One man to rule them all

[Sonn]

Got bored Red, made this and thought of you.

Happy days

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u121/akamsky51/ron_paul_the_grey.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

Ron Paul "The Grey"

[scotw1t]

I had a good inside laugh.

[losinglife]

:thumb:

[Red Morgan]

If Ron Paul can kill a Balrog, maybe then I'll reconsider voting for him.

[Surly]

People could be melting in the streets because of Hillary Clinton's eye lasers and you wouldn't reconsider voting for Ron Paul.

[Killuminati]

People could be melting in the streets because of Hillary Clinton's eye lasers and you wouldn't reconsider voting for Ron Paul.

He just doesn't want to admit he fwaps to his freedom message.

[scotw1t]

I'm asking this in complete seriousness to Red, so I expect all of you to not chime in with your wise-ass remarks!

loljkguys

But seriously Red...do you have a candidate in mind that seems a better choice than Paul? If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool. I realize you'll probably get flamed.

But if you respond I'll send you pics of my cats naked.

[Bashur]

Red, please, respond and post the pics.

[Harmar]

I'm voting for red. Because I think he's cute

[Surly]

He's never told me, but it's not hard to guess. He likes Kucinich, but will wind up voting for Hillary.

[losinglife]

he is for hillary from the start... dont let him fool you

[scotw1t]

Say no to aristocracy Red, say no!

[losinglife]

i told you.... red is dead

[scotw1t]

I call his moped that has a huge R on it!

[Isamael]

I call his moped that has a huge R on it!

That's not Red's moped, It's Ron pauls, silly.
They commute.

[Cidius]

That's not Red's moped, It's Ron pauls, silly.
They commute.I thought Ron drives an ice cream van that has a big sign on it with "Dr. Paul" written on it (the sign).

[Bashur]

I thought Ron drives an ice cream van that has a big sign on it with "Dr. Paul" written on it (the sign).

Only on Saturdays.

[Surly]

I think he and Brilliant must of eloped.

[Red Morgan]

I'm asking this in complete seriousness to Red, so I expect all of you to not chime in with your wise-ass remarks!

loljkguys

But seriously Red...do you have a candidate in mind that seems a better choice than Paul? If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool. I realize you'll probably get flamed.

But if you respond I'll send you pics of my cats naked.

Ehh... I'm sorely disappointed in the selection of candidates. I used to be a big Kucinich supporter, but he's left the normal looney left and entered into the stupid looney left. Paul is anti-war, so that's a big plus to him, and makes him more likable than someone like Hillary.

Paul is easily the best Republican running, but I loathe Republicans with the very innermost core of my being. At this point in time, I'd rather take any non-Hillary Dem over Paul, but I can't say that's set in stone. Asking who I like is like kicking me in the nuts then pulling out my fingernails and asking which one was more enjoyable.

[scotw1t]

Ehh... I'm sorely disappointed in the selection of candidates. I used to be a big Kucinich supporter, but he's left the normal looney left and entered into the stupid looney left. Paul is anti-war, so that's a big plus to him, and makes him more likable than someone like Hillary.

Paul is easily the best Republican running, but I loathe Republicans with the very innermost core of my being. At this point in time, I'd rather take any non-Hillary Dem over Paul, but I can't say that's set in stone. Asking who I like is like kicking me in the nuts then pulling out my fingernails and asking which one was more enjoyable.

Well said...I'm pretty sure I'd pick any Dem, except possibly Hillary, over any republican except Dr. Paul.

[Surly]

but I loathe Republicans with the very innermost core of my being.
I knew that was your major hangup with Paul, it's why you never even learn his stance on things like stem cell research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Stem-cell_research_regulation)! Pinko.

[Surly]

Jesus, you really must be busy or something. Prick won't even argue.

[Isamael]

Is this guy really a republican?
His opinions are a tad too agreeable, and yet I'm in the same camp as Red here; I loathe republicans with a fire only comparable to "überlazers"

[Surly]

He's not a neoconservative, which has become synonymous with Republicanism in our generation. So... yes and no. He's a Jeffersonian.

[Red Morgan]

Jesus, you really must be busy or something. Prick won't even argue.

LOL I need to be busy more often.


He's not a neoconservative, which has become synonymous with Republicanism in our generation. So... yes and no. He's a Jeffersonian.

Jefferson supported public libraries and public education. I don't think "Jeffersonian" would be a correct term.

"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."
<cite> Thomas Jefferson

"</cite> ... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."
<cite> Thomas Jefferson </cite>

When I think of Ron Paul, Jefferson isn't exactly the first person to come to mind. He's more of a Constitutionalist.

[losinglife]

Red is a ZOMBIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Surly]

LOL I need to be busy more often.Lies.




Jefferson supported public libraries and public education. I don't think "Jeffersonian" would be a correct term.Well, that's where you'd be wrong.

"It is fundamental, under our dual system of government, that the nation and the state are supreme and independent, each within its own sphere of action, and that each is exempt from the interference or control of the other in respect of its governmental powers, and the means employed in their exercise"
http://supreme.justia.com/us/265/17/

Jefferson supported state-government funded projects in the Republic of Virginia, not using Federal Funds to subsidize massive bureaucracies. Paul is very similar, and is frequently cited as being "Jeffersonian" for this very reason. Being Jeffersonian, federally, only means having a deep respect for states' rights and personal liberty.


"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."
<cite> Thomas Jefferson


"</cite> ... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."
<cite> Thomas Jefferson </cite>
Very good reasons in support of Paul being Jeffersonian here. Primarily, in the first quote Jefferson is an advocate of the amendment process - not ignoring the constitution (the supreme law of the land) when it says something you don't like. Paul isn't opposed to the amendment process, as far as I know!

Second quote, I haven't any idea what point you're making. Jefferson was always an advocate of property tax, and so is Paul. They were both opposed to graduated income taxes, especially federal income tax. Both vehemently opposed to central banks, too. The similarities between Jefferson and Paul are almost endless.

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-Jefferson

When I think of Ron Paul, Jefferson isn't exactly the first person to come to mind. He's more of a Constitutionalist.I think all you succeeding in doing just now is illustrate how little you really know about it. I've never heard anyone seriously question that Paul is Jeffersonian.

[Cidius]

Red is a ZOMBIE!!!!!!!!!!!!What kind of zombie rules do we have? Can he be an intelligent zombie? Maybe he's a zombie mastermind?

[Garn]

I thought political discussions weren't allowed in Anvil forums? Or are the sub-clan forums an exception? And if so, isn't the ban of political discussions pretty useless and obsolete now?

Discuss.


Also, all neoconservatists should burn on stakes. Which means Ron Paul is okay.

[Red Morgan]

Lies.



Well, that's where you'd be wrong.

"It is fundamental, under our dual system of government, that the nation and the state are supreme and independent, each within its own sphere of action, and that each is exempt from the interference or control of the other in respect of its governmental powers, and the means employed in their exercise"
http://supreme.justia.com/us/265/17/

Jefferson supported state-government funded projects in the Republic of Virginia, not using Federal Funds to subsidize massive bureaucracies. Paul is very similar, and is frequently cited as being "Jeffersonian" for this very reason. Being Jeffersonian, federally, only means having a deep respect for states' rights and personal liberty.

Very good reasons in support of Paul being Jeffersonian here. Primarily, in the first quote Jefferson is an advocate of the amendment process - not ignoring the constitution (the supreme law of the land) when it says something you don't like. Paul isn't opposed to the amendment process, as far as I know!

Second quote, I haven't any idea what point you're making. Jefferson was always an advocate of property tax, and so is Paul. They were both opposed to graduated income taxes, especially federal income tax. Both vehemently opposed to central banks, too. The similarities between Jefferson and Paul are almost endless.

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-Jefferson
I think all you succeeding in doing just now is illustrate how little you really know about it. I've never heard anyone seriously question that Paul is Jeffersonian.

I guarantee that I could find a way to cherry pick similarities from nearly any candidate and then make the same claim that they're "Jeffersonian". Everyone and their mom wants to draw a parallel between their particular candidate and every single likable founding father. I'm not going to deny that Paul has a lot more in common with Jefferson than most politicians, but to call him Jeffersonian is no less dishonest than the comparisons made between Bush Jr. and Abe Lincoln or Bill Clinton and Samuel Adams or whoever the fuck he could be similar to.

To accuse me of being ignorant of all things Jefferson just because I don't agree with statements that every Joe Politician is a mighty avatar carrying the mantle of great and dead men isn't exactly fair. We have no idea what Jefferson would do or change in today's world, but I'd be willing to bet it would probably be better and smarter than anything Ron Paul, or any other modern politician for that matter, could come up with.

