Here is one of the “scientific” phone polls:
Ron Paul is going to kick everyone’s ass.
No Respect:
More Respect:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
More Respect:
- YouTube [/quote]
Interesting stuff there. Whether one agrees with his views or not, you gotta give the man credit for challenging the status quo, being consistent and projecting an image of honesty. He might not be the most charismatic candidate in the race, but he certainly inspires trust like no one else.
Here’s something I just find out; Google auto-completes “Ron Paul” with “revolution”, “blimp”, “for president” and all sorts of positive things. Entering “Hillary Clinton” returns things like “nutcracker”, “jokes”, “bomb”, etc. Worse, “Rudy Guiliani” prompts Google to think “scandal”, “in drag”, “jokes”, etc.
One can also play around with Google Trends to unearth some intersting tidbits;
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+hillary+clinton%2C+rudy+guiliani
I found the bar graph by regions to be very thought-provoking. Rudy is light years behind the other two, and Paul leads even in the UK. That’s certainly a feat considering he’s against an ex-first-lady.
Ran across this article just now in Lew Rockwell. Please don’t read it if the idea of a Lew Rockwell article offends you. Everyone else, enjoy.
The reason I have italicized the last few paragraphs is because they represent my own position, practically verbatim.
Who Are These Kooks?
by Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2007
According to the Associated Press, “Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term congressman’s campaign for the White House.”
The AP report also said, “The [Paul] campaign’s previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.”
According to the Paul campaign website, "In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.
"During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.
“The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million.”
Now, if one listens to most of the political pundits in the major media, Ron Paul is some kind of “kook,” and his supporters are also a bunch of “kooks.” So, the question must be asked, Just who are these kooks that are supporting him, and why are they giving Ron Paul all this money?
First, let’s take a look at this “kook” who is receiving all this money. Ron Paul was born the third son of Howard and Margaret Paul, and was brought up with a work ethic in which one worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. His first job was at age 5 helping his uncle wash bottles. He worked all the way through his youth mowing lawns, delivering newspapers, working in a drug store, delivering furniture and laundry, etc.
In high school, Ron was a track star, winning state as a junior in the 220-yard dash and running 2nd in the 440. His time in the 100-yard dash was 9.8. That’s pretty good. I was never able to break 10-flat in the 100. Although, I bet I could have beaten him in the 50-yard dash. He also wrestled in high school. Coincidentally, so did I. But here Ron leaves me: he was president of the student council and an honor student. I never accomplished that. I was just glad to get promoted to the next grade. Even as a senior statesman, Ron Paul keeps himself in terrific shape. Have you seen him lately? He still maintains a rigorous exercise regimen.
Ron’s two brothers are both ministers, and he became a medical doctor. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine. When the Cuban Missile Crisis arose, Ron became a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. He also served in the Air National Guard.
As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and he and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than 50 years. They have 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. Ron Paul is currently in his 10th term as a congressman from Texas.
As a congressman, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. He is not accepting a government pension. He returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. As a member of Congress, he has never voted a raise for himself. Do you know any other member of Congress that can make such a claim? Of course you don’t, because Ron Paul is truly one-of-a-kind.
Former President Ronald Reagan said this about Ron Paul, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Perhaps this helps explain why many of the “kooks” supporting Ron Paul are active-duty military personnel. In fact, Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active-duty military personnel than any other Presidential candidate from either party.
But who are the other “kooks” supporting Ron Paul? What kind of people give more than $18 million in a quarter-year to a Presidential candidate that is almost universally ignored by the mainstream press? What kind of people give record contributions to a Presidential candidate that is lampooned by his fellow Republican Presidential contenders?
For example, Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?
Furthermore, why are the entire major media and establishment Republican machine either ignoring or lampooning a distinguished Air Force veteran, medical doctor, and ten-term Congressman? What is it about Ron Paul that the elite are so afraid of?
Here is something else: while Ron Paul’s contributions have exploded, Mike Huckabee is all but broke! How can that be? How can a political “front-runner” be out of money, while a man who “doesn’t have a chance” is breaking fundraising records?
