# Start Here > Guest Forum >  I admit it: RPF is the most tolerant forum for dissenting opinions

## 56ktarget

My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.

----------


## Henry Rogue

RPF would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed. Sometimes I miss the old antagonists, there where some epic thread infernos.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

Liberty requires tolerance for others.. Discussions aren't valuable without an open mind. I must say you are a very respectful member for someone with 3 red bars.

----------


## Carlybee

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.



You can't embrace liberty and squash free thought.

----------


## Acala

> You can't embrace liberty and squash free thought.


You should be banned for saying this.

----------


## Cleaner44

Most people here had stupid views to some degree at one time in their lives.  I myself started my voting life as a Democrat until I realized that I was being lied to intentionally.  Seeing the hypocrisy and lies of both major parties was easy.  Finding the truth took more effort.  I discovered that I was a libertarian at 36.  

I think most libertarian type people are tolerant of those with statists views to some extent, because many of us once held some degree of statist views ourselves.  That's how it is for me anyway.  I don't like bull$#@! coming from statist Democrats or statist Republicans, but I understand how they got suckered because there was a time where I got suckered too.

You will find that you will get many less -reps if you share your dissenting opinion in a respectful, intellectually honest and non-trolling way.

----------


## thoughtomator

DU may as well be the "Obama for America discussion board".

----------


## lib3rtarian

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


Recollecting some of your posts and threads, I take it that you are a Statist liberal and hence, congratulations for surviving here for 317 posts, either without getting banned, or without leaving by yourself. I initially thought of you as a liberal troll who decided to rile us libertarians up for a day or two before getting banned, but perhaps you deserve more credit than that.

----------


## Acala

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


Nice of you to say so.  You might be surprised to find that there are many among us who applaud the charitable instincts that motivate most rank and file democrats and socialists.  We just disagree on the means of promoting the welfare of our fellow man.

----------


## Carlybee

> Most people here had stupid views to some degree at one time in their lives.  I myself started my voting life as a Democrat until I realized that I was being lied to intentionally.  Seeing the hypocrisy and lies of both major parties was easy.  Finding the truth took more effort.  I discovered that I was a libertarian at 36.  
> 
> I think most libertarian type people are tolerant of those with statists views to some extent, because many of us once held some degree of statist views ourselves.  That's how it is for me anyway.  I don't like bull$#@! coming from statist Democrats or statist Republicans, but I understand how they got suckered because there was a time where I got suckered too.
> 
> You will find that you will get many less -reps if you share your dissenting opinion in a respectful, intellectually honest and non-trolling way.



Same here...I was a Dem until I found Ron Paul. I spent a few years on a Dem forum and started realizing how truly hateful libs and progressives could be. I was anti war and thought it was the party that best represented that ideology. Boy was I wrong...they are mostly anti war when the other side is engaging in it. I have an uber Dem friend who posts some of the most hateful things on FB. So thankful I found out just how bad defining yourself by a political party can be, and omg the hypocrisy. Not that there aren't the same types of people on the right as well. Cogs in the machine.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Nice of you to say so.  You might be surprised to find that there are many among us who applaud the charitable instincts that motivate most rank and file democrats and socialists.  We just disagree on the means of promoting the welfare of our fellow man.


Indeed, if you take those instincts and reason them out to their logical conclusions - rather than just accepting the "solutions" offered by the political class - you come out as a libertarian. The way to promote the most well-being for the greatest number of people is to leave them the hell alone and stop imposing artificial paradigms on them by force.

----------


## CaptUSA

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


Perhaps this realization will allow you to shift your world view?  We all had to do it at some point.  (For most of us, it was when we started seeing through the bull$#@!.)

There are all sorts of variations in the way we all approach liberty, but what unites us is that we generally think people shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to do.  Whether that be with your own body, with your labor, with the fruits of your labor, or with your mind.

----------


## FloralScent

> The way to promote the most well-being for the greatest number of people is to leave them the hell alone and stop imposing artificial paradigms on them by force.


