# What does the Republican party stand for?



## weebiscuit (Mar 27, 2012)

I'd like you all to just make a list of several things that you think of when you think of the Republican party. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, independent, libertarian, or republican. Just make a list.

I have a reason for asking for your "lists" of things you identify the Republican party with. I'll tell you what my reason is after I see some of the things on your lists! They can be positive or negative things.

I had a weird experience the other day, which has something to do with the reason I'm asking for your lists! I hope y'all can help me out!


----------



## Shari (Mar 27, 2012)

Right now,

Taking Women's rights away

wanting to take gays rights away

wanting everyone to be Christian and be under their doctrine.

taking away Military retirement, medical...

Not up holding the Constitution.

Need I say more?


----------



## Jill (Mar 27, 2012)

The reasons I identify with the Republican side of the aisle is that the GOP matches up closely with how I feel regarding:


Personal responsibility

Limited government

Strong National Security

Tougher on Illegal Immigration (there's a reason why the term "undocumented Democrat" is popular)

Pro Business

Pro Woman (the role call of Republican women is packed with strong, successful and smart people)

Free market agenda / pro-capitalism


I do see the progressives tainting the GOP. Not as terribly (yet?) as they have the Democrats, but it's there on both parties, and it is not good.

In my heart, Ialignn more closely with Libertarian (not to be confused with Liberal, please!) ideals, however, I do not feel a 3rd party is a viable option today and cannot vote for anyone I do not think will put Obama out of office.


----------



## weebiscuit (Mar 27, 2012)

Thanks, both of you, for your replies! I hope I get more. I'll come back in later this afternoon or evening and explain why I'm asking this.


----------



## ohmt (Mar 27, 2012)

Exactly what Shari said, but i'll add one more: Closed minded-ness (if that last one is even a word)


----------



## andi (Mar 27, 2012)

I would think the major difference between the two parties would be the role they think government should play in society. I think they both have the same goal in mind, just see a different way of going about it. Conservatives believe in a more "free" society, that the "ills" and wrongs are best worked out by the "free market", by allowing the people to put their money and time behind what they support, by doing so the good and just will be supported and remain the "majority". Liberals feel that, left to their own means, people will be corrupt and unjust, and abuse those "below" them, so the government needs to intervene more often to "balance" things and ensure that what is good and just is given a fair shot and remains an option.

The funny thing after writing that; is that I agree with both. I think most of us do, but feel "forced" to pick one side or the other; when in fact this Country is based on BOTH. For me, a balance between the two will always be the answer.

I think many of the things listed above, like personal responsibility, national security and equal rights are characteristics of BOTH parties, and shouldn’t be used "against" the other. It is specific candidates that we should have issues with, which want to take these rights away. I can understand though people wanting to "stereotype" the two parties. Right now it almost seems like many of the conservative candidates are purposely playing into these stereotypes just to make it extra clear that they are NOT LIBERALS, which for me, is my biggest frustration with the whole "game". Tell me where you actually stand on the issues, not just what your research tells you the voter wants you to say.

At the end of the day, I would lean more with Jill, towards the Libertarian party.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Mar 27, 2012)

I PM'd you my thoughts. Thanks for asking!


----------



## Riverrose28 (Mar 28, 2012)

Maybe we'll find out tonight why!


----------



## weebiscuit (Mar 28, 2012)

Sorry I couldn't get back in here last night! But here goes.... Let me start off by saying I am fairly independent in my voting. I've voted for Dems and Repubs, but mostly Repubs in the last decade. I really feel that i'm a Libertarian, but we just don't get enough media attention to challenge the Big Two!

I'm in Wisconsin, and if you've followed the news you'll know that our governor is facing a recall. I voted for this man, and I believe he did the right thing. In my little town of 5,000, we have a "native son" who has been, for DECADES, our state Senator, and he is a Republican, but he voted AGAINST Walker's budget repair bill, which infuriated every Republican in this state! And this isn't the first time he's crossed his party and voted against the way his electors wanted him to vote.

As a consequence of the Walker Recall and this Senator (whose wife in the Administrator of our school district here), my husband and I began attending the local Republican meetings, as did our 38 year old son, to see what we could do to help Walker and help get rid of this Senator. My son and husband eventually paid their dues and became members of the local Republican Party. I refused to do so and here's why:

One of the members of this local repub party is a Baptist minister, and each meeting is opened and closed by a lengthy prayer from him. This upsets me. I don't go to these meetings to be in "church." I go for political reasons. Yet even the chairwoman of this group constantly talks about the "assault on christianity" by the liberal party. OK... I can understand the anger over some of our "traditions" being found "unpolitically correct." But what I don't understand is the mindset of all the people at these meetings who feel that because you are a Republican, you are a christian. And THAT is what I was waiting to see crop up on anyone's list of what they think of the Republican Party.

To me, it has become a wing of the ultra-conservative christian faction in our nation, and it is excluding those who are NOT christians. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. My apologies to those of you who are aghast at that information. My husband and son are. I am not. When they open and close their meetings with prayer, I sit quietly, but seething. Do Democrats open and close their local meetings with prayer?

And then the other day, a member of this local Repub. party, who is a Deacon in our local Catholic church, sent an email out to all of us, and in part, it said, "

America and the

world is becoming more and more anti - christian, immoral, and

individualistic. Our government is losing its constitutional power,

the judges have become partisan, and the librals have corrupted and

brainwashed our democratic society.

I can't help it, but I took great offense at these words. I answered him back and part of what I said was "You say that American is becoming more and more anti-Christian and in the next sentence you say our government is losing its constitutional power. There is something inherently wrong in your reasoning. Our Constitution GUARANTEES religious freedom to ALL people in this country, whether they are Christians or not. So on the one hand you lament the loss of constitutional power and on the other you seem to bemoan the fact that we are no longer a completely christian nation. You can't have it both ways. If you want a government which follows the law of the US Constitution, then you must also accept the precepts of the First Amendment and gladly suffer those who are not of the christian religion to also practice their religion under the guarantees the constitution gives them to do so."

His response to me was "

Yes, we can have it both ways. My rights as a christian is just as

important as yours. It appears, to some, that the first amendment

only applies to thoughs who are not Christian.

I thought we were in this together. I thought we were fighting the

libral left. I didn't think that we were going to have issues with

each other.

Well, may God bless who ever wants to be blessed. You are on your own."

And that's all he wrote. (and the spelling errors are all his, not mine, LOL). So I sat here thinking about his attitude and I felt that there are far too many narrow-minded people in the Republican party. Of course there are wonderful people, too, but I simply can't *join* this group because of attitudes like this. If we are truly supposed to be the "Party of the Constitution" then we simply HAVE to get religion OUT of the forefront of the party!

Well, I've carried on too long, but I would appreciate any and all comments, whether you are conservative or liberal. But which ever you are, I welcome all thoughts. I have learned a long time ago that just because a person is of a different political bent than I am, it really has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike that person. That has more to do with personality! And so far, everyone here seems to have a pretty nice personality!


----------



## ohmt (Mar 28, 2012)

Oh Sandy, we DO have something in common






I applaud your stance on the separation of church and state. I am NOT anti-christian. I respect all faith's or lack thereof-one of the reasons I believe religion should be left out of government and public schools (except history courses when appropriate). I have zero problems with those who wish to practice their faith, whatever or whenever that may be, but I do wish it could be left out of areas in which everyone needs to come together, like your meeting, Sandy.


----------



## Jill (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm not a member of any organized religion but I am a person of faith. Don't confuse freedom OF religion with freedom FROM religion.


----------



## Shari (Mar 29, 2012)

I very much agree with you.

The founding father's had Church and Gov separate for a reason, and the current Gov is now proving the reason.

Up holding the Constitution is paramount, yet they are not any more.

Pretty scary what direction this country is going towards.



weebiscuit said:


> Sorry I couldn't get back in here last night! But here goes.... Let me start off by saying I am fairly independent in my voting. I've voted for Dems and Repubs, but mostly Repubs in the last decade. I really feel that i'm a Libertarian, but we just don't get enough media attention to challenge the Big Two!
> 
> I'm in Wisconsin, and if you've followed the news you'll know that our governor is facing a recall. I voted for this man, and I believe he did the right thing. In my little town of 5,000, we have a "native son" who has been, for DECADES, our state Senator, and he is a Republican, but he voted AGAINST Walker's budget repair bill, which infuriated every Republican in this state! And this isn't the first time he's crossed his party and voted against the way his electors wanted him to vote.
> 
> ...


----------



## ohmt (Mar 29, 2012)

Separation of Church and State: government with freedom from religion.

The individual citizens of our country: freedom of religion-the freedom to practice whatever religion/faith they'd like without persecution.

Too many wars have been fought over religion and we are a country known for its vast diversity. Our country is already too far separated when it comes to government. Practice whatever religion/faith you'd like, but keep it out of government.


----------



## 2minis4us (Mar 29, 2012)

> I'm not a member of any organized religion but I am a person of faith. Don't confuse freedom OF religion with freedom FROM religion.


What do you mean Jill ?


----------



## andi (Mar 29, 2012)

I think the statement, "Don't confuse Freedom of Religion with Freedom from Religion", is a general "slogan" that has been being used recently by many to help support or defend the stereotypical conservative’s views against removing god from any government funded programs, like schools and courts. In reality, when broken down, the statement doesn’t really carry any value, but sounds great and could easily be mistaken for some sort of "ah'ha moment". We actually are guaranteed both these things, as Ohmt mentioned. Freedom OF Religion refers to our freedom to practice any religion we see fit, and express our religion. We are also guaranteed that our government will be Free FROM Religion. That means no mention of Religion in government, yes its a hard strict line, but it is meant to be. Everything in history has told us that combining religion with the government leads to disaster.

Recently there has been so much talk about the liberal lefts "attack" on Christianity. There was actually a video posted on here, called a "documentary", that pretty much blamed the liberal communists for the entire downfall of our nation’s moral fibers and family structure by brainwashing the youth against religion in the government run schools. I couldn’t even begin to reply. With all the "controversy" the church has dealt with and bad publicity in the last twenty years, it is unreasonable to blame it on removing the word God from a few government funded areas. The “war on religion” is being fought from the inside out. I myself see more damage done to it by Conservative “supported” capitalism. How can we teach our children that greed and financial success is the only true motivator, tell them that human nature does not allow us to improve, while at the same time expecting them to respect and appreciate Christian beliefs and values?


----------



## 2minis4us (Mar 29, 2012)

Thank you James.


----------



## weebiscuit (Mar 29, 2012)

andi said:


> The “war on religion” is being fought from the inside out. I myself see more damage done to it by Conservative “supported” capitalism. How can we teach our children that greed and financial success is the only true motivator, tell them that human nature does not allow us to improve, while at the same time expecting them to respect and appreciate Christian beliefs and values?


James, I don't quite agree with this. I see nothing wrong with financial success. And greed? What one person sees as "greed" another person sees as a "financial cushion." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the desire to succeed and be financially successful, and I don't see how they are incompatible with your christian beliefs and values. In fact, the Bible condemns sloth.

Our nation became great because people had an inherent desire to succeed. Some may call it greed, but I don't see it that way. I see it as "security." On the other hand, when liberals create all these "cradle to grave" welfare programs, they stifle the basic NEED to survive, and instead encourage laziness and sloth, and a society in which those who HAVE the means are expected to support those who do not wish to SEEK the means, and yet those who HAVE are called greedy.

As to other comments on this thread, I am not a person who wants to strip the nativity from courthouse lawns or take the word "God" out of the pledge, even though it was inserted by Eisenhower and not the Founding Fathers. I don't care if my greenbacks say "In God We Trust." I do recognize that before the last 80 years or so, we WERE almost entirely a Christian nation, so I recognize and appreciate our heritage.

But where I draw the line is when a political party seems to recognize ONLY christians and seems to align itself with a christian majority. Then we have people who vote for a candidate because of his position on abortion or same-sex marriage, which should NOT be a federal issue, but a state one. And when they cast votes based solely upon christian beliefs, then they ignore whether a candidate has a strong background in foreign affairs, or in government experience, or whether he understands that you can't tax your way out of debt, or that a strong defense doesn't mean sending our service people to the Middle East to fight wars that will never change a single thing.


----------



## Jill (Mar 29, 2012)

2minis4us said:


> What do you mean Jill ?


2minis, you don't understand the different meanings of the words "of" and "from"?


----------



## andi (Mar 29, 2012)

What makes a country economically strong has little to do with what makes a person "just" and moral, the "success" of the tequnique has no bearing on the morality of it. While being financialy successfull and motivated is not inheritantly wrong, they are far from the most "pure" morals. "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game", "as long as it's for the right reasons" or "I'm not just doing it for the money". We have all heard these statements, we were taught them, they carried weight and value. These basic values are reflected in most major religion. The main point, your soul is more valuable than any possesion, dont worship false idols. Almost all lessons that the bible teaches us are based on these thoughts and being selfless. Most young people today see a huge hypocrysy in what we were taught as children and from Religion, and what we are then told in College and then experiance ourselves in the outside world. THAT is why organized religion is breaking down. Just as "welfare programs" promote sloth, "capitalism" promotes greed, both are moral issues, but one is waved as a flag of Success.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Mar 29, 2012)

Oh James, you made me tear up! What a wonderful response. Such powerful words, Thank you from my heart.


----------



## weebiscuit (Mar 29, 2012)

James, I will never understand the attack on capitalism that I hear various people spouting these days. If not capitalism, then what? Socialism? Communism? Third World poverty? Why are people always so quick to denigrate the very system that made our nation the industrial leader of the world?

Capitalism is the ONLY system which rewards the efforts of the individual. It is the only system which in which anyone with enough initiative and ambition can climb the ladder of success and be assured of keeping the fruits of his labor.

