James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned us about tyranny at home

[Albert0373]

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison

http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm

The Bush regime would make George Washington and the signers of the Constitution vomit. Seriously. Stolen elections, fabricated wars for profit, torture, spying and loss of other Civil Liberties, the use of media for propoganda

[freakscene]

The Bush regime would make George Washington and the signers of the Constitution vomit. Seriously. Stolen elections, fabricated wars for profit, torture, spying and loss of other Civil Liberties, the use of media for propoganda

The socialism of the current "democrats" would make them equally vomit.

Ron Paul is the only current answer

[netwrangler]

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison

http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm

The Bush regime would make George Washington and the signers of the Constitution vomit. Seriously. Stolen elections, fabricated wars for profit, torture, spying and loss of other Civil Liberties, the use of media for propogandaWhile I hate the term "should be 'required reading'," I'd put Orwell's 1984 high on a list of 'recommended reading' — especially for folks who were not yet reading by that year. For anyone who has read the book, or who lived through the McCarthy era, the deja vu factor these days is eerie. :|

[freakscene]

not to change the topic, or offend anyone, but considering the infiltration of marxists and socialists that has taken over the DNC over the last 25+ years, its not hard to make an argument supporting Mr McCarthy ;)

[netwrangler]

The socialism of the current "democrats" would make them equally vomit.

Ron Paul is the only current answerCould be, fs, Ron Paul is an interesting political figure, although one whose electability is, in my mind, very much in doubt. [Happy to take an economically serious 'trade' on that one.]

We should recognize that:

Not all Dems are socialists
Not all Reps are neocons
Implying that the choice is between Bush and socialism is a false dichotomy.
[Not that you did that. You presented a third alternative. But many "Bushies" do present this false dichotomy.]

The point is: Dem or Rep, we should support the Constitution. This is the document that defines the essence of the United States.
We can argue

Health Care;
Abortion/Life rights;
Tax Policy;
Environmental Policy;
Fiscal Policy
Foreign Policy and the efficacy of the war effort;
and
All the other issues.

If we argue these issues without the protections defined in the Constitution, we make these arguments at our peril.

[netwrangler]

not to change the topic, or offend anyone, but considering the infiltration of marxists and socialists that has taken over the DNC over the last 25+ years, its not hard to make an argument supporting Mr McCarthy ;)You had to be there!

[aiki14]

not to change the topic, or offend anyone, but considering the infiltration of marxists and socialists that has taken over the DNC over the last 25+ years, its not hard to make an argument supporting Mr McCarthy ;)

Actually as an American and a patriot, if one understands the meaning of the terms, it remains impossible to defend Mr. McCarthy. Implying infiltration of the DNC by "marxists and socialists" isn't offensive, it's paranoid, and may indicate a level of indoctrination that prevents you from objectivity.

I imagine Mr McCarthy would smile reading your post, you're in fine company.

[freakscene]

I'm not offended aiki. the data is really on my side.

You can not read Hillary Clinton, or listen to Hillary Clinton, and disregard her more than open socialist and even marxist leanings without having your head buried in the sand. She's not really even hiding it.

I can provide quotes to speeches, or links to her books or thesis, but you can easily find them too.

The soon to be coronated leader of the "democrats" is a full blown marxist.

McCarthy was right.

[freakscene]

Actually as an American and a patriot, if one understands the meaning of the terms, it remains impossible to defend Mr. McCarthy.

The Kennedy's, both Americans and patriots, defended him.

:)

[freakscene]

. But many "Bushies" do present this false dichotomy.

While I agree with your post Mr. wrangler ;), please do not consider me a "Bushie" because I criticise the DNC. I did support him during 2000, if, for no other reason than Al Gore is one of the biggest charlatans on earth. But I was so rejected by his lack of conservative governance, than Badnerick got my vote in '04. Not that Kerry was/is any less of a charlatan than Gore, mind you. :)

Cheers

[aiki14]

I'm not offended aiki. the data is really on my side.

You can not read Hillary Clinton, or listen to Hillary Clinton, and disregard her more than open socialist and even marxist leanings without having your head buried in the sand. She's not really even hiding it.

