# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Rush Limbaugh: We need more people like Justin Amash in congress to save this country

## jct74

from Monday's show...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU9vulSGWkg

----------


## tod evans

Wake up Rush, if there were 250 Amash clones elected tomorrow "saving the country" isn't going to happen through politicians.

All politicians can realistically do is slow down the behemoth of government. 

The harvest we're reaping now was sewn decades ago.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Wake up Rush, if there were 250 Amash clones elected tomorrow "saving the country" isn't going to happen through politicians.
> 
> All politicians can realistically do is slow down the behemoth of government. 
> 
> The harvest we're reaping now was sewn decades ago.


*yawn* heard this before when people were saying we couldn't elect Rand or any libertarians to Congress.

----------


## tod evans

> *yawn* heard this before when people were saying we couldn't elect Rand or any libertarians to Congress.


Yawn my old ass!

Show me what has changed? Not words, what has changed?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yawn my old ass!
> 
> Show me what has changed? Not words, what has changed?


You do understand how a legislative body works don't you?  Do you know why gov't has grown continuously for the past 50+ years?  It's because progressives in both the Democratic party and the Republican party have an ideological majority in Congress.  So any legislation that gets introduced, voted or, passed, etc comes from the progressives.  

So your statement that "if there were 250 Amash clones elected tomorrow "saving the country" isn't going to happen through politicians" just shows ignorance on how the legislative process works.  

If there were 250 Amash clones in House and let's say 60 Rand clones in the Senate, then we would have an ideological majority in both Houses of Congress.  If Amash proposed a bill to eliminate the Dept of Commerce, it would pass the House, pass the Senate and (assuming a Rand/Amash clone in the White House) be signed into law.  

Saying that "saving the country isn't going to happen through politicians" also shows a complete ignorance of history.  How the hell do you think we got in this spot in the first place?  It is because the progressives won elected office, and held a majority of the seats in Congress for the past 50+ years.  Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq, the Patriot Act, and every thing that you despise about the government was all created and passed by progressives on both sides of the aisle who worked together to implement legislation that was to their liking.  In order to reverse the process, we do need 250 Amash clones, and that is precisely what the liberty movement and our allies are working towards.

----------


## jtap

Rush must have analyzed what Glenn Beck's sidling up to Ron and Rand has done for him and decided he wants to get in on the action.

Neocon is still neocon.

----------


## brandon

The government has grown forever because that's been the will of the people. If 250 Amash clones were elected tomorrow most of them would lose reelection 2 years later because the will of the people has been suppressed. You need an ideological majority with the people of the country before you can hope to have one in government.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The government has grown forever because that's been the will of the people. If 250 Amash clones were elected tomorrow most of them would lose reelection 2 years later because the will of the people has been suppressed. You need an ideological majority with the people of the country before you can hope to have one in government.


Agreed, but the bully pulpit helps a lot with that.  It took decades to get to this point, we won't be able to turn it around in a few short years.

----------


## jtap

It would be interesting to see the media try to suppress what the Amash clones were saying so that the people couldn't hear and be exposed to his ideas for fear of them actually reaching and maybe changing the minds of some people. It's a chicken-egg situation though. The peoples' minds needs to be changed to vote differently and to actually vote in the Amash-like politicians.


Edit:

I will say it doesn't  hurt that rush has brought this up. Hopefully this helps get some more donors for Justin.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It would be interesting to see the media try to suppress what the Amash clones were saying so that the people couldn't hear and be exposed to his ideas for fear of them actually reaching and maybe changing the minds of some people. It's a chicken-egg situation though. The peoples' minds needs to be changed to vote differently and to actually vote in the Amash-like politicians.


250 would be a fundamental shift in the political ideology of the country, and would likely trickle down to other politicians who were not "Amash clones".  If Amash is a libertarian, then the "moderate" side of the GOP would be be far more conservative than they are today.  You would likely also see a resurgence of the Blue Dogs who are all but extinct.

----------


## Tod

If Rush were serious, he wouldn't have said what he said about Ron.....he's just another unprincipled talking head trying to capitalize on the current circumstances......*yawn*

----------


## specsaregood

> You do understand how a legislative body works don't you?


People here would be more welcoming of what you had to say if you left the snide comments out of your post(s).    People that are pessimistic about any positive changes have just as much history on their side.    I prefer to be an optimist; but that doesn't make them wrong.

----------


## erowe1

I want to shake that guy.

----------


## Tod

> Rush must have analyzed what Glenn Beck's sidling up to Ron and Rand has done for him and decided he wants to get in on the action.
> 
> Neocon is still neocon.



Exactly......just doesn't want to miss the bandwagon (and risk losing audience to Beck).

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> People here would be more welcoming of what you had to say if you left the snide comments out of your post(s).    People that are pessimistic about any positive changes have just as much history on their side.    I prefer to be an optimist; but that doesn't make them wrong.


Statements like "show me what has changed" show a complete ignorance of how a legislative body works, as well as an ignorance of the political history of the country over the past 50+ years.  Snide or not, the comment was necessary in the face of such glaring ignorance.  If people are thin-skinned then perhaps debate on a public forum is not the best endeavor for them.

----------


## erowe1

> The harvest we're reaping now was sewn decades ago.


By politicians?

----------


## specsaregood

> If people are thin-skinned then perhaps debate on a public forum is not the best endeavor for them.


Just as not every comment is an invitation to debate; nor does one need to have thin skin in order to judge someone as an $#@!.   I'm big believer in the attract more bees with honey mindset.  To each their own.

edit: One of the reasons this site has been successful and lasted as long as it has is because for a long time treating others with respect with the main rule around these parts.

