# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Discussion of Working inside the GOP

## mstrmac1

*[mod - Prior title: The "we need to infiltrate the republican party" is making us look weak!]*

From Rand endorsement... To how how do we need to get along and integrate with the republican party ...to get our message out is wrong. We need our own brand! If we think they are just going to give up they're product and let us change it, then we are niave...we're not Republicans!!! They need to conform to our product. Unlike Rand who conforms to theirs. This is where Ron Paul is Wrong!

----------


## Bman

Thought provoking, allow me to retort.

http://www.lp.org/

Good luck with that!

----------


## HopeForHumanity

> From Rand endorsement... To how how do we need to get along and integrate with the republican party ...to get our message out is wrong. We need our own brand! If we think they are just going to give up they're product and let us change it, then we are niave...we're not Republicans!!! They need to conform to our product. Unlike Rand who conforms to theirs. This is where Ron Paul is Wrong!


I disagree, infiltrating the Republican party is a really smart decision. Republicanism and modern "libertarianism" go hand in hand if you look at its origins in the enlightenment era. Its actually perfect timing because all the old war hawks are retiring and its our turn. Parties should change every generation, and this time we have a special message that could actually turn this country around. I disagree with rands endorsement, however, as it wrongly surrenders our take over as being a "get along" movement. Taking over and getting along are very different things.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> From Rand endorsement... To how how do we need to get along and integrate with the republican party ...to get our message out is wrong. We need our own brand! If we think they are just going to give up they're product and let us change it, then we are niave...we're not Republicans!!! They need to conform to our product. Unlike Rand who conforms to theirs. This is where Ron Paul is Wrong!


Actually, it is working.  We just have to do everywhere what was done in Iowa and Missouri.  And yes, we are a "new brand", so to speak.  We as returning the Republican Party back to its constitutional roots and then we will use that leverage to get our liberty candidates in debates and elected.

----------


## parocks

> From Rand endorsement... To how how do we need to get along and integrate with the republican party ...to get our message out is wrong. We need our own brand! If we think they are just going to give up they're product and let us change it, then we are niave...we're not Republicans!!! They need to conform to our product. Unlike Rand who conforms to theirs. This is where Ron Paul is Wrong!


No.  If we take over the Republican Party, and the Conservative Wing has been a identifiable distinct part of the Republican Party since at least Robert Taft, we will have displaced other Republicans.  We will have the Grand Old Party, and they will not.  And there will be no place for them to go.  Perhaps they join the Democrat Party?  Perhaps a new 3rd Party?  Either way, a whole bunch of folks will be looking for a new home, and it won't be in the Republican Party.  There are as you know 2 main parties who always win - Republican and Democrat.  We want to be one of the winning parties.  If we can do this, this is what we should try to do.  And we are winning in places like Maine.

----------


## AlexAmore

> From Rand endorsement... To how how do we need to get along and integrate with the republican party ...to get our message out is wrong. We need our own brand! If we think they are just going to give up they're product and let us change it, then we are niave...we're not Republicans!!! They need to conform to our product. Unlike Rand who conforms to theirs. This is where Ron Paul is Wrong!


Do you have literally 20 billion to spare to promote this new message intended to mass convert hundreds of millions of brand loyal people to our way of thinking in under four years while fighting head on the government sponsored corporate mass media conglomerate? No?

I'm not sure Rand is the Naive one. But thanks.

----------


## Respect38

> Thought provoking, allow me to retort.
> 
> http://www.lp.org/
> 
> Good luck with that!


The top link made me want to join the Libertarian Party even more.

Thank you!

----------


## IPSecure

Conquer the divide!

Imagine the LP & Constitution parties joining together to take back the Republican party...

Party...

----------


## Tod

> Conquer the divide!
> 
> Imagine the LP & Constitution parties joining together to take back the Republican party...
> 
> Party...


^this

----------


## Victor Grey

> Do you have literally 20 billion to spare to promote this new message intended to mass convert hundreds of millions of brand loyal people to our way of thinking in under four years while fighting head on the government sponsored corporate mass media conglomerate? No?
> 
> I'm not sure Rand is the Naive one. But thanks.


Heh heh, third party completely loses for decades...

spends 20 billion solely to get multiple millions of new people to vote for LP party candidates...

Start winning a handful of times...

get in the way of Neocons and progressives winning elections...

Either neocons or progressive liberal politicians go join LP... run as Libertarian party members. 

...third party advocates complain that they have to actually directly face them politically to win.

Except now they're broke.

complain two-party people are obsessed with labels.

Start advocating for a new party...

----------


## romancito

I agree with OP. Anything else is short of honest. That is why I don't see Dr. Paul succeeding in the Republican party. As honest as he is, trying to change the Republican party with a rhetoric that is foreign to them is kind of dishonest and sneaky. That is why the Republican establishment has to turn to dishonest and sneaky tactics during their district and state conventions. Because Ron Paul philosophy and platform is foreign to them. Best thing is to create a party that represents the best hopes and ambitions of Dr. Paul and see to it that it gets to the top. Then and only then will I contribute a penny again.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> From Rand endorsement... To how how do we need to get along and integrate with the republican party ...to get our message out is wrong. We need our own brand! If we think they are just going to give up they're product and let us change it, then we are niave...we're not Republicans!!! They need to conform to our product. Unlike Rand who conforms to theirs. This is where Ron Paul is Wrong!


FWIW, I agree and have said so on this board quite often.

----------


## tod evans

So ya'll think after 30+ years Dr. Paul doesn't know what he's doing?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So ya'll think after 30+ years Dr. Paul doesn't know what he's doing?


To be honest, I have always wondered why he has been so determined to stay in a party that clearly doesn't want him.  After 30 years (30 years!!) how far has it REALLY gotten him?

----------


## tod evans

> To be honest, I have always wondered why he has been so determined to stay in a party that clearly doesn't want him.  After 30 years (30 years!!) how far has it REALLY gotten him?


Just this week, on this board.....in '88 laughed at on the Morton Downey Jr. show to literally millions of supporters who understand his ideas and in spite of the odds are trying to bring some sanity back into American politics...

Me,  I'm impressed.

----------


## specsaregood

> ..we're not Republicans!!!


Funny, I'm a republican, Ron Paul is a republican, Rand Paul is a republican.  Hell, I've been a republican for a lot longer than I've known about Dr. Paul.    Good luck with your search though, just don't presume to speak for us republicans.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Just this week, on this board.....in '88  laughed at on the Morton Downey Jr. show to literally millions of  supporters who understand his ideas and in spite of the odds are trying  to bring some sanity back into American politics...
> 
> Me,  I'm impressed.


That all happened because of US ... not because of the GOP, which has tried to derail us in every way possible.  It happened IN SPITE of the GOP, quite frankly.

----------


## specsaregood

> That all happened because of US ... not because of the GOP, which has tried to derail us in every way possible.  It happened IN SPITE of the GOP, quite frankly.


You thought this was gonna be easy?

----------


## tod evans

> Funny, I'm a republican, Ron Paul is a republican, Rand Paul is a republican.  Hell, I've been a republican for a lot longer than I've known about Dr. Paul.    Good luck with your search though, just don't presume to speak for us republicans.


I'm not a (insert party here)........I'll back a man/woman based on who they are and what they stand for.

I will never pigeonhole myself into group-think.........For any reason.

RP made the decision to join and compete within the [R] party........I respect RP........Doesn't mean I abide by the [R] platform blindly.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm not a (insert party here)........I'll back a man/woman based on who they are and what they stand for.
> I will never pigeonhole myself into group-think.........For any reason.
> RP made the decision to join and compete within the [R] party........I respect RP........Doesn't mean I abide by the [R] platform blindly.


Well I think you misunderstood me.   I'm not emotionally invested in the label, its just a vehicle.   I have no problem calling myself a republican,  it would be no different than saying I drive a cadillac.   But  if the laws were setup where only cadillac drivers were allowed to drive faster, access restricted roads and drive without seat belts, I certainly wouldn't be arguing that I should downgrade to driving a gremlin.

----------


## tod evans

> That all happened because of US ... not because of the GOP, which has tried to derail us in every way possible.  It happened IN SPITE of the GOP, quite frankly.


There are lots of "Us" who I disagree with on some issues...

Personally I'm not for trying to reinvent the wheel, hell I'm too old and set in my ways.

But if ya'll want to try then have a go at it.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Thomas Massie laughs at this thread.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You thought this was gonna be easy?


Of course it isn't going to be "easy" when one group imposes itself on another who have nothing in common with said group and clearly don't want them.    Like I said in another post, it sounds an awful lot like neocon foreign policy.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

We've accomplished more within the republican party in 4 years than ANY third party has accomplished in 40 years!  We've actually elected our guys to the House and Senate.  Wake me up when any third party starts making those gains.

----------


## kathy88

> I'm not a (insert party here)........I'll back a man/woman based on who they are and what they stand for.
> 
> I will never pigeonhole myself into group-think.........For any reason.
> 
> RP made the decision to join and compete within the [R] party........I respect RP........Doesn't mean I abide by the [R] platform blindly.


The GOP doesn't abide by the platform either. Huh. Go figure.

----------


## specsaregood

> Of course it isn't going to be "easy" when one group imposes itself on another who have nothing in common with said group and clearly don't want them.    Like I said in another post, it sounds an awful lot like neocon foreign policy.


Now I know you aren't serious.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

One other thing 99.9% of everyone currently here on these forums wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Ron Paul running in 2007 under a major party and getting into the debates.  Those debates appearances in front of millions of viewers on tv and youtube clips later is what galvanized this movement.  Haven't you even watched the For Liberty documentary?  They even say so @ the 3:10 that it was the debate appearances that mattered.  Third party equates to no debates, no creditability, no legitimacy.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Now I know you aren't serious.


Serious as a heart attack.

----------


## specsaregood

> Serious as a heart attack.


Then I feel sorry for you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> One other thing 99.9% of everyone currently here on these forums wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Ron Paul running in 2007 under a major party and getting into the debates.


I won't disagree with that, and that's fine.  We used them to get into the debates and grow our movement.  Now would be a good time to take our liberty movement to another party (or one that we start ourselves) before the GOP completely co-opts us the way they did to the Tea Party.  I don't ever want to see another so-called "liberty candidate" endorsing Mitt Romney or some other neocon.

Added on edit:  if this means our growth is stalled or that we never win an election, at least we can hold up our heads.  If we can't connect with others on our ideas alone, then our country is doomed anyway.  What's the point of having a "liberty movement" if we sell out our values to the establishment?

----------


## TomtheTinker

Noo...maybe you just feel weak.

----------


## tod evans

> One other thing 99.9% of everyone currently here on these forums wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Ron Paul running in 2007 under a major party and getting into the debates.


Guess I'm part of the .01%....Cool!

----------


## Respect38

I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.

I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.

So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.

----------


## tod evans

> I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.
> 
> I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.
> 
> So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.


This "You Guy".....is listening to the only politician he's ever respected.

----------


## Kluge

> I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.
> 
> I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.
> 
> So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.


Would it make you feel better if it was a reclamation of what was once a respectable, legitimate party for American citizens that was taken over by neocons who don't give a rat's ass about the platform or the country?