In summation, I just don't believe in endorsements from the grave. No need to dig up old TJ and parade his corpse around like he's Ron Paul.

[Surly]

I guarantee that I could find a way to cherry pick similarities from nearly any candidate and then make the same claim that they're "Jeffersonian". Everyone and their mom wants to draw a parallel between their particular candidate and every single likable founding father. I'm not going to deny that Paul has a lot more in common with Jefferson than most politicians, but to call him Jeffersonian is no less dishonest than the comparisons made between Bush Jr. and Abe Lincoln or Bill Clinton and Samuel Adams or whoever the fuck he could be similar to.Sure you could, but what you've done is cherry-picked things to try and make it look like Ron Paul isn't Jeffersonian, when across the board he clearly is. The things you cited were very off the wall misinterpretations, even, and were manifestly supportive of Paul's stances anyway.


To accuse me of being ignorant of all things Jefferson just because I don't agree with statements that every Joe Politician is a mighty avatar carrying the mantle of great and dead men isn't exactly fair. We have no idea what Jefferson would do or change in today's world, but I'd be willing to bet it would probably be better and smarter than anything Ron Paul, or any other modern politician for that matter, could come up with.I accused you of being ignorant of Jefferson because you are, not because you disagree with Ron Paul on principle (as of yet, I haven't heard many issues you really disagree with him on). For instance, you posted a quote about constitutional amendments from Jefferson. A person who was not ignorant of Jefferson would know that a bulk of his political career revolved around his protige Madison, and the existence of the Bill of Rights (amendments) was one of the key differences of opinions between the two.

Madison argued that amendments were not necessary because hiding behind mere words would be the last refuge of people too cowardly to stick up for their rights, and that if it ever came to pass that these rights (inalienable as he would have it) ever came under attack from the Federal Government it was time for revolution - not legislation.

Jefferson's argument was summarized in the quote you posted.

A person who has studied Jefferson would know this, and would also know that the word "Jeffersonian" is a philosophy - not the gospel preaching of a single man. So in neither of these interpretations, either philosophy or gospel, is Ron Paul contrary to the idea of Jeffersonian politickin'. Ron Paul is not Jeffersonian because he follows Jefferson's word as law, he is Jeffersonian because he is an advocate of small government, and states' rights.

The fact that this also makes him a constitutionalist aught to tell you something, pinko.


In summation, I just don't believe in endorsements from the grave. No need to dig up old TJ and parade his corpse around like he's Ron Paul.Stop being so fanatical, it was an off-the-cuff comment that Dr. Paul endorses Jeffersonian politics - not the other way around. Not that Jefferson endorses Paul, lol.

If it makes you shriek like a vampire in a church to hear a modern politician has principled integrity by calling him Jeffersonian, I'll rephrase: He's a (small L) libertarian, although that word has different connotations in Europe than it does in the US, which is why I prefer to say Jeffersonian when talking to a SWEEEEEEDE.

[Red Morgan]

Sure you could, but what you've done is cherry-picked things to try and make it look like Ron Paul isn't Jeffersonian, when across the board he clearly is. The things you cited were very off the wall misinterpretations, even, and were manifestly supportive of Paul's stances anyway.

Yes, I did cherry pick information about Jefferson which showed severe philosophical differences, but they were in no way misinterpretations since I didn't even bother to interpret them.


I accused you of being ignorant of Jefferson because you areI guess living with a grad student studying early American domestic policy with a focus on Jefferson for 3.5 years wasn't enough time to resolve my ignorance...

That same grad student, by the way, was more leftist than I am, and often called Bill Clinton and Dennis Kucinich "Jeffersonians". I'm sure that sounds retarded to you, but she managed to connect the dots just like you do with Ron Paul.


not because you disagree with Ron Paul on principle (as of yet, I haven't heard many issues you really disagree with him on). For instance, you posted a quote about constitutional amendments from Jefferson. A person who was not ignorant of Jefferson would know that a bulk of his political career revolved around his protige Madison, and the existence of the Bill of Rights (amendments) was one of the key differences of opinions between the two.

Madison argued that amendments were not necessary because hiding behind mere words would be the last refuge of people too cowardly to stick up for their rights, and that if it ever came to pass that these rights (inalienable as he would have it) ever came under attack from the Federal Government it was time for revolution - not legislation.

Jefferson's argument was summarized in the quote you posted.

A person who has studied Jefferson would know this,How does my post indicate that I don't know this? Jefferson was making a powerful statement about progress being more important than words set in stone-- a philosophy that disagrees with someone who thinks that we should have frozen time in the 18th century. Even if I did take that out of context, which I didn't, his statement is still opposed to one of Paul's major tenets.


and would also know that the word "Jeffersonian" is a philosophy - not the gospel preaching of a single man. So in neither of these interpretations, either philosophy or gospel, is Ron Paul contrary to the idea of Jeffersonian politickin'. Ron Paul is not Jeffersonian because he follows Jefferson's word as law, he is Jeffersonian because he is an advocate of small government, and states' rights.
Sure, I agree in that way he is Jeffersonian, but Jeffersonian is a term with a wide interpretation. Like I said, I've seen it used to describe all kinds of people from different ends of the political spectrum. Just because in your circles you only hear it used to refer to states rahts doesn't mean that's what it's limited to. To paint with broad strokes and to imply that Dr. Paul is a likeness to Jefferson is misleading. I could say that Kucinich is gremlinian because of his small stature and green skin. That would be correct, but also imply untrue things about him; like you can't get him wet or feed him past midnight.


The fact that this also makes him a constitutionalist aught to tell you something, pinko.I'm a Constitutionalist too. I just interpret differently than someone like you or Paul would.


Stop being so fanatical, it was an off-the-cuff comment that Dr. Paul endorses Jeffersonian politics - not the other way around. Not that Jefferson endorses Paul, lol.

If it makes you shriek like a vampire in a church to hear a modern politician has principled integrity by calling him Jeffersonian, I'll rephrase: He's a (small L) libertarian, although that word has different connotations in Europe than it does in the US, which is why I prefer to say Jeffersonian when talking to a SWEEEEEEDE.Bullshit. We both know you used that term to troll me out of hiding. I'm keen to your ways.

[Surly]

Yes, I did cherry pick information about Jefferson which showed severe philosophical differences, but they were in no way misinterpretations since I didn't even bother to interpret them.But... they weren't philosophical differences at all.


I guess living with a grad student studying early American domestic policy with a focus on Jefferson for 3.5 years wasn't enough time to resolve my ignorance...It would seem not.


That same grad student, by the way, was more leftist than I am, and often called Bill Clinton and Dennis Kucinich "Jeffersonians". I'm sure that sounds retarded to you, but she managed to connect the dots just like you do with Ron Paul.It doesn't. Well, Clinton does. Kucinich? You could say he's kind of Jeffersonian. Libertarianism, Jeffersonianism, and Constitutionalism aren't held in monopoly by a single party. Unlike you, however, I don't make the mistake of getting party loyalties intertwined with fanaticism or my own personal politics. I've said a number of times I'd vote for Gravel if Paul wasn't running, for example.


How does my post indicate that I don't know this? Jefferson was making a powerful statement about progress being more important than words set in stone-- a philosophy that disagrees with someone who thinks that we should have frozen time in the 18th century. Even if I did take that out of context, which I didn't, his statement is still opposed to one of Paul's major tenets.Not at all, you've completely misinterpreted Jefferson's support of an organic, evolving republic for something it isn't. You're essentially saying that Jefferson supports subverting the constitution when you don't like it, when he was actually debating in favor of the amendment process (something Paul is for as well!). His quote says nothing even remotely what you accuse it of saying, nor does it have any inkling of a disagreement with Dr. Paul's politics or even philosophies.


Sure, I agree in that way he is Jeffersonian, but Jeffersonian is a term with a wide interpretation. Like I said, I've seen it used to describe all kinds of people from different ends of the political spectrum. Just because in your circles you only hear it used to refer to states rahts doesn't mean that's what it's limited to. To paint with broad strokes and to imply that Dr. Paul is a likeness to Jefferson is misleading. I could say that Kucinich is gremlinian because of his small stature and green skin. That would be correct, but also imply untrue things about him; like you can't get him wet or feed him past midnight.When did I ever say anything than that Paul was Jeffersonian? He clearly is, and Jeffersonian Republicanism (you know, the party Jefferson started, and the party for which "Jeffersonian" exists) is point-for-point in agreement with Paul on every single issue I can think of off hand. To find things that Jeffersonians and Paul disagree on would take a feat of nit-picking research, and you'd wind up with maybe a few differences of opinion... definitely not many.

I defy you, in fact, to find a political position of Paul's that is in opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy.


