EVERY party appears to be FUBAR'D

[Conza88]

So in other words it has to be in video or sound bite form or you refuse to bother with it?

If so, I weep for mankind.

Seriously, though, you OUGHT to read it (people tell me that I actually AM a good writer -- well sometimes anyway -- and there is some serious thought provoking stuff in this one... while it is an answer to inibo, it WOULD in fact add to your knowledge as well).

I'm curious... are you just a non-reader of long text online? Did you buy a copy of Ron's latest book? Did you buy it to read it? Or just as a means of "supporting" the movement... and perhaps earning brownie points???

In other words, you were quoting inibo, the whole thing was addressed to him from what I gather. Why waste my time, on something thats POINTLESS in regards to me. Cry away.. won't change anything.

Ok so it adds something? LoL - I'll reconsider when I'm bored.

I'm just curious... have you taken a look at the sticky in 'General Politics' recently?
I am a non-reader of long pointless online text, sure. Bought the book, read the book, passed the book along to my fellow family members. Brownie points? If you mean, using it as a tool to wake others up... yes.

 

[WRellim]

Read it I did. You actually addressed my concerns pretty well, at least as far as you as an individual. (Now if we can just get you to take an English composition class. )

Was it that bad?

I know internet style writing HAS infected and corrupted me (how can it not, we're in a forum with [QUOTY] things and all the rest of the doodads. At least I don't wrie posts on an iPhone and use texting abbreviations! WL NT NRMLY.)

I could wish it had been shorter -- and indeed it is a first draft, subsequent revisions would probably be edited down (then expanded & re-edited, ad infinitum) -- but the question while seemingly simple, covers a pretty complex subject area. IMO, sound bite length answers would be worth a lot less.

I would like to see a similar position stated by the CP itself. It would go a long way toward lessening my concerns.

So would I, but alas I don't speak (or write) for the Constitution Party, only myself.

However, I spent enough time among fundamentalists, having been one myself for many years, to know that there will always be those who have, as Mencken said, "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Given enough time and numbers those dour folks eventually resort to the gallows to exorcise their own insecurities resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will.

SNORT... I always LOVED that quote and thought it very apropos of so MANY denominations. (BTW, excellent book "Real Christians Don't Dance" would argue that such "legalisms" are an attempt to shortcut and avoid REAL spirituality.) Here's a favorite passage (from Chapter 15)

[...]replied the old man. "It remains what it has always been. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. In fact, it's the legalist who destroys the Law."

"Wait a minute ... wait a minute. The legalist destroys the Law? How can that be? Law is his middle name!"

"The legalist always reduces the requirements of the Law. He has no choice but to shrink it to something that he can maintain so that when he compares himself to another, he will always win. He counts on God to grade on the curve."

The old man let that one sink in for a moment and went on,

"Remember how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees? He reinterpreted the Law to them. He made it harder, putting the Law back up where it belonged. He redefined murder as hate and adultery as lust, and suddenly the old buzzards were back on the hook."​

Likewise with the experience among "fundies" of several varieties (had one pastor who thought cards, ANY physical deck of cards, were a tool of the devil to lead one into gambling -- a different pastor at a different church was adamant about dancing being evil, even his 3 year old daughter was not allowed to "bounce" or "swirl" around the living room to music... often wonder how many years of counseling THAT eventually wrought!)

I often took sheer pleasure in (literally) blowing smoke in their direction during outside activities. (Knew my Bible well enough -- plus debate and extemporaneous expertise -- so even the pastor feared to try upbraiding me regarding tobacco, best they could do was the secular "health" concerns.)

SHUDDER thinking of all of that again...

So completely freeing to be out and away from all of it. Quaker quietness and peace is just... well, wonderful by comparison.

(But, sadly as I have learned, you cannot really FREE others in the same way -- they have to seek it on their own. Only thing sadder is those who put themselves needlessly BACK under that that yoke. )

Based on my own experience and my reading of web sites like News With Views*, they seem to be well represented in the CP.

*I'm not painting NWV with a broad brush. They often have very good articles, but from time-to-time they give a platform to some of the most hateful rants I've ever read. Even though I often agree with their basic premise--as in the example cited--I want to tell them to sit down an STFU, you are not helping.

EEEK! Alang Stang... Egads, Run for your lives... "Mother, Hide the Children, NOW!"

Yeah I know what you mean... WND is a similar mix... intermixing some VERY good stuff with a whole lot of absolute CRAP.

Whole history of ALL religions though (and societies? organizations? mankind in general?) are replete with such demagogues.

