# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Court convicts Adam Kokesh; could serve 15 years in prison

## Matt Collins

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...217_story.html






> Gun rights activist Adam Kok*esh, who was convicted of drug and gun charges Thursday in a Fairfax County court, did not contest the allegations, but he called the raid that led to his arrest “political persecution.”
> 
> Kokesh, 32, entered an Alford plea in Circuit Court to _two felonies related to his possession of hallucinogenic mushrooms while possessing a gun_. In an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that prosecutors have enough evidence to obtain a conviction.
> 
> Kokesh faces a maximum of 15 years in prison when he is sentenced Sept. 5.
> 
> Kokesh was arrested in July when federal and local authorities raided the Herndon home he shared with other activists.
> Prosecutors said Thursday that police found 10 guns and _drugs, including LSD, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and mushrooms._

----------


## Natural Citizen

Dang. Party huh?

----------


## fr33

Stuff like this is why I don't shed any tears over the Vegas cop-killers. It's unfortunate that the shooters were not reacting in self defense though. I don't cheer for such things but I also don't care.

But the officials involved in a case like in the OP; Yes, everyone of them deserve it from the top (judge and DA) to bottom (arresting officers and prison guards).

Arresting, prosecuting, and punishing someone for possessing weapons and/or drugs is insane.

----------


## TomtheTinker

I don't agree with Adam on every thing and he has certainly made multiple tactical blunders. But screw what your average non informed person has to say about him...at least he has a mind and a pair of balls. That's more than I can say about 95% of the people I meet these days. Although my situation is different, I know how it feels to be betrayed and  jailed for a victimless crime...I'm going in for a year the 13th of august and I promise it will only make my convictions stronger. Bless Adam and all the men who aren't afraid to be men.

----------


## Anti Federalist

At *no* other time in your posting history, Matt, would you have been likely to post even a snip of the article in question.

*Except* in this case, in order to gloat over Kokesh possibly going to prison.

Enjoy your _schadenfreude_ Matt, while you can.

All the rest of you as well.

Because in the end, we're all going to prison.

SMMFH in disgust...

----------


## JK/SEA

Matt does that because he doesn't like an online web site dedicated to RON PAUL to be inhabited by the likes of 'people' who may hold more 'radical' views...and as an example, behold Matts 'focus' on Adam Kokesh...

makes no sense to me why anybody would disparage someone like Adam due to other people  supporting Ron Paul.

seems oppressive to me.

----------


## Matt Collins

> he doesn't like an online web site dedicated to RON PAUL to be inhabited by the likes of 'people' who may hold more 'radical' views...


No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.

----------


## Cleaner44

> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.


By riff-raff, you mean hobbits?

----------


## phill4paul

> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.


  riff-raff (noun)

  1) an individual that does not play politics because they see it as useless.
  2) an individual that seeks to educate for social change as opposed to working within a corrupt and unchangeable system.
  3) an individual that does not support financially the efforts of those that claim to work within a corrupt and unchangeable political system.
  4) an individual that is unacceptable because they are perceived to have low political status.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.


*I'm* riff-raff.    You just broke my heart there Matt -and I forgive you -_you're young_.  I pray that you get an _easy_ clue.

Not everyone resists in the same way, and God help me if I ever think I know the best way for another individual to resist.

The word of the month a lifetime?  *Conscience.*

----------


## Brian4Liberty

So the American Bolsheviks want to send the anarchist agitator to Siberia on trumped up charges? Shocking!

----------


## Barrex

This is bad. He didnt hurt anyone. 

I hope he doesnt go to jail... I also hope that he doesnt die while barricaded in his home resisting when they come to send him to jail.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> riff-raff (noun)
> 
>   1) an individual that does not play politics because they see it as useless.
>   2) an individual that seeks to educate for social change as opposed to working within a corrupt and unchangeable system.
>   3) an individual that does not support financially the efforts of those that claim to work within a corrupt and unchangeable political system.
>   4) an individual that is unacceptable because they are perceived to have low political status.


5) an individual that posts MLM schemes in an effort to bilk fellow liberty minded folk out of what they can.

----------


## CaptUSA

> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.


Now, _there's_ a winning strategy...  

Listen, I'm not really a fan of Kokesh.  I think he's troubled and needs help.  I think he could be an extremely valuable part of this movement if he could focus his energies.

But, at least he's doing something.  Everyone has to do it in their own way, but dammit, don't shut them down when they do something.  Liberty isn't just for those who share your opinions about how the strategy should work.  Somehow, Matt, you think it's part of your job to sit in here and snipe at those that you think are doing it wrong.  I see this as what I call "LP Syndrome".  I was a member of the Libertarian Party for a couple decades, but they are afflicted with your same problem.  They don't understand how infighting is far more damaging than simply allowing others to act in the manner _they_ find most useful.

Matt, you're working your angle.  That's great.  But to think that your angle is the only one that should be pursued is just arrogance.  And it is the same arrogance that is displayed in those who seek power.  Understand a little more about this, and you will be more valuable to this movement yourself.

----------


## donnay

> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.



You seem to think you are something else-- don't flatter yourself.  You think YOU make the movement look better by gloating about the misfortune of others?  You remind me of those self-righteous neocons who pound their puffed out chest shouting, "LAW and ORDER!"  Until they get caught breaking the very unconstitutional law they were all for.

Disgusting, really.  With people such as yourself in this movement, I am becoming a political atheist more and more.

----------


## JK/SEA

by the way everyone, this thread isn't about Adam Kokesh, its about Matt Collins...

----------


## JK/SEA

> You seem to think you are something else-- don't flatter yourself.  You think YOU make the movement look better by gloating about the misfortune of others?  You remind me of those self-righteous neocons who pound their puffed out chest shouting, "LAW and ORDER!"  Until they get caught breaking the very unconstitutional law they were all for.
> 
> Disgusting, really.  With people such as yourself in this movement, I am becoming a political atheist more and more.


this is Matts goal...to push the voices that infer a 'radical' ideal out of Ron Paul forums...

too bad Rev9 bailed, but i understand his frustration...

----------


## CaptUSA

Somehow, this seemed fitting.

----------


## fisharmor

> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.


I think people who endorse Mitt Romney for president while Ron Paul is still in the race make this movement look bad.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Somehow, this seemed fitting.


If by power lust she also means greed, then yes. There is nothing wrong with power, just like there is nothing wrong with money. People rationally should seek to acquire both.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I think people who endorse Mitt Romney for president while Ron Paul is still in the race make this movement look bad.


Ron was no longer in the race at that point, he couldn't win, and wasn't running. Remember, he dropped out just before Rand made the endorsement.

----------


## pcosmar

> At *no* other time in your posting history, Matt, would you have been likely to post even a snip of the article in question.
> 
> *Except* in this case, in order to gloat over Kokesh possibly going to prison.
> 
> Enjoy your _schadenfreude_ Matt, while you can.
> 
> All the rest of you as well.
> 
> Because in the end, we're all going to prison.
> ...


He expects to be spared for being a good toady.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> At *no* other time in your posting history, Matt, would you have been likely to post even a snip of the article in question.
> 
> *Except* in this case, in order to gloat over Kokesh possibly going to prison.
> 
> Enjoy your _schadenfreude_ Matt, while you can.
> 
> All the rest of you as well.
> 
> *Because in the end, we're all going to prison.*
> ...


"Because in the end..."

Quoted for truth.

_"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."_ B.F.

That's not a suggestion, _it's a fact._  That is _wisdom_ that comes with experience.  

It is certainly the strategy (twisted) that the opposition is employing  -and isn't it telling *when the opposition* throws someone under the bus?  

Doubt and fear is a killer.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Disgusting, really.  With people such as yourself in this movement, I am becoming a political atheist more and more.


See this, Matt?  THIS is the result of your division.  It returns apathy to those who would be your allies.

----------


## fisharmor

> Ron was no longer in the race at that point, he couldn't win, and wasn't running. Remember, he dropped out just before Rand made the endorsement.


No matter how many times you type this out, it still doesn't make it true.

----------


## Cap

Napoleon complex on display her folks.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Listen, I'm not really a fan of Kokesh.  I think he's troubled and needs help.  I think he could be an extremely valuable part of this movement if he could focus his energies.
> 
> But, at least he's doing something.  Everyone has to do it in their own way, but dammit, don't shut them down when they do something.


Wrong, when someone actively damages the movement and hurts our chances at winning because they give ammo to the opposition to use against us, they need to be distanced. Guilt by association is a very viable tactic in politics which is why one must be careful about ones associations.





> And it is the same arrogance that is displayed in those who seek power.


Everyone who wants to change things should seek power. There is nothing wrong with seeking power, just like there is nothing wrong with acquiring money.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No matter how many times you type this out, it still doesn't make it true.


Ron sent out an e-mail saying that he was no longer seeking the nomination. A day or two later Rand endorsed Romney. Are you incapable of remembering the facts? If so, go look it up.

----------


## Cap

> See this, Matt?  THIS is the result of your division.  It returns apathy to those who would be your allies.


He seriously doesn't care. There is a serious disconnect inside.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You think YOU make the movement look better by gloating about the misfortune of others?


1- I am not gloating at all.

2- This wasn't "misfortune" as if he got hit by a tornado or something. This was the direct consequence of his own ill-conceived actions





> I am becoming a political atheist more and more.


I guess your rights don't mean anything to you then.

----------


## jjdoyle

> No, not at all, I thought of it after the fact. Nice try at attempting to create a false narrative though.


It's not a false narrative. You didn't have to ask the campaign for a reimbursement, but you did. So you were paid for the work in Minnesota. And as someone that has been involved in campaigns, you did exactly what you're supposed to do when seeking compensation. You would have known that, otherwise you wouldn't have even thought to ask.