Of course, most state dictates have absolutely nothing to do with even a fraction of the public's well-being but are at the behest of some well-heeled lobby.  The banksters, insurance and Israel have their paw prints on the most egregious.

----------


## acptulsa

> 'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty.  Now the greatest aid that I know of  that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty".  What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison.  I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to.  Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work.  So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"
> 
> 'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give.  That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'


..



> I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

----------


## Acala

> .I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it..


FYI, Voltaire didn't say that.  Although he very likely thought that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Liberty requires tolerance for others.. Discussions aren't valuable without an open mind. I must say you are a very respectful member for someone with 3 red bars.


Yep. I'd agree with that. At least from what I've read. Can't say that I've read everything from 56.

Of course, I also have the impression that we were experimenting to see how many red bars someone could get.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Most people here had stupid views to some degree at one time in their lives.  I myself started my voting life as a Democrat until I realized that I was being lied to intentionally.  Seeing the hypocrisy and lies of both major parties was easy.  Finding the truth took more effort.  I discovered that I was a libertarian at 36.  
> 
> I think most libertarian type people are tolerant of those with statists views to some extent, because many of us once held some degree of statist views ourselves.  That's how it is for me anyway.  I don't like bull$#@! coming from statist Democrats or statist Republicans, but I understand how they got suckered because there was a time where I got suckered too.
> 
> You will find that you will get many less -reps if you share your dissenting opinion in a respectful, intellectually honest and non-trolling way.


I'm growing less and less tolerant, to be honest.  But really, I have some unique issues.  I have no qualms about educating someone on the street about this, that, or the other issue.  I have a real problem with pastors who cannot use very basic moral logic to come to anti-war and especially anti-collateral damage positions, and also with people on RPF that support blatantly immoral things when they should know better.  FrankRep's "Kelly Thomas did it to himself" is the classic example.  As was some other members saying that that pig who shot at a woman's car after she drove off after being stopped... I can understand a regular moron on the street thinking "Well, she was running away" but there's no way a self-respecting libertarian has any excuse for believing 71 in a 55 is something a cop has a right to prevent in the first place, let alone shoot to prevent someone from fleeing.  When people can't get basic stuff like that on here, I get ticked.



> Recollecting some of your posts and threads, I take it that you are a Statist liberal and hence, congratulations for surviving here for 317 posts, either without getting banned, or without leaving by yourself. I initially thought of you as a liberal troll who decided to rile us libertarians up for a day or two before getting banned, but perhaps you deserve more credit than that.


I still say drive his neg reps up for fun...

----------


## fr33

Judging by your post history, I can see why you could get banned at some sites. (it's happened to me too) You often make broad generalizations condemning all of us "Paulites" for opinions that not all of us have; sometimes not even a clear majority have. It's kind of trollish and inflammatory... and unnecessary. There's a lot of debate and disagreement among members here. It helps to realize that people aren't so easily categorized as being one "side" or the other.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."


--General Patton

----------


## lib3rtarian

> I'm growing less and less tolerant, to be honest.  But really, I have some unique issues.  I have no qualms about educating someone on the street about this, that, or the other issue.  I have a real problem with pastors who cannot use very basic moral logic to come to anti-war and especially anti-collateral damage positions, and also with people on RPF that support blatantly immoral things when they should know better.  FrankRep's "Kelly Thomas did it to himself" is the classic example.  As was some other members saying that that pig who shot at a woman's car after she drove off after being stopped... I can understand a regular moron on the street thinking "Well, she was running away" but there's no way a self-respecting libertarian has any excuse for believing 71 in a 55 is something a cop has a right to prevent in the first place, let alone shoot to prevent someone from fleeing.  When people can't get basic stuff like that on here, I get ticked.
> 
> I still say drive his neg reps up for fun...


I didn't even know that he had negative reps. I don't see any reps, avatars or signatures. I don't care about them. I have disabled everything. That way, everyone is equal before me.

This is how I see a post:

----------


## JK/SEA

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


ok mods, you can ban him now....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


I think I got banned oh, five times from Shamity's forums.

Try harder.

Seriously, maybe this might be an "ah hah" moment.

Freedom *works*.