I really get the impression that Chuck Baldwin is NOT among them. Firm in his beliefs, yes, and a "fundie" in that regard -- "evangelical" in wanting to share his beliefs (but aren't RP supporters "evangelical" and always wanting to "share" -- and sometimes IMPOSE -- their "Good News" onto others? <grin>). But he DOES seem to be well aware of the dangers of government imposed religious values (dangerous to HIS OWN BELIEFS as well as other peoples).

<soapbox>
RE that, one of the things that constantly amazes me with the "Bush supporters" is that they do NOT seem to even think -- not even for a second -- what his expansion of Presidential authority would mean if say HILLARY were to gain the office (much less someone worse). How short ARE their memories? Were they not (just a few years ago) DAMNING Clinton for the same kinds of excesses? And when you try to explain or even question this point... they dismiss you out of hand. Brainless.
</soapbox>

 

[WRellim]

In other words, you were quoting inibo, the whole thing was addressed to him from what I gather. Why waste my time, on something thats POINTLESS in regards to me. Cry away.. won't change anything.

Ok so it adds something? LoL - I'll reconsider when I'm bored.

I'm just curious... have you taken a look at the sticky in 'General Politics' recently?
I am a non-reader of long pointless online text, sure. Bought the book, read the book, passed the book along to my fellow family members. Brownie points? If you mean, using it as a tool to wake others up... yes.

Well, you were the one who posted just a in reply. (Had you not done that I would never have been the wiser. )

Sadly, I have recently spent too much time on here already I don't have time to read everything (especially when composing the LONG posts takes so long).

I didn't mean the questions on your reading as a dig or insult. Just that some people who LOVE reading books and such yet HATE reading more than a few sentences online. I was wondering which you meant by not liking long text. (I've had some people gripe about my long posts... and then a few days later get a PM from the same person saying "thank you, that was very informative" -- and I've often wondered if they printed it out or something... I've been known to do that -- somehow paper makes the difference -- and thought that might be the case with you.)

Cheers!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Read it I did. You actually addressed my concerns pretty well, at least as far as you as an individual. (Now if we can just get you to take an English composition class. ) I would like to see a similar position stated by the CP itself. It would go a long way toward lessening my concerns. However, I spent enough time among fundamentalists, having been one myself for many years, to know that there will always be those who have, as Mencken said, "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Given enough time and numbers those dour folks eventually resort to the gallows to exorcise their own insecurities resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will.

This alarmism about some latent lethality behind fundamentalism has always been inflated, as the alarmism is disproportionate to the actual deaths produced by fundamentalist adherents (rare, compared to 100 million deaths from secular communism). My own concerns are that there are way too many secular puritans out there who hold a haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be holy. My use of the abortion example was to point out the root of the issue was authoritarianism, not the injection of God in to a philosophy of government. Murderous authoritarian doctrines have and will result (probably more easily) in the ABSENCE of biblically-based principles, rather than due to their presence. The complicating factor of people confusing their own law for God's law has been what has made applying those principles to politics unattractive to some, but that misunderstanding does not make those principles false or irrelevant, any more than the dislike of gravity makes gravity irrelevant.

Rule by God or rule by Man may be authoritarian or non-authoritarian in character, but the nature of either rule is to PLAY God by acting as the final or ultimate authority in the civil arena---intrinsically, an act of theocracy. All governments are de facto theocracies, either of the biblical kind, or the humanist kind (treating God as God, or Man as God). The fear of 'theocracy' is basically a fear of the other side's theocracy. Either God is ruler of the nations, and we actually believe it, or not, and Man will play God in so ruling. Given the blunt choice (and given the history of the last century) of opting to live in the biblical theocratic time of the Founders where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will," versus a humanistic theocracy where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of Progress," I choose the former. Think about the Stalin et al body counts---that was an awful lot of insecurity being exorcised, all of it secular.

 

[acptulsa]

I am only 26 but I am thinking this could be the most insane election season I've ever seen and ever will see.

I'm almost two decades older and it beats all in my experience, too. On the one hand, I want to say it's the craziest I'll ever see. On the other hand, I hope not--I hope 2010 and 2012 turn the whole damned world on its head!

 

[inibo]

This alarmism about some latent lethality behind fundamentalism has always been inflated, as the alarmism is disproportionate to the actual deaths produced by fundamentalist adherents (rare, compared to 100 million deaths from secular communism). My own concerns are that there are way too many secular puritans out there who hold a haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be holy. My use of the abortion example was to point out the root of the issue was authoritarianism, not the injection of God in to a philosophy of government. Murderous authoritarian doctrines have and will result (probably more easily) in the ABSENCE of biblically-based principles, rather than due to their presence. The complicating factor of people confusing their own law for God's law has been what has made applying those principles to politics unattractive to some, but that misunderstanding does not make those principles false or irrelevant, any more than the dislike of gravity makes gravity irrelevant.

