68 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

1. I think it’s a sign of Alisa’s success that you felt inclined to remind the world that you oppose abortion. Everyone knows that most conservatives are against abortion, so this post is very immature and quite sad considering she’s your colleague. You can disagree with what she wrote without teaming up against her. Oh and by the way, she’s exactly right that leaving the abortion issue to the states is a “small government principle.” There is no way for you to overcome that fact. And you say that the article is “devoid of family values,” but there are hypocrites among you.

   Comment by Alisa Lover — 4/23/2008 @ 10:22 am

2. Congratulations on sponsoring an event about why Christianity is better than Islam. Your club has adopted the terrorists’ hateful attitude. There are extremists in every religion– can you say “Crusades”? Shame on you, Ross.

   Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/23/2008 @ 10:27 am

3. While you can say “Crusades,” it doesn’t really fit with the present-tense word “are.”

   Comment by Beetle — 4/23/2008 @ 11:12 am

4. “Are” Westboro Church.

   Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/23/2008 @ 12:19 pm

5. So the most recent example of Christian extremism comes from 700 years ago.

   Comment by in hoc signo vinces — 4/23/2008 @ 12:20 pm

6. The Westboro Church doesn’t have global ambitions. They are more of a laughing stock than they are a national security threat.

   Comment by in hoc signo vinces — 4/23/2008 @ 12:21 pm

7. I don’t recall the great WBC invasion into the heathen lands.

   Comment by Beetle — 4/23/2008 @ 12:35 pm

8. Disagreement, such as that seen here on this post, is completely within the bounds of rational discourse. When it threatens bonds of friendship and professionalism (see, Lingenfelder, Presidency of), then it becomes offensive and destructive.

   Comment by EndBCRDivisions — 4/23/2008 @ 12:49 pm

9. EndBCRDivisions: You are AWESOME. (I’m not being sarcastic.)

   Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/23/2008 @ 1:04 pm

10. And honestly, I don’t care that WBC doesn’t have global ambitions. My point remains correct. If you sink to the level of claiming that Christianity is inherently “better” than Islam, that displays the same narrowminded hatred that is at the root of these terrorists’ activities. Religion is being used as a “justification” for terrorism, and there have been plenty of other “justifications” for similarly despicable acts throughout history. My point is that Christianity was capable of being used as such a tool as well. Once upon a time Ross believed that, but obviously he has forgotten his own roots.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/23/2008 @ 1:09 pm

11. “Congratulations on sponsoring an event about why Christianity is better than Islam. Your club has adopted the terrorists’ hateful attitude. There are extremists in every religion– can you say “Crusades”? Shame on you, Ross.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II ”

    The Crusades was a response to terrorism — so what is your point?

    Comment by Anonymous — 4/23/2008 @ 7:41 pm

12. And honestly, –Alisa Lover II

    So ya been lying up till this point!

    Comment by Anonymous — 4/23/2008 @ 7:42 pm

13. The Crusades “was” not a response to terrorism (your grammar is appalling).

    “So ya been lying up till this point!” Is that the best you can do, Ross? Pathetic.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/23/2008 @ 8:20 pm

14. My friends, your economic argument against abortion, claiming that it’s not fiscally conservative, bastardizes the most important feature of “small government.”

    One could assume from your first paragraph that abortion is wrong only because taxpayers have to fund it. This does not address the issue of privately funded abortion. Thus, because it is not addressed in your rebuttal, one might assume that you support privately funded abortion, since this does not directly impact the taxpayer.

    Here is the most important reason the government must prosecute crimes against the pre-born child:

    Our Founding Fathers believed that societies are necessarily disposed to tyranny, and that the only function of a government should be to protect Life and Liberty. A small government would limit itself to these functions. During an abortion the pre-born child is murdered before being convicted of a crime. This is a violation of that human’s individual, Natural, God-given rights. For this reason the government must protect the child, lest America remain the democidal tyranny that it currently is.

    My friends, while I agree with your conclusion, I think you hypotheses and premises are flawed. Life is a very critical issue, and we will not change hearts and minds if we use ridiculous arguments about taxes and family values, neither of which challenges the fundamental issue of tyrannical government. Don’t get me wrong: taxes violate the same principles as a mentioned above, but they are not the most critical, most direct reason to oppose abortion.