----------


## Deborah K

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


If you're inclined to do so, please invest an hour and a half in this interview with the great Ed Griffin.  It will do more to help you understand this movement than anything else, imo.  And +rep for being thick skinned.

----------


## erowe1

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


Thanks.

But before I +rep you, is this just a sneaky way of tricking us into doing that?

----------


## osan

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


DU?

Anyhow, yes we are tolerant, even if we disagree.  Otherwise, what is the point, especially when we go on and on about freedom, liberty, equality, and so forth?  I for one have no interest in the sort of forum where the only thing the members who agree with each other all day long and burn all heretics at the stake without at least hearing them.  It accomplishes nothing and in fact brings such groups into a very bad intellectual and attitudinal spaces.  My purpose here is to hone my views, my understanding, and to attempt to be something of a reasonable example to others who might be poking around to see what else there might be in this world beyond the walls and other obstacles placed in their ways by the various influencing parties.  It accomplishes nothing to pound on those holding views with which you do not agree, but in general that is not what we do here.  Rather, we challenge the assertions of those who hold different ideas about proper human relations and demonstrate why our views are sound.

Anything less that that is a waste of time, as I see things.

----------


## RM918

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


I disagree with a lot of things with a lot of serious progressives but I believe their beliefs are serious principles even if I disagree with them. I don't really care who's right or wrong after that, I'd gladly take any of them over Blue Team faithful. I'd gladly have any Green Party candidate in office over anybody the Dems would run.

----------


## RM918

> DU?


Democratic Underground. As I understand it that's supposed to be where all the 'real' progressives hang out and not just the Blue Team faithful like on dailykos, but if this happened to 56k maybe I'm wrong.

----------


## newbitech

@ thread topic tolerance for others opinions is what allows free people to interact without destroying each other.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Democratic Underground.


I just looked at that site. Which I don't think I've done in a year or so. And even then it was on a whim much like this. But there were some important "apsects of issues" brought up. You almost want to go chime in and maybe help them along (in a polite way) but make it seem like it's their idea or something in order to get them moving in the right direction but on the other hand its like...meh...do I really feel like it? 

I saw the "Monsanto and Ukraine" thread under what they call "Good Reads" and I'm thinking...eh...they're in the ballpark. But then I see that Maddow woman plastered all over the page and it just kills it for me. I think she's more of a social meme than anything. No real depth to scope have I ever heard from her.

Truth be told, though, I'd bet it wouldn't take much to change the entire energy of that place and they wouldn't even see it right under their noses.

----------


## Unregistered

DU is actually one of the more "awake" of the "liberal hang-tens" IMHO. I see them as people who lucidly "AMERICAN DREAM". They create their own reality and think the world can actually BE that way.  It doesn't make it any less scary that the road to heaven is paved with good intentions; however, I classify a lot of them as super naive "ron paul people". 

I think that might be one of the "naive" reasons why 56 is here... 
but who really knows, and does it really matter- either way, GOOD DISCUSSION.

----------


## Unregistered

in a non-naive thought,
 it's always best to first search sites using startpage.com,
then use their proxy browser...
Just an option.

----------


## acptulsa

> Thanks.
> 
> But before I +rep you, is this just a sneaky way of tricking us into doing that?


When someone wears their plus reps with pride, you want to negrep them and can't understand why they negrep you in retaliation because you think that if you consider it a bad post, everyone should, even the person who went to the trouble to post it...




> It seems a lot of people follow that MO. I don't get it. Shouldn't you give someone a neg rep on account of their bad post, rather than on account of your own?


And when you find someone who wears their negreps with pride, you want to take _those_ away too.

Very Christian.

----------


## Todd

> Democratic Underground. As I understand it that's supposed to be where all the 'real' progressives hang out and not just the Blue Team faithful like on dailykos, but if this happened to 56k maybe I'm wrong.


I think you may want to take a second look.  DU is horrible.  I am a member of a forum that mocks them daily.  The gems of stupidity you find at DU are in ample abundance.   You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

----------


## jmdrake

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


LOL.  Though shalt not question the imperious leader.  I'm curious.  What would your response to Ferguson be?  Do you agree with Democrat John Lewis' call for martial law?

