All Right, People, 'RINO' Is Officially Banned - Don't Be a ROIYD

[SavageEagle]

If it falls, it falls. But not because I haven't done my level best to stop it the best way I know how--and that's not through wishful thinking that just voting for Ron Paul will magically make things better.



A lot of the Founders would be turning over in their graves about a lot of things. But some of the things that some of them would be turning over about are not maybe such great things: allowing blacks to vote? Making Indians citizens? Women's Suffrage?

They were great men but they weren't perfect.



The point wasn't that we were perfect, but that no other system has done even as well. This speaks to the remarkable confidence that some have that "if we just do this..." then things will be all better. The term for that kind of confidence is "hubris."



You have the right to peaceably assemble. You do not, however, have the right to use public property for same any more than you have the right to use my front yard for your assembly.

Last time I looked I didn't need any permits to hold a meeting at my own home or in a facility that I hire.



No argument there, but my previous post was about tactics. And where else in the world can you do even that much?



You might want to check again on some of that. The requirements for insurance, licensing, car license and registration, etc. are for driving on the public streets. And you have to go a long way back to get away from traffic regulation. A lot of cities, very early on, for instance, banned the riding of horses in town so as to avoid being hip deep in horse .



Please tell me when we didn't have taxes, at least in "developed" areas with penalties attached to failure to pay?



And much of the talk about these kind of "Rights" is dreaming about a neverland that never was.

Not to say that things aren't bad, they are, just that most of the differences are in degree rather than in kind which is why the incremental approach has worked so well--and why the incremental approach is likely to be more successful than others.



However you are setting a standard which nobody, ever, has met.



I would really suggest you take a closer look at what slavery and indentured servitude was (is) like before making that kind of hyperbolic comparison.

I do hope that we can change things in the long run. I'm just not as optimistic as you I guess.

And considering that as best I can say is "not without hope" that's pretty depressing right there.[/quote]

Well, first, I never said that just voting for Ron and hoping for the best is all I would do and hope it changes things. I'm just trying to come up with a starting point solution for getting things to happen.

If my "solution" would pass, it would ensure that future sets of government follow the rules. If one set would pass it, doesn't mean the others would. If it becomes an amendment to the Constitution like it should, then any succeeding set of government would have a hard time repealing it.

That's the beauty of the Health Care Bill. They didn't make it an Amendment so it IS easier to repeal, unlike the IRS and that Amendment.

Oh, and while I know the Founders were not perfect, and our system is far from it, the Greek's and the Roman's did it right for a while as well. Their systems lasted about as long as ours before tyranny took over, too. They had much the same Freedoms as we started out with and lost them in much the same way we did. So you can't say it hasn't been done before. No, they weren't exactly the same, but they were pretty close and our Country was founded on many of the same principals as the Greeks and Romans. Historical Fact my friend.

However you are setting a standard which nobody, ever, has met.

You're damn right I am. You set the bar as high as you possibly can and you don't stop working toward it until you get there. Even if it takes your entire life. If you don't reach that goal, you can't be ashamed if you didn't reach it as long as you made progress toward it. Just look back and be proud of what you DID accomplish.

You have to set a high standard, especially when it comes to Freedom and Liberty. The lower you set the bar, the easier it is to fall back on tyranny in the future.

I would really suggest you take a closer look at what slavery and indentured servitude was (is) like before making that kind of hyperbolic comparison.

I do know exactly what both were. That's why I said we are inbetween both at this point. We aren't yet quite full blown slaves because we do not have a Communist or Monarch form of Government. Yet, we're not quite indentured servants because indentured servants had the CHOICE. Choice to work and get paid to pay off their debt or not work and go back to where they came from. We don't HAVE the choice to pick and choose which taxes we pay and they government is now in the business of picking and choosing which Freedoms we have and which ones we don't.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm not saying either one of us is right or wrong. But please, show me a solution that WILL work. Short or long term.

If voting the right people in isn't going to work, and imposing strict penalties on them for failing their Oath isn't going to work, and outright rebellion isn't going to work, then what is? From the sounds of it, nothing will and we and our children and our grand children are doomed to bondage for the rest of eternity unless we are lucky enough to go to Heaven. If there truly is such a place.