----------


## tod evans

> You do understand how a legislative body works don't you?  Do you know why gov't has grown continuously for the past 50+ years?  It's because progressives in both the Democratic party and the Republican party have an ideological majority in Congress.  So any legislation that gets introduced, voted or, passed, etc comes from the progressives.  
> 
> So your statement that "if there were 250 Amash clones elected tomorrow "saving the country" isn't going to happen through politicians" just shows ignorance on how the legislative process works.  
> 
> If there were 250 Amash clones in House and let's say 60 Rand clones in the Senate, then we would have an ideological majority in both Houses of Congress.  If Amash proposed a bill to eliminate the Dept of Commerce, it would pass the House, pass the Senate and (assuming a Rand/Amash clone in the White House) be signed into law.  
> 
> Saying that "saving the country isn't going to happen through politicians" also shows a complete ignorance of history.  How the hell do you think we got in this spot in the first place?  It is because the progressives won elected office, and held a majority of the seats in Congress for the past 50+ years.  Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq, the Patriot Act, and every thing that you despise about the government was all created and passed by progressives on both sides of the aisle who worked together to implement legislation that was to their liking.  In order to reverse the process, we do need 250 Amash clones, and that is precisely what the liberty movement and our allies are working towards.


Well gosh, guess my "ignorance" is showing...

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?

Your fallacy about attacking "progressives" doesn't hold water, government as an entity has grown beyond what any group of politicians can affect and attributing monikers of conservative or progressive isn't going to change that fact.

Amash is fantastic for getting folks to look at the problem, doing something about it before this house of cards comes crumbling down is a whole 'nuther matter...

Try to type up a response without speculation or blame, if there's actually some way to right the behemoth I'm interested in hearing about it.......

Otherwise it's only more talk.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?


The repeal of alcohol prohibition, the ending of the draft, the demilitarization after the two world wars, air and freight deregulations, and various levels of marijuana legalization, immediately come to mind.

----------


## tod evans

Sorry erowe but in every instance you mention government has grown in both manpower and regulation..

Try again.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?


They haven't because as I said, the majority of people that have been elected to Congress support the growth of government.  The last time we had a conservative majority in Congress was in the 1920's.   




> Your fallacy about attacking "progressives" doesn't hold water, government as an entity has grown beyond what any group of politicians can affect and attributing monikers of conservative or progressive isn't going to change that fact.


Then perhaps this will make more sense to you.  People that want to grow the government (progressives) have far outnumbered people that want to shrink the government (conservatives or libertarians - you pick the label).  Until we have more people that want to shrink the government in office, the government will continue to grow.  Amash wants to shrink the government.  250 Amash clones would be a majority, and the government would then shrink.




> Amash is fantastic for getting folks to look at the problem, doing something about it before this house of cards comes crumbling down is a whole 'nuther matter...


Again, this is because he is a minority voice in Congress.  Ron Paul was in the same boat, which is why almost every piece of legislation he ever proposed never saw the light of day. 




> Try to type up a response without speculation or blame, if there's actually some way to right the behemoth I'm interested in hearing about it.......Otherwise it's only more talk.


It is all about getting people elected to office that want to reduce the size and scope of government.  There are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate.  In the House we need 218 of those people to be Amashes, in the Senate 51 (or if you want a veto proof majority you need more).  Then at the state level it is the same.  For example in my home state we have 124 seats in the House and 46 seats in the Senate.  We need 63 in the House and 23 in the Senate.  And it goes the same for every state in the country.  

How do we do this?  Every primary season we have an opportunity to oust a "big government" official and replace them with a "small government" candidate, and then we of course need to win the general.  We pick the races where we have the greatest probability of victory, and avoid wasting time and money with the unwinnable races. We do this every year and repeat until we have that majority we need.  It will take time, but it is as simple as that.  It's just math and nothing more really.

----------


## erowe1

> Sorry erowe but in every instance you mention government has grown in both manpower and regulation..
> 
> Try again.


I don't believe that. How did repealing alcohol prohibition make government bigger? I have read the constitutional amendment that did that, and I don't recall seeing a provision in it that included anything that could be construed that way.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't believe that. How did repealing alcohol prohibition make government bigger? I have read the constitutional amendment that did that, and I don't recall seeing a provision in it that included anything that could be construed that way.


ATF, regulatory agencies, FDA, not to mention the state agencies who have their hand in the till...Then you've got the "Just-Us" system that has grown in support of these fine agencies...

Government does only one thing, grow.

Politicians can't change that with words or legislation no matter how nicely they package them.

----------


## tod evans

> How do we do this?  Every primary season we have an opportunity to oust a "big government" official and replace them with a "small government" candidate, and then we of course need to win the general.  We pick the races where we have the greatest probability of victory, and avoid wasting time and money with the unwinnable races. We do this every year and repeat until we have that majority we need.  It will take time, but it is as simple as that.  It's just math and nothing more really.


Lou, you're talking about voting for less government in a society where way more than half the population is dependent on government in one form or another.

Years and fortunes spent in this manner don't make much sense to me given the exponential growth of government and its influence on the voting public.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Lou, you're talking about voting for less government in a society where way more than half the population is dependent on government in one form or another.
> 
> Years and fortunes spent in this manner don't make much sense to me given the exponential growth of government and its influence on the voting public.


Well then honestly, why do you waste your time here and with this movement. 10,000 posts and you don't believe we have a chance in hell of changing things?  Wouldn't your time be better spent on bird watching or gardening?  If I felt the way you did, I wouldn't be involved in this at all, I'd be playing more golf.

----------


## erowe1

> ATF, regulatory agencies, FDA, not to mention the state agencies who have their hand in the till...Then you've got the "Just-Us" system that has grown in support of these fine agencies...
> 
> Government does only one thing, grow.
> 
> Politicians can't change that with words or legislation no matter how nicely they package them.


Here's the amendment. Could you point to the parts of it that authorize those things?




> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
>     Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
>     Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

----------


## tod evans

> Well then honestly, why do you waste your time here and with this movement. 10,000 posts and you don't believe we have a chance in hell of changing things?  Wouldn't your time be better spent on bird watching or gardening?  If I felt the way you did, I wouldn't be involved in this at all, I'd be playing more golf.


I'm thinking about it...

----------


## donnay

> I don't believe that. How did repealing alcohol prohibition make government bigger? I have read the constitutional amendment that did that, and I don't recall seeing a provision in it that included anything that could be construed that way.



BATF?

----------


## erowe1

> Government does only one thing, grow.


I don't share that view. Instead, I accept Higgs' model of the ratchet effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...Ratchet_Effect

----------


## erowe1

> BATF?


