Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:One hundred years after the Constitution became the law of the land, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, described the fall of ancient Athens with a succinct and accurate summary of how and why democracies decline. "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury," he wrote. "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
"From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

America is close to the final phase. There may be time to turn the ship of state around, but that time is quickly coming to a close. November of this year may be that time. Consider your vote carefully.

Phatscotty wrote:One hundred years after the Constitution became the law of the land, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, described the fall of ancient Athens with a succinct and accurate summary of how and why democracies decline. "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury," he wrote. "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
"From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

America is close to the final phase. There may be time to turn the ship of state around, but that time is quickly coming to a close. November of this year may be that time. Consider your vote carefully.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).

I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).

I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

They might have been put off by the deeply racist and homophobic stuff he was putting out in his newsletters. I'd like to think that even the most ardent Ron Paul supporter would be disillusioned by seeing them and call him out as a nasty little man.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).

I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

They might have been put off by the deeply racist and homophobic stuff he was putting out in his newsletters. I'd like to think that even the most ardent Ron Paul supporter would be disillusioned by seeing them and call him out as a nasty little man.

I didn't see any homophobic stuff in the newsletters I read. I did see racist items. Ron Paul disavowed and apologized for them and didn't have any racist or homophobic planks in his platform (that I recall). That was enough for me. You might be right in any event, but I didn't see this reported as a reason people didn't vote for Paul. Of the Republicans I know (anecdotal evidence), the ones who didn't vote for Paul didn't vote for him because either (1) he was too Libertarian (drugs mostly) or (2) he spoke out against US intervention.

“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”[175][176]"

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.[166][168][167] In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.[168][179] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[168][179] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.[180][181][182]

Juan_Bottom wrote:


It's gonna be an easily election. Romney was a failed governor who destroyed his office's records, destroyed his business records, and sealed his taxes. Now he wants to give himself a giant tax break and raise your taxes by $2K to pay for it. He admits that he hasn't even run the numbers on his own economic plan. This guy is a joke candidate. Even his business successes involve causing a company to go bankrupt by piling it with debt and not paying it off, so that he can keep all the profits for himself.
I wonder if that's his plan for America?

Phatscotty wrote:One hundred years after the Constitution became the law of the land, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, described the fall of ancient Athens with a succinct and accurate summary of how and why democracies decline. "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury," he wrote. "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
"From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

America is close to the final phase. There may be time to turn the ship of state around, but that time is quickly coming to a close. November of this year may be that time. Consider your vote carefully.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).

I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

They might have been put off by the deeply racist and homophobic stuff he was putting out in his newsletters. I'd like to think that even the most ardent Ron Paul supporter would be disillusioned by seeing them and call him out as a nasty little man.

I didn't see any homophobic stuff in the newsletters I read. I did see racist items. Ron Paul disavowed and apologized for them and didn't have any racist or homophobic planks in his platform (that I recall). That was enough for me. You might be right in any event, but I didn't see this reported as a reason people didn't vote for Paul. Of the Republicans I know (anecdotal evidence), the ones who didn't vote for Paul didn't vote for him because either (1) he was too Libertarian (drugs mostly) or (2) he spoke out against US intervention.

To be fair, I think the nasty part is that he's disavowed and denied something he was clearly involved in by denying that he saw them. I think it's tough to accept a hero as deeply flawed. I kind of went from immediately disliking Paul, to liking him on his stances on certain issues, to finding him immensely self-serving, to simply disliking the man.

I can support opposing the war in Iraq and support legalising drugs, but the best I can do with Paul is to say that he might not support the racism and homophobia that he was sending out in his newsletters. And yeah, they were pretty homophobic too.

“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”[175][176]"

That's tough stuff to excuse away by a simple disavowal. It's kind of clear that he'll say whatever he thinks will work.

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.[166][168][167] In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.[168][179] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[168][179] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.[180][181][182]

I also think that he's done a poor service to libertarianism (a movement I'm sceptical about), by making it so focused on something that almost approaches a cult of personality.

Ken Smith tells the story about Romney helping his charity provide for military veterans:

Bryce Clark discusses his struggle with alcoholism and how Romney helped him get through:

Kingm wrote:I just wanted to say that I think Ryan will become president in 2016.. just had to write it down somewhere, so I can comeback in 4 years, and tell everyone that I am the new nostradamus

Kingm wrote:I just wanted to say that I think Ryan will become president in 2016.. just had to write it down somewhere, so I can comeback in 4 years, and tell everyone that I am the new nostradamus

Phatscotty wrote:lulz

Reporter tries to troll Paul Ryan, and the next Vice Prez takes a page outta Phatty's book