Rule by God or rule by Man may be authoritarian or non-authoritarian in character, but the nature of either rule is to PLAY God by acting as the final or ultimate authority in the civil arena---intrinsically, an act of theocracy. All governments are de facto theocracies, either of the biblical kind, or the humanist kind (treating God as God, or Man as God). The fear of 'theocracy' is basically a fear of the other side's theocracy. Either God is ruler of the nations, and we actually believe it, or not, and Man will play God in so ruling. Given the blunt choice (and given the history of the last century) of opting to live in the biblical theocratic time of the Founders where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of God's will," versus a humanistic theocracy where folks are "resolute in the conviction that they are instruments of Progress," I choose the former. Think about the Stalin et al body counts---that was an awful lot of insecurity being exorcised, all of it secular.

You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

It took a bit of wrangling, but I finally got a sense of where WRellim is coming from. I also had to drop a few preconceptions in the process. I guess I'll pose the question I posed to him to you: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Sidebar: I hope people don't think I'm hijacking this thread. It's not my intention. The original post was about how screwed up all the parties are. I'm trying to examine the accuracy of that assessment with respect to one of them, the Constitution Party. If we don't kill each other in the process maybe we can get around to the others as well.

 

[armstrong]

Man I so wish Ron Paul would get Jesse Ventura as his running mate and go independant the would win hands down,,,a land slide,,,,,wishfull thinking,,,will have to write in RP or go with baldwin if he is on the ballot in oregon if not and no write in for RP then I will sit this one out I think

 

[inibo]

I'm almost two decades older and it beats all in my experience, too. On the one hand, I want to say it's the craziest I'll ever see. On the other hand, I hope not--I hope 2010 and 2012 turn the whole damned world on its head!

My earliest recollection of presidential politics is JFKs reelection campaign speech at the W.Va. centennial celebration in Charleston. I was only eight years old so it is all just fleeting impressions. The have been many strange twists and turns since, but I'm really getting a sense that things are rapidly spinning out of control and pieces are going to start flying off in every direction. We are approaching a phase transition and I'm not entirely optimistic about what's on the other side of it.

 

[WRellim]

You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

It took a bit of wrangling, but I finally got a sense of where WRellim is coming from. I also had to drop a few preconceptions in the process. I guess I'll pose the question I posed to him to you: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Sidebar: I hope people don't think I'm hijacking this thread. It's not my intention. The original post was about how screwed up all the parties are. I'm trying to examine the accuracy of that assessment with respect to one of them, the Constitution Party. If we don't kill each other in the process maybe we can get around to the others as well.

I would say that ALL tyrannies are GODLESS tyrannies... and at the same time they all THINK that they are HOLY.

(Consider the Soviet's virtual "canonization" of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even Stalin).

For another example in a different thread her on RPF, a person purporting to be a Libertarian goes to extensive lengths to say that ALL children should NOT be subjected to the "Christian" religious beliefs of their parents, but should instead be raised as atheists. And he is not merely stating it as his "preference" but rather a policy he would like to see in place by a "Libertarian Government."

All that is (at its root) is yet another claim to holding of the "absolute truth" (albeit in this case the "sect" of atheism), and then using the brute force of the state to compel others to follow a specific set of beliefs (i.e. a state religion), in other words nothing but a THEOCRACY.

 

[Truth Warrior]

SNAFUBAR, by design.

Enter the NWO to "fix", set things straight and to save the day, just in the very nick of time.

Just like Cavalry did in the old western movies.

WHEW! Are we lucky or what?

ORDO ab CHAO, my ass.

 

[constituent]

Was it that bad?

1) I know internet style writing HAS infected and corrupted me (how can it not, we're in a forum with [QUOTY] things and all the rest of the doodads. At least I don't wrie posts on an iPhone and use texting abbreviations! WL NT NRMLY.)

2) I could wish it had been shorter -- and indeed it is a first draft, subsequent revisions would probably be edited down (then expanded & re-edited, ad infinitum) -- but the question while seemingly simple, covers a pretty complex subject area. IMO, sound bite length answers would be worth a lot less.


.......

<soapbox>
RE that, one of the things that constantly amazes me with the "Bush supporters" is that they do NOT seem to even think -- not even for a second -- what his expansion of Presidential authority would mean if say HILLARY were to gain the office (much less someone worse). How short ARE their memories? Were they not (just a few years ago) DAMNING Clinton for the same kinds of excesses? And when you try to explain or even question this point... they dismiss you out of hand. Brainless.
</soapbox>

1) English is dead. Any attempt to sculpt the language (properly) is an attempt to create equine statuary from genuine dead horses. You can do it, but it's gonna smell like shit.

2) There's a saying that English teachers like to use, I forget the exact expression. Something along the lines of "never use a big word when a small one will do." This applies to grouping your thoughts for readers as well.

