This movement needs to be more tolerant...

[EndTheFed]

Kade. The first step for you is to stop reading Huffington Post and Daily Kos. Those are liberal smear tactics. If you go back and listen to Palin BEFORE she was selected as McCain's VP, you can hear the real Palin. If you believe the left wing WICKED smear tactics...you will never know her. Now, I'm not professing that I do...but by listening to her pre VP...you can hear libertarian leanings. Tones

At 3:00


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9rW25bT5o&feature=related

 

[EndTheFed]

I think the principle he follows here is obedience to the rule of law, correctly applied.

So what will he do if the "law" says to take someones liberty away? .. will he follow obedience to the law?

 

[EndTheFed]

Troopergate holds water. A lot of water. That she is now covering it up is the proverbial icing on the cake. She has something to hide. She abused her power... and since being a Mayor is such a big deal, this ought to be a big deal.

From what I see she is not h9iding a damn thing... the jackass trooper tazered an 11 year old. the guy fire has admitted he was NEVER told by anyone to fire the guy. He directly was in subordinante by setting up a trip to DC to get money he was told not to.

your bucket is leaking...

try again

 

[RickyJ]

Some in this movementneeds to GROW UP and learn to win people over and persuade people with facts.

Facts:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

WTC7 totally collapsed at approx. 5:20pm on 9/11/2001.

WTC7 had only a few small fires in it and minor damage from falling debris of the twin towers that totally collapsed earlier that day.

Other buildings that were closer to the twin towers suffered more damage from falling debris than WTC7 did. Yet none of them totally collapsed. Most are even still standing today.

WTC7 was announced on a live BBC broadcast as having totally collapsed 20 minutes before it did. (There is a video of the reporter saying it collapsed with it still standing behind her in the background.)

A demolition expert upon seeing a tape of WTC7 falling said it was "a perfect demolition."

It takes demolition experts months of planning and preparation to bring a building down in a controlled demolition. The fact that this was described as a "perfect demolition" means that it had to be well planned out before hand.

 

[Kade]

From what I see she is not h9iding a damn thing... the jackass trooper tazered an 11 year old. the guy fire has admitted he was NEVER told by anyone to fire the guy. He directly was in subordinante by setting up a trip to DC to get money he was told not to.

your bucket is leaking...

try again

What? Are you serious? That isn't the story. I don't care about the trooper, he seems like an asshole. She fired the Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner for refusing to fire the trooper... that is the issue.

Read the facts please.

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

 

[Andrew-Austin]

To tolerate means to accept/allow the existence of.

Yes we should be tolerant, but not have a tent so big we placate neocons and socialists. Which is what some unkowningly hint towards, when they look for ways to create even more room inside this tent.

 

[EndTheFed]

OK. Facts:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

WTC7 totally collapsed demolition style at apporx. 5:20pm on 9/11/2001.

WTC7 had only a few small fires in it and minor damage from falling debris of the twin towers that totally collapsed earlier that day.

Other buildings that were closer to the twin towers sufferd more damage from falling debris than WTC7 did. Yet none of them totally collapsed. Most are even still standing today.

WTC7 was announced on a live BBC broadcast as having totally collapsed 20 minutes before it did. (There is a video of the reporter saying it collapsed with it still standing behind her in the background.)

A demolition expert upon seeing a tape of WTC7 falling said it was "a perfect demolition."

It takes demolition experts months of planning and preparation to bring a building down in a controlled demolition. The fact that this was described as a "perfect demolition" means that it had to be well planned out before hand.

I agree with these fact... I have questions about this myself... but why do you think truthers get "You people are fuckin idiots..."

It is because some in the movement make total asses of themselves...

They would do themsef a favor to rationally discuss the issues instead of interrupting shouting people down
meetings/newscats etc with "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!! 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!"

 

[EndTheFed]

What? Are you serious? That isn't the story. I don't care about the trooper, he seems like an asshole. She fired the Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner for refusing to fire the trooper... that is the issue.

Read the facts please.

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

If you read what I said The trooper was not theguy fired.. Thepublic safty commissioner was the guy fired...
he was fired for insubbordinaton...

He scheduled a trip to DC to lobby for money that he was to directly not to do...

He (the commissioner) said he was NEVER told to fire the trooper

 

[georgiaboy]

So what will he do if the "law" says to take someones liberty away? .. will he follow obedience to the law?

In a nutshell, yes, he, and you, already do.

Theoretically, every law restricts liberty in some way.

Examples - you are not free to murder someone - your liberty to kill them, even if you want to, is illegal; you are not free to steal from someone, even if you want what they have - you aren't free to just take it. These are good uses of the law to restrict liberty, however, in that they actually protect rights to life and property.

There are much more egregious violations of liberty however, such as simple taxation laws, that infringe on people's rights to their property. I'm pretty sure Ron pays taxes, though he'd be happy to eliminate the laws that require them.

 

[EndTheFed]

To tolerate means to accept/allow the existence of.

Yes we should be tolerant, but not have a tent so big we placate neocons and socialists. Which is what some unkowningly hint towards, when they look for ways to create even more room inside this tent.

Well i am not a no con or a socialist but I do have some different ideas then some people here...

 

[Kade]

If you read what I said The trooper was not theguy fired.. Thepublic safty commissioner was the guy fired...
he was foired for insubbordinaton...

