BS: Arlo endorses Paul?

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:28 PM

Well, it looks to me like he made a good choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:16 PM

There is no such thing as a waste of a vote. Yeah, yeah yeah - you can bring up the lack of wisdom when casting a vote for a Ralph Nader, but EVERY voice has a reason and a right.

The danger comes when we give our vote to the "less offensive" candidate. It is then we end up setting for mediocrity and candidates following polls instead of logic. IF every candidate realized that their support comes from action instead of illogical "follow the herd" mentality, perhaps we would see significant change.

It took me awhile to grow up and realize this.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:00 PM

GG, you are a piece of work, but you have twisted my position with your nasty little leering remarks. Arlo is perfectly free to vote for whomever he wants. It does not appear that he is necessarily going to vote for Ron Paul, merely likes some of his ideas -- probably not the Big Fence concept though.

It is a waste of a vote if it goes toward someone who is not going to get nominated, but, I guess if you're willing to let everyone else choose between the handful of contendahs in the nomination, and go wit h that int he elections, that's your right, too.

I don't vote as a bet, KEndall. I vote based on preference among probable available realities. While voting for Dennis Kucinich as a write in would make a statement of preference, I do not consider it the wisest use of my one voice among the millions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:53 PM

... plus he would be really, really old and probably not fit for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

But if Paul would have signed it in 1787 he would ahve been subscribing to its then meaning - one not acceptable today.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM

You may be quite right in what you say about the "interpretation" of the Constitution by the public in the 1700s, Jeri, you probably are quite right, but what's the problem? I was defending your Constitution by what I said, not attacking it. I'm sure it had not even occurred to the men who wrote it that women would ever be voting in elections...not to mention Indians (who were considered to be "savages") and Blacks (who were considered to be property). The problem was not in the document, whose wording was a bit ambiguous, perhaps...but in the prevailing social assumptions of the time. So the wording in the document was later made more specific in order to address those issues. Correct?

We have seen a similar legislative process of change occur in most other nations over the last couple of hundred years, and we are continuing to see it occur...as regards same-sex marriage, and various other issues.

I think the US Constitution was very progressive for its time, and it still stands up well in almost every respect. I studied it when I was a student in New York State during the years 1958-1968. That was a long time ago, however, so I've forgotten much of it by now, and I would have to look it up and reread it to get all the details back in my head.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

The comments are in the "Forum" section under the title "Ron Paul". There is a box on the home page - lower right.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:04 PM

'We the People of the United States'? is discriminatory language because people back then believed it meant white men? Uh. Point made, I think.

Can't find Arlo's comments on his site, but I didn't look too hard. I think sometimes a candidate's 'people' are their worst enemies. They sure seem to have gotten a couple different candidates in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:39 PM

Good points, Ron. I wondered about the nature of that "endorsement" myself, even though the Post article used the word. Maybe it's a good idea to be a little skeptical of what one reads in a gossip column.

From his comments on his website, it seems that Arlo is ready to cut Paul more slack than I would Here's the link for my comment about Paul and the neo-Confederates.

Paul newsletters

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:38 PM

I should not necessarily have assumed that the OP was right in what he said, but surely it was in fact the case that the electorate when teh US constitution was created did not include blacks or women. So in using the lnguage of its time that constitution was discriminatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

It would be dangerous if there was ever a bad rain. "How long can you tread water?"

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM

Maybe Ron Paul's campaign team believes "they can get everything they wants" from Arlo's website.

Any thoughts about Paul's plan to extend the border wall from Mexico, up the Pacific Coast, back cross Canada, down the Atlantic Coast, and on around the Gulf Coast. If you think the BIG DIG was expensive, imagine the capital expense of this project!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:25 AM

The amazing thing about this story is the source. It appears that Ron Paul's organization did the politician thing by jumping on a comment that Arlo made on his own website forum.

If you read the comments on Arlo's site, you will see that Arlo is supporting the ideas and the fight that Ron Paul has generated. Arlo was discussing the campaign and what appealed to him about Ron Paul. It was not a ringing endorsement of all of Pauls positions, and it did not appear to be anything more than a casual statement. Ron Paul's folks did not bother to mention that Arlo also said that he doesn't expect to have the opportunity to cast a vote for Ron Paul and he would probably be voting for Obama.