You wrote: "While being financialy successfull and motivated is not inheritantly wrong, they are far from the most "pure" morals. "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game", "as long as it's for the right reasons" or "I'm not just doing it for the money". We have all heard these statements, we were taught them, they carried weight and value. These basic values are reflected in most major religion. The main point, your soul is more valuable than any possesion, dont worship false idols. Almost all lessons that the bible teaches us are based on these thoughts and being selfless."

I guess I see things differently. I look at the historical context of much of what we learned from the Bible or from the succeeding lessons taught to us by our churches. They all stress humility, obedience, service, and they teach us that poverty is somehow to be considered noble. They teach us that richness of the spirit is greater than riches in gold. But ALL these "dictums" were aimed at a populace that were in and out of bondage to one usurper or another. No one had a chance to rise above his "station" because the ruling class was sacrosanct. So adages, rules, and tenets were developed to keep the sullen masses in their place.

The current season of Lent that many churches observed... this was started during the Middle Ages ONLY as a way to appease the peasants, who had little to eat, where bound as serfs to their masters, and had no hope of ever climbing out of their lowly caste. But they grumbled enough about their conditions to scare their lords and masters, who always had meat on their tables, so the ruling class and the church got together and decided that they would "fast" during the weeks before Easter. It had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with appeasing the peasants.

So many of our current attitudes towards capitalism come from the old peasant class during the Middle Ages and earlier. The jealousy of being the "have nots." And thus, the ensuing hatred of the "haves." Only today the "haves" are called the One Percenters and today's peasants are the Occupy Wall Streeters who are mad because they are unemployed. they are mad at those with the money. But if they themselves didn't want the exact same thing, i.e., the "money" then why would they protest? They'd shrug it off. But they want what they don't have, and hate the people that DO have it, while at the same time they all strive to HAVE IT.

None of it makes much sense to me.


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2012)

Capitalism is why I can own:

* Something that helps me feel safe, like my own home

* Something I'm proud of, like my own business

* Something as frivolous and enjoyable as my herd of tiny horses

* Something little but meaningful, like a book of my choice...

Human Rights are anchored in property rights. If you have hopes and dreams too, you also must appreciate capitalism. Without it, there is no American Dream.

I ♥ capitalism.


----------



## fourluckyhorseshoes (Mar 30, 2012)

weebiscuit said:


> Only today the "haves" are called the One Percenters and today's peasants are the Occupy Wall Streeters who are mad because they are unemployed. they are mad at those with the money.


From what I have heard and researched between 70-85% of the protesters DO have a job.


----------



## 2minis4us (Mar 30, 2012)

> 2minis, you don't understand the different meanings of the words "of" and "from"?


Sorry I asked. From now on I am not going to reply to any more of your posts/topics


----------



## andi (Mar 30, 2012)

I am not against the idea that capitalism "works'', and that it may be the only system that does work. But I am trying to look at it a little deeper and exam whether or not it "working" automatically makes it right or just. I think you bring up some very interesting points about the Bible being used to suppress and convince people to be satisfied with a lower place in society. I think it is a great example of the bible being twisted and abused, but that doesn’t mean that the lessons taught in the bible are not true and valuable still. Is your argument that it proves those values are not really important, they were just a tool to suppress, they aren’t to be taken as serious? If so, then that thought process would also explain the de-valuing of Christianity in the same way I mentioned. The values and qualities that make capitalism work are not in line with the values and qualities expressed in religion. If you follow the values of the bible and it's lesson, you will remain happy with your lower place in society and never have the ambition and imitative needed to rise. If you follow the values in the bible, you won’t have the motives that make you succeed in a capitalist world? 



I really do appreciate the conversation Weebiscuit, I find the information fascinating and enjoy the back and forth of ideas. I just wanted to make that clear, not at all personal from this side. 





2minis4us, I would recommend just ignoring slogans and copy/paste repetitiveness. The logic behind these things is what is of value, and if the people who post them don't understand it, or just don't want to share it, then there is no point in trying to guess what they mean or, as you have shown, asking them to clarify.


----------



## 2minis4us (Mar 30, 2012)

James,

You are a very kind and caring person. I need to stay away from Jill's posts and I will.


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2012)

2minis4us said:


> James,
> 
> You are a very kind and caring person. I need to stay away from Jill's posts and I will.


Come on. Grow up. You asked what I meant and i was as clear as can be. What you really need t do is stop taking sincere opinions personally.


----------



## 2minis4us (Mar 30, 2012)

Thank you Jill.


----------



## weebiscuit (Mar 30, 2012)

fourluckyhorseshoes said:


> From what I have heard and researched between 70-85% of the protesters DO have a job.


They are protesting against the "1%ers." They don't like it that while they may have a job, 1 per cent of the people in this country have a job that has made them millionaires or billionaires. Where's the logic in that?


----------



## andi (Mar 30, 2012)

I think most of the protestors issues are with the standards and practices that got that 1% the million dollar job, that is where their problem is. I am not saying I support the idea to protest and disturb honest business’s or to create havoc to gain attention for ones cause. But at the same time we need to respect them enough to be honest about were they are coming from. It is not a place of, "I want what you have". It's the frustrating realization that while the American Dream is available to us all, it most definitely does come easier to those willing to adjust their moral compass. Honestly, the protestors are ABUSING the same freedom that the top 1% ABUSED. There were not enough rules in place to stop the top 1% from doing what they did, just as there are not enough rules in place to stop the protestors from doing what they are. Either way, black and white "rules" and laws ALWAYS remove some sort of "freedom", so there will always be someone unhappy. At the end of the day, the only "rules" or "laws" that matter are the values I mentioned before, they should be held above all that us, the government or anyone else, can make. But they can't be if human nature is allowed to run rampant, under the excuse that it will make a better economy, the "important" values will always be the ones discarded, reserved for childhood stories and fairytales.

Honestly, for me the solution is not and I don't think ever will be, remove capitalism. The solution is we ALL need to take responsibility for what we support, in how we spend our money. Research what you buy, who is gaining from it, what their morals are. Put your money and support behind those that emulate your ideals. Don’t EVER use the excuse, “it's just business”, to justify your behavior. Hold every part of your life to the same high standard. Then Capitalism can and will work. The real question is will enough of us ever be willing to hold ourselves to a high enough standard to “fix” the system. That’s what I am not so sure of.


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2012)

I deal with successful people for a living. They are some of the most sincere, giving and charitable people you'd ever meet. I'm sick and tired of the class warfare and vilification of success that's become part of our pop culture. In the purest form, capitalism rewards those who perform or produce those things that other people benefit from making use of in their own lives. I'm talking true karma. You cannot cap the rewards and not punish success. Unfortunately, capitalism as it exists today is not free market based and is somewhat tainted. Even so, it's the best deal goingand no "alternatives" can hold a candle to it.


----------



## andi (Mar 30, 2012)

I am not sure where so much animosity and accusations of vilification are coming from. I don't see anyone on this topic attacking and vilifying success. If anyone has, I have come the closest, but only to clarify that the Success of anything does not justify the means, that you can't just say, "well it worked", and use that as proof that it is ok or justified. 

Slightly off topics, but in relation, what are everyone’s views on the bailouts and were they play into this all? I am in no way an economics expert, but from an amateur’s view point; massive companies did a crappy job, lent unspeakable amounts of money to people they knew could never afford to pay them back, based on the idea that even if they default we will make a profit off of "fees". BUT an unexpected massive amount defaulted, pretty much guaranteeing the failure of all these major lending companies. Now Economic advisors come in and say, if all these companies go bankrupt, our entire economy will never recover. In essence Capitalism would have failed. But it didn't, because of the government giving, or lending them money. This is what I gather from what has gone on, where am I off? To make it clear, that isn't a hypothetical question, or meant to cause a fight. Honestly, what part do I not understand?


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2012)

James, I did not mean within the "LB Community", but the class warfare that has been going on across the Nation. I didn't think you were being argumentative or showing any personal animosity.

About the bailouts -- I do not think they were the right thing to do and some. I think, were worse than others. If it were allowed to, the free market would have corrected the problems. True capitalism requires a free market economy and rewards winners... government picks "winners". It really "nationalized" the risk, and that's as bad as the flip side, "socializing" the profits. It also has wrongly fed the outrage over executive salaries at corporations that weren't bailed out. The only people those executives are accountable to are the stockholders.


----------



## andi (Mar 30, 2012)

That’s what I figured Jill. I think to have an honest conversation we need to stay focused on what each other is saying and not assign overly exaggerated viewpoints to one another. I think that’s what gets everybody so defensive over these things. At some point we all need to leave our preconceived notions at the door; that is if the goal truly is to look at things from both sides.

When it comes to the bailouts, it would seem like the government did leave these companies alone, right up until they almost sank the entire economy. Last minute they throw them a rope, only to be told "I was doing fine, if only that dam rope didn't trip me up". In essence they retroactively acuse the drowning on the rope that didn't show up until after they are in the water? Seriously, was the governemnt involved in these companies before hand in a way that caused the mess in the first place? In reality, I would imagine this would have been seen by many Liberals and Socialists as a great moment to let Capitalism fall flat on it's face, but that is not something this country could afford. So does socialism having to save capitalism prove that capitalism doesnt work? LOL J/K

I totally agree that 9 times out of 10, the government trying to get involved doesn’t work. Mostly because there is usually another big company involved behind the politician. Their help is seldom pure, it is usually used to promote or hinder a company’s competitiveness.


----------



## Jill (Mar 31, 2012)

James, the government was involved beforehand, with those Government backed mortgages and programs designed to make homes affordable for "everyone". The truth is, not everyone should own a home and not everyone needs a huge home, etc. It's been nearly 20 years since I left the mortgage business, and I was a loan officer at "the" local bank. Even for the time, standards were conservative, but the drifting away from the strict loan to value ratios and income to debt ratios are what fueled the meltdown in my opinion. It used to be, banks had three questions when they made a mortgage loan: How will you pay us back? How will you pay us back? and How will you pay us back... I remember, too, on my banker's salary, wondering how would I ever be able to save 20% down to buy a nice house. "We" (our Nation) turned the American Dream into a handout in many instances and that's not how it was supposed to work. I remember the banker wisdom back in the 90's and prior was that the last thing someone wouldn't pay was their mortgage but now look... Many people didn't have much equity to start with (because of the high loan to value loans), and then the over inflated market sucked away a lot of "equity". It's just a real mess, and one that some of our politicians are on record for having warned of a long time ago (not a real McCain fan, but he did try to nip this in the bud long ago).

I think if the government had not bailed out (a situation it helped to "bank" roll in the first place), then capitalism would have righted the situation. Not saying it would have left every person with a smile on their face, but, things would have sorted out. So, no, I do not think this was a case of capitalism failing but an illustration of how free markets don't work well when they are manipulated.

On a side note, kind of, I can't being to imagine how much better off "We The People" would be if we could have just a couple-few meaningul changes to the system. Stuff like strict term limits, limitations on corporate sponsorship, and absolutely no foreign money nore out of state money toward in-state elections.


----------



## Jill (Mar 31, 2012)

PS if it's of interest, maybe look into some of Mark Calabria's of the CATO Institute's writings on the mortgage meltdown. I think he's got great insight and wisdom... but I am a bit partial. I've known him since we were teenagers



But just really seems to have a good insight to what happened, why, and what could be / could have been done to fix it.


----------



## Shari (Mar 31, 2012)

I think we would be much, much better off.



Jill said:


> On a side note, kind of, I can't being to imagine how much better off "We The People" would be if we could have just a couple-few meaningul changes to the system. Stuff like strict term limits, limitations on corporate sponsorship, and absolutely no foreign money nore out of state money toward in-state elections.


----------



## Jill (Mar 31, 2012)

Oh man my typos!


----------



## Carriage (Apr 1, 2012)

"On a side note, kind of, I can't being to imagine how much better off "We The People" would be if we could have just a couple-few meaningul changes to the system. Stuff like strict term limits, limitations on corporate sponsorship, and absolutely no foreign money nore out of state money toward in-state elections."

Have tried my best to stay out of these "for fun" discussions but I must counter this with a heavy dose of realism.

We are not talking of just a "couple few" changes to the system. What scares both left and right is the undoing of well over 100 years of so called "law". Because this is what it would take to right the ship of the Republic (NOT democracy). In order to restore our Republic, adherence to the Constitution in the minutia is required. Nothing else will work.

I still have trouble grasping the stated position of some. As a Libertarian, the above statement is true. As a "republican" the above statement is trotted out from time to time and claimed to be true. The democrat does the same thing. What could I possibly be missing if all are being truthful?

To answer the original question and as a republican, I can only give my research based answer as follows

They stand for the spoonfed soundbite rather than doing their own homework

They stand (or rather trample upon ) the Constitution

They stand for "personhood" in monopolistic corporations

They stand for debt controlled by the banks residing in the City of London

While they deny it, they stand for central control OVER the States who created the VERY small federal gov.

They stand for acquiescence to the monster that enslaves them.

And at ALL times they stand opposed to the most Constitutionally perfect Candidate. As a matter of fact, because they do not do their own homework they pick up and parrot the lies told about that candidate.

Again questions should always rule, (trust me they never get answered, well unless you seek out the answer yourself.)

To wit,

On their worst day you will be able to get the candidate "haters" to admit (although grudgingly for sure) that the only Constitutional candidate has NEVER made an unconstitutional vote. While nobody is perfect for sure, I've yet to have somebody show me just one.

No logic dictates that if he has never been found wanting in this respect, that by extension he has never made an unConstitutional foreign policy vote either. Uh oh, Now we gotta examine why they "disagree with his foreign policy positions" And THAT boys and girls is when it gets VERY uncomfortable. Because the whole world unravels at that point and the absolute SOPHISTRY is layed bare.