----------


## amy31416

I'm curious if Marianne Stebbins would vouch for Matt Collins.

----------


## PRB

> I'm curious if Marianne Stebbins would vouch for Matt Collins.


who is that?

----------


## Weston White

> Uh no... you took quite a few leaps in logic here. Lack of funds was not the reason Ron was unable to win the nomination.


Oh sure, I certainly took a mondo-jump on that one: Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.  He was compelled to change his campaign strategy midstream because he lacked requisite support from the 1-percent crowd; for which we all knew that day was hastily approaching.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, because chances are you don't act insane (or drugged up) and do things to visibly flaunt illegal activity and then dare the government to do something about it.


Good thing Rosa Parks didn't feel that way.

----------


## tod evans

> When I tabulated my expenses after the fact I asked the campaign if they would reimburse me and they did.





> What is wrong with taking power from those who use it for their own self-interest?





> No, just people who make the movement look bad. We have to police our own and keep the riff-raff out.



Hmmmmmm.

----------


## eduardo89

> _Ron's approach will not change any policy or law. Rand's approach will (and has). 
> 
> For example, it's nice that a lot more people understand that the Federal Reserve is a bad thing and why it is bad. But unless you have any political power you can't do anything about it._


+rep

----------


## Cap

> you all made me defend collins and ban a couple people 
> if you must insult him can you at least do it with some measure of wit and not just straight up curse words?


Yeah, the Collinz brings out the best in people. Strike up the band!

Let's talk accomplishmentsts.

Why, it's common knowledge that if it wasn't for the Collinz, Dave Ramsey would not be as successful as he is today. Kudos is in order. I'm sure Ramsey is thankful as well. It's rare to find a producer of a radio show that can write the narrative for the host as well. 

And let's not forget the Nashville-Davidson County GOP. Collinz single handedly united and brought harmony to that group. Being the smartest one in the room is a huge burden to go through life with. It's hard to lead, especially when your are the guy tasked with leading 'the short' bus people. 

But through it all, armed with superior intellect, steel will and the determination of a championship boxer, (exemplified in this thread alone), he trudges on...alone. If only the 'short bus' people had any modicum of sense, they would see the gift that has been laid before them. 

It's Providence. Maybe even divine.

----------


## fisharmor

> Here is the problem Matt, MOST EVERYONE that doesn't carry the bucket for the establishment and its handlers ie.. media, is considered "outside the norm" and will be attacked.
> 
> You can't divest yourself or the movement of ALL those who think outside the box. Granted, Adam comes off as a little batty to me sometimes but his want for liberty is not contested. I think he is so entrenched in his love/want for liberty that he attacks rather than strategizes.. BUT so what.
> 
> I use to think "oh no, Ron Paul said this or that...." or "Oh no, the media is gonna have a field day with...." IT $#@!ING DOESN'T MATTER!!!
> 
> You could have a bunch of saints on Ron Pauls'/Rand Pauls team and the establishment will literally make something up to paint this movement as "crazy" or "unstable" or whatever..... trying to get every flee off of this dog is a waste of time. Adam brings in more than he takes away, imho.


You'd think this would be obvious seven years into this game, wouldn't you?

Going into 2012 it looked like this movement was poised to start owning the narrative.  Not suggesting changes to it, but owning it.
It looked like we belonged to something that frankly didn't give a $#@! what the other side thought, because we were right, and if they didn't think so, then they were wrong.  And it wasn't any more complicated than that.

But now the chicken littles have taken over, and we're supposed to censor people who are fundamentally right.  Why?  Because they don't have the right haircut to show up on TV.

We've been over this quite a bit. We all knew that Ron had a bad haircut and stuttered and couldn't find a competent tailor.  And none of us cared.  We knew that there were more important things going on than watching the color of his ties.  Our effort was primarily to convince others of this as well.

So now we're here trying to convince people with whom we used to share solidarity that these things don't matter as much as truth.
And who started this thread?  A professional tie-color-watchdog.

You lot can obsess over hair and suits all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that things were happening in the run up to the 2012 convention.  People were making changes and changing minds.  People were standing fast for something true, and not sugar-coating anything.

And all that got changed.  Now we're supposed to like being plugged into the lie machine.
And still, the lie-machine proponents have no idea why we're upset about it.

----------


## fisharmor

> You're missing the forest for the trees... changing people's worldview is NOT necessary to getting your agenda accomplished or getting elected. You just have to acquire enough power to be able to get it done.
> 
> 
> SOMEONE is going to be running the government, would it be better to have as many liberty minded-people as possible, or should we just let the statists run rampant without a fight?


Wow, this is really demonstrating the point here.

This is the 180 degree polar opposite of Ron Paul's position.

I don't think it could be clearer.

----------


## Barrex

> *How many bills has Kokesh killed or gotten passed? How many bad politicians has he gotten thrown out of office?* What has he actually done to bring us closer to liberty?  Preaching to the choir accomplishes nothing.





> Ron is not the perfect candidate by any stretch, nor does he want to be. You're missing the forest for the trees... changing people's worldview is NOT necessary to getting your agenda accomplished or getting elected. You just have to acquire enough power to be able to get it done.SOMEONE is going to be running the government, would it be better to have as many liberty minded-people as possible, or should we just let the statists run rampant without a fight?_Ron's approach will not change any policy or law._ Rand's approach will (and has). 
> 
> For example, it's nice that a lot more people understand that the Federal Reserve is a bad thing and why it is bad. But unless you have any political power you can't do anything about it.


What did Adam do to bring us closer to liberty?
I remember dancing protest at that memorial...where he was arrested and assaulted; I remember that pot smoking protest where he was arrested and assaulted; I remember he organized hundreds of veterans and active duty soldiers and marched them to the White House where they protested 1 minute in silence for every US soldier that committed suicide and the list goes on...

Matt you should take some time off from posting on internet... especially this forum. Guy is in danger of spending rest of his life in jail and you gloat over it. LOW REALLY LOW!!! You have terrible reputation on this forum on revolutionbox on dailypaul...well everywhere. You need a little time off to figure if everyone else who spent time with you is wrong when they view you in negative light or you are doing it wrong and should change your self.

15 f***ing years!!!!!!!!!!

P.s.

I dont like what you are doing.

----------


## jonhowe

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...217_story.html


A bunch of mostly harmless drugs (cocaine and ecstasy can be dangerous, but otherwise all quite safe) and guns which he is trained by the US military to use.



NONE OF THIS IS A CRIME in my book. Sadly no one reads my book.

----------


## klamath

> A bunch of mostly harmless drugs (cocaine and ecstasy can be dangerous, but otherwise all quite safe) and guns which he is trained by the US military to use.
> 
> 
> 
> NONE OF THIS IS A CRIME in my book. Sadly no one reads my book.


What Adam did was dumb but if they give him 15 years, it without a doubt is an attempt to shut him down. A political prisoner.

----------


## JK/SEA

[QUOTE=klamath;5567084]What Adam did was dumb but if they give him 15 years, it without a doubt is an attempt to shut him down. A political prisoner.[/QUOTE

well, if that happens, Matt Collins and his cult followers will sleep better at night...

----------


## Matt Collins

> It's not a false narrative. You didn't have to ask the campaign for a reimbursement, but you did. So you were paid for the work in Minnesota.


No, you're intentionally being deceptive once again. Getting reimbursed for expenses is not the same thing as getting paid. 




> And as someone that has been involved in campaigns, you did exactly what you're supposed to do when seeking compensation. You would have known that, otherwise you wouldn't have even thought to ask.


Compensation is not the same thing as expenses. 

Nice try at lying though, you fail.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Good thing Rosa Parks didn't feel that way.


Rosa Parks was peaceful, polite, not-belligerent, and was a little old lady. She had the sympathy factor. She wasn't on drugs, steroids, or doing outrageous things to call attention to herself in a way that thought she would go postal.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Wow, this is really demonstrating the point here.
> 
> This is the 180 degree polar opposite of Ron Paul's position.
> 
> I don't think it could be clearer.


Well, Ron wants to educate, not change policy.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm curious if Marianne Stebbins would vouch for Matt Collins.


Absolutely.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt you should take some time off from posting on internet... especially this forum. Guy is in danger of spending rest of his life in jail and you gloat over it.


I am not gloating, and I think that his sentence is of course unfair.  I've said so multiple times. But I've also pointed out that he 100% brought this upon himself and did not participate in smart civil disobedience.

----------


## acptulsa

> And what does _pissing_ on the choir accomplish?


Maintaining the status quo might seem like 'accomplishing nothing,' but in fact it simply accomplishes nothing good.

----------


## Danke

> who is that?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member....er-de-Stebbing

She the lady that followed Matt in Minnesota as he "was there engineering it."  "It" being the "own[ing] the nominating convention."

That's how Ron won 34/37 seats to the RNC from MN.

----------


## fisharmor

> Rosa Parks was peaceful, polite, not-belligerent, and was a little old lady. She had the sympathy factor. She wasn't on drugs, steroids, or doing outrageous things to call attention to herself in a way that thought she would go postal.


Dude, just.... stop.
Rosa Parks was 42 years old when she refused to move to the back of the bus.




> Well, Ron wants to educate, not change policy.


And he wrote that the way to change society is to get everyone on board with the new way of doing things, and policy comes afterward because it reflects the will of the people.
Something you've completely missed.

----------


## Lucille

Poor Adam.  

"If you won't speak out against the _unjust_ kidnapping of your worst enemy, then you need to reexamine your commitment to liberty."