So, who are these “kooks” who are sending Ron Paul so much money? And just why are they sending him so much money? I will tell you who they are, because I am one of them. They are rank-and-file, tax-paying citizens who are sick and tired of out-of-control federal spending and deficits. They have had it with an arrogant federal government that runs roughshod over both the Constitution and the liberties of the American people. They are people who have had enough of the IRS, the BATFE, and a thousand other federal agencies that have “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” (Declaration of Independence)
They are people who see through the phony, disingenuous federal politicians who only want to fleece the American citizenry for the purpose of building their own personal fortunes. They have had it with the Military-Industrial complex that desires to build international empires at the expense of the blood and sacrifice of the American people. They have had it with David Rockefeller and his Council on Foreign Relations. They have had it with the arrogance of George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.
They are sick and tired of paying outlandish taxes for a public education system that produces high school graduates who cannot read and write. They are sick and tired of working for 30 years to pay off a mortgage, only then to be forced to pay extortion money (a.k.a. property taxes) for the rest of their lives to the feudal state. They are sick and tired of the government telling them what they can and cannot do with their own property. They are sick and tired of watching people with food stamps buy T-bone steaks and expensive Nike tennis shoes while they are forced to buy fatty hamburger and cheap sneakers.
They are sick and tired of watching their manufacturing jobs go to China and India. They have had it with money-hungry businessmen who hire illegal Mexicans at slave labor wages. They have had it with labor unions promoting politicians who support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA. They are sick and tired of being bled dry at the gas pump.
They have had it with this phony “war on terrorism” that sends trillions of dollars to nations throughout the Middle East, but refuses to close our own borders to illegal immigration. They have had it with the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” being used as excuses to trample people’s freedoms. They have it with Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon. They have had it with Bush’s North American Union. They have had it with Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. In short, they have just had it!
They also know that a vote for any other Presidential candidate is a vote for more of the same. Democrat or Republican: it is more of the same. Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, will bring a revolution of freedom and independence to America. Believe me, the Ron Paul revolution is bigger than Ron Paul. This is the beginning of a movement.
[i]No matter what ultimately happens to Ron Paul’s candidacy, the fight to return America to its roots of freedom and independence has started. The fire is lit. There is no putting it out. There will be other Ron Pauls, other campaigns, other spokesmen, other fundraising. The people supporting Ron Paul will not be silenced; they will not be ignored; they will not be intimidated. In truth, Ron Paul’s campaign may just be the beginning of the end of the elitist, globalist, stranglehold over America.
As one who is also fed up with the globalist goons that dominate the two major parties, I join the Ron Paul revolution and vow to fight for the rest of my life for the freedom and independence of these United States. This means I will never again support a business-as-usual, millionaires-club, globalist toady from either party ever again! I will only support candidates who are fully committed to restoring constitutional government. If that makes me a kook, so be it.[/i]
As Lifticus so aptly put it,
OOOOOO-RAAAAAH!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ran across this article just now in Lew Rockwell. Please don’t read it if the idea of a Lew Rockwell article offends you. Everyone else, enjoy.
The reason I have italicized the last few paragraphs is because they represent my own position, practically verbatim.
[i]No matter what ultimately happens to Ron Paul’s candidacy, the fight to return America to its roots of freedom and independence has started. The fire is lit. There is no putting it out. There will be other Ron Pauls, other campaigns, other spokesmen, other fundraising. The people supporting Ron Paul will not be silenced; they will not be ignored; they will not be intimidated. In truth, Ron Paul’s campaign may just be the beginning of the end of the elitist, globalist, stranglehold over America.
As one who is also fed up with the globalist goons that dominate the two major parties, I join the Ron Paul revolution and vow to fight for the rest of my life for the freedom and independence of these United States. This means I will never again support a business-as-usual, millionaires-club, globalist toady from either party ever again! I will only support candidates who are fully committed to restoring constitutional government. If that makes me a kook, so be it.[/i]
As Lifticus so aptly put it,
OOOOOO-RAAAAAH![/quote]
I watched his interview with Glenn Beck and thought it to be pretty fair. Although the 9-11 conspiracy questions, and Beck bringing up an alleged Paul supporter who made threats to himself, made for a couple awkward moments. But, overall a good interview.