I know, sitting down and shutting up,


----------



## andi (Apr 1, 2012)

I have been reading up and watching any videos I could find online w/regards to Mark C. I will admit that much of what he says is over my head and he doesn’t do much to explain it in more understandable terms. It seems like he just has so much passion, insight and research, that he is trying to fit into a short time, that "explaining" it wouldn't work. This is what I gathered as the general idea of what he saw as the problem. The government offered programs to loan money to people who didn't qualify for "regular" loans. So in reality, the government is the one who lowered the standards first, and the private sector loan companies just followed suit to compete. This resulted in the unbelievable number of defaulted loans, and in the long run, the crash.

Carriage, I always enjoy your posts, but I think this time I lost what "he" and "they" we are referring too. LOL I always assume they are meant to be ambiguous, just referring to big government, or more importantly big banks, but the last part, about Foreign Affair, seems more specific. Is this a RP reference?


----------



## Jill (Apr 1, 2012)

James, part of the problem is the regulations on lenders not to "discriminate" really forced the lenders to do those loans. To not participate in the Government programs would have deprived those that Uncle Sam was trying to "help". Another part of the problem is the dishonest way the mortgages were bundled and sold / presented to investors. The trouble seems to have started by turning the "American Dream" into a handout and nothing good followed. That's what I gather from Mark, and also what I gather from my own reading and observations.


----------



## andi (Apr 1, 2012)

I don't think it was Marks article, but I did read somewhere recently about the government funded "incentives" to loan to minorities. Almost like affirmative action for loans. I missed that in Marks talks, but agree totally that it does a lot more harm than good, and could be a large cause for the problem. The whole idea is a revolving door of frustration. Loan the money to people who can't afford it and look like a snake for taking advantage of them when you forclose, or don't, and be treated like you aren't supportive of the minorities. Hmmm

I have heard alot of talk about the bundleing and reselling of morgages, but honestly don't quite understand it. More reading for me ...


----------



## Jill (Apr 1, 2012)

Most mortgages are sold by the banks, especially the long term fixed ones (vs balloon notes). Don't feel bad for nit undstanding it. I'm sure most people don't. When I used to present motprtgae loans to my old bank's executive committee (bank board members), I was very nervous at first because I was young and not use to public speaking. You always had to state if the bank was keeping the loan or selling it to freddie Mac. So about the first question I was sake was "who s Freddie Mac?" And the guy was serious and didn't know. It was hard not to laugh if nothing else from nerves


----------



## tagalong (Apr 1, 2012)

> 2minis, you don't understand the different meanings of the words "of" and "from"?


That was uncalled for, *Jill.* She was asking about your views about this - and the meaning behind your words (even if it is just a tired slogan that some have been tossing around for years). Instead of explaining your feelings and discussing the points, you went for a cheap shot that you seemed to think was quite clever.

That is why many of these discussions go off the rails. Can we not try harder to keep it civil - and drop the sneering and insults?


----------



## Jill (Apr 1, 2012)

tagalong said:


> That was uncalled for, *Jill.* She was asking about your views about this - and the meaning behind your words (even if it is just a tired slogan that some have been tossing around for years). Instead of explaining your feelings and discussing the points, you went for a cheap shot that you seemed to think was quite clever.
> 
> That is why many of these discussions go off the rails. Can we not try harder to keep it civil - and drop the sneering and insults?


That's sincerely not the way I see it, Tag, on neither part of the exchange. I responded as I meant to, and was not out of line.

If you actually want to keep it civil, and it surely has been, why would you dig up something days past that you claim to think was an issue? Kinda contradictory IMO.


----------



## andi (Apr 1, 2012)

In all honesty, the only reason those previous comments are still aggravating tagalong, myself and I am sure some silent others, is they went "unresolved" because the person insulted got bullied off the topic. 

I do not disagree Jill, and actually suspect that 2Minis may have understood your comment completely, but was looking for you to clarify, possibly to express her own counterpoint, but didn't want to "assume" what you meant, she wanted clarification first. It is endlessly frustrating to know exactly what someone meant, disagree with them, and then be told, "Don’t put words in my mouth". She was most likely trying to avoid that. I would assume you could tell her intent, so you got overly defensive, belittling her by asking if she knows the difference between "of" and "from". Then insulting her further when she says she is just going to ignore your posts from now on, something you have said to me before. This is someone who may have been a valuable addition to the conversation, but is most likely just scared off now. For me personally, I would love some more involvement in this conversation, but I think the biggest reason they are not here is a the fear of being "attacked".

For me personally, I have been trying my hardest to ignore it, hoping to salvage some sort of conversation about the actually topic, but can't blame people for feeling "bothered" still.


----------



## Jill (Apr 1, 2012)

Well, I know you hate the "whatever" deal but it's sometimes a great way to look at things when others want to assign meanings or motives to you when they're simply incorrect. Sometimes it's just not worth taking the time to defend wrong assumptions. And too, I said just what I meant, plain and simple. Not trying to argue here ar all, just the opposite, but if this is going to be the fall back tactic, I'm not sure why we should continue what I thought, or hoped, was really a straight forward discussion. Maybe it's just not worth it, all things considered... especially if you honestly feel you've been struggling or something to salvage the discussion... its not supposed to be a homework assignment or unpleasant effort.


----------



## andi (Apr 1, 2012)

Jill, did you honestly think that she did not understand the difference between of and from? Again, this is just someone asking for clarification, to AVOID assuming.

ETA:

I went back to clarify, reread what had been said. You actually said, "Don't be confused by the difference, freedom of religion and freedom from religion". She asked, "What do you mean?". Looking at that, you had already assumed that the concept is confusing, the simple difference between "of" and "from". Your statement admits that you expect people to need clarification. But then belittle them when they ask for it? After rereading it, I actually answered her confusion before you had even replied. I might say, in a pretty convincing, though disagreeing with you, way. It almost seemed like the aggression that may have been felt towards me was just transferred to someone else, my comments were completely ignored and dismissed.


----------



## Jill (Apr 2, 2012)

James, I honestly thought 2Minis was being sarcastic. It's hard for me to get how someone doesn't understand the meaning behind not confusing "freedom of with freedom from,"

But, regardless, I'm just not going to go "there" with you anymore James. All you seem to want to do is nit pick and argue. I put forth a sincere conversation, and if this is where you keep wanting to go, you just have to go there without me.

It's this way every time we say more than a few words with each other. It's useless, annoying, and I am once again thinking that you just should be content with picking YOUR own words, and leave mine to me. You repeatedly try (here and other conversations) to get me to reword what I've said, or to "take it back" what I said. You project onto me your opinion of what my motives are (and, as usual, you miss the mark). I need no help saying what I mean, and don't need to be cross examined by you (again) about if I really meant this or that statement. I've been here long enough for everyone to know I say what I mean and mean what I say -- plain and simple / like it or not.

Really do not know what's going on but, "really dude", it's just strange the way you want to manipulate my words and rework them. You've done this stuff repeatedly, and I was silly to think you had moved off that odd quirk but clearly you've not.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 2, 2012)

" Is this a RP reference?"

Yes it is Andi. The Constitution is the most primary measuring stick by which a Candidate SHOULD be judged. IF it is not, you end up with what we have and it happens no matter which "party" has the ball.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 2, 2012)

weebiscuit said:


> I'd like you all to just make a list of several things that you think of when you think of the Republican party. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, independent, libertarian, or republican. Just make a list.
> 
> I have a reason for asking for your "lists" of things you identify the Republican party with. I'll tell you what my reason is after I see some of the things on your lists! They can be positive or negative things.
> 
> I had a weird experience the other day, which has something to do with the reason I'm asking for your lists! I hope y'all can help me out!


I've always voted Republican at the National and local level. Their fiscal policies, Nat. Security policies, illegal immigration policies all align with my own. The next election will be the first time in my life that I will not be voting for whoever gets the Republican nomination for one reason only - religion. Like many American's, I'm disgusted by the current front running candidates allowing not only the flaunting of their extreme Christianity but allowing it to cross the line between separation of church and state when it comes to politics. This election is like no other I can remember when it comes to the religious right.

I wholeheartedly support your right to believe anything you want to believe in the privacy of your home or the privacy of a community building on Saturday or Sunday mornings. But, IMO, that's where it should end. Don't bring it into the policy making public forum.

I'll go one step further because I wholeheartedly align myself with the Four Horsemen, Richard Dawkins , (the now passed) Christopher Hitchins et al. of this world. Very brilliant, educated fellows. I find religion to be a dangerous pursuit and the thought of someone believing in a book that says the world is 7000 years old with no more evidence than "faith" to me is so ludicrous that it scares me that they could have their finger on a nuclear launch button if they are this easily duped!

It scares me as a fiscal Republican that Obama more than likely will be reelected. But it scares me more to have such radical right wing Christians take us back generations of progress with their beliefs. After all it was Christianity (not the Visigoths) that caused the Dark Ages. I think it's time we crossed into the light





So to answer your question weebiscuit. The Republican part I see today is not the Republican part I have grown up aligning myself with and I see many of todays candidates putting their "faith" above the Constitution and Law.


----------



## 2minis4us (Apr 2, 2012)

Jill, just for the record I was not trying to be sarcastic. BUT I do find your political post pointless to anyone but youself since they are always made so you can toot your own horn.


----------



## Shari (Apr 2, 2012)

That was very well written, Thank you!



ozymandias said:


> I've always voted Republican at the National and local level. Their fiscal policies, Nat. Security policies, illegal immigration policies all align with my own. The next election will be the first time in my life that I will not be voting for whoever gets the Republican nomination for one reason only - religion. Like many American's, I'm disgusted by the current front running candidates allowing not only the flaunting of their extreme Christianity but allowing it to cross the line between separation of church and state when it comes to politics. This election is like no other I can remember when it comes to the religious right.
> 
> I wholeheartedly support your right to believe anything you want to believe in the privacy of your home or the privacy of a community building on Saturday or Sunday mornings. But, IMO, that's where it should end. Don't bring it into the policy making public forum.
> 
> ...


----------



## andi (Apr 2, 2012)

That is what I was assuming Carriage. I was watching the debate were foreign policy was brought up and RP dared say that we should apply the golden rule, (not to be confused with his feeling about needing us to convert to a gold standard), more often when considering our issues in the Middle East. The booing and uproar was so disappointing. What really amazed me and was so refreshing was that RP has been around for a long time, he has experts, just like the rest of the Candidates, who tell him what not to say, no matter how true. I am sure he knew that the audience would not love that statement, but he said it. It is the way he believes, and the debates are meant to show your views, not what research tells you the audience will like. It really did show a disconnect between how we Americans and the other candidates view the war, compared to RP and the people actually over there fighting in it. RP gets unbelievable support from active military members, I believe at one point it was double the rest of the candidates combined. I am sorry, but if the Men and Women on the front line support him and his views, how can any of us, at home sitting on our couches, boo him and treat him like a coward or traitor. Unbelievable.

I believe it was the debate in SC, where Newt was pretty much handfed the opportunity to turn his private issues into some sort of noble holier than though opportunity. I was watching the debate and they kept mentioning a pole they were doing during the debate were viewers were able to text and tweet in. It was after each question, and the viewer was able to vote on whether or not each candidate was eluding or answering the questions directly. They had all this buildup for the results, kept mentioning. At the end they started bringing up all the results, grouped together by what type of question, education, foreign policy, economy etc. Every single time it was the same, RP was winning by a large margin every time. They acted surprised and quickly scrolled threw, never mentioned it again. The next umpteen hours was spent reviewing the debates, reanalyzing the responses, the numbers and people’s reactions. Every other chart was pulled up over and over again. That one, showing that the people trusted and respected RP, didn’t show up again. It was truly unbelievable.

Jill, me asking you to explain what you said, venturing a guess and ASKING if this is what you meant, is not me twisting your words. It is me asking you to explain. That is not a tough concept or confusing, no matter how many times you use the excuse, I know you are smart enough to understand this concept.

As I have mentioned before Jill, call me weird, ignore me, insult me, I am going to question you and explain my thoughts when you seem mean and bullying to someone, whether or not you are agreeing with me. At the end of the day I know we all lose our temper or misspeak. If you hurt someone and someone questions you it is understandable, we should all be adult enough to admit it. What you said was mean, because, as you admitted, you thought she was being sarcastic. Maybe YOU shouldn't assign thoughts and feelings to other people’s words and then you wouldn't speak out of turn and insult people so often?


----------



## Carriage (Apr 2, 2012)

Will try to make this my last.

I truly am seeking to reach out to everybody left, right, in between, everybody. To think critically. To ask obvious questions. Then to seek logical and truthful answers. If I have a grating animosity, it is with those from my own party. "They" should know better and yet somehow do not. I get more traction and along better with FAR more from the dem party. They seem to think critically, logically and exhibit FAR more intellectual honesty than my own "party". This as also an attribute of R.P and why so many from the dem party are also voting for him.

Seeking the simple truth of a matter, no matter which one should always rule the day in everything.

R.P.'s stance on "foreign policy" is never really fully explained. Heck he isn't even allowed to explain it. At best he is given a very brief soundbite and then promptly buried. Because of the lack of Constitutional education these days, he needs more than the brief soundbite to fully teach about and explain his purely Constitutional position. There is a reason that his "foreign policy positions" never see the light of day and are never really explored. It all surrounds one issue and one issue ONLY. Another curious point is that on the rare occasion when it is covered, he draws many thousands, while the bankers choice Romney might squeak out a couple of hundred in attendance. Won't examine that curiosity right now so as to stay on point......

On another note, did you know that if he had a Constitutionally minded Congress operating with him that he would abolish the IRS and the "income" tax? Further do you know why?

