food or something - 😀
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree completely.
I think the more negative we view one side the less likely we are to get anything that might be a real positive out of them, and the more positive we view one side the less likely we are to see some of the negatives they might have too.
What are your thoughts?
Kelly
It seems more and more to me that nobody listens to anything outside their political comfort zone any more; political open-mindedness is quite rare these days. I know without a doubt I've fallen victim, too, but I try to keep an open mind as often as possible.
I'm sure the growing bias of the media definitely has an effect, but I might also argue that people are simply growing more and more resistant to compromise.