I'm curious if Ron Paul's organization went to get Arlo's approval before running the story of the "endorsement". Read the forum for yourselves and decide - it is obvious that Arlo does indeed like Ron Paul. Endorsement?? I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: bankley
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:06 AM

good for Arlo.... I like them Paul boys, Ron and Les..

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:01 AM

GG-

Have you considered becoming a moderator of this forum? Then you could edit or delete all posts that failed to meet your stringent standards of reasoning. LOL

Now if you could just structure your comments as verses, with a chorus or refrain, they might be better received.

My tiny brain has real problems distinguishing between the remaining Democratic candidates. However, I have less problem distinguishing them from McCain or Romney. Whatever!

I think I'll give Ron Paul a pass, even if he does get Arlo's endorsement.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:47 AM

Little Hawk and Richard Bridge, you guys appear to know quite a bit about the US Constitution. Could you possibly quote the parts of it relevant to your statements?

Little Hawk: "It's not really fair, Mike, to expect the 1787 version of the Constitution to match today's rights for women, Blacks, or Native Americans (Amerindians)...because it simply reflected the prevailing social ideas of its own time."

Richard Bridge: "But since the 1787 constitution does not match modern standards of equality,... "

From what I can see, the Constitution didn't give any group of people more rights than another. The disparities were caused by the way people interpreted it, and the amendments were added to protect rights that were interpreted away. (15th: Race [1870]; 19th: Women's Suffrage [1920])

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:27 AM

And as to Arlo's choice, I don't have a problem with him choosing the most libertarian of the field. It is no more bizarre a choice than voting for Obama because he makes you feel good or is black, or Clinton because she is most electable or a woman.

And let's face it, from what many people in the forum are saying (except when challenged, which they certainly don't like), it's so easy to see through their faux-progressive intentions of voting based on race and gender to be "historic".

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:23 AM

Amos says anyone who doesn't vote the way he votes is wasting their vote, so I wouldn't give much credence to him pontificating on how others choose to exercise their right to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: kendall
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:02 AM

Amos, I have infered from what you implied, that anyone who votes for Paul is wasting his/her vote?
Well, if that is the case, I have often said that I cast my vote as a preference, not as a bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:06 AM

But since the 1787 constitution does not match modern standards of equality, the idea that a candidate would have signed it should now disqualify him.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:25 AM

Arlo is going to vote for Ron Paul?


What a waste.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:17 AM

Rapaire, since the Constitution requires one to be 35yo to be President, thus it would have been quite impossible for a natural born citizen to qualify until 1824 (or 1811 if you count from July 4, 1776), thus that would have been the earliest date possible. John Tyler (ing 1841) was the first President born after the ratification of the Constitution; Martin Van Buren (ing 1833) the first born after the Declaration of Independence.

I don't mean to speak for Arlo G., but I don't believe he thinks blacks or women should be disenfranchised. I don't agree with his choice, but it gives a whole new way of seeing the gutsy Guthrie.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:29 PM

Yeah. ;-) I figured you weren't being that serious about it.

Ron Paul has a lot of good points in his foreign policy platform. That ain't to say he's perfect...!

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:07 PM

Little Hawk

I was being glib with my final comment, but I hope Arlo at least asked Paul about all those neo Confederate manifestos that used to appear in the Congressman's newsletter.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM

This is just sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:50 PM

It's not really fair, Mike, to expect the 1787 version of the Constitution to match today's rights for women, Blacks, or Native Americans (Amerindians)...because it simply reflected the prevailing social ideas of its own time.

It was really quite progressive for 1787, but things change as the centuries go by. People's expectations change. We are probably presently taking for granted things that will be seen as very unjust a hundred or two hundred years from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:41 PM

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

The first few Presidents of the US were originally citizens of England.

Subject: BS: Arlo endorses Paul?
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:39 PM

From the Washington Post's gossip column.

"Obama's got the Kennedys; now Ron Paul has Arlo Guthrie. The folk singer endorsed the Libertarian/Republican yesterday as the "only candidate" who would have signed the Constitution if he'd been alive in 1787."

Of course neither of the two leading Democratic candidates would have even been able to vote under that 1787 version of the Constitution.

Mike