The income tax was tied to the Aldrich plan and then the latter, VERY similar, Federal Reserve Act. You see the American People of the time KNEW the banker wolves intimately and wanted no part of them because they had always caused economic destruction in whatever country they set up shop. EVERY country! So the Aldrich plan didn't really have a prayer of a chance and a "different approach" and bill would be necessary in order to get the fed in place. Funny thing was, there was very little difference in the two "plans". Both featured an "income tax" as a necessary component of the "currency" bill. Ah, but why would an income tax be necessary to an seemingly unrelated currency bill you "might" ask? (you will start to see why questions and then truthful answers are so critical) Because the European banking houses who would administer "our" fed (through their "American" conduits) simply had to have a means of payment for the interest only of the debt they planned to use to control us. But it wasn't just payment that they were focused on. It was complete control THOUGH and because of the debt the sought to enslave us with.

I just love when movie's reveal a truths about our masters. The movie "The International" reveals the plan in the space of a 30 second sound-bite that even a republican can grasp (As one, I feel that I can speak truthfully about my "party"). However the true gem in this sound bite is delivered in one sentence. "He who controls the debt, controls EVERYTHING" The simplicity is stunning. Further because of its simplicity, it follows the first rule of law "Truth is simple", The second law? Fraud is complex. Always beware of those who complicate issue's and especially simple issue's I won't bore with rules three and four even though they apply in spades. The fed creates debt, PERIOD. Lawful or Constitutional money never creates debt PERIOD. Now, just like in math class, we need to check our work to make sure that our answer is correct. (didn't ya always hate that part?...) To wit, I will give you two quotes in paraphrase, both from a couple of Rothschild dudes,

1) Give me control of a countries currency and I care not who makes the laws

2) Those impudent American upstarts! If they realize that the can coin mint and set the value of their own currency, they will become wildly prosperous and it will spread through-out Europe like a wildfire. We cannot have that!

One point on the former quote, Um.... isn't this what has happened?........

Two points on the latter quote

1) and then started the war of 1812 which had several goals.

2) EVERY time we have freed ourselves form the "money changers" (8 times in American history) we WERE wildly prosperous.

Without a fed, there simply is no need for an "income" tax.

Lack of debt always equals prosperity, freedom and Liberty for ALL.

Debt always equals slavery and eventual destruction, and again, for ALL.

This flies in the face of my "party's" current positions of both debt and greed being good.

I am fully trainable, if you think me wrong on any point and can prove it with fact, I will eagerly accept said correction. Be observable folks, the lack of response, especially from those who think themselves intellectually "superior" is ALSO very revealing.

In the end, two parties serve to divide. That is the purpose. The very simple purpose. Truly there should be only one party and at its core should be the adherence to the Constitution in minutia. Anything else is destructive of our Liberty and will make all of us, left and right, slaves.

thanks for your time and consideration,

Bb


----------



## andi (Apr 2, 2012)

Uh Oh, I am beginning to understand about 60% of your posts Carriage, that is a vast improvement for me. LOL 6 months ago I thought I might need some "medicinal assistance" to get on the same wave length, but a little education is doing the trick.


----------



## Jill (Apr 2, 2012)

I've said honestly exactly what I wanted to say, and didn't use any big words. Those who want to understand what I've said shouldn't have any trouble doing so. I'm simply not going to get into the personal back and forth and insults which is where some members always want to take hot or political discussions. Life's too short (and busy!) and I'm not running for office here on LB


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 2, 2012)

Carriage said:


> Lack of debt always equals prosperity, freedom and Liberty for ALL.
> 
> Debt always equals slavery and eventual destruction, and again, for ALL.


So simple and oh so true!


----------



## tagalong (Apr 3, 2012)

> If you actually want to keep it civil, and it surely has been, why would you dig up something days past that you claim to think was an issue? Kinda contradictory IMO.


Huh? Someone has a concern and yet_ you_ and only_ you _get to decide when and where it is okay for them to voice it?* Jill *- not all of us read the forum every day. I read the whole thread when I saw it and commented on it without bothering to check the dates of the posts - and yet you seem to think that is an offense of some kind and sneer-worthy.

There was really nothing civil about your response to *2minis* - or your snide response to me. THAT is contradictory to your claims of how civil the discussion has been.



> I've said honestly exactly what I wanted to say, and *didn't use any big words*. Those who want to understand what I've said shouldn't have any trouble doing so. I'm simply not going to get into the personal back and forth and insults which is where some members always want to take hot or political discussions.


Seeing as you are the one who usually starts the back and forth and "insults" and continue in the same vein here with your comments about not using any "big words" {could you be any more condescending??!!} ... etc. - that ^ comes across as completely disingenuous. You always seems to view any concerns that do not match your own as "insults" or something to be sneered at and scorned. You seem to relish that at times.

Hardly the foundation for a civil political discussion of any kind.



> So to answer your question weebiscuit. The Republican part I see today is not the Republican part I have grown up aligning myself with and I see many of todays candidates putting their "faith" above the Constitution and Law.


Well said - and exactly right.

As far as the Republican Party goes, I am not sure that they even know what they stand for anymore - they seem to be all over the map.


----------



## Jill (Apr 3, 2012)

It's interesting to see how frequently political discussions on LB get turned into focus groups about my opinions. Time and time again. Year after year. And, I'm pleased to report that your opinion of my opinion... doesn't change my opinion (nor my desire, likelihood and ability to share it)


----------



## 2minis4us (Apr 3, 2012)

Yes it is interesting - I can't help myself I have to respond - because Jill you start about 99% of the political topics on here and it's the same old thing. We all know you are a republican, successful, and love Capitalism...and every so often you have to stir the pot and and remind us






It's more irritating than informative. Then as usual you have to have the last word.


----------



## Jill (Apr 3, 2012)

2minis4us said:


> Yes it is interesting - I can't help myself I have to respond - because Jill you start about 99% of the political topics on here and it's the same old thing. We all know you are a republican, successful, and love Capitalism...and every so often you have to stir the pot and and remind us
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cannot take credit for 99% of the political posts. There are other people who are active. Thankfully. Not everyone is apathetic, disinterested, uninformed and/or lazy. Of course, there are also the resident moths to the flame who _really_ do just come to stir the pot.


----------



## 2minis4us (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm done


----------



## tagalong (Apr 3, 2012)

It is more predictable than "interesting".





It happens because you tend to condescend and sneer along with having said opinion.

You have suggested that others are lying, are ignorant etc. because they did not share your opinion. You have presented viral emails as facts in the past. You have run roughshod over people - for not sharing your opinion. You have repeatedly made it clear that the only opinions that are to be respected or discussed are yours. *It is not the opinion itself but the way you seem to delight in delivering it. *





On another forum where we have lively political threads that have never needed to be edited or deleted, everyone respects everyone else's opinion and although things may get a bit heated, the discussion is always civll. No insults. No condescension. People with very opposing views can and do have interesting lively discussions/debates - as many posters here do.

BTW, people disagreeing with you does not constitute a "focus group"...





Back to the discussion... one could also ask what the Tea Party stands for. They seem to be floundering of late and have no cohesive message...


----------



## Carriage (Apr 3, 2012)

Thank you Andi and others,

I am definitely NOT a writer or orator. I do appreciate that you can focus through my horrible spelling and grammatical errors.

Specific to the poll you mentioned during the debate, that has for more importance than the casual observer might credit it. His lead in ALL categories was not even close. He was beating the pants off of all comers. And yet, as you saw and in support of my comments, it was buried. It happened right in front of your eyes and I saw and noted it as well. This has been happening for the ENTIRE ride. It also happened during the last "election" cycle. Quite plainly the machine, its owned media on both sides and all of its sycophants are terrified of him. By logical extension they are terrified of the Constitution. Additionally when presented with indisputable fact and their positions are revealed as fraud and devoid of logic, they simply refuse to engage. Usually they seek to attack and degrade the truth teller. They engage in every form of Hegelian mechanism to bury and marginalize the truth teller, including but not limited to the coup de grac of labels "Conspiracy theorist". If one is paying attention, one can see this behavior in all of the machines mouthpieces and change agents, be it rush, beck, farce larcony (lars larson), just pick one. When one tries to engage them, one gets a dear in the headlights kinda look and they depart the field of battle in extreme haste and with attack and name calling. Remember I share the same party and am therefore qualified to bust on them. But why do they do this? Again the answer is simple and therefore truthful. Their positions are based in ill-logic and fraud and at some level they know this. They come to do battle with a Constitutionalist and they are an un-armed combatant. It is painful to have your lunch handed to you and so all of the mechanisms of avoidance are used, no matter what.

I have worn the hat of annalist for a good number of years in various capacities including martial, but certainly not limited to that field. I study words and their structure or the lack of words to get to the root and true nature of a subject. To me, many times but not always, it is quite plain and elementary to see through a thing or person and has almost become second nature. It is a gift nearly anybody can develop if they put the effort forth. I ain't that special, trust me. That is what I'm trying to get everybody to do, in order to know the truth of a thing or a person. By doing so you are able to free yourself, think critically, honestly and rest at Liberty. Not doing so insures that you are enslaved. Our founders, nearly to a man, died penniless and were hunted down for having the temerity to stand against the same monster that enslaves us today. The very same monster! I will not ever shirk my responsibility to their sacrifice to secure to us, Liberty and Justice for ALL. R.P. and my positions are the same as our founders. While I have tried to avoid the topic Andi (and others) you have seen the evidence first hand (or at least an indicator) during the previously mentioned debate that a MAJORITY of the American people including the Military have sided with R.P. and therefore our treasured founders and also hold the same views. And yet, the "official" fraud, I mean count doesn't seem to reflect that. Hmmmm........ But, I'm sure that this is just another "conspiracy theory" from the "4:20 crowd" and the "kool-aid" drinkers..... See how easy that works?........

Again, why can't he win? I would think that the attendant (them whats payin attention and all) know full well why he can't win. Isn't it obvious? The slave master won't allow him to win. The preponderance of evidence is that he should be, yet the "official" numbers indicate the exact opposite. Early in the caucus fraucus (it rhymes better) an eye witness account f the vote went like this,

RP RP RP RP RP RP Romney RP RP RP RP RP RP Romney RP RP, and continued much like this for the entire count. And yet the "official" winner was Romney. This is just one account among MANY like this. That's why the "count" went behind closed doors. and has remained that way. There is a literal mountain of evidence pointing to fraud. There is an exquisitely simple and cheap method to fix the vote so as to not be manipulated and again it is the republican that is fighting it tooth and nail. Why? because it puts ALL of the power back into our hands and CANNOT be manipulated to a predetermined outcome. Why these guys continue to run without first fixing the sophistry that is "the vote" is beyond me and quite insane.

To work


----------



## andi (Apr 3, 2012)

Honestly my biggest facination with politics is they way people interact and attempt to convince and "guide" people one way or the other. It is very similar to any industry, for me specificaly the horse training bussiness. It is facinating to watch how ability and talent take a back seat when selecting a trainer for some people, and actually they usually know that but won't admit it. Some people do it without even realizing it. There is so much Mob Mentality and Follow the Leader type peer pressure it can keep your mind going indefinitely. I really enjoy analyzing and "predicting" what people in this industries motives and next moves are. Often, if you are an uninvolved spectator, it is quite easy as you mentioned and sooo valuable.


----------



## Jill (Apr 3, 2012)

tagalong said:


> Back to the discussion... one could also ask what the Tea Party stands for. They seem to be floundering of late and have no cohesive message...


It seems like 2008 showed us that many American Voters like what the Tea Party stands for, and they also reject the liberal agenda. If you want to know what I think it stands for and why I am a conservative Republican, see my intial bullet point post on this thread... That is, if one honestly wonders.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 3, 2012)

"BTW, people disagreeing with you does not constitute a "focus group"...



"

YES!..... But then again it is just another form of the "attack" for it truly addresses nothing pertaining to the point.

"Back to the discussion... one could also ask what the Tea Party stands for. They seem to be floundering of late and have no cohesive message..."

GOOD question Tag. I love questions! Here is what I believe to be the answer. The original tea party was essentially a R.P. construct and education tool during the last "election" cycle. As such it shared his views and was was aligned with his Constitutional thought process.

There is a simple rule with movements and groups and especially those at odds with the dominant "establishment". They are all infiltrated by the dominant establishment. This is and always has been one of those "pillar" rules in the handbook. Some time ago, I started to hear Gingrich's name being affiliated with the "tea party". This HUGE red flag caused me to start examining this startling turn of events. The examination revealed that the original R.P. tea party had indeed been infiltrated and hi jacked through unscrupulous means by the republican party and was being directed by that "establishment". It would take much time that I don't have right now to hunt down the relevant proof of this claim. However, knowing what it was and seeing what it is now should be ample anecdotal evidence to prove the point. That they are NOT behind R.P. and do not hold to the Constitutional views that they did under him and he does today and always has. Because they gave up the pure standard of upholding and defending the Constitution even in minutia, they flounder. They do not stand on the only solid ground of importance to our nation.


----------



## Reijel's Mom (Apr 3, 2012)

weebiscuit said:


> I'd like you all to just make a list of several things that you think of when you think of the Republican party.


This is not a complete list (though I could add to it later, I suppose) but one word certainly comes to mind. "Elitist".


----------



## andi (Apr 3, 2012)

I agree with this statement,

"Back to the discussion... one could also ask what the Tea Party stands for. They seem to be floundering of late and have no cohesive message.."

This replying statement seems to want to answer the question, get support for the TPM, but doesn’t answer the above statement at all,

"It seems like 2008 showed us that many American Voters like what the Tea Party stands for, and they also reject the liberal agenda."

The biggest statement the reply makes is, "support the TPM, alot of voters used to when it began". It ignores the issue brought up. It is relying on hype and peer pressure; and avoids actually delivering a cohesive message of what the TPM stands for, which is what the problem was. 

