I'm Not A Cult Member
But, too many people are -- people who align themselves with a particular party or belief system and vote for it with the loyalty and team spirit of a middle school cheerleader. It's nonthink. And you see it from bloggers all the time -- those who would probably leap to lay out the cgi welcome mat for Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mengistu if it was in keeping with their party lines.
Personally, I'm a thinker, not a joiner. I just try to vote for the least creepy sellout, which is how I see all the candidates and their dubious wheelings and dealings, supposedly on our behalf.
It's why this blog is a smattering of political this and that. Because I'm not any one thing; I'm a bunch of things: fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, and, a term I made up, a personal responsibilitarian. And for keeping the religious nuttery in the church, synagogue, or mosque where it belongs. And for finding somebody I can vote for in the next election without projectile vomiting. And at the moment, that's a person who doesn't look like they'll be on the ballot.
How about you? Have you drunk the Kool-Aid? And if so, did your glass have an elephant or a donkey on it? (Or a "Race Haters For Ron Paul!" sticker?) Arnold Kling writes for Tech Central Station:
Are all mass political movements cults? I tend to think so.Many well-meaning libertarians signed on to the "Ron Paul revolution." At first, this only required accepting his pro-life and anti-immigrant stances as libertarian, contrary to the leanings of many libertarians. More recently, a journalist for The New Republic found some newsletters that were circulated under Ron Paul's name in the 1980's and 1990's that included angry, racist rhetoric. Ron Paul himself disclaims having such sentiments, and he says that the writing was the work of someone else operating with lax supervision.
I do not know Ron Paul. He may be wise. He may be decent. But to dismiss all doubts about his judgment and his character would be to succumb to a cult.
Let me hasten to add that I do not think of the Paul cult as unique. I am equally loathe to join the Clinton cult, the Obama cult, the Guiliani cult...you name it.
For me, democratic politics is a "lesser of evils" game, and I'm never sure how best to play it. But I have to say that when I read that this year's New Hampshire primary had a record turnout, it made my heart sink rather than warm. Not that I'm against voting, but I hate to think of people as buying into anyone's political campaign.
For libertarians, I recommend focusing on institutions that compete with government: families, private schools, charities, and religious organizations (short of becoming cult-like in your devotion). I recommend developing your logical reasoning skills and applying those skills to questioning what politicians say. But I do not recommend joining mass political movements. Instead, treat them as cults.
And don't forget "The Cult Of The Woman," aka "Vote Your Labia."
And many blacks do it, too -- "Vote Your Race Cult," via a Balt Sun story by Michael Hill:
Some argue that blacks should vote for [Mrs.] Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued."That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
What does your preferred movement or political party do that you find asshole-ish or wrong? Anything at all?
I'm a lifelong Republican, and I'm a traditional, William F. Buckley style conservative (a classical liberal, as Amy calls it), and I'm an ardent critic of the party.
Dare I say it? I've come to agree with some of the leftist criticisms of the Republican Party. I think it is biased towards corporate interests. Unlike leftists, I don't think corporations are evil, but the everyday worker is a business too. With the H-1b program and other policies, the party has damaged the competitive status of small businesses (workers) as against big business (corporations).
For example, one hears calls for free immigration of skilled workers to the US. I'm all for it, on one condition. We allow foreign companies to freely relocate here in the US to compete with domestic businesses. If workers face foreign competition, then why not corporations?
Republicans want workers to compete with global labor, while protecting domestic corporations. The Department of Labor has a program to reduce "labor costs" for high-tech companies. In other words, the US government uses tax money from small businesses (domestic workers) to subsidize their competition (foreign workers). That bullshit. It would never be tolerated if was done to a large corporation.
I want to bring the party back to a concept of free market that includes all economic actors, not just corporations.
Jeff at January 22, 2008 1:22 AM
Where is the line between support and cult-like-devotion? I support Ron Paul because his views match that of mine closer than any other candidate (yes, even his immigration restrictionism, but not his pro-lifery).
I never really understood the attacks against Paul. They essentially boil down to guilt-by-association. Since Don Black, a notorious racist and creator of Stormfront.org, is a vile hater and supports Ron Paul, therefore Ron Paul must be a vile hater. Since Ron Paul refused to give back a 500 dollar donation from a vile racist, therefore Ron Paul implicitly aforementioned vile racist.
But anyway. I'm sick of all of them. Seriously, every candidate makes me sick (Ron Paul to a lesser degree).
