Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul's Numbers
Ron Paul's strong showing in Nevada -- it looks like he'll come in second -- should rejuvenate the hopes of any supporters dismayed by his disappointing finish in New Hampshire. Judging from CNN's entrance polls, here's the most interesting aspects of his success:
He's dominating the independent vote. That shouldn't be a surprise, but it's worth stressing. A full 63 percent of independent voters in the Republican caucuses backed him. McCain is a very distant second, with 11 percent.
He's doing pretty well with Hispanics. I was all set to post an early entrance poll that had Paul in a statistical tie for the lead among Hispanic Republicans, but the new numbers have him finishing third, with 15 percent. (Romney finished first, and McCain is second.) Still, 15 percent is nothing to sneer at, and it's an interesting counterpoint to Paul's support among the Minuteman crowd. A rainbow coalition!
His support reaches across economic classes. It is often noted that the libertarian movement is predominantly white and male. It is less often noted that its class composition is extremely diverse, ranging from multimillionaires to people practically living on the street. In Nevada, Paul seems to be doing respectably among voters at all income levels, with his best showings among the middle and lower-middle classes.
The antiwar vote lives. Among people who cited Iraq as the most important issue in the election, Paul got 29 percent of the vote. Only Romney did better.
The "other" Christians like him. I'm not sure what to make of this, but while Romney carried the Protestant, Catholic, and (of course) Mormon vote, Paul got a plurality of "other Christian" ballots. Anyone care to speculate what sects those might be? (If you say "Branch Davidian," you get a raspberry.)
Elsewhere in Reason: My take on the "libertarian west."
Update: CNN is continuing to update its numbers, so some of those figures are now obsolete. I should note that Romney has pulled ahead of Paul in that mysterious "other Christian" category, though his lead is narrow. On the other hand, Paul has the overwhelming support of the "no religion" demographic -- not a group that usually flexes its muscles in Republican politics.
Paul's support in the other categories has also dropped by a few percentage points, though there haven't been any radical changes. I'll update this post with the final numbers once they're available.
Update #2: Nearly a day later, there are two significant changes to Paul's totals. First: His Hispanic support has dipped to 7 percent, which isn't atrocious -- most of the candidates not named Romney or McCain are clumped around the same area -- but also isn't as interesting as I initially thought. Second: He's still in second place among voters citing Iraq as their top issue, but he's now tied with McCain at 21 percent each. So while Nevada's antiwar constituency is still lively, the local pro-surge contingent is active as well. (Either that, or this is a replay of New Hampshire's curious results, in which many antiwar voters fell behind the passionately pro-war McCain.)
Paul still dominates the independent vote, though his total there now stands at 51 percent. (McCain is second, with 13 percent.) As for those "other" Christians, several readers point out that their ranks would include the various Eastern Orthodox churches. I wouldn't expect there to be many Orthodox worshippers in the Silver State, but there's more than zero, and that's all you need. I figure there's a fair number of LDS splinter groups in Nevada, too; I'm not sure if they'd be counted as "other" or as Mormons.
Finally, I'll note that among the small number of Republican voters making $15,000 to $30,000 a year, Paul finished second with 19 percent of the vote -- a product, perhaps, of his populist approach to libertarianism. First place went to Romney, who got 53 percent -- a product, perhaps, of hallucinogens in the drinking water.
|1.19.08 @ 1:59PM|#
'other' Christians would include Eastern Orthodox, and they might also be including sects like the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
|1.19.08 @ 2:01PM|#
I'm not sure what heading Messianic Jews would come under, either. Needless to say, I doubt any of these groups are very large in Nevada.
Jesse Walker|1.19.08 @ 2:02PM|#
(Never mind, I just saw your second comment. I agree.)
I wonder if Mormon splinter groups are counted as "Mormon" or
"other."
Fluffy|1.19.08 @ 2:03PM|#
If you take out Mitt's cult votes, Paul and Mitt would have gone
to the wire on this.
And yes, now that Mitt has scored 95% of the vote among Mormons, we
can dispense with any further discussion of whether Mormonism is a
cult. Those numbers go beyond cult status to fucking ant farm
status.
|1.19.08 @ 2:05PM|#
I wonder if they broke down the votes by Nevada residents vs. Mormons shipped in from neighboring states to vote for Mitt.
phocion|1.19.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Look at the breakdown by geography for Paul:
Washoe County: 31%
Clark County: 16%
Rural Nevada: 17%
Maybe the Bunny Ranch has really been getting the word out to its
regular customers.
|1.19.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I wish in their exit polls there was a breakdown by age/money. There are plenty of young people with decent money who love RP, but old people with lots of money seem to fill their catheter bags when there is Republican talk about Ron Paul.
charlie|1.19.08 @ 2:18PM|#
But... but... Paul's a fringe crackpot racist who singlehandedly
destroyed the appeal of libertarianism... right?
It must be true, I read it in Reason.
K-J|1.19.08 @ 2:19PM|#
I was curious about the "other Christians" category also.
Many high church Episcopalians wouldn't consider themselves
Protestant, but it's not as though Nevada is some great bastion of
Anglicanism...
adrian|1.19.08 @ 2:19PM|#
keep digging up the racist bullshit! nothing else has helped the campaign as much. get writing!
Joe Allen|1.19.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Hey, Raimondo-
Why hasn't anyone at tReason responded to your blog? The silence is
deafening...
Click \'n\' Learn|1.19.08 @ 2:22PM|#
"Other" includes Reform Larouchians, Sc|ent0l0gists, Heaven's
Gate followers, and Raelians. And Unitarians.
As for the "Hispanics" bit, perhaps a "libertarian" magazine should
fight against rather than buy into identity politics.
|1.19.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Most Arab Christians are some variety of Eastern Orthodox, and I could see why they would support Dr Paul.
GILMORE|1.19.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Whew! I was worried for a second that there would be a lull in
the Ron Paul coverage for like, 5 minutes. Thank jeebus.
oh, and Lonewacko? You're (still) an asshole, and in this case, a
repetitive and boring one.
You've been doing the "(quote-unquote)Libertarian"...& "for a
magazine called Reason..." thing now on repeat. Why dont you take
your act to where maybe even *one* person wont consider you a
complete screaming idiot. As it is, it's painfully dull and
contemptable.
Basically, NO ONE HERE HAS EVER AGREED WITH YOUR STUPID FUCKING
PLATFORM AND, GIVEN YOUR M.O., NEVER WILL.
PLease just go away and weep about the taco invasion somewhere
else.
Jonathan Goff|1.19.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Rubberman Romney got 94% of the LDS vote in Nevada? That's kind
of surprising actually. I'm LDS, and of the people I know, I
would've thought Paul or McCain would've done better than they did.
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority went for Romney still (in a
knee-jerk, at least he probably believes the same things I do kind
of way), but 94% make me sick.
~Jon
LevStrauss|1.19.08 @ 2:39PM|#
He needs to tell the truth on that newsletter stuff but who are
you going to root for? Who are you going to vote for? Not much of a
choice in those two categories. Yes Ron is lying about business
activities that happened over a decade ago, but he's running
against people that live off of shady business practices and
continue to do so, also you still have a congressional record that
cannot be disputed.
As a side note, I hope Duncan beats Giuliani. Duncan has some
horrible positions but Rudy is a frightening a candidate we have
ever had in my lifetime. A complete egomaniac, with shady friends,
and shady business practices with those friends. Does anybody truly
think that he would give a damn about Federalism? Also do you trust
that guy with a militarized Federal "Law" Enforcement at his
disposal?
|1.19.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Many of us who could be called Baptist or Protesetant choose to
put ourselves in the "other Christian" category.
As for JW's, it does not seem to make sense to call a group that
denies the deity of Christ to be Christian.
|1.19.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Paul's right now in third place in the NV caucus, ahead of Thompson, Ghouliani, Huckabee and the other guy. This race is getting really interesting now.
LevStrauss|1.19.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Tom Cruise had kind words for Ron, I bet we get some scientologists. Rons got to get them to donate, they'll spend money on anything.
|1.19.08 @ 2:43PM|#
|1.19.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Tom Cruise had kind words for Ron, I bet we get some
scientologists. Rons got to get them to donate, they'll spend money
on anything.
Xenutarians?
|1.19.08 @ 2:46PM|#
That preview stuff is just for wimps. Real men make fools out of
themselves instead.
Does anybody truly think that he would give a damn about
Federalism? Also do you trust that guy with a militarized Federal
"Law" Enforcement at his disposal?
Eric Dondero does. But he appears to be the only one.
|1.19.08 @ 2:49PM|#
charlie:
But... but... Paul's a fringe crackpot racist who singlehandedly destroyed the appeal of libertarianism... right?
Well, first, no one has argued that he is personally a crackpot or
a racist here that I've seen. That said, have you met the voters in
Nevada? Getting excited about Paul's appeal in Nevada doesn't seem
like a good idea.
|1.19.08 @ 2:50PM|#
,i>That preview stuff is just for wimps. Real men make fools
out of themselves instead.
her herre!
|1.19.08 @ 2:51PM|#
The posters saying that Romney got the Mormon vote solely
because of his religion are intellectually lazy -- or just bigots.
There are many LDS Ron Paul supporters, including my own
husband.
Mormons may turn out in high numbers for Romney because he is
really the best candidate other than Paul -- and they lack the
religious bigotry that deters those who would otherwise vote for
Romney -- who would like him just fine if he were a Methodist,
say....
Mormons aren't voting for Romney BECAUSE he is a Mormon, but they
do likely feel greater assurance about what his beliefs are than
those who have been fed a steady diet of anti-Mormon hate speech
every week in Sunday School since the time they were 4.
|1.19.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Carol, 94% is 94%.
He didn't just "win them." He didn't even "win them in a
landslide."
Fidel Castro gets 94% by not letting anyone else on the ballot.
LevStrauss|1.19.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Well that is how the Libertarians will grow. We will get plenty of kooks, but we will get more mainstream voters as time passes, hopefully there will be something left to save. As people's pet peeves with regards to issues get trampled on, we get more people. It will be a collection of one issue voters. We get truthers, we get potheads, we get birchers, we get the Christian Identity folks, we get people who oppose a big brother society, we get the online poker enthusiasts, we get fiscal conservatives, we get social liberals, we get anti imperialists, etc. Then as this disgusting Federal Democracy progresses we get more and more people once they get left out in the cold.
|1.19.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Lev, I won't argue with your comment. I am just saying that using Nevada to crow about how well Paul is doing, turning things around, etc. is not a very smart idea. I'm from N. California and I know that you get a lot of fringe folks in Nevada. Claiming anything other than that is intellectually dishonest.
|1.19.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Well, first, no one has argued that he is personally a
crackpot or a racist here that I've seen. That said, have you met
the voters in Nevada? Getting excited about Paul's appeal in Nevada
doesn't seem like a good idea.
When your a conspiracy true believer, everyone who isn't with you,
is just more evidence of the conspiracy.
Hey, I voted for Ron Paul. Those stupid newsletters are
embarrassing, wrong, and ultimately, his fault. Any fallout from
those stupid, moneymaking newsletters is, hold on to your hats, Ron
Pauls fault. If you really believe that Reason staffers were part
of some conspiracy with TNR, I strongly suggest that you check out
the 9/11 truthers. I hear they're looking for a few gullible
men.
|1.19.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Hey J Sub D, good points. Don't expect the Paulestinians to agree, though. As you said, not agreeing with a conspiracy theorist is akin to publicly announcing that the conspiracy is true.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 3:01PM|#
To be fair to the 94% figure indicating a cult, what % of African-Americans will vote for Obama in next weeks SC primary, not to mention a hypothetical Obama-Any Republican race in the general?
tepid|1.19.08 @ 3:01PM|#
We need not an image consultant's deconstruction of the Paul
campaign.
Policy prescriptions and voting record. In short, perspective.
|1.19.08 @ 3:05PM|#
If you take out Mitt's cult votes, Paul and Mitt would have
gone to the wire on this.
And yes, now that Mitt has scored 95% of the vote among Mormons, we
can dispense with any further discussion of whether Mormonism is a
cult. Those numbers go beyond cult status to fucking ant farm
status.
Fluffy, have you ever gone to a Mormon ward and talked politics
with the members, as I do pretty much every Sunday?
Maybe, just maybe, Fluffy, Mitt did so well among Mormons because
his political views are just like most of their political views,
and because he deliberately hit on LDS talking points that none of
the other candidates had the inside knowledge to exploit? Yes,
there are many Mormons who reflexively would vote for any Mormon.
But, would you call black voters an ant-farm cult because over 90%
of them vote for Democrats, election after election? Or that gays
are an ant-farm cult because they, too, vote over 90% for
Democrats?
P.S. I'm one of those LDS NOT voting for Romney.
Colin|1.19.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Paul's actually votes seem to be lower than the exit polls indicated. Perhaps this will change as the day continues, but Paul's exit numbers in Michigan -- if I recall correctly -- were almost twice what he actually got.
|1.19.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Kolohe,
1. Between on half and 2/3, which is not 94%, or even close to
it.
2. There's a difference between a general election, with the stark
difference between the parties, and a primary, in which the
politics of all of the candidates is roughly comparable.
|1.19.08 @ 3:07PM|#
You know, close to 99% of Republicans vote for the Republican
candidate in a general election.
Which really isn't the same thing as picking one Republican out of
a field of Republicans. At all.
GILMORE|1.19.08 @ 3:07PM|#
We get truthers, we get potheads, we get birchers, we get
the Christian Identity folks, we get people who oppose a big
brother society, we get the online poker enthusiasts, we get fiscal
conservatives, we get social liberals, we get anti imperialists,
etc.
And "we" get lonewacko.
At some point, you may say, "wait a minute. There's only LOSERS at
this kegger now? WHat happened??"
|1.19.08 @ 3:07PM|#
There's no reason for any further Reason for me. Is Murdoch coming in as a board member now?
|1.19.08 @ 3:08PM|#
P.S. I was talking about Primary Romney TM's political views, not Massachusett Romney TM's views. Those, not so acceptable to LDS folks.
|1.19.08 @ 3:11PM|#
I'm a Latino woman in Massachusetts. I managed not to faint as I
changed my party affiliation from Green to Republican this month,
so I could vote for Ron Paul.
I may not agree with Paul on everything, but compared to all the
other candidates declared so far, Ron Paul is the only one who
won't expand the empire internationally or the police state at
home, he has a healthy regard for the constitution, and despite
being a Christian, he seems to be able to live and let live.
The constitution has the status of a floor rag under this
administration. Paul may be able to provide some shock therapy to
the country to get it back on track as a free society.
|1.19.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Y'know, we are all frustrated at the treatment Ron Paul has
gotten in the press, but I think in light of that, supporters of
Paul need to be very diligent in not coming off as ranting
bigots.
When posters here make the assumption that Romney won Nevada only
because Mormons were trucked in from Utah to vote for him, well, we
sound like bigots -- which is what the majority of the bad press
surrounding Ron Paul has been about. We confirm the
speculation.
Mormons have voted for candidates outside their religion for every
past presidential election since the founding of their church. They
haven't exactly opted out of the political process because they
didn't have a candidate of their own....
Up till Nevada, Romney was already getting the majority of the
popular vote. He already had the most delegates, which indicates he
was already pretty popular with those who don't let religion deter
them. Now then, Romney was already a strong candidate, and
obviously Mormons are not going to be deterred by his religion like
a certain percentage of the McCain/Huckabee voters are. It is
reasonable that a high percentage would support Romney.
But there are plenty of Mormon Paul supporters, and some donate
heavily. I think rants against Mormons here might turn their
stomachs a bit.
We need to take the high road or we make Ron Paul look bad. News
articles frequently cite the writings of Paul supportes commenting
on news articles. Ron Paul is not a bigot, so why are we...?
|1.19.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Maria:
I'm a Latino woman in Massachusetts. I managed not to faint as I changed my party affiliation from Green to Republican this month, so I could vote for Ron Paul.
Uhhhh, you're not really helping with the argument that Paul can
appeal beyond the fringe.
GILMORE|1.19.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Gene | January 19, 2008, 3:07pm | #
There's no reason for any further Reason for me.
IS someone keeping count of all the non-Reason readers coming here
to declare their permanent and final non-Reason readership forever
due to what they see as unfair (aka "not fellating him nonstop")
coverage of Ron Paul?
I dont just mean the incidence (#), but also the variants.
This one was funny in that it was probably an unintential
double-entendre...
no reason for any further Reason for me.
i.e. "I declare full abandonment of my rational faculties because
your magazine is causing a pain in my head which I used to
recognize as cognitive dissonance, but since joining a 'movement',
I now recognize as the insidious mind-warping ray guns of the
unbelievers in the conspiracy to hide The Truth"
|1.19.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Romney slayed in the counties abutting Utah. Saying that is not bigoted, although the "trucking them Mormons in" conspiracy theory might be.