From what I have researched the TPM started around 2008, in support of RP and his values, So, referring to their success in 2008, at relatively the very start of their existence, has no bearing on whether or not they are "floundering of late". I think to ignore the issue, on a false illusion that everything is fine, is what started this whole mess. We need to be honest and deal with the problem, not rely on false hype as the foundation of why people should support the TPM. It is creating a false "bubble" of supporters.


----------



## tagalong (Apr 3, 2012)

> It seems like 2008 showed us that many American Voters like what the Tea Party stands for, and they also reject the liberal agenda.


*Jill *- that did not really address the question. The Tea Party of 2008 was not the fragmented, contradictory mess the Tea Party is now. In 2008 it appeared to be a fresh, driving force - all Hopey/Changey in its own way. Since then? Pffffffffft. It has not lived up to its self-promoted promise. Even different Tea Party groups did not agree with each other. There does not seem to be one cohesive TP agenda anymore.

And who does the Tea Party stand behind now? That seems to change depending on which way the wind is blowing. Michele Bachmann was the darling of some of them.... but that did not work out and IMO was ill-advised. And now? _*shrug* _

A false bubble of supporters will not shore up a party that seems to have lost its focus... thanks for your thoughts and answers, *James* and *Carriage*! I appreciate a good discussion instead of recycled rhetoric... which can be found on both "sides".


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 3, 2012)

tagalong said:


> The Tea Party of 2008 was not the fragmented, contradictory mess the Tea Party is now. In 2008 it appeared to be a fresh, driving force - all Hopey/Changey in its own way. Since then? Pffffffffft. It has not lived up to its self-promoted promise. Even different Tea Party groups did not agree with each other. There does not seem to be one cohesive TP agenda anymore.
> 
> And who does the Tea Party stand behind now? That seems to change depending on which way the wind is blowing. Michele Bachmann was the darling of some of them.... but that did not work out and IMO was ill-advised. And now? _*shrug* _
> 
> A false bubble of supporters will not shore up a party that seems to have lost its focus.


This is so true. In 2008 when they were starting and strong almost everyone I knew was ready to jump in and sign up. They had a direction, they had a cause (or two) they had a mission. They were attracting voters from all parties especially those precious Independent voters and those feeling they had become disenfranchised by their own parties of choice. Since then they have become a Venn diagram where the Republican Party had devoured them "all TP's are Republicans but not all Republicans are TP's!".

Now I don't know anyone wanting to vote TP 1) who wants to throw away a vote and 2) what and who are the TP?


----------



## Jill (Apr 3, 2012)

Miniwhinny / Ozy, I didn't know the Tea Party was putting forth a third ticket.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 4, 2012)

"From what I have researched the TPM started around 2008, in support of RP and his values, So, referring to their success in 2008, at relatively the very start of their existence, has no bearing on whether or not they are "floundering of late". I think to ignore the issue, on a false illusion that everything is fine, is what started this whole mess. We need to be honest and deal with the problem, not rely on false hype as the foundation of why people should support the TPM. It is creating a false "bubble" of supporters. "

Very good Andi, This is true. It is refreshing to see logic and historical research on exhibit.

Also keep in mind that a lack of response or engagement specific to the point brought forth speaks volumes and is an easy "tell" when determining intellectual honesty.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 4, 2012)

ozymandias said:


> This is so true. In 2008 when they were starting and strong almost everyone I knew was ready to jump in and sign up. They had a direction, they had a cause (or two) they had a mission. They were attracting voters from all parties especially those precious Independent voters and those feeling they had become disenfranchised by their own parties of choice. Since then they have become a Venn diagram where the Republican Party had devoured them "all TP's are Republicans but not all Republicans are TP's!".
> 
> Now I don't know anyone wanting to vote TP 1) who wants to throw away a vote and 2) what and who are the TP?


Also very Good Ozy,

The tea party of today has ZERO in relation with what it started as. Again fragmentation and division is absolutely necessary. This is gorilla warfare 101 and step one. Always has been always will be. For without division you can't "create" change. The original and true tea party did not see this coming and were very naive. They let the wolves ( masquerading as republicans) into their shop and then found themselves literally locked out of their shop and their database stolen. Yes literally. But again being observant and being an "elephant", therefor possessing a great memory, insures that when you are handed a lie, you will readily identify it for what it is. In this case only casual observance is needed. They are not behind R.P. and do not hold the Constitution in its proper place. Rather, they throw it under the bus FAR more than the folk that they attack. Isn't that curious. Furthermore, when accused with historical fact of their vacuous position, they refuse to engage and logically defend their position(s).

Two reasons why,

1) They can't and know that they can't.

and more importantly to them

2) They don't need to. Because the "machine" controls everything and has chosen their "victor" already.

Remember the singular truth, "he who controls the debt, controls EVERYTHING" While not exclusive of everything else, for this discussion it does mean "parties", the media on both "sides" and the vote. By controlling those three factors there is no wiggle room EXCEPT that which resides between your ears You maintaining control of that final frontier is what scares the livin tick out of them and why they seek to control it to the degree that they do. Only the weak minded will willingly give up this, their greatest and most valuable possession.

I am hearing and meeting more and more people all the time that have decided to, quietly and humbly, just say no and refuse to comply

They are the true Americans and retain their birthright. Also they don't buy bridges, and have not been fitted with nose rings.

romney did have a slight desperate tone to his voice a couple of days ago when he was imploring every body else to get out of the race so that he could be crowned. I will continue to extend my feelers for more intell on this. I know what I would like to believe as why, but again must remained grounded in fact.

In any event, the only two outcomes will most likely be, ( IMO)

*)Romney wins and Constitutionally our destruction continues,

*)Romney is being set up to loose against Obama and Constitutionally our destruction continues .

This would be the replay of last time when they purposely set-up McCain to loose to Obama.

It really could go either way Romney's long time and very strong ties to Mossad and the money changers makes it difficult to know.

BUT lets try to find some joy today, anyway, eh?


----------



## Shaladar (Apr 4, 2012)

I just want to say I have really enjoyed the posts in this thread.

Thank-you Carriage and others for your very informative posts.

Very, very interesting reading.

Sue


----------



## andi (Apr 4, 2012)

For me, when reading your posts Carriage, the problem can sound so overwhelming and impossible to fix. But when you think about, break the foundation and those at the "top" that seem so impossible to defeat, have nothing left to stand on. I don't mean "top" as the 1% or successful, I mean those using our debt to control us. We could all be free of it the moment we decide to be. Take complete personal responsibility for your own happiness, nothing is owed to you. 

Admit that you don’t need one single bit more than you make for yourself. Hold yourself and everyone you deal with to the highest standard you can imagine; even if, actually, especially if, it might "cost you" some "success". Make those tiny or huge sacrifices to guarantee your own freedom to live your own life, how you wish. For me that means also being vocal against those who don't do this. The moment you think, "I could probably benefit from being silent", you are already rationalizing your assumed support of the behavior. Speak up and risk opposing someone you could benefit from, if they are truly someone worth working with then they will understand. 

If the majority of us did this, the leaders would have no one left to lead and no power. We could all just support what we truly support, not what we feel we must.


----------



## Jill (Apr 4, 2012)

Carriage / Bb, do you support a GOP brokered convention? Or are you wanting a 3rd ticket? Not going to vote? Or what?

... I have mixed feelings about a brokered convention but it made for interesting "day dreams" earlier on.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 4, 2012)

"If the majority of us did this, the leaders would have no one left to lead and no power. We could all just support what we truly support, not what we feel we must." 

Andi, You have done your good work for the day twice by making this geezer smile. Yes to all but especially this last! If the "leaders" have nobody to lead, they have no power. They in fact have no power right now if you refuse to give it to them. Rights can NEVER truly be taken from you. Only YOU can decide to give them up and it is always done either in ignorance (most often willful) or fear. As an American, I refuse to be fearful and give evil "men" anything, well except my contempt. And neither am I ignorant to what they have done and continue to do. My problem, most often, is not having contempt for those, who by giving up their rights would also seek to give up mine, either through ignorance or fear. Fear should NEVER be part of an Americans thought process as we were born under fire at our foundation. And fear was NEVER modeled for us by the men and woman who gave everything for our Liberty!

The words of a D.I. so many years ago still rings in my ears (well only because he was yelling them about two inches from said ear...),

C,mon (expleative!, seemed to be his interpretation of my given name) All they can do is kill you, what do you care if they eat you too!

Indeed, what do we care. Slavery is unacceptable and not part of an Americans birthright.

And YES it is a monumental task to take our birthright back, it might very well not be possible given how long we have allowed our "masters" free reign over us. The simple and overwhelming response IN UNITY should be a very resolute Fine, lets get after it!

For if slavery is not an option, then there is no room for fear or even fear of death in the pursuit of Liberty and Justice for ALL.

For when all the sophistry is stripped away, I will either have my Liberty or, as a believer, I will be with my Lord. Either way I will be the winner. HERE is where the words of Patrick Henry truly live, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery"? ......... Homey say NO!

As I've stated there is room at this table for both the "left" and the "right" because Liberty for ALL encompass both "left" and "right".

We CAN and MUST stop attacking each other, for this ONLY serves the purpose of the slave master, NEVER ours. His best tool for our destruction to to splinter us and "he" does so in a myriad of ways. At all time we MUST resist being divided, whether we swap spit on everything or not. The MAIN thing is that we ALL agree, that our Liberty is ONLY secured to us by minute adherence to the Constitution of these States United. For it is only after taking care of that task that we would rest AT Liberty to get back to the issue's in disagreement. We will always have disagreement BUT we can do so peacefully and with love for our American brother or sister. Peaceful solutions abound if we would but choose them.

I was speaking with a gal the other day. Now politically, by all accounts, we should be at each others throats. And yet were not AND never have been. While I don't agree with her on some things, both she and I can easily find common ground on MANY things and of a CORE nature. Why? because we CHOOSE to and we have love in our hearts towards each other. This will be the only way to restore our Constitutional Republic Induced divisions NEVER will. The slave masters know this, have written books about it and then have been doing it for millennia

Being as wise as a serpent, must mean that we are wise TO the serpent. And to bring it full circle to the topic line "What does the republican party stand for? Not this, that's for sure. However if we are to continue to play the divisional game of "parties", it is my fondest desire that BOTH parties would stand for this.Because ALL would benefit greatly by doing so.

"Why stand we here idle?"

Thanks again


----------



## Carriage (Apr 4, 2012)

Jill said:


> Carriage / Bb, do you support a GOP brokered convention? Or are you wanting a 3rd ticket? Not going to vote? Or what?
> 
> ... I have mixed feelings about a brokered convention but it made for interesting "day dreams" earlier on.


I will give you a simple, single and VERY resolute answer.

I WILL vote for R.P. If my suspicions, intel and instincts are correct, I will stand with a GREAT many who also will NOT be swayed.

Now the "machines" count? I got's no control over that........ well yet, but I'm working on it.

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death".

Gosh ol Pat's gettin a workout today....


----------



## Jill (Apr 4, 2012)

Thanks, Carriage


----------



## ohmt (Apr 4, 2012)

Carriage, I do love the wisdom in much of what you say, but I have a question regarding this:



> Romney is being set up to loose against Obama and Constitutionally our destruction continues .This would be the replay of last time when they purposely set-up McCain to loose to Obama.


In today's society where the media just loves to create paranoia and hype over nothing, I do cringe when I read things like this. I work in a lab as a researcher and our favorite motto is: "the simplest explanation is almost always the right one". I have found that to be true in most areas of life, not just in science so it's hard to convince me of "plottings" and "set ups".

May I ask you to elaborate? I promise I am not trying to be a "brat", I am genuinely curious as to the basis behind the 2 statements.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 4, 2012)

ohmt said:


> Carriage, I do love the wisdom in much of what you say, but I have a question regarding this:
> 
> Romney is being set up to loose against Obama and Constitutionally our destruction continues .
> 
> ...


I'd like to understand the reasoning behind this



Perhaps it's the "they" that's escaping me.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 5, 2012)

Carriage said:


> I WILL vote for R.P.


Wonder if he'll run for a 3rd party ticket?

Love his stance on responsible economic policies, love his stance on National Sovereignty, border security, love his opposition to tax increases etc.
​



There are a couple of issues I don't agree with (his opposition to gay marriage being one of those) but what politician is ever perfect right lol. At least he's better than the wishy washy candidate running the pack now.
​


----------



## Carriage (Apr 5, 2012)

ohmt said:


> Carriage, I do love the wisdom in much of what you say, but I have a question regarding this:
> 
> In today's society where the media just loves to create paranoia and hype over nothing, I do cringe when I read things like this. I work in a lab as a researcher and our favorite motto is: "the simplest explanation is almost always the right one". I have found that to be true in most areas of life, not just in science so it's hard to convince me of "plottings" and "set ups".
> 
> May I ask you to elaborate? I promise I am not trying to be a "brat", I am genuinely curious as to the basis behind the 2 statements.


Well simplicity is precisely where I have been grounded. Again the first two pillars of law are Truth is simple, Fraud is complex. So we always start from those firm foundations. Also what must be factored in is the purposeful programming about the topic by those who have the most to loose or gain regarding the control of the information surrounding the topic. You have asked a question that quite simply encompasses well over 100 years of real history. Without knowing your knowledge base about that history, a concise answer becomes very difficult. I am not being coy or evasive.

While I don't know what type of lab you work in, as a researcher.... If I were to walk into your lab as a new hire, knowing absolutely nothing about process specific to your field, how would you instruct me on the most advanced process? Where would you start? In my case you would have to go back to Biology 101 or earlier as I would have no grounding on which to build this new knowledge.

