David Price has another challenger . . .

A Cary neurosurgeon-turned-software-entrepreneur-turned-closet-Libertarian-turned-Republican named William "BJ" Lawson is jumping into the 4th district race with a flurry of contradictions that would be baffling to any careful observer. In case you're not up to speed on the 4th district, Lawson will have to take out Orange County GOP Chairman Augustus Cho for the honor of getting his butt kicked by Congressman David Price.

From his own website:

My name is B.J. Lawson, and I am running for Congress as a Republican to restore a Constitutional federal government. Washington must balance its budget, stop serving corporate interests, and allow us to prosper as free, entrepreneurial Americans instead of dividing us into special interest groups that fight each other for government handouts.

As a freakin' Republican? Now I know why the guy still goes by the nickname "BJ" even though his name is William T. Lawson? What the heck has BJ been smoking? Stop serving corporate interests . . . as a Republican? Restore a constitutional federal government . . . as a Republican? But have no fear, BJ is a uniter, not a divider. That's why he's at odds with two-thirds of Americans who don't want to see abortion made illegal. You see, BJ is a "life begins at conception" kind of guy who wants to pull us all into his precious little tent.

There's more, but it's all just a bunch of free-market double-talk. Which raises the real question: Why isn't Lawson running as the Libertarian he really is/ Could it be because he knows a Libertarian can't win anything in North Carolina? You can find out more about the guy at his old blog, which, if nothing else, reveals Lawson's alignment with the lunatic fringe's hero-du-jour, Ron Paul.

The way I see it, BJ's chances of beating Cho are excellent. Republican primary voters will spring for anybody with a boatload of money. But the chances of a pro-life isolationist who wants to disband public education winning the hearts and minds of the 4th district seem pretty close to non-existent. He probably won't even carry Cary.

(And wait till you see his reading list.)




Hat tip to the Dome

Comments

When did I say that?

I never said anything about the states being allowed to establish a religion. Establishing a religion is a lot different than allowing a Christmas tree on the courthouse lawn or something of that nature.

That's how you establish a

That's how you establish a religion.

If the government, Federal, State, or Local, acknowledges one religion's holidays without acknowledging the others, the government is giving that one religion preferential treatment, that is, establishing it as state-favored.

Christmas trees have generally been considered OK, while nativity scenes are not, unless coupled also with a Menorah and some Eid + Kwanzaa recognition.

I disagree

I don't believe that putting a Christmas tree on a courthouse lawn is establishing a state-favored religion. Of course it's best to have all religions represented. If Jewish people go to the people in charge and ask for a menorah to be put up, and the town says no, that is a problem. Kwanzaa is not a religious holiday, and Hanukah is a very minor holiday on the Jewish calendar compared to Christmas for Christians.

Things can be taken too far in the opposite way. Turkey and France are examples. They take pride in having a "secular" government, which means that Muslims can't wear headscarves in public schools, and in the case of Turkey, a president has a hard time being elected because his wife happens to wear a headscarf.

We certainly don't want America to be like that. In my opinion, it is religious oppression.

Things can be taken too far

Things can be taken too far in the opposite way. Turkey and France are examples. They take pride in having a "secular" government, which means that Muslims can't wear headscarves in public schools, and in the case of Turkey, a president has a hard time being elected because his wife happens to wear a headscarf.

We certainly don't want America to be like that. In my opinion, it is religious oppression.

It is religious oppression. That's why the government needs to be as permissive as possible for individual expression. And because state religious expression can have chilling effects on individual expression, as

I don't believe that putting a Christmas tree on a courthouse lawn is establishing a state-favored religion.

Well, when the state puts up a Christmas tree, it is acknowledging Christmas, and thus Christians. If the state does not acknowledge other major holidays of other religions, it is favoring Christians over believers of other faiths, thus creating a state-favored religion.

Obviously, there's some reasonableness standard that should be in place. If there is one Jainist in Chicago, the city of Chicago does not need to recognize Jainist holidays on the same level as Christmas and Easter. However, when a non-negligible portion of the population is of a certain religion, the state must recognize that in the same way as it does all other religions.