GILMORE|1.19.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Eric | January 19, 2008, 3:14pm | #
Y'know, we are all frustrated at the treatment Ron Paul has gotten
in the press...
Speak for yourself homie. Many if not most here really dont give a
shit frankly. All the weep-and-moaning i've heard has been from
Paulistinians coming here to rant about the unfair coverage
*here*
but I think in light of that, supporters of Paul need to be
very diligent in not coming off as ranting bigots
truer words never spoken.
Problem being - you're about 200,000-word posts late this week. I'm
still trying to mop the leftover froth off the floor.
|1.19.08 @ 3:19PM|#
maybe you Romney fans should consider what it is about Paul that draws in the right wing extremist vote(ie 9.11 truthers/etc). sure says something about the beliefs of fundementalist far right extremists, given that they would rather have a proven* small government libertarian, with real goals to abolish the IRS, DOE and military empiricism. not suprisingly, your darling pseudo-con Mitt is noticeably quiet on government downsizing.. never so much as suggesting the elimination of any existing beurocracies; never mind how we pay for perpetual warfare with a unmanageable deficit. its actually quite revealing that the Republican party in general would so cavalierly abandon the principles of limited government, almost solely to appease socialist warhawks in the state department(and the citizen minions) who believe its our duty to police the world by enforcing universal secularism. but the Lord knows we deserve the government we get... so thank you pseudo-Cons! youve become graduates of liberalism
SimpleCJ|1.19.08 @ 3:21PM|#
The Associated Press has released an EARLY declaration of the
winner as being Mit Romney by a "big" margin. However, this report
was submitted around NOON Vegas time when not a single precinct is
reporting any numbers yet! HOW CAN THEY ALREADY DECLARE A
WINNER??
This is what they said about how the Nevada Caucus outcome has been
decided so early - "The results were from a poll conducted for AP
and the television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky
International as voters entered 20 caucus sites in Nevada. The
survey involved interviews with 571 GOP voters, and had a margin of
sampling error of plus or minus 6 percentage points."
So interviews with less than 600 people are representative of the
entire states votes?? REALLY???
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jld3VILFDbEY6uciu_lp_YgBnGqwD8U94IR00
|1.19.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Other Christians would also include the Church of Christ and Christian Church folks.
|1.19.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Which really isn't the same thing as picking one Republican
out of a field of Republicans. At all.
Agreed. But, people tend to vote for people who act or look like
them. Not always, but enough to swing elections. So, let's imagine
for a moment that you're a Nevadan LDS member in a small ranching
or farming town where virtually everyone you know is LDS, and their
families have been so for generations (I know, I know, Teh Scary,
but stick with me for a bit). And, out of all the Republicans
running for president, you have one who (currently) hits all the
conservative talking points. And uses the words that mean a lot to
LDS ("family" and "marriage" a lot, "proud" not at all). And that
guy doesn't cuss. And has been married to the same woman for years.
And holds current Temple Recommend. And all five of his sons are
similarly squeaky-clean, and have been married in the Temple to LDS
wives. And he's been a bishop in his ward.
What, exactly, are the chances you are going to vote for a
Republican who has been photographed in drag (Giuliani)? Or who has
made a point of publicly insulting your religious beliefs
(Huckabee)? Or has been divorced multiple times (pretty much
everyone else running)?
Be real. If you're in that situation, you're gonna vote for Romney,
because you effing identify with him (though you'd never even use
the euphemism "effing").
|1.19.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Mitt did so well among Mormons because his political views
are just like most of their political views
To quote Huckabee (ick), which ones? He also did well among MI auto
workers because his political views at that moment were just like
theirs.
robc|1.19.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Eric,
If the exit/entrance polling is right and Romney is getting 94-95%
of the Mormon vote, I dont know how to describe that other than
bigotry.
You cant get 95% of baptists or catholics or even scientologists to
vote the same way. Thats bigger numbers than democrats pull from
black voters.
Do you have any other analysis of that? I would gladly accept
another rational answer.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 3:26PM|#
joe-
76%
African Americans for Obama.
Which is 20% higher than any other demographic split (race, age,
gender, or religion) in either direction (Clinton or Obama).
|1.19.08 @ 3:26PM|#
In the 1970's, Mormons were literally bussed into surrounding states to organize opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.
robc|1.19.08 @ 3:27PM|#
SimpleCJ,
Actually nearly 600 is a reasonable okay sample size. If you can
get a TRUE random sample, that is more than enough to get you a
damn good answer on most questions most of the time.
The total size of the population doesnt matter if you truly
selecting random samples.
|1.19.08 @ 3:27PM|#
The Limbaugh right was talking about Massachusetts Democrats
voting in the New Hampshire primary. I wonder if they'll say the
same thing about Utah Mormons voting in Nevada.
IIRC, the Water Carrier himself is a big (heh) Romney guy.
|1.19.08 @ 3:28PM|#
So interviews with less than 600 people are representative of the entire states votes?? REALLY???
If I had a $100 dollars for every time I have heard someone say or
write that, including variations based on numbers, etc. I wish I
had another $100 every time I heard someone say that the outcome
which agreed with the poll, and denied the outcome they believed
in, proved their favorite conspiracy theory was true (i.e. "vast
right wing conspiracy", fraudulent voting, One World,
Bilderberg's).
|1.19.08 @ 3:29PM|#
So interviews with less than 600 people are representative
of the entire states votes?? REALLY???
As long as those people are selected randomly, yes. If it weren't
the case that sampling a tiny random slice of a population is just
as good as sampling the entire population, there wouldn't be a lot
of demand for statisticians, would there be?
Do you think GE tests every single light bulb they produce to see
how long before it burns out? Or Ford crashes every car they
produce to gauge how safe they are?
|1.19.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Eric,
The Nevada GOP changed their rules last week to say that people
could vote even if they weren't on the rolls in the precinct they
were voting in and had no proof of residency. Concern about voter
fraud in such instances hardly makes one a conspiracy theorist or a
bigot.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Also, joe I am not entirely disagreeing with you in that Mormons look to be among the most - if not the most - monolithic voting block around today. But African Americans, for complex reasons, are in second place on this front, and far ahead of most other voting blocs.
|1.19.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Simple CJ,
Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Massachusetts
gubenatorial election with single-digits reporting when the town of
Quincy, which typically goes Democratic by double-digits, split
about 50/50 for Romney.
prolefeed,
I agree with all of that. I'm not sure what you are taking
exception to with me. BTW, "scary" is about the last word that
occurs to me when thinking about small-town Mormons. Nice people. I
gave some hot chocolate to a couple of 19-year-old "elders" who
came to my door last winter. Nice kids.
Kolohe,
This is what winning with 75% of the vote looks like:
1 1 1 : 2
This is what winning with 95% of the vote looks like:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 2
Not the same thing. At all.
|1.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
And based on my vast experience with, um, those two kids, I think that Mormons are just too gosh-darn honest to commit voter fraud in any significant numbers.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
One of my biggest pet peeves lately, (which appears almost entirely on right wing sites) is questioning how sampling can represent an entire population. Various errors are off course possible, (and well researched and documented), but the idea is based on fundamental mathematical principles as true and unambiguous as 2 plus 2 equal 4.
LevStrauss|1.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Adam Selen,
I never said anything about Ron turning things around. I will be
happy with him just staying in the race and telling everyone else
to go to hell. A year from now this country will continue to get
worse, we might as well tell them off as much as we can. I can't
with a clear conscience vote for anybody else. Is it more moral to
vote for the alleged racist who will make life for everyone
including minorities better, or the closet racist, whose advisers
are intellectual supremecists and racists, who will make life much
worse. Reading Leo Strauss while maintaining ones morality causes
one to do such.
|1.19.08 @ 3:37PM|#
joe, I was talking about the comments Fluffy has been making, and thought you were jumping on that bandwagon. Apologies. My bad.
|1.19.08 @ 3:38PM|#
people tend to vote for people who act or look like them.
Not always, but enough to swing elections.
They also vote for people whose supporters act or look like them,
or like their preferred self-image, or are people they want to
impress.
That often effectively pre-decides elections by determining how
candidates are covered, because journalism is primarily about the
projection of the journalist's self-image as such.
See: how Ron Paul is covered here, and how Obama is covered
everywhere...but especially here.
Fluffy|1.19.08 @ 3:39PM|#
If 95% of a religious group votes for something, that is a
cult.
Up until now I would have argued that there was no real difference
between a cult and a religion. I may have been wrong.
A cult is when you can get 95% of a religion's members to show up
to vote for a candidate.
Jim Jones couldn't have gotten that kind of vote right before the
Kool Aid was handed out.
|1.19.08 @ 3:39PM|#
During the Clinton impeachment, Paul Harvey reported that
opinion on the impeachment was running about 3:1 against
nationally, and explained that "they were only asking people in New
York and California."
Everyone HE knew wanted to impeach Clinton.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 3:40PM|#
How about just plain nondenominational?
Non-denominational Christian is about as descriptive as
Flavored Ice Cream. And about as meaningful.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 3:45PM|#
This is the vote among white people in Nev:
C C C C C O O O E E
These are hispanics:
C C C C C C O O O E
These are blacks
C C O O O O O O O O
See the difference? (or rather, see similarities with
Mormons?)
robc|1.19.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Jim Jones couldn't have gotten that kind of vote right
before the Kool Aid was handed out.
This is true. Didnt well over 5% have to be shot because they
refused to drink?
|1.19.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Also, joe I am not entirely disagreeing with you in that
Mormons look to be among the most - if not the most - monolithic
voting block around today. But African Americans, for complex
reasons, are in second place on this front, and far ahead of most
other voting blocs.
kolohe -- maybe in Utah. Not so much in Hawaii. When I ran for the
State Senate, I got about 70% of the vote in Laie (which is about
90% LDS). Bush got 85% there.
On election day, I thought I was in trouble in my strongest
precinct (Laie), because the place was flooded with hardcore
Democrats waving signs for my opponent and every other Democrat
running -- until someone pointed out that this happens every
election, where purt-near every Democrat in Laie is out on election
day sign-waving, with nary a Republican in sight, and then their
neighbors shake their hands, wish them a hearty good morning, and
then continue walking to the polls to vote Republican all the way
down the ballot.
|1.19.08 @ 3:50PM|#
WHY IS DR. RON PAUL PLACED IN A NEWS BLACKOUT? HE ALSO RAN IN NEVADA AND NOT A MENTION OF HIS NAME IN YOUR ARTICLES? HOW DID HE DO? YOU MENTION OTHER CANDIDATES WHO HAVE RECEIVED FEWER VOTES AND LESS MONETARY DONATIONS? MANY OF US SUPPORT RON PAUL AND WOULD LIKE THE NEWS MEDIA TO INCLUDE HIS CAMPAIGN IN THE NEWS COVERAGE. HOW ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION WHEN THEY ARE NOT GIVEN COMPLETE INFORMATION BY THE NEWS MEDIA ABOUT WHO IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE! SHAME ON YOU
|1.19.08 @ 3:51PM|#
It is true that Mormons did oragnize and bus people to
participate in the ERA question -- as was their right as citizens
-- but they could only vote within their own states.
And it also true that ERA supporters did a great deal to deter
Mormon women from participating -- like showing lesbian porn movies
for the purpsoe of offending the Mormon ladies out of the room --
and then calling the vote once they left.
Look, a tenet of the Mormon faith is this: "We believe in being
subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying,
honoring, and sustaining the law."
It would be against a Mormon's religion to commit election fraud or
to otherwise tamper with an election.
Look, you are frustrated with the outcome, but Mormons are not out
to get you.... You will serve Ron Paul candidate BETTER if you
desist from calling people names.
Mormons, for the most part, TEND to be conservative Republicans.
They love people from all countries, but again, they believe in the
rule of law, so tend to oppose ILLEGAL immigration. There are some
different opinions on illegal immigration from the R candidates.
Romney seems to respect the law.
I could go on. But there are sound POLITICAL reasons for Mormons to
be supporting Romney outside of the cultural ones.
If the Mormon vote were as cult-like as some here claim, there
would zero LDS Paul supporters.
|1.19.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Fluffy - care to address the points in my 3:23 post about WHY
Mitt got 95% of the LDS vote? Or just gonna keep banging the "cult"
drum, in a cult-like obsessive way? ;)
P.S. Do you think I'm a Kool-Aid drinker?
Maria|1.19.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Tired of hearing that Paul supporters are all racist white men.
I'm not white man. Try to keep my racism under control, living in
the city, sending my kids to the public schools where white
teachers who live in the suburbs preach to my white kids about the
glories of Rosa Parks. (Oh, irony. They spot deer on the way to
school. We drive through inner city ghetto pandemonium. They'd
throw MLK in jail for loitering in a minute)
The real racism is the 'liberal' Clinton left. They have expanded
the police state, hiring over half a million police, god knows how
many 'correction' officers.
All the black men thrown in prison under Clinton I, for federally
mandated drug sentencing regulations that are the height of racism.
Under Clinton I, black men are getting sodomized in prison, serving
their crack sentences, while white cocaine convicts are serving
their sentences out at treatment centers in Palm Springs.
To add insult to racist injury, Clinton I enabled all these nice
police and prison guards to get liberal arts degrees in criminal
justice on my tax dime. The Police/prison/university state
partnership.
Once these nice folk have the degrees I helped fund, they can all
go earn $1200/day as 'private security contractors' in Iraq and get
their pictures taken in front of the human pyramid at Abu
Grhaib.
Ron Paul racist? Tell me about it. Paul wants to repeal the racist
drug sentencing practices and let the black man out of prison. How
racist is that?
|1.19.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Ron Paul suffers because some voters still will not vote their minds; rather, they feel the need to try to vote the winner. Ron Paul can win. He has the best and most resonating message. And, we are not kooks. We happen to be smart, well-read, and articulate. If a history test were required with your voter registration, Ron Paul would win in a landslide.
stealth voter|1.19.08 @ 3:56PM|#
>The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tnn. 2:19). The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 3:56PM|#
If 95% of a religious group votes for something, that is a
cult.
Up until now I would have argued that there was no real difference
between a cult and a religion. I may have been wrong.
A cult is when you can get 95% of a religion's members to show up
to vote for a candidate.
And when 90% of a race always votes the same way, you call them
negros.
Sorry, I'm trying to quit.
|1.19.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Kolohe: No offense taken. If you're running for office and go
around thinking you're Teh Precious, and everyone must love you
because of your complete awesomeness, you're in for a HUGE reality
check if you go door-to-door.
My opponent was Hawaiian, in a hugely Polynesian town. Race does
matter in how people vote, and it's not just the white folks.
|1.19.08 @ 3:58PM|#
ANNOYED -
YOU LEFT OUT THE BOLD AND ITALICS
TAGS!!! THERE WAS ALSO A DISTINCT LACK OF
EXCAMATION POINTS!!! OTHER THAN THOSE MINOR QUIBBLES,
GOOD RANT!!!
robc|1.19.08 @ 3:59PM|#
prolefeed,
you have one who (currently) hits all the conservative talking
points.
Even with the (currently) I dont think this applies to Romney.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 4:00PM|#
This primary has been almost completely about identity politics, not ideas. It's disgusting.
|1.19.08 @ 4:01PM|#
See the difference? (or rather, see similarities with
Mormons?)
No, I can't. Because you didn't put up the graphic for Mormons. Why
don't you do that, so we can see if the African-American breakdown
looks more like Mormons, or more like white and Hispanic
voters?
Jacob|1.19.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Who is winning the coveted white supremacist vote? I can understand how they would break for Romney, since the Mormons didn't let in blacks until the 1970s. However, his dad's association with MLK could hurt him enough to give Paul the lead.
|1.19.08 @ 4:04PM|#
J sub D:
YOU LEFT OUT THE BOLD AND ITALICS TAGS!!! THERE WAS ALSO A DISTINCT LACK OF EXCAMATION POINTS!!! OTHER THAN THOSE MINOR QUIBBLES, GOOD RANT!!!
I'M SPEWING COKE ALL OVER MY LAPTOP RIGHT
NOW!!!!!
Damn, couldn't you provide some sort of warning first?
Jacob|1.19.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Maria,
Only white people can be racist. Clinton was black, and therefore
not a racist.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 4:06PM|#
African-Americans do play identity politics, but they vote Dem
because they think its in their interest. If you put a black
republican up against a white dem, the dem is most likely still
going to win. It's identity politics, yes, but the positions still
matter. It's not even close to the same thing as what you're seeing
here with Romney.