----------


## mczerone

> We've accomplished more within the republican party in 4 years than ANY third party has accomplished in 40 years!  We've actually elected our guys to the House and Senate.  Wake me up when any third party starts making those gains.


I guess we disagree on what "accomplished" means. Sure some better people have been elected (Amash), but what has that really done to change hearts and minds and increase liberty in the world? These are just people who's voice is about .25% of the voice in the swamp, which is no better than the popular vote supporting the LP

I have also never been a GOPer, and I think that becoming the GOP and looking for political solutions will just further polarize people away from liberty, because the natural tendency is to root for politicians like sports teams. As we see more "success" in the GOP, there will just be more opposition to us from the majority of the population (independents and Dems).

The real path to success, more freedom and less violence, is to make ourselves beacons and leaders in our social groups. Becoming local politicians to lead by example and becoming the media to educate the people and just out-competing the statists at living our lives are vastly more effective means than focusing on national elections.

----------


## sailingaway

> I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.
> 
> I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.
> 
> So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.


If they aren't open to others joining they don't have a right to the ballot access they enjoy, preferential by state law to others.  

Frankly, I wish the lawsuit was going to that point.

But I don't think participating in hopes of being ELECTED to be the decisionmakers is morally wrong.

But SRSLY folks, is this the best thread title we could come up with?

----------


## mczerone

> Would it make you feel better if it was a reclamation of what was once a respectable, legitimate party for American citizens that was taken over by neocons who don't give a rat's ass about the platform or the country?


It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.

----------


## Carehn

*Why can't we do both?*

----------


## TomtheTinker

Not the only way but it is achievable. Also is no way morally wrong..nobody owns the party..also the republican party use to defend civil liberties, respect sound money and had a non interventioalis foreign policy...the people in control of the R party today who needs their morals checked.

----------


## Kluge

> It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.


I was asking "respect38." The GOP was far more respectable back in the day (I'd say prior to Reagan) and wasn't evangelical until him either. And you do know that neoconservatism is a relatively recent phenomenon too, don't you?

----------


## sailingaway

> It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.


Actually, the evangelical part isn't accurate.  That is with the Bush's.  The neocons manipulate the evangelicals to be their foot soldiers by holding things out (like convincing them only the never achievable 'federal solution' to abortion counts so they shouldn't even go for returning it to the states).  Obviously, if those few hot button issues are achieved, they would lose their foot soldiers.

Our sort were, then, if you will, a FACTION of the GOP and one that had a real power base.  so we are getting that back, then.

I have no particular preference for in GOP or out.  I see pros and cons.  But if we were out would we all stick together, after Ron leaves politics? Because we'd have to to have a chance doing anything else.

Also, I think the law suit should be modified and name the states as coconspirators based on their ballot preference to the two main parties, making us disenfranchised when one otherwise private party cheats this way.  Go for ballot access.  Unless I am missing something.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I won't disagree with that, and that's fine.  We used them to get into the debates and grow our movement.  Now would be a good time to take our liberty movement to another party (or one that we start ourselves) before the GOP completely co-opts us the way they did to the Tea Party.  I don't ever want to see another so-called "liberty candidate" endorsing Mitt Romney or some other neocon.
> 
> Added on edit:  if this means our growth is stalled or that we never win an election, at least we can hold up our heads.  If we can't connect with others on our ideas alone, then our country is doomed anyway.  What's the point of having a "liberty movement" if we sell out our values to the establishment?


Perot failed.  Buchanan failed.  Ventura failed.

They all had flash in the pan type third party movements and they all dissipated into nothingness and became a footnote to history.  Once Romney loses, we have a great opportunity to get one of our guys in the Presidency come 2016.  Rand will be a major front-runner for the office, if not _ the_ front-runner.  Thomas Massie will also be in position to fill Rand's Senate seat.  So not only are we having election success getting our guys into Congress, we're beginning to see a graduated formula for liberty candidates to step up into a minor office (County Judge Executive, State House, State Senate) and advance to another office when the guy above you moves up the ladder.  Third parties can't even win minor offices, let alone respectfully fund raise.  There is way too much cost in terms of education you need to do with the general public to run third party.  You start deviating from your message into trying to justify your existence to skeptical, uneducated, voters.  Starting a new party amounts to pushing on string, especially in light of the success we've been having taking over the Republican party.

----------


## V3n

The 2 parties have been in power too long, and one of the only things they agree on is "don't let there be a 3rd".  They've designed everything to prevent a 3rd party from gaining anything.

I hear "get Gary Johnson in the debates!" - but the two parties RUN the debates.  They will never allow a 3rd party in.  Our only choice is to RETAKE (not infiltrate) the GOP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates




> The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) *began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties* to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by Federal US tax laws,[1] whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.[2]
> 
> The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation *controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties*, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then *taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties* forming today's version of the CPD.
> 
> *The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk, a former head of the Democratic National Committee.* Under the leadership of these two former heads of party, the CPD established a _rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls_. This rule is considered controversial as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of two parties instead of the 10 or so parties that are actually running for President of the United States.


Oh.. and most of the "national polls" are run by biased organizations as well.. These parties are so entrenched and willing to protect each other to keep a new party out, 3rd party has no chance until we can retake one of the existing and open the doors for a 3rd.

----------


## TheGrinch

> It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.


So if you don't like something, you just turn your head and pretend it doesn't exist? Fact stands that the two-party monopoly exists to make it far more difficult for a 3rd party to gain traction. It's been tried for years to little avail...

We're continuing to make more gains then we've ever seen, while the corruption of the local GOPs continues to be exposed. 

Republican is nothing mroe than a word that's meaning has changed over time, depending on who's in charge. I think far too many focus on labels, when we have the opportunity to change it (or in many ways bring the term back to what it claims to be: small government). 

If we reinforce their meme that "we don't belong", then all that does is enable them and the democrats to maintain their control and sink this country with debt and warfare. So how bout forget about party affiliations, the stakes are too high not to try to make as many gains as we can before it's too late, and it's evident that this is the only route we even have a chance to make change in the short-term.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.
> 
> I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.
> 
> So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.


So go join the Socialist party and we'll continue doing what we're doing and we can compare notes.  Since we're already electing our guys to major Federal offices, *people directly from these forums!*...Think about that for a moment.   We'll win this argument.  Paul supporters had this debate 4 years ago, and Ron told everyone what we should do and its starting to bare fruit.

----------


## specsaregood

> The 2 parties have been in power too long, and one of the only things they agree on is "don't let there be a 3rd".  They've designed everything to prevent a 3rd party from gaining anything.
> 
> I hear "get Gary Johnson in the debates!" - but the two parties RUN the debates.  They will never allow a 3rd party in.  Our only choice is to RETAKE (not infiltrate) the GOP!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates


and they even make it a point to not use taxdollars to fund the debates, preventing people from making an argument for inclusion of other candidates based on that.

----------


## TXcarlosTX

NEO-CONS infiltrated. It took them many years. Look at them now!!! 

I'm just saying...

----------


## V3n

> and they even make it a point to not use taxdollars to fund the debates, preventing people from making an argument for inclusion of other candidates based on that.


Good catch!!  (or you probably knew that before! - good point!!)




> The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by Federal US tax laws,[1] whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.[2]

----------


## specsaregood

> Good catch!!  (or you probably knew that before! - good point!!)


Yeah, if people were serious about trying to get other candidates in those debates, they would team up the LP, CP, GP, etc party supporters and start an organized effort to target the sponsors telling them they'll boycott or whatever if they sponsor the exclusive debates.   Since they don't yet have listed sponsors for these next debates I guess it would be good to preempt by contacting last years sponsors (conveniently listed on their website)

http://www.debates.org/index.php?pag...ebate-sponsors

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Actually, the evangelical part isn't accurate.  That is with the Bush's.  The neocons manipulate the evangelicals to be their foot soldiers by holding things out (like convincing them only the never achievable 'federal solution' to abortion counts so they shouldn't even go for returning it to the states).  Obviously, if those few hot button issues are achieved, they would lose their foot soldiers.
> 
> Our sort were, then, if you will, a FACTION of the GOP and one that had a real power base.  so we are getting that back, then.
> 
> I have no particular preference for in GOP or out.  I see pros and cons.  But if we were out would we all stick together, after Ron leaves politics? Because we'd have to to have a chance doing anything else.
> 
> Also, I think the law suit should be modified and name the states as coconspirators based on their ballot preference to the two main parties, making us disenfranchised when one otherwise private party cheats this way.  Go for ballot access.  Unless I am missing something.


I think we'd splinter and scatter to the wind in a third party.  Ron's liberty movement will succeed, where other movements have failed, because we have a unifying theme of Liberty and we're working inside a major party.  That party will incrementally be imbued with our Liberty values.  Our people will be in positions to help newbies getting their feet wet in the political process.  We'll revolutionize the party and new voters will come flooding in.

----------


## Victor Grey



----------


## LibertyRevolution

> One other thing 99.9% of everyone currently here on these forums wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Ron Paul running in 2007 under a major party and getting into the debates.  Those debates appearances in front of millions of viewers on tv and youtube clips later is what galvanized this movement.  Haven't you even watched the For Liberty documentary?  They even say so @ the 3:10 that it was the debate appearances that mattered.  Third party equates to no debates, no creditability, no legitimacy.



And this is why we are saying lets get the RP voter block to vote LP in 2012, then they will be in the debates!
If we can get the LP to break the 15% barrier, they will have a podium at the debates for the general election!

You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?

----------


## specsaregood

> You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?


Yes, and what did he say about the experience?

----------


## sailingaway

> And this is why we are saying lets get the RP voter block to vote LP in 2012, then they will be in the debates!
> If we can get the LP to break the 15% barrier, they will have a podium at the debates for the general election!
> 
> You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?


Yeah, and looking at old candidates I can even see ones I would have liked, but I have a sort of 'what on earth happened' feeling when I look at those the LP has picked since I was really focusing on them, for President, at least.  "Party of Principles" sings to me, but I just don't see it.  I'm not trying to be bashing, I'm giving my honest assessment of one reason why I pretty much forclosed for myself the idea of going to the LP.  A new party is still theoretically open in my mind if we could make a go of it, but it seems as if what happened to the GOP also happened in the LP, the 'pragmaticism', and I can get that in the GOP, amongst candidates I don't like, and they might win.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, and what did he say about the experience?


Things have changed since 1988.

----------


## Victor Grey

> but I have a sort of 'what on earth happened' feeling when I look at those the LP has picked since I was really focusing on them, for President, at least.  "Party of Principles" sings to me, but I just don't see it.


You aren't alone.

----------


## specsaregood

> Things have changed since 1988.


No, I don't believe that is what he had to say.

----------


## July

The Republican party, since it's formation, has had a history of various groups, coalitions, and ex members of other parties joining. There's no reason we can't do the same and have a seat at the table also...and we would not even be the first 'liberty' oriented group to do so.