If there isn't going to be a Menorah on the Courthouse lawn next to the Christmas tree because Hanukah is such a minor holiday, then I expect Yom Kippur as a day off for everyone, like Christmas is, and a Sukkah on the Courthouse lawn every late Sept/October. Anything else marginalises Jews as second-class citizens under Christians because the state is recognizing one while not recognizing the other.

Also, a Christmas tree can be easily renamed as a Winter Holiday tree. And while that's a little silly, as long as the ornaments are more of the "angels, trumpets and shiny orbs"-type than "Baby Jesus, Magi and crosses"-type, then there isn't much of a problem with establishment of religion. It's the courthouse creches that are more of a problem.

Of course, this doesn't affect personal expression at all. If you want to put up a 100-foot, light-up, singing Creche on your lawn, all the more power to ya. But the city/state shouldn't be doing that.

I disagree

I don't believe as some do that putting a Christmas tree on a courthouse lawn is establishing a state-favored religion. Of course it's best to have all religions represented. If Jewish people go to the people in charge and ask for a menorah to be put up, and the town says no, that is a problem. Kwanzaa is not a religious holiday, and Hanukah is a very minor holiday on the Jewish calendar compared to Christmas for Christians.

Things can be taken too far in the opposite way. Turkey and France are examples. They take pride in having a "secular" government, which means that Muslims can't wear headscarves in public schools, and in the case of Turkey, a president has a hard time being elected because his wife happens to wear a headscarf.

We certainly don't want America to be like that. In my opinion, it is religious oppression.

Depends on whether you think the fetus is a living human or not.

You can't argue the abortion issue from a pro-choice stance without acknowledging the reason that most pro-lifers believe the way they do: they believe life begins at conception and therefore the fetus has rights just as you and I have.

To say that it is only about a woman's body is not acknowledging that many pro-lifers see it as involving two bodies: the woman's AND the baby's, whom they view as a human as well, with equal rights as the mother.

Defies logic

You're right, that is the reason why pro-lifers/anti-choicers would argue the way they do. But I disagree.

A blob of 4 cells is not a human, something I think most abortion opponents would agree to. There has to be some line, of course, between a proto-human blob and a person. If that line is not to be arbitrary, it must be something like cognizance or ability to live independently. Since a cognizance test would probably allow killing newborns after they are born, as well as some old people, it's not a good idea. Therefore, I would support drawing the line at the ability to live independently of a specific human. (A newborn, while it cannot survive entirely by itself, does not need a specific person to raise it.)

I'm not familiar with the process of "partial-birth abortion", so I can't judge where that would fall in relation to this test, but abortions up to the end of the 2nd trimester would certainly be OK, as well as probably some into the 3rd.

What about paritial birth abortion?

I agree with you that science should decide, as far as the first trimester. I have a friend who was born at five months, so any baby over five months (still in the 2nd trimester!) should be allowed to survive on their own and IMO should be fully vested with the same rights we give to a baby born at full term. I therefore don't see why abortions should be allowed into the 3rd trimester at all.

I think both sides take it too far: Democrats just take it too far in the opposite way, by taking away rights from a fully developed child.

If a partial birth abortion is necessary for the mother's health, a C-section could just as easily be performed, saving the baby and the mother, I would think.

You must not know many Democrats

Democrats just take it too far in the opposite way, by taking away rights from a fully developed child.

You're painting with an awfully broad brush, there.

I've been active in abortion rights for 20 years and have never met a person, Democrat or Republican, who fits your description. I'm sure there are some who do, just like there are some Libertarians who actually favor public education. But they are few and far between.

For being few and far between, I've met quite a few of them.

I've met a lot of libertarians, and I have never met a libertarian who believes that public school should be immediately abolished (if that's what you're implying), but my Democratic friends for the most part believe that partial birth abortion should be an option for the mother and doctor until the baby's birth. The Congress voted mostly on party lines a few years ago, with most if not all Democrats voting to allow partial birth abortion and not ban it. Harry Reid is a notable pro-life Democratic exception to this, and there are a few others as well.