Hanging Kokesh out to dry 
http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2013/...ut-to-dry.html




> To the anti-liberty bigots there is no difference between what Adam Kokesh did and smuggling regular capacity magazines into states that have declared them "illegal"*.  Or "carrying" when and where State thugs have said you aren't allowed to.  Or owning some type of gun that has been criminalized because of cosmetic features or safety equipment.  Or whatever the individual anti-liberty bigot's particular "hate" happens to be.  It might be politically incorrect drugs, freedom of association, the right to not be stolen from, freedom of travel, sex of some sort, or myriad other possibilities.
> [...]
> Nothing Kokesh did in this most recent case was wrong in any real way.  Anyone who takes any action that is noticed by thuggish State employees will be faulted by someone on the "liberty side".  Whether it's writing a blog or a newspaper column that doesn't worship the State, or violating some counterfeit "law", or engaging in acts of self defense or defense of property.  If it's noticed, it will be criticized as "foolish", "unnecessary", "untimely", or something.  Just because it isn't what the speaker believes should be done now.
> [...]
> "We" are not hanging together so I guess that means "we" are lining up to hang separately.

----------


## jjdoyle

> No, you're intentionally being deceptive once again. Getting reimbursed for expenses is not the same thing as getting paid. 
> 
> Compensation is not the same thing as expenses. 
> 
> Nice try at lying though, you fail.


Not at all. Somebody asked you if you did the work in Minnesota for free. You didn't, because you were paid by the campaign for expenses. You sent the campaign a bill. And knowing you and your post around here (thinking representatives don't make enough, LOL!), I can only imagine what those "expenses" were. If you hadn't, that would have been for "free". Charity. A write-off.

Most people in America these days, according to you, work for "free". Because they work 80 hours before receiving a paycheck/getting reimbursed. Some only get paid once a month (teachers in certain states). So, if you waited longer 2 weeks, or a month, perhaps. But knowing you, you probably overnighted the bill to the campaign, and charged them for the overnight expense as well.

----------


## acptulsa

> What Adam did was dumb but if they give him 15 years, it without a doubt is an attempt to shut him down. A political prisoner.


No doubt.  One would like to think he decided to martyr his liberty in hopes it would further the cause.  But if he was consciously thinking that, I'm still not inclined to call it smart.  Fifteen is too long for that, but not quite blatant enough to get the attention of the apolitical.




> Well, Ron wants to educate, not change policy.


So, Ron Paul wanted to educate people not to change policy?  He wanted to teach them the policy is bad so they can better criticize it while they do nothing about it?  He thinks it's a good thing to keep bad policy?  He doesn't care about the nation, he just wants to make sure that history sees how principled all his House votes were?

Help me out here, Matt.  I'm having trouble seeing the logical in your fallacy.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Yeah, the Collinz brings out the best in people. Strike up the band!
> 
> Let's talk accomplishmentsts.
> 
> Why, it's common knowledge that if it wasn't for the Collinz, Dave Ramsey would not be as successful as he is today. Kudos is in order. I'm sure Ramsey is thankful as well. It's rare to find a producer of a radio show that can write the narrative for the host as well. 
> 
> And let's not forget the Nashville-Davidson County GOP. Collinz single handedly united and brought harmony to that group. Being the smartest one in the room is a huge burden to go through life with. It's hard to lead, especially when your are the guy tasked with leading 'the short' bus people. 
> 
> But through it all, armed with superior intellect, steel will and the determination of a championship boxer, (exemplified in this thread alone), he trudges on...alone. If only the 'short bus' people had any modicum of sense, they would see the gift that has been laid before them. 
> ...


Being able to unite the Republican Party, is definitely awesome.




> I would love to see it happen, so here ya go.
> Collins can make false claims, repeatedly. Never back them up with emails, articles, or anything to actually show his claim or opinion is right. BUT THEY REMAIN.
> He can make excessive, "low value posts", not addressing anything.
> He can call users defeatist, a cancer to the movement, lazy, call them slow, and nothing is ever done.
> He can derail a thread, not addressing the actual topic or even addressing something that somebody already said in it. And nothing is done.
> And a moderator around here can curse at/about a user in a reply, and nothing is done.
> 
> So, if you're banning for people cursing, please, start with your own.
> Otherwise, it's just like the JUST US system. Rules apply to everybody, but yourselves.


And as a reminder to those that might have missed the post above, if you can please flag every single one of the posts linked above that would help (I think?), because when I flag them (already did), I feel like I'm voting for "change", calling my representative expecting them to listen, or thinking my representatives actually read and understand the Constitution. Maybe they just think the Constitution is just "silly crap", and don't have time for it? Maybe that's why it applies to some, and not others?

----------


## Matt Collins

> And he wrote that the way to change society is to get everyone on board with the new way of doing things, and policy comes afterward because it reflects the will of the people.
> Something you've completely missed.


Ron is wrong on strategy.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Not at all. Somebody asked you if you did the work in Minnesota for free. You didn't, because you were paid by the campaign for expenses. You sent the campaign a bill. And knowing you and your post around here (thinking representatives don't make enough, LOL!), I can only imagine what those "expenses" were. If you hadn't, that would have been for "free". Charity. A write-off.


Getting only expenses paid is working for free. And I had every intention of footing the entire bill myself, but some internal situations made it so that it made sense for me to ask reimbursement for expenses. 

Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you booted next.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Getting only expenses paid is working for free. And I had every intention of footing the entire bill myself, but some internal situations made it so that it made sense for me to ask reimbursement for expenses. 
> 
> Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you booted next.


Booted? Like from the local Republican Party? And if you are the one making up the expenses, I can only imagine what those were. You said "opportunity cost" was something you sacrificed in helping the campaign in 2012. Was that one of the expenses on this? LOL.

----------


## CaseyJones

> Getting only expenses paid is working for free. And I had every intention of footing the entire bill myself, but some internal situations made it so that it made sense for me to ask reimbursement for expenses. 
> 
> Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you booted next.


you had no one "booted" you have no power here or anywhere you keep this up and I will ban you

----------


## Barrex

> I am not gloating, and I think that his sentence is of course unfair.  I've said so multiple times. But I've also pointed out that he 100% brought this upon himself and did not participate in smart civil disobedience.


Way to avoid:
Matt you should take some time off from posting on internet...  especially this forum. Guy is in danger of spending rest of his life in  jail and you gloat over it. LOW REALLY LOW!!! You have terrible  reputation on this forum on revolutionbox on dailypaul...well  everywhere. You need a little time off to figure if everyone else who  spent time with you is wrong when they view you in negative light or you  are doing it wrong and should change your self.


Do you remember this:
 ?

Maybe some people here do...

----------


## acptulsa

> Ron is wrong on strategy.


Oh, really?  And I suppose you have now done more for this movement than the man who dragged it, kicking and screaming, into the mainstream?

I believe this is the most blatantly arrogant thing you've ever said here.  And that's no small claim.




> Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you booted next.


Well, that's a good effort.  This is an astoundingly arrogant statement, considering all _you_ did was piss people off to the limits of their self-control.  But it still pales in comparison to you saying Ron Paul's education strategy is flatly and categorically wrong.

You seem to think public support of a policy or group of policies mean nothing in an ostensible republic, and have zero effect on the politicians.  If you don't think that, your communication skills need serious work.  If you do believe that, you are flatly and categorically wrong, and should stop stating your half-baked opinions as facts.  Long ago.




> you had no one "booted" you have no power here or anywhere you keep this up and I will ban you


Oh, yes?

Keep up the good work, Matt!  Stay the course, keep fighting the good fight, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

Please don't stop now, Matt.  Cooler heads never accomplished anything.

----------


## moostraks

> Ron is wrong on strategy.





> Getting only expenses paid is working for free. And I had every intention of footing the entire bill myself, but some internal situations made it so that it made sense for me to ask reimbursement for expenses. 
> 
> Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you booted next.


You need a reality check.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Trying to get people booted/banned off forums for arguments/someone not agreeing with you? Isn't that what liberal forums are supposed to do?

----------


## amy31416

> Absolutely.


There is something seriously wrong with you.

----------


## acptulsa

> Ron is wrong on strategy.





> There is something seriously wrong with you.


Are you intentionally implying that there is only _one_ thing?




> jjdoyle is upset that I temp banned him and used the phrase 'full of $#@!'.  I should have used better wording: 'jjdoyle's actions showed to me without a doubt that he is willing to fabricate for deceptive purposes.'


That's a matter of opinion.  Charles Dickens might say that using seventy syllables where three was sufficient is an improvement.  I do not.

----------


## nayjevin

> There is something seriously wrong with you.


Guy just made it to the top of his mountain, what you expect him to look humble?

----------


## moostraks

> Trying to get people booted/banned off forums for arguments/someone not agreeing with you? Isn't that what liberal forums are supposed to do?


Indeed. It seems to be a fantastic display of the Collins' perception of how liberty should work, for him at least.

----------


## JK/SEA

> There is something seriously wrong with you.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amy31416 again. 


Today 01:28 PM

----------


## JK/SEA

> Guy just made it to the top of his mountain, what you expect him to look humble?


we need a chip in to buy Matt an arm sling. He MUST have broke one patting himself on the back....

----------


## acptulsa

> Guy just made it to the top of his mountain, what you expect him to look humble?


No, I don't.

But they do have a name for people who are able and willing to make it to the peak and look humble.  They're called 'successful politicians.'  I don't see any signs that this label will be fitting Matt any time soon.

----------


## fisharmor

> Ron is wrong on strategy.


Now, I don't think anyone should be going berzerk over this, because Matt's done everything already but openly state it.

Ron always said that he didn't do anything to grow this movement.  He didn't form it, it found him.  And he even accepted money from racists, saying that if they wanted to give him money he wasn't going to refuse it, but that it didn't affect Ron's policies.

What all of us know, and Matt doesn't seem to realize, is that Matt's politicking did exactly two things to bring in every single member of this forum: Jack and $#@!.  Ron's strategy, however, is responsible for all but a tiny fraction of us being where we are now.

Translation: none of us matter.