Mormons are voting for Romney not because of his political
positions but because he is a Mormon running for president.
If Romney was running as a Democrat you would see the same huge
numbers in his favor.
|1.19.08 @ 4:06PM|#
It would be against a Mormon's religion to commit election
fraud or to otherwise tamper with an election.
Is there a religion that is NOT against lying and cheating? Yet,
there are people of all religions doing it anyway.
tepid|1.19.08 @ 4:06PM|#
And when 90% of a race always votes the same way, you call
them negros.
Sorry, I'm trying to quit.
Keep trying.
|1.19.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Also, joe I am not entirely disagreeing with you in that
Mormons look to be among the most - if not the most - monolithic
voting block around today. But African Americans, for complex
reasons, are in second place on this front, and far ahead of most
other voting blocs.
Of course, individuals are who vote, not groups. I was recently
working in our legislature, and my office manager was a huge Romney
supporter. He was also black, at least in skin color. A really
funny, nice guy. We had some interesting discussions about
politics, me arguing the libertarian POV, him arguing a hard-right
conservative POV, while his beloved Rush Limbaugh was spouting off
in the background on a hard-right radio show my manager kept
playing all day, every day. I would turn it WAY down when he was
out of the office, but it was an unspoken rule that one does not
turn off the telescreens entirely.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.19.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Sometimes the mainstream protestant churches, like Presbies
& Lutherans are considered Catholic-Lite and are segregated
from the Baptists and modern liberal churches like the Vineyard and
Calvary Chapel.
Maybe that's what they mean by other Christian. [shrugs]
|1.19.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Reality check. Obama is the first credible (read electable)
"black" (read 50% African) candidate in our nation's somewhaat
shameful history. That a lot of black people may prefer to vote for
Obama, even though they agree with Edwards or Clinton more on the
issues is completely understandable.
I'll be honest here. If a credible Atheist candidate were making
the kind of splash that Obama is making, I'd probably give him/her
a pass on an issue or two. Look into your mind and honestly say
there isn't a possible reason for you to behave similarly.
|1.19.08 @ 4:13PM|#
95% of a group picking one guy from among a field of candidates
with similar positions, when that candidate is of the same
religious, racial, or ethnic group they come from.
vs.
90% of a group picking one candidate over another, when the two
have very different political positions, regardless of what
religious, ethnic, or racial group the candidates come
from.
One of these is identity politics, and one of these is not. If you
don't see how these are different, it's because you are trying not
to.
|1.19.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Being a fairly libertarian person has not led me to give Paul a pass on an issue or two (immigration and abortion, for example). Although, in earlier times in my life I did give Reagan a pass on some issues because of others. Of course, I was also fairly sure Reagan could be elected and run a reasonably competent administration. I'm afraid Paul can't do either of those things. Probably the bigger issue for me.
|1.19.08 @ 4:15PM|#
African-Americans do play identity politics...
It would appear you do as well.
He was also black, at least in skin color.
Is there any other kind?
What is it, Racialist Day around here?
|1.19.08 @ 4:16PM|#
I don't get the Other Christian category myself. As a former Roman Catholic there are only two flavors of Christianity, Catholics and Hellbound heretic protestants. I thought that was common knowledge.
Maria|1.19.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Jacob -
Ha, ha, ha.
I have to admit there is something lovable in Bill Clinton.
Like 'your' old, flea bitten, stinking mongrel dog, who you kick
away at the dinner table, then cry like hell the day he gets hit by
a mail truck.
Or something like that.
|1.19.08 @ 4:21PM|#
J sub D:
As a former Roman Catholic there are only two flavors of Christianity, Catholics and Hellbound heretic protestants.
All of us recovering Catholics know that.
robc|1.19.08 @ 4:22PM|#
J sub D,
Look into your mind and honestly say there isn't a possible
reason for you to behave similarly.
Bill Clinton.
Jimmy Carter.
There have been 2 southern baptist prezes in my lifetime. I cant
think of any reason I would vote SBC over someone I more agreed
with.
|1.19.08 @ 4:23PM|#
As a former Roman Catholic there are only two flavors of
Christianity, Catholics and Hellbound heretic
protestants.
J sub, you're showing your age.
Catholics haven't talked about the "hellbound" stuff since Vatican
II, you silly man.
If anything, I was always told by the Bible-bangers that I was
headed to Hell for my Papist, mackerel-snapping, Mary-worshiping
ways.
robc|1.19.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Catholics haven't talked about the "hellbound" stuff since
Vatican II, you silly man.
Correct, now they quote Monty Python and call us "splitters".
Eric Dondero|1.19.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Report in Ron Paul's local hometown Newspaper The Facts this
morning that he might go Independent, and also quotes him as saying
that it "probably would not be Libertarian Party."
Paul has been indicating for weeks now, if he didn't win the GOP
primaries and caucuses, this would be a possibility.
His poor 3rd place showing today, by some results as low as 11%,
may make this a reality.
|1.19.08 @ 4:26PM|#
...a credible Atheist candidate...
LOL!!!
Indeed. We'll elect a Muslim, a Buddhist or two, Mormons and Jews,
any flavor of Christian imaginable, but atheism is the touch of
death. An atheist against a gay, necrophiliac, who is a charter
memeber of NAMBLA, and a Lutheran, would clean an atheists clock in
a state or national election.
I'm just grateful y'all haven't brought back the Spanish
Inquisition.
robc|1.19.08 @ 4:28PM|#
crimethink,
I was just about to post the same thing, but your is better written
and you remembered to use asshat.
|1.19.08 @ 4:29PM|#
If Romney was running as a Democrat you would see the same
huge numbers in his favor.
I'm gonna have to politely disagree about this. An LDS Democrat
from Nevada, Harry Reid, is almost universally despised in my ward.
If he ran for President, and Romney was off the ticket, he'd get
very few LDS votes.
I was trying to google this, and while I couldn't find something
specifically addressing his support or lack thereof by Mormons,
this jumped out: "Reid knows the peril of failing to please the
rurals. He won reelection to a third term in 1998 by just 428
votes, carrying only two of Nevada's 17 counties - urban Clark
County and the small union stronghold of Mineral County up
north."
In other words, he failed to carry the rural counties, some of
which are heavily LDS.
I did find this blog titled
will the mormons please excommunicate harry reid already
so I'm guessing that the meme "Mormons are robots who will vote for
anyone who is LDS" is not entirely true. Political views do matter
to some. ;)
LarryA|1.19.08 @ 4:29PM|#
He's doing pretty well with Hispanics.
Not a surprise. Lots of middle-class Hispanics are just as hard
against newcomers as are other former immigrant groups like the
Minutemen.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but while Romney carried the
Protestant, Catholic, and (of course) Mormon vote, Paul got a
plurality of "other Christian" ballots. Anyone care to speculate
what sects those might be?
Not sure how the polltakers classified folks, but Episcopalians
derived from the Anglican Church, which split from Catholicism
before the Protestant Revolution. (Remember Henry
VIII.) Methodists and the other denominations which originated in
England and fled persecution by the Anglicans are not technically
"Protestant" either. It would also include anyone in the Eastern
Orthodox branch of Catholicism, which split off even earlier.
You also have lots of Christians who belong to non-denominational
churches, as well as a number of "born in the Bible Belt"
denominations that never had any historical connection to the
Catholic Church.
A cult is when you can get 95% of a religion's members to show
up to vote for a candidate.
The stats didn't say 95% of Mormons voted, it said that of
the Mormons voting 95% went for Mitt. Statistics
101.
I thought it was really interesting that only one in four "white
evangelical/born again" voters went for Huckabee.
|1.19.08 @ 4:29PM|#
I merely pointed out the fact that Mormons were bussed to surrounding states to demonstrate that they *have* organized to participate in the politics of other states. Some had earlier suggested that Mormons were bussed in from Utah to Nevada.
robc|1.19.08 @ 4:31PM|#
crimethink,
"asshat" refers to Dondero's post above.
Yeah, I know. I wasnt going to be as clear with my insult.
|1.19.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Knowing the state of Nevada fairly well, I think it is a mistake
to draw conclusions from the statistical results in Nevada. As one
of my friends noted in an email to me not long ago:
Sure, he does well in a state full of gamblers, strippers, and hookers!
Nevada is a cultural outlier, like Alaska.
Peter|1.19.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Jehovah's Witnesses is the only religious group that actually doesn't vote in politics.
|1.19.08 @ 4:34PM|#
He was also black, at least in skin color.
Is there any other kind?
What is it, Racialist Day around here?
I was referring, tongue-in-cheek, to the whole "Is Obama black
enough?" nonsense, where apparently one has to have certain statist
cultural baggage to be authentically black.
My bad for not putting a ;) after that comment for the benefit of
the irony-impaired or thin-skinned around here.
|1.19.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Some had earlier suggested that Mormons were bussed in from
Utah to Nevada.
If they were bussed in to VOTE, rather than just wave signs or
whatnot, a bunch of people's Temple Recommends would get yanked for
that.
Jonathan Goff|1.19.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Prolefeed,
Be real. If you're in that situation, you're gonna vote for
Romney, because you effing identify with him (though you'd never
even use the euphemism "effing").
Yeah, I believe the correct euphemism would be "flippin"...
~Jon
|1.19.08 @ 4:40PM|#
I have yet to meet a Mormon Democrat.
They are a thoroughly conservative (in both fields) people.
So, Republican + Mormon = huge Mormon support for said
candidate.
and you guys are surprised by this somehow?
FWIW, conflating Mormons voting en masse for a Mormon and
black folk voting for a black candidate is silliness.
A person's religion implies a whole field of philosophical beliefs
and concepts; a person's race implies nothing at all.
alisa|1.19.08 @ 4:42PM|#
12%, folks. 12%.
I'm doing a little happy dance now.
On the identity politics business (Romney and Obama) I don't see
that it's particularly alarming if a group with shared political
interests votes as a bloc. A quick look at history -- and by
history I mean as late as Harold Washington in the 80's -- can show
that blacks haven't always been honestly represented by white
politicians. And the fact that Mormons vote together, if anything,
relates them to other religions, since practically every
clergyperson tells congregants how to vote this time of year. Is
that "identity politics"? Has there ever been a working democracy
without factions?
|1.19.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Damn, I sorta wish that Ron Paul would place in the top two,
just to see what the MSM and GOP would do. Hee.
You think in that case questions about the letters (and Paul's
sucking up to conspiracy groups) is gonna go away? You poor
fools....
Look, guys--having a presidential candidate babble on about the
gold standard and getting rid of the FED and the IRS doesn't make
him sound intelligent. It just makes him sound nuts. (And accusing
people who point out problems with Paul's positions of being part
of the international-banker-conspiracy makes you sound really,
really nuts.)
God, I wish we were back in the days when we only had to worry
about the Bavarian Illuminati....
|1.19.08 @ 4:44PM|#
odds are, many of paul's supporters(non nazi's, conspiracist,
etc) are not aware of his racist and conspiratorial past and
present. the media has been pretty uninterested to this point and
the candidates have yet to campaign against him. If they did, he'd
be ran out of the country in short order.
If he runs as 3rd party, odds are the media will get into it,
because he appeals to so many far-left anti-war types. Same people
that beleive Criminals commit crimes because of "society is to
blame" and apply same logical fallacy to Foreign Policy.
|1.19.08 @ 4:44PM|#
practically every clergyperson tells congregants how to vote
this time of year.
Come again?
They can't do that if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. I
know I've never heard Catholic clergy tell someone to vote for a
specific candidate.
|1.19.08 @ 4:45PM|#
My bad for not putting a ;) after that comment for the
benefit of the irony-impaired or thin-skinned around
here.
Oof...and the Objectivist gets a takedown for
context-dropping.
Sorry, prolefeed! (damn Ayn Rand...left me all humor-impaired and
shit.)
|1.19.08 @ 4:46PM|#
The stats didn't say 95% of Mormons voted, it said that of
the Mormons voting 95% went for Mitt. Statistics 101.
True enough, but when considering the implications of this fact,
remember that Mormons make up 7% of the electorate and 25% of
today's Republican voters.
Andrew Jackson|1.19.08 @ 4:47PM|#
I did not read all of messages, so forgive if this had been stated already, but "other Christians" inclused many different groups: Eastern Orthodox Churches (Russian, Greek, Antiochian, and etc), Coptic Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and possibly Eastern Catholic Churches.
|1.19.08 @ 4:49PM|#
God, I wish we were back in the days when we only had to
worry about the Bavarian Illuminati....
Look here, Sonny Jim, Ron Paul told me that we have to worry about
the Trilateral Commission AND the Bilderberg group! OMFG!
Same people that beleive Criminals commit crimes because of
"society is to blame" and apply same logical fallacy to Foreign
Policy.
Oh dear, what a binary view of the world you have.
So, is "Criminal" the genotype or the phenotype, you retard?
|1.19.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Looking more and more like a Dem president this time. Romney's all teeth and polyester but first chance he gets he'll shit in your hair.
alisa|1.19.08 @ 4:54PM|#
I guess it would be technically illegal to endorse a candidate,
but there's a lot of leeway for hinting. Huckabee encourages
pastors to "educate" their congregations about caucuses,
(link)
and last night I got a pretty transparent plug for Obama.
|1.19.08 @ 4:56PM|#
I don't think Romney's a lock, but I believe he'll be the next
President, especially if the Democrats do something so bone-headed
as to actually nominate The Evil One Hillary
Clinton.
It's going to be a Governor vs. a Senator. Haven't we learned how
this goes down almost every time?
It'll be 2004 all over again. oh, goody.
Andrew Jackson|1.19.08 @ 4:56PM|#
The causes of Islamic terrorism is more nuanced than just our foreign policy, although that certainly is a component of it. It also includes the humiliation the Muslim world has experienced in the last century. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestenian refugee problem, picking the losing side in WW2 and the Cold War, and the military defeats versus the Isrealis are just some of the causes for anger and extremism in the Muslim world.
|1.19.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Evangelical churches - the black, Democratic ones and the white, Republican ones - do seem to be more comfortable walking up to that line than the Catholics or the mainline Protestants.
|1.19.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Randian,
I'll see your Senator and raise you Massachusetts.
The head-to-heads put Hillary consistently ahead of Romney. And
remember those "value voters" who turned out in such numbers in
2004? They no likey Mormons.
McCain is the only candidate that gives the Republicans a shot.
|1.19.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Then again, some bishops like to advertise that they feel a certain Catholic candidate should be denied Communion, which is itself pretty tacky.
some dude|1.19.08 @ 5:03PM|#
If "other Christians" was a choice, I would probably check that box. I don't particularly self-identify as "protestant."
Andrew Jackson|1.19.08 @ 5:06PM|#
I am Greek Orthodox, so I would check the "other Christians" box. Uh-oh, CNN is reporting voting machine malfunctions; did anyone see this coming????
|1.19.08 @ 5:07PM|#
If they were bussed in to VOTE, rather than just wave signs
or whatnot, a bunch of people's Temple Recommends would get yanked
for that.
Not necessarily. I lived in LDS-land (Salt Lake City)and the
general attitude I got was "anything to protect the church and it's
beliefs". To this day, there is STILL controversy over the Mountain
Meadows Massacre, to give just one example.
The infamous "Salamander
Letter" is another, where the church bought documents that shed
a bad light on the church in order to suppress them. The documents
were later proven to be forgeries.
And who could forget Jospeh Smith and the destruction
of printing presses in Nauvoo, Illinois?
|1.19.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Yeah, nobody is voting for the guy who follows the US (not
foreign) Constitution anymore so make sure you don't either. STAY
AT HOME Ron Paul supporters. He can't win so vote for us. STAY AT
HOME Ron Paul supporters. You swear to uphold what? Civil
liberties? Free speech? The Us Constitution? What the hell is that?
Screw the US Constitution. Screw the Economy. Screw the Republic.
Don't vote for the Duke Medical School finance nerd, Dr. Paul, the
guy who has studied economics for 30 years and ran several of his
own successful businesses while providing free or reduced cost
healthcare to poor people of all races so they wouldn't die
prematurely. The guy with the A+ average who voted to hunt down Bin
Laden and against the Iraqi War as a response to 911 hysteria will
never win.
I am voting for the Vietnam era USAF flight surgeon who showed a
willingness to risk life and limb for his country when some fled to
Canada, who never voted for an unbalanced budget and who
incidentally has more support among our military and brave veterans
than any other candidate (Republican or Democrat). How did they
know about him way before the rest of America? Should we be
investigating this…?
|1.19.08 @ 5:09PM|#
The head-to-heads put Hillary consistently ahead of
Romney.
well, and six months ago Giuliani was the leader in the primary
polls.
I don't get what Massachusettes has to do with it, though.
Rudy|1.19.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Wait, which candidate is Catholic?