I'm a Constitutionalist too. I just interpret differently than someone like you or Paul would.To disagree with my interpretation of the constitution you'd have to say you weren't an advocate of states rights, which would in effect make you anti-Republic. Maybe you're a true democrat though, maybe you think 51% of the national population should be able to tell the other 49% what they can and can't do?


Bullshit. We both know you used that term to troll me out of hiding. I'm keen to your ways.It worked, didn't it?

But I don't know about that being the only reason. "Jeffersonian" sprang to mind because in the media (including mainstream media now), he's always either called a "libertarian" or "jeffersonian" republican.

[Red Morgan]

It doesn't. Well, Clinton does. Kucinich? You could say he's kind of Jeffersonian. Libertarianism, Jeffersonianism, and Constitutionalism aren't held in monopoly by a single party. Unlike you, however, I don't make the mistake of getting party loyalties intertwined with fanaticism or my own personal politics. I've said a number of times I'd vote for Gravel if Paul wasn't running, for example.
I don't hate Paul because he's in the Republican party, but some of his Republican beliefs are very much opposed to mine. What's so fanatical about that?


Not at all, you've completely misinterpreted Jefferson's support of an organic, evolving republic for something it isn't. You're essentially saying that Jefferson supports subverting the constitution when you don't like it, when he was actually debating in favor of the amendment process (something Paul is for as well!). His quote says nothing even remotely what you accuse it of saying, nor does it have any inkling of a disagreement with Dr. Paul's politics or even philosophies.

Explain to me how I said that Jefferson supports subverting the Constitution. I posted that quote to show that Jefferson doesn't think we should rely too heavily on the politics of our forefathers. Since Ron Paul and most Libertarians think of themselves as the only ones carrying the torches of our forefathers, it seems to be the opposite of that.


When did I ever say anything than that Paul was Jeffersonian? He clearly is, and Jeffersonian Republicanism (you know, the party Jefferson started, and the party for which "Jeffersonian" exists) is point-for-point in agreement with Paul on every single issue I can think of off hand. To find things that Jeffersonians and Paul disagree on would take a feat of nit-picking research, and you'd wind up with maybe a few differences of opinion... definitely not many.

I defy you, in fact, to find a political position of Paul's that is in opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy.

Our country should be agrarian and not industrial. How 'bout that one? Does Dr. Paul think we should all be farmers?


To disagree with my interpretation of the constitution you'd have to say you weren't an advocate of states rights, which would in effect make you anti-Republic. Maybe you're a true democrat though, maybe you think 51% of the national population should be able to tell the other 49% what they can and can't do?

Actually, I think that if 99% of the country wanted to, say, ban abortion I think it would be violating someone's rights and shouldn't be allowed under our constitution. That would be an example of Republicanism since I don't believe in mob rule.


It worked, didn't it?

But I don't know about that being the only reason. "Jeffersonian" sprang to mind because in the media (including mainstream media now), he's always either called a "libertarian" or "jeffersonian" republican.

To be honest, it's really not the worst thing in the world to call him a "Jeffersonian Republican", because he is for the most part. I guess my problem is just labeling him "Jeffersonian" because that's making a comparison I'm not entirely comfortable with. They kind of imply two different things.

[Surly]

I don't hate Paul because he's in the Republican party, but some of his Republican beliefs are very much opposed to mine. What's so fanatical about that?Nothing, I was talking about your previous assertion that you hated everything Republican on principle alone.


Explain to me how I said that Jefferson supports subverting the Constitution. I posted that quote to show that Jefferson doesn't think we should rely too heavily on the politics of our forefathers. Since Ron Paul and most Libertarians think of themselves as the only ones carrying the torches of our forefathers, it seems to be the opposite of that.I'm getting some mixed signals here. On the one hand, you say we should not listen to our forefathers, but then proceed to quote Jefferson to back it up?

Anyway, I recognized that quote as part of the debates he had with Madison, or of that general subject they were on. It's a good example of your fanatical sweeping generalizations about people that Ron Paul and all Libertarians think they're carrying on some torch, when in fact we are open to advice from the country's founders. Neither Ron Paul, nor Libertarians that I am aware of, revere the constitution so greatly that they would want it to remain untouched - Jefferson was right when he said we needed an amendment process.

Has Ron Paul spoken out against amending the constitution? Well, I guess he has in one specific case: He is against the Gay Marriage Ban amendment. But that doesn't mean he's anti-evolution with our constitution, he's just against ignoring it. Unless you're more of an anarchist than you let on, I don't know what you're getting at here... except that you fanatically label Ron Paul as some one trying to jump into Jefferson's shoes, while simultaneously saying he's not at all like Jefferson.


Our country should be agrarian and not industrial. How 'bout that one? Does Dr. Paul think we should all be farmers?That's not a Jeffersonian policy, strictly speaking, but the reasoning with it I completely agree with. Jefferson was opposed to relying too heavily on industry for a lot of the same reasons you hate corporate america enough to sacrifice your freedoms to Uncle Sam for protection from it. Primarily, he didn't think that moving the population into reliance on wage labor would present any other circumstance but one where people were dependent on others to live - and one of the main reasons he didn't like cities. The growth of a wage labor class meant too many people left vulnerable to political manipulation and economic control at the hands of corporations.

That's one of the primary things that your roommate probably attributed to Clinton and Kucinich being Jeffersonian, so you can no more use "agrarianism" as an example for modern day politics than you can say Ron Paul isn't Jeffersonian because of Abortion. Those are specific, coeval, issues that were products of the same philosophies.

So, clearly, Paul is in tune with even the Jeffersonian Agrarian as evidenced by his opposition to federal subsidies for farmers. That may sound the reverse, but Jeffersonian Agrarianism was about reducing people's reliance on government and/or corporations for their ability to live.


Actually, I think that if 99% of the country wanted to, say, ban abortion I think it would be violating someone's rights and shouldn't be allowed under our constitution. That would be an example of Republicanism since I don't believe in mob rule.You're just a mess of contradictions, either that or you've changed your mind since last you spoke on the issue, because I clearly recall you saying something to the effect of "I'm usually in favor of states' rights, but Roe v Wade = win".


To be honest, it's really not the worst thing in the world to call him a "Jeffersonian Republican", because he is for the most part. I guess my problem is just labeling him "Jeffersonian" because that's making a comparison I'm not entirely comfortable with. They kind of imply two different things.Jeffersonian Republican is Jeffersonian philosophy. You're just confusing the word "Jeffersonian" for being like Thomas Jefferson, which in a broad sense it is (but no more than saying "Jeffersonian Republican"). Jeffersonian is a unique word, in that it was named after a single man but is its own political philosophy. I didn't mean to even insinuate Ron Paul was a modern day Thomas Jefferson, if that's what you got all pissy about.

[Red Morgan]

I'm getting some mixed signals here. On the one hand, you say we should not listen to our forefathers, but then proceed to quote Jefferson to back it up?

I never said what we should or shouldn't do. I was just merely stating that the forefather that I thought Ron Paul was being compared to was saying that you shouldn't rely on the past too much.


Anyway, I recognized that quote as part of the debates he had with Madison, or of that general subject they were on. It's a good example of your fanatical sweeping generalizations about people that Ron Paul and all Libertarians think they're carrying on some torch, when in fact we are open to advice from the country's founders. Neither Ron Paul, nor Libertarians that I am aware of, revere the constitution so greatly that they would want it to remain untouched - Jefferson was right when he said we needed an amendment process.

Well I suppose that's fair, but Libertarians do very much so worship early American politics. You do have to admit that.


Has Ron Paul spoken out against amending the constitution? Well, I guess he has in one specific case: He is against the Gay Marriage Ban amendment. But that doesn't mean he's anti-evolution with our constitution, he's just against ignoring it. Unless you're more of an anarchist than you let on, I don't know what you're getting at here... except that you fanatically label Ron Paul as some one trying to jump into Jefferson's shoes, while simultaneously saying he's not at all like Jefferson.


I'm not saying Ron Paul is trying to jump into Jefferson's shoes, but that implying that he's like a founding father is a pretty fanatically outlandish fanatical statement. Fanatical.


That's one of the primary things that your roommate probably attributed to Clinton and Kucinich being Jeffersonian, so you can no more use "agrarianism" as an example for modern day politics than you can say Ron Paul isn't Jeffersonian because of Abortion. Those are specific, coeval, issues that were products of the same philosophies.

So, clearly, Paul is in tune with even the Jeffersonian Agrarian as evidenced by his opposition to federal subsidies for farmers. That may sound the reverse, but Jeffersonian Agrarianism was about reducing people's reliance on government and/or corporations for their ability to live.

Do you think Ron Paul cares about our reliance on corporations?


