Forum Post: The Thomas Jefferson of Our Time
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 26, 2012, 12:54 p.m. EST by PeaceNow
(84)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
2 comments 1 month ago by gsw
1 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Ron Paul had some problems through his news letter relating to anti-semitism, bigotry, and homophobia. Difficult with that baggage to claim your somehow Jeffersonian, unless your trying to accentuate Jefferson's personal flaws rather then his political accomplishments.
Who's your alternative?
Romney and Obama are probably similar, I'm not sure it matters, but I'd vote for either of them over Paul.
So you are happy with the status quo. thanks for clearing that up.
No, you asked the wrong question and misunderstand the frustration in the answer. The system needs fixing, I don't see a president as in a position to do much. A grass roots national movement like Occupy (except willing to recruit and support candidates and then vote) could make the repairs happen, but through the house and senate, not the presidency. The men that get as far as running for president are so compromised it doesn't matter which one you vote for, they will follow what they think or fear the majority of voters want. They'll turn on their financial backers in speeches and flip on issues to get votes. I want, among other things, stronger financial regulation and the house and senate are where to concentrate the effort.
It's simply easy to toss aside some of the least desirable candidates (in my mind) for president like Cain, Paul, Bachman, or that fool Trump.
so the system needs fixing. precisely what would you do to fix it?
Alone? Not possible. It would take a large group acting on common goals across the nation. No matter what changes you wished to focus on though the method is simple. Recruit good people to run in primaries for the House and Senate. It's no secret how to get change, civil rights groups, AARP, NRA, NOW, environmental groups, unions. They all get legislation passed. A union of every Occupy across the country could have done it too. Occupy could have done it better and more easily because many of the changes they want are good for the nation as a whole and resonate with a large segment of the population, not just one special interest group.
So you (unlike just about everyone else on this forum) are for increased lobbying power not decreased. Increase politics Divided into special interest groups rather than decrease.
I missed the part where everyone else in the forum was against the first amendment. The first amendment, the right to petition the government, is a current fact of life that's were lobbies get their constitutional origin. I'd like to see the use of money substituting for talk to be controlled, not the right to petition the government ended. In reality Occupy already is a special interest group and a lobby, just one that refuses to use the tools available to it.
Every Occupy protest lobbies the government in a limited way. So has every other successful movement. I'm saying add to the simple protest and recruit people to make the legal changes you seek, or simply support candidates of either party that express solidarity with some of your goals. It's not a do one or the other proposition.
Excellent - then we agree Lobbying is free speech. It just seems I read a lot on this forum about getting money out of politics. In fact that seems to be the main thrust. Corporations are too powerful & have too much lobbying power.
Lobbying I suppose is covered twice in the first amendment as free speech and as the right to petition the government. I find fault more with who we elect rather then how. The amount of money thrown around is troubling but unless you want to talk about altering the bill of rights you're stuck with it. Corporations can't actually vote. If voters became better informed and held their representatives accountable it wouldn't matter how much money corporations or unions give away.
YES !!! you are awesome !!! Now tell these OWS losers that! I love you ChemLady !!!
There is no "who" (and anyone who thinks we should be looking for a "who" ... is completely missing the point of OWS). Yes, we can maybe achieve some worthwhile political reforms, but real change can only come from the ground up. Ron Paul is in complete denial about problems like wealth disparity, and while I would not accuse Paul of antisemitism, some of the things he's been willing to turn a blind eye to (like the disparaging remarks towards minorities in his newsletter), should create serious apprehension regarding his credibility.
just what I thought - just a bunch of hot air
It takes intellectual energy to understand how and why non-hierarchical systems can work better than top down systems. It's expedient to say it's "just a bunch of hot air" (it lets us off the hook, we can avoid the obligation of investing considerable intellectual energy in trying to understand this idea). Nevertheless, I find your sort of knee jerk dismissal of this idea, intellectually lazy.
" (it lets us off the hook, we can avoid the obligation of investing considerable intellectual energy in trying to understand this idea). " WHAT IDEA?
I'm not speaking in parables .... the "idea" should be clearly implied and discernible from my comments. If you're expecting me to go through the entire history of anarchism, democracy, and related ideas, in the span of a few internet posts, then you're asking for too much. I mean, it took me considerable time, effort, and research to learn about these ideas. Nevertheless, this is not a secret priesthood. The ideas are all out there, and very easy to access; and if you know how to write comments in an internet forum, then you know how to access information well enough to learn about these ideas.
just like I thought nothing but an emotion laces diatribe of nothing.