I have met Democrats who are pro-life (I used to be one, in fact) but they are fewer and farther between than pro-choice ones. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the partial birth abortion ban. I'm not sure how you can classify me as "painting with a broad brush."

You can't pray wherever you want?

Why should I not be allowed to quietly pray to myself in a public school if I am of a religion and choose to do so? That is what the bill Ron Paul sponsored would allow-- not official prayer, but simply for people to pray to themselves if they so chose without the government interfering and saying that they can't.

No

Sorry, libgirl, but you are dead wrong.

You are allowed to pray in a public school, except during classtime and if you are causing a disturbance. You are able to pray quietly to yourself no matter what. I attend a semi-public school (the NC School of Science and Math) - would you like me to videotape myself praying, showing no one getting mad or stopping me? (I'm Jewish, so it might not count, because some people, perhaps you, think Christians are discriminated against by the government, but whatever)

The We the People Act would allow schools to force students to pray, because there would no longer be any Federal prohibition on state establishment of religion. Some states have a First Amendment-like prohibition on state establishment of religion, but some do not. In those states, it would be legal for the teacher to lead a Lord's Prayer-type prayer at the beginning of the day, even for non-Christian students.

I disagree with your analysis

I disagree that the We the People Act would allow that. The First Amendment still allows for no state establishment of religion-- it would just allow local areas to decide if they want to have a Halloween parade in the school or if they want to put up Christmas decorations and that sort of thing. That's not anything close to state establishment of religion. Any state establishment of religion would be immediately struck down by courts.

Are you seriously thinking that this bill would allow states to do that? It just wouldn't be held up as constitutional-- the bill does not allow for that. What an extreme interpretation.

That's what the We the

That's what the We the People Act would do. It would define, essentially, the First Amendment as forbidding Federal establishment of religion, but leaving state (as in NC, not as in government) establishment of religion up to the states. If a state's constitution doesn't ban establishment, it would be legal.

Any state establishment of religion would be immediately struck down by courts.

If the state itself didn't ban it, the state courts couldn't do anything, and the Federal courts couldn't do anything either, as the WtP act would have forbade it.

Are you seriously thinking that this bill would allow states to do that? It just wouldn't be held up as constitutional

The point is that constitutionality wouldn't matter anymore. The Federal courts would no longer have jurisdiction to decide. It would be a completely novel overturning of the current paradigm of Federal interpretation of state laws.

What you're talking about

is clearly allowing the majority of a school district (for instance) deciding what religious holidays to observe, which clearly could lead to the violation of the rights of the minority in that district.

And yes, it does matter. I don't want my children having to participate in a holiday celebration that is not their own, nor do I want them excluded from something that their peers in school will be participating in. Your "We the People" act is a back door to letting - or in the South's case, keeping, religion in the public school classrooms. If we're going to bogus up Halloween (which is actually a sacred day in my religion) with a parade of people wearing Power Ranger costumes, and force my child to call the Holly King "Santa", then we're damn well going to learn about Beltane and what a MayPole is really about.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Democracy

As some of my annoying-libertarian friends love repeating, Democracy is rule of the majority, with protection of the minority. Clearly, then, it would be undemocratic to impose the will of the majority (Christians) on the minority (Pagans? Wiccans? Sorry, I'm uneducated as to what you would call yourself...) by imposing the majority's beliefs on the minority.

That's what freedom of religion is about, not freedom to impose your religious beliefs on society.

If someone objects, that's

If someone objects, that's different. If all the Wiccans in school like the Halloween parade and no one objects, I don't see what the problem is. But, pre-emptively getting rid of these fun things for kids in the off chance that someone might object is taking it way too far. My old school doesn't have a Halloween parade or a Christmas party, which were seriously the two highlights of the year for all the kids every single year.

Also, celebrating Christmas in a secular way (trees, Santa) has nothing to do with religion. Atheists celebrate Christmas, as do a few Jewish people I know. They even put up Christmas lights!