You're just a mess of contradictions, either that or you've changed your mind since last you spoke on the issue, because I clearly recall you saying something to the effect of "I'm usually in favor of states' rights, but Roe v Wade = win".

That's not a contradiction. I believe that most of the time, state's should have more control than the federal government does. But I also think that no state has the right to violate the natural rights of its citizens, and that should be mandated by the federal government. Roe v. Wade would be an example of the Fed using its power to enforce the Constitution. Do you think any state has the right to ignore our Constitution?


Jeffersonian Republican is Jeffersonian philosophy. You're just confusing the word "Jeffersonian" for being like Thomas Jefferson, which in a broad sense it is (but no more than saying "Jeffersonian Republican"). Jeffersonian is a unique word, in that it was named after a single man but is its own political philosophy. I didn't mean to even insinuate Ron Paul was a modern day Thomas Jefferson, if that's what you got all pissy about.

Well that is what I took it as, but I really didn't get pissy about it. I got pissy about being told I don't know anything about Thomas Jefferson, and I don't like having my omniscience challenged by mortals.

[Garn]

YOUR MOM
NO YOUR MOM

[Surly]

I never said what we should or shouldn't do. I was just merely stating that the forefather that I thought Ron Paul was being compared to was saying that you shouldn't rely on the past too much.I guess I made the wild assumption that since you make a regular habit of deriding the use of founder-speak for legitimization, you thought people shouldn't do it. Silly me, huh!



Well I suppose that's fair, but Libertarians do very much so worship early American politics. You do have to admit that.I don't, and won't. It's inadvertent. Libertarianism would exist, and does exist, regardless of 19th century American Politics. It's not like the US has a monopoly on Libertarians.


I'm not saying Ron Paul is trying to jump into Jefferson's shoes, but that implying that he's like a founding father is a pretty fanatically outlandish fanatical statement. Fanatical.He's almost old enough. Not quite, though.


Do you think Ron Paul cares about our reliance on corporations?I think that's one of his strongest political stances. Yes, absolutely. If it weren't for that, he wouldn't have much of a campaign. Getting rid of the central bank monopoly on money? How much more anti-corporation can you possibly get? Let's not forget he's vehemently opposed to subsidies and managed trade agreements which bring about the kinds of tax-payer funding of mega-farms to artificially drive down prices to put competing trading partners out of business (i.e. Mexico). Yes, he's very much a pro-small-business candidate, and very much a pro-get-the-fuck-out-of-your-slave/wage-labor-status candidate.

I think if I had to summarize his candidacy as a single thing, that would be it.



That's not a contradiction. I believe that most of the time, state's should have more control than the federal government does. But I also think that no state has the right to violate the natural rights of its citizens, and that should be mandated by the federal government. Roe v. Wade would be an example of the Fed using its power to enforce the Constitution. Do you think any state has the right to ignore our Constitution?Do you think Roe v Wade was about a constitutional right for a woman to kill a fetus in her body? lol

It was about a woman getting an abortion to save her life, and texas legislation prevented it. Do you think the Federal Government has the right to ignore our Constitution? You would, if you thought it was okay for it to ban states from banning abortion. That's not even what the Roe decision does, it's a ruling that hinges on the lack of a federal definition of when life begins, and does two things: prevents states from killing their own citizens by forcing them not to abort a fetus that threatens the mothers life, and rules that if the fetus is deemed to be "alive" then it is a state issue (like it always was before the Roe case).

It's such a complicated issue with such a great split between voters that the solutions really need to be handled on state levels. It isn't a federal matter when a state condemns property for eminent domain, and that's arguably a much greater violation of "natural rights", why do you think it is with abortion?


Well that is what I took it as, but I really didn't get pissy about it. I got pissy about being told I don't know anything about Thomas Jefferson, and I don't like having my omniscience challenged by mortals.Psht, if you knew half as much as you claim about Jefferson, I wouldn't have to point out all the glaring flaws. I can't wait till some one starts comparing Paul to Paine, then I'll have a field day with you since I've read every word the man ever penned!

[scotw1t]

God damnit you guys, you're completely preventing me from working on my term paper. Less well-done debating please.

Hell will freeze over before I blame my lack of working on the term paper on my lack of discipline. Hell will FREEZE!

[losinglife]

It was about a woman getting an abortion to save her life,

I was having an argument with this total douche bag from the R.P campaign people in philly about this. He was all about abortion being illegal for every reason blah blah.

So i brought up how it could kill the mom if she didnt have one, and what about the mom getting raped wich results in her becoming pregnant wich could result in her death.

His answere was basically thats the risk a girl takes, and she should die while the baby lives.

This kid was seriously a fucking IDIOT on every issue we talked about, noone in the pgh meetup liked him.

I forget why i brought this up.... crap

[Red Morgan]

I don't, and won't. It's inadvertent. Libertarianism would exist, and does exist, regardless of 19th century American Politics. It's not like the US has a monopoly on Libertarians.

Surly has a feat in dodging!


I think that's one of his strongest political stances. Yes, absolutely. If it weren't for that, he wouldn't have much of a campaign. Getting rid of the central bank monopoly on money? How much more anti-corporation can you possibly get? Let's not forget he's vehemently opposed to subsidies and managed trade agreements which bring about the kinds of tax-payer funding of mega-farms to artificially drive down prices to put competing trading partners out of business (i.e. Mexico). Yes, he's very much a pro-small-business candidate, and very much a pro-get-the-fuck-out-of-your-slave/wage-labor-status candidate.Isn't slave labor one of his platforms? Isn't that what we call it when people in other countries work for less than minimum wage with no labor laws to protect them?


Do you think Roe v Wade was about a constitutional right for a woman to kill a fetus in her body? lol

It was about a woman getting an abortion to save her life, and texas legislation prevented it. Do you think the Federal Government has the right to ignore our Constitution? You would, if you thought it was okay for it to ban states from banning abortion. That's not even what the Roe decision does, it's a ruling that hinges on the lack of a federal definition of when life begins, and does two things: prevents states from killing their own citizens by forcing them not to abort a fetus that threatens the mothers life, and rules that if the fetus is deemed to be "alive" then it is a state issue (like it always was before the Roe case).

It's such a complicated issue with such a great split between voters that the solutions really need to be handled on state levels. It isn't a federal matter when a state condemns property for eminent domain, and that's arguably a much greater violation of "natural rights", why do you think it is with abortion?Well, you bring up a good point. People who want to push authoritarian initiatives love to talk about states rights when they can't force anything on the federal level. Ron Paul said it himself, that the Pro-Lifers will never win federally, so they better push for it at a state level.

But you are right, abortion is a very complicated issue, and I believe certain issues like euthanasia, suicide and abortion are things that the government aught to stay away from. By leaving it to the states, freedom of decision is being taken away from the individual and being put into the hands of the collective.

But anyways, that's my opinion. Let's not get into a big abortion fight, since those always get ugly and I don't even have a uterus anyways.


Psht, if you knew half as much as you claim about Jefferson, I wouldn't have to point out all the glaring flaws. I can't wait till some one starts comparing Paul to Paine, then I'll have a field day with you since I've read every word the man ever penned!I can't say I have read everything he ever penned, so I doubt I would even get in that debate.

But you say there are many "glaring flaws" in what I said about Jefferson. I'd like to know what those are, since I said very very little about Jefferson himself. I posted a few quotes and claimed he liked public libraries and education, and that's about it. I'm not entirely sure where I went wrong, but I'd like for you to me correct so that:
A) I don't spread incorrect information if I am wrong
and
B) I want to call you out on your claim, cuz I think you're full of shit.

So far I've only seen you assume I was wrong about things I didn't even bring up, like Jefferson's enthusiasm for state's rights. I'm not sure how I can have glaring flaws in things I haven't even talked about. Does the absence of discussion about something mean you're wrong about it? dubyateaeff.

[Matriel]

Well I suppose that's fair, but Libertarians do very much so worship early American politics. You do have to admit that.

It's hard not to admire people that fought for what they believed in. All of them would have lost everything they had if they lost the war.

Of course, you seem to exaggerate it in every argument where it comes up, but I suppose that's a viable tactic.

[Atnas]

Matriel, stay out of this! If you participate in the argument Red Morgan will die of exhaustion.

[Red Morgan]

Matriel, stay out of this! If you participate in the argument Red Morgan will die of exhaustion.

Meh, I'm used to fighting Matriel + Surly + The rest of the Liberzerg RonPaulogists. I don't even have to raise my power level much higher than 9000 for these two

[Atnas]

I never, ever read your arguments in OT so I wouldn't know! Whenever I see a longer post about politics I change to something else.

[Red Morgan]

I never, ever read your arguments in OT so I wouldn't know!

