Brother Ron Paul

[GammaZeta]

How did Mitt get elected?

He lied.

He lied on abortion. He lied on taxes. He lied on gay marriage.

You think Mitt is a Republican? You should should have heard the guy back in 96' running against Kennedy for Senate.

[GammaZeta]

The second part of my platform:

Chapter Management:

1. Abolish the chapter vs. colony crap. If a single active brother at a university or college wants to start a chapter, then it will be considered a chapter. We are supposed to be equal in all aspects, and we will no longer classify chapters or colonies based on numbers. If it's 5 or 500 brothers at a school, we should all be the same regardless of size.

2. Abolish political boundaries. No longer will chapters be able to go on like other chapters don't exist. If there is more than one chapter in a city (Here's looking to you Boston) all chapters will work together instead of being exclusive. Even if the ELC will force them to sit down together at a table and work it out.

3. ELC roles. No longer will it be random ELC's to different chapters. Each ELC will be assigned a group of chapters in a region that they are responsbile for.

4. Give chapters the freedom to determine which chapter government works best for them.

[HONKY660]

Originally Posted by GammaZeta

The second part of my platform:

Chapter Management:

1. Abolish the chapter vs. colony crap. If a single active brother at a university or college wants to start a chapter, then it will be considered a chapter. We are supposed to be equal in all aspects, and we will no longer classify chapters or colonies based on numbers. If it's 5 or 500 brothers at a school, we should all be the same regardless of size.
There is no colony vs. chapter. Being a colony is more than just numbers. There's finances, scholastics, campus involvement, and about 5 other requirement that must be met. The size a colony should be is either the campus average or above 20 I believe. You have to more than at least 11 to even function as chapter because there is 11 offices. Plus colonies have the same rights as chapters, they can vote, receive resource from IHQ, and they send delegates just like every other chapter does. But just like AM vs. Active, the active has proven he belongs by fullfilling his brotherly duties
2. Abolish political boundaries. No longer will chapters be able to go on like other chapters don't exist. If there is more than one chapter in a city (Here's looking to you Boston) all chapters will work together instead of being exclusive. Even if the ELC will force them to sit down together at a table and work it out.
If one chapters is great, and the other a bunch of dutche bags, I doubt you would have anything in common other than our ritual, so you wouldn't probably want to hang out or deal with them. Every chapter is different, you can't force people to co-exist. If they have the same common goal and people, good chance you will be able to coexist.
3. ELC roles. No longer will it be random ELC's to different chapters. Each ELC will be assigned a group of chapters in a region that they are responsbile for.
ELC's have regions now, the same ELC will visit you in the fall and spring, unless he leaves his post as an ELCS.
4. Give chapters the freedom to determine which chapter government works best for them.
You need to elaborate more on what you mean on this one.

[GammaZeta]

I disagree Honkey.

Our chapters/colonies need the peace of mind that if their numbers drop a little, they aren't going to have their charter or colony yanked.

Every chapter hits a rough spot now and then. No need to put added pressure on them.

As far as political boundaries, I thought we were ALL the same regardless of chapters. Our chapters need to support each other.

[Tom Earp]

I know only to well about rough spots as when it concerns my chapter.

With the not not so new leadership they came to our aid and we have since turned around and are starting to re grow.

But remember, no matter the size of the chapter, it still cost the same amount of funds for a chapter visit. Economicaly, it is cost effecient to spend the money with a visit where it is best fitted.

As far as ELCs they are located in regions so that they can visit and keep costs down.

I to am not sure what you mean with your 4 th pont. Chapter rules and regulations are standard for all chapters as they should be.

Would different poitics then lead to some hazing?

[GammaZeta]

My 4th point is simple really.

Let chapters decided exactly how they want to organize their chapter government.

[HONKY660]

Originally Posted by GammaZeta

I disagree Honkey.

Our chapters/colonies need the peace of mind that if their numbers drop a little, they aren't going to have their charter or colony yanked.

Every chapter hits a rough spot now and then. No need to put added pressure on them.

As far as political boundaries, I thought we were ALL the same regardless of chapters. Our chapters need to support each other.

The fraternity has slowed its number of colonies for the purpose of focusing on what we already have. ELC's are being sent to chapters in danger of low numbers and giving them a second chance to get back where they should be. But you can also only help those that want to be helped, there are some that just don't care and let their chapters.

I don't think there is anything wrong with our chapter government, if each office is utilized and run correctly I think we may have the best structure in the greek world.

[JonoBN41]

From Time magazine.



Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007

Libertarians Rising

By Michael Kinsley

To oversimplify: Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.

To oversimplify somewhat less, Democrats aren't always for Big Government, and Republicans aren't always against it. Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism. War in general and Iraq in particular--certainly Big Government exercises--are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about. Likewise the criminal process: Republicans tend to want to make more things illegal and to send more people to jail for longer. Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it. In particular, Republicans think religion needs more help from society, through the government, while Democrats are touchier about the separation of church and state.

Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending. Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe "foreign entanglements," and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America's help. They don't care--or at least they don't think the government should care--about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed. And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.

The relationship of these two ways of thinking to the two established parties is peculiar. Republicans are far more likely to identify themselves as libertarians and to vilify the government in the abstract. And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us. Now that the Republican Party is in trouble, critics are advising it to free itself of the religious right on issues like abortion and gay rights. That is, the party should become less communitarian and more libertarian. With Democrats, it's the other way around.

Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world. And every time the Democrats lose an election, critics scold that they must put less emphasis on the sterile rights of individuals and more emphasis on responsibilities to society. That is, they should become less libertarian and more communitarian. Usually this boils down to advocating mandatory so-called voluntary national service by people younger than whoever is doing the advocating.

Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they're not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical--eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country.

The chance of the two political parties realigning so conveniently is slim. But the party that does well in the future will be the one that makes the better guess about where to place its bets. My money's on the libertarians. People were shocked a couple of weeks ago when Ron Paul--one of those mysterious Republicans who seem to be running for President because everyone needs a hobby--raised $5 million from July through September, mostly on the Internet. Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society--nor should anyone else. They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics.

·

·

· Click to Print

·

· Find this article at:

· http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...673265,00.html

[GammaZeta]

No, libertarians will never be any force in politics.

They have as much of a chance as Teddy Roosevelt being thrown out of his grave and being elected under the Bull Moose party this election.

It's like saying that Tab will soon overtake Coke and Pepsi as America's #1 soda.

Libertarians represent the extreme of the extreme.

Libertarians are against any sort of social welfare programs; there goes the senior voting population. Against government funded loans for student; there goes the young adult and college educated. Legalize drugs; good luck getting any public safety employees to help out. When taxes are slashed and you are driving over rotting bridges, potholds, dirt roads because no government can afford to fix the infrastructure; there goes anyone who owns a car.

In principle, libertarians are right! But their views just aren't practical.

Sure I would love less government, pay less taxes, do what I want. But I also like having a 24 hour police and fire department. I like having good roads and bridges. I like the new school building my city just built. I like the fact people aren't breaking into my apartment stealing food and clothes. I like that my neighbor can't open up a brothel, or a strip club, or a porn shop or a chemical waste plant in his home because he feels like it.

The REALLY funny thing is; if Lambda Chi Alpha had political parties within the brotherhood when it came to rules and regulations, I'd be considered a libertarian!

[JonoBN41]

In looking back into my short-lived political career, I found that I first joined the Libertarian Party in 1980 and ran for the local town board (as a Libertarian) in 1981.

I lost, but what I also stumbled across was a contribution to the "Ron Paul for US Senate Committee" in February 1984, which kind of surprised me. I hadn't realized Ron and I went back that far, if such can be said of a measly $15 contribution.

He lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm, and the seat he vacated in the US House of Representatives from Texas's 22nd Congressional District was filled by one Tom DeLay. If only he'd run for re-election...

BTW, Ron Paul is scheduled to appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno next Tuesday night. As Johnny Carson would say, "Well, that's just wild."

[GammaZeta]

I wasn't referring to R.P. individually, but the libertarian movement as a whole.

I won't be watching tonight....not because I don't like R.P., but because I can't stand Leno!

[RACooper]

No offense to Brother Ron Paul but I fervently hope that he crashes and burns - we have enough of the Libertarian scourge destroying the Conservatives up here as it is, I don't want any more ideas spreading up here...

[JonoBN41]

Not that this has anything to do with Ron Paul, but it does have to do with the local elections held in my town yesterday. For the office of town supervisor, the incumbent got 3,193 votes and the challenger 3,185, the difference being only eight votes.

Naturally, there will be a recount, but it just goes to show that no one can afford to slack off thinking so-and-so is "sure to win", or that there's no sense in voting for an opponent who "can't win". Anyone can win, and anyone can lose.

Just keep this in mind if you ever get the notion your vote doesn't count. All the votes count - that's why they count them.

[GammaZeta]

It's true Jono.

In my area a 10 year Mayor lost by 44 votes, a Prop. 2 1/2 (which allows a city to raise taxes more than 2.5%) won by 4 votes, and a question to allow cainos won by less than 100 votes.

Moral of the story: VOTE DAMNIT!!!!

[Tom Earp]

Seems like Ron Paul did very well on Jay Leno show.

Also picked up a @ 4 Mil. worth of campaign money in one day and has some of the old line GOPers cocerned?

I would like to get more info on him!

He may sound like a nut case to some and his ideas may not float in D C, but he may be worth looking at!

Yes, G Z, I voter every election and have since I turned old enough to vote!

For those that do not should not complain!!!!!!