That fringe guy, not Duncan Hunter, some dago ex-mayor whose main
issue is 9/11/2001.
|1.19.08 @ 5:10PM|#
its hilarous how "libertarians" excuse Islamic Jihad the exact
same way the Far-Left excuse the acts of Criminals as being caused
by society.
and with Jihad there is 1300 years of history and the koran to back
up their World Sharia Domination imperative.
|1.19.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Candidates from Massachusetts don't win presidential elections,
either. Even governors. The last Senator to win election was also
the last candidate from Massachusetts.
|1.19.08 @ 5:14PM|#
To this day, there is STILL controversy over the Mountain
Meadows Massacre, to give just one example.
Oh Jesus, tell me about it. Just go see the Wikipedia talk page
about it...they're still debating whether the term
massacre is appropriate. People got their hang-ups, I
guess.
voiceofthepeople provides a concrete referent to the abstract
concept of "Paulbot". Thanks, I thought it was a floater.
chombo|1.19.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I hope the World Sharia Domination Imperative becomes the new Zionist Occupation Government.
|1.19.08 @ 5:15PM|#
"I'm not sure what heading Messianic Jews would come under,
either."
I think the term you're looking for is "Goyim".
-jcr
P.O.[E.]T.U.S.|1.19.08 @ 5:17PM|#
I've yet to meet a Mormon Democrat,
A Witness voting is defection;
Which leaves re-Pharisees, re-Publicans
Awaiting Calvinists' election.
|1.19.08 @ 5:17PM|#
its hilarous how "libertarians" excuse Islamic Jihad the
exact same way the Far-Left excuse the acts of Criminals as being
caused by society.
I can tell you have no idea what the difference is between a
"justification" and a "motive".
Candidates from Massachusetts don't win presidential elections,
either.
Wellll, OK. Is it fair if I fudge the Point of Origin for the
Bushes a little?
Or would that be too dishonest of me :-D?
|1.19.08 @ 5:19PM|#
"Is there a religion that is NOT against lying and
cheating?"
Sadly, there is. Google for "scientology".
-jcr
|1.19.08 @ 5:21PM|#
The last Senator to win election was also the last candidate
from Massachusetts.
Wasn't George H W Bush from MA?
|1.19.08 @ 5:23PM|#
If they were bussed in to VOTE, rather than just wave signs
or whatnot, a bunch of people's Temple Recommends would get yanked
for that.
Only if they get caught -- and I suspect that would be the least of
their troubles in that case.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Nah, he's from Connecticut, which is a whole Rhode Island apart from Massachusetts. That's a great chasm, if you know what I mean.
|1.19.08 @ 5:25PM|#
crimethink -
That's kind of what I was going for with the reference to the
Bushes, but HW Bush was VP, so all bets are off in his origin,
because he was from "The White House" rather than
from Massachusetts.
joe's saying that candidates from Massachusetts don't win the
Presidency, but I think there are more data points on my side
(Governors v. Senators) than there are with his
(Massachusetts-based candidates v. others).
|1.19.08 @ 5:25PM|#
I don't think Romney's a lock, but I believe he'll be the
next President, especially if the Democrats do something so
bone-headed as to actually nominate The Evil One
Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic party has the mind boggling ability to throw away a
presidential election that is somewhat reminicent of the '70s
Minnesota Vikings. Unless it's that ignorant, hillbilly, whackjob
preacher, I'll probably vote Republican if she's the Dems
nominee.
|1.19.08 @ 5:27PM|#
The Democratic party has the mind boggling ability to throw away a presidential election that is somewhat reminicent of the '70s Minnesota Vikings.
They do that often. And yeah, I'll go on record and say I'll vote
for any Republican (Exceptions: Huckabee, Giuliani) before
Clinton.
I'll have to have a decontamination shower afterwards, but I'll do
it.
Tom Blanton|1.19.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Mormons didn't vote for Mitt because he is Mormon. They voted for him because he has great teeth and a damned good wig. He bought the rest of the votes.
|1.19.08 @ 5:29PM|#
No, Bush was elected from Texas and always presented himself as
being from Texas.
Yeah yeah, I know it's bull, but in terms of how he was perceived
and the record and biography he ran on, he was an ahl man from
God's Country.
economist|1.19.08 @ 5:31PM|#
As a nonpracticing Catholic, I would like to propose that we drop the religion topic and all get drunk.
|1.19.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Then again, some bishops like to advertise that they feel a
certain Catholic candidate should be denied Communion, which is
itself pretty tacky.
True Story, After my mother was divorced and remarried, she was
denied Communion by the parish priest. I was then no longer
required to attend catechism classes and only encouraged to attend
Mass after that. The Catholic church refusing communion to somebody
doesn't hurt them in the eyes of this apostate.
Not one little bit.
|1.19.08 @ 5:32PM|#
In other words, Dave, Hillary Clinton has turned Barack Obama from Jack Kennedy to Jessie Jackson?
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Keep trying.
Do you have Al Sharpton's number so I can call and apologize?
In all seriousness, I think if Ron Paul ran with an explicitly
"racist" (by leftist media standards) campaign he'd get 10% of the
vote. He wouldn't win, but would beat the hell out of the
libertarian candidate and maybe will help lead to the day when
whites can complain about subsidizing the breeding of those who
vote for them to subsidize their breeding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXVAkvR8WYk
|1.19.08 @ 5:34PM|#
In all seriousness, I think if Ron Paul ran with an explicitly "racist" (by leftist media standards) campaign he'd get 10% of the vote. He wouldn't win, but would beat the hell out of the libertarian candidate and maybe will help lead to the day when whites can complain about subsidizing the breeding of those who vote for them to subsidize their breeding.
The fertility rate of whites and blacks is around the same in this
country, dipshit.
|1.19.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Have y'all heard the latest scientific findings that non Jewish people of middle eastern descent are twice as likely to have sexual relations with farm animals? Ask Chalupa, he knows all about that stuff.
|1.19.08 @ 5:37PM|#
maybe will help lead to the day when whites can complain
about subsidizing the breeding of those who vote for them to
subsidize their breeding.
Ahh yes. I forgot that it's the sign of intelligence to treat
different races like they are the Borg; uniform drones hellbent on
conquest.
Chalupa, you are such a fucking loser.
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 5:38PM|#
The fertility rate of whites and blacks is around the same
in this country, dipshit.
I know, jackass. The difference is whites support their own kids.
They also support the 66% of black children that are born out of
wedlock.
|1.19.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Its worth pointing out poor white in appalachia are "subsidized" just as much if by "subsidies" you mean food stamps et al.
|1.19.08 @ 5:39PM|#
I know, jackass. The difference is whites support their own kids. They also support the 66% of black children that are born out of wedlock.
If you really think absent welfare programs blacks would just
starve, you're an idiot.
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 5:41PM|#
If you really think absent welfare programs blacks would
just starve, you're an idiot.
No, I think they would get jobs and would get married before they
had children, like they did before welfare came along.
SIV|1.19.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Its worth pointing out poor white in appalachia are
"subsidized" just as much if by "subsidies" you mean food stamps et
al.
Cesar,
You got statistics to back that up? Or did you just pull it out of
your ass?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.19.08 @ 5:42PM|#
practically every clergyperson tells congregants how to vote
this time of year.
Come again?
They can't do that if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. I
know I've never heard Catholic clergy tell someone to vote for a
specific candidate.
Unless, of course, you are the vice-president of Black America.
Then it's okay.
|1.19.08 @ 5:43PM|#
It's very refreshing to see Dr. Paul, a candidate with consistent, principled integrity, doing so well. He opposes the war and will protect our civil liberties, which have been so terribly eroded under the Bush administration. He will bring the troops home. He understands foreign policy and monetary policy. Give us our country back! Give us Dr. Paul. Go Ron Paul! Go! Go! Go!
|1.19.08 @ 5:44PM|#
The black fertility rate is 2.2. The non-hispanic white
fertility rate is 1.8. Its a statistically insignifigant
difference, especially when you factor in the higher infant
mortality and lower lifespan of blacks.
Go
hier. The figures are from 1999, but I read an article not too
long ago on fertility rates that had about the same numbers (with a
slight uptick for non-hispanic whites).
|1.19.08 @ 5:45PM|#
They also support the 66% of black children that are born
out of wedlock.
Woah, are you claiming that 66% of American Black parents are on
welfare?
Because a child can be supported by a single parent, you
know.
Links would be nice, too, Chalupa; although I know you won't have
any because you're just making stuff up.
VM|1.19.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Drop it, Chalupa.
ha ha.
ooh! a laugh riot! ha HA!
a horse walked into a bar. the bartender asks, 'hey buddy. what's
with the long face?'
bazing!
a pastor, nun, and rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender asks them,
"what is this? Some kind of joke?"
KELLY RIPPA!
ahem. what are we talking about, again?
*exeunt (!) through several doors*
|1.19.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I love how people blame the welfare state for blacks having too many children, while simultaneously blaming the welfare state for low fertility rates in Europe.
|1.19.08 @ 5:50PM|#
For a little historical clarity (read religious propaganda), the
Catholics left the one true church, which is the Orthodox Church
(specifically the Greek Orthodox Church.)
Regards,
TDL
Fluffy|1.19.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Hey there, TDL - A couple of early Byzantine emperors recognized
papal supremacy, and then the metropolitans tried to take it
back.
The Popes said, "No backsies" and I kind of have to back them on
that.
|1.19.08 @ 6:11PM|#
I have yet to meet a Mormon Democrat.
Ayn Randian, you may want to reword that to "I have yet to meet
someone who identified themselves as both Mormon and a Democrat."
Not everyone is forthcoming about their religious or political
beliefs to casual acquaintances.
Reminds me of when we first moved to San Francisco, and were
driving around the Castro District, sightseeing, and my wife said,
"We've been driving around for about an hour now and I haven't seen
a single gay."
|1.19.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Look, guys--having a presidential candidate babble on about
the gold standard and getting rid of the FED and the IRS doesn't
make him sound intelligent. It just makes him sound
nuts.
grumpy "realist" -- Hearing a politician talk about getting rid of
the IRS, and naming several large constitutional federal agencies
he'd get rid of to make up for the lost revenue, makes him sound
like the only grounded and ethical person in the room to me.
Obviously, this "nuts" thing you talk about is a matter of
political philosophy, not some objective reality that all sane
people agree upon.
|1.19.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Prolefeed, you're Mormon right? How much more likely are Mormons likely to vote for a candidate show shares their faith?
|1.19.08 @ 6:20PM|#
In all seriousness, I think if Ron Paul ran with an
explicitly "racist" (by leftist media standards) campaign he'd get
10% of the vote. He wouldn't win, but would beat the hell out of
the libertarian candidate
Ummm, Paul got 10% in Iowa, 8% in New Hampshire, 6% in Michigan,
and somewhere in the teens in Nevada. Which looks quite a lot like
an average of 10%, at least so far.
BakedPenguin|1.19.08 @ 6:21PM|#
How much more likely are Mormons likely to vote for a candidate [who] shares their faith?
I'd say 95%, if tonight is any indication...
freedom is not fungible|1.19.08 @ 6:29PM|#
The Arizona Republican results we're watching? A straw poll that counts for nada in the delegate column.
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 6:29PM|#
AynRandian,
66% of black children are born out of wedlock. Its a well known
statistic.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/CDA01-04.cfm
Here's a stat showing that blacks are 37% of welfare recipiants,
despite being only 12% of the population. Might be a little dated,
but I don't think much has changed. It's pretty much without
question that the majority of blacks owe their livlihood to the
state, welfare is only the most obvious of support we give them.
Race is a bigger predictor of poverty and crime than anything else
and that 50% of our income that goes to the state and federal
government is going somewhere.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
I remember reading somewhere that blacks are the only group that is
overall a net loss for our economy, I'll have to give you the link
some other time.
Here's somebody arguing that the fact that the majority of welfare
recipiants are white by one percent is an argument for black
resposibility. I've had the displeasure of debating with blacks,
and this is just another example of why per capita arguments to
them might as well be quantum mechanics.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070722211852AANKrLA
Everybody have a great MLK day!
|1.19.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Gender is a big predictor of crime also Chalupa. I guess males should be sterilized.
|1.19.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Gender is a big predictor of crime also Chalupa. I guess
males should be sterilized.
And nobody disagree about males proclivity for violence. Every
culture in human history, we doofuses with the Y chromosome are the
violent criminals.
|1.19.08 @ 6:39PM|#
And nobody disagree about males proclivity for violence. Every culture in human history, we doofuses with the Y chromosome are the violent criminals.
Yet, no one except far-out extremist feminists would say we are
"parasites".
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Two points:
A) A society without blacks is possible, a one without men is
not.
B) White men, at least, have more than made up for it by giving the
world almost every invention that makes the modern world
possible.
|1.19.08 @ 6:44PM|#
A) A society without blacks is possible, a one without men is not.
With modern technology, it just may be possible.
|1.19.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Prolefeed, you're Mormon right? How much more likely are
Mormons likely to vote for a candidate show shares their
faith?
Hard to answer this question, because it's kinda ambiguously
phrased. By "shares their faith", do you mean "is listed as a
member of the Mormon church, even if they're totally inactive and
drink and smoke and don't go to church"? Or, "they go to church
most Sundays" (about 50% of the listed membership)? Or "they hold a
current Temple Recommend" (only about 20% of the listed
membership)?
If you rephrase the question as, "On a ballot where there is one
Mormon candidate and one or more non-Mormon candidates, which
percentage of people listed as Mormons in Church membership rolls
would invariably vote for the Mormon candidate simply because the
press identified them as Mormon", my thoroughly unscientific,
gut-level guess would be no more than 10%, and quite possibly low
single digits. Why? First of all, a lot of the 50% MINOs (Mormons
In Name Only) are pretty thoroughly disaffected with the Church,
but haven't bothered to strongly insist on having their name
expunged from the membership rolls, which is what it takes to get
delisted. So you're down to 50% right there. Second, the 20% of
Mormons who hold a Temple Recommend would insist on the candidate
fairly strictly adhering to the worthiness standards, and would not
vote for someone who is one of "those Mormons". Down to 30%. Then
you throw in the people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat, or a
non-white, or who doesn't hold socially conservative views on
marriage, gays, etc., and you're weeding out a lot more people.
|1.19.08 @ 6:46PM|#
But, yeah, Fluffy, we're a bunch of Morbots who are TOTALLY single-issue voters on the subject of church membership. Keep on saying that. ;)
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 6:48PM|#
White men, at least, have more than made up for it by giving
the world almost every invention that makes the modern world
possible.
Yeah, like the traffic light, peanut butter, the gas mask, the
algorithm, algebra, smallpox inoculation, rock and roll, and
Christianity.
Oh, wait, none of those things were invented by honkey
whitebread.
Oops.
|1.19.08 @ 6:50PM|#
I find it interesting that protestants are voting for Romney.
Most Protestants I know AREN'T voting for Romney because he's
Mormon.
I'm Baptist and Ron's getting my vote, but it has nothing to do
with mine or his religion. Just because you're a Christian doesn't
mean you can run a country. I think we've seen that in the past 8
years...unfortunately, a lot of Baptists are falling for Huckabee's
Hullabaloo since he's an ex preacher.
|1.19.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Oh, wait, none of those things were invented by honkey
whitebread.
Don't forget the iron plow and horseback riding, without which the
world as we know it is impossible.
|1.19.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Here's a stat showing that blacks are 37% of welfare
recipiants,...It's pretty much without question that the majority
of blacks owe their livlihood to the state
It's 100% fact that you FAIL, both in spelling and logic.
So, 37% = a majority now, does it?
I remember reading somewhere that blacks are the only group
that is overall a net loss for our economy, I'll have to give you
the link some other time.
How convenient. This goes in the category of "Making Racist Shit
Up".
A society without blacks is possible, a one without men is
not.
One hesitates to ask, but how is it possible, Chalupa?
Also, yes, a society without men is possible; I'll file this one
under "Scientific Ignorance Proves the Chalupa is Pretty Fucking
Stupid".
BakedPenguin|1.19.08 @ 6:57PM|#
I'd say rock'n'roll is half white (OMG!!!! Miscegenation!) Don't forget paper & gunpowder.
|1.19.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Black people invented peanut butter?! No way!
That's it, I'm donating $500 to Obama!
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 7:05PM|#
It's 100% fact that you FAIL, both in spelling and
logic.
So, 37% = a majority now, does it?
God you're a moron.
It is an obvious to anybody with half a brain that if
A) We pay a good portion of our income to the federal
government
B) Taxation is "progressive"
C) Government spends its money on the poorest among us
D) One group of people is overwhelmingly poorer than any other
group, commits the most crime and receives the most government
assistance
That
E) The group of people mentioned in point D are a net loss for the
society
Ali|1.19.08 @ 7:05PM|#
So, SC is coming up next, is it time to quit the short lived 2nd
place win in NV?