:mad:

[Surly]

I was having an argument with this total douche bag from the R.P campaign people in philly about this. He was all about abortion being illegal for every reason blah blah.

So i brought up how it could kill the mom if she didnt have one, and what about the mom getting raped wich results in her becoming pregnant wich could result in her death.

His answere was basically thats the risk a girl takes, and she should die while the baby lives.

This kid was seriously a fucking IDIOT on every issue we talked about, noone in the pgh meetup liked him.

I forget why i brought this up.... crapI don't know... maybe you should inform people like that about Roe v. Wade, I guess. The court decision itself guarantees abortion rights for mothers when their lives are threatened. The rest of the pro-abortion stuff caused by the decision is pending a federal definition of "life", which will be accomplished sometime in the next decade at most.

I don't really understand that kind of fanaticism. It's pretty similar to the pro-abortion people who have similar arguments about partial-birth abortions. I think they're rare on both sides, though. It's kind of a shame they vote. Then again, I guess that's why we have a Republic.


Surly has a feat in dodging!How is that dodging? I directly refuted your dumbass point with what amounts to a verbal punch in the face.


Isn't slave labor one of his platforms? Isn't that what we call it when people in other countries work for less than minimum wage with no labor laws to protect them?What? No. I've never heard Ron Paul say anything remotely like that, where are you getting this stuff?


Well, you bring up a good point. People who want to push authoritarian initiatives love to talk about states rights when they can't force anything on the federal level. Ron Paul said it himself, that the Pro-Lifers will never win federally, so they better push for it at a state level.Despite that being an opinionated statement that does nothing to address the fact that you're supporting a federal authoritarian agenda to begin with, I'd still have to point out it's no more your business how Texas runs itself than it is Mongolia. Ron Paul has never said that "Pro-Lifers will never win federally". You're making this stuff up as you go along.

And the fact you make it out to be some kind of competition for "winning" is very telling of this fanatical crusade you think you're on. Any male who makes abortion a make-or-break is putting too much stock in running other people's lives.

Unless you're capable of getting pregnant, that is... and in your case, I might believe it.


But you are right, abortion is a very complicated issue, and I believe certain issues like euthanasia, suicide and abortion are things that the government aught to stay away from. By leaving it to the states, freedom of decision is being taken away from the individual and being put into the hands of the collective.Did you write that backwards, or did you really mean to say that letting states handle it is backing a collectivist agenda?


But anyways, that's my opinion. Let's not get into a big abortion fight, since those always get ugly and I don't even have a uterus anyways.They don't always get ugly, are you just done making up fictitious quotes and stereotyping now?


I can't say I have read everything he ever penned, so I doubt I would even get in that debate.This saddens my pandas.


But you say there are many "glaring flaws" in what I said about Jefferson. I'd like to know what those are, since I said very very little about Jefferson himself. I posted a few quotes and claimed he liked public libraries and education, and that's about it. I'm not entirely sure where I went wrong, but I'd like for you to me correct so that:
A) I don't spread incorrect information if I am wrong
and
B) I want to call you out on your claim, cuz I think you're full of shit.I already pointed out how you were wrong. Jefferson supported spending Republic of Virginia money on the Republic of Virginia, he did not endorse - and in fact was against - spending Federal money on public schools and many other social programs. He was (and in fact, everyone at the time was) a staunch proponent of states' rights simply because they all respected the difference between Federal and State governments. It was de facto at the time though, since most of the people who started the revolution and fought in it were still alive and didn't suddenly forget what it was they fought for.

You also quoted Jefferson on his views of an evolving constitution, which are no different than Paul's, citing it as a difference between the two.

Maybe you're not ignorant of Jefferson, but are just incredibly ignorant of Dr. Paul. One thing is for sure, though, you've yet to draw any reasonable difference between their two political philosophies even if there are a few (and offhand, I can't think of any!).


So far I've only seen you assume I was wrong about things I didn't even bring up, like Jefferson's enthusiasm for state's rights. I'm not sure how I can have glaring flaws in things I haven't even talked about. Does the absence of discussion about something mean you're wrong about it? dubyateaeff.Maybe you're failing to draw the line between Federal and State government, thinking that by supporting public services on a state level that you support them on a federal level? I don't know, help me out. I thought it was pretty clear. The Federal Government was assumed not to have those kinds of powers during Jefferson's lifetime, because it wasn't intended.

And in fact today, these things are still upheld in constitutional law but are circumvented by some weird policies. Primarily, the way they seem to extend power down to the states these days is by blackmail. The first lurch in that direction was the federal highway system, where the federal government began withholding upkeep money for the highways it had built on state land (leased to the federal government) if they didn't enforce the speed limits, seat belt manufacturing laws, car safety laws, and now seat belt wearing laws. There was a supreme court case challenging the validity of doing such a thing, and the federal government won. The ED works the same way with the school systems... so even in our current legislation, the things Jefferson and Paul were both against are in fact unconstitutional unless done in a very contrived, bureaucratic way to skirt the rules by blackmailing the states.

[Atnas]

:mad:

"Your" as in "You, Surly and Matriel"! I do what I'm best at, staying neutral.

[Rykros]

urmom has a uterus

[Matriel]

Psht, if you knew half as much as you claim about Jefferson, I wouldn't have to point out all the glaring flaws. I can't wait till some one starts comparing Paul to Paine, then I'll have a field day with you since I've read every word the man ever penned!

Paine was a fucking french loving bitch!

[scotw1t]

Paine was a fucking french loving bitch!

What's wrong with the French? It's expected that random adults discipline random children if they're acting up...go go United States 50 years ago!

Also if you're in a restaurant or some other public forum you get to intrude on other people's conversations if they're being loud and you have something to say. It's perfectly normal!

[Surly]

Paine was a fucking french loving bitch!I can tolerate loving Napoleonic and Gaul-era french.

[losinglife]

I don't know... maybe you should inform people like that about Roe v. Wade, I guess. The court decision itself guarantees abortion rights for mothers when their lives are threatened. The rest of the pro-abortion stuff caused by the decision is pending a federal definition of "life", which will be accomplished sometime in the next decade at most.

I don't really understand that kind of fanaticism. It's pretty similar to the pro-abortion people who have similar arguments about partial-birth abortions. I think they're rare on both sides, though. It's kind of a shame they vote. Then again, I guess that's why we have a Republic.


The kid was pretty much a fucking idiot on every level of everything. I wish i coulda taped his philosphies.... there were indeed above priceless.

This was the kinda kid that you wonder how he made it alive thru highschool. You know the type super dipshit that had no friends but was a cocky asshole that acted like he ran everything.

[Matriel]

I can tolerate loving Napoleonic and Gaul-era french.

And what price do you place on your own soul sir?

[Red Morgan]

What? No. I've never heard Ron Paul say anything remotely like that, where are you getting this stuff?

Are you saying Ron Paul isn't against minimum wage and the federal labor laws that currently protect American workers? I guess I've got him all wrong then!


Despite that being an opinionated statement that does nothing to address the fact that you're supporting a federal authoritarian agenda to begin with, I'd still have to point out it's no more your business how Texas runs itself than it is Mongolia. Ron Paul has never said that "Pro-Lifers will never win federally". You're making this stuff up as you go along.And New York city, a place socially, economically opposite of where I live has the right to the tell me what to do? Upstate New York is a world apart from NYC, but yet it's not collectivist if some yuppies from Queens decide smoking should be banned in all bars and restaurants?

Let me point your glaring errors on Ron Paul. If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would know he said this: :rofl:

"This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."
-Ron Paul (http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=151892&keyword=&phrase=&contain=)


And the fact you make it out to be some kind of competition for "winning" is very telling of this fanatical crusade you think you're on. Any male who makes abortion a make-or-break is putting too much stock in running other people's lives.

Unless you're capable of getting pregnant, that is... and in your case, I might believe it.Fanatical!


Did you write that backwards, or did you really mean to say that letting states handle it is backing a collectivist agenda?Of course it's collectivism. It's just on a smaller scale than the collectivism you'd see on a Federal level.


I already pointed out how you were wrong. Jefferson supported spending Republic of Virginia money on the Republic of Virginia, he did not endorse - and in fact was against - spending Federal money on public schools and many other social programs. He was (and in fact, everyone at the time was) a staunch proponent of states' rights simply because they all respected the difference between Federal and State governments. It was de facto at the time though, since most of the people who started the revolution and fought in it were still alive and didn't suddenly forget what it was they fought for.

You also quoted Jefferson on his views of an evolving constitution, which are no different than Paul's, citing it as a difference between the two.