Cody at January 22, 2008 4:39 AM
Sorry, that should be "therefore Ron Paul implicitly supports aforementioned vile racist."
Cody at January 22, 2008 4:58 AM
I'm registered as an Independent, and I tend to split my ticket every election, based on who says what. I like to think I'm voting for the lesser of 2 evils, but the candidates I vote for never even get into office, except for local elections. YMMV
Flynne at January 22, 2008 5:32 AM
Pity more aren't personal responsibilitarians. And I think critical thinking skills desperately need to become a major part of our education. Americans seem to be terribly lacking in them.
I tend to obsessively rebel, meaning I vote third party a lot and bitch more don't do it. Frankly, both the Democratic and Republican parties have become totally (well, maybe not totally but 90%) corrupt with power.
And the woman cult? Whenever I say what I think about Hillary, I can rely on at least one person calling me a female of the species and an ardent advocate of women's rights a woman hater. I find that amusing because one reason I don't like Hillary is that I don't think she's good to women or for women. Her it takes a village thing seems designed to take power away from our raising our children our way and when she stood by her man as he screwed around I wasn't thrilled with the example she was setting for my daughter (fortunately I set a better one). Frankly, it ain't equality if you can't dislike someone who happens to be female.
Cody, the problem with Paul and racism isn't in regard to the immigration so much as it is those newsletters. He doesn't get off the hook by saying he didn't write them when he let them go out under his name. But his racism is only one reason I don't like him. I also don't like him because he is a fruitcake who wants to actually curtail our freedoms. He takes states rights to extremes because he sees it as a means of actually making us less free. (And the hypocrite poses as Libertarian!!!??? Why are the Libertarians standing for this unless they are knee jerking in step to any wolf in the sheep's clothing of calling himself Libertarian? Again, those critical thinking skills really, really need to kick in.) He says right on his web site (last I looked anyway few weeks ago) that his aim in returning the abortion question to the states is to overturn Roe v. Wade. I have a problem with a 15 year old rape victim being able to get an abortion in my state but the one in Georgia being further traumatized by being forced to have her rapist's baby. Hell, I have a problem with denying the one in Georgia who played with matches and got burned not being able to get rid of the fetus before it becomes an unwanted human being she deeply resents. I also have a huge problem with states being able to enact laws doing away with church-state separation and any of our basic rights. If you give these things to the states, there will be states that oppress the rights of minorities. Let's face it, some things need to be at the Federal level, point blank.
Jeff makes some very good points above and though Republican is one of the last things I'd consider myself it is a good deal because of the religious right and the things he points out in his post. I get so sick of hearing we should be grateful for our jobs and am always commenting that big business couldn't survive without the people who do the work. They seem to dismiss us as easily replacable and I think he made some excellent points about why. He's right too. Though we tend to think of ourselves as employees, we really are all businesses in that we provide a service (the work we do) for a price (our pay) and it isn't fair to open up our competition to foreign markets without opening up theirs. It was a very good post and if more Republicans sounded like that, I'd be less prejudiced and more open to hearing their side of things. (That said, I did help get a Republican senator elected in Colorado about 13 years ago and still don't regret it, still like him.)
Donna at January 22, 2008 5:49 AM
Thanks so much for posting some of the stuff about Paul. Wendy McElroy has posted some links, but I'm on deadline this morning, and couldn't find them before I got mission critical.
And I despise George Bush on Iraq and for bringing his religious nuttery into government, but I'll take his health care policy over Hillary's in a hot second. (Making it fair, finally, for people like me who are self-employed.)
Amy Alkon at January 22, 2008 5:53 AM
One of the reasons I enjoy this site is that it's one of the few places that I can find *intelligent* criticisms of Dubya rather than frothing-at-the-mouth tirades containing little or no fact. I think both Dubya and Bill Clinton have benefited greatly from having opponents who acted like crazy cult members where they were concerned. I actually think that the two men are surprisingly similar, at least in certain ways. I am hoping that our next president is more low-key in the opposition that he/she excites, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm sort of a pick-and-choose person in terms of politics - I agree with certain elements of each party's platform. If you want cult membership, I'm a Roman Catholic; I disagree with certain elements of Church teaching on issues such as birth control, but technically speaking, I'm SUPPOSED to think for myself, so I figure I'm just fulfilling my responsibilities...
marion at January 22, 2008 6:26 AM
I used to have the same voting philosophy but the last Republican Congressional Majority drove home the folly of my actions. When making the best of two poor choices, one is still making a poor choice. I've now moved to the position of not voting unless I can feel good about the candidate, that the candidate will actually represent my views. I suspect that I've joined the WOPR Party where the only winning move is not to play. (WOPR was the computer in the movie "War Games".)