It's worth saying that if you're the minority, of course your rights shouldn't be trampled on, but you do have to live with what the majority wants to do as long as it doesn't directly violate your rights. For instance, let's say you are a Jehovah's Witness. They don't celebrate birthdays. Can the school not celebrate anyone's birthday, ever? That would be madness. The Jehovah's Witness, instead, can go to the library or do some other fun activity when birthdays are celebrated. Just as you shouldn't make the JW stay in the room and violate their religion, you shouldn't violate the rights of everyone else to celebrate their schoolmates' birthdays because one individual objects to it (unless everyone decides that's what they'd rather do).

People can already do that, libgirl.

There's no law saying that they can't. It was frivolous of Ron Paul to sponsor a law reiterating what people can already do. What a waste of time.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Some schools have tried to stop this

Sure, there's no law, but some people take the idea that religion can't be established by the state a bit too far and have stopped people from praying on their own time. Hence the clarification that the First Amendment does allow that, and it should not be abridged.

But the First Amendment also

But the First Amendment also protects people who are praying on their own time as free exercise.

No clarification is necessary, the courts have repeatedly decided that private prayer is protected.

Please cite the cases

Please cite the cases involved, and what jurisdiction they held.

You don't need a law clarifying the First Amendment.

I'm sorry -- that's just stupid, and a waste of legislative time and money. You need education about what the First Amendment means, and in some cases, you may need education about what the appropriate time for prayer is.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Ron Paul has been accused of

Ron Paul has been accused of many things, but wasting legislative money is not one of them. He's probably the only member of Congress who hasn't taken the multi-million dollar pension, as well as the only one I've heard of who returns money from his office to the US Treasury each year.

Do you support the Equal Rights Amendment? Many people think that it is redundant, too, and was already included in the 14th Amendment, among others.

I'm not talking about Ron Paul's pension or salary.

I'm talking about the time, salary of aides, ink and paper it took for the bill to be written. Do you think it just materialized, or was written by volunteers?

As for the ERA - yes, I support it, because I don't think it's redundant. But that's a totally different subject, and you know it.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

what about the time, ink & paper saved by a Ron Paul presidency?

Ron Paul would have so many fewer bills in Congress that a vote for him is a vote for the environment and for congressional aides' time!

To criticize him for wasting people's time with this one bill is highly odd considering the multitudes of pointless bills put through by so many members of Congress, adding up to thousands of pages.

Ron Paul's bills are usually only about a page long.

That's obfuscation.

We're not talking about other members of congress, or other bills. We're talking about a totally unnecessary bill introduced as a grandstanding measure by a Congressman who has obviously not familiarized himself with the US Constitution.

It doesn't matter how many bills he's introduced; it doesn't matter what other members of congress have done. The issue at hand is this particular bill, which is an utter waste of time, money,and the paper its printed on, even if it is only one page long.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Ron frickin' Paul

I'm so sick of hearing about this fraud. Let me ask you something. When Ron Paul gets rid of Medicaid and Medicare - because he wants to - what happens to those people? Right now, we pay for their health care, with 2% overhead. At the same time, we pay $922 a year in extra premiums to cover the uninsured. What happens when those people become uninsured by the government?

People already give every penny they can in taxes and charity, there are no more dollars, and if you don't agree with that then the whole house of cards falls apart. So, now we have tens of millions of people without insurance - who pays for their health care? Even if people voluntarily give every penny they currently pay in taxes for medicaid/medicare, it won't cover those people. Because NOW, they will be covered by private plans which have 25-30% overhead. There is not enough money for charity to cover all these people, which means more uninsured, more people going without. We'll have seniors dying for lack of medicine and hospital care. We'll have poor babies dying at 10-times the rate of babies in well-to-do families.

But, that is the whole point of the Paul plan - putting more people in need that charity can't meet. Then, we'll have massive social outpouring to help these people, which will lead to something like, oh, I don't, Medicare.

Ron Paul's ideas are stupid, they won't work. You frickin' people need to look beyond the LOVEution at what the consequences of his actual policies would be - disaster.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Robert, seriously.

You should learn how to express yourself. Don't hold back.