Maybe you're not ignorant of Jefferson, but are just incredibly ignorant of Dr. Paul. One thing is for sure, though, you've yet to draw any reasonable difference between their two political philosophies even if there are a few (and offhand, I can't think of any!).Whoever said I was talking about state's rights? Ron Paul wants to privatize education. The method in which he does it, has nothing to do with his actual stance on the issue. Jefferson wanted public education, he just wasn't willing to do it on the federal level. Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.

Well since you're having a hard time calling political differences to mind, allow me to refresh you.

Ron Paul has been extremely critical of Bush and other presidents who have gone to war without congressional approval.
Thomas Jefferson initiated a preemptive war against the Barbary States in 1801 and he did it without congressional approval. In fact, Congress just gave him a nod to do whatever much like how our current Congress did right before Bush illegally invaded Iraq.

Ron Paul said: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
Thomas Jefferson said: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Walls are pretty rigid things aren't they? Or was TJ referring to nerf walls? The man was way ahead of his time to anticipate the invention of nerf!

Ron Paul said:"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Thomas Jefferson said:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

[Surly]

And what price do you place on your own soul sir?lol wtf, without the french the US wouldn't even exist.

[Surly]

Are you saying Ron Paul isn't against minimum wage and the federal labor laws that currently protect American workers? I guess I've got him all wrong then!It's your opinion that those things protect American workers, not Paul's, Mine, or Jefferson's!


And New York city, a place socially, economically opposite of where I live has the right to the tell me what to do? Upstate New York is a world apart from NYC, but yet it's not collectivist if some yuppies from Queens decide smoking should be banned in all bars and restaurants?That's a state issue. On a state level, I would argue the same thing: Localize MORE! Luckily I don't live in New York, and don't think that from New Mexico I should have any say in what they do. New Mexico has the same laws for banning smoking in all restaurants. I've already written my state congressmen about it, though. You could do the same instead of whining to Uncle Sam, since it's a Republic and all.


Let me point your glaring errors on Ron Paul. If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would know he said this: :rofl:

"This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."
-Ron Paul (http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=151892&keyword=&phrase=&contain=)

Fanatical!How is that anything but a responsible position? And how did he say "can't win on a federal level"? He said it's less likely. You could say precisely the same thing about the pro-abortion people - they can't "win" on a federal level because they can't get 300million people to agree, either.

That's what Roe v Wade was all about, you thick headed loaf.


Of course it's collectivism. It's just on a smaller scale than the collectivism you'd see on a Federal level.Um... exactly. Decentralization is the antithesis of collectivism.

You know, the opposite direction from globalism?


Whoever said I was talking about state's rights? Ron Paul wants to privatize education. The method in which he does it, has nothing to do with his actual stance on the issue. Jefferson wanted public education, he just wasn't willing to do it on the federal level. Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.Paul is running for a federal office, his stances at that level mirror Jefferson's almost to the letter. That's why he's always called "Jeffersonian". I can't help it if you don't like it.

On a state level, I don't really know... I would probably guess Paul would be different than Jefferson, but Paul has never held a state office or even run for one. It's a little moot.


Well since you're having a hard time calling political differences to mind, allow me to refresh you.

Ron Paul has been extremely critical of Bush and other presidents who have gone to war without congressional approval.
Thomas Jefferson initiated a preemptive war against the Barbary States in 1801 and he did it without congressional approval. In fact, Congress just gave him a nod to do whatever much like how our current Congress did right before Bush illegally invaded Iraq.I don't recall Iraq engaging in acts of piracy against the US, nor do I recall Iraq taking American POWs during the buildup to that "military action" by Bush. Shoving a feather pillow down your urethra doesn't make you a chicken.


Ron Paul said: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
Thomas Jefferson said: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Separation of Church and State has two meanings. Firstly, the separation of church and state as guaranteed by the first amendment. Have you read it? Clearly not, allow me to quote the constitution off the top of my head:
"Congress shall pass NO MOTHERFUCKING LAW regarding an establishment of religion."

I'm glad you bolded Ron's statement where he explicitly said rigid separation, which is what he has become with legislation which does - in direct defiance of the constitution - regard and even name establishments of religion.


Walls are pretty rigid things aren't they? Or was TJ referring to nerf walls? The man was way ahead of his time to anticipate the invention of nerf!He was referring to the very rigid prohibition of Congress to regulate religion in any way. Religion should have nothing to do with the state whatsoever. It is not the responsibility of the state to purge religion, no more than it is the responsibility of state to support religion.

In God We Trust. Where have I heard that one before?


Ron Paul said:"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Thomas Jefferson said:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."Oh hogwash, do you even know what you're writing? Paul speaks of social philosophy, not political. That's not even in the same realm of discussion.

However I already knew on a social, personal level Paul and Jefferson were dissimilar. Jefferson after all was a deist, like all of the sensible politicians of his day. I would still challenge you to come up with a political stance not shared between the two. Thus far, you haven't even come close to venturing away from stigmatizing people's personal preferences. You may as well be decrying homosexuality.

[Rykros]

Just as a comment:

To Surly: As a personal opinion, I have difficulty believing that, especially in cases of religious conviction, any politician will allow his policy to go completely unaffected by his personal beliefs...
...also as you stated Ron Paul did fail to include TJ's stance on the church's role in his statement about the Founding Fathers, as well as the Deist persuation of most of the FF's...this is a trend that I see sadly in many politicians when commenting about religion's place in early American politics and society.
Oh, and I think you might be kinda extrapolating with some of Ron's statements, particularly the rigid one...we'd be better off asking the motherfucker what he meant by rigid.

To Red: Concerning the issue of smoking in restaurants and such...my position on this follows to the point that if, in a privately owned building, one can ensure that no one inhabiting or passing bye the environs of the property could be endangered by any legal activity inside, then it should be A-OK...I do believe yuppies whine way too much about how much they're actually being harmed by smoke from bars and such establishments, and that if a business chooses to be a smoking environment that it can deal with wether or not said yuppies choose to patronize said business. But I think there are some cases, perhaps a few more open smoking environments included, when citizens have a right to restrict activities going on in that environment that have a negative effect on them...ideally, more localization would be great here, but I suppose that can always be worked on.

[Surly]

Just as a comment:

To Surly: As a personal opinion, I have difficulty believing that, especially in cases of religious conviction, any politician will allow his policy to go completely unaffected by his personal beliefs...
...also as you stated Ron Paul did fail to include TJ's stance on the church's role in his statement about the Founding Fathers, as well as the Deist persuation of most of the FF's...this is a trend that I see sadly in many politicians when commenting about religion's place in early American politics and society.
Oh, and I think you might be kinda extrapolating with some of Ron's statements, particularly the rigid one...we'd be better off asking the motherfucker what he meant by rigid.You can't "just make comments", what the fuck do you think this is a call-in radio show? Oh ho ho, surprise for you, pal. It's Paulitics, and you're in my ring while I'm flippin' out like a ninja all over the ropes.

As to your first line- Paul's 20 years as a congressman has shown that he does not mix personal and political convictions. It's not all that outlandish sounding to me. Well, actually it is. That fact alone is why I like Paul... but it used to be pretty common. Hardly ever do you hear anyone say "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." A little turn a phrase oh so common around the turn of the 19th century. In any case, if Paul mixes his political and personal beliefs at all, he hasn't made it apparent in the least. You could make the argument with abortion, but I think it would be short-sighted.

Second- Most of the constitutional framers were not in fact Deists. They were almost entirely christian. It's just that my favorites were the Deists, like Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine (who was really more of a philosopher than a politician!)

Third- I am extrapolating based on the majority of his speeches, where he is clearly not an advocate of mixing religion and state. He's explained numerous times what I expanded on in my post, so it's not like I'm putting words in his mouth. That's Red Morgan's game! I'm just putting the rationale behind these smear attempts. You can take one thing out of context for any candidate and suddenly the message he's been campaigning on is lost? I think not. Paul's stance on the separation of church and state is, in my estimation (and the mainstream/local/internet/independent media's estimation), identical to Jefferson's.


To Red: Concerning the issue of smoking in restaurants and such...my position on this follows to the point that if, in a privately owned building, one can ensure that no one inhabiting or passing bye the environs of the property could be endangered by any legal activity inside, then it should be A-OK...I do believe yuppies whine way too much about how much they're actually being harmed by smoke from bars and such establishments, and that if a business chooses to be a smoking environment that it can deal with wether or not said yuppies choose to patronize said business. But I think there are some cases, perhaps a few more open smoking environments included, when citizens have a right to restrict activities going on in that environment that have a negative effect on them...ideally, more localization would be great here, but I suppose that can always be worked on.You would suppose that localizing things can always be worked on? Well, perhaps, but since this is almost never the case in modern politics I think the time for putting it off 'til later has passed! Also, smoking is cool and makes you grow facial hair.

