| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"William Flax" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2008 03:26:37 PM |
| Object: |
The intelligent voter's candidate. |
We have posted another appeal to intelligent voters, offering additional
reasons to support the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. For an instant
link:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 03:48:19 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 4:26 pm, "William Flax" <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote:
We have posted another appeal to intelligent voters, offering additional
reasons to support the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. For an instant
link:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
Since he cannot win and any vote for him would not play a role in the
final outcome of who did win (i.e. it would be the same as if you did
not vote at all), would this not be more like the "un-intelligent"
vote?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MACK DADDY" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 07:59:56 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 1:48=A0pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:26 pm, "William Flax" <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote:
We have posted another appeal to intelligent voters, offering additional=
reasons to support the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. =A0For an inst=
ant
link:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
Since he cannot win and any vote for him would not play a role in the
final outcome of who did win (i.e. it would be the same as if you did
not vote at all), would this not be more like the "un-intelligent"
vote?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ron Paul is so wankitty.
Intelligent voters will vote for John Edwards!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Smartypants" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 06:15:22 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 2:48=A0pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:26 pm, "William Flax" <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote:
We have posted another appeal to intelligent voters, offering additional=
reasons to support the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. =A0For an inst=
ant
link:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
Since he cannot win and any vote for him would not play a role in the
final outcome of who did win (i.e. it would be the same as if you did
not vote at all), would this not be more like the "un-intelligent"
vote?
Why can't he win?
He's the ONLY candidate ready to return the US GOVERNMENT to the Rule
of Law, namely the US Constitution.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put an end to the depredations of the
IRS and the Federal Reserve privately owned banking system.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put Americans FIRST instead of
subservient to a shitty little state in the Middle East.
So,....why do you say he can't win?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 07:22:53 PM |
|
|
"Mr. Smartypants" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
Why can't he win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
He's the ONLY candidate ready to return the US GOVERNMENT to the Rule
of Law, namely the US Constitution.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
That might be within his power as president, but I wouldn't count on
it.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put an end to the depredations of the
IRS and the Federal Reserve privately owned banking system.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put Americans FIRST instead of
subservient to a shitty little state in the Middle East.
So,....why do you say he can't win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Smartypants" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 07:49:00 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 6:22=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Mr. Smartypants" <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
Why can't he win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
He's the ONLY candidate ready to return the US GOVERNMENT to the Rule
of Law, namely the US Constitution.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
LOL!! Obeying the law is not within the power of the President?
Certainly not the current President.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
That might be within his power as president, but I wouldn't count on
it.
It most certainly would be within his power and also his DUTY.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put an end to the depredations of the
IRS and the Federal Reserve privately owned banking system.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
JFK issued Treasury dollars so it most certainly *IS* within the power
of the Presidency.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put Americans FIRST instead of
subservient to a shitty little state in the Middle East.
So,....why do you say he can't win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
Y'mean DIEBOLD will only record a couple of percent of the votes for
R. Paul.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 08:14:07 PM |
|
|
"Mr. Smartypants" <shrubkiller@excite.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:22 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Mr. Smartypants" <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
Why can't he win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
He's the ONLY candidate ready to return the US GOVERNMENT to the Rule
of Law, namely the US Constitution.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
LOL!! Obeying the law is not within the power of the President?
The President is not the "US GOVERNMENT", nor does he decide what the
"Rule of Law" means - that is done by the courts as directed by the
Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution itself acknowledges the
existence of common law, which is defined outside of the Constitution,
specifically by the courts.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
That might be within his power as president, but I wouldn't count on
it.
It most certainly would be within his power and also his DUTY.
His duty is to execute the laws of the United States. If the law does
not say that he can pull troops out, then he can't. Since the current
president won't let Congress pass a law to pull the troops out, he
might have a problem.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put an end to the depredations of the
IRS and the Federal Reserve privately owned banking system.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
JFK issued Treasury dollars so it most certainly *IS* within the power
of the Presidency.
The President can only do what is authorized by Congress. Otherwise
you don't really believe in the "Rule of Law". Meanwhile, the comment
was about the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Issuing some other kind of
dollar, even if he could legally do it, won't do anything to those two
organizations.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put Americans FIRST instead of
subservient to a shitty little state in the Middle East.