----------


## tbone717

There has been a liberty movement in the GOP for decades now, and that movement has been working to return the party to its founding principles.  Things like this simply do not happen over night, but take a very long time to achieve.  There are more elected libertarian-conservatives in the GOP than in any other party.  Additionally, there are many who will be on the ballot this November that have a realistic chance of winning their races.  It would be foolish to walk away from all the work that has been done to start anew.

For those looking instant gratification, then politics is probably not the best place for you.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...Ron's liberty movement will succeed, where other movements have failed, because we have a unifying theme of Liberty and we're working inside a major party.  That party will incrementally be imbued with our Liberty values.  Our people will be in positions to help newbies getting their feet wet in the political process.  We'll revolutionize the party and new voters will come flooding in.



And everyone lives happily ever.

The End.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Oh, for the love of God, are we still talking about bailing on our tangible gains in the GOP in favor for circle jerking in the LP??! I can see how some people may feel a little sticky about being in the GOP and basically being a republican in the average persons' eye. But, as we keep injecting our ideas and comrades into said party, the terminology of a perceived republican will change. If being a republican becomes closely synonymous with being a libertarian then who cares. Bottom line is this, Ron has clearly laid out the reasoning as why we should continue our reclamation of the GOP and it's already showing signs of success in more than just a few venues. Contrast that with how we'll be doing in two years or with that if we bailed, splintered back to normal and played the third party dead end. I guess we need a thread like this once per week to keep the target in the forefront. There's nothing I can do to help those that refuse to participate because of whatever excuse they put forward to justify their personal umbrage to this direction of pushing for our cause. Stay the course!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> And this is why we are saying lets get the RP voter block to vote LP in 2012, then they will be in the debates!
> If we can get the LP to break the 15% barrier, they will have a podium at the debates for the general election!
> 
> You all do realize that Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 88 for president, don't you?


I'm not convinced Gary Johnson wouldn't get schooled by more polished politicians.  He just doesn't look ready for primetime in front of the camera.  The Commission on Presidential Debates runs the show and they are an arm of both parties.  They'd have no issue with moving the goalposts to obstruct Gary if need be.  The only reason Perot got into the debates is because he was a billionaire who could fight the system and Bush's team wanted him included to hurt Clinton, which of course backfired.  I don't think Johnson has the charisma it would take to reach 15% nationally, he certainly doesn't have the budget to do it either.    Ron Paul realized what a lost cause running third party was and promptly switched tactics.  I think by us just being here having this discussion on this forum speaks volumes as to Ron making the correct choice post-1988 to ditch the LP.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Oh, for the love of God, are we still talking about bailing on our tangible gains in the GOP in favor for circle jerking in the LP??! I can see how some people may feel a little sticky about being in the GOP and basically being a republican in the average persons' eye. But, as we keep injecting our ideas and comrades into said party, the terminology of a perceived republican will change. If being a republican becomes closely synonymous with being a libertarian then who cares. Bottom line is this, Ron has clearly laid out the reasoning as why we should continue our reclamation of the GOP and it's already showing signs of success in more than just a few venues. Contrast that with how we'll be doing in two years or with that if we bailed, splintered back to normal and played the third party dead end. I guess we need a thread like this once per week to keep the target in the forefront. There's nothing I can do to help those that refuse to participate because of whatever excuse they put forward to justify their personal umbrage to this direction of pushing for our cause. Stay the course!


Stay the course Paulites, we've come too damn far to give up now!

----------


## LibertyEagle

Why are some arguing to bail when we are finally starting to see success?   It makes zero sense.   What RP supporters did in Iowa and Missouri, needs to be duplicated all over the country.  We don't need RP to tell us what to do after the convention.  He has already told us.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Yeah, and looking at old candidates I can even see ones I would have liked, but I have a sort of 'what on earth happened' feeling when I look at those the LP has picked since I was really focusing on them, for President, at least.  "Party of Principles" sings to me, but I just don't see it.  I'm not trying to be bashing, I'm giving my honest assessment of one reason why I pretty much forclosed for myself the idea of going to the LP.  A new party is still theoretically open in my mind if we could make a go of it, but it seems as if what happened to the GOP also happened in the LP, the 'pragmaticism', and I can get that in the GOP, amongst candidates I don't like, and they might win.


You would need a young, charismatic, billionaire just to compete, and even then you'd likely still lose.  You would need someone along the lines of a Peter Thiel.  Of course Thiel was born in Germany so that ends that little postulate.  The two-party system is too ingrained into American consciousness at this point.  If you introduce anything else in its place, you start getting glitches in the Matrix.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> Thought provoking, allow me to retort.
> 
> http://www.lp.org/
> 
> Good luck with that!


Post of the year.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Why are some arguing to bail when we are finally starting to see success?   It makes zero sense.   What RP supporters did in Iowa and Missouri, needs to be duplicated all over the country.  We don't need RP to tell us what to do after the convention.  He has already told us.


+1776

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, I don't believe that is what he had to say.


That's what I had to say.

----------


## sailingaway

> 


Yeah, so don't try.  You don't herd cats, you attract them with something they want.

We found RON, he didn't find us.  We have to find others.  And grow our own.

You show us the next guy who sticks to the standard like Ron Paul and you won't be able to beat us off with a stick.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Why are some arguing to bail when we are finally starting to see success?   It makes zero sense.   What RP supporters did in Iowa and Missouri, needs to be duplicated all over the country.  We don't need RP to tell us what to do after the convention.  He has already told us.


It's not bailing, it's not being sold on it as being the best plan to proceed with in the first place. This is because: 

1) While clearly there have been some successes, we clearly see the dark side the strategy also leads to (Rand Paul's practical decision to compromise by endorsing AND campaigning for Romney, and future compromises to come). This overall guarantees the current corrupt GOP "more war/more Fed/more false flag" partisans will continue to be never held accountable for their dirty pool tactics, because we will end up "being respectful" and never challenging the fraud, or the purges (in order to forever 'position' ourselves for future election cycles). Preoccupation with positioning and politics is not prioritizing principle, and never will be.

2) The other shoe has not dropped, although the hammer has already stated to come down by TPTB. This is not the first alternative 'takeover' movement that has come to the dance, just the latest. As with all other attempts to transform the Republican world, the Empire will strike back---by changing the rules on a dime, as seen in the state delegate battles, and likely performing a purge of Paulites from their positions in the state parties after the election, unless they drop or suppress their liberty issues. Get in line with the tea party, and other former insurgents, the giant corporate and elite interests running both big parties only accept that we be co-opted or marginalized. They have the immense resources to ensure that they remain the ringmasters of the big tent.

3) There is a better way, namely using both major parties as leverage vehicles only, and running a principled liberty campaign as either Democrats or Republicans, in primaries where there is an open seat (the Ron Paul campaigns of 2008 and 2012 are themselves examples of this method, and his achievements speak as much to this approach as they do the 'transform the GOP' plan). The LP continues to run educational campaigns to seed present and future pro-liberty voters, while also vetting the authentic liberty candidates who can then run the "Ron Paul" principled campaign in the right major party primaries. This creates an independent, virtual party or political power structure not dependent on either major party, and takes over or replaces the statist establishment over time without being co-opted, neutered or marginalized.

This is a reasonable alternative, probably a more successful one long term, and its supporters are not going away, or going to be run off. There are different approaches that should be accepted as persistent in the movement, without one side dictating to the other to drop their preference.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Oh, for the love of God, are we still talking about bailing on our tangible gains in the GOP in favor for circle jerking in the LP??! I can see how some people may feel a little sticky about being in the GOP and basically being a republican in the average persons' eye. But, as we keep injecting our ideas and comrades into said party, the terminology of a perceived republican will change. If being a republican becomes closely synonymous with being a libertarian then who cares. Bottom line is this, Ron has clearly laid out the reasoning as why we should continue our reclamation of the GOP and it's already showing signs of success in more than just a few venues. Contrast that with how we'll be doing in two years or with that if we bailed, splintered back to normal and played the third party dead end. I guess we need a thread like this once per week to keep the target in the forefront. There's nothing I can do to help those that refuse to participate because of whatever excuse they put forward to justify their personal umbrage to this direction of pushing for our cause. Stay the course!


The rhetoric can be turned around, as in, for the love of God, Paul didn't succeed in winning a single primary in two runs for the GOP nomination, so are we STILL talking about "working inside the GOP" to achieve change? Are we still believing that the current establishment leadership can be converted from within through a fair process, without plainly and openly addressing election fraud, or false flags, big party co-opting tactics, or coordinating with third party movements instead of dumping on them? There is a better outside path available for winning elections (see my above post) that does not involve settling for educational campaigns, that has also shown some success. Let's stop fighting, and respect both approaches.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Let's stop fighting, and respect both approaches.


I agree, and I like point #3 in your previous post about a long term goal of making 3rd parties viable. But without gaining support to be able to do that within the major parties, that strategy has proved more doomed to fail so far. 

And no matter whether you think the takeover strategy will be fruitful in policy change or not, it nonetheless is effective in exposing the corruption of the local GOPs (still holding out hope that this lawsuit can expose it nationally). This is only growing our numbers to take it back with folks who will never go back after seeing the light of liberty and darkness of corruption. We've seen with majorities at many conventions where we've even taken over some of them, and I was amazed how close we actually were to a majority in my homestate and Republican establishment-stronghold, Georgia (even despite them throwing out the Athens slate and other delegates that should have been ours).

The fact that they're fighting us so hard, even after they're trying to call the nomination to Romney, should show that we don't need need to be afraid of them as their numbers are waning. They need to be afraid of us as our numbers only continue to grow. Their actions suggest that they already are...

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> The rhetoric can be turned around, as in, for the love of God, Paul didn't succeed in winning a single primary in two runs for the GOP nomination, so are we STILL talking about "working inside the GOP" to achieve change? Are we still believing that the current establishment leadership can be converted from within through a fair process, without plainly and openly addressing election fraud, or false flags, big party co-opting tactics, or coordinating with third party movements instead of dumping on them? There is a better outside path available for winning elections (see my above post) that does not involve settling for educational campaigns, that has also shown some success. Let's stop fighting, and respect both approaches.


Point taken, let me rephrase. When it comes to delegates, which is based on organizing, we have at least 5 or 6 legit wins and plenty more success when all is said and done. We were never going to win a primary with the media's abuse of the Ron Paul name which is why Rand is employing his stealth strategy to beat them and the political class at their own game. I grew up in the LP and got bored with the lack of tangible success and I'm convinced as of this election season that all we have to do is keep vamping up our numbers in the GOP to continue to reclaim it to where we want it to be. Since there's only so much that our set number of activists can do, using different approaches pinches our overall numbers at Ron's state goal of restoring the GOP. There are many Paul enthusiasts that do just about nothing in terms of activism which, imo, doesn't include voting since it's a prerequisite for anyone that claims to be a citizen (not getting into sovereignty debates). So, we need all hands (activists) on deck to focus our attention toward one common goal to make up for those we lose in the enthusiasts do-nothing camp. The common goal should be where the most amount of success can be had in the shortest amount of time. Outside of the FSP, restoring the GOP would be that common goal that constitutionalists should rally behind by virtue of our recent successes. People will do what they want either way but it should be obvious that success hasn't come from third parties, otherwise I'd be open to it.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...These parties are so entrenched and willing to protect each other to keep a new party out, 3rd party has no chance until we can *retake one of the existing and open the doors for a 3rd.*






> ...and it's evident that this is *the only route* we even have a chance to make change in the short-term.