I can provide quotes to speeches, or links to her books or thesis, but you can easily find them too.

The soon to be coronated leader of the "democrats" is a full blown marxist.

McCarthy was right.

I don't care about Mrs. Clinton that much, but a "full blown Marxist" seems a bit over the top.

The more disturbing statement is "McCarthy was right"
McCarthy was wrong, both in his presumption that the communists were a threat to American society and in his methodology and tactics.

The communists never numbered enough to propse any real threat and were an obvious canard (through the eye of history) to enhance his personal ambitions for power. He set up the "communist threat" in exactly the same way another well known ambitious politician set up the "Zionist threat" 20 years earlier.

His tactics more closely resembled that of the premier communist of his time Josef Stalin, and allied with J. Edgar Hoover used clearly unconstitutional, unethical, and illegal methods to achieve his ends.

You say you voted for Badnerik, the Libertarian candidate in '04. I wonder why, since a strict interpretation of the constitution is the libertarian platform. A strict interpretation of the constitution rejects in all shape, manner, and form, a Joseph McCarthy, except for allowing him to espouse freely his foolish and anti American venom.

I don't know which Kennedy's defended him and in what manner, but no rational individual in the light of historical perspective does so now, even William F. Buckley who defended him then, has rejected him and his methods.

I would be interested in your references to Mrs. Clintons communist statements, I am so disappointed and in fact appalled by the current administration, and the republican toadies running now that I have considered voting democrat basically as an "anything but them" vote.
However as a capitalist, I am not going to stick my head in the noose. My life is not really going to be materially affected no matter who is in power here, if the tax rate was 50% and gas was $20 a gallon I would not change anything, and I don't want an abortion and I'll be long gone by the time global warming causes any real problems.
I'll be voting for Mr. Paul, but I will tell you that I prefer the dems to the repubs, I'll take personal liberties over some diffuse idea of personal security any day, in that case Mr. Franklin and the men in Philadelphia were and are right and the McCarthy's and their ilk were and always will be wrong.

Lastly, let me apologize, my earlier post was a personal attack. I think you are wrong, and the idea that McCarthy was right is abhorrent to me, but I should have directed my attack on the idea and not you.

[netwrangler]

Implying that the choice is between Bush and socialism is a false dichotomy.
[Not that you did that. You presented a third alternative. But many "Bushies" do present this false dichotomy.]

I was making a good faith effort here to distinguish between what you posted and the position taken by 'many "Bushies".' I apologize if that distinction was not clear.
While I agree with your post Mr. wrangler ;), please do not consider me a "Bushie" because I criticise the DNC. I did support him during 2000, if, for no other reason than Al Gore is one of the biggest charlatans on earth. But I was so rejected by his lack of conservative governance, than Badnerick got my vote in '04. Not that Kerry was/is any less of a charlatan than Gore, mind you. :)The crime we are both guilty of here is the use of labels in lieu of intelligent argument. We should cast such crass debating ploys aside.

Going forward in that spirit, let's forget that McCarthy was a lying, grandstanding, alcoholic, power-hungry demagogue who was censured 67-22 by his fellow senators in the second year of the Eisenhower administration. What was McCarthy –the man– really like? :?:

[TonyM]

Sure, Hillary appears to be more of a socialist than the current administration, however that is not really as bad as it sounds if you consider as I do that the current administration is quite fascist. Now don't interpret this as an endorsement of Clinton in any way, I'm just pointing out my opinion that we are already screwed and that the only real point up for debate is how quick the complete demise of the American Empire will occur.

Call me selfish, but just so long as I can maintain or improve my current lifestyle until my death, I'll be quite content.

Have any of you guys watched the movie Idiocracy? The portrayal of the stupidity of the public at large seems quite credible to me, the same application to the government was a bit more of a stretch though, but hey you never know. Another comparison could be the relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks from the movie Time Machine.

[freakscene]

its not just Hillary. Its the majority of elected "democrats" and those currently seeking their nomination.