I can't even be mad at you, Matt, because you're being crystal clear here.  You don't give a $#@! about anyone on this forum, you think that everything we've done in the past is worthless, and the only way we're tolerated within the political machine is if we keep our mouths shut and don't say anything that will offend future donors, no matter their political persuasion.

I've called it before, and I'll do it again here.  This movement died on June 6 2012.
It's Matt's movement now.
(ETA: I'm just leaving that wide open for double entendre.)

----------


## JK/SEA

you all need to know how to insult and get away with it...for example,,,instead of saying i am a '$#@!in dumbass' use the phrase Matt used on me...''Lack of Judgement''.....see?....much better.

----------


## acptulsa

> _blah blah blah_ 2 weeks paid administrative leave _blah blah blah_


You seem to be confusing this site's mods for people who aren't doing volunteer work...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> we need a chip in to buy Matt an arm sling. He MUST have broke one patting himself on the back....


Hmmm...I would have suspected that injury came from another self pleasuring repetitive action.

----------


## Danke

> Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you [jjdoyle] booted next.


Success!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> you had no one "booted" you have no power here or anywhere you keep this up and I will ban you


*Someone* had jjdoyle "booted".

How many have fallen in this unifying Collins thread?

3...4...?

----------


## Danke

> Now, I don't think anyone should be going berzerk over this, because Matt's done everything already but openly state it.
> 
> Ron always said that he didn't do anything to grow this movement.  He didn't form it, it found him.  And he even accepted money from racists, saying that if they wanted to give him money he wasn't going to refuse it, but that it didn't affect Ron's policies.
> 
> What all of us know, and Matt doesn't seem to realize, is that Matt's politicking did exactly two things to bring in every single member of this forum: Jack and $#@!.  Ron's strategy, however, is responsible for all but a tiny fraction of us being where we are now.
> 
> Translation: none of us matter.
> 
> I can't even be mad at you, Matt, because you're being crystal clear here.  You don't give a $#@! about anyone on this forum, you think that everything we've done in the past is worthless, and the only way we're tolerated within the political machine is if we keep our mouths shut and don't say anything that will offend future donors, no matter their political persuasion.
> ...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ins&highlight=

----------


## acptulsa

> *Someone* had jjdoyle "booted".


That's like trying to determined who toppled the house of cards during the hurricane.  Blame the one who built the house of cards with two square blue and gold flags flying.

----------


## acptulsa

> As long as the mods are in the banning mood, how about a ban for posting that photo?
> 
> It is not his first offense, nor second, nor...


So flag it.

The person being caricatured will never flag it.  It's way too flattering.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You seem to think public support of a policy or group of policies mean nothing in an ostensible republic, and have zero effect on the politicians.


How many people were opposed to the bailouts? How many people want the fed audited? How many people were opposed to the Iraq war? How many people were opposed to Obamacare?

Public opinion means nothing... the only thing that matters is brute political force.

Every politician only cares about one thing, and that is getting re-elected. If you are able to threaten their re-election then you become very powerful and in many cases can control the politician. If you actually take a politician out of office, then others will take notice and begin to fear you which means they will respect you.



The sooner our side starts to understand this, the sooner we can actually start to win a lot more.

----------


## Danke

> So flag it.
> 
> The person being caricatured will never flag it.  It's way too flattering.


Oh I will, I will.

----------


## acptulsa

> Public opinion means nothing... the only thing that matters is brute political force.
> 
> Every politician only cares about one thing, and that is getting re-elected. If you are able to threaten their re-election then you become very powerful and in many cases can control the politician...


Matt Collins comes not to praise the republic, but to bury it.

So, it's not a republic any more, Matt?  Public opinion and reelection are now wholly discrete and unrelated matters?  Well, folks, you heard it here first...

----------


## Danke

> Hmmm...I would have suspected that injury came from another self pleasuring repetitive action.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5566811

----------


## Occam's Banana



----------


## eduardo89

You guys should leave Matt alone. When you've done as much for Ron Paul and the liberty movement as he has, then you can criticise him.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I am not putting my entire CV out there for any opposition researcher to use against me (which is why I didn't populate my LinkedIn page).


I wasn't asking for anything in its entirety or your home address.  I was asking for your homepage that you advertise.  Your link is entirely broken.




> ... but the most visible accomplishment I can say was to kill a bill in TN that would've taken DNA from everyone arrested for a felony, even non-violent felonies.


That's a good accomplishment.  Congratulations.





> I stopped that from becoming law


I'm always one to say that one person can have an impact on anything or any person's life, but you make it sound as if you single-handedly stopped that bill.   




> As far as list building, take some Campaign for Liberty classes, and you'll learn how to build lists.


I see there are one day seminars across the country for $40.  A lot of  these seminars (in any industry) are bare bones basics.  I would not spend $40 (or anything) on them, but okay, maybe some people like them.
I was really however, asking you how you did it.  Part of this forum is activism.  People share information on how that is done successfully.  There's a place for debate or highlighting one's accomplishments, but I think it would be useful to share what you know.  You have touted all these successes you've had, but those are short on substance and detail.   I'm was not, again, asking for a how-to book.  Just a couple of paragraphs. 










> See MLK and the civil rights movement in the 60's for a prime example of how to do it properly...


I could argue that the government somewhat co-opted King.  It was in the government's best interest to keep King nonviolent.  The real threat came from people opposed to King's approach.

I would also argue that it was in government's best interest to co-opt King's followers.  These people were placated by government with a lot of the handouts  that we continue to see today.  Today's ultra dependence on government became quite ironic in the context of King's "free at last." 





> But his heavy handed sentence does not make him sympathetic given his past actions and words.


America and you should stop focusing on "words."  People act like every moment of the day should cater to high school girls with low self-esteem.





> How many bills has Kokesh killed or gotten passed?


I asked you the same question.  You only gave one example.  That's fine, but you're carrying on like you do this all the time.




> How many bad politicians has he gotten thrown out of office?


You also alluded to this in your activity.  I asked how many politicians you have terminated, but you did not answer.

----------


## Danke

> You guys should leave Matt alone. When you've done as much for Ron Paul and the liberty movement as he has, then you can criticise him.


Well, that shuts the doors.  No one has done as much for the liberty movement as Matt.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, that shuts the doors.  No one has done as much for the liberty movement as Matt.


I'm glad you agree. I always knew you were a reasonable man, Danke.

----------


## Danke

> I'm glad you agree. I always knew you were a reasonable man, Danke.


YA, I had a very liberating movement this morning.  It made me think of Matt.

----------


## Kilrain

Kokesh vs. Collins, talk about a game where I would seriously be rooting for the ref. Too much ego for my taste. That's one of the reasons why I like Ron to begin with, he doesn't try to make himself seem like some hotshot all-important "leader".

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...civil disobedience... should be done to make us look sympathetic, not like a bunch of raving lunatics... non-violent, not looking, sounding, or acting crazy, not coming off as belligerent, and *[not*]* causing the government to look mean*



And




> ... the only thing that matters is brute political force.




Not "causing the government to look mean"?  Holy fuching cow, man.  

Your whole pantywaist approach sounds a song for high school girls with low self esteem.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> As long as the mods are in the banning mood, how about a ban for posting that photo?
> 
> It is not his first offense, nor second, nor...


I thought I was on ignore...

As long as you're reading *and* this thread needs some levity...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Thanks for the lolz, everyone.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So, it's not a republic any more, Matt?  Public opinion and reelection are now wholly discrete and unrelated matters?  Well, folks, you heard it here first...


What it is currently and what it should be are not the same

----------


## Occam's Banana

*me: grabs dictionary, thumbs pages* ... lessee, here, now ... "levity" ... "levity" ... "levity" ... ah, there it is! ... nope, didn't think so ...




> As long as you're reading *and* this thread needs some levity...

----------


## Danke

> I thought I was on ignore...


The Mexican linked me to your recent shenanigans, so I had to check. Should have known better. Back on ignore.

----------


## acptulsa

> What it is currently and what it should be are not the same


If you're trying to deny that you said the U.S. is not a republic, you just failed completely.

I would suggest you change tactics now and try to say that it's good to piss off the very type of Republican primary voters who you're always demanding that we pander to at all costs.  Of course, that will fail too.  But, you know, baffling us with bull$#@! is the more realistic scenario for you than the alternative...

----------


## JohnM

I for one, have found this thread to be very sad.

And the more I have read it, the more I have  been struck by the strange thought that Adam and Matt have a lot in common.


But that is not the point.

The real point, the point that needs to be made again and again and again, is that *150 years ago, nobody in the USA would have thought that the things that Adam stands accused of were activities that warranted a prison sentence*.   

That is the important thing - not what we think of various other individuals in the liberty movement.

----------


## angelatc

[QUOTE=Matt Collins;5566511 See MLK and the civil rights movement in the 60's for a prime example of how to do it properly... non-violent, not looking, sounding, or acting crazy, not coming off as belligerent,[/QUOTE]

Seems to me that according to your logic, those uppity black folks sitting at the "Whites Only" lunch counters were waaaaay over the line then.  

You should not even be here.  Clearly you've outgrown the forums.  You don't have friends here, and everything you post does nothing except piss people off.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> That's insane. If someone makes us looks bad which does more harm to the movement than what they accomplish, then yes we absolutely need to give them the "not welcome" sign.
> 
> 
> And I am not against civil disobedience. But it should be done smartly, and in a manner that helps the cause not hurts it. It should be done to make us look sympathetic, not like a bunch of raving lunatics. See MLK and the civil rights movement in the 60's for a prime example of how to do it properly... non-violent, not looking, sounding, or acting crazy, not coming off as belligerent, and causing the government to look mean.


Insane?  Please.