See post 26. The BATF is not in there.

In fact, the BATF had existed since the 1800's, and the repeal of prohibition made it less powerful, not more.

----------


## tod evans

> Here's the amendment. Could you point to the parts of it that authorize those things?


Of course there's no authorization in the amendment, government doesn't seek congressional authorization to expand itself blatently and in your face, the voters might object. Might have objected.....

I can't see voters today objecting to any government expenditures..

----------


## erowe1

> Of course there's no authorization in the amendment, government doesn't seek congressional authorization to expand itself blatently and in your face, the voters might object. Might have objected.....
> 
> I can't see voters today objecting to any government expenditures..


You're moving the goal posts. Here's what you said:



> Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?

----------


## donnay

> Well then honestly, why do you waste your time here and with this movement. 10,000 posts and you don't believe we have a chance in hell of changing things?  Wouldn't your time be better spent on bird watching or gardening?  If I felt the way you did, I wouldn't be involved in this at all, I'd be playing more golf.


Do you understand how corruptions works?

We must change the people's minds, first, if we ever had any hope of regaining liberty in this country.   It's taken 100 years of embedded corruption, it isn't going to happen over night and it isn't going to happen with people ignorant of the facts.

 "If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
~ Thomas Jefferson

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> BATF?


BATF existed prior to prohibition, it was originally part of the Dept of Revenue and then was moved to the Dept of Justice around the time of prohibition.  The repeal of prohibition did not create the agency.

----------


## tod evans

> You're moving the goal posts. Here's what you said:


Once prohibition was repealed government (state and federal) expanded to monitor compliance with the new laws, then they passed more regulations that required even more manpower and money to enforce, the snowball keeps on rolling...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Do you understand how corruptions works?
> 
> We must change the people's minds, first, if we ever had any hope of regaining liberty in this country.   It's taken 100 years of embedded corruption, it isn't going to happen over night and it isn't going to happen with people ignorant of the facts."


I understand the educational part of the movement, and am extremely active in that.  But I also see a political component to it as well.  The two on their own will never work, but the two working together can advance the cause.

----------


## donnay

> See post 26. The BATF is not in there.
> 
> In fact, the BATF had existed since the 1800's, and the repeal of prohibition made it less powerful, not more.


So you saying the BATF is less powerful today?

----------


## erowe1

> Once prohibition was repealed government (state and federal) expanded to monitor compliance with the new laws, then they passed more regulations that required even more manpower and money to enforce, the snowball keeps on rolling...


Those all would have required legislative acts that were separate from the repeal of prohibition.

Plus, are you sure it's true? You're saying the manpower and money to enforce alcohol-related regulations actually went up when they passed the 21st Amendment? Could you cite your source for that?

----------


## erowe1

> So you saying the BATF is less powerful today?


No. The 21st amendment was passed in 1933. So the comparison we're talking about is between the BATF immediately after that and the BATF immediately before it.

----------


## tod evans

> Those all would have required legislative acts that were separate from the repeal of prohibition.
> 
> Plus, are you sure it's true? You're saying the manpower and money to enforce alcohol-related regulations actually went up when they passed the 21st Amendment? Could you cite your source for that?


Nope, can't cite a source.

Not going to even look either.

Government is much larger than it was then, more employees, more regulations, more everything, and that's my whole point....Government has gotten so big that there's not any politician or group of politicians that can reign it in.

Once the populace depends on the government for its existence and not vice-versa we're done.

----------


## donnay

> I understand the educational part of the movement, and am extremely active in that.  But I also see a political component to it as well.  The two on their own will never work, but the two working together can advance the cause.


There has to be a learning curve first.  Did you guys not witness how they treated Dr. Paul?  The establishment was scared of people learning and understanding the truth.  Dr. Paul open the path to unlock people's mind so they understand, what many have been taught is a lie.  Again the corruption isn't just in politics it is ensconce throughout our society.  We cannot just blindly think that putting XYZ politician is going to be the answer.  This tyranny is on the other side of our doors.  Time is of the essence, folks!

----------


## donnay

> No. The 21st amendment was passed in 1933. So the comparison we're talking about is between the BATF immediately after that and the BATF immediately before it.


The BATF has grown in size and scope, just like Tod is saying.  Government only grows bigger.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> There has to be a learning curve first.  Did you guys not witness how they treated Dr. Paul?  The establishment was scared of people learning and understanding the truth.  Dr. Paul open the path to unlock people's mind so they understand, what many have been taught is a lie.  Again the corruption isn't just in politics it is ensconce throughout our society.  We cannot just blindly think that putting XYZ politician is going to be the answer.  This tyranny is on the other side of our doors.  Time is of the essence, folks!


Nonetheless, there are elections every year.  Someone is going to win that seat.  The preferred outcome is for it to be someone who shares my views on government.  Therefore, I donate my money and time to see that those whom I agree with get elected.  

For every person that is educated (or willing to be) there are hundreds that really don't care one way or the other.  And all of them vote.  So while education is important, it is equally, if not more important to influence the voters to make (what I feel) is the correct choice when going to the polls.

----------


## donnay

> BATF existed prior to prohibition, it was originally part of the Dept of Revenue and then was moved to the Dept of Justice around the time of prohibition.  The repeal of prohibition did not create the agency.



Yes and it has grown by leaps and bounds since then.  Just like the rest of the alphabet agencies, for a hundred years.  Just remember the big name bootleggers who were very influential with corrupting politics.  Joseph Kennedy comes to mind.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nonetheless, there are elections every year.  Someone is going to win that seat.  The preferred outcome is for it to be someone who shares my views on government.  Therefore, I donate my money and time to see that those whom I agree with get elected.  
> 
> For every person that is educated (or willing to be) there are hundreds that really don't care one way or the other.  And all of them vote.  So while education is important, it is equally, if not more important to influence the voters to make (what I feel) is the correct choice when going to the polls.


I guess the fundamental question here is whether or not you can actually trust the people who you are electing.  Which I would say, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.

Then again, maybe it would be more worth our time to devote our political activism to trying to weed out the uninformed or apathetic voters in some way?