    Alisa, I hope you consider my argument. A government’s only job is to protect Life and Liberty. This is freedom, and this is the requirement for ’small government.’

    Ross Lingenfelder
    President, Berkeley College Republicans

    Comment by Ross Lingenfelder — 4/24/2008 @ 5:46 pm

15. P.S. - Dinesh D’Souza was not my idea. Nor is it my event. I actually voiced significant criticism to the Executives on this issue. Eventually it was decided that these ideas needed to be expressed, and no other campus club had the ability or desire to help in that effort. Plus, we’re getting the speaker at a great price.

    Comment by Ross Lingenfelder — 4/24/2008 @ 5:52 pm

16. Dear Ross Lingenfelder,
    First of all, I am not your “friend.” And I think you should step back and take a look at how many people you’ve lost.

    Second of all, “small government” does not refer to fiscal conservatism. As you point out, there is privately funded abortion. Small government means what it says: The government should not unduly interfere with state autonomy. Conservatives endorse this principle with regard to ECONOMICS, and Alisa’s argument is a logical extension of that “small government” value.

    Third of all, I am APPALLED that you refer to America as a “democidal tyranny.” Once upon a time you were patriotic. You say that “During an abortion the pre-born child is murdered before being convicted of a crime.” This assumes that a pre-born child is an individual, which is a view that many states do not endorse. For example, if a pregnant woman is attacked and she wishes to retaliate under the justification of “the defense of others,” some states will not allow her to do so. The Constitution, as your cherished Ron Paul would remind you, reserves power to the States. The Federal Government does not get to decide the definition of an “individual.” The States get to do this– and they do. You may argue that this is unconstitutional, but even Ron Paul could not argue that the Constitution defines “Life” as a fetus. The word “fetus” does not appear in the Constitution. You personally believe that a “fetus” is Life, but an amoeba is also Life. If you are going to read the Constitution literally, amoebas may not be executed. Because it does not say “human Life.” The Federal Government does not get to choose to protect “fetuses” instead of “amoebas.” Instead, the States get to determine what constitutes “Life,” which is a VERY GENERAL TERM.

    “My friends, while I agree with your conclusion, I think you hypotheses and premises are flawed.” You agree with the conclusion that abortion is okay? Great!

    “A government’s only job is to protect Life and Liberty. This is freedom, and this is the requirement for ’small government.’” I disagree. I think freedom is honesty.

    P.S. You were already attacked for being anti-Islamic earlier this year, so why would the club officially endorse the Dinesh D’Souza event? Reserving a room and making an official club event are two different things. “Plus, we’re getting the speaker at a great price.” You’re a cheapskate.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/24/2008 @ 6:37 pm

17. Dear Alisa Lover II,
    I am glad you are not my friend. Seems like you’re just odd.

    As I tried to explain before, let us again understand what “small government” means. It means the protection of an individual’s Natural, God-given right to Life and Liberty. Property is some complex of the two. Thus, “economic conservatism” is the protection of one’s right to property, to the fruits of his labour, to that which he produces with his ability during his life. Thus, the economic argument my friends make is rooted in the ideals our Founding Father’s embodied in our Founding Documents. I tried to explain to my friends who wrote the last article the disconnect in their argument.

    When I argued that I agree with their conclusion, it was obvious that I was reffering to their stance against abortion. Your weak attempts at distorting my words do not help anyone understand the actual argument. You’d serve your position better to actually discuss the idea.

    Under Roe v. Wade America is a democidal tyranny. We have the targeted murder of a group of people who share a trait, so it’s a democide; and, we have sanctified the revocation of the individual’s right to due process, so it’s a tyranny. Overturning Roe v. Wade for the defense of Life and of Freedom is the most patriotic cause and American can fight for today.

    I hate to even address your argument that amoeba and pre-born children are the same. That’s just a disgrace to what our Founder’s fought for. The struggle of our Revolution was to restrain the government from infringing on individual’s Natural Rights. It was to protect people from tyranny. Our Founders make that clear when they state that “men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and that “no person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process.” They believed people, individuals, were to have these values protected. To compare a human to an amoeba is to disregard that which separates man from other living organisms. To maintain that man and amoeba are the same is to disregard the might of man’s intellect, that man’s intelligence is supreme in the world.

    You’re correct; we were attacked for being anti-Islamic. Unrightfully so. If people can’t understand our position on radical Islam, then it’s their fault for choosing to remain ignorant.