I dunno what part of this Schemers don't GET but, by the time GOP TAKEOVER FOLKS get far enough INTO the Republican Party, they (like legions of well-intended before them) will NOT support a third party...which could only ERODE THEIR POWER.

A third party WILL erode the power of the "Big Two".  

Not to suggest a third party is suddenly bigger or badder than either 'D' or 'R', but it DOES detract from both.  EXCELLENT.

----------


## cheapseats

> I hear "get Gary Johnson in the debates!" - but the two parties RUN the debates.  *They will never allow a 3rd party in.*  Our only choice is to RETAKE (not infiltrate) the GOP!






> Fact stands that the *two-party monopoly exists to make it far more difficult for a 3rd party to gain traction*. It's been tried for years to little avail...







> Yeah, if people were serious about trying to get other candidates in those debates, they would team up the LP, CP, GP, etc party supporters and start an organized effort to *target the sponsors* telling them they'll boycott or whatever if they sponsor the exclusive debates.   Since they don't yet have listed sponsors for these next debates I guess it would be good to preempt by contacting last years sponsors (conveniently listed on their website)



“In day-to-day commerce, television is not so much interested in the business of communications as in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers. People are the merchandise, not the shows. The shows are merely the bait.”  - Les Brown

----------


## romancito

> Things have changed since 1988.


We have fought two wars at the sacrificial expense of blood and limbs and paid two trillion to do them, to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I 'sigh' and dismay at what all of you have said above about keeping Dr. Paul's policies and philosophies within the Republican party. I also have to laugh. Romney last week met at a private resort with 300 of his rich supporters and the Republican party bosses and Ron Paul was not even given the slightest minimum thought. The Republican party will never be about 'liberty.' It will always be about power and the power of money. 

Look at Egypt and how difficult it has been for them just to get one man on first base. 

I feel sorry that Dr. Paul is unable to free himself from the shackles of power grabbing and shake himself loose of the binds of the Republican party. I don't see him exercising the 'liberty' he so much promotes. 

Creating the Ron Paul Party seems to me the best course of action at this time. With his own political party he will be able to get his causes, policies and philosophy advance with the strongest possible outcome. Let those Republicans that feel betrayed by their party to join the Ron Paul party instead of asking Democrats and others to join the Republican party in a contortionist bid to fit a square peg into a round hole. My two cents.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I 'sigh' and dismay at what all of you have said above about keeping Dr. Paul's policies and philosophies within the Republican party. I also have to laugh. Romney last week met at a private resort with 300 of his rich supporters and the Republican party bosses and Ron Paul was not even given the slightest minimum thought. The Republican party will never be about 'liberty.' It will always be about power and the power of money. 
> 
> Creating the Ron Paul Party seems to me the best course of action at this time.


I wouldn't be surprised if the lawsuit didn't make for a topic of discussion at their shindig. Anywho, the concept of liberty has been relegated to obscurity until Ron brought it out in the GOP. The Fed is now a broad issue that is receiving significant observance from conservatives everywhere, even getting a com hearing in a week or so. As far as keeping these ideas in the GOP, if we didn't we'd have to play catchup elsewhere. We're also poised in many states to continue reclaiming state and local parties which adds to furthering the liberty momentum in the GOP. The lion's share of the Paul movement is focused on restoring our liberty through strengthening our helm in the GOP but those that choose otherwise can do so. Helping a 2nd or 3rd option will be a tough task when the bulk are focusing on building upon our successes in reshaping the GOP.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Working inside the GOP is going great for me.  For example, I won an election because no New Hampshire Republican would run against me.  I guess it depends where you live.  I live in a state where the majority of the GOP leadership is welcoming to pro-liberty volunteers, candidates and leadership.  I don't attend a lot of the GOP events I find boring.  I tend to attend the events I find interesting and only get involved with the projects that interest me.  No one in the NH GOP leadership has ever been rude or disrespectful to me.

----------


## mstrmac1

Even if by some miracle we able to infiltrate and capture our message with in the GOP, our message would get watered down. It's best to start a new brand Because the old brand dilutes the new.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Working inside the GOP is going great for me.  For example, I won an election because no New Hampshire Republican would run against me.  I guess it depends where you live.  I live in a state where the majority of the GOP leadership is welcoming to pro-liberty volunteers, candidates and leadership.  I don't attend a lot of the GOP events I find boring.  I tend to attend the events I find interesting and only get involved with the projects that interest me.  No one in the NH GOP leadership has ever been rude or disrespectful to me.


Good stuff.  I like seeing real life examples instead of this pie-in-the-sky third party talk...which has never worked.

----------


## mczerone

> Good stuff.  I like seeing real life examples instead of this pie-in-the-sky third party talk...which has never worked.


If nobody else was running, he would have won as a third party candidate, too...

----------


## parocks

> I always felt like trying to take over another party just feels... morally wrong.
> 
> I mean, we could all join the Communist USA, and we'd easily outnumber them and we'd control the platform, etc, but we'd still be taking over a party of people who believe nothing like us.
> 
> So... whatever. I guess you guys can try to take over the Republican Party... I'll root for ya. I don't feel like it's right, but you guys are dead set on thinking it's the only way.


The Paul tradition within the Republican party goes back at least to Robert Taft.

The neocon tradition within the Republican part goes back to Irving Kristol's support of Richard Nixon instead of George McGovern in 1972.  

It is those neocons who took over the party, and it is those neocons who most resist Ron Paul.

The country-clubbers, the Eastern Establishment, well, they've clearly been a part of the Republican Party a long time,  but the conservatives in the Taft tradition deserve a larger place than the neocons do,  and there's nothing wrong with removing the neocons who have not been here long.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> If nobody else was running, he would have won as a third party candidate, too...


It was an elected state Republican Party position.  Only a Republican could win.

----------


## parocks

> You would need a young, charismatic, billionaire just to compete, and even then you'd likely still lose.  You would need someone along the lines of a Peter Thiel.  Of course Thiel was born in Germany so that ends that little postulate.  The two-party system is too ingrained into American consciousness at this point.  If you introduce anything else in its place, you start getting glitches in the Matrix.


Mark Cuban

----------


## Respect38

> This "You Guy".....is listening to the only politician he's ever respected.


Alright...?




> Would it make you feel better if it was a reclamation of what was once a respectable, legitimate party for American citizens that was taken over by neocons who don't give a rat's ass about the platform or the country?


Yeah, good point... 

I still have no idea what a neocon is, though.




> If they aren't open to others joining they don't have a right to the ballot access they enjoy, preferential by state law to others.  
> 
> Frankly, I wish the lawsuit was going to that point.
> 
> But I don't think participating in hopes of being ELECTED to be the decisionmakers is morally wrong.
> 
> But SRSLY folks, is this the best thread title we could come up with?


Alright, that makes sense now. If that majority of Republicans want Ron Paul, then it will happen.




> So go join the Socialist party and we'll continue doing what we're doing and we can compare notes.  Since we're already electing our guys to major Federal offices, *people directly from these forums!*...Think about that for a moment.   We'll win this argument.  Paul supporters had this debate 4 years ago, and Ron told everyone what we should do and its starting to bare fruit.


And... we're back down again.

I wasn't saying we should do it, I was just pointing out that if we wanted to, we could, and that just seems... wrong, to me.

Why the hell would I want to go to the Socialist party though? That just came out of nowhere.




> The Paul tradition within the Republican party goes back at least to Robert Taft.
> 
> The neocon tradition within the Republican part goes back to Irving Kristol's support of Richard Nixon instead of George McGovern in 1972.  
> 
> It is those neocons who took over the party, and it is those neocons who most resist Ron Paul.
> 
> The country-clubbers, the Eastern Establishment, well, they've clearly been a part of the Republican Party a long time,  but the conservatives in the Taft tradition deserve a larger place than the neocons do,  and there's nothing wrong with removing the neocons who have not been here long.


Another good answer, thank you, paroks...

What I kinda want to know is... how did this happen? When did the GOP go so wrong...?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Even if by some miracle we able to infiltrate and capture our message with in the GOP, our message would get watered down. It's best to start a new brand Because the old brand dilutes the new.


At least push a brand in terms of a 'virtual' party system where we seek to get people into office in either big party, where the opportunity presents itself. That pushes the liberty agenda, without watering it down, or trying to graft ourselves onto a Republican or Democratic institutional matrix that is going to remain INTENSELY active in putting us down. And I have to point out to the posters who suggest Paul's ideas, e.g. on the Fed, are becoming more mainstream that the only person pushing for a vote on auditing the Fed was Paul. Absent his initiative, not ONE of the other members of Congress would be pushing the bill (well, in the Senate, maybe Rand, but the jury is still out). 

During the GOP debates, the other candidates talked a lot about the Fed, the Wars and other real issues Paul injected into the campaign. As soon as he was no longer getting regular campaign media coverage and Romney became the presumed winner, *all such talk stopped,* by both the other candidates and the media. He injected those issues, but in the absence of coverage of him they promptly ejected those issues. Paul is simply not getting mainline GOP or media reps to prioritize the big issues, and certainly not from a liberty perspective.

----------


## Kluge

> Mark Cuban


Why?

----------


## Kluge

Respect38: Look up Irving Kristol to get an idea of what a neocon is. In a nutshell, it's a leftist who loves war.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Neo-conservatism...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> There has been a liberty movement in the GOP for decades now, and that movement has been working to return the party to its founding principles.  Things like this simply do not happen over night, but take a very long time to achieve.  There are more elected libertarian-conservatives in the GOP than in any other party.  Additionally, there are many who will be on the ballot this November that have a realistic chance of winning their races.  It would be foolish to walk away from all the work that has been done to start anew.
> 
> For those looking instant gratification, then politics is probably not the best place for you.


Yup.  Dancing with the Stars or Jersey Shore.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Mark Cuban


He says some pretty non-liberty things on occasion.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Respect38: Look up Irving Kristol to get an idea of what a neocon is. In a nutshell, it's a leftist who loves war.


Here is their master plan:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Here is their master plan:
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/


That's a great song!

----------


## Carehn

> Here is their master plan:
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/


That is some crazy site!?!?

----------


## TheGrinch

> That is some crazy site!?!?


It only gets crazier. The thinktank was started by Bill Kristol, and included all of these who would be part of the GWB administration:



> *
> Elliott Abrams* 	Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
> *Richard Armitage* 	Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
> *John R. Bolton* 	Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
> *Dick Cheney* 	Vice President (2001–2009)
> *Eliot A. Cohen* 	Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)[62]
> *Seth Cropsey* 	Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
> *Paula Dobriansky* 	Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
> *Aaron Friedberg* 	Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (2003–2005)
> ...