 

[dburkhead]

Well, first, I never said that just voting for Ron and hoping for the best is all I would do and hope it changes things. I'm just trying to come up with a starting point solution for getting things to happen.

If my "solution" would pass, it would ensure that future sets of government follow the rules. If one set would pass it, doesn't mean the others would. If it becomes an amendment to the Constitution like it should, then any succeeding set of government would have a hard time repealing it.

No. It wouldn't. There is nothing you can do now that would ensure that future sets of governments would follow the rules.

That is one thing the Founding Fathers understood very well.

That's the beauty of the Health Care Bill. They didn't make it an Amendment so it IS easier to repeal, unlike the IRS and that Amendment.

How many laws have been repealed in the past century?

Getting laws repealed may not be so easy as you think.

So far 3.7% of all Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Is the number of Federal laws that have been repealed anywhere close to that?

Oh, and while I know the Founders were not perfect, and our system is far from it, the Greek's and the Roman's did it right for a while as well. Their systems lasted about as long as ours before tyranny took over, too.

That turns out not to be the case. Even during the height of Athenian Democracy Athens was nevertheless an Empire. The male citizens of Athens had "Freedom" but everyone else under their sway were ruled quite tyrannically. The Roman Republic was much the same.

Still, they worked better than most in ancient history providing both models for the Founders to draw from and cautions for the Founders to try to avoid.

They had much the same Freedoms as we started out with and lost them in much the same way we did. So you can't say it hasn't been done before. No, they weren't exactly the same, but they were pretty close and our Country was founded on many of the same principals as the Greeks and Romans. Historical Fact my friend.

Um, no. Now, the Romans were big on "Freedom of Religion" and, with a few exceptions, were also pretty lenient in terms of Freedom of Speech", but they were nowhere close to what the US had, or even has now, in terms of overall freedom.

You're damn right I am. You set the bar as high as you possibly can and you don't stop working toward it until you get there. Even if it takes your entire life. If you don't reach that goal, you can't be ashamed if you didn't reach it as long as you made progress toward it. Just look back and be proud of what you DID accomplish.

When you set a bar that no one has ever met you don't get to complain that no one meets it.

When you set the bar outside of reality, when you say "we are not truly free" because of standards that have never been met anywhere, what you are saying is that "true freedom doesn't exist." And if true freedom doesn't exist, then well, there's nothing to strive for.

One of the best ways to discourage progress is to set a goal that cannot be met.

You have to set a high standard, especially when it comes to Freedom and Liberty. The lower you set the bar, the easier it is to fall back on tyranny in the future.

Um. No. It's more of the "all or nothing" approach. An allegory.

Wibur: "You know, if we don't soar tens of thousands of feet above the ground, across oceans and mountains, it's not true flight."
Orville: "But we covered 120 feet. That's more than anybody has ever managed before."
Wilbur: "But it's not true flight."
Orville: "Then forget it. I quit."

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

I do know exactly what both were. That's why I said we are inbetween both at this point.

If you consider being an ordinary person in the US to be worse[i/i] than indentured servitude then you do not understand them both, and I strongly suspect you don't understand either.

We aren't yet quite full blown slaves because we do not have a Communist or Monarch form of Government. Yet, we're not quite indentured servants because indentured servants had the CHOICE. Choice to work and get paid to pay off their debt or not work and go back to where they came from.

Here, you see that you don't understand being an indentured servant. For one thing the result of "don't work" is not what you seem to think it is.

We don't HAVE the choice to pick and choose which taxes we pay and they government is now in the business of picking and choosing which Freedoms we have and which ones we don't.

Nobody has ever had the "freedom" to pick and choose what taxes they pay and you're dreaming if you think you ever will.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm not saying either one of us is right or wrong. But please, show me a solution that WILL work. Short or long term.

And again you are looking for magic bullets.

Here's the main point. There is no guaranteed solution. If that's what you want then you can stop wasting your time. It doesn't exist.

I gave you what I thought was the most likely longer term success solution--find the politicians that are better (if only a little bit better) than whoever is currently holding the office who have the best chance of beating said current office holder. Two pieces: can he win? Is he better than the current officeholder. If he can't win, then it doesn't matter how good he is. If he's worse than the current officeholder, then it doesn't matter how good his chances are. You need both.