[Rykros]

You can't "just make comments", what the fuck do you think this is a call-in radio show? Oh ho ho, surprise for you, pal. It's Paulitics, and you're in my ring while I'm flippin' out like a ninja all over the ropes.
I dunno man, I'm a slippery fellow, I can slide out like a recent virgin trying doggy style for the first time.




As to your first line- Paul's 20 years as a congressman has shown that he does not mix personal and political convictions. It's not all that outlandish sounding to me. Well, actually it is. That fact alone is why I like Paul... but it used to be pretty common.
I'd be interested to see if that stayed the same should he be put in a position of much high power (ie president)




Hardly ever do you hear anyone say "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." A little turn a phrase oh so common around the turn of the 19th century.
I think they had that on Futurama the other night, cept it involved eating the U.S. (or earth) flag (as a form of free speech)



In any case, if Paul mixes his political and personal beliefs at all, he hasn't made it apparent in the least. You could make the argument with abortion, but I think it would be short-sighted.
Like I said, it'd be interesting to see how he would deal with more influence in his corner



Second- Most of the constitutional framers were not in fact Deists. They were almost entirely christian. It's just that my favorites were the Deists, like Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine (who was really more of a philosopher than a politician!)
So, just the majority of the intelligent one's then?




Third- I am extrapolating based on the majority of his speeches, where he is clearly not an advocate of mixing religion and state. He's explained numerous times what I expanded on in my post, so it's not like I'm putting words in his mouth. That's Red Morgan's game! I'm just putting the rationale behind these smear attempts. You can take one thing out of context for any candidate and suddenly the message he's been campaigning on is lost? I think not. Paul's stance on the separation of church and state is, in my estimation (and the mainstream/local/internet/independent media's estimation), identical to Jefferson's.
Taking previous statements, in context or not, and attacking them practically is politics these days...(what I am saying, it always has been)



You would suppose that localizing things can always be worked on? Well, perhaps, but since this is almost never the case in modern politics I think the time for putting it off 'til later has passed! Also, smoking is cool and makes you grow facial hair.
I just can't see any way it could be changed that quickly at the moment, atleast quickly from we the citizens' point of view

[losinglife]

New Mexico has the same laws for banning smoking in all restaurants. I've already written my state congressmen about it, though.

when did this happen? I always figured NM to be more of a FUCK YOU govt kinda state since its so sparce.

[Red Morgan]

It's your opinion that those things protect American workers, not Paul's, Mine, or Jefferson's!
Labor laws don't protect American workers? Things have changed a lot since the industrial revolution. Just look at countries that don't have labor laws, then look at the ones that do, and tell me which you'd rather work in. I can't say I remember the last time I was locked into an unventilated warehouse full of noxious fumes and no bathrooms.


That's a state issue. On a state level, I would argue the same thing: Localize MORE! Luckily I don't live in New York, and don't think that from New Mexico I should have any say in what they do. New Mexico has the same laws for banning smoking in all restaurants. I've already written my state congressmen about it, though. You could do the same instead of whining to Uncle Sam, since it's a Republic and all.

Well sure, and that's certainly something I'd agree with you on. Local problems should be dealt with as locally as possible. But being a Republic doesn't mean states can be exempt from all national standards. That's why we have a Constitution for the entire union. No state is allowed to infringe on the natural rights of its citizens.


How is that anything but a responsible position? And how did he say "can't win on a federal level"? He said it's less likely. You could say precisely the same thing about the pro-abortion people - they can't "win" on a federal level because they can't get 300million people to agree, either.

That's what Roe v Wade was all about, you thick headed loaf.

Yeah, so pretty much if you can't get the nation to pass authoritarian legislation, it's much easier to gerrymander the country by states. Then at least you can tell people what to do with their bodies in a few states.


Um... exactly. Decentralization is the antithesis of collectivism.

You know, the opposite direction from globalism?

Actually, individualism is the antithesis of collectivism. Giving up your ability to decide to yourself and allowing your state of residence to legislate your life is not at all individualistic. You're still giving up personal freedom to the state and allowing the state to exercise power over other people.

It all depends on how you use the power, not which level of government you exercise it in. People who allow their local and state governments to control them can be far more collectivists than even the federal government can be. That's why you or I couldn't go into a bar and light up, because authoritarian collectivists are passing legislation at a state level.



I don't recall Iraq engaging in acts of piracy against the US, nor do I recall Iraq taking American POWs during the buildup to that "military action" by Bush. Shoving a feather pillow down your urethra doesn't make you a chicken.

Well, you're right. Jefferson's actions were apparently far more just than Bush's, but he still went to war without congressional approval. Something I assume that Paul wouldn't do.


Separation of Church and State has two meanings. Firstly, the separation of church and state as guaranteed by the first amendment. Have you read it? Clearly not, allow me to quote the constitution off the top of my head:
"Congress shall pass NO MOTHERFUCKING LAW regarding an establishment of religion."

I'm glad you bolded Ron's statement where he explicitly said rigid separation, which is what he has become with legislation which does - in direct defiance of the constitution - regard and even name establishments of religion.

He was referring to the very rigid prohibition of Congress to regulate religion in any way. Religion should have nothing to do with the state whatsoever. It is not the responsibility of the state to purge religion, no more than it is the responsibility of state to support religion.

That's funny, because I swear he also said that we're a Christian nation. I can't imagine a bigger sponsorship of religion than a representative of congress proclaiming our state religion as dictated to us by our founders.


In God We Trust. Where have I heard that one before?

Yeah, that's almost as old of an American tradition as slavery!


Oh hogwash, do you even know what you're writing? Paul speaks of social philosophy, not political. That's not even in the same realm of discussion.

However I already knew on a social, personal level Paul and Jefferson were dissimilar. Jefferson after all was a deist, like all of the sensible politicians of his day. I would still challenge you to come up with a political stance not shared between the two. Thus far, you haven't even come close to venturing away from stigmatizing people's personal preferences. You may as well be decrying homosexuality.

Social issues aren't political? Oh well you'll have to inform all the social conservatives out there who make or break elections. When an opinion comes out of a politician's mouth, it IS political.

[Red Morgan]

Just as a comment: To Red: Concerning the issue of smoking in restaurants and such...my position on this follows to the point that if, in a privately owned building, one can ensure that no one inhabiting or passing bye the environs of the property could be endangered by any legal activity inside, then it should be A-OK...I do believe yuppies whine way too much about how much they're actually being harmed by smoke from bars and such establishments, and that if a business chooses to be a smoking environment that it can deal with wether or not said yuppies choose to patronize said business. But I think there are some cases, perhaps a few more open smoking environments included, when citizens have a right to restrict activities going on in that environment that have a negative effect on them...ideally, more localization would be great here, but I suppose that can always be worked on.

Well, I think there's a fine line that you have to walk. Since smoking can adversely affect someone's health, there are certain situations where smoking around other people may violate someone's right to health and happiness. The problem is, that once you cross that line, you can violate the smoker's rights by being over-protective of others.

The no-smoking bars laws are ludicrous because people don't go to bars because they care about their health. Most people go to bars to get fucking destroyed and be irresponsible in a place where it's socially permissible.

I don't smoke and never have, so I can't say I feel bad for smokers, but it still irritates me that people want to get the state involved in something like this.

[Matriel]

lol wtf, without the french the US wouldn't even exist.

That's debateable. The only place the Brits ever projected their power was near the ocean.


Labor laws don't protect American workers? Things have changed a lot since the industrial revolution. Just look at countries that don't have labor laws, then look at the ones that do, and tell me which you'd rather work in. I can't say I remember the last time I was locked into an unventilated warehouse full of noxious fumes and no bathrooms.


So, are the companies in these countries forcing the workers to show up at the barrel of a gun? Or is it more likely that these workers are agreeing to these horrid conditions by American standards because it provides them with more money than their previous employment...

[Red Morgan]

So, are the companies in these countries forcing the workers to show up at the barrel of a gun? Or is it more likely that these workers are agreeing to these horrid conditions by American standards because it provides them with more money than their previous employment...


In some cases, they are quite literally being forced to work at gunpoint. It happens in Mexico City all the time. In other cases, yes they do make a choice, but if you consider the coerciveness involved in many of these situations, it's not that simple.

Again, in Mexico City, many factories only hire women, then subject them to such horrible working conditions that they physically cannot work past the age of 30. It's awful, but it's better than starving. Since these women know that they'll lose motor functions and their vision, they have as many kids as possible, since those children are essentially their retirement fund. Again, it's better than starving. Those kids are put to work as soon as possible to provide for their unemployed mother. This is why the population there is exploding.

Whenever someone tries to unionize to improve conditions, they're often found in the desert with a hole in the back of their head, if they're even found at all.