Uh, Jeff, you're obviously unaware that foreign corporations locate to the US on a daily basis. Ever hear of Toyota? Honda? You know, the auto companies that are putting GM and Ford out of business? Foreign corporations come here because we have a skilled labor base with a strong work ethic. However, our increasingly business adverse tax policy is starting to drive new investment away.
Curly Smith at January 22, 2008 6:29 AM
About the newsletters: By all accounts, it was in all likelihood Lew Rockwell that wrote those articles under the auspices of Ron Paul's name. Lew Rockwell is the founder of the Mises Institute and a friend of Paul's for many years.
What Paul's critics wanted Paul to do was make amends by revealing the author's identity and then denouncing him to satisfy the critics' need for moral purity.
But what does that say about Paul's character if he were to act on the advice of his critics?
Would you trust a man that would sell out his friend for political expediency?
So Paul is caught between a rock and a hard place.
But his critics are still dishonest.
(I hate defending Paul. But the vitriolic criticisms directed toward him, for some reason, compel me to waste time defending him.)
Cody at January 22, 2008 6:33 AM
Cody, his refusal to do so speaks even louder.
Donna at January 22, 2008 7:05 AM
There is only one person who agrees politically with you 100% of the time, but since you're not running you can't vote for that person.
Voting in a democracy is always the lesser of two evils. Voters want a perfect candidate but all human beings are flawed. All you can do is vote for the one you feel is better than the others.
"Let's face it, some things need to be at the Federal level, point blank."
Agreed, however there is the 10th amendment to the Constitution to consider. States are political entities in their own right, not merely creations of a national govt.
winston at January 22, 2008 7:48 AM
I'd vote for Newt Gingrich in a hot second -- although I don't agree with him 100%. Of course -- there's nobody I agree with 100%...in fact, I usually have a lot of debating going on right within my own head.
PS While Gingrich talks the religio-nutter talk, I can't believe a guy as bright and apparently rational as he is actually, truly believes in god. If anything, I'd guess he, in Daniel Dennett's words, "believes in the belief in god."
Amy Alkon at January 22, 2008 7:52 AM
Well I am a republican.
What I hate about my party is a short list, but vicious.
I hate that republicans try so hard to be liked by leftist media that they always slide towards doing what the democrats bitch at them to do. Like they get hen-pecked into raising taxes, or not puting a real fence on the border. It infuriates the very people who put them in power, and is self-defeating.
Nothing kills the base of the republican party like republicans.
But when the republicans get fired up and elect repubs, the repubs never seem to fight. Sorry but repub voters do not see what leftists see. We see repubs like McCain, doing things to avoid confrontation all the time. Gang of 14 being a prime example. Now that the Democrats have the most senators, where did the gang of 14 go? It is gone.
So when Repubs had the advantage, well McCain needed a gang of 14 to avoid the nuclear option, so some judges could get a vote. Now that the nuclear option is not a possibility, no gang of 14 exists.
typical republican politician. They always think the democrats are going to reciprocate their statesman behavior, but they never do. So we repub voters are stuck with country club politicians that have no idea how to street fight, and still think they can get a fair shake from the media. fools.
Jim Doherty at January 22, 2008 7:55 AM
McCain, as Matt Welch pointed out in his excellent book on the guy, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, is anything but the straight talker he is made out to be. Essentially, he's the darling of the press because he'll talk to them without much restraint. Access, in other words. Not that he actually talks straight.
Amy Alkon at January 22, 2008 8:10 AM
Winston, help me out...
I can vote for the Republican candidate who will, if elected, actively work against my interests. Or, I can vote for the Democratic candidate who will, if elected, actively work against my interests.
So, do I vote for the candidate who'll be less aggressive in working against my interests (the lesser of two evils) or do I refuse to continue playing the game and try to force the landslide losing party to better represent my views (or encourage the creation of a party that actually represents my views)? The problem that I face is that both parties are parties of Big Government (the Democrats are BIG GOVERNMENT, the Republicans are BIG GOVERNMENt) while I want the absolute smallest government and the least amount of regulation that is possible.