Sometimes you won't get both. Sucks, but that's life. In that case you work to minimize the damage, to keep things from getting any more worse than you have to.

Take every gain you can, minimizes the losses when they occur and repeat every. single. election. It's not fast, it's not easy, but it can work. It's the exact approach that has been used against us so how bad things are is a pretty good indicator of how well the approach works.

If voting the right people in isn't going to work, and imposing strict penalties on them for failing their Oath isn't going to work, and outright rebellion isn't going to work, then what is?

Voting in "the right people" can work. It's just that you need to broaden your views of "right people." Instead of only settling for some perfect candidate who hasn't got a prayer of winning. Better than the current officeholder; has a reasonable chance to win.

From the sounds of it, nothing will and we and our children and our grand children are doomed to bondage for the rest of eternity unless we are lucky enough to go to Heaven. If there truly is such a place.

I'm sorry Ryan but it gets very frustrating when people repeat things like the the above when I have been saying anything but that. Is there some kind of mental block that prevents people from hearing "in for the long haul", "accept less than perfect candidates if they can actually win the election so long as they are at least a little better than the current incumbent", and "work, work, work, work"?

If we're going to succeed, that's going to be the way it's done.

 

[smoking357]

When you set a bar that no one has ever met you don't get to complain that no one meets it.

That's fallacious. We set new bars, all the time, as we grow more intelligent, and we are entitled to complain that the enlightened target is not being met, even if it has never been met.

Child slave labor is almost universally decried, but has never been globally eradicated, though civilized peoples will not cease complaining until the bar of 'no child slave labor' is met.

When you set the bar outside of reality, when you say "we are not truly free" because of standards that have never been met anywhere, what you are saying is that "true freedom doesn't exist." And if true freedom doesn't exist, then well, there's nothing to strive for.

That's a non sequitur. While true freedom may not exist, it may be conceived, and we, as sentient and moral beings, are required to work toward the attainment of our best conceptions.

Wibur: "You know, if we don't soar tens of thousands of feet above the ground, across oceans and mountains, it's not true flight."

You proceed from false premises. Prove the equivalence of the elements.

Nobody has ever had the "freedom" to pick and choose what taxes they pay and you're dreaming if you think you ever will.

More's the pity. Further, you're confusing the 'is' and the 'ought'.

Here's the main point. There is no guaranteed solution. If that's what you want then you can stop wasting your time. It doesn't exist.

Actually, it does. Nozick's admonishment that only a minimal state is justified is a sure-fire guaranteed solution. Sadly, so many Americans want a nanny state, of some stripe, or another.

Sometimes you won't get both. Sucks, but that's life. In that case you work to minimize the damage, to keep things from getting any more worse than you have to.

Define "worse,"

Take every gain you can, minimizes the losses when they occur and repeat every. single. election. It's not fast, it's not easy, but it can work. It's the exact approach that has been used against us so how bad things are is a pretty good indicator of how well the approach works.

Talk about pollyanna optimism. It hasn't worked, yet, and the path looks bleaker, up the road. This system is fatally flawed. It has not, and it cannot, preserve Liberty, the only purpose for which it was established.

Voting in "the right people" can work.

Proof, please.

It's just that you need to broaden your views of "right people."

Doubtless, to include the "wrong people."

Instead of only settling for some perfect candidate who hasn't got a prayer of winning.

If the perfect candidate can't win, the system needs revision.

If we're going to succeed, that's going to be the way it's done.

Define "succeed."

There are many ways of arriving at the same end. We need to agree on what the end is, and we need to see who among us values the end greater than all else.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

That's fallacious. We set new bars, all the time, as we grow more intelligent, and we are entitled to complain that the enlightened target is not being met, even if it has never been met.

Child slave labor is almost universally decried, but has never been globally eradicated, though civilized peoples will not cease complaining until the bar of 'no child slave labor' is met.

It's a lot easier to set a universal goal when the epidemic is considered abhorred by all civilized nations. Notice, however, that to those that don't find it terrible are still practicing it.

In the US, what we seek is the same way. Amongst ourselves, we're freedom loving people. Amongst the rest of America, it's not the case. Otherwise we'd already have achieved the goal. Obviously it's going to be impossible because not everyone agrees with us.