----------


## Unregistered

One of the problems over there (DU) is probably, or at least seems like, an age issue, younger, self serving, "rebel with a cause" and not into, real reality..... yet.

Get some responsability on your shoulders and you will, hopefully, lessen your wondering minds.
- me

----------


## Spikender

My wondering mind tells me to join the Democratic Underground and spread the message of Bronyism.

----------


## pessimist

This is the LONGEST I have lasted on a *political* forum.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> This is the LONGEST I have lasted on a *political* forum.


Same here but it's also the only political forum I ever joined..

----------


## JohnWeeks613

> Same here but it's also the only political forum I ever joined..


Same here.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My wondering mind tells me to join the Democratic Underground and spread the message of Bronyism.

----------


## Barrex

You all are lucky that I am not in charge of this forum!


My recollection of history regarding you:









The End.

----------


## Lucille

To the best mods on the internet:

----------


## JohnWeeks613

Yes, but hopefully they will learn to be pro liberty.

----------


## LexEtLibertas

> My old DU account was banned today because I posted a thread suggesting Obama's response to Ferguson and his 2014 election strategy were too weak. Damn, I think the echo chamber over there is starting to become too big.


This forum is not actually tolerant, even for positions which are actually standard for many libertarians here. Viz.:

LexEtLibertas, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Ron Paul Forums, Jan. 6, 2015, post #89, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5746847




> Someone has censored this thread which I started. Its actual title is "Jesus Is an Anarchist", as can be seen from the below archives of this thread. Now someone has changed its title to "Jesus & Anarchism". Thus, someone is falsely attributing words to me. That is, the person who did this is lying, i.e., they are engaging in deception.
> 
> I request that this thread's actual title stop being censored and hence also words falsely attributed to me, and that this thread's title be changed back to its actual title of "Jesus Is an Anarchist".
> 
> James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Ron Paul Forums, Sept. 11, 2013, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-an-Anarchist , http://archive.today/EbMCG , http://megalodon.jp/2015-0107-0358-4...ve.today/EbMCG , http://www.webcitation.org/6JgGIO6O4
> 
> ----------
> 
> What follows are links to my above-said articles:
> ...

----------


## moostraks

> This forum is not actually tolerant, even for positions which are actually standard for many libertarians here. Viz.:
> 
> LexEtLibertas, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Ron Paul Forums, Jan. 6, 2015, post #89, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5746847



Lol...so 7 posts in 17 months and one of them cry babying about thread title change? Yep, seems like a legit complaint about folks being intolerant. Also seems like thread title was changed back and your complaint here stands without apology? Fwiw, it might benefit you to understand this forum is also private property subject to an albeit benevolent purpose of the owner who reserves the right to control said property for said purpose outlined clearly for those who wish to participate. Enjoy your time here.

----------


## mobilisMobili

> RPF would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed. Sometimes I miss the old antagonists, there where some epic thread infernos.


Many are still here I see.  That's a pleasant surprise!  Many also have adjusted, somewhat, the cut in their strut.  

Smoother interactions, slower reading, but a more pleasant experience all in all.


Btw, hello to everyone here at rpf.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Judging by your post history, I can see why you could get banned at some sites. (it's happened to me too) You often make broad generalizations condemning all of us "Paulites" for opinions that not all of us have; sometimes not even a clear majority have. It's kind of trollish and inflammatory... and unnecessary. There's a lot of debate and disagreement among members here. It helps to realize that people aren't so easily categorized as being one "side" or the other.


Good point.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

Every philosophical/political/ideological forum has a hive mind, and RPF is no different. Coming from an alternative-right perspective, I was surprised at how negative some of the responses were, since ideology is pretty close to libertarian/ancap thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I know he's a divisive figure, but certain people made it clear (whether they realize it or not) that they'd stand with an egalitarian progressive than a reactionary libertarian, which I find very strange. A few people here have said I have an agenda to move the movement in a rightist direction, but ironically I'm far more comfortable with a big-tent movement than any of those people who accuse me of that.