Always, when folk like me speak it is imperative to meet the new applicant where they are and build from there. Also, and this is very important, the new applicant must be trained to seek the truth and verify it for themselves. At ALL times I implore you to not believe me, but to go and make it true or false for your self with as much objectivity as you can muster. It is so easy for those like us with so much time in grade based in historical research and verification to forget these tenets of teaching and training. Also, as I've gotten older, I realize that I can convince nobody of anything. They must do the heavy lifting that comes with knowledge based acceptance. The problem has always been "Where do I even start?" If I am speaking to the issue of church incorporation, the individual to which I speak has NO grounding at all to even comprehend what I'm saying or why it is even an important, no CRITICAL, topic At word 6, the glaze develops and all teaching has stopped. This does the hearer NOR the impart-er of truth any good and as a matter of fact a wall comes up on the part of the hearer and little future headway will be realized, most often ever. As I've stated during this thread, and what you as a researcher should appreciate is that most often a quietly asked question on my part, saves much time and serves utility in weeding out those with intellectual honesty and curiosity from those who are not (self) teachable yet. For it is those in which the investment should be made. As a teacher wearing various hat over the years I know this to be true. And my experience has been that once the fire is lit in these precious individuals that the fire lighters best position is fire management not to be confused with suppression. For the new devotee has all the enthusiasm in the world and can be their own worst enemy. Guidance to keep them out of the hazards becomes the imparters job.

While the comment I made is my historically based reading of the tea leaves, it is grounded in a massive amount of historically based information available to anybody with a heart to know the truth. When you see the very same patterns, again and again and the results follow along the same lines again and again, is it still referred to as a theory? The statement was grounded in historical hindsight. While painful for those of us who cherish Liberty, it is most often all we have to figure out what happened and, based on that, what is most likely to happen in the future.

After all this, I will try to explain my posited prediction.

During the last "election" cycle, R.P. also ran and was buried by the "parties" and the media on both "sides" of the aisle. His message was never allowed to see the light of day. As an aside this "cycle" has been much worse for him.

But during the previous cycle, McCain never exited the race EVEN though candidates in FAR better shape than him were getting out. This was very perplexing to pundits at the time. He CLEARLY did not have the hearts and minds of the party yet, remained in the "hunt".

Despite these facts, at the end of the day, he and Palin were anointed the machines choice. Again I say machine cause everybody else was beating the pants off of him until the very end. So the absolute WORST candidate was held up to the republican sheep to fawn over. With the real tea party solidly behind R.P. and a less than stellar candidate to choose from, it can be no wonder that many were disenchanted and disenfranchised. I'm sorry, but the result was predictable. I and several others KNEW what the outcome would be and were correct. As an aside McCain has gone on to produce the NDAA bill which many of us who cherish Liberty find to be quite chilling to say the least. That alone says he would have violated his oath as he has been doing for his entire career.

Fast forward to today and you see many of the very same tells with a different wrinkle in that Romney has the backing of BIG banking and has always been ahead in the "count". In fact many of us see little difference between he and Obama as to policy and he is already on record as saying he would shift to the left after elected. If there is little difference twixt the two and especially towards the banks, monopolistic corporate control, and the fed, seems like we are setting the table in large measure for a repeat "performance". As the populace as a whole is easily moved and manipulated BECAUSE they don't do their own research and remember history, how could it possibly arrive at a different, much less better, conclusion? Now none of this touches upon vote fraud to date and what is to be expected.

The truly different candidate, the most Constitutionally perfect (30 year track record to PROVE it) candidate is marginalized with every mechanism available. IF the Constitution is not THE metric used to discern the BEST candidate, you will never end up with anything other than what you have.

Again questions should always rule the roost Both dems and reps are ALWAYS surprised, EVERY time, when their savior of a candidate rarely lives up to their campaign promises. I see far more disillusionment on the "left" and they are truly hurt when they realized that yet again they have been duped. It happens on the "right" as well but far more often this group seeks to justify what their chosen liar has done. I don't get it but from a far different perspective they aren't getting it either.

A careful reading of my past grammatical horror does reveal who "they" are. Again one must meet folk where they are in order to pique interest in those folk to verify for them selves. Other wise the conspiracy mantra is chanted and no research takes place.

Hope this helps as I'm spending far more time doing this than my business dictates that I should.

I appreciate your attendance,


----------



## Carriage (Apr 5, 2012)

ozymandias said:


> Wonder if he'll run for a 3rd party ticket? Love his stance on responsible economic policies, love his stance on National Sovereignty, border security, love his opposition to tax increases etc.
> ​
> 
> There are a couple of issues I don't agree with (his opposition to gay marriage being one of those) but what politician is ever perfect right lol. At least he's better than the wishy washy candidate running the pack now.
> ​


Well Ozy, you are correct about perfection.

However if you think YOU have problems with his stance on gay marriage, You ought to see the kiniptions that the evangelicals are having over it and drug policy. Oh my word! And rarely will they listen to the truth which is perplexing to me as a fellow believer.

His stance is that both issue's are State issues and that no Constitutional enumeration exists allowing the fed gov ANY authority in these area's. From a Constitutional standpoint he is perfectly correct. The Constitution must be abided by AS IT IS WRITTEN and NOT as we want it to be. For it is the latter that has brought us to where we are. It is NOT a "living and breathing" document as is commonly trotted out. It only lives when it is upheld and defended AND when changeed IN ACCORDACE with the provisions contained therein. Other wise it is a rock. and immutable.

To work,


----------



## Carriage (Apr 5, 2012)

In support of some comments I have made regarding the establishment and the media. The following is something you will not see and indeed have not been seeing. Yet, this has been occurring the entire time. Now the boiler plate response to this has been "He has a very small and very vocal minority supporting him" The aggregate evidence, if one is paying attention, is that this is plainly false. Now if you have identified even one falsehood, does that open the door for examination of everything else that "source" has said? I would submit that logic dictates yes. Now what this truth does do is open up a can of worms regarding the "official" count and all of the evidence surrounding that issue...... I especially liked the sentence saying he drew the largest attendance to date.......

“It sounds like the revolution is alive and well” Ron Paul said last night as he strode out into a stadium brimming with around SEVEN THOUSAND people.

Reports stated that participants had waited in line as long as nine hours to get a seat to hear the Congressman speak for over 45 minutes at the UCLA Straus Stadium. Once the stadium was full beyond capacity, hundreds of people still waited outside and had to be turned away by marshals concerned about overcrowding.

The huge crowd represented the largest attendance for any of the GOP candidates during this campaign and broke Paul’s own attendance record, which was remarkably set the previous night!

A stunning 6200 plus had packed into the grounds of California State University, Chico’s Bell Memorial Student Union Tuesday. Of course, the mainstream media was no where to be seen as usual. Paul noted that only a handful of reports emerged with one describing “hundreds” in attendance.

The issues Paul addressed Wednesday night ranged from the war on drugs, to the freedom stripping NDAA and the actions of the TSA.

“The problem… boils down to one thing — government is way too big,” Paul said.

The Congressman noted that January 1, 2012 saw the passage of forty thousand new federal laws in America. “I want to be the first president to repeal forty thousand laws.” Paul told the crowd to rapturous applause.

Paul also drew wild cheers when he said “it’s time to change our foreign policy. Why don’t we look at the Constitution? There’s no authority for us to occupy other nations and tell them what to do, so we shouldn’t be in the business of occupying.”

Watch key clips of Paul’s UCLA speech:

Watch the speech in Full:

Watch the Congressman’s speech to over 6000 in California:

Tonight Paul is scheduled to speak at UC – Berkeley where he is sure to draw another huge crowd.

The fact that people continue to turn out in their thousands to see Paul, while the other candidates struggle to muster crowds over 100 emphasizes the fact that Paul’s message still has a vital role to play in this campaign.

The other candidates represent the same tired status quo. Their dwindling crowds, in comparison to Paul’s enthusiastic masses, highlight the apathy and disinterest with which the majority of Americans look upon establishment politicians.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 6, 2012)

I still find when it all boils down that RP is no different from the others when it comes to the infinitely important separation of church and state as intended by the founding fathers despite his claims of being such an ardent Constitutionalist. He is, and therefore will rule accordingly, against gay marriage and against pro-choice. Both are biblicaly derived issues and his political backing of them is in direct opposition to his belief in the meaning of the Constitution.


----------



## andi (Apr 6, 2012)

Actually, when it boils down, RP is extremely different when it comes to his thoughts on separation of Church and State. Your assumption, that because he is personally "against" something he will "rule accordingly", is not correct. That is what makes him so incredible, he is not so arrogant to think that his moral code is the only one and understands that the constitution does not give him the right to control others morals. I'll just post a couple videos to show his view on the two. You will notice in these videos, the propotion of what he talks about are not his personal views on these things, but his views on why government should leave them alone.

This one sums up his thoughts on Gay Marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84&feature=related

I felt the need to add this one just as an interesting FYI, the view of a supposedly "rreligiousless super liberal" politician





This one sums up some of his thoughts on Abortion. I think it is very important to understand that his views on abortion have nothing to due with separation of Church and State. I will admit to having a very similar view and am not a "religious" person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cypg0Qvh__8


----------



## Danielle_E. (Apr 7, 2012)

If I were American RP is the one I would vote for. I usually vote for anyone but the Conservative Party here in Canada so to me it is quite amazing that RP is the only one I would cast my vote for if.... I think the an is a true breath of fresh air as a politician. He says it like it is but I guess many don't want to hear that or face up to it.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 7, 2012)

Thanks James,

I stand corrected



Just did the "homework" and agree that you're right. Wow, how refreshing, a politician actually walking the walk he preaches.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 7, 2012)

I am grateful for your comments Andi and Danielle.

Slavery is a very peculiar thing. It is also a very natural and pandemic kind of thing. Constant vigilance and introspection are necessary to prevent its creeping into our minds and ruling over us. It takes a good many forms and we would deny its presence in our lives for a host of reasons and yet if one carefully studies the behavior and speech patterns of others we can readily see it in various forms, in others.... But at times when we are not careful we can see it in ourselves as well. That's why we must be constantly vigilant and brutally honest with ourselves to prevent it from taking root in us.

I just read a fantastic piece on slavery dealing with the physiological mechanisms by which it invades and manifests. Much of it was old schooling for me, but also with a couple of ah ha things inside for me. I had thought to post it but saw little utility in doing so.

One of our doubtfuls here makes an absolutely FALSE statement about R.P and his character. Clinging to this singular and provable falsehood completely pervades and controls and shapes ALL reality. It is provably false and with facts, however slavery is a very peculiar enemy and at this time this person cannot see this. We cannot cause this person to see it either.

A peculiar comfort enslaves this wonderful soul to a specific position. They must free themselves. My anger and righteous indignation will not help facilitate freedom, hopefully my love and time will. That most often is my slavery issue.

On another note and chat topic,

I posited that there was a problem (and there is ample long-term evidence to prove the problem) with the security of our vote. Again the issue is either ignored or as in the case of the previously described poster denied altogether. But wait, I thought that the Gore(ies) were screemin bloody heck that there was vote fraud. Nobody remembers Chad-gate? Musta dreamed it er sumthin...

You see slavery IS a very peculiar enemy and is very capable of distorting reality and writing our own personal history books. Remember the true adage, "The victor writes the history books."

Again what I found most curious, was that I hinted at an iron clad fix to the "system" only to have the hint ignored OR told that a problem doesn't exist. As of last evening not even a shred of curiosity was to be found. Again it seems that to provide a fix for "a problem that doesn't exist" would serve no utility. The false and fleeting and eventual false comfort of slavery is too powerful for to overcome.

Acceptance (for me) is also a very bitter and sad, but needed reality. Also at this most Holy time of year for me, I can plainly see the glaring similarities that another suffered through, for me. Just like Job at the end of his trials, I gots nuthin to say in my defense.

Still to have reached a couple, maybe, causes me to be thankful for your time.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 7, 2012)

Dang Ozy,

You posted as I was writing my last response. As such, what I said was untrue specific to your position. PLEASE accept my apology, I am truly sorry. Another one of my slavery issues, is that I want everything RIGHT NOW. You'd think that I would grow outa this ADHD stuff at some point

YOU did break the common mold and took an objective look at the facts BRAVO.

I am so thankful and hope that you will forgive me.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 7, 2012)

Did another double check and found another mistake on my part and therefore owe you another apology Ozy.

It indeed was not you that said there was no problem with voter fraud but another poster.

Please forgive me yet again.

As I'm having trouble obviously, in keeping the various posters straight in my mind, I had better bow out so as to not further tarnish that which has been factual and truthful.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 7, 2012)

Hey Carriage, no problem



One of the best ways to learn is to be corrected (as I was) It's easy to presume and absorb incorrect information and not go to the effort of self research. Andi's wrist slap led me to, not only a little research, but a completely different stance.

Anyhow, don't bow out...I'm very much enjoying your posts (as are others I'm sure



)


----------



## andi (Apr 7, 2012)

Hey Ozy,

I was just happy to share and love love love youtube videos.





I am constantly amazed with how easy it is to allow yourself to be convinced of something that is untrue. Even when people are not purposely trying to mislead us, it is our own nature to search out evidence that supports our own views, often disregarding the other evidence. When we search, we often can find some "evidence" somewhere that agrees with us.

I am very interested to hear about the voter fraud Carriage, I had assumed you were just creating some dramatic buildup for us. LOL

One thing you had mentioned was the clip of some people voting at one of the caucuses, where they were stating the votes. I think it was Nevada. From the 30 or so votes we heard it sounded very much like 95% rp. 5% Romney. I had heard this same clip, but also a defense afterword’s, saying it was only a small section of the attending group, and was when they were in RP "section" of the room, so obviously, that small piece was disproportionate to the whole. I just accepted that as the truth. I am not sure why, but I think my naive optimism hasn't allowed me to accept the idea yet of such blatant cheating. I am very curious to hear if you have more info on that happening?