That's a non sequitur. While true freedom may not exist, it may be conceived, and we, as sentient and moral beings, are required to work toward the attainment of our best conceptions.

Surely, we are. However, if our morals are in complete opposition to another's morals, and we are both within the same system, then obviously what either of us strive for will not exist until one is dead.

You proceed from false premises. Prove the equivalence of the elements.

Obviously, the statement is meant as a parable to the idea of 'baby steps.' Just because it's not related to the issue at hand does not mean it is not pertinent.

Jesus did the same thing.*

Actually, it does. Nozick's admonishment that only a minimal state is justified is a sure-fire guaranteed solution. Sadly, so many Americans want a nanny state, of some stripe, or another.

Sure. You can see the end of the equation, but can you solve for 'x'?

2 + x = 4

If you can't figure out 'x' then it doesn't matter what is after the = sign.

Talk about pollyanna optimism. It hasn't worked, yet, and the path looks bleaker, up the road. This system is fatally flawed. It has not, and it cannot, preserve Liberty, the only purpose for which it was established.

Proof, please.

It has worked. The first few Presidents were all good Presidents. It is, as he stated, only in the last 80 or so years that things have truly gotten worse arguably, starting with Prohibition. While there is no proof that what he suggests will work (as he stated) there is evidence to support that it may. Things got worse through electing leaders who made choices in opposition to freedom. Therefore, it stands to reason, that if we elect leaders in parallel with our beliefs then they will make choices parallel to our beliefs, and thus we will get our freedoms back.

Doubtless, to include the "wrong people."

Depends on the 'wrong people.' Is Dan Coats the right person? No. But is he better than Ellsworth? Right now, yes. Next election? You find someone better than Coats. And you follow the formula dburkhead outlined. The point is that it won't be immediate, and yes... it may include some of the 'wrong people,' but it's better than including the 'more wrongerer people.'

If the perfect candidate can't win, the system needs revision.

Define 'perfect candidate,' let's see if our ideals match up. Then lets put it to a vote amongst 5 people. What are the chances that your perfect candidate would win? I'm not sure... but if he loses, should that system be revised? And if my perfect candidate loses, should it likewise be revised because my perfect was different from yours?

Success is going to be the reinstitution of our rights. According to us. That's the pretty nominal goal here. It's just a matter of getting there.

2 is what we have, x is what we need, and 4 is what we want.

It's that simple. Now, just solve for x. He's given one possible formula for solution. So far, it looks like the best one to me. What's yours?


* I'm not calling dburkhead Jesus.

 

[HandK]

So being relatively new here, I guess I am missing the off topic posting joke?

Sammich.

I guess that clears it all up then. Thanks.

I saw clouds today!!!

 

[dburkhead]

Define 'perfect candidate,' let's see if our ideals match up. Then lets put it to a vote amongst 5 people. What are the chances that your perfect candidate would win? I'm not sure... but if he loses, should that system be revised? And if my perfect candidate loses, should it likewise be revised because my perfect was different from yours?

From my point of view the perfect candidate would be someone who agrees with me in every particular of potential policy, every one, and agrees exactly. He or she should also put the exact same priorities on those various potential policies if only in deciding which ones to deal with first (let alone dealing with the idea that you can't get everything you want).

To the best of my knowledge there is only one such person in the whole world. I strongly suspect that this "perfect candidate" of mine is not the same as the perfect candidate of yours (or of the person to whom you were responding).

There are over 300 million potential candidates who are each somebody's "perfect candidate" and, by extension, each of them is not the "perfect candidate" for pretty much everyone else. The vast majority are going to be doomed to disappointment when it comes to getting their "perfect candidate" elected.

It would be the height of hubris to think that if my perfect candidate does not, or even can not, win that the system must be "broken". (I'm sure you've figured out who my "perfect candidate" is by now. It should be pretty obvious from this context). If I thought so then I would be a tyrant of the worst stripe.

* I'm not calling dburkhead Jesus.

There's a reason I used that "he who has ears to hear...." tag on that little parable.

 

[88GT]

Ah, the old "let's change the meaning of words so we can use the emotional content of the word from its original meaning to somehow strengthen our current position."

It's wrong when the Left pulls that ploy and it's just as wrong when the Right pulls it.