Food for thought, maybe?

----------


## donnay

> Nonetheless, there are elections every year.  Someone is going to win that seat.  The preferred outcome is for it to be someone who shares my views on government.  Therefore, I donate my money and time to see that those whom I agree with get elected.  
> 
> For every person that is educated (or willing to be) there are hundreds that really don't care one way or the other.  And all of them vote.  So while education is important, it is equally, if not more important to influence the voters to make (what I feel) is the correct choice when going to the polls.



You would be better off getting some stock in electronic voting machines to help your cause.  Because election fraud is too big to fail with ignorance of it.

----------


## donnay

How many times have we voted for someone and once they get into office made an about face?  How many times do we need to get kicked in the face before people wake up to the reality of it all?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I guess the fundamental question here is whether or not you can actually trust the people who you are electing.  Which I would say, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.
> 
> Then again, maybe it would be more worth our time to devote our political activism to trying to weed out the uninformed or apathetic voters in some way?
> 
> Food for thought, maybe?


Education is important, but the fact is most people don't care all that much, but they still vote.  Not that it is definitive, but just look at the viewership of the night time cable news programs on Fox, MSNBC and CNN.  Totalled they have about 2 million people at any given time slot.  There's more people watching Love & Hip Hop on VH1.  And again, those Love & Hip Hop viewers do vote.  The job of activists is to reach out to these people and get them to vote the way we want them to vote.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You would be better off getting some stock in electronic voting machines to help your cause.  Because election fraud is too big to fail with ignorance of it.


Ok, we get it - you do not like political activism.  But why do you feel the need to squash the efforts of those who are working in that realm?

----------


## tod evans

> The job of activists is to reach out to these people and get them to vote the way we want them to vote.


There's only two ways to get drones to do your bidding;

1) pay them more than the other guy

2) force them



Right now government's doing both....

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> There's only two ways to get drones to do your bidding;
> 
> 1) pay them more than the other guy
> 
> 2) force them
> 
> 
> 
> Right now government's doing both....



I'm guessing that you have never done door to door activism then.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm guessing that you have never done door to door activism then.


Yes Lou I have.

I'm not some pimple faced kid who spouts off for the hell of it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes Lou I have.
> 
> I'm not some pimple faced kid who spouts off for the hell of it.


So when you have done so, the only way you feel you could have gotten results is by paying them money or forcing them?

----------


## tod evans

> So when you have done so, the only way you feel you could have gotten results is by paying them money or forcing them?


Look Ace, I'm not going to get sidetracked by your opinion that if only everybody worked harder or invested more money or blew smoke up the right tailpipe then politicians could actually shrink government in the world today.

The fact is shrinking any aspect of government is going to result in riots, either by citizens or by ousted government employees so hang on for the ride, government isn't going to get smaller, it's not even going to slow it's growth...

Having folks like Amash and Rand sitting in DC to say "I told you so." is probably a smart move politically though...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Look Ace, I'm not going to get sidetracked by your opinion that if only everybody worked harder or invested more money or blew smoke up the right tailpipe then politicians could actually shrink government in the world today.
> 
> The fact is shrinking any aspect of government is going to result in riots, either by citizens or by ousted government employees so hang on for the ride, government isn't going to get smaller, it's not even going to slow it's growth...
> 
> Having folks like Amash and Rand sitting in DC to say "I told you so." is probably a smart move politically though...


The simple fact though is that there are people, many of them on here in fact, that are working hard to elect more Amashes to Congress.  So while you may not agree that what we are doing is fruitful, the least you can do is have respect for the folks that do, and not $#@! all over their efforts by saying it is a waste of time.  

You think there will be riots.  I don't.  And honestly, nothing either of us will say will change that opinion.

----------


## tod evans

When pray tell have I so much as farted on an activist effort let alone $#@! on it?

Be careful how you swing that brush, paint splatters.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> When pray tell have I so much as farted on an activist effort let alone $#@! on it?
> 
> Be careful how you swing that brush, paint splatters.


Via your assertion that politicians cannot change things, and that regardless of whom is elected government will still grow.  I take exception to that assertion since I, and others, are working hard to ensure that more Amashes get elected to office.  If, as you say, it is pointless, then you are inferring that the work we do is pointless.

----------


## tod evans

> Via your assertion that politicians cannot change things, and that regardless of whom is elected government will still grow.  I take exception to that assertion.


Then prove me wrong for Pete's sake.

Look at history it's replete with toppled governments.

Do you know something I'm missing here? Is there per-chance a government somewhere that didn't continue to grow until either it consumed itself or the people revolted?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Then prove me wrong for Pete's sake.
> 
> Look at history it's replete with toppled governments.
> 
> Do you know something I'm missing here? Is there per-chance a government somewhere that didn't continue to grow until either it consumed itself or the people revolted?


We have been over this already.  The reason government has grown is because the majority of people in elected office support bigger government.  And it has been that way for decades.  Progressivism has won in that respect.  250 Justin Amashes in Congress would mean that the majority does not support bigger government, and in fact wants to reduce the size of government.  

I gave the example earlier of the elimination of the Dept of Commerce.  Right now, if a bill like that were to be proposed, it would die in committee.  If there were 250 Amashes, though, it would pass both chambers.  That's the difference - right now there are not a majority of people who would support that, but replace those people with Amash clones and the legislation would be supported.  And, throughout the process of electing the Amash clones, the people become more educated and would support the effort, because the clones use their bully pulpit to educated their constituents.  

Can we get to that point?  I don't know.  But as long as there are elections in this country that result in one candidate or another winning an office, I will continue to work to put people that agree with my view of government into office.  Essentially, we need to do the exact same thing the Progressives have done over the past 100 years or so, and that is keep electing their people into office.

----------


## tod evans

> since I, and others, are working hard to ensure that more Amashes get elected to office.  If, as you say, it is pointless, then you are inferring that the work we do is pointless.


I can't peck out responses as fast as you edit...sorry!

I am in no way inferring that working to get good people elected to office is pointless.