You don't seem to understand _the importance_ of _individual conscience_.  And speaking of that, *there are things from the past that I absolutely gave you the benefit of the doubt on Matt.* 

Here's how that works with an _individual's conscience_:  

bunklocoempire-   _"Gee, that really seems shady, holy crap,  would Matt really do that?   Well I don't really know the details, so I can't comment, but it sure seems to be the case.  And anyway, stupid or smart, Matt must've thought he had a reason to do it, I see what he was trying to do.  It's really not how I would've done it but it's Matt's choice." _  

I never called for ostracizing you Matt.  I shook my head a little (more than a little -seriously) and I moved on hoping that you might do things differently next time. 

A little perspective, we're *all* dead men walking Matt.  Political wins are great and all but an individual's _honed_ conscience is much, much, more valuable.  I've not gotten a dime from supporting liberty.  Supporting and promoting liberty (campaign-wise) _has cost_ my family, not our life savings or our freedom, but we have spent money and voluntarily given time.  Money and time *well spent* _even if the candidate didn't/doesn't win_.   <-- Insane right?  No, it's NOT insane because we promoted truth, we promoted the individual, that individual's liberty, and that individual's _conscience_. _ Why build on sand?   _ 

I hope that helps you grasp what I'm trying to help you understand.

----------


## nayjevin

> Trying to make the thread goofy so it gets derailed before Toxic Collins gets more good folks banned.


Stop.  Collins got no one banned.

----------


## acptulsa

> Stop.  Collins got no one banned.


Including himself.

But this time he did come so close one could taste it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You'd think this would be obvious seven years into this game, wouldn't you?
> 
> Going into 2012 it looked like this movement was poised to start owning the narrative.  Not suggesting changes to it, but owning it.
> It looked like we belonged to something that frankly didn't give a $#@! what the other side thought, because we were right, and if they didn't think so, then they were wrong.  And it wasn't any more complicated than that.
> 
> But now the chicken littles have taken over, and we're supposed to censor people who are fundamentally right.  Why?  Because they don't have the right haircut to show up on TV.
> 
> We've been over this quite a bit. We all knew that Ron had a bad haircut and stuttered and couldn't find a competent tailor.  And none of us cared.  We knew that there were more important things going on than watching the color of his ties.  Our effort was primarily to convince others of this as well.
> 
> ...


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.
*Somebody catch this for me please?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amy31416 again. 
> 
> 
> Today 01:28 PM


covered

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rosa Parks was peaceful, polite, not-belligerent, and was a little old lady. She had the sympathy factor. She wasn't on drugs, steroids, or doing outrageous things to call attention to herself in a way that thought she would go postal.


sympathy factor??  You obviously didn't live in the South at the time.   She wasn't a sympathetic figure, she was considered "uppity" (a racist, derogatory term).  

She wasn't on drugs because drugs weren't her issue.
But she *DID* do an outrageous thing to call attention to herself (hence the reason you know her name today) in a way that could have caused racist old white men to go postal.

And she changed the paradigm.  Just as Adam tried to do.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Co-opt.

----------


## HVACTech

> The real point, the point that needs to be made again and again and again, is that *150 years ago, nobody in the USA would have thought that the things that Adam stands accused of were activities that warranted a prison sentence*.   
> 
> That is the important thing - not what we think of various other individuals in the liberty movement.


Thank you.

----------


## Matt Collins

> sympathy factor??  You obviously didn't live in the South at the time.   She wasn't a sympathetic figure, she was considered "uppity" (a racist, derogatory term).  
> 
> She wasn't on drugs because drugs weren't her issue.
> But she *DID* do an outrageous thing to call attention to herself (hence the reason you know her name today) in a way that could have caused racist old white men to go postal.
> 
> And she changed the paradigm.  Just as Adam tried to do.


You are comparing Adam Kokesh to Rosa Parks?!?!  that is an insult to the civil rights movement.

----------


## nayjevin

Please stay on topic and try to post things that make the forum better, thanks!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You are comparing Adam Kokesh to Rosa Parks?!?!  that is an insult to the civil rights movement.


That you don't see this is an insult to the Liberty Movement.

----------


## HVACTech

> You are comparing Adam Kokesh to Rosa Parks?!?!  that is an insult to the civil rights movement.





> And she changed the paradigm. Just as Adam tried to do.


no, she is comparing tactics. feeb.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Please stay on topic and try to post things that make the forum better, thanks!


The entire topic  makes the forum worse IMO.

----------


## moostraks

> You are comparing Adam Kokesh to Rosa Parks?!?!  that is an insult to the civil rights movement.


Why? Is it because your view of liberty is limited and Kokesh is not entitled to his choices because they conflict with your values you want to impose on others?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Collins point about winning political campaigns was correct.  I think most here know that.  Why continue to make this about Collins.  It's not.

----------


## amy31416

> You are comparing Adam Kokesh to Rosa Parks?!?!  that is an insult to the civil rights movement.


Oh yeah, I forgot how deeply you care about the civil rights movement. You've made so many posts about your affection for MLK, Rosa Parks and civil liberties.




> Why? Is it because your view of liberty is limited and Kokesh is not entitled to his choices because they conflict with your values you want to impose on others?


Values? Say whaaaaa?

----------


## moostraks

> Collins point about winning political campaigns was correct.  I think most here know that.  Why continue to make this about Collins.  It's not.


Well, not everyone thinks you gain liberty by playing the game. Seems as though you end up with only establishment types when you start narrowing down who is acceptable to associate with and thus you will never successfully challenge the status quo but instead are more likely to be devoured by it. Collins as usual makes the argument about himself.

----------


## moostraks

> Values? Say whaaaaa?


 well that would be Matt, Matt, and more Matt and power for him and people he finds acceptable, not riff-raff like Kokesh.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Collins point about winning political campaigns was correct.  I think most here know that.  Why continue to make this about Collins.  It's not.


Is it about Matt? The only way this is about Matt _as far as I'm concerned_, is to try to give him a clue and encourage _consistency_ in his life.

 Simply, this is _strongly_ disagreeing with the *idea* that ostracizing people and policing an _undefined_ movement are more important or even equal to an individuals conscience.  Adam was exercising his rights, _his defined rights,_ as led by his conscience.  

Here's the Mission Statement:     




> Inspired by *US Rep. Ron Paul* of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


The mission statement is pretty wide open to talk of conscience when individual rights -_defined individual rights,_ are mentioned.  To be fair, "law" is also mentioned.  And what is the one book on law that Ron Paul highly recommends?

By all means kids, storm the castle -but try not to lose your souls or encourage others to dull their consciences while attempting to do so.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The entire topic  makes the forum worse IMO.


I agree, and in fact that's my point!     Adam's shenanigans makes the liberty movement worse.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Well, not everyone thinks you gain liberty by playing the game. Seems as though you end up with only establishment types when you start narrowing down who is acceptable to associate with and thus you will never successfully challenge the status quo but instead are more likely to be devoured by it.


Mike Lee, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and a few other of the "better" ones (Yoho, Stockman, etc) are not establishment people. But yet you don't see them making violent statements and breaking to law to get their points across.

----------


## purplechoe

> Ron is wrong on strategy.


No, he's not.

The only thing I criticize him for is the people that he surrounded his campaign with like you, Jesse Benton, etc...

----------


## JK/SEA

> Collins point about winning political campaigns was correct.  I think most here know that.  Why continue to make this about Collins.  It's not.


well, Collins told me i have poor judgement with regards to my support of Adam, but...ironically, i was also a State delegate 2008...for RON PAUL.

poor judgement i guess....right...

Collins has poor judgement just from typing $#@! and hitting the send key.

----------


## purplechoe

> Getting only expenses paid is working for free. And I had every intention of footing the entire bill myself, but some internal situations made it so that it made sense for me to ask reimbursement for expenses. 
> 
> Quit trying to lie, or I'll have you booted next.


The real authoritarian inside shines through...



Some would call it a Napoleon complex...

----------


## fisharmor

> Collins point about winning political campaigns was correct.  I think most here know that.  Why continue to make this about Collins.  It's not.


No, it's not correct.  It is the farthest thing from correct.  I know neither you nor he is going to read this, but I hope everyone else will get some insight out of it.

What is most offensive about that statement, that this is the one, only, true, and right way to win elections, is that _it is a fundamentally anti-market statement._

When you unleash the power of the market, thousands of individual actors come up with vastly different ways of trying to accomplish the same goal.

This is *exactly what we saw during both campaigns.*  People came out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy ideas about how to effect political change.  Most of it was unorthodox.  *Some of it was working*.  I keep saying that and I keep getting ignored.  *Some of it was working.*

The market for winning political campaigns for liberty opened wide up, crazy things started happening, and if we had stayed the course, hundreds and thousands of successes would have started happening because as people who understand markets, we would have pounced on what worked, and tossed what didn't.

We were witnessing the material vindication of everything we believe.

So when you show up here and say that the conventional route is the one, only, right, and true way to effect change - no, it's not, and it's not even the only way to win elections.

If you believe that this is the only route, you stand in opposition to one of the fundamental underpinnings of this entire thing we've been involved with here.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I get so pissed of.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I absolutely will not shut up.

----------


## purplechoe

> How many people were opposed to the bailouts? How many people want the fed audited? How many people were opposed to the Iraq war? How many people were opposed to Obamacare?
> 
> Public opinion means nothing... the only thing that matters is brute political force.
> 
> Every politician only cares about one thing, and that is getting re-elected. If you are able to threaten their re-election then you become very powerful and in many cases can control the politician. If you actually take a politician out of office, then others will take notice and begin to fear you which means they will respect you.
> 
> 
> 
> The sooner our side starts to understand this, the sooner we can actually start to win a lot more.


Win what exactly?

Some people say it's not the destination, but how and what you do in the mean time to get there that matters.

Matt knows best though. He took a C4L course and is smarter then all of us. To hell with history, philosophy, etc...