    Comment by Ross Lingenfelder — 4/24/2008 @ 10:04 pm

18. Dear Ross Lingenfelder,
    I think it’s hilarious how dumb and pretentious you are.

    Small government “means the protection of an individual’s Natural, God-given right to Life and Liberty. Property is some complex of the two.” I don’t know where you got your dictionary from, but that is a blatantly false definition. Small government means HANDS OFF. If someone wants an abortion and the government says “no,” that is an infringement of personal liberty. If a State wants to pass a law allowing abortions, and the federal government says no, that limits state autonomy. Obviously, a government has certain functions– i.e. defending its borders and maintaining the safety of its citizens. However, “small government” is a value that says to limit infringement on personal liberty and state autonomy AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Stay the hell out of my life! THAT is what “small government” means.
    ““economic conservatism” is the protection of one’s right to property” Again, you need to consult a dictionary. Economic conservatism means LET THE FREE MARKET OPERATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

    Ross, when did you get so dumb? When specifically did this happen?

    Referring to America as a “democidal tyranny” is the type of pseudo-intellectual b.s. that BCR is supposed to be attacking. Your language is reminiscent of the extremists– you really have allowed yourself to be consumed by that hatred. I don’t think I have to respond to your little argument about that because you didn’t adequately respond to the fact that a fetus is not an individual and therefore cannot be “murdered” in a legal sense. You show a deep lack of understanding about our legal system.

    If a husband and wife are simultaneously killed, is that murder of the potential children that would result if their sex cells were put together? What is so significant about the physical joining of the sex cells? If you’re religious (which I don’t believe you are) and want to impose YOUR view of what constitutes “Life” on everyone else, YOU are the tyrant. People, in case you haven’t noticed, have different opinions about what the value of “Life” entails. For some, Life means health and happiness. For you, Life means a few cells that decided to join. If I scratch my arm and kill some skin cells, am I a murderer? I find your logic insane. And even if I respected you and your views, I wouldn’t impose MY views on YOU. You are a complete hypocrite, claiming that America is a tyranny, and yet self-righteously proclaiming that your approach is the only right answer. Many women get abortions because their own lives are at risk. You have NO BUSINESS making that judgment call. You’re just ASKING for judgment of yourself– and everyone knows you wouldn’t be able to withstand that.

    “The struggle of our Revolution was to restrain the government from infringing on individual’s Natural Rights.” My Natural Rights are to have the freedom of choice to live our OWN lifestyle. Being a parent is a big responsibility. There are plenty of children out there already who need parents– and for conservatives who claim to focus on “family values” they should stop focusing on a few cells that feel NOTHING (I’m talking about non-late-term abortions) and start focusing on those children in need. “To compare a human to an amoeba…” I didn’t compare a human to an amoeba. MY POINT was that “Life” encompasses amoebas, and you are incorrect to ASSUME that a fetus is included under the umbrella term of “Life.”

    “If people can’t understand our position on radical Islam, then it’s their fault for choosing to remain ignorant.” It sure doesn’t help anyone’s understanding for BCR to OFFICIALLY ENDORSE this event.

    “man’s intelligence is supreme in the world.” I don’t think you demonstrate that.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/24/2008 @ 10:28 pm

19. Right on, Alisa Lover II- the government needs to keep its hands off my unborn children. Only I have a right to kill them.

    Comment by in hoc signo vinces — 4/24/2008 @ 11:27 pm

20. With Ross gone in a couple weeks, who will represent the white shoed, divisive, racist, Ron Paul-adoring, scheming, closet-faggot wing of BCR?

    Comment by Lingenschmelder — 4/25/2008 @ 2:57 am

21. RE: in hoc signo vinces: I respect conservatives who are pro-life, because there are ways to argue in favor of that. I don’t respect Ross for a number of reasons, and one of them is his attempt to justify his pro-life stance based on the value of “small government.”

    RE: Lingenschmelder: HAHAHA!

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/25/2008 @ 9:50 am

22. lol at republicans and family values

    Comment by josh — 4/26/2008 @ 2:12 pm

23. So….why didn’t you just do a point/counterpoint set of articles, if you believe Alisa is so wrong on abortion? Wouldn’t that make sense?