What I'm saying plain as day is that even if we're able to completely fill both houses with "good people" government at this point is steam rollin' and the very best we can hope for is to slow it down.

Personally I believe some type of collapse is inevitable, whether it's social or financial or both I don't know but having " good people" in a position to pick up the pieces is definitely wise..

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I can't peck out responses as fast as you edit...sorry!
> 
> I am in no way inferring that working to get good people elected to office is pointless.
> 
> What I'm saying plain as day is that even if we're able to completely fill both houses with "good people" government at this point is steam rollin' and the very best we can hope for is to slow it down.
> 
> Personally I believe some type of collapse is inevitable, whether it's social or financial or both I don't know but having " good people" in a position to pick up the pieces is definitely wise..


I fear that if we do collapse, what will result is more socialism.  Maybe if we get to that 250 number we've arbitrarily been playing with, then maybe a small government approach will have a chance.  So I hope we don't have a collapse anytime soon.  Oddly enough, and mind you this is the only credit they get, the progressive Republicans like Boehner, et al.  are the only thing holding us back from being pushed over the edge.  While the establishment types still support bigger government they are not as radical as the Pelosis of the world who are out and out Marxists.  So in that sense, the establishment GOP folks do have some small measure of value as they are keeping their finger in the dyke.  Of course, though, I want to see them replaced with our guys.

I do disagree though, and think we can turn this around.  But it will take time and need to be done incrementally.  If, by chance, we got that 250 number in 2014, there is no way, we can unravel it all overnight.  The people just wouldn't stand for it.  But, since getting that majority is going to take time, we can slowly chip away at things, a little at a time.  Putting the brakes on, is probably a good first step.

----------


## erowe1

> Nope, can't cite a source.
> 
> Not going to even look either.
> 
> Government is much larger than it was then, more employees, more regulations, more everything, and that's my whole point....Government has gotten so big that there's not any politician or group of politicians that can reign it in.
> 
> Once the populace depends on the government for its existence and not vice-versa we're done.


Of course the government is bigger now. That's not disputed. Of course government tends to get bigger and bigger. That's not disputed either.

But that's not what you said. You said that there are zero instances in history of anything ever happening that made the government smaller.

There's a big difference between saying that the events that make government bigger are more frequent and of greater magnitude than those that make it smaller (see Robert Higgs' ratchet illustration), and saying that no events that make government smaller ever happen at all.

When you insist on the latter, that's in indefensible position. If what you really meant was the former, then just say so.

----------


## erowe1

> How many times have we voted for someone and once they get into office made an about face?  How many times do we need to get kicked in the face before people wake up to the reality of it all?


Are you talking about Bentivolio? I can't think of any others off hand. And even with Bentivolio, I personally think the jury is still out.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Are you talking about Bentivolio? I can't think of any others off hand. And even with Bentivolio, I personally think the jury is still out.


Of all the ones I donated to in 2012, that's the only one that I can think of who's voting record is sub par.  But yes, I think the jury is still out on him.

----------


## tod evans

> Of course the government is bigger now. That's not disputed. Of course government tends to get bigger and bigger. That's not disputed either.
> 
> But that's not what you said. You said that there are zero instances in history of anything ever happening that made the government smaller.
> 
> There's a big difference between saying that the events that make government bigger are more frequent and of greater magnitude than those that make it smaller (see Robert Higgs' ratchet illustration), and saying that no events that make government smaller ever happen at all.
> 
> When you insist on the latter, that's in indefensible position. If what you really meant was the former, then just say so.


That's a whole lotta words to say you believe politicians made government smaller by repealing prohibition.

Government grew then, and it's going to continue growing until it can't grow any more........That's what governments do.

Show me one year where there was a cut in either the number of government employees or in expenditures....Can you?

----------


## donnay

> *Ok, we get it* - you do not like political activism.  But why do you feel the need to squash the efforts of those who are working in that realm?


No, I don't think you do.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No, I don't think you do.


Care to explain then?

----------


## donnay

> Are you talking about Bentivolio? I can't think of any others off hand. And even with Bentivolio, I personally think the jury is still out.


No, I was generalizing.  For me, George H. W. Bush "No New Taxes"  is one example.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No, I was generalizing.  For me, George H. W. Bush "No New Taxes"  is one example.


Most of us in the movement at that time did not vote for Bush.  Most abstained.

----------


## donnay

> Care to explain then?


The system is corrupted there is no checks and balances without that assurance you can be politically active all you want and still get nowhere.  The people have to take this power back.

----------


## erowe1

> That's a whole lotta words


No it isn't. Was there a part you didn't understand?




> Government grew then


By repealing prohibition?

I'm still waiting for you to back this up.




> Show me one year where there was a cut in either the number of government employees or in expenditures....Can you?


Again, that's moving the goal posts. If this was all you meant when you said that no politician in history has ever done a single thing that made the government smaller, then please say so.

Because those are two totally different claims.

That said, I'm pretty sure that I can easily take you up on this more recent challenge. Before I even bother looking, I think that we'll find that there were cuts in number of government employees and expenditures in the years following the end of WW2.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The system is corrupted there is no checks and balances without that assurance you can be politically active all you want and still get nowhere.  The people have to take this power back.


And how do you suggest the people take the power back?

----------


## tod evans

> By repealing prohibition?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to back this up.


Simply read the budget.
[edit]

Here's a picture;

----------


## erowe1

> Simply read the budget.


You mean the BATF budget?

----------


## donnay

> And how do you suggest the people take the power back?


By educating them.  Show them that we have the power.  That's how people work together.  You don't vote the bums out of office you indict them!  You cannot work within a corrupt system to make these changes--those in power will never relinquish it easily.  We have to set examples, send a clear and concise message back.

----------


## erowe1

Here you go.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php

Like I said above, the decrease in federal expenditures in the years following WW2 was huge The same happened after WW1. And there have been a number of times that federal expenditures decreased by smaller amounts too.

----------


## tod evans

> You mean the BATF budget?


I didn't specify BATF, I plainly stated "government" as the whole darn thing is interconnected like some incestuous linage.

Politicians aren't going to shrink government period.

If they short one department they'll inflate another.