----------


## bunklocoempire

> No, it's not correct.  It is the farthest thing from correct.  I know neither you nor he is going to read this, but I hope everyone else will get some insight out of it.
> 
> What is most offensive about that statement, that this is the one, only, true, and right way to win elections, is that _it is a fundamentally anti-market statement._
> 
> When you unleash the power of the market, thousands of individual actors come up with vastly different ways of trying to accomplish the same goal.
> 
> This is *exactly what we saw during both campaigns.*  People came out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy ideas about how to effect political change.  Most of it was unorthodox.  *Some of it was working*.  I keep saying that and I keep getting ignored.  *Some of it was working.*
> 
> The market for winning political campaigns for liberty opened wide up, crazy things started happening, and if we had stayed the course, hundreds and thousands of successes would have started happening because as people who understand markets, we would have pounced on what worked, and tossed what didn't.
> ...


Oh put a blimp in it... oh, wait.

+ rep 

 This is kinda what I'm thinking of when I say _"The GOP?  Okay, but don't get any on ya.   How else can I sell this?"_ 

Great free thinking thoughts fisharmor.  Thank you so much for reminding me how cool that is.

----------


## purplechoe

> You are comparing Adam Kokesh to Rosa Parks?!?!  that is an insult to the civil rights movement.


I'll say this in another way and for the last time. If you can't look inside yourself to see this, I'm giving up on trying to reason with you, because there is nothing inside of you that's capable of reason.

"Who you think you are and who you actually are, are two different things."

----------


## Matt Collins

> The real authoritarian inside shines through...


Fraud, or lying, is a form of aggression and violates the NAP. Lying also is a violation of forum rules.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No, it's not correct.  It is the farthest thing from correct.  I know neither you nor he is going to read this, but I hope everyone else will get some insight out of it.
> 
> What is most offensive about that statement, that this is the one, only, true, and right way to win elections, is that _it is a fundamentally anti-market statement._
> 
> When you unleash the power of the market, thousands of individual actors come up with vastly different ways of trying to accomplish the same goal.
> 
> This is *exactly what we saw during both campaigns.*  People came out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy ideas about how to effect political change.  Most of it was unorthodox.  *Some of it was working*.  I keep saying that and I keep getting ignored.  *Some of it was working.*


Except that is not how you get someone elected. It doesn't work like that.

----------


## acptulsa

> Fraud, or lying, is a form of aggression and violates the NAP. Lying also is a violation of forum rules.


Wake me up when someone lies about something.




> Except that is not how you get someone elected. It doesn't work like that.


Tell it to Brat.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, it's not correct.  It is the farthest thing from correct.  I know neither you nor he is going to read this, but I hope everyone else will get some insight out of it.
> 
> What is most offensive about that statement, that this is the one, only, true, and right way to win elections, is that _it is a fundamentally anti-market statement._
> 
> When you unleash the power of the market, thousands of individual actors come up with vastly different ways of trying to accomplish the same goal.
> 
> This is *exactly what we saw during both campaigns.*  People came out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy ideas about how to effect political change.  Most of it was unorthodox.  *Some of it was working*.  I keep saying that and I keep getting ignored.  *Some of it was working.*
> 
> The market for winning political campaigns for liberty opened wide up, crazy things started happening, and if we had stayed the course, hundreds and thousands of successes would have started happening because as people who understand markets, we would have pounced on what worked, and tossed what didn't.
> ...


Oh, bull$#@!, fisharmor.  There are tried and true mechanics of winning elections that have worked since elections began.  Even if you want to recreate the wheel, like you appear to want to do, don't you think it would be prudent to be aware of those mechanics that have worked over and over again?

----------


## fisharmor

> Except that is not how you get someone elected. It doesn't work like that.


Unless you get a critical mass at a caucus and change the rules.
Or any of the other ideas people were trying out.

You think like a statist: "Because we've done things the same way for X number of years, it is therefore the only way."

A bunch of people in Nevada figured out another way to do things on April 12.  I'm sure you think they're cukoonuts, too.

----------


## fisharmor

> Oh, bull$#@!, fisharmor.  There are tried and true mechanics of winning elections that have worked since elections began.  Even if you want to recreate the wheel, like you appear to want to do, don't you think it would be prudent to be aware of those mechanics that have worked over and over again?


So you consider what we have had for the last 50 years to be "working"?

More statist thinking.  Doesn't matter if we have objective data showing it doesn't work, it's the way things are.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Unless you get a critical mass at a caucus and change the rules.
> Or any of the other ideas people were trying out.
> 
> You think like a statist: "Because we've done things the same way for X number of years, it is therefore the only way."
> 
> A bunch of people in Nevada figured out another way to do things on April 12.  I'm sure you think they're cukoonuts, too.


However, if they had known more about what the hell they were doing, they might have been more successful in both '08 and '12.

----------


## acptulsa

> However, if they had known more about what the hell they were doing, they might have been more successful in both '08 and '12.


Maybe.  And just maybe He Who Must Not Be Named would have had his ass handed to him because the conventional way to win an election is to get all over the news, and that obviously was not under any circumstances something the MSM was going to favor us with.

Which, as I recall, was the original impetus for all that experimentation in the first place.  And got enough of Johnny's apple seeds planted to grow the liberty forest which is right now pushing the status quo to the point that Lindsay Graham is even beginning to sweat a little (after all, we just ousted the number two Republican in the whole House of Representatives, did we not?).

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So you consider what we have had for the last 50 years to be "working"?


You are conflating the actions of our sorry government with the mechanics of getting OUR GUY elected to replace the sorry ones in office right now.




> More statist thinking.  Doesn't matter if we have objective data showing it doesn't work, it's the way things are.


lol.  As opposed to the idiotic thinking that you are proposing?  Damn straight that before I went to my first horse show, I learned how to ride.  I studied and learned the reining patterns before I entered a reining class.  I didn't just pop in there and wing it, expecting a good result.  ROFL

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe.  And just maybe He Who Must Not Be Named would have had his ass handed to him because the conventional way to win an election is to get all over the news, and that obviously was not under any circumstances something the MSM was going to favor us with.
> 
> Which, as I recall, was the original impetus for all that experimentation in the first place.  And got enough of Johnny's apple seeds planted to grow the liberty forest which is right now pushing the status quo to the point that Lindsay Graham is even beginning to sweat a little (after all, we just ousted the number two Republican in the whole House of Representatives, did we not?).


Oh, I think Ron still would have had his butt handed to him, regardless.  But, I think we could have increased our effectiveness.  This is where the Goldwater campaign (official campaign and grassroots) beat us all to hell.  The supporters learned the mechanics and the tools and used them to their advantage.  So many here act like learning the tools should be avoided at all costs.  lol

----------


## purplechoe



----------


## cajuncocoa

> I agree, and in fact that's my point!     Adam's shenanigans makes the liberty movement worse.


Wasn't speaking of Adam's actions.  And you know that.

----------


## fisharmor

> I studied and learned the reining patterns before I entered a reining class.  I didn't just pop in there and wing it, expecting a good result.  ROFL


And the rest of us are learning how tractors work.
Or motorcycles.
Some of us went on to understand how pantograph electrical systems work on short line trains.

And you keep telling us how horses are the only way.

----------


## Czolgosz

This guy tries to silence people through threats of being banned from the forum, a true tyrant.

The proper response to him is, "go $#@! yourself."

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Mike Lee, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and a few other of the "better" ones (Yoho, Stockman, etc) are not establishment people. But yet you don't see them making violent statements and breaking to law to get their points across.


And we who are not endowed with the abilities and background to become representatives await their changes for good.  Justin Amash ALMOST defunded part of the NSA, almost.  Ron's Audit the Fed ALMOST made it, passed the house but not the senate.  We almost have some representation, and now there is a push to change the Constitution with an Article V that is most dangerous.  WolfPAC would love nothing more, and we know that the aim of the left is more than just PACs.

Yep, we are on an edge that is sharp.  And it will divide as it will.  

I push from the heart, and I post here and there trying to educate, and run for lowly offices to, moreso than winning, get to shoulder up with others in office in hopes of setting an example or to educate them.  And others do as they can, some via dissent (which is against the law, mind you). 

For you to walk in here and attempt to divide, based on approaches, is abusive and like a frost to the newly sprouted flowers.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I'm going to change the world by showing those politician's who's boss, but God forbid I get banned from an internet forum.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I really find it ironic considering after this story:



> Dave Ramsey Gets Ron Paul Supporter Matt Collins Fired
> 
> by Matt Collins
> 
> I have been a talk radio producer at 99.7 WTN / Cumulus Media since October 2005 until Thursday May 5th 2011. I was the longest running continually employed part-time producer at the station. Even though I have never worked for Dave Ramsey, he brutally and unfairly got me fired regardless of the fact that I was not his employee and did nothing to damage or harm Dave Ramsey or his product. My transgression? I was politely critical of Dave twice in one day on Twitter from my personal account, using my personal computer, and in no way represented or associated myself with my actual employer in my comments or profile. That’s right, Dave sought out my employer and leaned on them to fire me simply because I was minimally and politely vocal about not agreeing with Dave on a political point. *Dave’s ego apparently is so large that does not tolerate much disagreement*, and those out of step within his reach get stifled at all costs in true tyrannical fashion. Here is what happened…
> 
> Last Monday, after the reported killing of Osama Bin Laden, Dave Ramsey spoke outside his area of expertise on the radio and was discussing US foreign policy, international relations, and other political issues. He also was heavily praising President Obama who was taking credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden. All the while he was on Twitter engaging with the various responses from his listeners.


Matt would threaten to try to have members "punished" for being critical of him. Isn't that misplaced aggression, or at the very least, being a hypocrite?

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> I'm going to change the world by showing those politician's who's boss, but God forbid I get banned from an internet forum.