    Comment by Norton — 4/27/2008 @ 5:41 pm

24. Give it a rest Kerry. Get your anti-Ross obsession under control.

    Comment by Norton — 4/27/2008 @ 5:42 pm

25. Agreed. Alisa Lover II is obviously Kerry Eskenas. She might as well be honest about who she is and give the readers some perspective as to why she’s filled with so much hate for him.

    Comment by Michael J. Fox News — 4/27/2008 @ 6:10 pm

26. Him being Ross.

    Comment by Michael J. Fox News — 4/27/2008 @ 6:11 pm

27. I doubt Alisa Lover II, whoever he/she may be, is not alone in her contempt for that fucker.

    Comment by 2MoreWeeks — 4/27/2008 @ 6:45 pm

28. It’s Kerry and she’s crazy.

    Comment by Michael J. Fox News — 4/27/2008 @ 6:50 pm

29. Think you made your point.

    Comment by 2MoreWeeks — 4/27/2008 @ 10:56 pm

30. If any of you want to debate the issues, that is fine. If you want to call people names or sling mud, find a different place. Using an alias does not make it ok to revert to childish behavior.

    Comment by Christopher Page — 4/28/2008 @ 4:55 am

31. The Crusades “was” not a response to terrorism” –Alisa Lover II.

    Yes it was… and everyone knows it.

    Comment by Anonymous — 4/30/2008 @ 1:31 am

32. Terrorism? It was because the Muslims took Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Get your facts straight.

    Comment by FuckRoss — 4/30/2008 @ 1:52 am

33. I LOVE all this anti-Ross going. My friends who are reading this blog: That they hate me means that we did our job! Congrats on a job and year WELL DONE! I think it was Churchill who said, “A man who has no enemies has never stood for anything.” or “You will know a man by his enemies.” I am just one example of the truth to both of these.

    Small government is *NOT* hands off. Hands off is anarchy.

    Small, limited, Constitutional government is protecting Natural Rights. The job of the government is to protect an individual’s right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Why do we punish criminals? Because they have infringed on someone else’s right to Life, Liberty, and/or Property. IF we define life at conception, then it must be protect by the government from abortion.

    I stand by my claim of economic coservatism. Let the Free Market handle itself is NOT freedom. In a totally “free” market, one can take someone else’s property because might will make right. Ayn Rand herself was against the totally “free market.” She believed that private property had to be protected by the government, as that was it’s only job. I am for Laissez-Faire where property rights are protected by the government.

    It isn’t the government’s job to “maintain the safety of its citizens.” Freemen don’t need to be safe from themselves. I don’t need the government to regulate my life. I need the government to protect me from those who would take away my Natural Rights.
    That’s stupid to think that way in your husband/wife situation. It goes to show that you’re missing the argument. If you don’t see it yet, well, you’re clearly an idiot.
    Scratching cells as murder? Again, a clear lack of understanding of what a person is, of what a Life is, of what an individual is.
    No, I’m not trying to impose my view on others. I’m trying to support the Natrual Rights given to us by our Creator. All individuals have the right to Life. I didn’t say it first, God/Nature did.
    Also, thanks for recognizing that my arguments are logical. This means you are the crazy one, for you’re the one who doesn’t “agree with” my logic.

    And you, Lingenschmelder, well, I can’t wait to be done with BCR! It was great fun, but I did the job that I was elected to do. I’m very proud of my tenure.

    And Yes, VOTE RON PAUL! Restore the Republic; Restore Liberty to America.

    God Bless Cal Patriot! Y’all rock!

    Comment by Ross W. Lingenfelder — 4/30/2008 @ 8:54 pm

34. How do you live such a lie, Ross? I’d feel so sorry for you, if you weren’t continuing to pursue your coldly calculated ends at the expense of those who don’t yet grasp the depth of your depravity. “That they hate me means that we did our job!” I guess Hitler did a great job too! (*enthusiastic clapping*)– because everyone hates him.

    “Small government is *NOT* hands off.” LOL. “Small, limited, Constitutional government is protecting Natural Rights.” That’s exactly what I said. “IF we define life at conception, then it must be protect by the government from abortion.” Yeah, but what if we don’t define life at conception? Idiot.