----------


## donnay

The increase of the Executive orders never decreased.  Martial law is just a pen stroke away.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> By educating them.  Show them that we have the power.  That's how people work together.  You don't vote the bums out of office you indict them!  You cannot work within a corrupt system to make these changes--those in power will never relinquish it easily.  We have to set examples, send a clear and concise message back.


But I mentioned this earlier.  You do realize that most people, and by most I mean a large majority, do not care - but they vote regardless.  I am all for education, and that is a big part of it.  But education without political action results in a bunch of educated people still electing the same people we have now - or worse, not voting at all, which is evidenced by many an-caps.  

As I see it, education creates activists, and activists then educate others AND generate votes.

----------


## tod evans

> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php
> 
> Like I said above, the decrease in federal expenditures in the years following WW2 was huge The same happened after WW1. And there have been a number of times that federal expenditures decreased by smaller amounts too.


Well that's completely dishonest!

Percent of GDP? 

How do you figure that's relevant to a shrunk/inflated government?

Government employes more people every year, they spend more money every year, shrinking government means cutting both.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I was generalizing.  For me, George H. W. Bush "No New Taxes"  is one example.


That doesn't support the claim that no politician has ever done anything in history that resulted in less government.

----------


## erowe1

> Well that's completely dishonest!
> 
> Percent of GDP? 
> 
> How do you figure that's relevant to a shrunk/inflated government?


It wasn't dishonest. The percent of GDP table is just the one I found. I looked for a better one and didn't find it. I realize that that makes a difference. But given the magnitude of the decreases, I really doubt that there weren't decreases in absolute terms in those years.

It's conspicuous that throughout this discussion you have remained unwilling to find any evidence to support your own claims, by the way.




> Government employes more people every year, they spend more money every year, shrinking government means cutting both.


When you first gave that challenge, you said either one or the other. Now you say both. More goalpost moving.

ETA: I just noticed that you edited one of your posts with a chart of federal spending. And in your own chart, it also shows a real decrease in spending after WW2. Are you still saying that has never happened in history?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The peoples' minds needs to be changed to vote differently and to actually vote in the Amash-like politicians.


No actually. That's the long/wrong way of doing things and Rand has proven this. Ron has too to some extent

The trick is that you campaign traditionally and sound like a regular Republican, and then vote the correct way when you get in office. Ron's re-election campaigns made him sound not like the Ron that we know, but like your standard Republican. Rand didn't bring out the liberty rhetoric as much during his 2010 run although he certainly votes that way.


We don't need to change the peoples' minds or worldview, we simply need to convince them to vote for our guy. That's a much lower threshold and easier target to hit. 





> You need an ideological majority with the people of the country before you can hope to have one in government.


This is not true either. 

Politicians react to pressure. If you know how to pressure the politicians, especially if you can threaten their re-election, then you are able to manipulate them into doing what you want them to do. We don't need a majority of anything, we just need to cause a few of them a lot of pain, make some of them lose their elections, and then we are treated with respect. The old saying "you're not feared unless you are respected".


Watch this to understand more:

----------


## 2young2vote

If you get a majority in the house and senate who are like Justin Amash then the government would shrink.  The problem is that there will never be a majority in the house and senate who are like Justin Amash.  That would require integrity on the part of the representatives and integrity is something that is extremely rare.  You not only would need them to think like him, but also behave like him, and that simply isn't going to happen.

It is true, the natural direction of government is growth and that hasn't changed in thousands of years.  They never shrink to the extent that we want it because the majority of people do not want freedom, they want control.  Just listen to people talking about the president...they want a great leader, not a representative.  These people want to be lead, so they elect leaders, and leaders expand government.

----------


## tod evans

> Again, that's moving the goal posts. If this was all you meant when you said that no politician in history has ever done a single thing that made the government smaller, then please say so.
> 
> Because those are two totally different claims.
> 
> That said, I'm pretty sure that I can easily take you up on this more recent challenge. Before I even bother looking, I think that we'll find that there were cuts in number of government employees and expenditures in the years following the end of WW2.





> Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?


Without trying to twist what I actually said is it possible for you to point out the politician that actually shrunk government?

----------


## erowe1

The number of federal employees also went down after WW2.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...nt-since-1940/

----------


## donnay

> But I mentioned this earlier.  You do realize that most people, and by most I mean a large majority, do not care - but they vote regardless.  I am all for education, and that is a big part of it.  But education without political action results in a bunch of educated people still electing the same people we have now - or worse, not voting at all, which is evidenced by many an-caps.  
> 
> As I see it, education creates activists, and activists then educate others AND generate votes.



Yes that is why I was very active in the Ron Paul Campaign and still active with Ron Paul.  Did I have any illusions in 2007 or 2010 he would be President, no.  But he did wake up many people. The message needed to be heard.  The grassroots help that process to educate the masses.  That is my point.  If you think by electing a few like-minded wo/men is going to make a dent in this corrupted system you are only fooling yourself.  It's clear, to me, just how the system handled Ron Paul, they will just simply shut you out if you get too popular with the people.

----------


## erowe1

> Without trying to twist what I actually said is it possible for you to point out the politician that actually shrunk government?


Instead of worrying about someone else twisting anything, why not just say what you mean? If you didn't really mean what you initially said, then just man up and say that wasn't what you meant.

First you said that no politician has ever done anything at any time that shrank government.

But I showed you that that's wrong in the case of the repeal of prohibition.

Then you revised your claim to say that, even if individual reductions in government have happened from time to time, the whole government has never gotten smaller in EITHER expenditures OR number of employees year over year at any time in history.

But I showed you that that's wrong, in the case of reduction of expenditures after WW2.

Then you revised your claim to say that, even if reductions in expenditures ever happened, there has never in history been a case when governent got smaller in BOTH expenditures AND employees.

But I showed you that that's wrong, again after WW2.

Now you're back to asking about any politician ever shrinking government. Well, see the above.

My apologies if this post has too many words in it.

----------


## tod evans

> The number of federal employees also went down after WW2.
> https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...nt-since-1940/


More dishonest data.

Executive branch in no way encompasses "government" as a whole.