<SOAPBOX>
In conversation, you will only hold a persons attention for <30 sec. The same is usually true for writing, though you may get a little longer. Often, if you phrase your thoughts in more than a couple of sentences, your reader's eyes will continue to scan the words, but their thoughts will no longer be registering.

If they register, they will not compute.

Sound bites are your friend.
</SOAPBOX>

 

[constituent]

Actually, Christian/biblical doctrines WERE enshrined in early American law, in the early treaties and several state constitutions. Somehow the galaxies didn't explode, and liberty flourished.

Bullshit.

I dislike the new American religion more than I dislike the old Christian one.

Both require that the individual view history w/ rose-colored glasses to not see the obvious.

 

[LittleLightShining]

For those of us who are not Christians that is some scary stuff.

Forgive me here, because I've only just started reading through this thread, but I don't understand what's so scary about the Gospel other than at the end every person will be judged according to their faith. If you don't believe then what's to fear?

The Gospel is about loving your neighbor, forgiving each other and faith. The dogmatic things that many Christians adhere to come largely from Paul, not from Christ. Paul is not the author of the Gospel.

True Christianity looks a whole lot more like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin than James Dobson and John Hagee.

 

[Conza88]

Nice constituent.

A quote from Churchill comes to mind, but I can't find it.

Paraphrasing - "If you want me to talk for 2 minutes, give me two weeks preparation. If you want me to speak for 2 hours, tell me when to start."

 

[LittleLightShining]

Let me ask straight out: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

I'll say no. They shouldn't. Unless there is an act of violence, damage or theft of property involved. Then there is a crime.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I know... TL/DR... and "Pearls before Swine" -- but I didn't really post it with the expectation that everyone would read it... just that inibo would (and I know that means we are having a private conversation in public, but hey you're free to listen in if you want... we've got nothing to hide).

Thank you for writing it, WR. If there were such a thing I would nominate it for "All-time Best Post on RPF".

 

[Nickel]

Go read some history then... it is not altogether that different from the various speeches and writings of a number of "classic" American political figures (including many of the founding fathers).

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just don't read any Franklin, Jefferson or Adams (later in life) who all rejected the divinity of Christ. Also, ignore Madison, who became increasingly influenced by Deists through out his life. He was adamant about separation of Church and state ("When in doubt err on the side of separation").

The Constitution Party preamble really makes a mockery of what the Founders actually set up.

Can people from other Religions join the Constitution Party? Maybe as long as they acknowledge "the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States".

 

[WRellim]

You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

It took a bit of wrangling, but I finally got a sense of where WRellim is coming from. I also had to drop a few preconceptions in the process. I guess I'll pose the question I posed to him to you: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?

Sidebar: I hope people don't think I'm hijacking this thread. It's not my intention. The original post was about how screwed up all the parties are. I'm trying to examine the accuracy of that assessment with respect to one of them, the Constitution Party. If we don't kill each other in the process maybe we can get around to the others as well.

I would say that ALL tyrannies are GODLESS tyrannies... and at the same time they all THINK that they are HOLY.

(Consider the Soviet's virtual "canonization" of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even Stalin).

For another example in a different thread her on RPF, a person purporting to be a Libertarian goes to extensive lengths to say that ALL children should NOT be subjected to the "Christian" religious beliefs of their parents, but should instead be raised as atheists. And he is not merely stating it as his "preference" but rather a policy he would like to see in place by a "Libertarian Government."

All that is (at its root) is yet another claim to holding of the "absolute truth" (albeit in this case the "sect" of atheism), and then using the brute force of the state to compel others to follow a specific set of beliefs (i.e. a state religion), in other words nothing but a THEOCRACY.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Bull****.

I dislike the new American religion more than I dislike the old Christian one.

Both require that the individual view history w/ rose-colored glasses to not see the obvious.

So, the galaxies DID explode? In early America, tyranny flourished? Does your mere dislike of the faith color your glasses such that you can ignore the actual facts of history?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You have a very cynical view of human nature. As I said in my response to, WRellim, you seem to be suggesting that "well, it's going to be tyranny anyway, so better it be holy tyranny than godless tyranny" as those those are the only choices. I take a slightly less Manichaean view.

My view is not Manichean, as I do not concede that biblical theocracy is innately 'tyranny.' From the raw evidence of history we have done alot better with biblically based civil government (if we are to have government at all) than the secular humanist counterpart. The alarmist objections to it are disproportionate to its actual performance in the real world---it has been the secular state that has proven to be more prone to drift into tyranny. It is the AUTHORITARIAN expression of either type of state that leads to the negative problems, but those negative outcomes are overwhelmingly found when a state is established on the secular side.