    “Ayn Rand herself was against the totally “free market.”” Oh wow, are you really going to go there? You know nothing about Ayn Rand, you are SUCH a fool. If the government takes property from the rich and gives it to the poor, and “PROTECTS” the poor’s “property rights” in that STOLEN PROPERTY, then according to you this is the action of a “small government”– because in that situation, the government IS “protecting property rights.” In other words, I’m telling you that your definition of “small government” is flawed. A small government allows the free market to operate so that people can keep what they earn– ANY government’s job is to uphold the rule of law, and a “small government” economic value is one that says to respect the free market mechanism of property distribution.

    P.S. Confederate flags and smoking are not attractive, nor is dating yet another one of your naive friends without telling her the truth.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/30/2008 @ 9:46 pm

35. Alisa Lover II: Please respectfully leave Ross’s girlfriend alone. She hasn’t done anything to you and it’s not fair to drag her into this fight.

    Comment by anon-a-mouse — 4/30/2008 @ 10:10 pm

36. No I’m just giving her a fair warning. He’s a walking Jerry Springer show.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 4/30/2008 @ 10:12 pm

37. “My friends who are reading this blog: That they hate me means that we did our job!”

    1. Controversial campus events that often did nothing but anger and unify our opponents.
    2. Impeachments. Driving hard workers from the club, marginalizing “opponents.”
    3. Ron Paul. Enough said. This isn’t the Cal Libertarians you fucking idiot.
    4. Trying to rewrite election law so your friends could run.
    5. Your voicemal box? Fundraising 2007-2008? Club unity? Relations with the Patriot?
    6. Gargantuan loss of club membership. 600 to, what, 200 in 2 years?

    Bravo Ross! Job well done.

    Comment by Good Riddance 08 — 5/1/2008 @ 3:49 am

38. 1. Events that pretty much everyone in BCR loved. A great speaker that the schmucks before failed at getting to come to campus.
    2. “Hard Workers?” Again, schmucks who contributed only agony to the club.
    3. Ron Paul is the most conservative member of congress. Life Long republican (minus the year he became a libertarian because he was drafted to the nomination). The most fiscally conservative member Congress has seen in 50 years.
    4. Never re-wrote election laws. That was Matt. And a job well done he did. Though our constitution still needs some work.
    5. Voicemail? Maybe people should show up to do their jobs. We received several thousand dollars from donnors this year. Our events proved the sponshoship we received. Unity? Well, getting rid of failures is always good. Relations with patriot? We’ve been working well together. Things are great.
    6. 600 to 200? The artificial inflation of our numbers in years past was due to recruitment campaigns for people who weren’t really interested. Our active membership is doing well, though not perfect. Remember, this year we weren’t trying to help a schmuck, who could only win by inflated BCR votes, get to a higher office.

    9/11 Memorial, Nonie Darwish, Starr Parker, Education Debate, Dean Andal, Immigration Debate, Support the Troops Week, John Reitzell, Israel 360, John Yoo, Code Pink Protests, Dinesh D’Souza, Charles Wiley, and much more. I think this was an awesome year.

    Comment by Ross W. Lingenfelder — 5/1/2008 @ 1:10 pm

39. You’re disgusting.

    1. Yeah, everyone who’s left.
    2. You contribute agony to those who actually know you.
    3. Just because he’s fiscally conservative doesn’t mean he’s “conservative.” He wants thte states to decide gay marriage and abortion issues, he supports stem-cell research, etc.
    4. You’re a fascist. Matt acted as an agent, which makes you primarily accountable for this.
    5. You’re the failure.
    6. You inspired 400 people to actively decide to drop out after already affiliating themselves with BCR.

    9/11 Memorial, debates, John Yoo, protests, Charles Wiley– these are yearly events for BCR. Nothing new.

    Comment by Ross Wrong Lingenfelder — 5/1/2008 @ 1:35 pm

40. How much did YOU PERSONALLY do to get those speakers? I remember YAF and Marlow doing much of the heavy lifting while you fucked around and tried to find new “opponents” to expel and demonize. You were the worst president we could have EVER had. Look at the club in September, look at it now.

    We’re going into an election season wounded by impeachments, club divisions, and tainted leadership (not to mention those you’ve anointed to replace you). The blame rests squarely on your shoulders.

    Comment by Good Riddance 08 — 5/1/2008 @ 4:00 pm

41. “Just because he’s fiscally conservative doesn’t mean he’s “conservative.” He wants thte states to decide gay marriage and abortion issues, he supports stem-cell research, etc.”