John Edwards from the other day:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/FRONTPAGE/710260384


Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."


Lets take a step back from all of this for a second and heed the warnings of people like the GAO comptroller general David Walker, or Alan Greenspan that know America can not continue down the path of current cradle to grave programs without seriously jeopardizing the standard of living for the generations behind us.

Currently, its either 68 or 62 percent of Federal spending goes to entitlement programs. The rest is spent on what the Founders laid out for us in that document called the Constitution.

Yet, every day "democrats" announce even more cradle to grave programs should they get elected. (a federal takeover of health care, $5,000 for every new baby......now secondary education)

I hear Bush getting wrongly criticized for vetoing the SCHIP program. Yet no one wants to discuss why I should have to pay higher taxes so a family earning $85,000 per year with 25 year old "children", who probably owns several plasma big screens and drive a lexus or 2, but choose to not have health care ! (ok i maybe exaggerated a bit, but the point remains valid)

Hey, water is a necessity of life.

Why do I have to pay a water bill ? :wink:

Suggesting current "democrats" are closer aligned to the politics of Marx than Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin, isn't that much of a stretch.

I will get to the other questions when time permits. Busy day today.

Flame on ! :lol:

cheers

aiki - no apology necessary. I've got thick skin discussing this stuff.

small write up on Kennedy's/McCarthy with footnotes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk2.htm

I'll leave you with a Hillary quote from I believe Jun 04 in San Diego

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

this is fairly common in her messages and is pretty much right in line with Marx "each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" creed.

"Time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a we're-all-in-it-together society." - H. Clinton.

[microhedge]

I would be interested in your references to Mrs. Clintons communist statements, I am so disappointed and in fact appalled by the current administration, and the republican toadies running now that I have considered voting democrat basically as an "anything but them" vote.
However as a capitalist, I am not going to stick my head in the noose. My life is not really going to be materially affected no matter who is in power here, if the tax rate was 50% and gas was $20 a gallon I would not change anything, and I don't want an abortion and I'll be long gone by the time global warming causes any real problems.

Okay, so leave it to me to find humor in all of this, but Aiki... this made me laugh!!!

I happen to agree with you and by the blessings of a capitalistic society find myself in the same boat.

On the other side of your conjecture, as a lifelong Republican, I have found myself voting Republican as an "anything but them" vote8O as I did in the last two presidential elections. I believe another popular phrase that would aptly describe the sentiment is... "the lesser of two evils".

[netwrangler]

Okay, so leave it to me to find humor in all of this, but Aiki... this made me laugh!!!

I happen to agree with you and by the blessings of a capitalistic society find myself in the same boat.

On the other side of your conjecture, as a lifelong Republican, I have found myself voting Republican as an "anything but them" vote8O as I did in the last two presidential elections. I believe another popular phrase that would aptly describe the sentiment is... "the lesser of two evils".By the Good Lord, mh, you ARE a moderate! :wink:

[microhedge]

By the Good Lord, mh, you ARE a moderate! :wink:

Now go wash your mouth out with soap:lol:

Maybe a moderate in the least sense of the word and only when occassion calls for it... I'm a 49'ers fan too since childhood and Joe Montana mania and although they have to be one of the saddest teams in the NFL riding a string of bad decisions... I cheer 'em on every time they play.

A true moderate with regards to politics would say, "May the best man win", my moderation would be limited to "May at least a Republican win":lol:

I'm too much of a Reaganite to be a Bush fan:wink:... and you can quote me on that:p

And yes... I love these stupid little smilies :lol:

[freakscene]

one can tell by that avatar, microhedge is no moderate ! ;)

netwrangler - what is your opinion of the verona papers?

[netwrangler]

one can tell by that avatar, microhedge is no moderate ! ;)Hey, waymanimnet [as my #2 daughter used to say] mh has a six-shooter pointed in either direction. He looks like a moderate to me! :)

netwrangler - what is your opinion of the verona papers?Sorry, fs, maybe I wasn't paying attention. I googled "verona papers" and came up with all kinds of stuff, but nothing that was clearly connected to your post. What is it that you want me to comment upon?