He’s a little shaky and stumbling when given little time explain his positions. But, when given some reasonable time, wow. He carries a very powerful message. It shouldn’t feel new to Americans, as it is our heritage, but sadly it does. I for one am glad to have explored what the man believes, and why, instead of just writing him off.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
…I’ve been extremely busy in real life and I’ve also discovered some fascinating European anthropology message boards. That’s why I haven’t been posting or even reading this board, of late.
…
Links please.[/quote]
No prob.
http://panf.info/upload/index.php
There are several interesting blogs, as well.
As you may recall, there were several threads here in the past month dealing with European issues. After reading them, I was inclined to explore further and did some searching of my own, which led me to the sites named above.
On the Euro boards, I have seen a number of posters with Ron Paul banners in their signature. On political matters, they take the same view of American policy as Lixy. These are right-wing sites, keep in mind.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And I think you underestimate what Paul’s reaction would be if he deemed a nation directly (government funded) or even indirectly responsbile (goverment deliberately allows clerics to fund) for another 9-11 attack.
Other than issue Letters of Marque he probably wouldn’t do a damn thing.[/quote]
So basically, you think that Ron Paul rejects the concept of war, wholesale?
He must, apparently, see no Constitutional authority for the U.S. to go to war with another nation under any circumstances, if what you say is true.
How you could have POSSIBLY reached such a backwards conclusion about him is beyond me. Needless to say, you’re completely, totally wrong.
Do I really need to pull up the clip from one of the early debates where he states, “If it’s necessary, go to war, fight the war and win it, but don’t get involved with policing the world…”
Boy, you are terribly wrong. Letters of Marquee are a method of dealing with terrorist groups. They are not a substitute for a national defense, which Ron Paul completely endorses.
How thick do you have to be to not see the difference between preemptive and defensive warfare? I’d like to hear you make a case for your assertion that Ron Paul wouldn’t do anything in a conventional warfare situation.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A litany of useless claptrap and answers to questions no one asked.
One question remains on the table: do you believe in racial superiority?
For such an “honest” poster, Al, you sure have taken great pains to dance around a direct answer to a very simple question.[/quote]
You didn’t pose the question directly. You made vague assertions to the effect that I was hiding my views on racial issues. I responded by providing an overall summary of my views, which is perfectly reasonable and doesn’t amount to skirting the topic whatsoever. Unlike you, I’m not operating under a witchhunt mentality. It’s very evident that you’re looking to skip over the complexities and convict me over a single statement of my beliefs. You have this infantile notion that someone who possesses racialist views must be some sort of bogeyman who is necessarily dishonest and must be “exposed” by decent folk.
In reality, I’m just a normal person with a wide range of opinions on many issues, same as you. There is no conspiracy to “hide” anything. If something takes me a lot of words to explain, it’s because it’s a complicated matter. You should think about this until it sinks in.
I’ll answer your question directly, even though it’s pointless.
To the extent that humans can be grouped into distinct races, which differ from one another in various qualities - physical, behavioral, or otherwise - it follows that separate racial groups will perform differently from one another in various tasks.
Therefore, insofar as any one group of people differs from another in any way whatsoever, the one could be considered “superior” to the other with respect to some specific, quantifiable measure of performance.
And if you think that’s just stating the obvious, it is. It’s also a direct answer to your question.
People are different. And that simple fact also implies that they are inherently unequal - that is to say, some are better at doing certain things than others. Self-evident.
People differ from one another on the basis of certain, recognizable qualities. It is possible (and scientifically pragmatic) to classify groups of individuals based on these qualities. Race is only one, out of many (and it deserves mention that “race”, itself, is merely an umbrella term for a set of phenotypical attributes widely applicable to a number of individuals).
The important thing to remember is that inherent differences between individuals necessarily create disparities in various measures of performance. Differences create disparity. When you have disparity, you NECESSARILY have BOTH a “superior” and “inferior”. It’s a mathematical law.
This is the basic premise. It is the core of the intellectual hierarchy. The upper layers become very complex.
You just can’t have egalitarianism. It’s a fancy notion that completely falls apart under analysis. Nobody is “equal” because we’re all different people. We may not be able to see how inherent differences between individuals result in performance disparities, but our inability to observe the effects of a physical law does not render said law null and void.