    Shock! how dare Ron Paul want to scale back the size of government. Everyone knows that good Republicans should be supportive of totalitarian social engineering!!

    Comment by Norton — 5/1/2008 @ 5:02 pm

42. That attitude is Libertarian, not Republican. And I guess Good Republicans should also support foreign policy that eerily resembles Obama’s, right Norton?

    Comment by Ross Wrong Lingenfelder — 5/1/2008 @ 5:05 pm

43. I have never posted a word on the Cal Patriot blog. It sucks to have to make this my first post ever. It’s nice to know that my friendship with Ross meant absolutely nothing to him. It’s also good to know that I never did anything for the club. BCR has burned many bridges and lost many opportunities this year because of the stupidity of it’s President. I continue to get calls from would be donors and speakers because no one can reach Ross. I will continue to not pass these along to the board. If it were not for me many of the events we had would not have happened because our speakers could not reach Ross. Charles Wiley would not have made it were it not for me. Tom Campbell would have been a speaker had he been able to reach Ross. It’s great to know I did nothing. Maybe my hundreds of hours of work went into an event that didn’t happen, but I still put in the work. I did a ton of work for the banquet, none of it went to the board, because I’m angry and I’m being vindictive, and you deserve every bit of it. I put in the work despite not wanting to be on the board, I did it for the club. I suppose no good deed goes unpunished, never again will I put anything as undeserving as BCR before my school work. The club has not been this weak or divided in years.

    Comment by Shir — 5/2/2008 @ 12:41 am

44. Can we get back to debating real political issues, not petty BCR drama. Everyone needs to move on, get over it, and suck it up.

    Comment by in hoc signo vinces — 5/2/2008 @ 8:27 am

45. Like Shir said: Never Again!
    (Nothing means anything to Ross, don’t take it personally.)

    in hoc signo vinces: you’re boring.

    Comment by Amen — 5/2/2008 @ 9:13 am

46. Sorry if I’m not into launching personal attacks against people. Go back to high school, Amen.

    Comment by in hoc signo vinces — 5/2/2008 @ 12:13 pm

47. My first post after this blog was brought to my attention.
    You know what is the most indicitive sign that this club is diminishing? The presidency was won unopposed by a sophomore. No offense intended to Alex Hartline, but what does that tell you about the state of the “active membership?”
    And all of this talk of “club unity” is a Leninist/Obamaist mindset. It isn’t about competing ideas, but about everyone unifying around the “right mindset.” The board should all be on the same page so that they can push their agenda unopposed on the dwindling membership. Frankly, I would rather have a divided board that has to compromise on ideas.
    The impeachment of Shir was a travesty that did nothing but hasten the demise of this club. This year has been nothing but a big disappointment

    Comment by Disillusionist — 5/2/2008 @ 12:25 pm

48. Disillusionist: The new President is a freshman, though I get your point. Don’t know her very well, but I’m sure she’ll do better than the previous leadership. Ross is to BCR as Hurricane Katrina was to the 9th Ward. Guess it’s up to us to evacuate the water and rebuild the infrastructure.

    Ross: You cannot give a list of events you did (or others on the Board did) and say “Look! great year!” That’s dishonest and childish. You severed relations with a hardworking club member, driving a spike between her friends/organizations and ours. You attempted to rewrite election procedure days before BCR voted. You gave us a horrible public image “Ron Paul! Confederate States of America!” and you never even tried to rebuild bridges after they were burned. Don’t EVER show your face next year.

    Comment by ThankGodItsOver — 5/2/2008 @ 5:45 pm

49. Shir: “The club has not been this weak or divided in years.”

    Obviously you you were not there for the 2004-2005 year. That was probably the beginning of the end. Glad to see some people learned a lesson, nothing has changed and BCR is filled with idiots.

    Comment by Norton — 5/2/2008 @ 10:46 pm

50. “And I guess Good Republicans should also support foreign policy that eerily resembles Obama’s, right Norton?”

    No, I don’t believe we should launch an invasion of Pakistan (an ally) without their permission, simply to continue grandstanding in the war on terror.