Just skim over the wikipedia page, but here's the quote that pretty much confirms that even if they didn't have any hand in 9/11, they sure were ready to use it as a pretext for war:




> Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: *"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"* .[14]
> 
> Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[39][40][41] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[42] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[43]* all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.*

----------


## mstrmac1

So how long will it take to infiltrate something that has been going on for 100 years? The hard part is we won't know who is really "a liberty candidate" and who is not! I know we have come a long way.... And I proud of each and every one you.. But to think we can change Republicans into what we think they should be is just foolish. Moving forward we should consider transferring to our own brand! It's much easier to sell to people who are fed up! Look at The tea party( hijacked)... Rand Paul ( playing politics and hijacked)... Liberty fest in Tampa ( Romney is holding his own to dilute our message) Wake up!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So how long will it take to infiltrate something that has been going on for 100 years? The hard part is we won't know who is really "a liberty candidate" and who is not! I know we have come a long way.... And I proud of each and every one you.. But to think we can change Republicans into what we think they should be is just foolish. Moving forward we should consider transferring to our own brand! It's much easier to sell to people who are fed up! Look at The tea party( hijacked)... Rand Paul ( playing politics and hijacked)... Liberty fest in Tampa ( Romney is holding his own to dilute our message) Wake up!


You wake up.  Look at the Libertarian Party and how irrelevant they have been.  And now, they are nominating the likes of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.  Whoopee.  But, you are suggesting we start a new party and spend years just getting on the ballot?  That makes 0 sense.  And IF we were ever able to get past that hurdle, then we'd have to thwart efforts that would be made to take it over.

Oh, and Rand Paul has not been hijacked.

----------


## mstrmac1

> You wake up.  Look at the Libertarian Party and how irrelevant they have been.  And now, they are nominating the likes of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.  Whoopee.  But, you are suggesting we start a new party and spend years just getting on the ballot?  That makes 0 sense.  And IF we were ever able to get past that hurdle, then we'd have to thwart efforts that would be made to take it over.
> 
> Oh, and Rand Paul has not been hijacked.


I'm awake bro! Trust me. I'm not saying we haven't made some inroads... Because we have! We are having some mini successes and I can see how many are excited with that. Moving forward is what is next... I just don't think anyone understands what a machine were up against. It is a great opportunity to pull a new brand off... What happens when there is no Ron Paul to lead the movement? You don't think they can divide and conquer us? When we're all mixed in a room it's hard to tell who's who. I think it would be much easier today, moving forward to build our own house. And yes it's only easier because of all the hard work that's been put in trying to infiltrate the party... I get it. Wrong approach. Third party is much more reachable than its ever been.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm awake bro! Trust me. I'm not saying we haven't made some inroads... Because we have! We are having some mini successes and I can see how many are excited with that. Moving forward is what is next... I just don't think anyone understands what a machine were up against. It is a great opportunity to pull a new brand off... What happens when there is no Ron Paul to lead the movement? You don't think they can divide and conquer us? When we're all mixed in a room it's hard to tell who's who. I think it would be much easier today, moving forward to build our own house. And yes it's only easier because of all the hard work that's been put in trying to infiltrate the party... I get it. Wrong approach. Third party is much more reachable than its ever been.


There is not enough of us.  Not nearly enough.  Third parties don't get in debates; nor get any media time.  If it wasn't for that and the fact that we would spend years getting on all of the ballots, it might be worth considering.  But, that is not the case.  We have to attract a whole lot more people and we need a podium from which to do that.  That leaves one of the major parties.

----------


## parocks

Shouldn't we just continue doing what we've been doing for the last 72 years or so?  We're Conservatives.  Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutionalist Conservatives.  The more candidates of ours we get elected, the stronger and more influential the Libertarian / Constitutional faction of the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party will be.  We make the case that True Conservativism is Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservatism, and then that Conservativism is the core of the Republican Party.  Libertarian vs Social Conservatives.  Conservatives vs Eastern Establishment.  That's why I think Ron Paul is continuing to attack Santorum for no apparent reason.  He understands that he, not Santorum, should be considered the leader of the Conservatives, or that his brand of Conservative is the right one, the strong one.

There are 2 parties that win regularly, and Ron Paul's ideas have never been a part of the Democrat tradition, and have always been a part of the Republican tradition.

I expect most people here to be voting for Gary Johnson though.

----------


## mstrmac1

> There is not enough of us.  Not nearly enough.  Third parties don't get in debates; nor get any media time.  If it wasn't for that and the fact that we would spend years getting on all of the ballots, it might be worth considering.  But, that is not the case.  We have to attract a whole lot more people and we need a podium from which to do that.  That leaves one of the major parties.


4 years from now if Rand Paul doesn't run in or if Romney gets elected and its a democrat running against him,who will you vote for then... Get it now?

----------


## parocks

Saying that the "Conservatives are enthusiastic this year" could describe what we're doing, instead of "the Ron Paul people are taking over".  "This is a good year for the Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservatives, they're turning out for Conventions like never before".  Explain it as a natural process, and not a takeover.  There has always since Taft, if not longer, been a Limited Constitutional Government Conservative Wing of the Republican Party.  Ron Paul is the leader of that wing. We shouldn't be portraying ourselves as outsiders, but the True Conservatives.  At this particular moment, there is no reason at all to appeal to anybody but Republicans.  Of course, later there will be, but we need to keep our eyes on Tampa, and Independents don't count in Tampa.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> There is not enough of us.  Not nearly enough.  Third parties don't get in debates; nor get any media time.  If it wasn't for that and the fact that we would spend years getting on all of the ballots, it might be worth considering.  But, that is not the case.  We have to attract a whole lot more people and we need a podium from which to do that.  That leaves one of the major parties.


No, that leaves BOTH of the major parties, used differently, WITH coordination with liberty third parties. The establishment uses the two party system to marginalize and neutralize principled movements be they both outside OR inside the major parties. We've already seen decades of legislative failure trying to reverse tyranny from inside the major parties, and decades of electoral failure running outside the two parties. Repeating the same 'work inside GOP' mistakes is not enough for us, and we should not be committing to wasting more decades on it. Continuing to seed liberty through third party educational campaigns is valuable, but also insufficient for changing policy.

By not being compromised, the LP and CP provide a primary vetting system for new liberty activists that is independent of the establishment parties. Running for open seats in WHATEVER major party primary situation that arises, drawing from the grassroots base of independent, uncompromised liberty candidates, is the key going forward. Major party versus minor party liberty activism is a false dichotomy. Let's work together, to make progress.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Shouldn't we just continue doing what we've been doing for the last 72 years or so?  We're Conservatives.  Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutionalist Conservatives.


That means failing for another 72 years. Let's do something else.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm awake bro! Trust me. I'm not saying we haven't made some inroads... Because we have! We are having some mini successes and I can see how many are excited with that. Moving forward is what is next... *I just don't think anyone understands what a machine were up against.* It is a great opportunity to pull a new brand off... What happens when there is no Ron Paul to lead the movement? *You don't think they can divide and conquer us?* When we're all mixed in a room it's hard to tell who's who. I think it would be much easier today, moving forward to build our own house. And yes it's only easier because of all the hard work that's been put in trying to infiltrate the party... I get it. *Wrong approach.* Third party is much more reachable than its ever been.


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mstrmac1 again.*

----------


## Carlybee

Something everyone is forgetting. We have the ability to raise a lot of money. Something the Libertarian Party and most other 3rd parties can't do. We had a billionaire and a millionaire form SuperPacs for the cause of liberty and Ron Paul. I think you are underestimating resourcefulness with regard to forming a new party. What the big 2 have is the MIC and Big Corps running them. That would be the fly in the ointment.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That means failing for another 72 years. Let's do something else.


If you can't see how the political scene has changed from 1940 to 2012 with the use of the Internet and social media I can't help but facepalm your post.  We're having enormous influence in a very short span of 4 years.  We've accomplished more in 4 years than other parties and groups have in the last 50 years!  The only office that has alluded our reach thus far has been the Presidency, but mark my words, it's coming!  Once again, third parties can't even organize or fund raise to elect a dog catcher, let alone someone to the House of Representative or even more exclusive, the United States Senate.  It's a new world now, people are slowly waking up and taking the blinders off, there are more avenues to get news than ever before.  The information barriers are failing.

Rand Paul will be _the_ front runner in 2016 and you damn well know Ron will be at arms length as his confidant and most trusted advisor.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Something everyone is forgetting. We have the ability to raise a lot of money. Something the Libertarian Party and most other 3rd parties can't do. We had a billionaire and a millionaire form SuperPacs for the cause of liberty and Ron Paul. I think you are underestimating resourcefulness with regard to forming a new party. What the big 2 have is the MIC and Big Corps running them. That would be the fly in the ointment.


Ron Paul and Liberty movement can raise more money in 24 hours than all third parties have raised since their existence.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Shouldn't we just continue doing what we've been doing for the last 72 years or so?  We're Conservatives.  Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutionalist Conservatives.  The more candidates of ours we get elected, the stronger and more influential the Libertarian / Constitutional faction of the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party will be.  We make the case that True Conservativism is Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservatism, and then that Conservativism is the core of the Republican Party.  Libertarian vs Social Conservatives.  Conservatives vs Eastern Establishment.  That's why I think Ron Paul is continuing to attack Santorum for no apparent reason.  He understands that he, not Santorum, should be considered the leader of the Conservatives, or that his brand of Conservative is the right one, the strong one.
> 
> There are 2 parties that win regularly, and Ron Paul's ideas have never been a part of the Democrat tradition, and have always been a part of the Republican tradition.
> 
> I expect most people here to be voting for Gary Johnson though.


It's not that I am disagreeing with everything that you're saying, but there needs to be a history lesson.

First political parties, although unofficial, were known as the Administration and the Anti-Administration.  The Administration (led by G. Washington and A. Hamilton) embraced a strong central government and central banking system.  The Anti-Administration (lead by T. Jefferson and J. Madison) were against strong central government and stating that central banking was unconstitutional.  

The Administration later became known as the Federalist and the Anti-Administration later became the Anti-Federalist.  Another issue of division between the parties arose under the Jay Treaty with Britian.  Britain was at war with France and France had helped the US during the Revolutionary War against Britain.  

After Jefferson was elected in 1801, the Anti-Federalist party had been deemed the Democratic-Republican party. The Federalist faded into non-existance after the War of 1812.  After Jefferson was elected, the Democratic-Republican Party was dominate until 1824, known as the First Party System.  

In 1825, John Q. Adams was elected President by the House of Reps, but 3 other candidates emerged to contend for Presidency.  This was the beginning of the Democratic-Republican party divide, in which one of the 3 contenders was Andrew Jackson.  Jackson's political movement at the time was dubbed "Jacksonian Democracy" which was more aligned with the "Jeffersonian Democracy".  The are some differences between the two democracies.  

The movement of Jacksonian Democracy within the Democratic-Republican party eventually evolved into the Democratic Party.  The supporters of Adams (and Henry Clay) later changed their party name to the National Republicans.  In 1835, the National Republican party bcame the Whig Party and then in 1852, after the Whig party failed to re-nominate its own current incumbent President Fillmore over an anti-slavery divide; majority of the Whip party's leaders left the party to create the current Republican party.