He scheduled a trip to DC to lobby for money that he was to directly not to do...

She didn't say that because she knows its an outright lie. She is not defending him... if you spoke the truth, she would have said as much on ABC... she knows better to lie on national Tv. She has email rumor machine to defend her.

 

[EndTheFed]

In a nutshell, yes, he, and you, already do.

Theoretically, every law restricts liberty in some way.

Examples - you are not free to murder someone - your liberty to kill them, even if you want to, is illegal; you are not free to steal from someone, even if you want what they have - you aren't free to just take it. These are good uses of the law to restrict liberty, however, in that they actually protect rights to life and property.

There are much more egregious violations of liberty however, such as simple taxation laws, that infringe on people's rights to their property. I'm pretty sure Ron pays taxes, though he'd be happy to eliminate the laws that require them.

My point is this.... Every person has to decide for THEMSELF what their limits arewhere they should compromise...

The BS here about how everyone are standing on "principle" (voting 3rd party) in some cases is crap.

 

[EndTheFed]

She didn't say that because she knows its an outright lie. She is not defending him... if you spoke the truth, she would have said as much on ABC... she knows better to lie on national Tv. She has email rumor machine to defend her.

You know when I said at the first post in this thread I was pushing for more toleance... maybe I was wrong....

You are full of shit..!!!!!

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerant

 

[aravoth]

You know when I said at the first post in this thread I was pushing for more toleance... maybe I was wrong....

You are full of shit..!!!!!

Glad to see someone else catching on.

 

[acptulsa]

To tolerate means to accept/allow the existence of.

Yes we should be tolerant, but not have a tent so big we placate neocons and socialists. Which is what some unkowningly hint towards, when they look for ways to create even more room inside this tent.

Agreed. But we need to learn what to tolerate and when. Part of this is picking your battles, part of it is prioritization. I feel that we could well wait to hash out our differences with Kucinich's supporters until we have gotten rid of the Hatches, Kennedys, Inhofes, Reids, etc. By then the Constitution will be safe and the only issue left will be how best to serve the people.

What is most important now?

 

[constituent]

 

[Truth Warrior]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Federal Constitution Is Dead[/FONT]
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

 

[Philadelphia76]

Interesting points. Though I can see where you're coming from, and in previous election cycles I've thought similarly, this time around I tend to disagree.

My view is that Ron Paul is not nor has ever been concerned with how he is 'seen' as you put it. He makes his decisions based on principle and I think he encourages others to do the same. He uses his vote not as a bargaining chip, but as an active representation of the oath he took and zealously seeks to uphold.

Different from your analysis, I think McCain & Obama are two sides of the same coin. Both will increase the size, scope, and power of the federal government over us, both will do nothing fundamental about our monetary system, our foreign policy, or our eroding individual liberties, not to mention any desire to uphold their oath to the constitution. Any differences in them are either rhetorical or only chipping around the edges at best. If I have learned nothing else this election season, this is it, and it's fundamental.

Unlike yourself, I do think Ron Paul would dispute a battlegrounder the logic that voting for McCain or Obama is the right decision this year. I think that's exactly why he held his press conference at the NPC with third party candidates from across the political spectrum. I think he sees people's vote as their bond of their principles, based on the way he uses it himself. I don't think he sees voting as a way to enable quid pro quo behavior or drive a strategy. However, he would be willing to allow you your opinion and vote the way you see fit.

I also do not agree with your analysis that voting McCain will somehow gain us enhanced leverage within the Republican party going forward. I think, just as it is with Ron Paul, that standing firmly on principle is what will gain us the most respect over time. Voting McCain says we're not the principled people we say we are - we lose any credibility whatsoever. Also, working within the party after this election, no matter who wins, will be easy. The party needs our idealism, our vigor, our constancy, and our participation, and they're going to be more receptive to our ideas than ever, given the current events of late.

All that said, you're free to do and think what you please and your participation is welcome on the forum. Yeah there are some blowhards on here, but the amount of knowledge to be gained far outweighs the bickering and barbs thrown.

Many thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with much of it actually. I think the "differential" between McCain and Obama lies in who they would pick for the supreme court. McCain seems to be roped into a "strict constructionist" approach at least. That said... I will continue to monitor the two candidates very closely over the next 50+ days and if I determine that they really are "one in the same" (specifically... not just as a "general" "big government" matter)... then I may very well go Libertarian notwithstanding my residency in a battleground state. As of now I still lean towards McCain... but that could be the result of frayed lingering GOP loyalties...

 

[georgiaboy]

My point is this.... Every person has to decide for THEMSELF what their limits arewhere they should compromise...

The BS here about how everyone are standing on "principle" (voting 3rd party) in some cases is crap.

You just radically changed the subject from my statement that Ron Paul votes on principle to an indictment of everyone on the forum - that's quite a leap.

I assume I've sufficiently convinced you on my earlier point that Ron Paul does indeed and has voted principle over party, strategy, or quid pro quo. We therefore move on to your new statement.

To your statement, you are correct and I agree that everyone is free to decide where they should compromise.

My specific statement about standing on principle regarding not voting for McCain has to do with the fact that I am a Red-blooded conservative Republican who votes accordingly, and McCain is no conservative.

I don't care who he runs with, he wouldn't know the US Constitution if it tea bagged him in the face.