In SC, I am predicting 5th. Duh!?
|1.19.08 @ 7:06PM|#
Chalupa, the government spends most of its money on subsidies to the military-industrial complex and subsidies to old people (Social Security/Medciare, which benefits whites more than blacks). Social welfare to poor people is a TINY percentage of the federal budget. So wheres the anger directed at Social Security?
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 7:07PM|#
Note, my friends, that I said "most" inventions were given to the world by white men. Arabs and East Asians have contributed too, while partisans of blacks are reduced to wondering what kind of world we'd have without peanut butter.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 7:08PM|#
I was trying to avoid all the inventions from the Chinese
empire, as that list is so embarrassingly long (embarrassing for
Grand Chalupa's point) that would have hardly seemed fair. That,
and most of those things were invented *again* in the west rather
than imported by trade from the East.
Somehow, smallpox inoculation still crept into the list.
Um, Elemenope....no one "invented" Christianity.
True, it was more of an evolutionary process (baa-zing!).
However most of that was going on in the Levant, and North Africa,
and later in the Eastern empire; not exactly hillbilly
honkeytown.
Nobody (who has ever read a book) seriously believes that
Christianity sprung fully-formed from Jesus' head...and even if it
did, the likelihood that Jesus was white is vanishingly slim.
|1.19.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Also, Chalupa, sorry for you that I'm entirely too lazy to cut
and paste your links.
Maybe your "Racially Superior" ass should learn how to use
HTML.
As in:
It would appear that Chalupa has a black guy to thank for his
ability to post racist bullshit over a phone line.
God you're a moron.
wait, what? That can't be, Chalupa...I'm White McMayonnaise for
Christ's sake.
Government spends its money on the poorest among us
Whoops. More FAIL. What's the average income level for the Social
Security Crowd (and Medicare Part D) crowd?
And, of course, the largest recipient as of late is KBR and Defense
Contractors.
Let's not forget the wealthy farmers from the ag subsidies.
Jackass.
Ran Paul fan|1.19.08 @ 7:11PM|#
How convenient. This goes in the category of "Making Racist
Shit Up".
Um, the fact that blacks are a net loss is clear to anybody whose
bothered to check out the stats.
Who needs to do their homework when you got PC ideology?
Argo|1.19.08 @ 7:11PM|#
"Note, my friends, that I said "most" inventions were given to
the world by white men."
Actually, you said "almost every." You make your lies that much
more glaring when you put quotes around them.
|1.19.08 @ 7:11PM|#
As a nonpracticing Catholic, I would like to propose that we
drop the religion topic and all get drunk.
Amen!
|1.19.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Nobody (who has ever read a book) seriously believes that Christianity sprung fully-formed from Jesus' head...and even if it did, the likelihood that Jesus was white is vanishingly slim.
Jesus probably looked more like Osama bin Laden than the picture of
him we are given in Sunday School.
Chalupa, geographically isolate Europe from the west of the world
through a big fucking desert (Africa) or two large oceans (Native
Americans) and at best they'd get to the level of the Aztecs and
Incas. At worst, they'd be in the stone age (as many white races
discovered by the Portuguese and Spanish in various Atlantic
islands were in the 1400s).
|1.19.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Meshumed,
Can you be more specific? What error do you believe I have
made?
Google for "Scientology TR-L" for information about Scientology's
"how to lie" course.
-jcr
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Grand Chalupa --
I guess you never got the memo...Africans (or people of immediate
African descent) invented iron smelting. And bug repellent. And the
pacemaker. The concept of the blood bank. The elevator. Open heart
surgery.
And Jazz.
Random Racist|1.19.08 @ 7:16PM|#
I tried to stay out of this, but these claims of black
inventions need to be answered.
Most of them are about as true as the Afro centric history
lies.
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/
|1.19.08 @ 7:18PM|#
These arguments never break out in the comment threads of
liberal blogs.
Jes' sayin'.
|1.19.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Ah, but blacks also gave us The Cosby Show, Webster, Diff'rent Strokes, A Different World, The Jeffersons, Sanford & Son, and many other atrocities.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 7:19PM|#
If we didn't have peanut butter, Grand Chalupa's mom would be pretty lonely at night and her dog would go to bed hungry.
|1.19.08 @ 7:19PM|#
These arguments never break out in the comment threads of liberal blogs.
Because if you posted Chalupa's stuff on a liberal blog, he'd be
summarily IP perma-banned.
|1.19.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Race is a bigger predictor of poverty and crime than
anything else
Gun owners commit over 99% of gun crimes.
Statistics are fun!
|1.19.08 @ 7:20PM|#
I mean, the responsibility for Urkel alone would be enough to condemn an entire race.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 7:21PM|#
These arguments never break out in the comment threads of
liberal blogs.
Jes' sayin'.
Because leeeeberals are boooooring. And to think, they used to be
the "big tent" that housed poor people and racists (and even poor
racists!) and yet now can barely scrape together a coalition of
declining labor and soccer mommas.
|1.19.08 @ 7:22PM|#
the fact that blacks are a net loss is clear to anybody
whose bothered to check out the stats.
Oh dear. Maybe you missed the day in Logic 101 that taught that the
onus of proof is on the one asserting a premise.
I don't have to prove anything, asshole, because I'm not
asserting the premise that "Blacks are a net loss to
society."
And it's bullshit to assert something so ridiculous on its face and
then scream "well, just check the facts I refuse to provide!"
Let's say all that's true anyway: so what the fuck is your point?
What do you want to do about that?
|1.19.08 @ 7:22PM|#
In case it wasn't clear, I posted that to show how easy it is to
use misleading statistics to make whatever point you want.
Someone who is hostile to gun owners, for example, might put
forward the above stat.
And someone who is hostile to racial and ethnic minorities...would
probably think it was incredibly witty to name himself after a Taco
Bell menu item.
|1.19.08 @ 7:22PM|#
Let's say all that's true anyway: so what the fuck is your point? What do you want to do about that?
Have the state sterilize blacks and ban non-whites in 5, 4, 3,
2.....
|1.19.08 @ 7:23PM|#
Mormons aren't voting for Romney BECAUSE he is a Mormon, but
they do likely feel greater assurance about what his beliefs are
than those who have been fed a steady diet of anti-Mormon hate
speech every week in Sunday School since the time they were
4.
Carol, believe it or not, that's not what happens in Sunday School.
Most of the time in Sunday School is spent talking about Jesus. As
for Mormons, it's as a certain character in a certain novel would
say: "But I don't think of you."
Most people don't get anti-Mormonism from Sunday School. They get
it from hanging around Mormons and seeing what Mormons are like.
Which is why the election of Mitt Romney could be the end of the
religion.
I\'ll be here all week|1.19.08 @ 7:25PM|#
I haven't seen a single gay,
I never hope to see one
Who'd rather wed, and when Paul's Prez
That choice will be a free one.
|1.19.08 @ 7:25PM|#
these claims of black inventions need to be
answered.
No, they don't, because race doesn't matter, you
mouth-breather.
These arguments never break out in the comment threads of
liberal blogs.
Yeah, I'm starting to wonder what it is about libertarian politics
that brings out the dredges.
Although, joe, you do have Democratic Underground to answer for. I
remember some pretty terrible shit being written over there when
Reagan died.
|1.19.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Ayn_Rand, liberal and conservative blogs ban anybody they find too annoying. They just aren't as open as libertarian blogs. I attribute it to that more than anything.
Grand Chalupa|1.19.08 @ 7:26PM|#
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/
Jesus Christ! Blacks can't even claim peanut butter! Wikipedia
backs this up...
Peanut butter has been invented and reinvented over the
centuries. Peanuts originated in South America, and Incas were
known to have used peanuts to make a type of paste.[3]
According Andrew F. Smith's book, Peanuts: The Illustrious History
of the Goober Pea [University of Illinois Press, 2002] the earliest
candidate for the invention of peanut butter was Rose Davis who
lived in Alligerville, New York, in the 1840s. According to New
York historian Eleanor Rosakranse, writes Smith, "Rose Davis's son,
Ross, traveled to Cuba, where he saw women grind peanuts and smear
the paste on bread. Ross told his mother about the practice, and
she employed the peanut paste for making sandwiches."
I'll let the rest of you do your own research on gas masks and
blood banks.
I've already spent way too much time on here today, I'm going out
on top! Later, suckers!
Fluffy|1.19.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Society can't experience a loss. Benefit and harm are categories
that apply only to individuals.
I haven't experienced any loss at all due to blacks.
White legislators, on the other hand? Yeah, they've dealt me some
losses.
Argo|1.19.08 @ 7:32PM|#
"I'm going out on top!"
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Self-Delusion Man!!!
|1.19.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Although, joe, you do have Democratic Underground to answer
for.
Never heard of 'em. It's a parody site. They're not liberals.
And...uh...hey, that Grand Chalupa is an a*hole, huh guys?
Lew Rockwell|1.19.08 @ 7:34PM|#
I for one would like to welcome Grand Chalupa to the libertarian movement.
|1.19.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Cesar - I know we've been having this discussion over at
grylliade, but I'm going to put it out here:
Libertarianism does not mean we have to put up with racist, vile
shit. It means that the State has to put up with
it.
That is, we don't have to personally act particularly
libertarian, because libertarianism is a political philosophy, and
if libertarianism wants to be taken seriously, we really don't need
outsiders showing up to reason (a preeminent
libertarian publication) and seeing the horrendous shit that people
sometimes post here.
Politics is partly about image, like it or not, but also, racism is
inherently unlibertarian and it's socially and (to me) personally
disgusting to boot.
If reason seriously wants libertarianism to go
mainstream, the ban-hammer needs to come out a little more
often.
If this were my property (which it isn't and I recognize that;
these are just recommendations), nobody would get away with shit
like "Blacks are a Net Loss to Society". Where's the individualism
in that? What benefit do we gain from keeping losers like Chalupa
and TLB around, anyway?
It's tiresome to not be able to have a decent discussion without
telling people that racism is wrong, advocating cop-killing is
wrong etc. etc.
|1.19.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Society can't experience a loss. Benefit and harm are
categories that apply only to individuals.
Amen!
joe - I almost sensed that response coming from you :-D.
|1.19.08 @ 7:38PM|#
AR-
I wasn't endorsing the banning policy on H&R, merely explaining
it. I'd like to see the racists and more annoying trolls banned as
well.
But if you go too far with that you end up banning people who
merely have a different view. I'd like to see Chalupa and
LoneWhackoff banned, for example, but not joe or John.
VM|1.19.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Politics is partly about image, like it or not, but also, racism is inherently unlibertarian and it's socially and (to me) personally disgusting to boot.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|1.19.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Um, the fact that blacks are a net loss is clear to anybody
whose bothered to check out the stats.
Some friendly advice. It's common courtesy when asserting something
("the stats") to post a link or a reference. Lacking those,
intelligent folks simply ignore you.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 7:43PM|#
I don't know, Ayn_Randian...many brands of Libertarianism lean
heavily on the "open market" model of social progress, i.e. the
"marketplace of ideas".
Somehow, slapping Grand Chalupa with a list of non-White inventions
seems more productive than simply pulling out the ban-hammer.
|1.19.08 @ 7:45PM|#
I think an H&R Code of Conduct would help. One that would relate to behavior, not ideology. Ex., banning people like TLB who spam constantly by self-linking to their site, but don't contribute anything else.
Do I have to click for you?|1.19.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Elemenope - Click, Man, click! on Not a racist, just stirring the pot | January 19, 2008, 7:30pm!
Joe Allen|1.19.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Get on the Paul Train!
takes a while to get rollin,' but then it's unstoppable!
|1.19.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Random Racist -
I went to the pathetic link you provided. Somebody put HTML up on a
website. What nonsense. You now have to go back to 6th grade and
learn about using reputable source material in an argument.
Random Racist|1.19.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Somehow, slapping Grand Chalupa with a list of non-White
inventions seems more productive than simply pulling out the
ban-hammer.
Yes, who needs to ban people when you have PC lies?
Here's the link again...
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/
|1.19.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Random Asshat-
I could link to Stormfront or Mein Kampf to "prove" Jews are out to
secretly conquer the world.
|1.19.08 @ 7:56PM|#
I'd like to see Chalupa and LoneWhackoff banned, for
example, but not joe or John.
Agreed, of course!
As in all things, the banning of a poster will require a measure of
human judgment and errors could be made, but I trust that the
owners of this site are smart enough to know the difference between
the babies and the bathwater.
But, honestly, I've been posting here for a long, long time, and I
love this community of ours; I'm just growing really weary of
having so many topics devolve into having to fend off the "YAY DEAD
COPS"-guys and the "THE BLACKS ARE TEH SOCIAL
PARASITES"-guys.
It really drags the level of discourse down. Some culling of
H&R Commenters is in order.
VM - thanks for the props, brotha!
Elemenope - I dig, man, I really do. But we really don't have a
"marketplace" here; I can't "vote with my dollars" to let the
Market in Shit Sandwiches these guys are peddling go belly-up like
it deserves to.
Think about it this way: Intelligent posters increase the level of
dialogue, which attracts intelligent-yet-not-libertarian folkken to
Hit and Run, which increases mag sales and ad clicks.
Whereas racist postings turn people off...who wants to wrestle with
pigs?
We have to be a little more discerning about who gets to comment
here; I'm not advocating out-and-out Libertarian Purity, but a
little housecleaning to get rid of the crap is in order
|1.19.08 @ 7:56PM|#
I did what was suggested upthread and googled TR-L. This is what
I found on TOPIX...interesting idea:
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can
write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you
can control anybody is to lie to them. When you find an individual
is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control
you. One way or another this individual is trying to control you.
That is the mechanism of control. This individual is lying to you
because he is trying to control you - because if they give you
enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so
that they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the
part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that
human being is lying to you. Not "is going to", but "is" lying to
you.
"Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person
who is trying to control you is lying to you. He's got to tell you
lies in order to continue control, because the second you start
telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he
gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you cant control somebody
without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that very often
Command has this as its greatest weakness. It will try to control
instead of leading. The next thing you know, it is lying to the
[illegible]. Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of
a sudden the thing blows up. Well, religion has done
this.[Following sentence is underlined] Organised religion tries to
control, so therefore must be lying.[end underline] After a while
it figures out (even itself) that it is lying, and then it starts
down tone scale further and further, and all of a sudden people get
down along this spring-like bottom (heresy) and say, "Are we going
into apathy and die, or are we going to revolt?" and they revolt,
because you can only lie to people so long. Unfortunately there is
always a new cycle of lying."
-L. Ron Hubbard
Technique 88
|1.19.08 @ 7:59PM|#
If reason seriously wants libertarianism to go mainstream,
the ban-hammer needs to come out a little more often.
If this were my property (which it isn't and I recognize that;
these are just recommendations), nobody would get away with shit
like "Blacks are a Net Loss to Society". Where's the individualism
in that? What benefit do we gain from keeping losers like Chalupa
and TLB around, anyway?
Well, first off, the ban-hammer would take out people who use
collectivist phrases such as "What benefit do WE gain ..." ;)
To answer your ending question:
1) Reason gets more ad revenue from all the people arguing with
such folks (I think joe alone is worth half Reason's ad revenue)
;)
2) People get to practice free speech, which a few of us value
...
3) We get different POVs in vigorous debates, rather than a
steadily deteriorating echo-chamber as more and more dissenting
viewpoints get voted off the island until we wind up with a bizarre
parody of RedState.com.
4) And every now and then, the people considered as whackjobs
actually convert to a more libertarian POV on some issue(s), or
are, you know, right about something.
Random Racist|1.19.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Double check on Wikipedia. I did a random sample and found the website to be accurate. Granted, I don't have time to check it all out but I did more than you who've decided your opinion before hand.
|1.19.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Random Racist,
Read the post right above your last. Elementary school stuff,
you've got there. Who is Ian Taggert? What are his credentials? Who
are what is he affiliated with? Why does he have such a boring and
crappy website? These are questions an intelligent person would ask
before using his site as evidence.
Go back to bed. The adults are talking.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 8:01PM|#
I dig, man, I really do. But we really don't have a
"marketplace" here; I can't "vote with my dollars" to let the
Market in Shit Sandwiches these guys are peddling go belly-up like
it deserves to.
I agree, because there is no leveraged value. But...what about a
Slashdot style moderation system? Mod points can be a
store of value and can be leveraged for and against individual
posts, and a karma system makes those accrue for or against an
individual. I know the /. system isn't perfect, but it seems to do
a fairly decent job nearly all the time.
|1.19.08 @ 8:05PM|#
But if you go too far with that you end up banning people
who merely have a different view. I'd like to see Chalupa and
LoneWhackoff banned, for example, but not joe or John.