----------



## Carriage (Apr 7, 2012)

Ozy I appreciate the forgiveness!

Again here is a topic that is difficult to know where to start. Do I go clear back to Buchanan in Ohio during his run for the Presidency?

Do I focus on Diebold and the admitted ability to manipulate the vote results in numerous way from online transmission of results to actual programed code "faults" in their machines? Do I focus on previously public verification taken behind closed doors, out of public scrutiny and counted by the "party" heads? It is a target rich environment to be sure.

I will submit that anytime the "vote" disappears from public scrutiny, at the very least, the possibility of manipulation "can" be accomplished easily. Would it make sense to preclude this possibility? With everything that I've stated and you have witnessed with your own eyes, I for one am VERY distrustful of government or any of its appendages, including party's or pretty much anything they would say. Surely we do not need to rehash the list of lies..............

I was not trying to create dramatic build-up, I was gauging interest and knowledge of this critically important topic.

Ok here goes, again something old mixed with something new. Many times from a military standpoint (thought the day is rapidly disappearing) when you are being beat by hi tech, your best and most simple counter is a low tech solution. Again with the simplicity....

"IF" the vote is being stolen it is primarily being accomplished in to basic ways.

1) Star chambers, ie behind closed doors and devoid of public scrutiny.

2) Machines that have a built in ability to alter the true vote (as usual, it is portrayed as easier and faster)

On the later point I would submit that it is not speed or even ease that is most important in the count. It IS accuracy.

Now that we have identified the "potential" weakness' in the current system, lets try to apply a low tech fix that destroys these "potential"

weakness'

1) All voting takes place at the precinct meeting places that used to be the standard. Absentee or mailin ballots would be limited to the extreme

2) All voting and registration takes place ONLY with the "proper" identification presented by the voter

3) All votes are cast upon triplicate copy ballots and filled in by hand

The disposition of the three copies would be as follows,

Copy one goes home with the voter

Copy two remains at precinct

Copy three is transferred to county (eventually...)

ALL preliminary counting is done AT precinct by precinct elected or appointed counters. ALL counting is done under the watchful eye of ALL precinct voters who care to witness the count. (if you need a bigger room, then get one)

AFTER an official count is arrived at and agreed upon, and ONLY after this has been accomplished, counties copy and the official precinct count is handed off to county.

Precinct RETAINS its copy until 90 days after the new office is seated. After this precinct should destroy its copy.

(By doing this, a vote "in question" may be reproduced at a moments notice and without any trouble at all as in the end, there are copies. to accomplish this rare task.)

These are the basic details. This system would preclude the aforementioned "potential" weakness' and put ALL of the power back into our hands. While these details are basic, any developement should hold these principal aspect and K.I.S.S. should be applied in all details.

Another added benefit would be to shut-up us "conspiracy theorist" Eh? That in and of itself might very well make it worth it.....


----------



## Carriage (Apr 9, 2012)

As I'm sure that your media outlets are not reporting this, I thought I would let you know,.....

Just noticed, this A.M., that R. P. drew over 10,000 at CA.'s largest University. Lets see, his ever increasing draws to speaking engagements continues to DWARF all other candidates, seemingly combined, and yet I'm sure that that this is just a manifestation of the "fact" that this just represents " a small and vocal minority"............... that for some strange reason continues to grow.

While I'm sure that its just conspiracy kookiness, could there be a tie between these numbers and the "vote"?

Nah, couldn't be......

Oh, by the way hows "your" guy doin?


----------



## andi (Apr 9, 2012)

I love the idea of actualy hard copy paper ballots. You are right, it seems so simple, I dont think most of us would think of that. We all are so convinced that what ever technology is most advanced is the best, in reality, maybe it is best to not mess with something that works.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 9, 2012)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> Carriage.. I thought of this when you posted about the numbers for R.P. speaking event numbers..
> 
> I am from Michigan, so I kind of pay attention to what goes on in Michigan..
> 
> Here is Romney's BIG campaign EVENT held Feb. 24th at Ford Stadium, Michigan.. - kind of funny and sad at the same time.. considering Mitt Romney's father was a big time Detroit car guy and Governor of Michigan..


Now that's scary sad! You get more attendance at a Middle School track meet during a blizzard.


----------



## andi (Apr 9, 2012)

WOW, now I think THAT^^^ is a great example of Voter Fraud. The Media and the Rep. Parties manipulation of the truth to convince people that "everybody’s voting for Romney", so that you are convinced that your Vote will be "thrown away'' or "wasted" if you vote for Ron Paul. They are manipulating the vote in a way that can never be "proven". Peer pressure is used to unknowingly remove our freedom to vote for who we actually think is best.


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 9, 2012)

andi said:


> WOW, now I think THAT^^^ is a great example of Voter Fraud. The Media and the Rep. Parties manipulation of the truth to convince people that "everybody’s voting for Romney", so that you are convinced that your Vote will be "thrown away'' or "wasted" if you vote for Ron Paul. They are manipulating the vote in a way that can never be "proven". Peer pressure is used to unknowingly remove our freedom to vote for who we actually think is best.


James - it's working




I know a number of people who will vote Romney for that exact reason - not throwing away their vote.


----------



## Jill (Apr 9, 2012)

I will vote for whoever gets the GOP nomintion, and hope all passionate enough to soeak up online didn't miss their state primary and their chance to have their "voice" count.


----------



## andi (Apr 9, 2012)

I hope those that did make it to their primary understood the difference between voting for who they thought was the best and voting for who they think will win. So many people have vocalized that they won't vote for someone because they can't win, whenever I hear that I wish we had the power to make _them_ misplace their photo ID when the day comes. LOL To do that you are missing the entire point of voting and are already enslaved, no matter who wins, the white flag has already been waved. I have heard sooo many reporters talk about "electibility", trying to convince people that they would be "wasting" their vote, they should be moved to the weather the moment they bring that cra#! up. LOL


----------



## Carriage (Apr 10, 2012)

andi said:


> I love the idea of actualy hard copy paper ballots. You are right, it seems so simple, I dont think most of us would think of that. We all are so convinced that what ever technology is most advanced is the best, in reality, maybe it is best to not mess with something that works.


Thanks Andi

Again it is the rep party that is fighting against this the most.

Why would they do this?...........

Just as you are able to read your horse, you should be able to read people with the exact same skill set. Responses when analyzed tell you MUCH. The lack of response ALSO tells you much. Two plus two, always equals four. When you see that it doesn't in others, you then know that you are NOT dealing with an honest person. And that is always my cue to "break contact".

Years ago, we "did" dog shows. My wife and I were known as working dog people who intimately knew movement. Folk would come up to our booth and proceed to "stack" their dog being oh so careful to take the time to put each foot in a very precise location and touch cue for a specific posture. We would let them take as much time as they felt they needed and did our best not to laugh or even smile too much which was difficult because much frantically solemn effort was put into the "stack". Then, they would look up at us imploringly and all worried and hopeful with big eyes so hopeful for our approval. Why? You got me. After patiently waiting for them to finish this stacking procedure we would IMMEDIATELY dismiss the entire effort by asking them to take the dog "down and back".

And here is why. You can spend an awful lot of time making a dog or a horse (or a THING) look like something other than what it is, BUT to the trained eye, once that animal starts moving NOTHING is hidden!

Usually and as you have seen right here, in this discussion, contact will be broken with you because light illuminates and all things become known. As I've stated and for whatever reason, the person with whom you are dealing plainly can't "handle the truth" and so, they do not. Further, those of us who can and seek to, are marginalized, attacked, labeled and or ignored. I promise you that if you seek the truth irrespective of where that truth will take you, you WILL travel to very scary places and FURTHER, most often alone. To borrow and modify what Bette Davis said about age, Truth ain't for sissies!"

I judge a person by their enemies. I also judge them by fire. Having the right enemies, many times means that I am dealing with a person of good character. Watching how they comport themselves under fire reveals the very true core of that individual. It is quite obvious that R.P. is the only one who shines, consistently, as in 30 years consistently, in BOTH of these tests.

When you see an individual being treated in such a manner as above stated, hmmmm like R.P., I might suggest that you take a closer look.

Specific to the question asked at the beginning, "what does the republican party stand for?" Read the movement. By NOT standing with the only candidate who exhibits these traits, the rep "party" in fact stands for SLAVERY and DESTRUCTION of These States United. Further amazing mental gymnastics are used to attempt to justify (stack) this hidden truth (movement). They lie to themselves and me. When I don't buy the lie anymore somehow, I'm the loony. Always watch the movement and NEVER, EVER buy the "stack".

What possible application could a "story" like this have on this topic? Much. For you see an animal does not in general have a deceptive nature like a human. It does not rationalize away truth. It knows nothing about being a slave and all of the rationalities that humans go through to feel justified and "safe" in their slavery. Again I am no orrater or writer, as I have CLEARLY demonstrated, however I do have an ability to see through things. This is a skill I am constantly learning and sharpening. Also, I am encouraging YOU to do the same. for if you do not and when you do not, you are led to destruction and slavery. Have I not made the case?

Last story and another revealing glimpse at the stark differences between R.P. and the rep "party". We'll use a modification of the crab pot analogy. The crab trying to escape the pot of boiling water (revelation) is pulled back in by the other crabs. When I implore for unity, this is what it should look like. Free yourself FIRST! and THEN when you are at Liberty, and therefore secure on solid ground, Reach back down to your fellow crabs being boiled alive and help them to Liberty. Model that behavior and uncorrupted integrity so that we may all imitate it and throw off the yoke of slavery. Liberty doesn't give two flying flips about "party" Those who insist on busting on the other "party" at EVERY possible opportunity are either change agents or MOST often "useful tools" bound in slavery. Always watch for this "tell".

Sorry if this is disjointed, clarification of previously stated thoughts seems to mess up the flow, My apologies.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 10, 2012)

Yes Mary Lou and Ozy,

That picture speaks a thousand words and with only a couple of hundred people. Yet as you can see, the programmed slave will not be able to see it or free themselves even in light of truth.

.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 10, 2012)

Jill said:


> I will vote for whoever gets the GOP nomintion, and hope all passionate enough to soeak up online didn't miss their state primary and their chance to have their "voice" count.


Wow does this miss the point. Which vote?< because there are two. One backed by banker money, or the "official" vote, and then, as has CLEARLY been demonstrated as far as I'm concerned, the truthful vote.

My goodness, water, water everywhere!


----------



## Jill (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm not missing a point, Carriage.

I've never missed my chance to vote be it local, state or national ... and haven't wasted a vote since a younger me voted for Perot.


----------



## Carriage (Apr 10, 2012)

andi said:


> I hope those that did make it to their primary understood the difference between voting for who they thought was the best and voting for who they think will win. So many people have vocalized that they won't vote for someone because they can't win, whenever I hear that I wish we had the power to make _them_ misplace their photo ID when the day comes. LOL To do that you are missing the entire point of voting and are already enslaved, no matter who wins, the white flag has already been waved. I have heard sooo many reporters talk about "electibility", trying to convince people that they would be "wasting" their vote, they should be moved to the weather the moment they bring that cra#! up. LOL


HURRAH! Again! who in the sam hill said R.P. couldn't win. Who originally said it? (every darn time I might add). HOW oh HOW do "THEY/HE know this? Logic dictates that it is the same entity that is making SURE he can't win. Who might this be? Again logic dictates that it is the entity with the most to loose AND control of EVERYTHING. Going back in our studies WHO might this be?

He who controls the debt controls EVERYTHING. This means parties, media and the mythical vote. Yet as illogical as it would seem, many will cling to the sophistry of the vote as controlled by the controller of EVERYTHING and vote for the "party nominee" vs. the only true

"HOPE FOR CHANGE". Why? because of a comfortable but absolute illogical sophistry that says there is ANY directional difference between the two divisional choices.

To wit,

Was listening to Liberal talk radio last night (those of us in honest business don't sleep much these days) and heard Mike Malloy, I believe, say the exact same thing I have been saying. Obama is sold out to the multi national corps, Is a war monger, Is for protecting the fed, and yada yada yada. He was bummed out and had NO idea (from his enslaved perspective) of who to vote for?

Both "parties" are still blinded to an induced thought process, Namely, that there is a difference. Careful examination CLEARLY reveals that there is NOT. For in the end, the road ends in the same place and in the same hands. Neither the place or hands will be ours.

Again you are being defeated by the political version of hi-tech. The low tech solution is the answer that scares the slave master the most. VOTE for the unifying influence, Vote for the one who does not lie, steal, cheat murder millions (or endorse same) and take away the other stuff belonging to Sovereign Nations. I'm here to tell ya ain't none of it OUR oil, minerals, money systems ect. There is NO justification for a "judeo/christian" nation to behave in this manner. NONE

To (honest) work,


----------



## Carriage (Apr 10, 2012)

Jill said:


> I'm not missing a point, Carriage.
> 
> I've never missed my chance to vote be it local, state or national ... and haven't wasted a vote since a younger me voted for Perot.


Not missing a chance to vote, is not and has not been the issue. Well I mean unless you mean to change the issue. A common Hegelian tactic.

Unless R.P. is the "nominee", you have promised to vote for an indisputable liar who will steal my substance starting with my Liberty.

Perot was a pretty good guy that finally succumbed to fear. Not for himself, but for his family and anybody ever associated with him. That you considered a vote for him a wasted vote proves all of my points made to date. Unless the Constitution is the PRIMARY metric used in voting, you ARE throwing both your vote and country away. Another way to look at it, because I will stand on principal no matter what, I will most eagerly throw your vote away for you. The absolute sophristic rep. bunk about "compromise" and its supposed necessity in "politics" is completely incompatible with Constitutional principal and truth. Truth never compromises.


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

I think you may be falling into a trap Carriage, that twicky wabit. 