[netwrangler]

Now go wash your mouth out with soap:lol:

Maybe a moderate in the least sense of the word and only when occassion calls for it... I'm a 49'ers fan too since childhood and Joe Montana mania and although they have to be one of the saddest teams in the NFL riding a string of bad decisions... I cheer 'em on every time they play.

A true moderate with regards to politics would say, "May the best man win", my moderation would be limited to "May at least a Republican win":lol:

I'm too much of a Reaganite to be a Bush fan:wink:... and you can quote me on that:p

And yes... I love these stupid little smilies :lol:OK, but take a look at yourself in the mirror.

RE: The Niners. I was there in Kezar watching Brodie. That hurt. Montana helped later, but I still bore the scars. I still wish them well from down south.

Re: moderates of various stripes. It is not required that "moderates" sit exactly in the center. Indeed, that is not what you want. It takes moderates of all stripes to work out realistic solutions.

RE: Reagan vs. Bush. No comparison. Pro vs. amateur.

Smilies? Why would I ever use them? :wink:

[freakscene]

i do apologize for the typo

venona

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


But the year 1995 was an epochal one for the study of American Communism. For in that year, thanks to the insistence of the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who had long specialized in intelligence matters, some 2,900 documents collectively known as "the Venona papers" (a deliberately meaningless code phrase) were de-classified and published. These were radio messages from the top KGB agents in Washington and New York to their superiors in Moscow from approximately 1943 to 1948. They had been recorded at the time by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, but they were, of course, in code, and their decoding was an immensely arduous job carried out by a number of heroic government cryptanalysts over the period from 1945 to 1980.


A second new source of information on the American Communist Party was the archives in Moscow of the defunct Soviet Union, which began to be partially accessible to American investigators in the early 1990s, during the Yeltsin years.

The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of agents who would thereupon influence American policy and gladly commit espionage as well. It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona

[netwrangler]

i do apologize for the typo

venona

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


But the year 1995 was an epochal one for the study of American Communism. For in that year, thanks to the insistence of the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who had long specialized in intelligence matters, some 2,900 documents collectively known as "the Venona papers" (a deliberately meaningless code phrase) were de-classified and published. These were radio messages from the top KGB agents in Washington and New York to their superiors in Moscow from approximately 1943 to 1948. They had been recorded at the time by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, but they were, of course, in code, and their decoding was an immensely arduous job carried out by a number of heroic government cryptanalysts over the period from 1945 to 1980.


A second new source of information on the American Communist Party was the archives in Moscow of the defunct Soviet Union, which began to be partially accessible to American investigators in the early 1990s, during the Yeltsin years.

The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of agents who would thereupon influence American policy and gladly commit espionage as well. It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VenonaThank you for asking me to comment on this. I regard your request as a gesture of respect and I appreciate that.

I do have both some thoughts and some direct experience on this subject. I would like to tell you about them..

Please give me time to respond. I commit to publishing an initial response in this forum by 11/10/2007. [Wish it could be sooner. Personal reasons stand in the in the way.]

[freakscene]

Take your time. I look forward to reading it.

Cheers !

[aiki14]

You might want to check out page 313 of "All governments Lie, the life and times of rebel journalist I.F. Stone"

The Venona Papers are according to the Washington times "Nigh Unintelligible" and "in no way absolve the excesses of Joseph McCarthy"

The link to Clairemont.org as if that is some reliable news outlet and not a neocon/ultraconservative propaganda outlet.

From mediatransparancy.org:

Often accused of a being a bastion of Straussian scholarship and a neoconservative stronghold, the Claremont Institute, based in Claremont, California, is home to a number of rightist academics and advocacy programs. Founded in 1979 "to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life," the Claremont Institute is part of a tightly knit group of conservative academic institutions that often serve as home bases for foreign and domestic policy scholars and policymakers with close ties to Republican administrations
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=72

Here's a list of political/religious extremist site in which Claremont appears, fun reading:
http://www.grumblebear.com/link2rr.html

There is serious doubt as to the objectivity of Claremont. A short check of their site reveals an obvious bias and agenda. This alone casts doubt on the conclusions they put forth.
What else you got FS on the McCarthy stuff. It's an interesting time in history, and I am struck by the fact that anyone could defend him, and what reasons someone might have at this late date to engage in such an endeavor. I am enjoying the research.
I still think you are horribly misguided, and a victim of right wing propaganda.