For different individuals to be “equal” would be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
In a nutshell, that’s why I’m ardently opposed to every form of egalitarianism.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And I think you underestimate what Paul’s reaction would be if he deemed a nation directly (government funded) or even indirectly responsbile (goverment deliberately allows clerics to fund) for another 9-11 attack.
Other than issue Letters of Marque he probably wouldn’t do a damn thing.
So basically, you think that Ron Paul rejects the concept of war, wholesale?
He must, apparently, see no Constitutional authority for the U.S. to go to war with another nation under any circumstances, if what you say is true.
How you could have POSSIBLY reached such a backwards conclusion about him is beyond me. Needless to say, you’re completely, totally wrong.
Do I really need to pull up the clip from one of the early debates where he states, “If it’s necessary, go to war, fight the war and win it, but don’t get involved with policing the world…”
Boy, you are terribly wrong. Letters of Marquee are a method of dealing with terrorist groups. They are not a substitute for a national defense, which Ron Paul completely endorses.
How thick do you have to be to not see the difference between preemptive and defensive warfare? I’d like to hear you make a case for your assertion that Ron Paul wouldn’t do anything in a conventional warfare situation.
[/quote]
Read the mans own writings on the subject. He regrets voting for the war in Afghanistan, he claims he was talked into it.
He blames 9/11 on 19 men and has justified their attacks. If terrorists attacked again he would give them what they want. That is his position. This is indisputable.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And I think you underestimate what Paul’s reaction would be if he deemed a nation directly (government funded) or even indirectly responsbile (goverment deliberately allows clerics to fund) for another 9-11 attack.
Other than issue Letters of Marque he probably wouldn’t do a damn thing.
So basically, you think that Ron Paul rejects the concept of war, wholesale?
He must, apparently, see no Constitutional authority for the U.S. to go to war with another nation under any circumstances, if what you say is true.
How you could have POSSIBLY reached such a backwards conclusion about him is beyond me. Needless to say, you’re completely, totally wrong.
Do I really need to pull up the clip from one of the early debates where he states, “If it’s necessary, go to war, fight the war and win it, but don’t get involved with policing the world…”
Boy, you are terribly wrong. Letters of Marquee are a method of dealing with terrorist groups. They are not a substitute for a national defense, which Ron Paul completely endorses.
How thick do you have to be to not see the difference between preemptive and defensive warfare? I’d like to hear you make a case for your assertion that Ron Paul wouldn’t do anything in a conventional warfare situation.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
A litany of useless claptrap and answers to questions no one asked.
One question remains on the table: do you believe in racial superiority?
For such an “honest” poster, Al, you sure have taken great pains to dance around a direct answer to a very simple question.
You didn’t pose the question directly. You made vague assertions to the effect that I was hiding my views on racial issues. I responded by providing an overall summary of my views, which is perfectly reasonable and doesn’t amount to skirting the topic whatsoever. Unlike you, I’m not operating under a witchhunt mentality. It’s very evident that you’re looking to skip over the complexities and convict me over a single statement of my beliefs. You have this infantile notion that someone who possesses racialist views must be some sort of bogeyman who is necessarily dishonest and must be “exposed” by decent folk.
In reality, I’m just a normal person with a wide range of opinions on many issues, same as you. There is no conspiracy to “hide” anything. If something takes me a lot of words to explain, it’s because it’s a complicated matter. You should think about this until it sinks in.
I’ll answer your question directly, even though it’s pointless.
To the extent that humans can be grouped into distinct races, which differ from one another in various qualities - physical, behavioral, or otherwise - it follows that separate racial groups will perform differently from one another in various tasks.
Therefore, insofar as any one group of people differs from another in any way whatsoever, the one could be considered “superior” to the other with respect to some specific, quantifiable measure of performance.
And if you think that’s just stating the obvious, it is. It’s also a direct answer to your question.
People are different. And that simple fact also implies that they are inherently unequal - that is to say, some are better at doing certain things than others. Self-evident.
People differ from one another on the basis of certain, recognizable qualities. It is possible (and scientifically pragmatic) to classify groups of individuals based on these qualities. Race is only one, out of many (and it deserves mention that “race”, itself, is merely an umbrella term for a set of phenotypical attributes widely applicable to a number of individuals).
The important thing to remember is that inherent differences between individuals necessarily create disparities in various measures of performance. Differences create disparity. When you have disparity, you NECESSARILY have BOTH a “superior” and “inferior”. It’s a mathematical law.