----------


## otherone

> I'm far more comfortable with a big-tent movement than any of those people who accuse me of that.


Many here would argue against the necessity of a tent at all.

----------


## DamianTV

I dont really care what anyone does with one condition, dont force me.

----------


## HVACTech

> Many here would argue against the necessity of a tent at all.


so, if we do get a tent.. 
how are we going to entice DamianTV to enter?

----------


## otherone

> so, if we do get a tent.. 
> how are we going to entice DamianTV to enter?


Cheap schnapps and Cambodian lady-boys.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Cheap schnapps and Cambodian lady-boys.


LMAO!

----------


## JK/SEA

> Every philosophical/political/ideological forum has a hive mind, and RPF is no different. Coming from an alternative-right perspective, I was surprised at how negative some of the responses were, since ideology is pretty close to libertarian/ancap thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I know he's a divisive figure, but certain people made it clear (whether they realize it or not) that they'd stand with an egalitarian progressive than a reactionary libertarian, which I find very strange. A few people here have said I have an agenda to move the movement in a rightist direction, but ironically I'm far more comfortable with a big-tent movement than any of those people who accuse me of that.


i just want these $#@!in wars stopped. Thats why i fought my ass off for Ron Paul.

next.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Did someone say tent?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Many here would argue against the necessity of a tent at all.


Well, then those people aren't paying attention. Progressives and neocons have created the biggest, most cancerous state in the history of Western society. In response, libertarianism is finally becoming semi-mainstream, and there are still all these people who say they've "transcended political solutions", which really means that they're okay with being ineffectual, as long as they can maintain the pretense of being "above it all". This is why you see people like Stefan Molyneux who criticizes Ron Paul and his supporters, despite the fact that Dr. Paul has done more for the cause of liberty than Molyneux could ever hope to.

I know what it's like to hold very out-there positions and to feel like there's no place within modern narratives for what I believe; I'm considerably more radical than the vast majority of libertarians. That being said, if I didn't think there was a way to help things go in a less bad direction, I'd be doing myself a disservice by paying attention to politics/economics/philosophy because all I'd be doing in that case is making myself very angry. Some people are fine just holding a radical position and taking potshots at the establishment, whereas others are willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that needs doing. In any movement, that's what separates the boys from the men.

Momentum is building, and it's on our side. We have more reason to be optimistic now than at any point in at least the last 25-30 years.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, then those people aren't paying attention. Progressives and neocons have created the biggest, most cancerous state in the history of Western society. In response, libertarianism is finally becoming semi-mainstream, and there are still all these people who say they've "transcended political solutions", which really means that they're okay with being ineffectual, as long as they can maintain the pretense of being "above it all". This is why you see people like Stefan Molyneux who criticizes Ron Paul and his supporters, despite the fact that Dr. Paul has done more for the cause of liberty than Molyneux could ever hope to.
> 
> I know what it's like to hold very out-there positions and to feel like there's no place within modern narratives for what I believe; I'm considerably more radical than the vast majority of libertarians. That being said, if I didn't think there was a way to help things go in a less bad direction, I'd be doing myself a disservice by paying attention to politics/economics/philosophy because all I'd be doing in that case is making myself very angry. Some people are fine just holding a radical position and taking potshots at the establishment, whereas others are willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that needs doing. In any movement, that's what separates the boys from the men.
> 
> Momentum is building, and it's on our side. We have more reason to be optimistic now than at any point in at least the last 25-30 years.


I agree with this. 

Minarchists will almost always be more effective than anarcho-capitalists for this reason (there are exceptions, like Rothbard.)  Most people aren't willing to do the amount of critical thinking that ancap requires, and even among those who do some people will have other problems with it.  On the other hand, lots of people think our government is way too big and way too intrusive.  We can deal with the hand we've been dealt and make real progress, or we can whine that its not fair and we don't want to play and not really get anywhere.  I've moderated a lot on this in the past year.

Now, that's not to say you compromise on principles, and there are some people I'd never support.  But, at the same time, I don't really anticipate our society ever being totally libertarian.  I'd like to get closer.