So,....why do you say he can't win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
Y'mean DIEBOLD will only record a couple of percent of the votes for
R. Paul.
No. I mean that the maximum that any libertarian candidate would get
in a general election is around 5%, and more likely around 3%. The
rest of us don't want an extremist in office, and think that
libertarian ideology is idiotology (many of us think that ANY ideology
is idiotology).
Republicans are a minority party, any loonytarians are a tiny minority
of Republicans. To win a national election, you have to win nearly
all of your own party, and a good chunk of the middle. Extremists
don't get votes from the middle.
Within the Republican primaries, at this point the choice is between
McCain, and finding a way to stop McCain, which probably means Romney,
because non-evangelicals won't vote for Huckabee any more than
non-Libertarians will vote for Paul.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Smartypants" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 09:24:52 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 7:14=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Mr. Smartypants" <shrubkil...@excite.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:22=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Mr. Smartypants" <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
Why can't he win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
He's the ONLY candidate ready to return the US GOVERNMENT to the Rule
of Law, namely the US Constitution.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
LOL!! Obeying the law is not within the power of the President?
The President is not the "US GOVERNMENT", nor does he decide what the
"Rule of Law" means - that is done by the courts as directed by the
Constitution. =A0Furthermore, the Constitution itself acknowledges the
existence of common law, which is defined outside of the Constitution,
specifically by the courts.
The Constitution is the LAW by which the US GOVERNMENT including the
President must operate.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
That might be within his power as president, but I wouldn't count on
it.
It most certainly would be within his power and also his DUTY.
His duty is to execute the laws of the United States. =A0If the law does
not say that he can pull troops out, then he can't. =A0Since the current
president won't let Congress pass a law to pull the troops out, he
might have a problem. =A0
The current President? What the hell will he have to do with the next
President?
He's the ONLY candidate who will put an end to the depredations of the=
IRS and the Federal Reserve privately owned banking system.
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
JFK issued Treasury dollars so it most certainly *IS* within the power
of the Presidency.
The President can only do what is authorized by Congress.
LOL!!
=A0Otherwise
you don't really believe in the "Rule of Law". =A0Meanwhile, the comment
was about the IRS and the Federal Reserve. =A0Issuing some other kind of
dollar, even if he could legally do it, won't do anything to those two
organizations.
Since the IRS is not a US GOVERNMENT agency it can be stopped in it's
tracks by refusing to let it operate AGAINST US citizens.
The Treasury issuing dollars most certainly will impact the Fed.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put Americans FIRST instead of
subservient to a shitty little state in the Middle East.
So,....why do you say he can't win?
Because no more than a couple percent of the population will vote for
him.
Y'mean DIEBOLD will only record a couple of percent of the votes for
R. Paul.
No. =A0I mean that the maximum that any libertarian candidate would get
in a general election is around 5%, and more likely around 3%. =A0The
rest of us don't want an extremist in office, and think that
libertarian ideology is idiotology (many of us think that ANY ideology
is idiotology).
Republicans are a minority party, any loonytarians are a tiny minority
of Republicans. =A0To win a national election, you have to win nearly
all of your own party, and a good chunk of the middle. =A0Extremists
don't get votes from the middle.
Within the Republican primaries, at this point the choice is between
McCain, and finding a way to stop McCain, which probably means Romney,
because non-evangelicals won't vote for Huckabee any more than
non-Libertarians will vote for Paul.
lojbab
People who had given up all hope for the electoral process in the US
are making the effort for Ron Paul.
Only the continued vote rigging will stop him from winning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 11:29:11 PM |
|
|
"Mr. Smartypants" <bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:14 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Not within the power of the presidency, whatever you think the above
means.
LOL!! Obeying the law is not within the power of the President?
The President is not the "US GOVERNMENT", nor does he decide what the
"Rule of Law" means - that is done by the courts as directed by the
Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution itself acknowledges the
existence of common law, which is defined outside of the Constitution,
specifically by the courts.
The Constitution is the LAW by which the US GOVERNMENT including the
President must operate.