Disagree. Chalupa and LoneWhackoff can be way annoying, but so can
joe. And I know I've pissed off people. Pretty much everyone but
Ali has had their moments, and even Ali is starting to get on my
nerves with his relentless courtesy and earnest good cheer (Ali --
I keed, I keed!).
Kick off blatant, unrepentant spammers, people who issue death
threats that appear to be real -- really bad stuff like that.
Everything else should be allowed. Freedom, baby!
|1.19.08 @ 8:08PM|#
prolefeed:
Those are all good points, but here's my take on each one:
1 - I know this is going to sound strange coming from me, but it
doesn't always have to be about money. Also, there's something to
be said for preserving your brand from tarnish: does Rolls-Royce
openly market to lower-class tastes? Of course not! I'd just ask
that Reason up the discourse by ridding us of lowbrow
pseudo-intellectualism just a little.
2 - Protecting the right to free speech is the job of the
government. Chalupa wouldn't even make it into my house if I were
having a party, and I doubt he'd make into yours, either, and
that's for two reasons: A. I find racism and racists personally
disgusting and B. I don't want to be associated with racists. Why
should reason let them into THEIR house?
3 - I'm not advocating banning people who fail the mythical
Libertarian Purity Test, just get rid of the dregs!
4 - That could be true, but as a concrete example, do you honestly
feel that LoneWhacko has contributed a goddamn thing to this the
entire time he's been here? He's like some wannabe Matt Drudge for
VDare. He participates in no discussion: NONE. He has no valid
points or anything worth considering AT ALL. And I really don't
feel like rehashing with Chalupa everytime he shows up why racism
is a bad thing...this is 2008 for Christ's
sake.
|1.19.08 @ 8:11PM|#
He's like some wannabe Matt Drudge for VDare.
Thats pretty damn funny.
Ok, of the following people, who would be banned if you had the
power AR, and who would stay?
-LoneWacko
-Chalupa
-Lemur
-Guy Montag
-MCW
-Dan T.
-Dave W.
-URKOBOLD
|1.19.08 @ 8:14PM|#
Kick off blatant, unrepentant spammers, people who issue
death threats that appear to be real -- really bad stuff like that.
Everything else should be allowed. Freedom, baby!
Well...maybe.
All I'm saying is, I (and Ali, Ken Shultz and others) hang out at
another kind of breakaway site of old-timey posters who
want to try to have semi-intelligent debates but
are tired of the serious lack of a decent signal/noise ratio.
The hidden cost of this "say what you want over here!" stuff is
that eventually, posters like me and you are going to give up. And
that's not a personality flaw on our parts; we just rehashing the
same stupid shit over and over again, and the discussion can never
move forward on anything because the threads get bogged down in
Paulbots, racialists and others.
LMNOP - I thought of the same thing, and an Objectivist website on
which I post gives out "Atlas Points" (natch) whereby the user with
more points has greater weight than the ones with less of them.
|1.19.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Cesar - good God, man...you actually put the URKOBOLD up
there!??!
*looks around nervously, and says in a loud voice:
"NO CESAR...THE URKOLBOLD HAS GREAT STUFF TO SAY...AH HEH...AND YES
I LIKE MY TAINT JUST THE WAY IT IS, THANKS SO MUCH!"
Ok, but seriously...
Lonewhacko, Chalupa and MCW go.
I don't like Flemur much and he's on the fence for me, but IIRC, he
made a relevant point sometimes.
Eric Dondero|1.19.08 @ 8:20PM|#
I think the only people who should be banned are those who post
under Anonymous, under other people's names, or use ridiculous
on-line names like initials instead of their full names.
Kudos to people like Franklin Harris, Jake Boner, John Randolph and
others here who use their real names. Thank you guys.
And a big 'F' You to those of you who don't use your name.
|1.19.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Hey Dondero, you never answered my question before. How can one be Marxist--an ideology that require materialistic atheism--and a Muslim at the same time?
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Jeez, Eric...I just don't feel like dangling my name and e-mail
address out in the cesspool. That would be kind of like trolling
for an STD.
Internet anonymity has a decent and respectable history and usage.
Far more important is that a person post under one name
*consistently*, such that particular ideas and comments can be
associated with one poster, who is understood to be either
consistently contributory (or consistently an asshat, as the case
may be), facilitating social dynamics.
|1.19.08 @ 8:32PM|#
"...an Objectivist website on which I post gives out "Atlas
Points" (natch) whereby the user with more points has greater
weight than the ones with less of them."
I'm curious how that works, Ayn Randian. How are the points given
out (who decides and on what criteria), and what does it mean to
have greater weight? What can you do with more points?
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Kudos to people like Franklin Harris, Jake
Boner, John Randolph and others here who use their
real names.
heh
heh
heh
|1.19.08 @ 8:34PM|#
And a big 'F' You to those of you who don't use your
name.
Yeah, "F" those guys who published The Federalist Papers
under pseudonyms! DONDEROOOO!!! stood out in the cold with
clipboards; what did "Publius" ever do for freedom anyway?
Also, it's really rich that Dondero is talking about posting under
a "real name": didn't you used to go by Rittberg, little
buddy?
Also, Eric, feel free to take an extra two seconds and hover that
little cursor-thingy over my online handle. I have like, one of the
rarer names on Planet Earth, so I am not all that anonymous,
anywho.
Bozo the Statistician|1.19.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Elemenope - with exceptions, please, for humorously improbable handles.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 8:36PM|#
1) I am not going to use my real name on the internet,
ever.
2-10) see 1
Fuck that shit, especially considering how well-indexed this page
is in Google
|1.19.08 @ 8:42PM|#
1) Reason gets more ad revenue from all the people arguing with
such folks (I think joe alone is worth half Reason's ad revenue)
;)
I was wondering why they put up with me. Gotta be an angle.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Also slashdot style moderation system blows as does digg, they
both encourage groupthink and regurgitated memes.
The Hit&Run comments are fine, toughen up and stop whining.
|1.19.08 @ 8:45PM|#
I'm curious how that works, Ayn Randian. How are the points
given out (who decides and on what criteria), and what does it mean
to have greater weight? What can you do with more
points?
I'll explain a little and then I'll provide the link:
You're under moderation until other posters "Sanction" your posts
or article submissions a certain number of times. At that point,
you receive a little Atlas Statue.
When you reach another certain level of points, you get another
little statue, and now every "Sanction" you give out gives someone
two points instead of one.
This way, you weed out the trolls and the spambots because they
can't immediately post; they're under moderation until enough of
the community signals that their writing is good enough. Also, it
grants a little more "power" to the older, more respected users who
might see worth in newer stuff.
Here's the link. I hope
that my clumsy explanation didn't confuse things.
The Hit&Run comments are fine, toughen up and stop
whining.
Hm. Consumer feedback is "whining" now. I hope for your sake you've
never filled out a little "Comment Card" in your life, or "whined"
to a company about the poor service.
|1.19.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Also slashdot style moderation system blows as does digg,
they both encourage groupthink and regurgitated memes.
Aren't groups like digg, reddit and others the one that propelled
Ron Paul into the Internet spotlight?
Granted, I'm not a Paul fan as of late, but I can't say that's a
bad thing.
Elemenope|1.19.08 @ 8:49PM|#
bingo --
All of discourse is pretty much just re-digested and regurgitated
memes.
Beyond that pedantic point however, I've found that there are very
few opinion monocultures on /. that are actually able to mod their
opponents into oblivion. Sure, libertarians, socialists,
technopolists, and Linux users are pretty numerous, but there's
plenty of windows/apple/democrat-bot/republican-bot postage that
gets a 5:Insightful or 5:Interesting for me to not worry.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Here's my consumer feedback:
Moderation systems suck because you will inevitably have an
entrenched group of regulars that will suppress new ideas and
discussions outside of what they deem appropriate. This happens in
any moderation system, even if its not intended.
H&R is great because there is a very low barrier to entry, so
yes there are shitheads but there are also new things talked about
all the time.
And your little Atlas system with sanctioning is a load of
shit.
*drops "Consumer Card" in comment box*
|1.19.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Meshumed,
I googled your name, and yep, you're goyisch.
Judaism is a monotheistic religion. You might want to get that
little detail correct before pretending to be a Jew.
-jcr
GILMORE|1.19.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Cesar | January 19, 2008, 8:11pm | #
Ok, of the following people, who would be banned if you had the
power, and who would stay?
-LoneWacko
-Chalupa
-Lemur
-Guy Montag
-MCW
-Dan T.
-Dave W.
Easy
Lonewacko, Lonewacko, Lonewacko, Lonewacko, Lonewacko, Lonewacko,
and Lonewacko would be banned, and the others simply made fun of by
the rest here.
Oh, and URKOBOLD would be recognized as a living god, and you'd all
be forced to swear loyalty to his magical taint
|1.19.08 @ 8:56PM|#
And your little Atlas system with sanctioning is a load of
shit.
It's not mine. It's not what I advocated for
reason, and you don't have to deal with it, so
what's with the temper-tantrum?
Moderation systems suck because you will inevitably have an
entrenched group of regulars that will suppress new ideas and
discussions outside of what they deem appropriate.
For one, that's a great little piece of conjecture you threw up
there. It's "inevitable", is it? Sounds like an opinion.
Secondly, there are certain things that are
appropriate...advocating cop-killing and racism
are not among these topics.
Third, like I said, it's about signal-to-noise ratio. Just because
there's a lot of post doesn't mean any headway is being made on
anything at all. The cut-and-paste Paulbotisms of the past few days
are example A.
GILMORE|1.19.08 @ 8:57PM|#
I find it strange that Ayn Randian mentioned 'taint' as well as i. I had not read that reply when i made my comment. I think lord URKOBOLD might control my thoughts remotely. And thank god for that!
|1.19.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Yes, it is GOOD when the URKOBOLD does that, and we are all very glad when he takes time out from his widely-read libertarian culture site to bestow such blessings on us.
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 9:04PM|#
AR: Of course, by "signal-to-noise ratio" you really mean "things that I want to read". Let's not kid ourselves, what you want to achieve is a way to suppress conversations that you, personally, find intolerable.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 9:04PM|#
Are you the Steve Druckenmiller that was a QB at Va Tech? Came in after Maurice D'shazo (sp?) and played for Chicago for a couple a years?
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Is is just me, or are lapsed catholics like me something like 90% of the people here?
|1.19.08 @ 9:06PM|#
The lead thread is Prime Example A: 95 comments so far, most of
them a small cadre of us arguing with another small group of
fuckers that saying "DEATH UNTO THE PIGS AND THEIR LACKEYS" is
disgusting, inappropriate and counterproductive.
Seriously...95 comments. I get a little tired of digging through
the rough looking for diamonds sometimes. Call me old-fashioned, I
guess.
|1.19.08 @ 9:11PM|#
Kohole - that was Jim Druckenmiller! Or, as we refer to him
'round the dinner table "Cousin Jim whom we've never met".
what you want to achieve is a way to suppress conversations
that you, personally, find intolerable.
Yeah, OK, dude. SUPPRESSION! INTOLERANCE! You can spit that crap
all day long.
Forgive me if I'm intolerant of stuff like "Black people are
parasites and a social drain" and "Fucking cops and their
supporters need to be shot".
There's something to be said for throwing people off of your
property who say and do stupid shit.
Is is just me, or are lapsed catholics like me something like
90% of the people here?
Yeah, that is kind of strange. I'm in that crew as well...
|1.19.08 @ 9:13PM|#
"And a big 'F' You to those of you who don't use your
name."
Does that include you, Rittberg?
-jcr
libertreee|1.19.08 @ 9:14PM|#
My opponent was Hawaiian, in a hugely Polynesian town. Race does matter in how people vote, and it's not just the white folks.
I watched a news commentary show on Black Entertainment Television
the other day.
When asked who she would vote for, the woman
pundit said--
"Well, I would look at the candidates records and assess their
character.
Then I would vote for the black guy!"
All the BET pundits were asked that question, and they all said,
bottom line, they would "vote for the black guy."
It was done with humor, and it was a funny bit. But telling.
|1.19.08 @ 9:14PM|#
Thanks for the info, Ayn Randian. I was curious how much of it
was "top down" and how much was done by the community at large.
From your explanation and the link, it sounds like it's a mix,
leaning toward the latter.
I have a fairly laissez faire attitude toward who should be banned;
I would be very hesitant to go beyond 1) people who post under
someone else's hand with the intention of trying to mislead, as
opposed to obviously making a joke; and 2) people who regularly cut
and paste large pieces of text. Having said that, I can see your
point about re-hashing the same trollish arguments, and I've quit
posting for extended periods a couple times because I was sick of
wading through that stuff and I also didn't like how I was behaving
at times in response.
I started here about six years ago (I think; soon after H&R
started), and the two times I've left and come back I've made up a
new handle because it seemed nice to have a fresh start (and in one
case because my old, very generic handle had since been taken). I
occasionally post under some random made up name to do "one off"
responses to trollish posts, but I do what I consider substantive
posts under my "real" handle. Elemenope makes a convincing argument
for sticking with the same handle at all times in his 8:28 post.
That's probably pretty obvious to most folks here, especially folks
that spend a lot of time on various comment boards, but I hadn't
really thought about it beyond an intuitive sense that that's the
fairer way to do things (even if I ignore it occasionally to act
like a prick to some other prick; I should probably cut that
out...).
|1.19.08 @ 9:16PM|#
It was done with humor, and it was a funny bit. But
telling.
THIS JUST IN: American Blacks vote largely Democratic, and people
have a tendency to vote for people with whom the identify!
IN OTHER NEWS: Dog bites man.
libertreeee - what was so "telling" about that, anyway?
Bingo|1.19.08 @ 9:17PM|#
You are old-fashioned. Seriously, "disgusting, inappropriate and
counterproductive"? It's an anonymous comments section on a website
that frequently posts controversial opinions. Grow thicker skin and
learn to deal with the trolls.
(also lapsed Catholic here too hahaha)
|1.19.08 @ 9:20PM|#
I'm joe. Always been joe. You can find me right from the
beginning. Just being joe.
I get "go away, I hate you" reactions about 1/20 as often as I get
"I'm glad he's here" comments."
tarran|1.19.08 @ 9:23PM|#
AR: Of course, by "signal-to-noise ratio" you really mean "things that I want to read". Let's not kid ourselves, what you want to achieve is a way to suppress conversations that you, personally, find intolerable
I very much doubt that. A good moderation system would not permit a
signle individual to supress distasteful speech, but rather allow a
large segment of the user base to suppress distasteful
speech.
After all, I could supress distasteful speech quite easily by
setting up a competing website that linked to Reason's Hit and Run
and inviting people to post there while permitting only mebers
approved by me to post.
Nor is it really supression. The LoneWacko has a website where
chock full of his ideas. He's constantly trying to entice people to
go read his website. His attempts tend to be obnoxious and
offensive, not to mention pretty unsuccesful. If reason were to ban
him, he would still have his sopabox, so they wouldn't really be
supressing his speech. On the other hand they might make their
website more of a go to place; I don't read Reason as much as I
used ot since the comments are increasingly lame and annoying. In
fact, that's my complaint about alot of my favorite websites, I've
noticed a marked downward trend in the intelligence and maturity of
postings correlating roughly with Ron Paul's increasing
popularity.
Having a community which is pleasant for its participants
necessarily involves establishing standards of acceptable conduct
and enforcing them. Discussing methods to accomplish this end in no
way makes someone evil.
|1.19.08 @ 9:25PM|#
Eh, there has never been a black president, or even a black
candidate with a serious chance of winning. Ditto for women.
I can give people one bite at the apple. I mean, all by itself,
completely setting aside the individual merits of the candidates,
it would be a very good thing for our society to get over those
humps.
Smashing a glass ceiling is something different from only voting
for your demographic group.
Dave Woycechowsky|1.19.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Are they still trying to ban me? Who else is going show you guys the real libertarian light without the corporatarian noise?
SIV|1.19.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Also slashdot style moderation system blows as does digg,
they both encourage groupthink and regurgitated
memes.
Sounds very cosmotarian though.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 9:40PM|#
*deceased equine clubbing warning*
No, I can't. Because you didn't put up the graphic for Mormons.
Why don't you do that, so we can see if the African-American
breakdown looks more like Mormons, or more like white and Hispanic
voters?
Well, you had already put of the graphic for Mormons. :)
Protestants
H M M P T O R R R R
Catholics
M M P P T T O R R R
Other Christians
G H H M P P P T R R
Mormons
O R R R R R R R R R
So, Mormons are a significant outlier (90+% vs 30ish%) for Romney;
african americans are a
significant outlier (70ish percent vs 20ish percent) for
Obama.