I stand firmly behind my opinion that no politician has ever shrunk government.

Pick-n-choose whatever study or report you like, government is bigger than it's ever been and I don't for a minute believe any politician can slow its growth. It's never happened since the inception of "governments" and to believe this government is capable of reigning itself in is utter foolishness.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes that is why I was very active in the Ron Paul Campaign and still active with Ron Paul.  Did I have any illusions in 2007 or 2010 he would be President, no.  But he did wake up many people. The message needed to be heard.  The grassroots help that process to educate the masses.  That is my point.  If you think by electing a few like-minded wo/men is going to make a dent in this corrupted system you are only fooling yourself. * It's clear, to me, just how the system handled Ron Paul, they will just simply shut you out if you get too popular with the people.*


They key is becoming the "they", and that is taking place all across the country as liberty minded people are taking seats within county GOP committees.  In my county, when you combine the libertarians and the tea party folks, we have a strong majority.  So if anyone gets shut out, it is the establishment types.

----------


## erowe1

> point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?





> The repeal of alcohol prohibition, the ending of the draft, the demilitarization after the two world wars, air and freight deregulations, and various levels of marijuana legalization, immediately come to mind.





> Sorry erowe but in every instance you mention government has grown in both manpower and regulation..
> 
> Try again.


Upon looking at how this discussion unfolded after these posts, it's pretty clear that at least some of the examples I gave were correct, and that your dismissal of them was factually wrong.

----------


## donnay

> They key is becoming the "they", and that is taking place all across the country as liberty minded people are taking seats within county GOP committees.  In my county, when you combine the libertarians and the tea party folks, we have a strong majority.  So if anyone gets shut out, it is the establishment types.



Here's two examples:  Did a majority of the people want the bailouts?  No.  Did a majority of the people want Obamacare? No.  It happened, why?--because what you and I want doesn't matter.  That's how a corrupt system works.

----------


## erowe1

> Executive branch in no way encompasses "government" as a whole.


For all intents and purposes it does.

How can executive branch employment decrease from 3.37 million people to 1.44 million people without total federal government employment decreasing?

----------


## erowe1

> I stand firmly behind my opinion that no politician has ever shrunk government.


How can you still say this after being shown proof that they have?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Here's two examples:  Did a majority of the people want the bailouts?  No.  Did a majority of the people want Obamacare? No.  It happened, why?--because what you and I want doesn't matter.  That's how a corrupt system works.


It happened because the people that are in office supported them, and even though the phones were ringing off the hook, they voted against what their constituents wanted. More Amashes will fix that problem.

----------


## tod evans

> How can you still say this after being shown proof that they have?


Well I can't keep up.

I suppose back there somewhere you've named the politician that shrunk government?

Heck you might even be able to spin some yarn as to how "if only" that could happen in todays world?

I don't believe it!

Government has grown and it'll continue to grow until it consumes itself or the people revolt.

----------


## erowe1

> Well I can't keep up.
> 
> I suppose back there somewhere you've named the politician that shrunk government?


Now you want someone's name?

In your own mind, do you actually think that all these different challenges you're giving are the same?

For names, here's all you have to do. Go back and find the roll calls for the passage of the 21st amendment, and the government shrinking appropriations bills after WW2.

There will be your names.

----------


## tod evans

> Now you want someone's name?
> 
> In your own mind, do you actually think that all these different challenges you're giving are the same?
> 
> For names, here's all you have to do. Go back and find the roll calls for the passage of the 21st amendment, and the government shrinking appropriations bills after WW2.
> 
> There will be your names.


First off I haven't issued any challenges.

Your condescending tone doesn't mix well with my lacquer buzz either.

If you honestly believe that some politician shrunk government that's up to you, I don't.

Furthermore if you think that electing any number of politicians in todays climate will shrink government you're delusional. 

I'm all for electing folks like Amash but I don't expect him to accomplish much other than education, government will continue to grow.

----------


## erowe1

> First off I haven't issued any challenges.


Pardon?




> Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out exactly where any politician has effected anything but more government in the last century?





> Try again.





> Then prove me wrong for Pete's sake.





> Show me one year where there was a cut in either the number of government employees or in expenditures....Can you?





> Simply read the budget.





> Without trying to twist what I actually said is it possible for you to point out the politician that actually shrunk government?

----------


## erowe1

> If you honestly believe that some politician shrunk government that's up to you, I don't.


But this is simply a matter of verifiable historical fact. We know for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that some have. It's not a matter of opinion.

You're like some of the people I have to deal with in the religion forum.

----------


## compromise

I highly doubt Rush even knows about Amash's foreign policy views. Amash isn't exactly a major political figure at this point. Rush probably sees him as just another strong conservative being attacked by the establishment.

----------


## Sam I am

> Wake up Rush, if there were 250 Amash clones elected tomorrow "saving the country" isn't going to happen through politicians.


I'm having trouble parsing this sentence.  It looks like the beginning of one sentence and the end of a completely different sentence taped together

----------


## donnay

> It happened because the people that are in office supported them, and even though the phones were ringing off the hook, they voted against what their constituents wanted. More Amashes will fix that problem.


To keep up the phony left/right paradigm they allow those candidates in to continue to suck people into believing that it will make change.  Unfortunately a true awakening is when you realize who is pulling the strings.  In Congress, one man cannot make a difference--and they know it.

This is why our founders warned us about democracy.  


"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
~ John Adams 


"A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."
~ James Madison 

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” 
~ Thomas Jefferson 

“The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” 
~ Thomas Jefferson 

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "
~ Benjamin Franklin

"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
~ Ron Paul 

The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
~ Lord Acton 


"Democracy is the road to socialism."
~ Karl Marx 

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
~ Vladimir Lenin 

"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."
~ Irving Kristol 


If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” 
~ Mark Twain

----------


## jtap

> No actually. That's the long/wrong way of doing things and Rand has proven this. Ron has too to some extent
> 
> The trick is that you campaign traditionally and sound like a regular Republican, and then vote the correct way when you get in office. Ron's re-election campaigns made him sound not like the Ron that we know, but like your standard Republican. Rand didn't bring out the liberty rhetoric as much during his 2010 run although he certainly votes that way.
> 
> 
> We don't need to change the peoples' minds or worldview, we simply need to convince them to vote for our guy. That's a much lower threshold and easier target to hit. 
> 
> ...