Like you "thought"? That would imply you were thinking, which seems painfully unlikely :)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...........
wooh! Good one.
That's Dell's response to everything.
GOOD NEWS
the republican party is calling our current government socialism
BAD NEWS
our government is doing its best to put Public Money into elite private hands
its called redistribution of wealth, doncha no ?
fuck the president. He's not going to do anything for you. Why not learn the law of the land and apply it yourself? That's what I'm doing. If you have a problem with something someone has done and it's unlawful, call them out on it! You can't do that if you don't know how. So learn how!
Furthermore, it's no great thing to be compared to Thomas Jefferson. While I agree with half of what he says, I disagree completely with the other half. The other half is completely the opposite of the first half. Someday I intend to go through my copy of the Jefferson Cyclopedia and determine what he says to whom and under what conditions. He played both sides of every issue hardcore. Modern pundits would call him a "flip-flopper".
I didn't know that Ron Paul was so committed to preserving the unlimited jury award, standing firm against "torte reform", as Jefferson was, I did not know that.
www.nationalday911.org
Mr. P = Jefferson???
Not a chance in hell.
Jefferson was intelligent.
Ron Paul is a Trojan horse to the cause of Democracy. The Tea Party is a sold-out failure; so what remains for you guys . . . a return to conformity?
Winston Churchill once said, and I am quoting from memory, "Americans can always be counted upon to do the right thing, once they have exhausted every other option."
Well, you guys have exhausted every other option - so why not do the right thing - why not embrace the occupy movement as it is?
Yeah, no more anybody-but-Mitt, flavor-of-the-week candidates. Time for you guys to wake and smell the reality.
Please see the post I just made . . . "A Bitter-Sweet Victory."
I guess reality smells bitter-sweet.
Yes, it often does, but the truth is beautiful.
That's why I like beautifulworld's cognomen. You should call yourself anime.
Im sorry, I don't understand the refference to anime.
[Removed]
Ron Paul is doing all right. The convention is a long way off and he's picking up delegates. The two front runners are in a dual to the death. Soon it will be a two man race and the only one were sure of is Paul. Maybe the OWS should consider throwing in with the Ron Paul Revolution.
Been there, done that. The only problem is that Nazi armband he's hiding in his closet. Oh, and the fact that he belongs to the party of the 1%.
really going right to that after the fact that he shown everything he has ever done to the public
Been where?..In Paul's closet? Oh, it appears the party belongs to Paul more than the 1%.
Must we go through the Mr. P thing again?
Whatever else you want to believe of this man, know this, he's 100% pure politician, and the (R) is after his name because it belongs there.
He's just as kookie as the rest of them.
I didn't bring up the P thing. It just keeps popping up... Never seems to be much of a market for an S thing, or an R thing, God forbid a G thing...Hell I don't even see much of an O demand.
I guess that's the big difference between Ron Paul and the rest of the pack.
The biggest difference is the rabidity and utter loyalty of his fans.
In spite of the facts.
He does get a lot of support from members of the Armed Forces.
All that is based on propaganda, just like the rest of them.
It could be just the level they receive.
In our Plutocracy, it's likely more important, what the generals are thinking.
In '04' I was pulling for Clark over Kerry. I still like what he has to say.
Not propaganda. They keep pretty good records on who contributes and how much. It seems Ron Paul collects more from our soldiers, sailors, air force and marines than all the others combined. Twice as much as Obama, a distant second.
In a Paulocracy, it's more important what the grunts are thinking.
Unfortunately for you, plutocracy is very real.
Paulocracy, sounds like a campaign slogan.
Unfortunately for the plutocracy, the Paul campaign is very real - and enduring.
It's also, at least as, if not more endangering than than the rest.
He is a sham artist, extraordinaire.
nothing more.
He's extraordinary, I'll grant you that.
You're just full of facts, aren't you.
The man is a bonafide liar! Just like the rest of them.
P needs to own up to his hate filled newsletters.
He didn't write them. It's a non-story from '08.
They were his damn newsletter. Wake up.
But he didn't write the ones you're talking about. He had left Congress and the newsletter....Yawn.
Winston Churchill also said: " the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". And while I have no time for the Tea Party I'm curious as to why you think they should join a movement that is claimed by anarchists?
I wonder if Churchill was wise enough to realize the average voter was devoting his life to hard work, playing with the kids, and pitching in on neighborhood projects. They trusted the government officials were spending similar amounts of time protecting their interests. They didn't choose spending hours learning about issues, they trusted their government to handle the issues professionally.