I can't vote for the various 3rd parties because their candidates are kooks and voting for them won't be seen as an anti-Republican (or anti-Democratic) vote, it would be seen as a pro-Kook vote (take a look at the Wild-Eyed Paulies if you don't believe me). Without a ballot option of "none of the above" I have no effective means of voting against the two major parties. The only way that I have to express my serious displeasure is by not participating.
Curly Smith at January 22, 2008 10:40 AM
I tell my friends that I’m a conservative, not a republican, though I usually vote for a republican or don’t vote at all. Most of my friends are stone cold liberals. When they talk politics, they sound like morons because they don’t know anything at all about politics. Most of them couldn’t tell you who the speaker of the house is even thought she’s from their state! I agree with every word Jim Doherty and Curly said a lot of what Jeff said at the top, except for the part about free immigration into the US. We just can’t build the services and infrastructure to support the speed of people coming here now. Have you ever driven in LA Jeff? There is a really stunning video on You tube called Immigration Gumballs by Roy Beck. It’s less than ten minutes long and has been seen by about a million and a half people. It is riveting. This country just cannot absorb every poor person in the world who wants to come here. If they did, the US would make India look like Wyoming overnight. Is that really what you want?
I really believe George Bush and a lot of republican AND democrat and other countries politicians are now globalists. I define a globalist as someone who believes fervently that the best thing that can happen to the world is if wages and living standards of the working class man become equal around the world. In order to do that, you are going to have to make more free trade agreements, work toward a common currency, and do whatever you can to turn borders into irrelevant technicalities. This way, people would not need to emigrate from one country to another and there would be a lot less war and everyone would be happy, sounds great doesn’t it?? Now would the citizens accept this if you proposed it to them? Hell No! And they know we wouldn’t. Why? Because Americans are smart enough to know that the only way this could ever happen is to lower the standard of living and wages for the American worker because the rest of the world will not ever rise to our standards. Make sense? But the globalists believe that this is really better for all in the long run, we just don’t know what’s really good for us, so maybe they’re just going to have to ease us into it. Now I’m not talking conspiracy theory here, I’m just saying what I think motivates some of our politicians today to do what we see as things that seem to harm our interests, such as the Comprehensive Immigration reform bill of last summer. There is a consistent pattern here of rich countries with high standards of living being invaded by throngs of third world laborers much to the objection of the locals but ignored by the political elites. The net effect is the lowering of the standard of living for the natives but a higher standard of living for the third world labor thus taking us in the direction of the goal I cited above. The problem with this plan is that it can’t ever work! As long as you have third world dictators who transfer the entire countries bank balance into their own pockets, those countries are never going to get any better! They are just going to continue to shove their problems off on others and sit back fat and happy. As long as the people are kept fed and stupid, they will never rise against dictators. This is where the real problems rise. This is what causes wars, and UN forces to deploy here and there and mass slaughters between rivals. But we are not addressing these problems because the UN is their club. Globalization works well for the despot. But in the meantime, globalists are lowering living standards in their own countries in pursuit of an equality that is never going to happen. Now there are those of you who would argue that the standard of living in the US is not lower than it used to be. Right now, I would agree with you to some extent, but we have been on a credit high for quite a while now. Ten years from now, if we had another hundred million cheap laborers in the US, I doubt you would even recognize America from the place you were raised. If that sounds nuts to you, remember that the Comprehensive Immigration bill last summer had allowed for about a hundred and fifty million people over the next twenty years and we already know they come a lot faster than we plan on.
This is why I am not going to be voting for anyone of either party who is in the least bit a globalist. I know them when I see them and I will not be a part of that.
Bikerken at January 22, 2008 11:59 AM
Man, those Eiffel programmers really get my goat. Talk about cult. I always thought object-oriented methodology zealots were bad but these guys are the Hale-Bopp castrati-1337. When will they admit that Design By Contract (tm) is just a bunch of glorified ASSERT statements? And how can they be so fucking holier-than-Frith when their crappy UML-ripoff notation can't even model state machines? Please.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 22, 2008 12:58 PM
Oh, I forgot! I'm a Mac user. There's your cult right there - one to which not even Amy is immune.
marion at January 22, 2008 1:18 PM
Oh, so McCain prefers For Whom the Bell Tolls to Homage to Catalonia, big deal. Who doesn't? But I have to admit that Goldwater stuff was pretty damned hilarious.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 22, 2008 1:21 PM
Curly,
Keep in mind this is a Democracy, not a Curlyocracy. If you are for limited govt, but the majority of voters like big govt, then big government it is. Successful democracy is not you (or me or any other individual) getting their way. It's possible you may have to accept that most voters just feel differently than you. In a democracy being right isn't as important as being in the majority.