This is the basic premise. It is the core of the intellectual hierarchy. The upper layers become very complex.
You just can’t have egalitarianism. It’s a fancy notion that completely falls apart under analysis. Nobody is “equal” because we’re all different people. We may not be able to see how inherent differences between individuals result in performance disparities, but our inability to observe the effects of a physical law does not render said law null and void.
For different individuals to be “equal” would be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
In a nutshell, that’s why I’m ardently opposed to every form of egalitarianism.[/quote]
What is the pratical application here? Do you see the need to ogranize society based on such differences? Should policies, government or private-sector enforced, be adopted based upon these ideas?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
You didn’t pose the question directly. You made vague assertions to the effect that I was hiding my views on racial issues. I responded by providing an overall summary of my views, which is perfectly reasonable and doesn’t amount to skirting the topic whatsoever. Unlike you, I’m not operating under a witchhunt mentality. It’s very evident that you’re looking to skip over the complexities and convict me over a single statement of my beliefs. You have this infantile notion that someone who possesses racialist views must be some sort of bogeyman who is necessarily dishonest and must be “exposed” by decent folk.[/quote]
More nonsense. Firstly, you have no idea what my “notion” is - I asked a straightforward question.
Second, nowhere did I ask for an overall summary of your views, nor did they inform the answer to the question I have presented several times. You continue to substitute verbose blather for what should be a narrow answer to a narrow question, mistaking such droning on and on to be intelligent discourse.
This time, you indulge in a frivolous deflection that “individuals are inherently unequal”, which is a truism no one is disputing - but you simply can’t help yourself from gassing off at useless lengths about all things that make up your immature philosophy. Hint: no one cares, or asked.
More importantly - you evade the question yet again. No one has suggested the contrary - that individuals are inherently unequal in performance, etc. - what was suggested, by you, was that people of a certain ethnic background seemed to consistently wind up with a superior attitude, intelligence, etc., regarding what you think is a superior political approach. That was your assertion - and it was about a group identified by their ethnic connection, not by some appeal to the maxim “individuals are all different and unequal”. Your words.
Now, of course, you are trying to distance yourself from that assertion because you know if you directly state a belief that one ethnic group is measurably better than another (“it’s the law of thermodynamics!”), what limited credibility you have here - and I am being charitable - would evaporate and you would be dismissed outright.
How do I know you are sensitive to that and want to avoid such discrediting? Well, Al, you had to come back as “Nominal Prospect” because “Al Shades” had already gotten ridiculed out of the forums for your nonsense. You know if you extend the truth of your beliefs out again to the ideas you were suggesting, it’s all over for you the second time under your second name.
So, your reasoning to sidestep the direct question is obvious to everyone reading and quite natural - but it may be too late.
No one suggested a conspiracy - and we aren’t much alike at all, I guarantee it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is the pratical application here? Do you see the need to ogranize society based on such differences? Should policies, government or private-sector enforced, be adopted based upon these ideas? [/quote]
In general, these differences should be recognized and heeded, as they have been by functioning societies for thousands of years.
It would take too long for me to outline my “ideal society”, but I can describe some of its core tenets.
People should mostly stick to their own kind. The majority find purpose in life and an escape from existential angst if this rule is obeyed. There should be separate societies for engineers, teachers, soldiers, physical laborers, etc…
Society at large would be split up into various competing guilds, microcosms of the larger social order, each with its own hierarchy and traditions. All together, they would form the central hierarchy, which might be visually depicted as a tower containing multiple circular levels. Though I’m not a cultural historian, I believe such an arrangement has had many historical precedents going back to ancient times.
As far as this country is concerned, the America I’d like to live in would probably be the America of the 1930’s. The time of Boyscouts, Charles Lindbergh, H.L. Mencken, Father Coughlin, America First, and The Old Right.
Edit:
To the above dictums, I must add one more of critical importance to a functional society. It is that central planning must be organized around the following principles:
“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure”
and
“A man who is accustomed to dining on others’ leftovers finds a feast in the simplest of meals prepared just for him”
In other words, public policy (esp. economic policy) must proceed from a relativist, rather than an absolutist, standpoint. There must be absolutely no “universally applicable standards” whatsoever. Neither life, nor prosperity, nor well being is guaranteed - the governing body shall NOT play the role of God.