I haven't read much of Ron Paul's platform. I haven't needed to - because I've listened to him very carefully when he has spoken. He's said the right things about getting out of the war. But that's the only thing I agree with him on - and I'm not sure I agree with his reasons.

We need a social safety net - and it needs to be stronger, not weaker. I believe in stronger government, not smaller. But I want that stronger government to be compassionate (like most of the the Americans it represents) and responsible (like most of the Americans it represents). Medicare and Medicaid actually work. They should be expanded, and the payments to health care providers should be raised to meet rising health care costs. Eligibility should be expanded so that more working families who are struggling to afford health "insurance" could buy into the system.

I don't trust anyone who espouses a smaller government, because it usually means dismantling a system and then having to rebuild it again. (Think Reagan)


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Emotions and gas shortages in new age Paul politics

Robert, seriously.

You should learn how to express yourself. Don't hold back.*lcloud

It appears that I have been wrong about Robert. I always thought he was a political animal, cold, cool, unimaged, direct, and a hard charger.
He is quite emotional is he not?.....just teasing Robert......

I haven't read much of Ron Paul's platform. I haven't needed to - because I've listened to him very carefully when he has spoken. He's said the right things about getting out of the war. But that's the only thing I agree with him on - and I'm not sure I agree with his reasons. *lcloud

Good for you! You might have not heard of his second issue and solution. We drain the gas of out of the Blackwater Hummers ie....now call the Grizzy during a peace march in front of their Home Office. Can I count on you to make this issue to come true? You will need a small rubber hose to drain the tanks.....you can find one in the Blackwater torture room......

Start reading...

MaxTheDog2, sorry, but I have to push back a bit. We have a nation that is functionally illiterate. It's not that many of can't read, but far too many choose not to. And to have the arrogance to say you "haven't needed to" read Ron Paul's platform? Wow. That says something. I'm not sure what, but it says something.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Win the Fans Mr Lawson! Don't insult your allies!

Start reading...
lawso01

MaxTheDog2, sorry, but I have to push back a bit. We have a nation that is functionally illiterate. It's not that many of can't read, but far too many choose not to. And to have the arrogance to say you "haven't needed to" read Ron Paul's platform? Wow. That says something. I'm not sure what, but it says something. *lawso01

Mr Lawson! You are taking a cheap shot a icloud who is one of the best political opposition researcher here at this site. You will not win the fans nor the friends in the progressive movement, who have streaks of libertarism in them on constitutional civil rights and corporation fascism along with pounding the Art Pope gang as a clear and present danger assault on your so-called campaign.....You have much to learn and this old political dog can eat your lunch if he choses.....now shape up and get your act together......If you are a wannabee in this business, you should have finished your medical career first......This country is in serious, serious trouble and needs not more education, but more political action in the right places........Do you understand that principle? The are two issues facing the American people......1.....the war, the war, the war, the war and the 2nd reason is simply.......what the hell are the American people going to live on with the present level of funny money and bankrupty facing the middle class and the poor.....Bull shit books on free markets will not win your present cause......

We're in violent agreement.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. Also didn't know who made the first statement. So apologies both to lcloud and mdog. It's just that the two issues you note, war and funny money, ARE the key issues.

I pushed back because Ron Paul has been writing prolifically over a 20 year legislative career, and the issues we're addressing cannot be adequately dissected in verbal sound bites. The past ten years of his Congressional Record contributions and communications with constituents are conveniently online and indexed at ronpaullibrary.com. I can read faster than I can listen, so I just found reading a uniquely effective way to explore his "platform". I've not seen another candidate with that much depth, and breadth.

Finally, I disagree with your assertion that "Bull shit books on free markets will not win your present cause".

The books themselves won't win anything. But ideas have the power to change reality, and conversations around ideas rooted in data and history can be powerful stimulants. What don't you like about free markets? (Or perhaps we should discuss over a cup of coffee...)

Cheers,
BJ

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Reality is not your strong point Mr Lawson?