What you can do is team up with other like-minded citizens and try to convince your fellow voters to see things your way. There's nothing wrong with voting for third parties. The Republicans started out as a fringe third party.
Big interests and Corporations can do a lot to influence elections but they can't vote. Only the citizens have the last word on who is elected. If they are easily led and manipulated whose fault is that?
The answer isn't some new campaign finance law or new tweaking of the system. The answer is for the lazy, apathetic, uneducated American voters to live up to their responsiblies. Politicians by definition do what they need to do to get elected. It is up to the voters to change what the politician needs to do to get elected.
winston at January 22, 2008 2:04 PM
I belong to the Cult of Amy. Please, Amy, no Kool-Aid.
Cody at January 22, 2008 2:06 PM
I'm not a member of any party, but I vote Libertarian when possible and when that wasn't possible in Minnesota I voted Reform. Otherwise, I abstain. What annoys me most about the Libertarians is their petty little internal party squabbles.
I have no religion.
"Man, those Eiffel programmers really get my goat."
Funny stuff.
Shawn at January 22, 2008 3:02 PM
mmm Kool-Aid
Sorry Winston, I have to take issue with your 1st para. If 51% of the people vote to enslave 49% of the people you say "Oh well, that is Democracy"
Seems like that is what a majority of the culture thinks these days. But I'd prefer getting back to the Constitutional Republic thing we had - where certain rights are inalienable.
On topic - fed up with both sides - but I think it is the culture that must change to what Amy calls personal responsibilitarian to drive any change in politics. It can't work the other way around.
newjonny at January 22, 2008 3:16 PM
newjonny -
If you give the masses a choice between freedom and free cable TV, the TV will win every time.
We're following the same trajectory as Europe - a nation of coddled children who cannot survive without mommy government handling all the details.
And I don't see it getting better.
As I said somewhere else - the shit of it is there's no place left on earth where we can go and start over.
brian at January 22, 2008 3:27 PM
Lifelong Democrat, but with zero loyalty for the last fifteen or twenty years. You can't ever let anybody else do yer thinkin' for you. Never! Never! Never! Political integrity is not a team sport, people!
On the other hand, Hrissikopoulos should expect to be asked for instructions by a semidrunken, overwhelmed California voter during a phone call on the evening of February 4...
Crid at January 22, 2008 3:49 PM
Keep in mind this is a Democracy, not a Curlyocracy.
Uh, Winston, the last I checked we're a Republic. Our Constitution specifically limits the power of the Federal Government and empowers the States. The Founding Fathers were adamant that we not be a democracy because of concerns about mob rule. I will grant that State Powers have been slowly siphoned off by the Feds for decades but we're not headed to a Democracy but rather to an Oligarchy. Who, a hundred years ago, would have imagined that Congressional Seats are hereditary?
Curly Smith at January 22, 2008 3:57 PM
I actually think that the two men are surprisingly similar, at least in certain ways.
The only major difference between Clinton and the shrub, is a matter of degree and opportunity. They are not substantially different on a lot of issues, indeed, they had very similar agendas. Given the chance, Clinton would have done a lot of the same things Bush has done, including the "patriot" act and the huge pull for executive power.
DuWayne at January 22, 2008 4:27 PM
Brian, agreed
Though I hold out hope we can return from the Statism brink Europe is embracing.
You can always contribute to ARI if you feel a bit of optimism.
I love the little trivia that only 1/6 th of the US Federal Govt was popularly elected at inception in 1776. Only Congress half of the house I think, then the presidency followed maybe 30ish yrs later along with the other half of the house for 2/3 total now. I'm not sure I'd mind that. One year of every four I have to watch retards run around mouthing the latest platitudes.
newjonny at January 22, 2008 6:01 PM
"Uh, Winston, the last I checked we're a Republic"
Yes I know, I use the word "democracy" as shorthand. It doesn't change the point that it's success should be not determined by how happy an individual voter is with the outcome.
"If 51% of the people vote to enslave 49% of the people you say 'Oh well, that is Democracy'"
Sounds like the 2000 election in reverse ;) The BofR codifies rights of minorities, but those rights do not include determining the general direction of the country.
"...not headed to a Democracy but rather to an Oligarchy. Who, a hundred years ago, would have imagined that Congressional Seats are hereditary?"