[aiki14]

To the OP,
Interesting quotes from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, I am certainly not going to defend them. Again outright communism? Not really. Socialistic, in the strict meaning of the word, I would have to say yes.
The difference I have with what I perceive as your views, and the right wing in general, is I think the threat implied by the Dems statements are less than the actual threat of the Repubs actions.
I am an athiest, I support liberalizing drug laws (although I am not now nor likely to become a user), I don't care about nor am I threatened by gay marriage (if they want to enter into what I see as a social contract let them), I am not afraid and find fear politics disturbing, I find chicken hawks particularly disturbing, I am against torture because of what it does to the torturer as well as the tortured ( what kind of citizen is the guy who comes back into society thinking torture can be justified? That concerns me).
I would pay more taxes if I knew it would help children get medical care and education.
So based on the above who should I support? The current Cheney administration and the known devil or the devil I don't know?

[netwrangler]

Take your time. I look forward to reading it.

Cheers !While you are waiting, let me relate to you the allegory of the camels.

I ask you to think of synonyms for "camel" in English.

When you have your list, please go to my next post in this thread.

[aiki14]

While you are waiting, let me relate to you the allegory of the camels.

I ask you to think of synonyms for "camel" in English.

When you have your list, please go to my next post in this thread.

The only things I could think of were desert chariot or desert sloop, bactrian which I think is type rather than synonym or dromedary (sp?).
I didn't look up the spelling because I didn't want hints.

[freakscene]

The current Cheney administration and the known devil or the devil I don't know?


hi aiki,

I figured someone would take umbrage with the source which is why I also linked wiki. Also, I imagine you are old enough to have lived through the devil years of the Clinton administration, where they used the FBI (filegate) and the IRS (Barret report) to spy not only on Americans, but even worse, American political opponents. Hillary was directly involved with both. Thats one small example.............

:)

netwrangler, I'll give it some thought.

Cheers

[netwrangler]

Take your time. I look forward to reading it.

Cheers !To continue...

While you are waiting, let me relate to you the allegory of the camels.

I ask you to think of synonyms for "camel" in English.

When you have your list, please go to my next post in this thread.Many folks can not think of a synonym for "camel." Those that do usually come up with "dromedary". A few facile minds think of "ship of the desert." I have never had anyone offer any other synonyms.

In the book The Kingdom, which is a history of Saudi Arabia [and is banned in that country], the author notes that there are more than 110 nouns in Arabic that depict camels. For example, there is a word for a camel that was captured in a raid, and then recaptured. That is a particular kind of camel.

For many of my years in Corporate life, I occupied the white space in the org chart between Information Services and the Operating Divisions of a major oil company. The folks in the Operating Divisions called the IS folks as "techies." In return, the IS folks called the people in the Operating Divisions as "users."

The use of "techies" and "users" as labels for THEM—the other group— contributed to misunderstanding and miscommunication between the two groups. For each, the label for THEM was the equivalent of "camel." The label stood in the way of working with the other group.

Similarly, the use of the political equivalent of "camel" by both Parties promotes gridlock. It obfuscates. And it rewards intellectual indolence to our country's detriment. Calling H. Clinton a "Marxist" is simply an incorrect statement. It doesn't advance the cause of truth. It does, however, contribute to the political fog factor.

Even Stalin wasn't a "Marxist." I submit he was much closer to being a Fascist; that is, if you use an existential definition of his political stance. I mean, have you read Marx and Engels? Can you see where they got it right, and where they totally missed the ball? Or are they just "camels?"