Andrew Jackson was elected in President in 1828 and re-elected in 1832.  In 1829, Jackson, who objected to the bank's unusual political and economic power and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings, called for an investigation into the bank's policies and political agenda as soon as he settled in to the White House.  In 1833, Jackson veto'd the renewal charter of the 2nd National Bank of the US, thus removing the central banking system at the time known as the "Bank War".  

So to summerize:  Both the current Republican and Democratic parties originated from the divide of the Democratic-Republican Party.  The original stances of the Deomcratic-Republican party were against a strong centralized goverment and banking.  But as time passes, some of the original stances of the party advertly did an about face which eventually led to the creation of the Democratic Party.

After all the rhetoric that is said and then by the opposite action being taken by both current Republican and Democratic parties, it seems as though the 2 current parties have combined back into a Administration / Federalist party.

But that's just my take.

----------


## Carlybee

> If you can't see how the political scene has changed from 1940 to 2012 with the use of the Internet and social media I can't help but facepalm your post.  We're having enormous influence in a very short span of 4 years.  We've accomplished more in 4 years than other parties and groups have in the last 50 years!  The only office that has alluded our reach thus far has been the Presidency, but mark my words, it's coming!  Once again, third parties can't even organize or fund raise to elect a dog catcher, let alone someone to the House of Representative or even more exclusive, the United States Senate.  It's a new world now, people are slowly waking up and taking the blinders off, there are more avenues to get news than ever before.  The information barriers are failing.
> 
> Rand Paul will be _the_ front runner in 2016 and you damn well know Ron will be at arms length as his confidant and most trusted advisor.


I dont think Rand will be the frontrunner unless he embraces the imperialism and anti-Islamism that runs the GOP agenda.

----------


## gte811i

> Ron Paul and Liberty movement can raise more money in 24 hours than all third parties have raised since their existence.


Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing.  The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.  

All the money in the world can't change that thinking, so it doesn't matter that the Liberty movement can raise more money than all the other 3rd parties.  This "Liberty movement should form a third party" is ridiculous . . . people seem to think that if the Liberty movement split from the Rs and formed it's own party (or joined with the Ls) that it would garner more votes and more influence and that the Liberty movements fundraising ability would give it legs.  This is twisted logic.  Even with all the fundraising RP garnered ~10% of the primary vote.  If people think the blackout of RP was bad in the Primary, wait till you go 3rd party, then the blackout becomes a black hole.  Wait 'till you go canvassing, now instead of just having to convince one side (the Ds) to switch you've now got to convince both Rs and Ds to switch.  Wait 'till you try and get ballot access and need 15,000 signatures to get on the ballot.  Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot??  Hmm, tough choice there . . .

To have a successful third party you first have to become a significant portion of one of the main parties (i.e. ~40%) and *then* you split to form your own party.  If RP Liberty folks take over 20+ states and RNC positions etc. then you can talk about splitting, otherwise it is a fool's game and you will lose most of the momentum.

Be advised I'm not advocating who you personally vote for on a ballot (always vote for the best person).

----------


## Carlybee

Well you can't have a paradigm change by continuing to placate the status quo.

----------


## gte811i

> Well you can't have a paradigm change by continuing to placate the status quo.


Who's placating the status quo?  I'm not, and I've gotten heavily involved in my local republican party.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Something everyone is forgetting. *We have the ability to raise a lot of money.* Something the Libertarian Party and most other 3rd parties can't do. We had a billionaire and a millionaire form SuperPacs for the cause of liberty and Ron Paul. I think you are underestimating resourcefulness with regard to forming a new party. What the big 2 have is the MIC and Big Corps running them. That would be the fly in the ointment.


+rep  

With the right candidate, we can do this.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing.  The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.


That's your opportunity to educate them.  Yes, people tend to believe there are only two teams and that they have to be a cheerleader for one or the other.  Until that way of thinking gets changed, not much else will.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot??  Hmm, tough choice there . . .

----------


## parocks

> That means failing for another 72 years. Let's do something else.


No, we won in 1980.  It didn't turn out as well as we planned (so they say, I wasn't there paying attention back then, based on what I know I tend to agree).  A bunch of conservatives for years now have gone the Libertarian route.  That hasn't helped  Ron Paul saw in 1988 how not entirely pointful that was.

We're fighting against the global elites, we aren't very smart either, so we lose a lot.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep fighting.  Conservatives like us belong in the Republican Party.

Now, I'm not saying to choose Romney over Johnson in November.  I expect more to pick Johnson over Romney.  But I'm arguing that the Johnson votes should be cast by Conservative Republicans, and not Libertarians.  I'm not saying "don't vote for Libertarians"  I'm saying "BE a Conservative Republican"  and if that means voting for a Libertarian because the Libertarian is more like a Conservative Republican than the Republican, so be it.  It'll be interesting to see whether the Republican can win without the support of Conservative Republicans like us, who are (often) voting for a Libertarian.  

The Libertarian Party isn't really much to speak of and it has been around quite a long time, without any successes to speak of.  Get the power within the Republican Party and hurt our enemies within the Republican Party.  That's what the neocons did.  And we outnumber them.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing.  The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.  
> 
> All the money in the world can't change that thinking, so it doesn't matter that the Liberty movement can raise more money than all the other 3rd parties.  This "Liberty movement should form a third party" is ridiculous . . . people seem to think that if the Liberty movement split from the Rs and formed it's own party (or joined with the Ls) that it would garner more votes and more influence and that the Liberty movements fundraising ability would give it legs.  This is twisted logic.  Even with all the fundraising RP garnered ~10% of the primary vote.  If people think the blackout of RP was bad in the Primary, wait till you go 3rd party, then the blackout becomes a black hole.  Wait 'till you go canvassing, now instead of just having to convince one side (the Ds) to switch you've now got to convince both Rs and Ds to switch.  Wait 'till you try and get ballot access and need 15,000 signatures to get on the ballot.  Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot??  Hmm, tough choice there . . .
> 
> To have a successful third party you first have to become a significant portion of one of the main parties (i.e. ~40%) and *then* you split to form your own party.  If RP Liberty folks take over 20+ states and RNC positions etc. then you can talk about splitting, otherwise it is a fool's game and you will lose most of the momentum.
> 
> Be advised I'm not advocating who you personally vote for on a ballot (always vote for the best person).


Please see this post 


> .

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> If you can't see how the political scene has changed from 1940 to 2012 with the use of the Internet and social media I can't help but facepalm your post.  We're having enormous influence in a very short span of 4 years.  We've accomplished more in 4 years than other parties and groups have in the last 50 years!  The only office that has alluded our reach thus far has been the Presidency, but mark my words, it's coming!  Once again, third parties can't even organize or fund raise to elect a dog catcher, let alone someone to the House of Representative or even more exclusive, the United States Senate.  It's a new world now, people are slowly waking up and taking the blinders off, there are more avenues to get news than ever before.  The information barriers are failing.
> 
> Rand Paul will be _the_ front runner in 2016 and you damn well know Ron will be at arms length as his confidant and most trusted advisor.


What federal budget has been even a single dollar less than it was the year before? What major program of the welfare-warfare state has been repealed? What major bad decision (liberty wise) of the Supreme Court has been overturned? Apart from a few elections here and there, it's been NOTHING. Those are the objective big picture markers, policy wise, of real progress in reversing the march of the Total State. An election win here or there are token victories by comparison. Those who keep looking at elections exclusively, _while not noticing the policy never changes_, fail before they start. I say disparage this racket, not the third parties that are wise to it.

We've started achieving things since the Internet era, with the rise of alternative media, which has given us a bigger voice and an affordable and efficient way to network nationwide. We've been able to use it to build a much bigger grassroots base that can effectively raise money for the right candidate, and better mobilize the existing base of liberty activists (mostly from THE THIRD PARTIES). In other words, only by _going around_ the establishment party and media matrix, have we been able to start getting somewhere. That is the 'something else' we have to keep moving towards, an organized movement that coordinates independently of the major parties, so that it doesn't get co-opted or marginalized by them. Use the establishment parties as leverage to get into office, but otherwise don't get into their hip pocket. Those who stay in that pocket, will continue to get squished.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Hmm, *where is my time better spent*, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot??


A better question to ask is:  where is my country better served?

----------


## gte811i

> A better question to ask is:  where is my country better served?


:facepalm:

I know I'm not going to convince you, so I'm not even going to try.  I just wonder how many people here are internet tigers:  Rah, rah we need to do this, we need to do that, the campaign must do blah; and yet they have very rarely put in the actual effort to get out of the computer chair go out in 106 degree heat in the middle of a Saturday to go campaign for Liberty candidates.  Hey I can donate money and call it good.  All it takes is money right?

I see it all the time in my local facebook groups.  Like I said, unless you've actually been door-to-door you really don't know what you're talking about.  

Door-to-door is really NOT for educating . . . yeah you're going to change someone's mind in a 30 sec. speel at their doorstop when they've got umpteen things the are doing and going to do. . . . door-to-door is for getting quick information out and hopefully getting their interest so that they will later educate themselves.

----------


## truthspeaker

> Conquer the divide!
> 
> Imagine the LP & Constitution parties joining together to take back the Republican party...
> 
> Party...


Back in 2008, I spoke with key leadership members of the Constitution and the Libertarian parties. Constitution party was willing to hypothetically unite, LP was not. 

Personally, I think it'd be great if the LP, Constitution, the NY Independent Party and Reform Parties nominated the same candidate and had him/her on their tickets. I don't think there's a law against it. That way the parties would get their percentages for ballot access for the next term.

----------


## parocks

> Anyone who thinks a 3rd party is viable to actually win elections has probably never been door-knocking and canvassing.  The vast majority of people just want to know one thing when you talk to them . . . are they Democrat or Republican and that is it.  
> 
> All the money in the world can't change that thinking, so it doesn't matter that the Liberty movement can raise more money than all the other 3rd parties.  This "Liberty movement should form a third party" is ridiculous . . . people seem to think that if the Liberty movement split from the Rs and formed it's own party (or joined with the Ls) that it would garner more votes and more influence and that the Liberty movements fundraising ability would give it legs.  This is twisted logic.  Even with all the fundraising RP garnered ~10% of the primary vote.  If people think the blackout of RP was bad in the Primary, wait till you go 3rd party, then the blackout becomes a black hole.  Wait 'till you go canvassing, now instead of just having to convince one side (the Ds) to switch you've now got to convince both Rs and Ds to switch.  Wait 'till you try and get ballot access and need 15,000 signatures to get on the ballot.  Hmm, where is my time better spent, hours and hours getting signatures to get on the ballot or hours and hours spent campaigning for Liberty republican candidates that are already on the ballot??  Hmm, tough choice there . . .
> 
> To have a successful third party you first have to become a significant portion of one of the main parties (i.e. ~40%) and *then* you split to form your own party.  If RP Liberty folks take over 20+ states and RNC positions etc. then you can talk about splitting, otherwise it is a fool's game and you will lose most of the momentum.
> 
> Be advised I'm not advocating who you personally vote for on a ballot (always vote for the best person).


Excellent Post.  You get Conservative Republicans (us) in GOP positions of power.  Then you do things like, I dunno, hand out Gary Johnson lit instead of Romney lit.  Not suggesting that, but if you have the numbers in a state or county or local, can't you just do what you want?  Having control of the GOP means our enemies don't have that control.  What do they have control of then?  Having control of a 3rd Party means what exactly? 