Moreover, peasants should not grow up thinking they can be kings. What appears charming and innocent in romanticized fiction leads, in reality, to moral apathy and nihilism among entire generations.
Consequently, the 20th century welfare state model (or “social democracy”), with it’s basis in redistributionary economics, is rejected categorically. There are no “minimums” to uphold and if people are dying in the streets, this is to be interpreted as an act of God and not to be tampered with from the top. Society must be allowed to rise as high or sink as low as fate and circumstance will dictate.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What is the pratical application here? Do you see the need to ogranize society based on such differences? Should policies, government or private-sector enforced, be adopted based upon these ideas?
In general, these differences should be recognized and heeded, as they have been by functioning societies for thousands of years.
It would take too long for me to outline my “ideal society”, but I can describe some of its core tenets.
People should mostly stick to their own kind. The majority find purpose in life and an escape from existential angst if this rule is obeyed. There should be separate societies for engineers, teachers, soldiers, physical laborers, etc…
Society at large would be split up into various competing guilds, microcosms of the larger social order, each with its own hierarchy and traditions. All together, they would form the central hierarchy, which might be visually depicted as a tower containing multiple circular levels. Though I’m not a cultural historian, I believe such an arrangement has had many historical precedents going back to ancient times.
As far as this country is concerned, the America I’d like to live in would probably be the America of the 1930’s. The time of Boyscouts, Charles Lindbergh, H.L. Mencken, Father Coughlin, America First, and The Old Right.[/quote]
And the different races? The US broken up into different regions based on Racial identity? I don’t wont to put words in your mouth, so forgive me If I have.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What is the pratical application here? Do you see the need to ogranize society based on such differences? Should policies, government or private-sector enforced, be adopted based upon these ideas?
In general, these differences should be recognized and heeded, as they have been by functioning societies for thousands of years.
It would take too long for me to outline my “ideal society”, but I can describe some of its core tenets.
People should mostly stick to their own kind. The majority find purpose in life and an escape from existential angst if this rule is obeyed. There should be separate societies for engineers, teachers, soldiers, physical laborers, etc…
Society at large would be split up into various competing guilds, microcosms of the larger social order, each with its own hierarchy and traditions. All together, they would form the central hierarchy, which might be visually depicted as a tower containing multiple circular levels. Though I’m not a cultural historian, I believe such an arrangement has had many historical precedents going back to ancient times.
As far as this country is concerned, the America I’d like to live in would probably be the America of the 1930’s. The time of Boyscouts, Charles Lindbergh, H.L. Mencken, Father Coughlin, America First, and The Old Right.
And the different races? The US broken up into different regions based on Racial identity? I don’t wont to put words in your mouth, so forgive me If I have.[/quote]
That’s an interesting topic, let me formulate a reply tomorrow. There are several theories on what could be done. In the meantime, please read my last post’s edit for additional information.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And the different races? The US broken up into different regions based on Racial identity? I don’t wont to put words in your mouth, so forgive me If I have.[/quote]
Putting on my cynic’s hat for just a moment, I’ll remark that I see this happening within this century, whether we like it or not.
To some extent, I don’t think the Balkanization of North America can be avoided. It’s happening right now on a social level, and before the 21st century ends, I predict that the social/economic and ethno-linguistic lines will take the form of political boundaries.
I pray that I’m wrong.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Visit his website, sign up to campaign and go to the poles!
[/quote]
I visited his website and contributed to the “money bomb” on the 16th. I’m not going to the poles. Too damn cold and I doubt anybody is there. I will, however, go to the poll on the NH primary and add to the Paul totals.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
What a worthy endeavor.[/quote]
I agree.
Far worthier than the alternative.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
–John Quincy Adams
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
What a worthy endeavor.
I agree.
Far worthier than the alternative.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
–John Quincy Adams [/quote]
I agree with the sentiment. I just don’t agree with Paul’s principles.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
What a worthy endeavor.
I agree.
Far worthier than the alternative.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
–John Quincy Adams [/quote]
Agreed. Fortunately, the majority of Ron Paul’s principles are in alignment with my own.