Now that's a pretty bad scenario, but in some cases, these situations are very beneficial for the workers. India is going through a phase that is much like the one we had during the industrial revolution, and I'm sure some day they'll reach a phase like the one we're in now. But now that all Americans can enjoy a decent standard for working conditions, I don't see why anyone would want to go back to the days of Unions and Pinkertons throwing dynamite at each other in the streets.

[Matriel]

In some cases, they are quite literally being forced to work at gunpoint. It happens in Mexico City all the time. In other cases, yes they do make a choice, but if you consider the coerciveness involved in many of these situations, it's not that simple.

Again, in Mexico City, many factories only hire women, then subject them to such horrible working conditions that they physically cannot work past the age of 30. It's awful, but it's better than starving. Since these women know that they'll lose motor functions and their vision, they have as many kids as possible, since those children are essentially their retirement fund. Again, it's better than starving. Those kids are put to work as soon as possible to provide for their unemployed mother. This is why the population there is exploding.

Whenever someone tries to unionize to improve conditions, they're often found in the desert with a hole in the back of their head, if they're even found at all.

Now that's a pretty bad scenario, but in some cases, these situations are very beneficial for the workers. India is going through a phase that is much like the one we had during the industrial revolution, and I'm sure some day they'll reach a phase like the one we're in now. But now that all Americans can enjoy a decent standard for working conditions, I don't see why anyone would want to go back to the days of Unions and Pinkertons throwing dynamite at each other in the streets.

Woah wait a second. It looks like what you have an issue with is the government not protecting individual liberty. I agree with that. Labour laws however aren't needed to do that.

[Red Morgan]

Woah wait a second. It looks like what you have an issue with is the government not protecting individual liberty. I agree with that. Labour laws however aren't needed to do that.

US labor laws didn't just appear in a vacuum. There was a great deal of turmoil as Unions clashed with employers and people dying from horrible conditions. Look around the world, nations without labor laws have horrible conditions, while the ones that do have very reasonable conditions.

Maybe there could be a better way without them, but I've never seen it in practice and I really doubt it could be done.

[Surly]

Labor laws don't protect American workers? Things have changed a lot since the industrial revolution. Just look at countries that don't have labor laws, then look at the ones that do, and tell me which you'd rather work in. I can't say I remember the last time I was locked into an unventilated warehouse full of noxious fumes and no bathrooms.Careful, I would no sooner defend every labor law on the books than I would defend every television program on the tube, or every website on the internet. Jefferson was a proponent of DIY, agrarianism, lack of reliance on the very industries that caused such working conditions. He was an opponent of wage-slavery. Everyone was, really. At the turn of the 19th century the American public was very wary of it, but it wasn't spurred by some anti-capitalistic movement - it was common sense.

I don't think Paul's stance is any different, especially considering how opposed he is to the big business subsidies we're shelling out to these very industries. Labor laws protecting american workers is a joke, to begin with, but a moot one since such servitude is always voluntary.

I think one of the best examples of why Jefferson hated city-dwellers so much is precisely that dependent kind of attitude they develop. What would you do if suddenly the job market collapsed, or the dollar became worthless? Too much dependency in such places.


Well sure, and that's certainly something I'd agree with you on. Local problems should be dealt with as locally as possible. But being a Republic doesn't mean states can be exempt from all national standards. That's why we have a Constitution for the entire union. No state is allowed to infringe on the natural rights of its citizens.And which magical rights are you talking about? The Constitution makes no ambiguous attempts to explain natural rights. It is quite concise and clear when defining these things. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (later nullified by changing it to happiness). Religious freedom is guaranteed, titles of nobility are prohibited, and the amendments are very pithy and direct about the rights they guarantee.

Do you just "interpret" in more rights than are explicitly stated because you feel like it? There's no room for that business, that's why the amendment process exists.


Yeah, so pretty much if you can't get the nation to pass authoritarian legislation, it's much easier to gerrymander the country by states. Then at least you can tell people what to do with their bodies in a few states.You think a federal ban on state medical practice isn't authoritarian? lol

Read Roe v Wade, for fuck's sake. If you're going to stick up for it so much it's the least you could do to realize how off the bean you are.


Actually, individualism is the antithesis of collectivism. Actually, decentralization is the antithesis of collectivism.


Giving up your ability to decide to yourself and allowing your state of residence to legislate your life is not at all individualistic. You're still giving up personal freedom to the state and allowing the state to exercise power over other people.What has that to do with any federal law? The federal government is the representation of the contract (constitution) between the several states, not your personal security blanket. If we were arguing about state laws, specifically, it would be another story. If I made abortion a massive one-issue trump card for myself, which would be retarded, I would be hard pressed to live in a state that prohibits it entirely. That, however, has nothing to do with dropping authoritarian legislation on states and controlling their freedom to legislate how they see fit. The federal authority does not extend downward from the state level to the citizens of the several states.

I don't understand that whole "omg, 50 authoritarian governments are going to spring up if you let them legislate how they please!" argument, it belies the very nature of our society and our country.


It all depends on how you use the power, not which level of government you exercise it in. People who allow their local and state governments to control them can be far more collectivists than even the federal government can be. That's why you or I couldn't go into a bar and light up, because authoritarian collectivists are passing legislation at a state level.Yes, and further decentralization eventually gets down to one man governing himself, what's your point? A community that wishes to agree to collectivist goals is entirely capable of doing so under our constitution. National socialism, on the other hand, is not.



Well, you're right. Jefferson's actions were apparently far more just than Bush's, but he still went to war without congressional approval. Something I assume that Paul wouldn't do.I think if people were being kidnapped and recreational cruiselines were being hijacked, he would. And he could, constitutionally, without the consent of Congress, if (like the Barbary States) the aggressor is not a sovereign nation.

In today's world, there are no free cities left. There is no area of the world left without a central government. So I doubt this will ever be an issue again. Had the Berbers had a government to diplomatically resolve issues, or to whom we could have even declared war, I think Jefferson's course of actions would have been entirely different.


That's funny, because I swear he also said that we're a Christian nation. I can't imagine a bigger sponsorship of religion than a representative of congress proclaiming our state religion as dictated to us by our founders.What are you, a vampire? And since when is Dr. Paul's word law? Pure libel.



Yeah, that's almost as old of an American tradition as slavery!Sidestep much? In God We Trust is printed on our money, clearly within the confines of the constitutional separation of church and state.

And slavery was a constitutionally guaranteed privilege.


Social issues aren't political? Oh well you'll have to inform all the social conservatives out there who make or break elections. When an opinion comes out of a politician's mouth, it IS political.Don't put words in my mouth - I said social philosophy, not legislation on social issues.

Paul has never endorsed any Christian authoritarian agenda. Ever. In fact, he's never endorsed any authoritarian agenda at all, and has spoken out against every damn bit of it. Gay marriage amendment? If he's such a goddamned zealot for Jesus why the hell isn't he all up on that one? He's strongly opposed to it!

Stop trying to paint the guy as some die hard Christian Jerry Falwell running for office you bigoted jerkoff. He's about as much of a religious crusader as a high college kid passed out on a couch.

[Surly]

US labor laws didn't just appear in a vacuum. There was a great deal of turmoil as Unions clashed with employers and people dying from horrible conditions. Look around the world, nations without labor laws have horrible conditions, while the ones that do have very reasonable conditions.

Maybe there could be a better way without them, but I've never seen it in practice and I really doubt it could be done.
I guess you never heard of pre-1920 America.

[Cidius]

For one more time, I have to use my powers to kill this fucknut thread.

[Surly]

Ahhh, beautiful silence.

[Red Morgan]

Ahhh, beautiful silence.

Don't worry, I plan on responding in full. I'm quite busy at work, and I can only leave a partial comment for now. So for now, I'll just simply say that you sir are teh homogay. I will provide sources for this later.

[Cidius]

Actually...

Surly has said that he views the threads in some masterblaster form with only one "page" running down with all the posts in it.

I planted some 5 midis to that post of mine and it sounded horrible.

Somebody has removed em.

[Killuminati]

I no longer can keep a straight face when people say the minimum wage protects american workers.

[scotw1t]

I no longer can keep a straight face when people say the minimum wage protects american workers.

I think what Red is going for, is that compared to the countries that do not have minimum wage, American workers are protected pretty well.

[Surly]

As long as he's not saying that minimum wage is responsible for it, yes, American workers are better off than a lot of countries without minimum wage. American workers are also a lot better off than countries that have banned Unions, too.

[Killuminati]

I hear South Africa had some great times with the minimum wage.

[Rykros]

I almost kinda hope they don't get their shit together intime to host the next World Cup, because I think the U.S. is the fallback country in case South Africa is a no go.

[Killuminati]

I thought they were moving it to Australia for 2010...