Now, it's good that there are enough Libertarians to get some candidates on the ballot.  When we don't have a candidate we like, when our candidate doesn't win in the primary, well, look, there's a Libertarian candidate.  

We can say "pick a conservative, because the conservatives will vote 3rd party if we don't".  And that's what we do.  But we don't do it from the Libertarian Party, but from the Republican Party.

Being a Libertarian means letting the RINOs, GOP-E, have the Republican Party.  And I'd rather they not.  I'd like to see the neocons have no place to go.  Let them start their own party.

----------


## parocks

> It's not that I am disagreeing with everything that you're saying, but there needs to be a history lesson.
> 
> First political parties, although unofficial, were known as the Administration and the Anti-Administration.  The Administration (led by G. Washington and A. Hamilton) embraced a strong central government and central banking system.  The Anti-Administration (lead by T. Jefferson and J. Madison) were against strong central government and stating that central banking was unconstitutional.  
> 
> The Administration later became known as the Federalist and the Anti-Administration later became the Anti-Federalist.  Another issue of division between the parties arose under the Jay Treaty with Britian.  Britain was at war with France and France had helped the US during the Revolutionary War against Britain.  
> 
> After Jefferson was elected in 1801, the Anti-Federalist party had been deemed the Democratic-Republican party. The Federalist faded into non-existance after the War of 1812.  After Jefferson was elected, the Democratic-Republican Party was dominate until 1824, known as the First Party System.  
> 
> In 1825, John Q. Adams was elected President by the House of Reps, but 3 other candidates emerged to contend for Presidency.  This was the beginning of the Democratic-Republican party divide, in which one of the 3 contenders was Andrew Jackson.  Jackson's political movement at the time was dubbed "Jacksonian Democracy" which was more aligned with the "Jeffersonian Democracy".  The are some differences between the two democracies.  
> ...


I'm not going to quarrel with your history there.  I knew that Jackson was a populist and was against the bank. And that things have changed a lot in 150-200 years.

I will say that no one alive today experienced any of that.  I personally like to use Taft and 1940 as my guideline, because it's fairly easy to draw a line from Taft to Paul.  It may be possible to go back another 20-28 years, look at the election of 1912, after which a whole bunch of bad stuff happened under Wilson.  I just haven't seen the need to try to accurately characterize Harding, Coolidge, Hoover.   Ron Paul, our guy, is very much like Robert Taft.  Which means that our guy has close historical ties to a Republican tradition.

----------


## parocks

> Ron Paul and Liberty movement can raise more money in 24 hours than all third parties have raised since their existence.


Does that count Ross Perot spending his own money?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> :facepalm:
> 
> I know I'm not going to convince you, so I'm not even going to try.  I just wonder how many people here are internet tigers:  Rah, rah we need to do this, we need to do that, the campaign must do blah; and yet they have very rarely put in the actual effort to get out of the computer chair go out in 106 degree heat in the middle of a Saturday to go campaign for Liberty candidates.  Hey I can donate money and call it good.  All it takes is money right?
> 
> I see it all the time in my local facebook groups.  Like I said, unless you've actually been door-to-door you really don't know what you're talking about.  
> 
> Door-to-door is really NOT for educating . . . yeah you're going to change someone's mind in a 30 sec. speel at their doorstop when they've got umpteen things the are doing and going to do. . . . door-to-door is for getting quick information out and hopefully getting their interest so that they will later educate themselves.


The vast majority are armchair quarterbacks.  We need more Michael Marescos!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> :facepalm:
> 
> I know I'm not going to convince you, so I'm not even going to try.  I just wonder how many people here are internet tigers:  Rah, rah we need to do this, we need to do that, the campaign must do blah; and yet they have very rarely put in the actual effort to get out of the computer chair go out in 106 degree heat in the middle of a Saturday to go campaign for Liberty candidates.  Hey I can donate money and call it good.  All it takes is money right?
> 
> I see it all the time in my local facebook groups.  Like I said, unless you've actually been door-to-door you really don't know what you're talking about.  
> 
> Door-to-door is really NOT for educating . . . yeah you're going to change someone's mind in a 30 sec. speel at their doorstop when they've got umpteen things the are doing and going to do. . . . door-to-door is for getting quick information out and hopefully getting their interest so that they will later educate themselves.


I've gone door-to-door ... I had to change the minds of people in my state that it was OK to change party from D to R when Republicans didn't exist in Louisiana at the state or local level.  And I took the time to do it if they gave me the chance.  30 years later, the situation is almost the exact reverse:  except in Orleans Parish, it's hard to find a Democrat in my area.  

Educating at the door-to-door level is possible.  If we don't educate them, they'll just go running back to the corporatist/neocon candidates whether they're in the GOP or wherever they are.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Excellent Post.  You get Conservative Republicans (us) in GOP positions of power.  Then you do things like, I dunno, hand out Gary Johnson lit instead of Romney lit.  Not suggesting that, but if you have the numbers in a state or county or local, can't you just do what you want?  Having control of the GOP means our enemies don't have that control.  What do they have control of then?  Having control of a 3rd Party means what exactly? 
> 
> Now, it's good that there are enough Libertarians to get some candidates on the ballot.  When we don't have a candidate we like, when our candidate doesn't win in the primary, well, look, there's a Libertarian candidate.  
> 
> We can say "pick a conservative, because the conservatives will vote 3rd party if we don't".  And that's what we do.  But we don't do it from the Libertarian Party, but from the Republican Party.
> 
> Being a Libertarian means letting the RINOs, GOP-E, have the Republican Party.  And I'd rather they not.  I'd like to see the neocons have no place to go.  Let them start their own party.


Naive.  They're not just neocons; they're corporatists too.   Their corporate sponsors will find them wherever they are...and if you think they're just going to let Liberty candidates have the GOP, you're dreaming.   

WE would be better served to start OUR own party.  Let them have the GOP with all of the negativity and baggage the GOP name brings.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Does that count Ross Perot spending his own money?


Not really, because once Perot left the scene his supporters and all that energy behind him disappeared.  Their was no sound foundation to it, no real guiding philosophy that tied everything into a nice bow like Liberty does.  Plus Paul is much more serious about matters than Perot ever was.

Like I said before, a third party only becomes relevant when they have an interesting, preferably charismatic leader with a billion dollar bank account.  And you'd still get steamrolled by the two parties because that system has been ingrained into our society for several generations.  The public isn't educated enough to think outside that box and actually give a third party candidate the time of day.

----------


## gte811i

> I've gone door-to-door ... I had to change the minds of people in my state that it was OK to change party from D to R when Republicans didn't exist in Louisiana at the state or local level.  And I took the time to do it if they gave me the chance.  30 years later, the situation is almost the exact reverse:  except in Orleans Parish, it's hard to find a Democrat in my area.  
> 
> Educating at the door-to-door level is possible.  If we don't educate them, they'll just go running back to the corporatist/neocon candidates whether they're in the GOP or wherever they are.


That was 30 years ago . . . times change and places change; sure in rural areas you can have a conversation and change someone's mind, urban areas it's a lot harder.  Door-to-door is all a numbers game, you can and will change someone's opinion.  The question is: Is this the most effective way?  Having spent lots and lots of time door knocking for various things, it is the most ineffective way to actually change someone's belief structure.  Sometimes necessary but very, very ineffective in changing a belief structure.  It is great for things like name-recognition and getting information out that already conforms to a given belief structure.  So for me, it is totally ineffective to try and change a whole societies paradigm and get them to vote for a L vs. a R/D.  Better to change the R/D to conform more to the L.

I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, that's cool.  And you're telling me that you single-handedly helped change it from D to R?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That was 30 years ago . . . times change and places change; *sure in rural areas you can have a conversation and change someone's mind,* urban areas it's a lot harder.  Door-to-door is all a numbers game, you can and will change someone's opinion.  The question is: Is this the most effective way?  Having spent lots and lots of time door knocking for various things, it is the most ineffective way to actually change someone's belief structure.  Sometimes necessary but very, very ineffective in changing a belief structure.  It is great for things like name-recognition and getting information out that already conforms to a given belief structure.  So for me, it is totally ineffective to try and change a whole societies paradigm and get them to vote for a L vs. a R/D.  Better to change the R/D to conform more to the L.


I don't live in a rural area...never have.  I was living and working door-to-door in a suburban area.



> I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, that's cool.  And you're telling me that you single-handedly helped change it from D to R?


Single-handedly?  Of course not!! LOL

But all hands are important in a movement, so I like to think I played a (small) part.

----------


## gte811i

> . . . 
> Single-handedly?  Of course not!! LOL
> 
> But all hands are important in a movement, so I like to think I played a (small) part.


On that we can agree :-).

----------


## Carlybee

> Who's placating the status quo?  I'm not, and I've gotten heavily involved in my local republican party.



I didn't say everyone was, but by "taking over the party" under the auspices of pretending to go along with them, that is placating the status quo.  When Rand endorsed Mitt he was placating the status quo.  That is not a revolution.  Now if we were suddenly able to turn all neocons and co-opted tea partiers into non-interventionists with ideals, THAT would be a quiet revolution.  It ain't happening. It will take at least as long to change the party as it would to start a new one, IMO.  And a new one doesn't have to start off being a political whore.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I didn't say everyone was, but by "taking over the party" under the auspices of pretending to go along with them, that is placating the status quo.  When Rand endorsed Mitt he was placating the status quo.  That is not a revolution.  Now if we were suddenly able to turn all neocons and co-opted tea partiers into non-interventionists with ideals, THAT would be a quiet revolution.  It ain't happening. It will take at least as long to change the party as it would to start a new one, IMO.  And a new one doesn't have to start off being a political whore.


If the endorsement was placating, then what do you call working to pass End-the-fed, industrial hemp and anti-drone bills, as well as calling out Romney for saying he could go to war without Congress' approval (all of this just since the endorsement)... It sounds to me like he made one meaningless concession to be able to have a credible voice behind these issues, rather than be shunned to the side as a "fake republican" if he didn't, like they used against his dad to outcast him.

In fact, it doesn't just sound like that, that's precisely what Rand has said was the reason. He told us long ago he'd endorse the nominee, because that's the only way to get your foot in the party and make way for real change.... And again, he hasn't been shy about criticizing Romney for already not living up to the endorsement. So rather than them having ammo to use against Rand, he's actually given himself ammo to call Romney out when he falls short of the endorsement.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I didn't say everyone was, but by "taking over the party" under the auspices of pretending to go along with them, that is placating the status quo.  When Rand endorsed Mitt he was placating the status quo.  That is not a revolution.  Now if we were suddenly able to turn all neocons and co-opted tea partiers into non-interventionists with ideals, THAT would be a quiet revolution.  It ain't happening. It will take at least as long to change the party as it would to start a new one, IMO.  And a new one doesn't have to start off being a political whore.