We're in violent agreement.* lawso017

As far as I know, either you are a complete fruitcake or simply a young man with a cheerleader spirit who can't make the varsity team. Can you explain to me how someone can be violent on the internet without body contact?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. Also didn't know who made the first statement. So apologies both to lcloud and mdog. It's just that the two issues you note, war and funny money, ARE the key issues.

And Ron Paul has been writing prolifically over a 20 year legislative career, and the issues we're addressing cannot be adequately discussed in verbal sound bites. The past ten years of his Congressional Record speeches, and communications with constituents, are conveniently online and indexed at ronpaullibrary.com. I can read faster than I can listen, so I just found reading a uniquely effective way to explore his "platform". I've not seen another candidate with that much depth, and breadth.* lawso017

I have known Dr No personally for many years, Do not lecture me about Liberty or politics...Are you aware that Dr Paul donated a 1000 bucks in the Republican 04 primary to fight Art Pope and the neo-cons in this district and state....

Finally, I disagree with your assertion that "Bull shit books on free markets will not win your present cause".* lawso017

The books themselves won't win anything. But ideas have the power to change reality, and conversations around ideas rooted in data and history can be powerful stimulants. What don't you like about free markets? (Or perhaps we should discuss over a cup of coffee...)* lawso017

1. There is no such thing as free markets in recorded human history....one assumes that you have never heard of Gunboat Trade policy nor understood why the Punic Wars for that fact all wars are fought for......Do you really believe that the Romans started the first Punic war because Carthage was a center of abortion and baby killers? end of discussion
2. Ideas in coffee shops go nowhere...That is what Universities are for!
3. Revolutions are ploted in Traverns as the founders of this country did....In fact all revolutions are started with a gun or a sword when the masses are supress by tyrants...

You are wasting your time and energy thinking you are converting some folks to your cause by posting here.....The internet is design to do certain things in politics and you have no idea how that works with your lack of political knowledge and may I add history......You are a babe in the woods and totaly lost......

You can start your reeducational course here....http://www.wtprn.com and met the real revolutionaries and the "real" patriots

What insults.

All the things you are saying could be turned back on yourself. If BJ is wasting his time, perhaps you are as well and perhaps we all are. Perhaps you would have been one of the Loyalists telling the Patriots they were wasting their time by fighting the British :)

Before the Magna Carta, there had never been a ruling document that gave power to the people. That was only 800 years ago, after perhaps 150,000 years of human existence. Before 1776, there had never been a revolution based on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Before the 1780s, there had never been a revolution of the people and away from monarchy. And then, there were at least two (us and the French).

If people did things based on whether someone had ever done them before, we wouldn't have the wheel, a car, and certainly the Internet.

We'd still be living in caves.

tee hee

"I know you are but what am I?!?"

Historical simpletons are funny.

But! But! You are ruining my game plan with these ideas?

All the things you are saying could be turned back on yourself. If BJ is wasting his time, perhaps you are as well and perhaps we all are.*libgirl

Nope! If you are going win, first you chose the battle site and make sure it is yours for the day to win...In the 4 th distict, your candiate has neither the high ground nor the legions nor the funds to win. In fact, he would be a perfect candiate for the Japs in WW2 to attack a American Aircraft Carrier in the name of the Emperor.....

If people did things based on whether someone had ever done them before, we wouldn't have the wheel, a car, and certainly the Internet.*libgirl

The wheel was invented out of the need for superior firepower with hot rolling chariot wheels over the barbarian hoards who live in the caves,,,,The internet was invented not by Al Gore, but by a CIA research grant during the Nam War on a secret college campus in Southern California.....in fact I have the first written text in my government for your eyes only files......It reads...." Mr Nixon can you come to my office" John Dean the president lawyer

We'd still be living in caves.*libgirl

In fact almost 50% of the world is still under cave-like tribal leadership.......And that includes the Republican party who still believes they are the saviours of western civilzation with police state controls

Max you old dog you.

In fact almost 50% of the world is still under cave-like tribal leadership.......And that includes the Republican party who still believes they are the saviours of western civilzation with police state controls

Do you mean to tell me that not everyone has a Starbucks around the corner and a wireless internet connection with a bluetooth capable laptop? :) Even now?? My god! It's almost 2008!