Words have meanings. The Humpty Dumpty approach is a fallacy.

Which definition of slavery are you using then? Because this one

2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will. [1913 Webster]

and these

2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit

tell me I'm right.

It wasn't the chains and bondage, the whippings/beatings, the long hours, the brutal treatment that made men slaves. It was a lack of freedom. Not just to come and go without a "by your leave." But a lack of freedom to determine their own course in their own lives. The lack of freedom to determine how their own efforts would be focused for their own benefit and not for the benefit of others unless they specifically wanted it to be so.

Our current taxation levels are civilized slavery disguised as charity.

 

[SavageEagle]

David, many of my statements have been misunderstood in our little conversation here, and I've written, twice, to straighten things out. However, my stupid fing network is pissing me off and not acting right. So after 2 attempts to write the same book, I'm just going to concede defeat and hope this post, at least, makes it through.....

 

[dburkhead]

Which definition of slavery are you using then? Because this one



and these

tell me I'm right.

It wasn't the chains and bondage, the whippings/beatings, the long hours, the brutal treatment that made men slaves. It was a lack of freedom. Not just to come and go without a "by your leave." But a lack of freedom to determine their own course in their own lives. The lack of freedom to determine how their own efforts would be focused for their own benefit and not for the benefit of others unless they specifically wanted it to be so.

Our current taxation levels are civilized slavery disguised as charity.

Can you quit your job and take another? Or just quit your job and live on handouts (or whatever)?

If you can, then you're not a slave.

And you can say that it's not all this other stuff (beatings, chains, that one could be bought and sold as property) that define slavery but that's exactly the image that using the word "slave" brings to mind and. you. know. it. In fact, you are doing it deliberately to attach that imagery to excessive taxation for unconstitutional purposes.

The Left does the same thing when equating being beholden to an employer for wages (thus the term "wage slave"). It's a logical fallacy when the Left does it and it remains a logical fallacy when the Right does it.

From the Left? Well, I don't really expect any better from the left. Appeal to Emotion and other logical fallacies are really all they've got to work with. I do expect better from the folk here because they (meaning you) are capable of better.

 

[88GT]

Can you quit your job and take another? Or just quit your job and live on handouts (or whatever)?

If you can, then you're not a slave.

And you can say that it's not all this other stuff (beatings, chains, that one could be bought and sold as property) that define slavery but that's exactly the image that using the word "slave" brings to mind and. you. know. it. In fact, you are doing it deliberately to attach that imagery to excessive taxation for unconstitutional purposes.

The Left does the same thing when equating being beholden to an employer for wages (thus the term "wage slave"). It's a logical fallacy when the Left does it and it remains a logical fallacy when the Right does it.

From the Left? Well, I don't really expect any better from the left. Appeal to Emotion and other logical fallacies are really all they've got to work with. I do expect better from the folk here because they (meaning you) are capable of better.

I can see your ability to think beyond the public school textbook explanation hasn't developed fully yet. If you're right, and I'm not conceding you are, then property taxes aren't the equivalent of a permanent lease payment for your property either.

 

[dburkhead]

I can see your ability to think beyond the public school textbook explanation hasn't developed fully yet. If you're right, and I'm not conceding you are, then property taxes aren't the equivalent of a permanent lease payment for your property either.

So now we go from Appeal to Emotion to Argument ad Hominem. Any more logical fallacies you'd like to throw into the mix? Wups, there's another one right there. The red herring.

If you're right, and I'm not conceding you are, then we have exactly one historical example of a successful slave revolt (that managed to actually "free" the slaves on a national level) in history. And I don't think Haiti is exactly the model we want to be following, do you?

Seriously, how much history do you know? Did you know that folk in Europe in the Dark Ages were proud that they did not have slavery (as opposed to the Romans who did). Mind you, they had all sorts of other bound servitude, but didn't have slaves. A serf's lot was, in many ways, worse than a Roman slave's but he could not be bought or sold (being bound to the land rather than being an individual's personal property).