It is the voters that have determined they are hereditary, not some mysterious star chamber. The answer is for voters to determine they are not and elect some new blood (pun intended). We already have term limits. They are called "elections". If the voter choose not to use them that way but merely rubberstamp the same old faces, the fault lies not with the system or even the same old faces. The fault lies with the voters.
"...but I think it is the culture that must change...to drive any change in politics. It can't work the other way around"
Amen
"Democracy is the theory that the common person knows what they want, and deserves to get it good and hard" H.L. Menkin
winston at January 22, 2008 7:47 PM
Yeah, Winston, but they are not their own little nation and do not have the power to enact unconstitutional laws. Paul seems to think they should be able to decide what is and isn't constitutional. That's not states' rights, that's succession.
Donna at January 23, 2008 8:41 AM
"Secession"
But Winston is full of it. The US constitution is law of the land. If the population democratically votes in socialism and a police state, as they seem to be, I do not officially belong to said country. Hence, I can take out whomever is reponsible with the complete admiration (from the grave) of our founders.
You people should get off Ron Paul's case. He is the only chance we have.
Dave Lincoln at January 23, 2008 8:38 PM
Being called "full of it" by a Ron Paul supporter is not such an insult.
If you think the Constitution is a holy, never changing document try reading it. Especially Article 3 section 2, and all of Article 5.
"...I do not officially belong to said country. Hence, I can take out whomever is reponsible..."
Please define "officially", "take out" and "whomever is responsible". Are you planning on grabbing your trusty SKS and storming the Capitol building anytime soon?
winston at January 24, 2008 2:00 AM
Did I say it was unchangable Winston? Point out where. I said the states couldn't pass unconstitutional laws. I'm wholly aware the Constitution is open to amendment.
And sorry about secession thing, Dave. That's a weird sort of typo I do a lot. I must have been tired though or in a hurry (work was busy yesterday) to not catch it on the preview. We'll have to politely disagree on Paul.
Donna at January 24, 2008 7:35 AM
Ron Paul is NOT the "only chance we have". He is, in fact, an order of magnitude worse than Hillary! is.
Ron Paul is an acolyte of noted Hitler apologist Pat Buchanan. He is an isolationist, a xenophobe, and if his "writings" are to be believed a racist and an anti-Zionist too.
Paul's take on trade is unworkable in the real world. His position on immigration is insane.
And whether a law is "Constitutional" or not is for the Supreme Court to determine, not you, and not Ron Paul.
brian at January 24, 2008 7:37 AM
Yes, Winston, but we have not amended the Constitution to allow Socialism and a Police State. The Bill of Rights was written to prevent that, but hardly anyone in all three branches of our Fed. Government can read that, or they lie while taking their oath of office.
BTW, I don't believe the Bill of Rights itself is Amendable.
"And whether a law is "Constitutional" or not is for the Supreme Court to determine, not you, and not Ron Paul." Anyone in government (with a say in the matter) who votes for, signs, enforces, etc. laws he knows to be unconstitutional is a traitor to his country. Forget the "just following orders" BS. It worked fine for the Nazis in Germany, and Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, but not f____ing here, Brian!
Ron Paul has voted consistently for 20 years (?) with respect for the US Constitution. Hillary? Yeah! She will be first taking the guns. (oh, wait, only a registration for the Children). The bad stuff will come about 10 years later, but most of you won't have the fight left in you, or will not have a chance, as the gov't will know your every move. Good luck with all that....
Dave Lincoln at January 24, 2008 10:04 AM
oops, did not answer the question:
Not anytime soon.
Dave Lincoln at January 24, 2008 10:08 AM
"Did I say it was unchangable Winston?"
My remarks were directed toward Dave Lincoln, not Donna.
"BTW, I don't believe the Bill of Rights itself is Amendable."
And this belief comes from where? Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says what is and isn't amendable?
"Anyone in government (with a say in the matter) who votes for, signs, enforces, etc. laws he knows to be unconstitutional is a traitor to his country."
What if there is disagreement on whether or not a law is unconstitutional? Who determines what is unconstitutional, you? Your going to throw people in prison for treason for violating your personal view of the Constitution.
Do you know the Constitutional definition of and requirements for proving treason? Try reading Article 3, section 3.
For someone who expresses such alligence to the Constitution, you seem very ignorant of what it actually says.
winston at January 24, 2008 11:30 AM
Leave a comment