    Comment by Norton — 5/2/2008 @ 10:54 pm

51. I was there for 2004-2005, as you know, Norton (now that I know who you are). And trust me, Ross is much much worse. Especially considering he ran for BCR President on the premise that Josiah was corrupt… pretty ironic that Ross is the corrupt one. I think that Ross had an identity crisis in January 2007 and abandoned his former values. I should know.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 5/2/2008 @ 11:00 pm

52. LMAO. Josiah’s “corruption” never reached these levels. Ever. His beef was with one person. Not an entire board, not an entire club, not an entire ideology. I love the people that carry water for Ross on this blog: you weren’t around to see what he did this year, you have no idea what’s happening now: so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    Comment by Allahu Akbar — 5/3/2008 @ 12:17 am

53. I just started reading through this today, and though I could see where the various parties had their points and where they failed, I wasn’t going to post, until I saw my name being dragged into this.

    Ross Wrong Lingenfelder:
    “4. Trying to rewrite election law so your friends could run…. Matt acted as an agent, which makes you primarily accountable for this.”

    RWrongL, I don’t know who you are, but if you think that I acted as an agent of Ross, then you obviously don’t know me well. You are referring to the BCR Constitutional amendments I introduced and passed in February. These were not Ross’s idea, and certainly were not intended to make it so his “friends could run”. In fact, nothing in the Constitution prior to my amendments prohibited anyone from running, nor did my amendments make it easier for anyone to run.

    They were a direct response to the passing of Ann-Marie’s amendment, which requires a quorum for the Executives to conduct a meeting. I felt that the amendment was short-sighted as it allowed the possibility for executives to just boycott meetings in order to fail to establish quorum if there was a strongly divided board. This would allow the possibility of the board failing to meet for extended periods of time, and thus i felt it was a detriment to the club. I would have preferred to overturn her amendment, but out of respect to the club’s vote I decided to add teeth to it by requiring that the board meet before each general meeting. I told my roommates of my plans to do this the very night Ann-Marie’s amendment passed.

    As I was reading the BCR Constitution to do this, I noticed a lot of loopholes in the Constitution that I felt should be closed, including the lack of a clear definition of who is allowed to vote, or the lack of a way of filling vacant positions. I’m not going to lie, Ross did see early versions of my amendments, but so did other people; I felt it would be best to let people view my amendments in case they saw consequences that they would entail that I may have missed. I took their comments into consideration and modified them as i saw it. However, there were many modifications (most of them proposed by Ross), which I simply ignored. For instance, Ross wanted to introduce an amendment that would call for automatic impeachment votes if someone failed to attend a certain number of meetings, which I thought was to ridiculous to even consider.

    It is unfortunate that the week I had decided to introduce my amendments (the meeting after Ann-Marie’s passed) that the impeachment was introduced. I had actually finished the final version of my amendments when the board failed to meet quorum for their meeting. Only after this did i first hear any rumors of impeachment. I told Ross that if he was planning to call for the impeachment of Kyle and Shir that he better make sure not to associate it with my amendments, because I felt that my amendments deserved to be passed. I had worked for hours on drafting and revising them, and I didn’t want my amendments associated with the impeachment vote.

    If you want to know, I vote against removing Kyle and Shir from office. You can believe me or not, I don’t care. I know that I didn’t act as Ross’s “agent”, and I know that my amendments had nothing to do with the impeachment. I disagree with Ross on plenty of things concerning the club, but I can stay on friendly terms with him, which is something I wish more people in the club could do on both sides.

    Comment by Matt — 5/3/2008 @ 9:52 pm

54. Matt: I wrote “trying to rewrite election law so your friends could run.”

    I was not referring to anything in February or about impeachment. I was talking about a much more recent string of rumors and general shadiness. Since Ross’s plan failed, I don’t think it’s necessary to rehash this anymore.

    I just wish the people who lived with him this year and saw his undemocratic and vindictive nature did more to reign him in. We all considered him a friend - but as seen in the case of Shir - friendship for Ross can be a very temporary thing.

    Comment by Good Riddance 08 — 5/4/2008 @ 2:00 am

55. If you weren’t talking about my amendments, then why would you say that I acted as an agent. If you are talking about what I think you’re talking about, I had absolutely nothing to do with it, and don’t really even know any of the details because I have been busy with work lately. And if you really were talking of more recent events, why did you sully my name by basically calling me Ross’s tool, especially since i have become less present during the past month and a half?

    As for your second statement, I don’t know how you expected us to “reign” Ross in, in what respect, or that we even could.

    Finally, my last statement of my previous post wasn’t about people being friends with Ross. Rather I was trying to get across the wish that more people could put their political and personal beef with each other aside in order to do what’s best for the club.