Throughout history the key defining element of slavery was that individuals were property who could be bought or sold, just like a horse or a cow or a wagon. Slavery as an institution didn't really "catch on" until the invention of the scratch plow (which made human labor valuable in that before that one person working, on average, could produce enough to support one person. After that, one person working could produce enough to support more than one person) which gave folk in this village something to do with folk taken in a raid from that village other than sacrificing them to the gods. It was improvements in horse harnessing (may writers say the invention of rigid horse collars, but it was actually more complicated than that) that largely brought about the end of slavery. (With the older harnesses, a horse could do something like 5 times the work of a man in tasks like tilling the fields and the like. But the horse ate five times as much as a man too so it was much the same about which one used. After the new harnesses, the horse could do 10 times the work of a man but still only ate five times as much. Before the improvements came together there were about as many bound as free in Europe. Afterward, the number of bound fell precipitously, folk started moving to the cities, various skilled trades started getting an influx of new blood, and industry, the arts, and sciences took off.)

But all that aside, the one constant throughout history is that slaves were property. They could be bought and sold. And one thing in common with all the various forms of bound servitude is that one was not free to quit. One was assigned duties will-he, nil-he. The overlord might, in a fit of generosity, accept input from the bound servant about duties but the choice remained with the overlord.

While some folk speculate that we aren't far from it until the government comes down with a Directive 10-289 or its functional equivalent then "slavery" is not an accurate term for the status of people in the US.

 

[dross]

From my point of view the perfect candidate would be someone who agrees with me in every particular of potential policy, every one, and agrees exactly. He or she should also put the exact same priorities on those various potential policies if only in deciding which ones to deal with first (let alone dealing with the idea that you can't get everything you want).

To the best of my knowledge there is only one such person in the whole world. I strongly suspect that this "perfect candidate" of mine is not the same as the perfect candidate of yours (or of the person to whom you were responding).

There are over 300 million potential candidates who are each somebody's "perfect candidate" and, by extension, each of them is not the "perfect candidate" for pretty much everyone else. The vast majority are going to be doomed to disappointment when it comes to getting their "perfect candidate" elected.

It would be the height of hubris to think that if my perfect candidate does not, or even can not, win that the system must be "broken". (I'm sure you've figured out who my "perfect candidate" is by now. It should be pretty obvious from this context). If I thought so then I would be a tyrant of the worst stripe.

There's a reason I used that "he who has ears to hear...." tag on that little parable.

Well then, if I can't find the exact perfect candidate who agrees with me in all particulars, then I can't in good conscience vote for anyone. Since all compromise is treasonous, I'm forced to vote against anyone for which my vote is a compromise. In fact, I can't even vote for myself, because I've changed my view from time to time, so voting for me before would now become the treasonous act of a sellout. That's it. My ideology is so pure I can't even vote for myself. And until I can vote for someone perfect, I will refuse to participate in the system, and will vote against everyone. In fact, I'm going to close my eyes and plug my ears and hold my breath until the world becomes the way I imagine it should be. My ethical standards simply can't live with any other course of action.

 

[dburkhead]

Well then, if I can't find the exact perfect candidate who agrees with me in all particulars, then I can't in good conscience vote for anyone. Since all compromise is treasonous, I'm forced to vote against anyone for which my vote is a compromise. In fact, I can't even vote for myself, because I've changed my view from time to time, so voting for me before would now become the treasonous act of a sellout. That's it. My ideology is so pure I can't even vote for myself. And until I can vote for someone perfect, I will refuse to participate in the system, and will vote against everyone. In fact, I'm going to close my eyes and plug my ears and hold my breath until the world becomes the way I imagine it should be. My ethical standards simply can't live with any other course of action.

By George, I think he's got it!

 

[smoking357]

Well then, if I can't find the exact perfect candidate who agrees with me in all particulars, then I can't in good conscience vote for anyone. Since all compromise is treasonous, I'm forced to vote against anyone for which my vote is a compromise. In fact, I can't even vote for myself, because I've changed my view from time to time, so voting for me before would now become the treasonous act of a sellout. That's it. My ideology is so pure I can't even vote for myself. And until I can vote for someone perfect, I will refuse to participate in the system, and will vote against everyone. In fact, I'm going to close my eyes and plug my ears and hold my breath until the world becomes the way I imagine it should be. My ethical standards simply can't live with any other course of action.

And yet voting Republican is a wasted vote that further invests power in a failed dichotomy.

All the appeal to ridicule and straw man you can lob won't change that fact or turn water into wine.