As you noted there is a small tiny chance you could be misunderstanding the person you are questioning. You have recognized and admitted that RP "may" be the candidate. By doing so, everything you have said, no matter how valid and well thought out, can and most likely will just be dismissed. Not only that, you can be attacked for "assuming" what was meant and twisting it to your likening just to make someone look bad! Of course, I do not think that any of that in the smallest sense, but it has been the diversionary tactic of your intended audience for quite some time. 

I think I defined it in the past as being led 90% of the way there and being vilified for assuming the last 10%. 

All that being said, it seems like the obvious solution is ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LAST 10%. You will never get it. This person knows exactly what they are doing. In all honesty, a political future should be in their cards, we may be looking at the next Palin or Backmann, maybe the TP will see a resurgence!


----------



## Carriage (Apr 10, 2012)

andi said:


> I think you may be falling into a trap Carriage, that twicky wabit.
> 
> As you noted there is a small tiny chance you could be misunderstanding the person you are questioning. You have recognized and admitted that RP "may" be the candidate. By doing so, everything you have said, no matter how valid and well thought out, can and most likely will just be dismissed. Not only that, you can be attacked for "assuming" what was meant and twisting it to your likening just to make someone look bad! Of course, I do not think that any of that in the smallest sense, but it has been the diversionary tactic of your intended audience for quite some time.
> 
> ...


hmmm.... Very worthy of consideration and if I read you correctly, I will do my best to factor. Is there utility in knowing this and then in the knowing, go through the motions of "debate" to more clearly model and demonstrate the behavior tells?

Keeping yourself surrounded by "sharp steel" serves to sharpen and define thought process. While I may certainly not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, I do my best to stay in the drawer and bang around with the other knives....



Doing so will always insure that I learn more. Being introspective at all times and especially with new information and learning is a certain help.

For this I thank you,

Bb


----------



## ozymandias (Apr 10, 2012)

Looks like Santorum has dropped out.


----------



## Sonya (Apr 10, 2012)

I didn't here that Santorum dropped out, I did hear he went home because his daughter is very sick.

I just heard that he is 'suspending' his campaign on the radio.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Apr 10, 2012)

Well sorry to say I just saw that he is dropping out totally!


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

This is his actual Statement,

"We made a decision over the weekend that while this presidential race for us is over for me, and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting"

He went on to explain that the "fight" he isn't done with is the fight to get Obama out and Republicans in charge of the Senate.

Though I do not support Santorum, it is a reminder about how messed up our system is. Whatever his reason, he was doing relatively well and had so many supporters. Such a large amount of the country had no say in who the GOP Candidate will be. Does any one know WHY we have to spread this whole thing out so much? Why can't we do the primary like the Presidency?


----------



## Riverrose28 (Apr 10, 2012)

James I have a question for you as you are also in my state. Was RP on the republican ballot? I was only given one for my registered party so I don't know, but I heard, maybe just a rumor that he wasn't on.


----------



## Jill (Apr 10, 2012)

andi said:


> Does any one know WHY we have to spread this whole thing out so much? Why can't we do the primary like the Presidency?


Maybe a better questions is SHOULD we. I think _probably_ not. The time is great for vetting...

The idea of a brokered primary had been discussed, even HERE, lightly... I don't think that's the best idea, but I do think it's a very interesting one. It is intriquing, especially if it brings into play some already heavily vetted players.


----------



## Jill (Apr 10, 2012)

Riverrose28 said:


> James I have a question for you as you are also in my state. Was RP on the republican ballot? I was only given one for my registered party so I don't know, but I heard, maybe just a rumor that he wasn't on.


I'm not James, but I do know the answer.

Yes, Ron Paul was on the 2012 MD GOP Primary Ballot and he received 9.5% of the Maryland vote taking 4th place behind Romney, Santrum and Gingrich (in that order). Romney took in almost as many votes as the other three combined in your heavily democratic state.

ETA, *Carriage*, maybe I'd be cranky, too, if I shared your tunnel vision regarding RP and the other candidates. But, I don't. I do not feel RP's the best answer and I do not think he's got a chance to take the WH *based on the primary results *-- and of course, the primaries are the place people go to have their opinion counted when it comes to who will be on the Party ticket. Oh, don't tell me... that's evasive, too, huh? Or some conspiracy to hand the election to Obama



You don't need to pen a winding, 3 page post in order to convey information or get across what you mean. It's not called evasion, or even smoke and mirrors. It's called cutting to the chase.


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

I ask "why", because for me, without knowing "why" FIRST you can't decide if we "should". It seems, from a lamens viewpoint, a faulted system. So I would like to know why we do it, maybe there is a logical explaination.

I think you did bring up a valuable point, the vetting benefit. BTW, never knew this word until I watching "Game Changer", at least I learned something from it. LOL

Anyways, that "why", vetting, is a good reason. We have watched it "thin out the herd" very well. But at the same time we have watched this current system used to influence the vote severely. I mean, you had people dropping out after 2 States had voted! What if they had started in the deep south, or Main, or Texas. The influence given on the remaining voters would be substantial. It is my beleif that Romney received most of his momentum from what was delivered to us as some sort of "strong start", an obviouse clear winner right out of the gate. In reality, we had a virtual 3 WAY tie in the first state and almost that in the second. Then Gingich's performance was a great example of the temporary influence of the Media. He went in to SC not strong at all. But then was given an opportunity to impress during one debate. It was less his debate ability and more the mistake of the reporter for "giving" him the opportunity to play the victim. For a moment, long enough for SC to vote, he appeared like a strong phoenix rising from the ashes. The rest of America was just as amazed with him, until the dust settled and we all realized it was just a little song and dance. LOL I wonder the results if we did all the debates and campaigns, but just saved the voting for a more limited time, all at once. Maybe even stop the Candidates and Media from talking about it for 2 weeks after the debates and before the voting. Let us vote on a clear mind, not an emotional pressured one.

I am actually now a Texan, but I was not surprised at all that Romney did so well in MD, liberals seem to like him, no big surprise there. LOL

The fact that anyone would not vote for someone, because they don't think enough other people will, is a complete and total sacrifice and forfeight of your freedom. What makes it so perfect is it is VOLUNTARY. You are genuinly convinced that you are having a voice and are free, so you not only allow it, you defend it! For "majority rule", voting, to work, you MUST vote for who you support, independent of if you think others agree with you.


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

Jill, did you think voting for Perot was a wasted vote?


----------



## Jill (Apr 10, 2012)

andi said:


> Jill, did you think voting for Perot was a wasted vote?


James, I really am going to avoid very much discussion with you. We both know why and I'm sure MANY others do, too. I sure could go on, but I'll spare us both the frustration. I gave it my best shot just a week or so ago and found it was not a mutual effort. I wish it weren't that way, but it's a fooled me TWICE now situation, so.... It's a darn shame we both are so interested in these topics but haven't been able to keep the personal digs out of it.

----

An Ann Coulter article opened my eyes to the importance of vetting.

Regarding Newt, no, the media wasn't what drove his early approval. It was his amazing debate performance. Each debate, I expected beforehand to peg him at the bottom of the list as to who appealed to me, and each time, he proved himself to me and I felt he was the one with the best answers. He is a machine when it comes to debating. It was reading the opinions of others I admire about him and his background, though, that swayed me away from his appeal. And, sort of hand in hand, I think that Rick Perry is a man who could do the job well. His dismal debate performance, though, is something I do not think most could over look and I am sure the Left would roast him over. You don't have to debate well to be a good leader... SO, no, this is not really media driven when it comes to the perspective of everyone who follows politics.

That so many liberals like Romney isn't lost on me nor many other Republicans. We have a goal, and a lot of us think Romney is the one who can "get 'er done", because Romney does appeal to Independents. The independent vote is so vital in 2012. Politically, I feel the most important thing for America is that "We The People" get Obama out of the WH. I sincerely feel that Romney is the man who can do it... That's not the same as saying he's my dream candidate. That means he's the one who I think is most electable head to head with Obama.

As to Ross Perot, I was in my early 20's and didn't think it was a wasted vote at the time. 20 years later, I do not see myself ever opting for a 3rd ticket because I do not think a 3rd party candidate will be capable of victory in my lifetime.


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

Carriage,

I was thinking you were probably already noticing the pattern I explained, so my explanation was more for the other readers. I was glad to see the technique used on someone else other than me on this forum. In the past I was told it was a treatment I deserved due to my behavior, which is obviously proven untrue because you are also the victim of it. My suspicion was I "earned" this treatment simply because I made a valid point, which is what you also did.


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

Just to make it clear Jill, you pick and choose when to ignore me, you just had answered my questions about the primary. You are making the choice to ignore me NOW because your answer would be extremely telling of views you don't wish to share. It has nothing to do with my behavior, it has to do with yours.


----------



## Jill (Apr 10, 2012)

andi said:


> Just to make it clear Jill, you pick and choose when to ignore me, you just had answered my questions about the primary. You are making the choice to ignore me NOW because your answer would be extremely telling of views you don't wish to share. It has nothing to do with my behavior, it has to do with yours.


Oh, James... Yes, OF COURSE, I pick and choose when to respond. We all do. At this moment, I truly hold no views I'm electing to conceal aside from those regarding you.


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

Well, I just read the rest of your post. LOL

Looks like you are not ignoring me, but want to make it clear you might in the future? On principle, due to my behavior, you refuse to reply, but you are still going too?

I think this very clearly shows, it is not my behavior, but my accuracy that makes you ignore me jill. Otherwise, you would be doing exactly what you say you are, but arn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZeNZtvACI


----------



## Jill (Apr 10, 2012)

James, gosh, grow up. You repeatedly request a response, and when you get one, you carry on as you have the past several posts. It should be really obvious why I avoid responding to you. You just can't handle it when I do. What is not obvious is why you cannot seem to avoid me. As in this thread, as in other threads (it's like you're Horshack from Welcome Back Carter with your hand in the air begging to be noticed). Additionally, your screen name lurks for time on end as a reader on every single topic I start... Like I've said before "odd".


----------



## andi (Apr 10, 2012)

*~ * This topic just went down hill very quickly when YOU first insulted me, saying my behavior doesn't warrant a reply.

All I said was, "do you think your vote was wasted?"

*~ *I am sorry my attention to the topic concerns you, but it has no bearing whatsoever to the validity of my argument. Would you prefer I join the 5 Anon.'s?


----------



## Carriage (Apr 11, 2012)

Yes James patterns are everything. Recognition of patterns is a priceless skill.

Jill I do not need more than a few words in response to you as demonstrated by my last. Because I read the movement and not the "stack", little is needed. That you thought you were at the center of all that I've written is most curious and revealing. An example perhaps but not the center. The "3 page posts" (exaggeration is another form of attack) were for others willing to see and hopefully carefully consider what was being posited. Teaching generally takes more effort than quickly and succinctly revealing error. By giving examples of the psychological mechanisms commonly on display in "conventional wisdom" it is my hope that more folk will start to apply this learning in regards to what they are being told. If they see and start apply what has been said to everything they are told, they will have more control in their lives and not be so easily led astray and "away". By engaging as you have at the end here, though it took a while, you have provided a very nice end cap and visible proof to all that I've said. In the end your engagement was predictable and fell precisely along the lines previously described in my "cranky", "3 page posts".

And now "I'm cranky" and have "tunnel vision", even though I've clearly demonstrated that my "vision" is quite expansive compared to the very narrow view exhibited. Again a nice end cap in that, there is nothing in the engagement specific to the points in question, (these are always ignored at ALL costs) The common and preferred mechanisms of attack are instead used to draw attention away from the fact that pointed questions are not being answered or addressed. And as previously addressed and pointed out, the topic is changed or modified to draw attention away from the fact that specific issue's are not being addressed. How's that for "tunnel vision"?

I have answered the question that started this thread and done so as a "free" republican. I have not offered boiler plate programed soundbites without substance which as I've shown is incapable of answering very pointed questions. The reason this is avoided again, is that it would reveal a moral and intellectual bankruptcy that is very uncomfortable for the slave. I have tried to be very circumspect in calling a spade,....... a spade.

I am most grateful to those that have responded privately. In fact, it is all that kept me engaged this time. Last time round there were only a very few. Guess 4 years of living through this has opened many eyes to the gigantic loss of Liberty over the last 100 years.

In the end the "vote" doesn't matter as much as your choice. That choice starts with the person in the mirror every morning. Who will you be today. It is not dependent on whether others stand with you. But if you arrive at the same inescapable conclusions that I have, please know that I WILL be standing with you as a brother at Liberty. There are far more of us than you might suspect.

Again going to the root of any given problem will put you in the best possible position to succeed in a solution. We tend to think of slavery as a physical and therefore visible thing. This is merely a physical manifestation or symptom of a purely physiological mindset. It is also a choice, that you are either choosing to throw off or as most often succumb to. But in the end the choice is yours to make.

If you are armed with truth and fact, those that come against you will be an unarmed combatant at least specific to truth and fact. Most often they won't know this. Wether they do or don't, I have given some of the tools necessary to help either way.

As always "there will be a test on this material Ladies and Gentlemen" It's called life, You either choose to live it in Liberty and freedom

or you will be a slave. There is no middle ground.

Hopefully my meager offering has been helpful to some. I feel that I've accomplished what I set out to do and see only degeneracy if it continues. Please don't fellow comrades, The high road will prevent "tunnel vision", the view is always militarily superior, and it is a more solid ground to fight from. Unity must rule the day. There will always be the modern day version of the Torrie and Pharisee. Historically about 30%. Uniting around the cause of Liberty can always be vastly superior if YOU will choose that road.

I am grateful for your time and depart the field.


----------



## Jill (Apr 11, 2012)

Edit to a "nevermind". That may be a first for me.


----------