Internet forums are honestly terrible. They're a perfect example of how people abuse power. Mod doesn't like you? BANNED! A lot of forums in the past I've been to always had those small cliques of regular users that mods liked, and would turn a blind eye to them constantly trolling and flaming users on the message board. But once someone else says something back, BANNED! Not like I had that experience on this forum, yet.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I already have, troll.
> Rand endorsed on 6/7/2012.
> The stories that Ron had dropped out started on 5/14/2012.
> Here are some of the stories quoting him as saying he didn't drop out.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...UNRU_blog.html
> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...or-has-he.html
> http://julieborowski.wordpress.com/2...just-drop-out/
> 
> Were you to have done your homework, you'd realize that he ended active campaigning in PRIMARY states only on 5/14 and the media entered a feeding frenzy stating he had dropped out of the race.  He continued campaigning in caucus states afterward.
> ...


This meme was being pushed by the people who seemed to think Ron Paul could/would storm into the RNC and take the microphone from Romney during his acceptance speech, and become the GOP presidential nominee by spontaneous, unanimous universal acclaim.

Ron Paul announced he was suspending active campaigning on May 14, 2012. Romney became the presumptive nominee when he won Texas on May 29, 2012. Rand Paul endorsed Romney on Hannity's show on June 7, 2012. 

In no way, shape or form, outside the fantasy land of some die-hards here and on DailyPaul.com, was Ron Paul still a real candidate for the GOP nomination in June 2012. Paul himself said as much. Sorry if he didn't do the super-secret wink to let True Supporters™ know.  To be completely frank, anyone who truly thinks Ron Paul was blindsided by Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney is a Grade-A idiot.  There ain't no way in hell that was a secret between father and son, nor is there any chance that Ron Paul was hurt (emotionally) by it.

Though, for you, it's probably more about hate-Rand propaganda than believing that meaningless endorsement actually meant anything to Ron Paul or his campaign.  Using bologna like that to divide Ron Paul supporters about Rand Paul...Ron Paul warned us about people whom do that:

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And the rest of us are learning how tractors work.
> Or motorcycles.
> Some of us went on to understand how pantograph electrical systems work on short line trains.
> 
> And you keep telling us how horses are the only way.


LOL.  Yeah, if I was getting ready to be in a horse show, I think you should first learn how to ride a horse.  Oh, the horror of such a suggestion.  lolol.  Just as if you are wanting to help a candidate actually win an election, it might behoove you to learn what has been successfully used for generations.  It doesn't have to be all you use, but it seems rather odd to not want to learn the basics, such as Robert's Rules of Order and how they can be used to further your edge.

----------


## moostraks

> And we who are not endowed with the abilities and background to become representatives await their changes for good.  Justin Amash ALMOST defunded part of the NSA, almost.  Ron's Audit the Fed ALMOST made it, passed the house but not the senate.  We almost have some representation, and now there is a push to change the Constitution with an Article V that is most dangerous.  WolfPAC would love nothing more, and we know that the aim of the left is more than just PACs.
> 
> Yep, we are on an edge that is sharp.  And it will divide as it will.  
> 
> I push from the heart, and I post here and there trying to educate, and run for lowly offices to, moreso than winning, get to shoulder up with others in office in hopes of setting an example or to educate them.  And others do as they can, some via dissent (which is against the law, mind you). 
> 
> *For you to walk in here and attempt to divide, based on approaches, is abusive and like a frost to the newly sprouted flowers*.


And the bolded is what chaps me. It is as though some esteem their own views so highly they will throw others working towards the goal of liberty under the bus because the conventional method is the only tolerable means for achievement. It makes me wonder what type of liberty the riff-raff will be afforded when the authoritarian " liberty" folks get the power they are seeking?  Welcome to the liberty movement background checks required and dress code strictly enforced. /sarc

----------


## moostraks

> Mike Lee, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and a few other of the "better" ones (Yoho, Stockman, etc) are not establishment people. But yet you don't see them making violent statements and breaking to law to get their points across.





> civil disobedience, refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust. Practitioners of civil disobedience usual base their actions on moral right and employ the nonviolent technique of passive resistance in order to bring wider attention to the injustice. Risking punishment, such as violent retaliatory acts or imprisonment, they attempt to bring about changes in the law. In the modern era, civil disobedience has been used in such events as street demonstrations, marches, the occupying of buildings, and strikes and other forms of economic resistance.
> 
> The philosophy behind civil disobedience goes back to classical and biblical sources. Perhaps its most influential exposition can be found in Henry David Thoreau's On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849), in which he claims that the individual, who grants the state its power in the first place, must follow the dictates of conscience in opposing unjust laws. Thoreau's work had an enormous impact on Mohandas Gandhi and the techniques that he employed first to gain Indian rights in South Africa and later to win independence for India. Gandhi developed the notion of satyagraha [Sanskrit: holding to truth], acts of civil disobedience marked by Indian tradition and his own high moral standards and sense of self-discipline. Attracting a huge number of followers from the Indian public, Gandhi was able to use the technique as an effective political tool and play a key role in bringing about the British decision to end colonial rule of his homeland. His was one of the few relatively unqualified successes in the history of civil disobedience.
> 
> The philosophy and tactics of civil disobedience have been used by Quakers and other religious groups, the British labor movement, suffragists, feminists, adherents of prohibition, pacifists and other war resisters (see conscientious objector), supporters of the disabled, and a wide variety of other dissenters. In the United States, the most outstanding theoretician and practitioner of civil disobedience was civil-rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. During the 1950s and 60s he achieved international fame by leading numerous peaceful marches, boycotts, and sit-ins. Like Gandhi, he was jailed several times. The beatings, mass arrests, and even killings of civil-rights demonstrators pledged to nonviolent civil disobedience were important factors in swaying public opinion and in the ultimate passage of new civil-rights legislation (see integration). Civil disobedience in the United States traditionally has been associated with those on the left of the political spectrum, as were most participants in the anti–Vietnam War movement, but toward the end of the 20th cent. the strategy also began to be employed by those on the right, for example, by those involved in confrontational but nonviolent antiabortion activities.




Read more: civil disobedience | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encycloped...#ixzz34tNkkoRL

Maybe this can help you on that argument you seem to think is important about following the law. Some of us have seen that when complying by their rules, it gives them the power to shut down dissenting opinions and we are seeking liberty by different methods. If everyone sits nicely and politely, going "stealth", then you don't get a society that is cognizant and responsible. The very people being entrusted to seek the power to diffuse it then hold onto it becoming the next generation of enforcers because society is too unaware (and irresponsible) to hold these "stealth" fighters for liberty accountable to returning it to where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the individual, not some pretty politician who will make the decisions for them. 

If people start saying they don't care for the methods and choices of others and demand everyone is to comply with a specific course of action or they are riff-raff to booted, then I would question their understanding about liberty for all, and suspect they are merely after a new tyranny formed in the image of their own liberty being granted at the expense of those who disagree with them.

----------


## eduardo89

Kokesh is a charlatan, nothing more than a distraction. But he doesn't deserve 15 years.

----------


## fisharmor

> Though, for you, it's probably more about hate-Rand propaganda than believing that meaningless endorsement actually meant anything to Ron Paul or his campaign.  Using bologna like that to divide Ron Paul supporters about Rand Paul...Ron Paul warned us about people whom do that:


Yeah, I'm just not sure what to do at this point.  I don't have any evidence that you guys have ever devoted even the tiniest iota of brainpower to understanding our arguments.
All I can do is keep making them, with the understanding that there are plenty of other people who are capable of understanding these points.

You guys keep saying the same things and we keep making the same counters, and that's where it ends.  You just make the same pronouncements over and over and then expect the matter to be closed.

I already have the ability to vote for people like that.

----------


## KingNothing

> this is Matts goal...to push the voices that infer a 'radical' ideal out of Ron Paul forums...
> 
> too bad Rev9 bailed, but i understand his frustration...



Adam was radical and bombastic, but he was so much more intelligent and better educated than a lot of the delusional nutjobs around here.  It's a shame to see this happen to him.

----------


## KingNothing

> Indeed.  I could definitely see Matt working for DHS as a little snitch.



Would you stop with this horse$#@!?  He may be an ass, but he still spends time here and he works to advance our cause.  Just because he doesn't have Natural News bookmarked to spew nonsense and pseudo-science like you doesn't mean he's a government shill.

----------


## KingNothing

> I will not go to jail. I will not be cuffed. I will not subjugate myself to an immoral Just Us system.


Please be careful and be safe.

----------


## pcosmar

I am hoping for one of those rare Judges with some level of integrity left. Even if just a small level. That will look at this and throw the whole thing out.

I have seen it happen before,, but it is rare..
Could happen though,, and I will honestly Laugh Out Loud.

----------


## pcosmar

> Would you stop with this horse$#@!?  He may be an ass, but he still spends time here and he works to advance our cause.


I am in no way convinced that his "cause" is my cause.

It was a nagging suspicion in the past,, but has become more of a sure conviction.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I am in no way convinced that his "cause" is my cause.
> 
> It was a nagging suspicion in the past,, but has become more of a sure conviction.


+rep

----------


## pcosmar

> Only a fool would refuse to support a good candidate because they have a personality disagreement with one of their staff


I watched two campaigns get sabotaged. (from the inside)

I have exactly zero trust for anyone that worked for those campaigns,,, and utter disgust for anyone that defends what was done or the people that did it.
If they were not directly dirty they were covering for those were.

I supported Ron because of his honesty,, but those he was surrounded by had little of that quality.

----------


## KingNothing

> +rep



Naturally.

----------


## KingNothing

> I watched two campaigns get sabotaged. (from the inside)


Yeah, that's what it was. Another inside job.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Adam was radical and bombastic, but he was so much more intelligent and better educated than a lot of the delusional nutjobs around here.  It's a shame to see this happen to him.