It's not until we see beyond our own small surroundings that we understand the significance of our votes and what we do. I can't vote in district 4, and in any case, I wouldn't be voting in the Republican Primary. However, I certainly would want to hear about abortion from an ob-gyn, not a neurosurgeon who doesn't practice medicine - oh, and maybe from women who've been in that situation (wait - that's me! never mind.) I don't want to be lectured to about the separation of church and state by someone who thinks she can't pray privately to herself in any given situation. If I were a Republican in District 4, I'd cross party lines and vote for David Price, who has shown leadership, intelligence, integrity, and independence during his tenure in Congress.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Ancient BS rings true again for western civilzation

4, I'd cross party lines and vote for David Price, who has shown leadership, intelligence, integrity, and independence during his tenure in Congress.* icloud

I only support David for one reason, he is staying after Blackwater and that is enough for me. Knowing David in political detail, I know he is a good person with a heart of gold and wanting to do right....I see no evil in his soul......

Do you mean to tell me that not everyone has a Starbucks around the corner and a wireless internet connection with a bluetooth capable laptop? :) Even now?? My god! It's almost 2008!* icloud

"That is exactly what the ancient Romans said when partying at their local Fishbucks sauce franchise along with their high power 6 horsepower mercury chariot with knife Rims. My God it is 63 BC and why is that smoke coming from Mount Vesuvius again. I thought I sent my slave Pompius ASS the fleet footed communication expert to find out" *Maxius Cicero Flavis to his trusted friend icloud

David Price isn't the problem.

The monetary and banking system is the problem.

But David Price isn't changing the monetary and banking system, and he helps our government spend $3.1 trillion against receipts of $2.2 trillion (2006 numbers), with a $9.1 trillion national debt and $800+ billion current account deficit. I see there are others in this forum that see the parallel between us and (gulp) Rome.

So to the extent that I care about my nation's future, and the future for my children, I guess David Price is (at least part of) the problem.

Oh, and please don't summarily dismiss my perspective on abortion. I'd be curious to hear what you think of my perspective in the comment at the bottom.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

"I don't want to be lectured

"I don't want to be lectured to about the separation of church and state by someone who thinks she can't pray privately to herself in any given situation."

I never said that. I think I can pray wherever I want to, including right now.... (pause for praying)

I simply said that some people have interpreted "no state religion" as meaning that no one can pray to themselves in a school. It is a problem to the extent that the Department of Education has published a guide on the difference between government-sponsored and private prayer:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

You think they'd go to all that trouble if it was never a problem?

Just because there' s been a

Just because there' s been a problem with people interpreting current law doesn't mean we need a new one. It's silly and unnecessary. People have problems interpreting laws all the time. We don't need the legislature wasting time clarifying what is already codified; we need them to solve real problems.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

It's all greek to me!

Perhaps you would have been one of the Loyalists telling the Patriots they were wasting their time by fighting the British :) *libgirl

Naw! I would have blown away the Tories with my trusted Virgina longrifle like Danial Morgan....And stop making early learner assumptions about my knowledge of the American revolution. Hell I was the Slavemaster in the movie " The Patriot" 2000 Mel Gibson first sobering reality flick of history

Before the Magna Carta, there had never been a ruling document that gave power to the people. That was only 800 years ago, after perhaps 150,000 years of human existence.*libgirl

Good Grief! Where did you get your history lessons from? A government school? Didn't you ever hear of the early Roman Republic? Our founding fathers base our government on the ancient Roman Republic.....

Before 1776, there had never been a revolution based on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Before the 1780s, there had never been a revolution of the people and away from monarchy. *libgirl

Sure there was! You never heard of the English Revolution and it's return to a Republic by Cromwell.....Our Bill of Rights was founded by that Revolution since Cromwell use it as the English constitution for the first time to the masses...By the way....the Roundheads chop King Charles head off.....1640 is the date.....The term life, liberty and property first occured in the late Greek -Sparta Peleponnes wars....the Spartans were the communists and Athens were the good guys promoting a form of democracy with the masses....Your founders knew this term very well from Greek History......