Mormons were more strongly favorable for Romney than African
Americans were for favorable for Obama, yes.
But almost a fifty point differential in favor of the 'black
candidate' by black people is indicative of something, no? Esp,
when hispanics voted pretty much as whites did.
And maybe it's because I'm an urban east coast raised white guy
living in the far-far west, so I may be missing something, but I
don't see that much difference between Clinton and Obama on policy,
especially as it pertains to being a black person in the mountain
west.
|1.19.08 @ 9:45PM|#
Pretty much, where people get to know a candidate, Romney
loses.
In places where $ allows some to run a campaign where others would
rationally choose not to, Romney wins. And wins big. And has the
lead in delegates.
Campaign finance reform sounds like a better and better idea.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 9:45PM|#
ah that's right JIM Druckenmiller. Sorry. What ever happened to
that guy?
Hm, I see this Blue 'G' thingy on the firefox toolbar, wonder what
that's all about?
Joe Allen|1.19.08 @ 9:47PM|#
Ya gotta wonder, is "Libertarian Fred" gonna drop out now, or
what?
THEN who is Reason going to pretend is the most Libertarian
candidate?
|1.19.08 @ 9:48PM|#
I belogned to the Dem party once. At a county meeting there was
an election for county chair. There was a white guy who had about
20 years+ of experience organizing and giving service to the party.
And there was a black guy who had been in the party 5 years. There
were 22 black folks there and 24 white folks there. The vote was 24
to 22 for the white guy.
I never for a moment thought the AA vote would be in contention
between Hillary and Obama...
The Wine Commonsewer|1.19.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Cesar, Urkobold is about seven guys, many of whom you like.
What'd LeMur ever do to anyone? Dan T is harmless. I don't think
today's Chalupa is the real Chalupa anyway. I could be wrong. Even
Lone Whack Job doesn't show up here often enough to be a problem.
Montag is a Mopar guy, he should get a pass just for that alone.
Dan T? Yawn. Dave W, not sure about him, he must not have made much
of an impression.
I'll grant you that there are a few people around here that need
shooting. Or at least a good slap up side the head. But nobody I
really detest is on your list though.
It's okay though, I mostly ignore them. And there is the filter,
it's free to everyone.
Cereally man, banning folks is pretty serious stuff.
When me and The Kosmik Kid used to hang out at the old Libertarian
Club on Prodigy (I mean that was before Julian Sanchez was even
born) we kept pretty good order by shaming people into behaving. It
didn't always work and there were some real bad flameouts at times,
but for the most part if you simply asked somebody to behave it
worked pretty well.
I understand though and I've been to Grylliade (or however you say
that) and Tee's site, and Jennifer's, and I know why they opened
those joints. Better drinks, less gunfights, and bouncers to keep
out the riff-raff.
SIV|1.19.08 @ 9:52PM|#
"According Andrew F. Smith's book, Peanuts: The Illustrious
History of the Goober Pea [University of Illinois Press, 2002] the
earliest candidate for the invention of peanut butter was Rose
Davis who lived in Alligerville, New York, in the 1840s. According
to New York historian Eleanor Rosakranse, writes Smith, "Rose
Davis's son, Ross, traveled to Cuba, where he saw women grind
peanuts and smear the paste on bread. Ross told his mother about
the practice, and she employed the peanut paste for making
sandwiches."
In 1890, George A. Bayle Jr. began to sell ground peanut paste as a
vegetarian protein supplement for people with bad teeth.[4] In
1893, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg originated an early variety of peanut
butter at the Battle Creek Sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Kellogg, along with his brother, W.K. Kellogg, patented a process
for making peanut butter in 1895,[5] but it used steamed peanuts
rather than roasted peanuts. Contrary to popular
belief, the agronomist George Washington Carver did not actually
play a role in the creation of modern-day peanut
butter.[6][7]
I haven't been keeping up with any of this but from a quick skim of
the comments I thought I'd add that I neither know nor care the
race of Rose Davis.
Maria|1.19.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Eric Dondero said:
"Report in Ron Paul's local hometown Newspaper The Facts this
morning that he might go Independent, and also quotes him as saying
that it "probably would not be Libertarian Party."
Paul has been indicating for weeks now, if he didn't win the GOP
primaries and caucuses, this would be a possibility.
His poor 3rd place showing today, by some results as low as 11%,
may make this a reality."
-Pulling a Lieberman.
At least he wouldn't run with Lieberman.
I don't think Bloomie would want to run with him either....
It would be GREAT if they both got in and ran...maybe a lead-in to
some real type of representational parliamentary style
democracy...anything is possible in America, right?
|1.19.08 @ 9:56PM|#
TWC, I put URKOBOLD in there as a joke more than anything. Of
course URKOBOLD should never be banned, if banning him is even
possible for the uber-troll.
I'm not really into banning people unless their obvious spammers (I
think LoneWacko is borderline there), I was just trying to elicit
Ayn_Randians opinion on the matter. Seeing what kind of people he
was aiming the "Ban hammer" at.
I think moderation is dangerous, and can lead fast to echo-chambers
and circle jerks.
Plus I think once the Ron Paul stuff dies down there will be a
better signal-noise ration.
|1.19.08 @ 10:03PM|#
I'll also add that certain trolls (or at least the responses to them) are comedy gold.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 10:04PM|#
*warning further rendered equine glue processing*
Mormons compose about 7% of Nevada but had 25% of the turnout for
Republicans (per exit polls, negligible amounts of mormons voted in
the Democratic one); so motivation drove turnout to about 3.5 times
more than gen pop.
African Americans compose about 8% of the Nevada population but
were 15% of the vote (again, per polls, negligible amounts
participated in the republican race). so motivation drove turnout
to almost 2 times the general population.
|1.19.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Kolohe,
I don't understand what numbers you are using. Obama won 45% in
Nevada, not 20. Romney won 51%, not 30ish.
What don't I get?
|1.19.08 @ 10:11PM|#
At the Dem debate in Nevada the other day I just could not stand
HRC. At every opportunity she tried to attack the other candidates.
I thought Obama acted quite above it all...
For the longest time here I have been (reluctantly) thinking HRC
was the better choice for breaking the insane GOP lock on the
executive. I'm on record about hating her, but thought Obama was
unelectable....
Well, f*ck it. She's just too crappy for me to support for whatever
reason. I hope Obama beats her ass.
Eric Dondero|1.19.08 @ 10:15PM|#
The pundits are attributing McCain's victory in SC tonight as a
result of the success of the War in Iraq, and his steadfastness in
sticking with the Surge.
Clear sign that contrary to the rants of the Anti-War Libertarians
the War is somewhat popular.
|1.19.08 @ 10:16PM|#
joe
What has turned me is in line with what you've said Obama brings
people to the process that outweighs those who will simply not vote
for him. I looked at the Iowa data, and the number of
non-registered folks he brought in was decisive to me...
|1.19.08 @ 10:20PM|#
Doesn't URKOBOLD have superpowers that allow him to appear
anywhere? I don't think even garlic would work.
The major question is:
Does allowing people like Chalupa to post give off a "tolerance for
racists" atmosphere that will turn off people who might otherwise
be interested in learning more about libertarianism? Shrugging your
shoulders and saying: "yeah, what can we do? Free speech and all
that" may just convince people that libertarians are wussies who
can't police posters who abuse their hospitality.
We usually jump on Chalupa etc. pretty hard when he shows up
here--what the PITA is having to do it over and over again when he
keeps repeating the same damn material over and over again. From
that viewpoint, I would suggest banning the egregious abusers and
trollers. It's one thing to tolerate a sound truck with microphones
on it if it just goes past your house--it's another thing if the
drivers insist on continually circling the block.
|1.19.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Clear sign that contrary to the rants of the Anti-War
Libertarians the War is somewhat popular.
Uh, yeah, among Republicans.
And here's an even clearer sign about how popular it is among
Americans:
www.pollingreport.com/iraq
Please, Republicans, don't nominate a guy whose strong suit is his
unwavering support of the Iraq War. And also, I do not wish to be
thrown into a briar patch.
Dave Woycechowsky|1.19.08 @ 10:22PM|#
I wouldn't mind seeing URKIE getting banned. Might teach them sum manners. Did me, 4 shur.
|1.19.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I agree with realist.
I might (and have) disagreed with Chalupa strongly, but the guy
puts his view forward in an intelligent way and does not try to
sabotage the process. The marketplace of ideas does not work if we
shut off access to any fair player (which I think he is)
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 10:28PM|#
joe-
I'm using the exit poll data from the CNN website and
comparing
1) the votes for candidate X from group Y with
2) the votes for candidate X from not group Y.
The groups that make up "not group Y" have variation on their vote
for candidate X, but no more than about 10 points. Group Y,
however, is 50-60 points higher for candidate X.
A shortcoming with my data is that the website data has about
10-15% "other" in not group Y that have zero percent for all
candidates.
|1.19.08 @ 10:29PM|#
Weren't Tancredo and Hunter gung-ho on the Iraq war as well? Doesn't seem to have helped them (or Dondero's first love, Rudy G).
|1.19.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Oh, there's your problem.
You should be comparing the results of Group Y with the results of
voters as a whole, if you want to show how far off Group Y is from
the public as a whole.
|1.19.08 @ 10:36PM|#
That's what you're trying to show, right? How great the disparity is between the voting patterns of some subgroup from voters as a whole?
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 10:37PM|#
joe-
You could be right, but doesn't my way eliminate the problem that
the percentage that each group makes up in the population is
different, so the overall results are the weighted average?
|1.19.08 @ 10:38PM|#
If Hillary can turn Obama into Jessie Jackson, I bet her machine could turn McCain into McGovern. Easily.
|1.19.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Why is that a problem, K?
I think we haven't answered the first question in any statistical
analysis: what are you trying to show?
I submit that we want to look at the propensity of African
Americans to vote for one of their own, and the propensity of
Mormons to vote for one of their own, and compare them. If so, the
best graphic would be
OOOOC (80% Obama)
vs.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRX (94% Romney)
where O=Obama, C=Clinton, R=Romney, and X=Other Republican
Candidates
|1.19.08 @ 10:48PM|#
Wow, this is a new low - Bashing Ron Paul supporters based on an
ill formed survey question - if you look closely, Ron Paul is
carrying the agnostic / atheist vote. On the other hand, you
probably know that, and it must piss you off.
Oh, and about the "surge" working. I heard Al Sadr is planning on
ending the cease fire that he called 6 months ago - when the surge
began. Given that we have armed the Sunnis again, just what do you
think might happen in a month or so ?
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 10:50PM|#
In other words 52% of 67% democratic voters, and 65% of 14%
voters went for Clinton. This 81% of the electorate and strongly
influences the average
Similar for the Republicans, except Paul, McCain, and Mitt split
more evenly the 75% non-Mormon vote. vice the 60-30 Hillary to
Obama non-black vote
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 10:54PM|#
joe-
Then we are in agreement
The matter is one of degree
That is what I have been trying to say all along.
I was taking the position against: "The Mormon vote all going for
Romney is *nothing* like the African American vote tending to go
for Obama"
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 10:56PM|#
yeah, ignore the 10:50 I started to say something changed it halfway through, but should have cancelled and just put my 1054 to your 1046
|1.19.08 @ 11:07PM|#
Yes, it's a difference of degree.
But then, every demographic group, including whites, men, women,
and Christians, is going to vote somewhat differently from the
population as a whole.
Nonetheless, differences of degree can include a change in an order
of magnitude, and Mormons' tendency to vote for a Mormon is an
order of magnitude larger than African-Americans' tendency to vote
for an African-American.
It's the difference between "one of the guys in my carpool" and
"one of the people in a classroom."
|1.20.08 @ 12:34AM|#
He did poorly in NH because of voter fraud.
Our primary was compromised according to Black Box Voting's Bev
Harris who has videotape of the anomalies.
We have a serious problem with the voter fraud in this state.
Meshumed|1.20.08 @ 1:39AM|#
Dear Mr. Randolph,
The Wikipedia entry for Messianic Judaism tells us that
Messianic Judaism is a religious movement of Jews and non-Jews whose adherents believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call by the Hebrew name Yeshua, is both the resurrected Jewish Messiah and their divine savior.
and that
Messianic Jews practice their faith in a way they consider to be authentically Torah-observant and culturally Jewish. However, Jews of all denominations and many Christians do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism, but a form of Christianity.
This characterization does not match the one you supplied, namely
that
I think the term [for Messainic Judaism] you're looking for is "Goyim".
- about which the same source tells us
Goy (Hebrew: גוי, regular plural goyim גויים in Western languages) is a transliterated Hebrew word which translates as "nation" or "people". Historically and up to modern times it is a synonym for Gentile or non-Jew.
- so I offered the correct term by calling myself "Meshumed". I
sincerely expected that to be sufficient a prompt to your memory,
or, failing that, a stimulus for you (and anyone else interested,
such as your other interlocutor) to look the word up, which would
have either reminded or newly revealed to you that
Hebrew and
Yiddish dictionaries agree that an apostate is a 'meshumed', while
a meshumed is someone who has converted to another religion,
notably the Christian religion.
I apologize if that was too oblique.
I'm sorry I don't know how to make it clearer.
My own ethnicity, though it happens to be Jewish, and my own
apostasy, which happens to have been into Christianity, have
nothing to do with it, except to have spurred me to an interest in
the subject and its vocabulary.
All good wishes to you.
|1.20.08 @ 1:59AM|#
"The Wikipedia entry for Messianic Judaism"
Heh.. You consider wikipedia some kind of authority?
Looky here, sunshine: Judaism is MONOtheistic. No "son o'god", no
"trinity", or any of the other embellishments that you Christians
have tried to tack on to it. You can call yourself a Jew all you
want, but wishing doesn't make it so. You could call yourself a ham
sandwich while you're at it.
"calling myself "Meshumed"."
How about if I just call you Meshugga?
-jcr
Meshumed|1.20.08 @ 2:16AM|#
Who but a Jew would continue to argue here? ; -)
What is unauthoritative about the content I quoted from Wiki? It's
good enough for uncontroversial topics, which until today I thought
the difference between Jew and goy was. I'd be interested to read
the more authoritative source you suggest would supersede the
simple outline there.
We Christians do distinguish ourselves from Jews; what on earth are
you arguing about?
I call myself a Jew ethnically and a Christian religiously, as does
the rest of the world, and you're welcome to say, as you have, that
that's crazy. You're also welcome to say I'm gentile. Sometimes I
wish I were, but it's not up to me.
Messianic Jews are at once Jews and gentiles. As were the twelve
apostles, St. Paul, and Jesus.
Sei gesind.
Meshumed|1.20.08 @ 2:24AM|#
Whoops - mistyped. I meant to say "Messianic Jews are at once Jews and Christians." You got me confused!
Desiderio Alberto Arnaz y de A|1.20.08 @ 2:29AM|#
[blockquote]Maria | January 19, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Jacob -
Ha, ha, ha.
I have to admit there is something lovable in Bill Clinton.
Like 'your' old, flea bitten, stinking mongrel dog, who you kick
away at the dinner table, then cry like hell the day he gets hit by
a mail truck.
Or something like that.
[/blockquote]
Iggy Pop And The Stooges - Wanna Be Your Dog.mp3
|1.20.08 @ 2:30AM|#
"Messianic Jews are at once Jews and Christians"
They may be former Jews, but once you buy the idea of a
man being divine, then you're no longer a monotheist, let alone a
Jew.
-jcr
Tom Walls|1.20.08 @ 2:50AM|#
Let's not forget, the Constitution Party is pretty big in Nevada
too. But the ads, campaign events, and friendly state media helped
a lot.
The primary source of Ron's votes are youts and independents.
That's where the campaign should focus its efforts. Leave the
evangelicals to Suck-up-abee and the seasoned citizens to McCain. I
could see him getting 15% in an independent run barring no other
big third-party candidate.
The real news today, however, is that Sam the Butcher died. He was
84.
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 2:53AM|#
Kinda straying from the subject, aren't we?
We were discussing how Dondero could be such a butt plug why Paul
took second in Nevada.