It is only PART of the law. An important part, but still only a part.
And it says so in the text
Amendment 7
<In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
< twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
< fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
< the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Acknowledges the existence of common law, and requires it to be
followed in judicial review.
Amendment 9
<The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
< construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Those "certain rights" are part of the law and are not part of the
Constitution.
Article VI
<This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
< made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
< made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
< Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
< thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
< Contrary notwithstanding.
All treaties made under the authority of the United States are equal
in legal stature to the Constitution.
And of course all this doesn't include the unwritten definitions of
numerous complex terms (e.g "due process") that are used in the
constitution without definition, wherein changes to the definition are
therefore changes to the law, and thus part of the law of equal weight
to the Constitution itself.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
That might be within his power as president, but I wouldn't count on
it.
It most certainly would be within his power and also his DUTY.
His duty is to execute the laws of the United States. If the law does
not say that he can pull troops out, then he can't. Since the current
president won't let Congress pass a law to pull the troops out, he
might have a problem.
The current President? What the hell will he have to do with the next
President?
Quite a lot. The next president is bound by all the laws now in
effect, until such time as he can get them changed. Per the above, he
is also bound by all treaties until such time as he can get them
changed. He is also bound by all court decisions, etc, etc.
JFK issued Treasury dollars so it most certainly *IS* within the power
of the Presidency.
The President can only do what is authorized by Congress.
LOL!!
Otherwise
you don't really believe in the "Rule of Law".
You laugh while ignoring this line that followed that which you
laughed at. If the President steps outside was what Congress has
authorized, then he cannot claim to be a supporter of "Rule of Law".
Are you saying that Paul would be a hypocrite?
Meanwhile, the comment
was about the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Issuing some other kind of
dollar, even if he could legally do it, won't do anything to those two
organizations.
Since the IRS is not a US GOVERNMENT agency
Of course it is. Its existence and powers are authorized by Federal
law, and supported by the courts.
it can be stopped in it's tracks by refusing to let it operate AGAINST US citizens.
How could the President stop it? It is required to follow the laws
approved by Congress, some of which require it to "operate against US
citizens".
The Treasury issuing dollars most certainly will impact the Fed.
And the Fed could trivially bring down the Treasury. So?
People who had given up all hope for the electoral process in the US
are making the effort for Ron Paul.
They are a trivial percentage of the electorate.
Only the continued vote rigging will stop him from winning.
No votes need to be rigged. He has minuscule support. He will never
have more than minuscule support. Most people would never even
consider voting for him.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
04 Feb 2008 06:18:55 PM |
|
|
In article <dc396caa-b3a6-437f-b67b-338548018b15@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Mr. Smartypants" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> writes:
On Feb 4, 2:48=A0pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:26 pm, "William Flax" <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote:
We have posted another appeal to intelligent voters, offering additional=
reasons to support the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. =A0For an inst=
ant
link:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
Since he cannot win and any vote for him would not play a role in the
final outcome of who did win (i.e. it would be the same as if you did
not vote at all), would this not be more like the "un-intelligent"
vote?
Why can't he win?
He's the ONLY candidate ready to return the US GOVERNMENT to the Rule
of Law, namely the US Constitution.
He's the ONLY candidate who will pull US troops out of Iraq
IMMEDIATELY.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put an end to the depredations of the
IRS and the Federal Reserve privately owned banking system.
He's the ONLY candidate who will put Americans FIRST instead of
subservient to a shitty little state in the Middle East.
So,....why do you say he can't win?
Um...because he won't get enough votes?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: The intelligent voter's candidate. |
05 Feb 2008 03:42:38 AM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 4:15=A0pm, "Mr. Smartypants" <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:48=A0pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:26 pm, "William Flax" <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote:
We have posted another appeal to intelligent voters, offering addition=
al
reasons to support the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. =A0For an in=
stant
link:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
Since he cannot win and any vote for him would not play a role in the
final outcome of who did win (i.e. it would be the same as if you did
not vote at all), would this not be more like the "un-intelligent"
vote?
Why can't he win?
He's a racist koook and the vast majority of Americans reject his
ideas. That is why he can't win. End of story.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