Nitpicks

King Charles I was behedded in 1649, not 1640.

In addition to the Roman Republic, there's some pretty good evidence that the tricameral form of the US Government and the "union state" structure (a la a state as a representational union of smaller states) was adapted from the Iroquois Confederacy's "Great Law of Peace."

This is the second time someone has claimed that democracy was invented in 1776. The first time I stood shocked for 10 seconds before laughing in her face quite rudely. I couldn't help it.

Why do I keep getting the notion that "libgirl" is affiliated with Duke? That place seems to have a penchant for turning out libertarian dingbats.

No affiliation with Duke.

No affiliation with Duke.

This is not the first time that someone has said we have a democracy. We don't actually have a democracy, we have what's called a "constitutional republic."

Perhaps only "libertarian dingbats" know that?

Less Nitpicks

King Charles I was behedded in 1649, not 1640. *MTBinDurham

Of course Bonnie Charles had his royal head remove from his body on that date....So what is the problem?....I meant the Commonweath " Purtian" revolution kickoff their first battles during that year....And stop nitpicking your nose on history

In addition to the Roman Republic, there's some pretty good evidence that the tricameral form of the US Government and the "union state" structure (a la a state as a representational union of smaller states) was adapted from the Iroquois Confederacy's "Great Law of Peace."* MTBinDurham

Good evidence? Good Grief man, it is a known fact..Of course some have claim that the Iroquois Nation added to the debate for the form of Government that founders decided on .....Like 1% ! What is the next claim?,,,,"The Last of the Mohawks" was really another way to explain the fall of the western Roman empire by a group of barbarian indians?

Whoa!

I did call them nitpicks. Sheesh, can't we just geek out on history a bit for a moment without throwing elbows?!?

And I have to call out one more -- I've never before seen the name "Bonnie" applied to Charles I. It's much more often applied to his descendant, Charles III, or "Bonnie Prince Charlie," the leader of the second Jacobite rebellion, culminating in the Battle of Culloden and his famous escape in a dress to the Isle of Skye. (Bit of personal history -- I have an ancestor that fought and survived that battle on the Jacobite side. No mean thing when you're charging a line of cannons with a broadsword.)

What document was the Roman

What document was the Roman Republic based upon?

I was referring to constitutional-type documents, not simply governments in which people had a modicum of power. Do you argue with the general consensus that the Magna Carta was the first of this type?

The Winners always write history?

What document was the Roman Republic based upon?* libgirl

You got two choices to find those documents?
1. you can spent months watching the history channel to get up to speed on ancient rome.
2. you can enrolled in any University that teaches the ancient Classics which will cost you a great deal of money and time.....
3. or you can go to this site and really get up to speed........http://www.bloodyfunny.com/

I was referring to constitutional-type documents, not simply governments in which people had a modicum of power. Do you argue with the general consensus that the Magna Carta was the first of this type?* libgirl

The Magna Carta was for the Dukes, Princes and the elite establisment who were tried of funding the King and his outrageous wars that were driving them into Bankrupty with no seat at the King banquet table.....The people or the masses were not in this on so-called deal and continue to be peons under the Dukes and whatever phony establishment clown that could control them as good little slaves to their system.....

First, whatever...

As Max points out, "of this type" is an awfully general argument. Of what type? The Magna Carta was an act of devolution of power from the King, which is only vaguely what the US Constitution is. if you're going to include the Magna Carta, you have to open the door quite a bit.

As a single document establishing the rule of law in a nation, uou could make the argument that the Code of Hammurabi wasn't too far from being a "constitutional-type document."

For documents drawn up which lay out extensive concessions and compromises between feuding parties for the purposes of ending intranational conflict, I'd put forth L'Edit de Nantes.

For documents which establish a union of existing states or nations under a larger aegis, the "Great Law of Peace" of the aforementioned Iroquois Confederacy is probably the best direct progenitor. Republican governance, is, of course, Roman, but like that of England, it evolved over time, rather than being settled at a single period.

Pages