[freakscene]

From one corporate techie to another, I do appreciate that. I even sensed some humor ;). Gridlock in my humble opinion is not as bad as you make it sound. To me, it means the government is not attempting to redistribute even more of my wealth (or yours) anymore than they already are. Rarely is legislation passed that gives it back. :)

I have read Marx and Engels (even Smith :wink: ), although it was many years ago during my liberal hippie college days 8) . (competing with microhedge on who can use the most smilies)

If the democrats desire for increasing central control (Fed takeover of health care is a great example) isn't socialist in nature, then what would you call it?

Cheers

[microhedge]

Hahhahaha... good post Net:lol:

[netwrangler]

From one corporate techie to another, I do appreciate that. I even sensed some humor ;). Gridlock in my humble opinion is not as bad as you make it sound. To me, it means the government is not attempting to redistribute even more of my wealth (or yours) anymore than they already are. Rarely is legislation passed that gives it back. :)

I have read Marx and Engels (even Smith :wink: ), although it was many years ago during my liberal hippie college days 8) . (competing with microhedge on who can use the most smilies)

If the democrats desire for increasing central control (Fed takeover of health care is a great example) isn't socialist in nature, then what would you call it?

CheersMy goodness, that's a refreshing post. :D

Gridlock can, indeed, be "a good thing"—especially in the absence of a strong center. The redeeming values of obfuscation and intellectual indolence are less apparent to me.

Taking one of many paths I could follow by your mention of Smith:
During the late '80's and early '90's, the company I worked for was a client of The Index Group, which later became CSC-Index. James Champy was one of the founders of The Index Group. Mike Hammer led the consultancy's research effort. The work that Index did in those years was the basis for Hammer & Champy's book Reengineering the Corporation - A Manifesto for Business Revolution. [How's that for a segué from Marx? :wink:] I was the lucky stiff from my company who went to the Index meetings and watched the research unfold, quarter by quarter, in the years before the book was published.

One of Hammer's conclusions at Index was that Smith's pin factory, and the concepts of specialization and division of labor, were unalterably changed by the ability to share information. I'm not going to try to restate the logic. [RTFB] I do believe he was right.

The echoes of this conclusion are still reverberating through the business world 15 years after the book was published.
These echoes including but not limited to:

The use of robots & other forms of automation in manufacturing
Geographic outsourcing of "information worker" jobs
Elimination of middle management positions
The growth of the Global Enterprise.

I see both Parties either missing these changes [perhaps just as well] or addressing them out of context, and therefore inappropriately.

Finally, it's tempting to say that, yes, H. Clinton's plan for healthcare is more, rather than less, socialist in nature, more left than right–as compared to where we are now. On the stand, a judge might force me to say that. In this forum, however, I prefer to beg the question. The question should not be what political stripe to apply to the Clinton plan.
The question should be, "Does the plan do a good job of addressing the problem?"

"What problem is that?"

"What problem? Indeed!" Now there's a topic for discussion. :idea:

[Albert0373]

Ron Paul on Jay Leno 10/30:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6518579930702489626

[freakscene]

I've noticed the *main stream* press actually covering him a bit the last 3 or 4 days.

TIME has a piece on him this morning, although I really wished the press would stop calling us supporters, some kind of fringe lunatics of the political sphere.

[aiki14]

I've noticed the *main stream* press actually covering him a bit the last 3 or 4 days.

TIME has a piece on him this morning, although I really wished the press would stop calling us supporters, some kind of fringe lunatics of the political sphere.

it is an astonishing commentary on the current state of American politics and the 2 party system when you and I are "supporting" the same candidate. Absolutely astonishing. 8)

[freakscene]

It is.

I haven't yet been able to get a grip on just who is a Ron Paul supporter, except to conclude its someone who is tired of the oligarchy.

[TonyM]

A Ron Paul supporter is, in my estimation, a patriot. One who agrees with what the founding fathers laid out in the Constitution and would like to see it adhered to. No President or candidate for the presidency is or has ever been perfect and never will be, but I believe that R. Paul comes closest to following the excellent advice of those founding fathers.

If we could be so lucky as to have politicians today that had as much intelligence and forethought as those framers of the Constitution, we would have nothing to worry about, because we would then have true patriots representing the people.