@JEATON and orion
perhaps you did not see my most recent post right above? would like to hear your thoughts on what I presented
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s one way to look at it.
Nixon - cooption and pluralism
Ford - cooption and pluralism
GHW Bush - cooption and pluralism
Dole - cooption and pluralism
GW Bush - cooption and pluralism
McCain - cooption and pluralism
Results? No progress. Real progress that is.
[/quote]
No, none of these were examples of third wave movements.
Think in terms of La Follette, TR in 1912, Henry Wallace, McCarthy then McGovern, even Ross Perot.
The True Believers? Bryan, Debs, George Wallace.[/quote]
Dr. Speptix,
Not sure what your are referring to when you say "third wave movement.
Are your referring to the theological theory, the Elliot Wave theory, or something else I am unfamiliar with?
[/quote]
A portmanteau, part new wave and part third party.
Some radicals and their followers form third parties–La Follette, TR, Ross Perot, Debs, eventually George Wallace.
Some radicals maintain their separateness within a party–Bryan, McCarthy, McGovern, and the one I chose to leave out–Goldwater.
I do not have a lot of history of Goldwater in 1964, but in short strokes, he started as a minority candidate of a Party which had 2 broad bases, Western and Eastern. He had some radical ideas and very committed followers. Many of his ideas were coopted into his party’s ethos, but it took 16 years to see them inform the gentleman in the White House.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
If the movement requires him to “win,” the movement will lose.
The question then becomes what will become of his ideas, and what will become of the followers of those ideas.
[/quote]
The movement does not require him to win nor does it specifically require him at all. It requires the advancement of the same ideas and with as much integrity as Dr. Paul does it.
What happens if he loses? Most likely Obama will win and hopefully the movement will continue with an other leader to advance it forward.
My bet is the movement does not go away. The ultimate consequence of this movement is much further reaching than who gets to sit in the White House for the next four years.[/quote]
Ah, see, agreement in other words.
“We the People vs. Mitt Romney”
“Ron Paul: Don’t Expect Independent Thinking at the Federal Reserve”
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Updated list of Mitt Romney’s top contributors…[/quote]
Some of Obama’s 2008 campaign contributors:
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295
‘According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs’ political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama’s presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.
Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,095 in donations to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign.
“Barack Obama’s presidential campaign shattered all records when it came to fundraising, so it’s no surprise that he significantly outraised John McCain when it came to contributions from the financial industry in general and Goldman Sachs in particular,” CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser said.
According to figures dating to 1990, Goldman Sachs’ PAC and employees have consistently contributed more money to Democratic rather than Republican candidates for federal office.
In the 2008 election, three out of every four dollars contributed by Goldman Sachs went to Democrats.’
Heads is Romney; tails is Obama. That’s all there is to it. America won’t elect a conservative like Santorum or Bachmann and they won’t elect a paleolibertarian crackpot like Paul. That’s the reality.
“Ron Paul is winner in Texas straw poll”
http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Ron-Paul-is-winner-in-Texas-straw-poll-137357683.html
The first sentence sums it up nicely. ‘Results were in Saturday evening for the Saddle Up Texas Straw Poll, with Ron Paul finishing strongly and a weak showing for the state’s own governor.’
“Jesse Benton: Ron Paul Is Surging in South Carolina!”
[quote]Seinix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Seinix wrote:
Ron Paul doesn’t believe in separation of church and state. I hope you all understand the implications of such a position. For a man who claims to fight for personal liberties and upholding the constitution, this is too huge a hypocrisy to ignore.
Enough said. NEXT![/quote]
Bahahhaha!
You cannot even offer proof of anything he has said over the last 40 years that would even contradict what he has said about supporting the idea of separation of church and state.
GTFO![/quote]
Really?
See here:
Also:
Ron Paul introduced the We the People Act in 2005, which if made a law would permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery…while simultaneously forbidding federal courts from adjudicating “any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion”. Effectively, removing federal remedy for allegations of state violation of religious freedom.
Any leader who thinks a nation’s morality is intrinsically tied to religion SCARES me. And any leader who is hypocritical enough to claim to fight for individual liberties while simultaneously eroding some of the most fundamental tenets of freedom that this country was founded on SCARES me.
Enough said.[/quote]
In Congressman Paul’s own words:
The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or "privacy," including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.
In other words, this is intended to bring those issues back to the level where it is supposed to be, to the states.
If you want a strict separation of church and state, which would probably be a good idea, I suggest a constitutional amendment, or, if that fails, voting with your feet.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Really…the We the People Act shouldn’t even have to be passed. It IS already built into the Constitution.[/quote]
If so, is it just silly…or political hypocrisy?
Since Marbury v. Madison, can Congress limit the purview of the Supreme Court?
Would you deny an individual’s rights to petition for his (federal) rights against a state’s power? Would this Act violate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments?
Perhaps Dr. Paul should just ask to repeal them, along with the 16th and 17th.
Is it any wonder that Dr. Paul has had but one bill passed in 20 odd years in the House?
Count me among the unbamboozled.
I never found a newer thread on Romney, so I will post this here because some claim that he is a competitor of Dr. Paul.
“Romney staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records”
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7B500X20111206?irpc=932
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I never found a newer thread on Romney, so I will post this here because some claim that he is a competitor of Dr. Paul.
“Romney staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, he’s not the most electable. A serious money advantage has given the man an aura of electability that isn’t there. In other words, he, and most notably his super pac, has been able to saturate states with negative ads that others can’t even come close to. He’s chopping the legs out from under other candidates just as money starts coming in to their own campaigns, slowing donations back down. Obama does not have that disadvantage at all.
Romney is going to be the slick, flip-flopping, unprincipled, tax return hiding (does he pay a lesser rate than Buffet’s secretary? Oh boy…), offshore wealth hiding, corporate raiding, governorship record hiding, Wall Streetesque Crony. Furthermore, he is already disarmed on Obamacare, global warming, TARP, and bailouts. He will be ripped on for his extremist social conservatism, since he’s chosen to adopt the postitions…amendment defining marriage, for example. So, he’ll either lose social progressives, or back off those positions, adding even more recent footage for the inevitable deluge of Romney flip-flopping ads courtesy of the Obama folks, disenfranchising an already unenthusiastic conservative electorate.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Really…the We the People Act shouldn’t even have to be passed. It IS already built into the Constitution.[/quote]
If so, is it just silly…or political hypocrisy?
Since Marbury v. Madison, can Congress limit the purview of the Supreme Court?
Would you deny an individual’s rights to petition for his (federal) rights against a state’s power? Would this Act violate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments?
Perhaps Dr. Paul should just ask to repeal them, along with the 16th and 17th.
Is it any wonder that Dr. Paul has had but one bill passed in 20 odd years in the House?
Count me among the unbamboozled.
[/quote]
Its funny how “trendy” Ron Paul has become. Show a mouse something shiny and he chases after it.
Watch the complete link.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Perhaps Dr. Paul should just ask to repeal them, along with the 16th and 17th.
[/quote]
While we are at it, the 19th should probably also be revisited.
Yup!
Isnt that supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?