    Comment by Matt — 5/4/2008 @ 3:58 am

56. Matt I was not referring to your amendments, I never called you an agent. That was “Ross Wrong Lingenfelder” whoever that is. You are not “Ross’s tool.”

    All these problems arose this year because people “put aside their personal and political beef” with Ross, acting as doormats for his agenda. I fault myself for this, but I know I am not alone in the blame. He was the one who should have been impeached.

    Comment by Good Riddance 08 — 5/4/2008 @ 11:43 am

57. Good Riddance: I guess i got a bit confused by the flow of the posts, I apologize for acusing you.

    As for people acting as doormats, I feel that there is a difference between kowtowing to someone and trying to work with someone. I advocate the latter. I think that people should get past petty vengances with one another in order to work together, but at the same time they should voice their opinions and disagreements. I feel that it is possible to do both, though lately BCR leadership in particular has been unable to do this.

    Comment by Anonymous — 5/4/2008 @ 4:30 pm

58. Sorry, the above post is by me, but i forgot to add my name.

    Comment by Matt — 5/4/2008 @ 4:31 pm

59. How can you “try to work with someone” who won’t work with anyone else? “Working together” can’t be a one-sided endeavor. And when you say “BCR leadership,” are you referencing the entire board? I don’t think you are, yet you seem unable to criticize Ross by name. If you can’t tell him what you think, how are you not a doormat?

    Comment by huh, Matt? — 5/4/2008 @ 5:00 pm

60. The reason I didn’t criticize Ross by name is because I wasn’t talking about just Ross, and not just people in this past board. Besides, why would I criticize Ross after his term is over on this blog? The only purpose it serves at this point is to satisfy a bunch of anonymous cowards. If I have a problem with Ross, I’ll tell him to his face. I have better things to do than to check this blog daily, so this will be my last comment.

    Comment by Matt — 5/5/2008 @ 12:12 pm

61. I’d say the cowards were the people who lived with, worked with, and sat under Ross and did nothing to stop him. Sure we’re just talking smack on an anonymous post, but can you ACTUALLY debate the legitimacy of what he has done, rather than attack the anonymity of those making the accusations?

    Comment by Good Riddance 08 — 5/6/2008 @ 6:21 pm

62. I love you.

    Comment by Good Riddance 08 is hot — 5/6/2008 @ 8:53 pm

63. according to Ross’s own facebook profile, he supports Le Pen for president of France.

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1223282&highlight

    here is what the Anti Defemation League has to say: http://www.adl.org/international/LePen-1-introduction.asp

    thank G-d he can only vote for anti-Semites in one country.

    Free Ron Paul!

    Comment by swartzwelder — 5/8/2008 @ 5:49 pm

64. “If you take a 1,000-page book on World War II, the concentration camps take up only two pages and the gas chambers 10 to 15 lines. This is what one calls a detail.” — Le Pen

    The Jewish people love you, Ross. Major fans of yours.

    The funny thing is that Ross thinks he can worship people like Le Pen– and symbols like the confederate flag– and be free of the essence of what these things represent, merely because he can point to SOME things about them that he agrees with. But, ultimately, he can’t disconnect himself from that essence.

    Oh and swartzwelder, I don’t think Ross can vote in France– but I do think he could vote for Obama (and I wouldn’t put it past him at this point), who has close connections to certain anti-Semites who I don’t think I need to name.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 5/8/2008 @ 6:14 pm

65. the only thing worse than Ross and Ron Paul was BCR’s reaction: most of the members were tacitly OK with Ross’s ideology. many even told me privately that Ron Paul, a maniac, was their “second choice.”

    the problem wasnt Ross. the problem was a lack of moral clarity among most of BCR’s members.

    Free Ron Paul!

    Comment by swartzwelder — 5/8/2008 @ 6:21 pm

66. Why are you saying “Free Ron Paul” if you don’t support him? That’s a little confusing.

    And everything is Ross’s fault. Just remember that, haha.

    Comment by Alisa Lover II — 5/8/2008 @ 6:35 pm

67. Ross is disgusting. I wonder if Alexandra approves of his performance.

    Comment by Former BCR member — 5/21/2008 @ 11:12 pm

68. what what

    Comment by Anonymous — 5/22/2008 @ 11:08 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.