----------


## DamianTV

> so, if we do get a tent.. 
> how are we going to entice DamianTV to enter?


Belly dancers!  They better be hot tho!  So um, no imitation Cambodian Lady Boyz!

(there is just something that always ends up going south when ever someone talks about pitching a tent...)

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I agree with this. 
> 
> Minarchists will almost always be more effective than anarcho-capitalists for this reason (there are exceptions, like Rothbard.)  Most people aren't willing to do the amount of critical thinking that ancap requires, and even among those who do some people will have other problems with it.  On the other hand, lots of people think our government is way too big and way too intrusive.  We can deal with the hand we've been dealt and make real progress, or we can whine that its not fair and we don't want to play and not really get anywhere.  I've moderated a lot on this in the past year.
> 
> Now, that's not to say you compromise on principles, and there are some people I'd never support.  But, at the same time, I don't really anticipate our society ever being totally libertarian.  I'd like to get closer.


Another ambien trip to produce a small soliloquy in lieu of a coherent post. Off I go!

  I don't think it's so much an issue of ancap vs minarchist per se, it's an issue of strategy and willingness to compromise. Ancaps often decry voting because they say it's endorsing the system, that voting is against the NAP, all sorts of reasons. I'm an ancap who doesn't believe in axiomatic non-aggression, so as a libertarian reactionary, voting seems perfectly fine to me, provided that there is actually a  preferable candidate or proposition on the ballot. How stupid are hardcore ancaps going to feel if Bush gets the GOP nod and goes to do battle with Hilary, when it could've been Rand. 

Is Rand Paul perfect? Hardly. 
Are there issues I wish he was a lot more radical on? No doubt. 
Do I wish he had a plan to turn the GOP into a hardline right wing party? You bet I do. 
Are there reasons to critique the man? Oh, God yes. 
Is he the only hope for the presidency? Yes he is.

Rand may not be his father, he may not be who we hoped: the Austrian warrior, slashing spending, brutalizing debt and exposing monetary shenanigans. He is not any of that, but he is a true conservative, and an extremely savvy political animal and that's what the movement needs most desperately right now. The right is becoming more and more of a political force in this country. Libertarians are a big part of that, but it's because of a lot of different groups and their own contributions and perspectives: 
Paleoconservatives are emerging from their (at times, self-inflicted) exile they suffered through after 9/11. 
Many neocons are waking up to just how war-weary the US is and now realize their experiments in Wilsonian militarist liberalism have failed. 
Libertarians not only are proving their worth by repeatedly getting it right on the economy, but being the only right wing group remotely liked by my generation.
Regular, generic "conservatives" are rediscovering the fiscal discipline within libertarianism and the cultural and social benefits of paleoconservatism.
The alt-right and the neoreaction, though mainly a force on the internet, has exploded in popularity in the last few years and shows no sign of stopping down.

What we need is a right wing populist movement to attempt to unify these different groups into one big-tent, to actually get our voices heard. There will be a lot of disagreement and infighting, but as long as stay on message I think all will be well. The message is simple; no more wars, free market economics, stop mass immigration and go back to traditional cultural bulwarks of society that served our civilization so well up until they were systematically dismantled by leftists in the mid-20th century. What we need is a movement that the special interests can't take over, that Fox news can't co-opt into its "Democrats suck, Republicans are Godly rockstars who are really strong and handsome too!" narrative. 

Rand Paul has a very special role to play within rightist populism; he can serve as a bridge between conservatism and libertarianism. We are at the precipice of something big. The GOP is going through an identity crisis, and we need to be the ones to show what their identity needs to be to resonate with millennials and remain leaders in the 21st century We have a real chance people. A chance to take back the GOP and have a new, real, ethical, thoughtful, honorable, powerful and liberty-minded right wing. If we drop the ball, Geb Bush's open borders, corporatist, welfare/warfare/security-state neoconservatism will reemerge and the GOP will be never--and I do mean _never_ recover from it. It will be the death of the right in America. Sure, there will be people and groups _called_ right wing, but all they'll be doing is playing catch up with the leftists; the progressive policies of a decade ago will become the "conservative" prescriptions for today. In fact, this is already happening right now. It's a grim portent, but with those of use with a stomach for the work, it's just the left throwing its glove down in preparation for a duel. Challenge accepted.