Which begs the question:

Why do you keep coming around, if we suck so bad?

----------


## Danke

> Which begs the question:
> 
> Why do you keep coming around, if we suck so bad?


I think he wants to check up on the important work Matt is doing.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I really find it ironic considering after this story:
> 
> Matt would threaten to try to have members "punished" for being critical of him. Isn't that misplaced aggression, or at the very least, being a hypocrite?





> This guy tries to silence people through threats of being banned from the forum, a true tyrant.
> 
> The proper response to him is, "go $#@! yourself."


No... I don't care what people have to say about me, but when they start lying and flat out being untruthful, or violate the forum rules repeatedly, then yes, they need to be at least tempbanned. Disagreement is ok, but again, there is a certain line for attack, insults, and lying that will not be tolerated.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I watched two campaigns get sabotaged. (from the inside)


And which campaigns were these?

----------


## Danke

> And which campaigns were these?


Matt, you can't even answer a $#@!ing question, so why should he?

----------


## pcosmar

> And which campaigns were these?


Ron Paul 2008 and 2012.

In 2008 Ron was set to win Michigan,, and the entire campaign was disrupted,, And outsiders (and profiteers) placed over it.

The grassroots was split scattered and the "official" campaign did nothing.. The momentum was lost and never regained..

It was deliberate sabotage.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Ron Paul 2008 and 2012.
> 
> In 2008 Ron was set to win Michigan,, and the entire campaign was disrupted,, And outsiders (and profiteers) placed over it.
> 
> The grassroots was split scattered and the "official" campaign did nothing.. The momentum was lost and never regained..
> 
> It was deliberate sabotage.


uhh... no... I don't think that Ron was set to win Michigan in 2008 


But I will say that the 2008 PCC was completely unprepared for the wave of grassroots support and thus at times unable to cope with it because it was so overwhelming. That is a fair statement.

----------


## pcosmar

> uhh... no... I don't think that Ron was set to win Michigan in 2008 
> 
> 
> But I will say that the 2008 PCC was completely unprepared for the wave of grassroots support and thus at times unable to cope with it because it was so overwhelming. That is a fair statement.


Yes it was.. Deliberately Sabotaged.

I was at Mackinac Island. I saw the support.. I saw the NON support of the others.
I was in parades in my hometown,, and saw the support..

And by primary time most people thought and were told that Ron had dropped out.

McCain had NO $#@!ING SUPPORT (I met exactly one, a really whacked out warmonger)... and got more votes that should have been possible in a Romney state.

Yeah,, I watched that $#@! happen before my eyes.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yes it was.. Deliberately Sabotaged.
> 
> I was at Mackinac Island. I saw the support.. I saw the NON support of the others.
> I was in parades in my hometown,, and saw the support..
> 
> And by primary time most people thought and were told that Ron had dropped out.
> 
> McCain had NO $#@!ING SUPPORT (I met exactly one, a really whacked out warmonger)... and got more votes that should have been possible in a Romney state.
> 
> Yeah,, I watched that $#@! happen before my eyes.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause


Just because you saw a lot of support doesn't mean that was representative of the entire voting population. And just because Ron didn't win Michigan doesn't mean that there was sabotage.

----------


## nayjevin

> No... I don't care what people have to say about me, but when they start lying and flat out being untruthful, or violate the forum rules repeatedly, then yes, they need to be at least tempbanned. Disagreement is ok, but again, there is a certain line for attack, insults, and lying that will not be tolerated.


Don't make vague claims about what moderator actions should be.  Stick with reporting situations when they happen.  Opinions on how the site should be moderated are welcome when presented through the appropriate channels.  Matt does not speak for the application of the guidelines on this site.  Any fact based case that can be made in a specific situation will be considered the same as it would be from other posters.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Yes it was.. Deliberately Sabotaged.
> 
> I was at Mackinac Island. I saw the support.. I saw the NON support of the others.
> I was in parades in my hometown,, and saw the support..
> 
> And by primary time most people thought and were told that Ron had dropped out.
> 
> McCain had NO $#@!ING SUPPORT (I met exactly one, a really whacked out warmonger)... and got more votes that should have been possible in a Romney state.
> 
> Yeah,, I watched that $#@! happen before my eyes.


Who are you to say?

You're not the one with the inside scoop. /sarcasm

----------


## Cap

> Santorum...is that you?


Probably an Eduardo sock puppet.

----------


## purplechoe

This is why I have such a man crush on Adam...

----------


## mczerone

> No... I don't care what people have to say about me, but when they start lying and flat out being untruthful, or violate the forum rules repeatedly, then yes, they need to be at least tempbanned. Disagreement is ok, but again, there is a certain line for attack, insults, and lying that will not be tolerated.


Matt, a few questions:

1) Does Adam Kokesh have an account on RPFs?

2) Is it legal, under the Constitution, for a municipality to outright ban firearms? So is disobeying such a law really "breaking the law"?

3) Is "riff-raff" an insult?

So is the line of "attack, insults, and lying" that you apply to yourself towards other forum members different than the one you want to be applied to those who speak of you?

Have you ever listened to Adam's show, or are you basing your opinion of him on media reports?

How would you appreciate it if someone did that for one of your political candidates?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Matt, a few questions:
> 
> 1) Does Adam Kokesh have an account on RPFs?
> 
> 2) Is it legal, under the Constitution, for a municipality to outright ban firearms? So is disobeying such a law really "breaking the law"?
> 
> 3) Is "riff-raff" an insult?
> 
> So is the line of "attack, insults, and lying" that you apply to yourself towards other forum members different than the one you want to be applied to those who speak of you?
> ...


HOLD IT...just hold it right there...Matt DOES NOT answer questions...

----------


## Cap

FYI, Adam is a member in good standing on this forum.

----------


## Thor

> Matt, a few questions:
> 
> 1) Does Adam Kokesh have an account on RPFs?





> FYI, Adam is a member in good standing on this forum.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member....77-Adam-Kokesh

----------


## Cap

I see the King got a time out.

----------


## pcosmar

> HOLD IT...just hold it right there...Matt DOES NOT answer questions...


Nope. He just spams $#@! from logicalfaillcy

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, a few questions:
> 
> 1) Does Adam Kokesh have an account on RPFs?
> 
> 2) Is it legal, under the Constitution, for a municipality to outright ban firearms? So is disobeying such a law really "breaking the law"?
> 
> 
> Have you ever listened to Adam's show, or are you basing your opinion of him on media reports?


1- I have no idea. He is a public figure.

2- The Constitution is set up to limit the federal government, not the state governments (at least until the incorporation doctrine came into being)

3- Yes I have listened to Adam's show, and it's awful. But I will say that a lot of his man-on-the-street videos were pretty good and clever. If he had stuck to that then I wouldn't have a problem with him.

----------


## angelatc

> 3- Yes I have listened to Adam's show, and it's awful. But I will say that a lot of his man-on-the-street videos were pretty good and clever. If he had stuck to that then I wouldn't have a problem with him.


Oh, so a man open carrying on a street isn't a man-on-the-street video that you approve of.  OR maybe you would approve of it, but you don't like the other stuff he does, so you're giggling like a girl because he might go to jail.  Heck, maybe you do not like the fact that he pisses away more testosterone in an afternoon that you'll manage to generate in a lifetime. 


Makes no difference, because nobody actually cares what you think, wee man.

----------


## pcosmar

> 2- The Constitution is set up to limit the federal government, not the state governments


Bull$#@!..

Read the bill of rights again,, and keep reading it over and over again till it sinks through your thick skull.

(May particular attention to the 6th)

It applies to all government,, State and local in particular.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, so a man open carrying on a street isn't a man-on-the-street video that you approve of.  OR maybe you would approve of it, but you don't like the other stuff he does, so you're giggling like a girl because he might go to jail.  Heck, maybe you do not like the fact that he pisses away more testosterone in an afternoon that you'll manage to generate in a lifetime. 
> 
> 
> Makes no difference, because nobody actually cares what you think, wee man.


Oh, BURN!

----------


## Matt Collins

> Bull$#@!..
> 
> Read the bill of rights again,, and keep reading it over and over again till it sinks through your thick skull.
> 
> (May particular attention to the 6th)
> 
> It applies to all government,, State and local in particular.


Actually, you are incorrect. Prior to the 14th Amendment, and the incorporation doctrine, the bill of rights did not limit the state governments. The Founders did not set it up that way, and it had no effect on state governments until some legal fiction was just made up.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Oh, so a man open carrying on a street isn't a man-on-the-street video that you approve of.


Nothing wrong with open carrying, and open carrying on the street. But doing it illegally hurts the cause, ESPECIALLY when one acts in a threatening and violent psychotic manner in which he did. 






> Heck, maybe you do not like the fact that he pisses away more testosterone in an afternoon that you'll manage to generate in a lifetime.


Juicing will do that to you so I've heard.

----------


## acptulsa

No wonder Matt never answers questions.

My turn.




> 1- I have no idea. He is a public figure.


Are you saying public figures are made secret on the Member List?  Because otherwise your irrelevance is seriously irrelevant.

----------


## pcosmar

> Actually, you are incorrect. Prior to the 14th Amendment, and the incorporation doctrine, the bill of rights did not limit the state governments. The Founders did not set it up that way, and it had no effect on state governments until some legal fiction was just made up.


BULL$#@!

You are proving that you know nothing about it and are spewing crap you heard someplace without reading the Constitution itself.

No wonder you have no concept of Liberty.
6th Amendment..



> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial*, by an impartial jury of the State and district* wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence


Nothing to do with the Federal Government. 4th amendment is local,, as is the 5th and the 7th
8th amendment deals with excessive Bail,, a local issue.

And the 10th makes it even more clear..

Read the damn thing Matt and quit flaunting your ignorance.

----------