This movement is made up of a wide variety of people and the only people excluded are those who self-exclude. However, I believe you have a valid point in the sense that this movement needs to come up with a formal list of goals/demands.
This should be done in August in Philidelphia, and I hope at that time the views of conservatives are taken into consideration.
Because you don't want freedom, but control. You believe in controlling the masses. Not freedom.
The only thing we want to control is exess. Otherwise the arfument that the left is on a control tripis rediculour, and you know it. Just the opposite is true. It is the right that's on a hateful control trip. That is standard practice from the dept. of lies. I swar there must be somewhere that they they teach all these methods of lying. What did they give you, a bachelor's? Do you have a bachelor's degree in misinformation?
The left likes to control everything. Lightbulbs, toilets, smoking, schools, healthcare, appliances, automobiles, unions, wages. Now OWS wants to control us. All this bullshit talk of direct democracy and, " We just want to control excess." So which group of nazis get to decide excess?
You say the left wants to control everything, and not the corporations, which actually do already control just about everything. Yeah, why should the people want to control government and not leave that up to the corporations that believe it is their God-given right? I'm sorry, but the Declairation of Independence says "WE the People," not "We the Corporations.
the tea party is a failure? you must have missed the nov. 2010 elections. they continue to get stronger as this year goes on.
Everyone went to sleep in 2010. They aren't asleep anymore. That's what the Tea Party accomplished and they will reap the benefits.
Just like in 08. Hopefully everyone is awake and we can really duke it out. Lets have a great voter turnout and kick the shit out of each other!
Hmmm. Spoken like a true 0.01%er's stooge !!! ad iudicium !!
So, 'hoo dis' - "FmONE", joined Feb. 10th, 2012, eh ?!
Un autre 'Trashyavatar' peut-etre ? Je pense, oui ...
fiat lux.
No comprende. Speak English. I don't study dead languages.
everyone? who? the phoney ows pawns?
The majority of registered voters, who are in turn a minotity of elligible voters, who are in turn only a fraction of the public at large.
who writes your stuff?
The daughter of the Royal Pasha of Kurdistan.
We get together every Thursday in the basement of the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchecquer at exactly 1:23 A.M., to smoke hashish. Afterwards, she recites it all to me, while I am mezmurized by the Ruby of The Punjab, as it floats in her swaying naval.
you got a "A" in your creative writing course. Good for you.
No wonder everything is all fucked up. Smoke a bowl, or a one hitter.
Should we be doing more cocaine, DMT and booze, like WallSteet does?
That stuff's kinda rich for my blood.
You can afford it. Just prioritize your vices. I wish my mother would never have fed me. Food is my worst addiction. Never been able to kick that habit.
It's tough trying to prioritize 6 hookers, 2 trips to the casino, 4 packs of camels and a handful of Cuban cigars a day.
It's hard on a fixed income.
You can do it.
Wow GK you didn't mention that you were a fiction writer. Nice detail.
Well, you've gotta have a little fun here once in awhile. Our opponents here are perpetually lost in fantasy, it just isn't a very interesting fantasy.
Oh, speaking of fantasies, how do you like the idea of paying a minimal amount of money to attend congressional debates, plus a free lunch. That way the homeless would have somewhere sheltered to be during the day, and until Congress did something about poverty they would have a gallery to encourage them.
It would do them good to rub shoulders with reality.
Stop by my post : "In case you were wondering. Re-Gaining Government"
Your comment sounds like a fun vacation in imagination - Gonna write a book?
I'll revisit that post, thanks. Who knows? Maybe I'll write a book someday.
Well this one sounds like a possible 007 or other type of secret agent type thing. Lots of room for imaginative play.
I mean everyone skydog.
With all due respect to Dr. Paul, I certainly would not compare him to Jefferson. I mean, Jefferson was very secular. Although there was a hint of religiosity in his views, he was borderline hostile towards organized religion. Paul, while preaching a very strong brand of libertarian ideology, doesn't seem to apply his theory to his religious views. It's not that he's necessarily opposed to separation of church and state, but rather, he views some issues (like abortion) through a very religious prism (while prohibitions against abortion are a relatively recent development in Anglo-American common law history).
Thomas Jefferson would have never supported the pseudo-aristocracy that's emerging in modern America, while Paul (whether intentionally or inadvertently) vigorously supports it.