----------


## otherone

> What we need is a right wing populist movement to attempt to unify these different groups into one big-tent, to actually get our voices heard. There will be a lot of disagreement and infighting, but as long as stay on message I think all will be well. The message is simple; no more wars, free market economics, stop mass immigration and go back to traditional cultural bulwarks of society that served our civilization so well up until they were systematically dismantled by leftists in the mid-20th century.


I'm on board!  Next step....Beer Hall Putsch!

----------


## BV2

> Most people here had stupid views to some degree at one time in their lives.  I myself started my voting life as a Democrat until I realized that I was being lied to intentionally.  Seeing the hypocrisy and lies of both major parties was easy.  Finding the truth took more effort.  I discovered that I was a libertarian at 36.  
> 
> I think most libertarian type people are tolerant of those with statists views to some extent, because many of us once held some degree of statist views ourselves.  That's how it is for me anyway.  I don't like bull$#@! coming from statist Democrats or statist Republicans, but I understand how they got suckered because there was a time where I got suckered too.
> 
> You will find that you will get many less -reps if you share your dissenting opinion in a respectful, intellectually honest and non-trolling way.


  yup.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I'm on board!  Next step....Beer Hall Putsch!


"There really needs to be a populist movement uniting all these disparate right wing influences..."
"Hurr durr yurr a Nazi!"

Yeah, because the Nazis were such anti-war, free-market traditionalists 

If you're not on with it, fantastic. The movement will be infinitely better off without (mod edit)

----------


## otherone

> "There really needs to be a populist movement uniting all these disparate right wing influences..."
> "Hurr durr yurr a Nazi!"
> 
> Yeah, because the Nazis were such anti-war, free-market traditionalists 
> 
> If you're not on with it, fantastic. The movement will be infinitely better off without (mod edit)


Your prior post:



> The message is simple; no more wars, free market economics, stop mass immigration and go back to traditional cultural bulwarks of society that served our civilization so well


Of your four points, two involve expanding the role of government.  In addition, placing government in charge of culture is the antithesis of libertarianism.
You may not be familiar with this term:
*Kultur: (in Nazi Germany) native culture, held to be superior to that of other countries and subordinating the individual to national interests.*

Are you willing to compromise on this goal for the sake of the 'big tent'?

----------


## otherone

> ... and just in case ya didn't notice, yes I am/was new here, and yes, I am certainly very glad that I managed to suppress my initial positive anticipation upon stumbling across this forum. Looks like you likely saved me a hundred bucks.


Welcome to the forum.  The poster in question was merely directing ad-hominish insults at me due to frustration.  It happens often here.  His post remained untouched by mods for several days; the guest forum is public and there may have been a concern about the appearance of immaturity of the forum.  Regardless, please rummage through the forums and get involved in the discourse!   We have many different viewpoints, from anarchist to big-government folks, with some no-holds-barred arguments (mostly unmoderated).
Remember, the first person who  calls another "doody-head" is the loser!

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Where did unregistered go?  Now my post lost all it's context and cache.  D'oh!

----------


## Mach

> I dont really care what anyone does with one condition, dont force me.


So if you're sold that you're not being forced first, you'll be fine?

----------


## Slutter McGee

Unless you are ok with jewish people, then  you are marginalized, ignored, given a one star...and sent to the vent....Because $#@! those Jews..right.......Yep

Slutter McGee

----------


## JK/SEA

> Unless you are ok with jewish people, then  you are marginalized, ignored, given a one star...and sent to the vent....Because $#@! those Jews..right.......Yep
> 
> Slutter McGee


it ain't  'THE JEWS'...

it's the 'GOVERNMENT'...

wake the $#@! up.

----------


## acptulsa

> Unless you are ok with jewish people, then  you are marginalized, ignored, given a one star...and sent to the vent....Because $#@! those Jews..right.......Yep
> 
> Slutter McGee


Tell it to Kotin.