At least that's what I thought...
|1.20.08 @ 3:02AM|#
"he was an ahl man from God's Country"
As a lifelong Texan (I'm 40), maybe I've lived in the wrong parts
of Texas, but I don't think I've ever heard "oil" pronounced this
way by an actual Texan.
|1.20.08 @ 3:29AM|#
I listened to and trusted mainstream conservative radio for over fifteen years. I pulled myself out from the great abyss of mainstream disinformation radio two years ago. I thought I had a clue what was going on in this country-I didn't-I guarantee that you are a useful idiot if you get your information from Rush, Shaun, or O'Riley. I learned more about the foreign and domestic policies in this country from Joan Veon, a UN freelance reporter, who wrote "Global Strait Jacket" in 1999, then I did in those fifteen garbage filled years between my ears. Ron Paul has given me new hope for America. Those of you that think you know everything, I suggest you study Agenda 21, United States policy for 14 years-the Soviet system of government being brought into this country through the Trojan horse of environmental extremism-another one of those things that Rush, Shaun, and O'Riley won't talk about. Maybe because Bush 1 signed the UN documents, Bill Clinton and Al Gore implemented it, and Bush Jr. is furthering it. If you're as brainwashed as I was, you'll just continue listening to the propaganda machine and dismiss me as some Twilight Zone fanatic Lost in Space-these propagandists are good at what they do.
Meshumed|1.20.08 @ 3:44AM|#
once you buy the idea of a man being divine, then you're no longer a monotheist
"I believe in One God"
- The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
"The Christian faith confesses that God is one in nature, substance
and essence."
- Roman Catechism, - I,2,2
"We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is
only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable,
incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence,
substance or nature entirely simple."
- Lateran Council IV: DS 800
let alone a Jew.
"And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning
together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him,
Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The
first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God
is one Lord." - Mark 12:28,29
So shoot me.
My only cavil was against your identifying apostate Jews, such as
Messianic Jews, as gentiles (goyim), because by definition (since you
haven't trumped E-Z Reader Wiki on the other characterization) a
gentile cannot have been born a Jew. A lot of Jews would have
wished otherwise, as it would have spared their lives.
Ed Tartaruga|1.20.08 @ 5:39AM|#
Kevin | January 20, 2008, 3:29am | #
"Those of you that think you know everything, I suggest you study Agenda 21, United States policy for 14 years-the Soviet system of government being brought into this country through the Trojan horse of environmental extremism"
Actually, its a system that predates the Soviet system.
Drug Czar (Tsar)
War Czar
Cybersecurity Czar
AIDS Czar
US intel Czar
_ad mausoleum_ Czar
Practicing good stewardship of the "environment" is a conservative
idea, hence the term "Conservationist", à la Theodore
Roosevelt:
Roosevelt explained, "There is an intimate relation between our
streams and the development and conservation of all the other great
permanent sources of wealth." During his presidency, Roosevelt
promoted the nascent conservation movement in essays for Outdoor
Life magazine. To Roosevelt, conservation meant more and better
usage and less waste, and a long-term perspective.
Of course my libertarian instincts are repelled by Roosevelt's
methodology and his damaging legacy that established and
institutionalized the practice of regularly using executive orders
for policy purposes. This is a case where the cliché about the
'road to hell being paved with good intentions' applies. In other
words, Theodore Roosevelt wasn't about trojan horses; his policy
prescriptions weren't about hidden agendas.
Thats going on a tangent, I can't help myself sometimes :D
So anyhow, although I would disagree that environmental
extremism is THE trojan horse, its certainly one head of
the beast (along with War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc., etc) that
is incrementally implementing an autocratic abomination which is
antithetical to everything enshrined in our Republic's
Constitution.
And its been happening for much longer then 14 years...
Most people think the TSOG [Tsarist Occupation Government] began its infestation of America with George Bush Sr., when he appointed a Tsar to discombobulate our previously democratic form of government; but Bush had a long C.I.A. career behind him and the C.I.A. had a long, long Tsarist history before they came out in the open with a public and blatant Tsar, a functionary not endowed or permitted by any clause in our Constitution.
Actually, the TSOG began replacing representative democracy in the U.S. way back in 1945, when Gen. Rheinhard Gehlen, Hitler's Chief of Soviet Intelligence, surrendered to the U.S. Army, after first prudently burying several truckloads of "inside information" about the Soviet Union at a secret location.
Gehlen was not only a master spy but a wizard negotiator. Within a week, he was out of his Nazi uniform and into a U.S. Army General's uniform; the U.S. intelligence services, in return, got the info about the Soviets, including access to Gehlen's agents in the Soviet government -- a group of Mystical Tsarists who had infiltrated both the Red Army and the KGB.
You see, their leader and Gehlen's major "asset," General Andrei Vlassov, had a fervent belief, not just in common or garden Tsarism, but especially in the "mystical Tsarism" espoused in the later half of the 19th Century by the anti-Semitic novelist Dostoyevsky and even more by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, an advisor to two Tsars [Alexander III and Nicholas II].
T.S.O.G. - The Creature That Ate the Constitution
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 6:23AM|#
You all need to check out the traffic over at Race42008.com, the
web's number one site for Republican political coverage. The top
thread: "It's over, McCain has won." Many attribute his success in
SC to his steadfastness in supporting the War in Iraq and the
Surge.
Moreover, over 400 posts so far, and not a single one of them even
mentions Ron Paul. It's almost like his tied for 2nd 13% showing in
Nevada never even happened.
And we're not talking religious conservatives here. These are
definite FiCons, Fred Thompson types, along the Rush Limbaugh
line.
A few are mentioning Romney's Nevada win, but zero about Ron
Paul.
Not good for me either, being a Romney (and Rudy) guy. Seems SC has
completely overshadowed Nevada.
Meshumed|1.20.08 @ 8:29AM|#
Also, jcr, if
once you buy the idea of a man being divine, then you're no longer a monotheist
then the many Jews who bought the idea of the divinity of
Sabbati Sevi or Menachem Schneerson will be shocked to learn that
they are no longer monotheists, as will the many more Jews who
still await the Messiah.
Your news is going to disappoint a lot of Jews, jcr.
Fluffy|1.20.08 @ 9:09AM|#
Eric, stop pimping some douchebag site no one has ever heard
of.
Next you'll be on here pushing some alternative YouTube. "No guys,
really, this is THE big video hosting site now!"
Fluffy|1.20.08 @ 9:10AM|#
"No, really guys, it's the premiere site for Republican video on the web! Go to www.filmofericscrewingboys.com and check it out!"
The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Meshumed, OK. I think NoStar might be one of those guys like you too.
|1.20.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Grand Chalupa and Lonewacko should both be banned, but for
different reasons.
Chalupa is obviously a racist asshole, and if he ever showed up on
a forum I moderate, his ass would be booted off within about 15
minutes of registration.
Lonewacko is nothing more than a spammer who doesn't even have the
common decency to try and sell me a product.
|1.20.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Donderoooooo should be allowed to continue posting here because he makes me giggle.
Lew Rockwell\'s Soul|1.20.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Please, all racists are welcome!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/009154.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/009160.html
Our tent is big enough to include a wide range of racists, white
supremacists, and holocaust deniers!
Lew Rockwell\'s Soul|1.20.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Oops! I forgot some:
http://tonova.typepad.com/thesuddencurve/2005/01/a_dishonest_att.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041022041319/www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 3:40PM|#
People have all kinds of stupid beliefs, but as long as they
want government to leave them (and me) alone, I don't care.
My mom is a doctor, A licenced, board-certified M.D. who rejects
the theory of evolution. That's just intellectually dishonest to
me, but it doesn't mean she isn't a good doctor or mother. Truth
will eventually triumph without all the PC thought police trying to
ram it down everybody's throat.
GILMORE|1.20.08 @ 3:53PM|#
mediageek | January 20, 2008, 2:50pm | #
Lonewacko is nothing more than a spammer who doesn't even have the
common decency to try and sell me a product.
Oh no. stop!! You'll give him ideas
he's been branding PoliticalPower and MexicanGovernment and all
these other things in preparation for his worldwide marketing
blitz
No, at best, he might come up with a funny t-shirt.
Which I would probably buy, frankly. I like stupid t-shirts.
Like, george washington in a pancho and sombrero going =
"I fought a revolution and all i got was these damn
Chimichangas!"
i took a class once|1.20.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Meshumed, there's nothing in the Tanakh or the Talmud that says
the Messiah will be divine. And I don't know of any Orthodox or
Conservative Jews who believe otherwise.
Since you like Wikipedia, here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messiah: "The Talmud nowhere
indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah."
(Cohen, 1949. Chap. XI, The Hereafter, § I. The Messiah, p.
347)
Ali|1.20.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Disagree. Chalupa and LoneWhackoff can be way annoying, but
so can joe. And I know I've pissed off people. Pretty much everyone
but Ali has had their moments, and even Ali is starting to get on
my nerves with his relentless courtesy and earnest good cheer (Ali
-- I keed, I keed!).
Yaaaaaay! :-) So all I need to do to piss you off is to be even
more polite. Well, other than J sub D rubbing some of his, shall we
say, less than polite stances (which I have to thank J sub D very
much for since it built and strengthened my online character), I am
pretty sure that I will eventually tick you off (though I think I
did that last week with my silly "Hawaii" comment), which will
entice you to piss me off, which, in turn, entice me to piss you
off even more and its a domino effect from there.
There, your problem solved :-)
Mad Max|1.20.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Had I but world enough and time, I'd read this whole thread. But
the bottom line is:
(a) Go, Ron, go!
(b) "Other Christians" could include Eastern Orthodox, and several
non-Chalcedonian churches: Armenians, Copts, Syrians and
Nestorians.
See, for example,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/Christian_communities.html#Non
Ali|1.20.08 @ 7:39PM|#
An e-mail from Vijay Boyapati:
***
My name is Vijay Boyapati, I'm Director of Operation Live Free or
Die ( http://operationlivefreeordie.com/). Some of you may remember
me from the interview with Dr Paul at Google (skip to 42:31 in the
interview - that's me).
I'm writing to you because we're at a turning point in Ron's
campaign. In the short history of this Revolution we're in the best
position we've ever been in. I don't mean to sound hyperbolic and
nor am I exaggerating. Consider these facts:
- Two Republican Presidential candidates (Tancredo and Hunter) have
dropped out of the race for want of both money and support. Along
with Ron, Tancredo and Hunter were the only candidates truly strong
on fixing illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a huge issue
for many voters, and Ron is now the only candidate left with a
sterling record on the issue.
- Fred Thompson has had no successes in any states and finished a
distant third in South Carolina where he needed a strong result. He
has little money and no grassroots support. It's very likely that
he'll drop out of the race in the near future.
- While both Huckabee and McCain have won some states, neither has
established a clear lead. Neither has significant financial
resources, and both will struggle to advertise in the super Tuesday
states.
- Rudy Giuliani has chosen a very risky strategy of focusing his
efforts on Florida, and has done abysmally in every other state. If
he doesn't post a victory in Florida his campaign will essentially
be dead.
All the while, Dr Paul has has built an enormous war-chest that
will allow him to be among the very few candidates who can afford
to advertise in a significant way in the huge super Tuesday states
(California, Illinois, New York etc).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080120/cm_thenation/45272954
Further, only a small fraction of the total delegates necessary for
the party nomination have been decided. The Republican race is
still wide open. We still have a terrific opportunity to shock the
media and the country with a strong showing.
This is not the time for despair. It is not the time for
complacency. It not the time to abandon the American Revolution.
Now is the time for our greatest effort in the glorious cause of
human freedom.
So I ask each of you to help us deliver a third huge fund-raising
day for Dr Paul on January 21st (this Monday) by promoting this
effort as much as possible in your meetup group:
http://freeatlast2008.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWClI8zsH4
The money we raise will allow Dr Paul to dominate the air-waves in
the days leading up to super-Tuesday.
I also ask that you participate in a march in your city and contact
your local press to let them know this is part of a national
movement. Even if you're only able to march with 5 or 10 fellow
supporters, you should do so. Together we'll show that ours is a
national movement. That freedom is not forgotten in our beloved
Republic. And that we will not stop the fight until our Government
acknowledges our urgent entreaty: we demand liberty and justice for
all Americans.
sincerely,
Vijay Boyapati, Director of Operation Live Free or Die.
http://freeatlast2008.com
http://operationlivefreeordie.com/news.html
http://operationlivefreeordie.com/blog.html
|1.20.08 @ 10:24PM|#
When Torah says The Lord G*d is "one". The word used is not the
word for an ordinal one. The word is Echad a combining of two
letters; Chet meaning a wall or fence, something that divides; and
Dalet meaning a door. A wall with a door is one thing but with
multiple purposes.
God by his nature must be separate from sin, but a door is provided
and upon the acceptence of a blameless sacrifice Yeshua said that
He is "The way, the truth and the life."
Meshumed|1.20.08 @ 10:53PM|#
Not to start a shande fur de goyim, NoStar, but is it
really right to say the (attractive) kabbalistic meaning you cite
precludes the surface meaning?
Anyway, looks like we're building a minyan ;-)
lurker2|1.21.08 @ 12:18AM|#
http://blackboxvoting.org
Please take a look at the photographs of random, haphazard,
half-open, slit-open boxes that are part of the recount in New
Hampshire, and which will sit unguarded over the long weekend (now
don't worry, there won't be any state employees on the
premises)
|1.21.08 @ 3:18AM|#
Meshumed,
The meaning of Echad is far from kabbalistic (believe me, there are
no strings tied to my wrists). It is intrinsic to the construct of
the word. That Hebrew is the only language whose letters retain
both phonetic and definitional values is what makes it fascinating
to learn as a second language.
Also, as it is the only dead language to be resurrected, it points
to a resurrected Messiah who we are told by Yochanon (John 1:1)
that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God."
Who would argue with a good Jewish boy like Yochanon? He not only
took care of his mother, he took care of Yeshua's mom as well. A
real mensch!
|1.21.08 @ 3:44AM|#
As for my two cents on whether Messianic Believers can be Jewish
and Christian, I would point to three facts:
1. Rome considered Christians to be just another sect of Jews,
which is why they were tossed to the lions with other Jews.
2. Some rabbis say that belief in Yeshua negates a persons
Jewishness. This claim is not maintained for beliefs in an
obviously failed messiah like Bar Kochba (and others), therefore it
is spurious to apply this arguement solely against Jews who see
Yeshua as Messiah.
3. Messianic Judaism is the fastest growing sect in Israel with
over 100 Messianic synagogues and over 10,000 believers. This is up
from near zero numbers in the 1970's.
Meshumed|1.21.08 @ 10:16AM|#
NoStar, thanks for your interesting pointers and willingness to
zug mir a bissel toyrah about what was in my case
fascinating to learn as a first language, albeit that was long
ago.
Puzzling over about what seemed a strange denial of Jewish
converts' ethnicity, it eventually occurred to me that such denial
may just be a way to show disapproval with the only tools left the
disappointed non-converting Jew(s). In response to feeling
abandoned by an ingrate, what is left but to say "Anathema! You,
foolish and wicked heir to our chosen-ness, who have defected to
our persecutors; you reject exclusive membership in our collective
goodness? Well, then, we shall now strip you of the identity you
thought inalienable. You don't want to be a Jew like us? Okay,
then, you're not a Jew, you're now only as good (ie, bad)
as a lowly gentile. Phooey on you." Maybe akin to reciting the
prayer for the dead for the convert (or for a Jew who comes out as
gay).
Admittedly, this is speculation, but it accords with a familiar
aggrieved tone that was perhaps more difficult to detect in text.
Not very culturally libertarian, but Yiddin hardly
exercise a monopoly over being control-freaks. It's just that, as
with most things, they do it better than everyone else. : -)
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Mad Max | January 20, 2008, 7:11pm | #
Had I but world enough and time, I'd read this whole thread. But
the bottom line is:
(a) Go, Ron, go!
Mad, I noticed on my sample ballot that you're running in the
Californicate Primary. Now I'm confused. Do I vote for you? Or Ron
Paul?
|1.21.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Maybe I was wrong on Dondi. I checked out that website he
recommended - Race4008.com. Good political coverage. Lots of
libertarian-minded folk there. Some of them even call themselves
libertarians.
We need to start having more contact with mainstream Republicans.
If not, we're just pissing in the wind.
lunchstealer|1.21.08 @ 1:35PM|#
I do wonder just how many people thought "Hmm, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Other. Well I'm Baptist, so I'll put Other"?
|2.2.08 @ 8:32AM|#
Sorry folks,
Ron Paul speaks the language we patriots want to hear.Those who
believe in justice and the American way of life. But alas I believe
he is a plant by the Democratic party to garner enough votes away
from the Republican party to ensure a victory on their part.
Anyone remember Ross Perot? Who mysteriously dropped out then came
back only to announce that his family's lives were threatened if he
didn't drop out. Only after he had received 19% of the vote.
It would be interesting to know how much these deals are worth.
These people always speak to the christian right, conservatives,
those who still fight for american jobs and the constitution.
Looking at all these candidates they are a pretty sorry lot. I will
rally republican only to keep a check and balance at the top.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245