I concede that is a way to game the system. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. If everyone is cheating and no one is being punished the rules essentially become that it's ok to cheat. Is it really cheating at that point? It's hard to say. It's a very grey area but it's pretty normal for a politician to say what it takes to get elected then do something else whether or not that something else is good for the people. I wouldn't do it and am not a fan of it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> To keep up the phony left/right paradigm they allow those candidates in to continue to suck people into believing that it will make change.  Unfortunately a true awakening is when you realize who is pulling the strings.  In Congress, one man cannot make a difference--and they know it.


So Amash is just another tool of those pulling the strings?  I don't think he is, which is why the notion of 250 of him is a good thing.  




> This is why our founders warned us about democracy.


Which is why our Founders established a Republic and not a democracy.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

This is good news. Let fat ass Limbaugh and the rest of the pieces of garbage jump on the liberty bandwagon and we can hang the die-hard neocon scum out to dry

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Statements like "show me what has changed" show a complete ignorance of how a legislative body works, as well as an ignorance of the political history of the country over the past 50+ years.  Snide or not, the comment was necessary in the face of such glaring ignorance.  If people are thin-skinned then perhaps debate on a public forum is not the best endeavor for them.


It's also ignorant of human psychology and how people become aware and educated.  The public schools are pumping out mindless statist drones by the millions, the only way to circumvent that is to get a big platform to espouse liberty ideas.  Politicians have an enormous platform to educate these people.  The people most in need of this education aren't going to enroll at the Mises Institute.  They're going to slowly be exposed to liberty ideas in passing when Rand or another liberty candidate is on the tv talking.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The BATF has grown in size and scope, just like Tod is saying.  Government only grows bigger.


If that's the case why aren't you out creating an alternative anarchist utopia instead of posting on a message board?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> No actually. That's the long/wrong way of doing things and Rand has proven this. Ron has too to some extent
> 
> The trick is that you campaign traditionally and sound like a regular Republican, and then vote the correct way when you get in office. Ron's re-election campaigns made him sound not like the Ron that we know, but like your standard Republican. Rand didn't bring out the liberty rhetoric as much during his 2010 run although he certainly votes that way.
> 
> 
> We don't need to change the peoples' minds or worldview, we simply need to convince them to vote for our guy. That's a much lower threshold and easier target to hit. 
> 
> 
> This is not true either. 
> ...


Rand won because he put people at ease when he said national defense is a Constitutional function.  People didn't come away thinking, nor was he easy to paint, as a misguided pacifist who wouldn't protect the country if under attack.  It's a child-like notion thinking that Ron wouldn't defend this country, but people truly think this way.  It boggles the mind, but reality.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> If that's the case why aren't you out creating an alternative anarchist utopia instead of posting on a message board?


Probably because She is not an anarchist. 

By the way no one believes in utopias including anarchists.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I highly doubt Rush even knows about Amash's foreign policy views. Amash isn't exactly a major political figure at this point. Rush probably sees him as just another strong conservative being attacked by the establishment.


That, and the 'off-season' tendency of establishment conservatives to curry favor from true liberty supporters by talking up their views and main advocates. Then at crunch time (close to elections, or the ramp up to a war) it's back to spinning people back into the main GOP line and the two-party paradigm mindset. Rush is setting the table with flattery now, to steer pro-liberty folks later.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> That, and the 'off-season' tendency of establishment conservatives to curry favor from true liberty supporters by talking up their views and main advocates. Then at crunch time (close to elections, or the ramp up to a war) it's back to spinning people back into the main GOP line and the two-party paradigm mindset. Rush is setting the table with flattery now, to steer pro-liberty folks later.


Fight in the primaries, unite in the general.  Truth be told, this is what most people do, including pro-liberty folks.  If you look at 2012 exit polling from the primaries, a majority those who supported Paul in the primary planned on voting for the nominee in the general.  It is only a very small segment of voters who subscribe to the "there's no difference between Romney & Obama" mantra.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I'm having trouble parsing this sentence.  It looks like the beginning of one sentence and the end of a completely different sentence taped together


I think he is saying that the country won't be saved through even 250 Amash clones in the house.

Perhaps he sees all of the political maneuvers thwarting every sane move.  Perhaps he sees the "we the people" as not understanding the meaning of liberty or having the basic understanding of what the Constitution claims to restrain (and for what purpose).

Perhaps, if there were enough good people in congress, the actions that they would take would just piss off a lot of the "we the people" because the media would convince them that they are being screwed as their "gimme's" are taken away.  And then, "we the people" would throw them out and elect those that will continue the "gimme's".

Perhaps, @tod evans, thinks that, until the people become self respecting and self governing, there is no political process that can save our country.

I may be wrong, and @tod evans can correct me where I fall short.

----------


## donnay

> If that's the case why aren't you out creating an alternative anarchist utopia instead of posting on a message board?



Because I am not an anarchist.  I am for limited government--and those in power, now, are not going to give it up.  So we better have a plan B.

The notion that putting 20 Amash's in office is going to change and effect a corrupt hijacked government is like whistling past the graveyard.  

Your time, money and effort is better spent educating people at a grassroots level and working in your local governments first..  I do practice what I preach, btw.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Fight in the primaries, unite in the general.  Truth be told, this is what most people do, including pro-liberty folks.  If you look at 2012 exit polling from the primaries, a majority those who supported Paul in the primary planned on voting for the nominee in the general.  It is only a very small segment of voters who subscribe to the "there's no difference between Romney & Obama" mantra.


The fight in the last few Presidential primaries has hardly been over different shades of the same GOP ice cream, but over war mongering versus peace, minor fiscal tinkering versus ending the Fed, returning to the Constitution or continuing to ignore it, etc. Acting like one supports such liberty themes, then junking them entirely later, cycle after cycle, is not unification, but cynical deception and posturing.

----------


## Matt Collins



----------