You mean unless you refuse to admit that every Jew is not a Zionist, and refuse to admit that every Zionist is not a Jew, in which case you might be treated as though you were too stubborn for your own good.

Glad we cleared that up.  Now wake me up when you get _banned_ for lying about whether all Zionists are Jews and all Jews are Zionists.  Don't forget, now!

----------


## Saint Vitus

For a while, the slightest criticism of Rand would get you banned.  Thankfully, that seems to have changed a bit.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Nice of you to say so.  You might be surprised to find that there are many among us who applaud the charitable instincts that motivate most rank and file democrats and socialists.  We just disagree on the means of promoting the welfare of our fellow man.


Right!  Socialism is just kind of a corruption of classical liberalism.  It's the same kind of sentiment: protect the little guy, don't let the power elite trample all over him, etc.  The socialists/modern-day liberals just lost their way and got turned down a wrong path: using force power for good, rather than just eliminating the power altogether.

It's a pretty incoherent and stupid idea, when you think about it: let's make power the servant of the powerless.  Yeah, that's gonna work.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> no more wars, free market economics, stop mass immigration and go back to traditional cultural bulwarks of society that served our civilization so well
> 			
> 		
> 
> Of your four points, *two involve expanding the role of government*.  In addition, placing government in charge of culture is the antithesis of libertarianism.
> You may not be familiar with this term:


 Actually, if I understand PaleoLibertarian correctly (and I think I do) only one of the three.  He is not calling for the government to be in charge of culture.  He's just saying the culture should change, not that the government should change it.  Indeed, he would probably be highly skeptical of any attempt to put government in charge of culture, and places much of the blame for the cultural deterioration he sees on various destructive government programs and actions.

Even the immigration thing, at least when he puts on his anarcho-capitalist hat, may be more a matter of making people feel unwelcome, refusing to rent to them, give them jobs, or sell them airline tickets, and other voluntary means, not putting the state in charge of decided who can come and go.

----------


## otherone

> Actually, if I understand PaleoLibertarian correctly (and I think I do) only one of the three.  He is not calling for the government to be in charge of culture.  He's just saying the culture should change, not that the government should change it.  Indeed, he would probably be highly skeptical of any attempt to put government in charge of culture, and places much of the blame for the cultural deterioration he sees on various destructive government programs and actions.
> 
> Even the immigration thing, at least when he puts on his anarcho-capitalist hat, may be more a matter of making people feel unwelcome, refusing to rent to them, give them jobs, or sell them airline tickets, and other voluntary means, not putting the state in charge of decided who can come and go.



His words defy your interpretation.  He's quite clear:





> What we need is a right wing populist movement to attempt to unify these different groups into one big-tent, to actually get our voices heard. There will be a lot of disagreement and infighting, but as long as stay on message I think all will be well. The message is simple; no more wars, free market economics, stop mass immigration and go back to traditional cultural bulwarks of society that served our civilization so well up until they were systematically dismantled by leftists in the mid-20th century

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> His words defy your interpretation.  He's quite clear:


Well if you're right, I agree with you, and if not, I.... well, no, I can't go so far as to say I would agree with him (especially on the immigration thing).

We'll just have to wait for him to clarify.

----------


## osan

> Lol...so 7 posts in 17 months and one of them cry babying about thread title change? Yep, seems like a legit complaint about folks being intolerant. Also seems like thread title was changed back and your complaint here stands without apology? Fwiw, it might benefit you to understand this forum is also private property subject to an albeit benevolent purpose of the owner who reserves the right to control said property for said purpose outlined clearly for those who wish to participate. Enjoy your time here.


While I agree completely with what you write here, I must add that Lex makes a valid point, albeit too broadly and stridently.  I do not see the problem with the title in the case in point - "Jesus is an anarchist"... it's not like someone used the ultimately dreaded and world-destroying *n-word*.  Speaking of which, I wonder when use of "n-word" itself will also become verboten and an offense worthy of death.  I'm almost surprised the cultural marxists have not yet glommed on to the idea.  Anyone?

----------