We're not placating the status quo to restore the gop, they're actively trying to thwart us. They are hostile about us right now because the Ron Paul name is being tossed around by the chairs and media and thus they perceive a takeover which isn't what's happening. We're merely injecting constitutional lingo back into the fray to push policy in that direction. Right now the insiders just want their national convention to go off w/o a hitch and thus they're seeing us as invaders rather than additional activists/volunteers. The people that matter, the grassroots conservatives, are the voters and activists that give the party life. In addition to raising our numbers, we coalition build to broaden support, become the leadership and choreograph the direction of the party in our image. 

Issue numero uno to conservatives is repealing obamacare and we're the only faction that can claim any sort of cred on that front, certainly not the insiders. So, by using the hot button issues that are crucial to any fiscal conservative we can transform run-of-the-mill voter/activist support in our direction.

So, there's no political whoring going on, just strategy. Some peeps may feel icky playing the game but that's what Ron essentially did throughout his career, though we don't weaken our stances on the issues just educate others to see the light. Everyone knows that the deck is stacked against new-coming parties and that won't let up until we have more significant control over the GOP and those on its ticket that get elected. Hence, the horse has to come before the buggy. But then, we won't even need another party once we've reclaimed the GOP properly.

----------


## parocks

> I didn't say everyone was, but by "taking over the party" under the auspices of pretending to go along with them, that is placating the status quo.  When Rand endorsed Mitt he was placating the status quo.  That is not a revolution.  Now if we were suddenly able to turn all neocons and co-opted tea partiers into non-interventionists with ideals, THAT would be a quiet revolution.  It ain't happening. It will take at least as long to change the party as it would to start a new one, IMO.  And a new one doesn't have to start off being a political whore.


You take a spot, and you keep it.  And one by one, you replace the bad ones with better ones.  Each spot is a separate little fight.  It's not about "turn all neocons" to anything.  It's remove the neocons.  Find them, target them, remove them.  Replace with better.  We're not the stronger.  We're not the mightier, the more numerous.  We are the more passionate.

We need a lot more Liberty Politicians, and if they "placate the status quo", I really don't care.   Our problem isn't that our tiny handful of liberty politicians aren't perfect, it's that we have so very very few liberty politicians.  Once we get enough liberty politicans in there, we can start leading, getting stuff done.  But we aren't close at all to that right now.

----------


## parocks

> Naive.  They're not just neocons; they're corporatists too.   Their corporate sponsors will find them wherever they are...and if you think they're just going to let Liberty candidates have the GOP, you're dreaming.   
> 
> WE would be better served to start OUR own party.  Let them have the GOP with all of the negativity and baggage the GOP name brings.


No, it's not naive.  I'm not saying there won't be a fight.  There will be fights, and we will win some and lose some.  Yes, I'm aware that global elites have their own agenda. Rothschild, etc.  The Libertarian Party has been around, and largely unimportant for years.  Are you suggesting some OTHER 3rd Party, or 5th party, somewhere in between the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists?  

No, we've been fighting against the Eastern Establishment, Dewey vs Taft, for a long time.  And no doubt, it's tricky.  But our home is as Conservative Republicans.  I'm not saying vote for Eastern Establishment Republicans,  but the county committee meetings you go to aren't the Libertarians, but the Republicans.  And your registration is Republican.

----------


## Carlybee

Knock yourselves out. All I have seen so far is compromising not on the side of liberty. This is pointless given that for all I know those of you beating the drum the loudest may be the ones who voted in that poll that you were planning to vote for Romney. I don't trust very many motives here.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Knock yourselves out. All I have seen so far is compromising not on the side of liberty. This is pointless given that for all I know those of you beating the drum the loudest may be the ones who voted in that poll that you were planning to vote for Romney. I don't trust very many motives here.


Oh bull$#@!... If there's anything I hate around here, it's the "my way or the highway" of some towards those who disagree. If you're not for 100% abolishment of the state, your a "statist nazi", if you believe in any conspiracies, you're a tinfoil hat-wearer, if you don't, then you're a sheeple. Just stop with the divisive labeling already. Hell, Rand is the best senator we've got, and some are talking about funding to run a candidate against him, rather than the real neocons that represent the true threats to freedom. It's madness, and needs to stop before we eat all of our own.

But if you want to play that game, I could question the motives of those who want us to abandon a strategy that's made far more gains for liberty in the last 4 years than 3rd parties have done in the last 40... I'm not going to stoop so low as to question your personal intentions, but IMO, they want us to go to a back to third-party where they have a much easier time marginalizing and ignoring us like they always have. Just having Dr. Paul in the debates alone has made huge gains for us that they won't have an easy time taking back.

You can question whether it will work or not,  but please don't question the intentions of those who support a plan that was Dr. Paul's to reform the GOP. It's incredibly offensive to question the intentions of those who are doing everything they can to kick neocons out of their cushy seats.

----------


## Carlybee

I love Ron Paul but given the lying, cheating, finger breaking, hip cracking  actions by the GOP and the fact that his own campaign all but conceded and the fact that delegates are suing the GOP with no clear resolution in sight, I would say the plan is not quite working out.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> But if you want to play that game, I could question the motives of those who want us to abandon a strategy that's made far more gains for liberty in the last 4 years than 3rd parties have done in the last 40... I'm not going to stoop so low as to question your personal intentions, but IMO, they want us to go to a back to third-party where they have a much easier time marginalizing and ignoring us like they always have. Just having Dr. Paul in the debates alone has made huge gains for us that they won't have an easy time taking back.
> 
> You can question whether it will work or not,  but please don't question the intentions of those who support a plan that was Dr. Paul's to reform the GOP. It's incredibly offensive to question the intentions of those who are doing everything they can to kick neocons out of their cushy seats.


No one should be questioning the motives of the hard working GOP reform activists, but we do have disagreements about the wisdom as to it being the best strategy, or whether it has given the most accurate construction of how the successes came about. The strategy that seems to have worked is one where the grassroots people, be they inside the GOP, LP/CP, or nonaligned _stopped dumping on each other_ and became an informal, independent 'virtual party' to give real funding and support to Paul's candidacy, OUTSIDE the normal media and party establishment channels. Compare that with bonding to only one official party and spurning all others, which is how the establishment has most easily marginalized alternative movements in the past. Where we have stayed independent, we have had the leverage to achieve something.

That is how and where most of the progress has been made, and how compromise and co-opting is avoided. The Rand endorsement of Romney, by contrast example, is exactly one of the natural consequences of focusing only on building within one major party. You can't have that focus without those compromises, and much of the grassroots' avoidance of the reform strategy is based on rejecting any approach that leads to that. It's either "NO ONE BUT PAUL," or it isn't. The catch phrase makes sense from the point of view of an independent grassroots, but not from the point of view of getting along within a party you are trying to reform. The 'reform-GOP' folks have to choose one or another, instead of trying to sit between two stools.

The "don't drag us back into the 3rd party wilderness" notion is somewhat of a straw man. What has been advocated for is the movement collaborating and integrating the 3rd party efforts, to keep building the independence of the liberty movement from ANY formal party arrangement. From that position it can transform the entire big party establishment over time, by winning seats in either Republican and Democratic districts where the opening arises. This is a much more high percentage 'lay-up' approach to winning the game than either the "another faction of the GOP" or "educational 3rd party run" approach. 

I'm looking forward to the next lay-up when Kerry Bentivolio wins the primary for Congress 8/7 in Michigan, for example. Finding safe-open seat situations like that, where GOP reformers and 3rd party activists alike are working together to support his winning, will get us places a lot faster than the constant beat down of 3rd party people seen on these threads.

----------


## tbone717

> I'm looking forward to the next lay-up when Kerry Bentivolio wins the primary for Congress 8/7 in Michigan, for example. Finding safe-open seat situations like that, where GOP reformers and 3rd party activists alike are working together to support his winning, will get us places a lot faster than the constant beat down of 3rd party people seen on these threads.


According to Ballotpedia, Bentivolio is unopposed.  McCotter did not qualify for the ballot.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I didn't say everyone was, but by "taking over the party" under the auspices of pretending to go along with them, that is placating the status quo.  When Rand endorsed Mitt he was placating the status quo.  That is not a revolution.  Now if we were suddenly able to turn all neocons and co-opted tea partiers into non-interventionists with ideals, THAT would be a quiet revolution.  It ain't happening. It will take at least as long to change the party as it would to start a new one, IMO.  And a new one doesn't have to start off being a political whore.


*sigh* On some days, I think you and I are the only people on this board who get this.

----------


## QWDC

KB has a write-in opponent if I'm not mistaken. Should still be one of the easier wins for the liberty movement IMO.

----------


## parocks

> *sigh* On some days, I think you and I are the only people on this board who get this.


And getting elected isn't part of your calculations at all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And getting elected isn't part of your calculations at all.


It would be great, but I would be wary of what those elections would cost the Liberty movement.  THAT'S what I'm worried and warning about.

----------


## parocks

> It would be great, but I would be wary of what those elections would cost the Liberty movement.  THAT'S what I'm worried and warning about.


Which races are you worried about?  You have this theory it seems that it's quite significant that Rand Paul endorsed Romney.  That if Romney won, it would have some sort of effect on the Liberty movement, because Rand endorsed Romney.  Am I correct?

BTW, Revolution is something that someone other than Ron Paul came up with.  I'd like to see our guys win more races.  One Liberty Candidate is an appealing target for the GOP-E, or Eastern Establishment, or whatever you want to call Republicans who are opposed to Liberty Candidates.  10 Liberty Candidates are harder to pick off (but also harder to defend).

You don't seem to explain exactly how these things work themselves out over time.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Which races are you worried about?  You have this theory it seems that it's quite significant that Rand Paul endorsed Romney.  That if Romney won, it would have some sort of effect on the Liberty movement, because Rand endorsed Romney.  Am I correct?


I'm not worried about a particular race; I'm worried about the Liberty movement in general.

Yes, I do consider it significant that Rand endorsed Romney.  When you stand for certain principles (non-interventionism, for example) you don't endorse a guy who is ready at the drop of a  hat to go to war with Iran.

Whether Romney wins or not, it has the effect of weakening the Liberty movement...shows that one of the most vocal among us (Rand Paul) is willing to sacrifice a certain amount for....what?  Well, that I'm not sure; but whatever it is, I don't want it.




> BTW, Revolution is something that someone other than Ron Paul came up with.  I'd like to see our guys win more races.  One Liberty Candidate is an appealing target for the GOP-E, or Eastern Establishment, or whatever you want to call Republicans who are opposed to Liberty Candidates.  10 Liberty Candidates are harder to pick off (but also harder to defend).
> 
> You don't seem to explain exactly how these things work themselves out over time.


It doesn't matter to me whether Ron Paul came up with the label "Revolution".

People within a common political party should have some values in common.  What do we have in common with Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Bachmann supporters?  Nothing that I can see, and I think they would tell you the same.

Furthermore, people within a political party will  mostly support the candidate who comes out on top when the primaries are said and done.  Santorum's supporters will campaign for and vote for Romney, and Romney's supporters would have done the same for little Ricky.   In the general election, it's pretty much expected that party leaders will actively campaign for the candidate of their party.  Are our people who are getting positions as party leaders going to actively campaign for Romney and other non-Liberty candidates? If so, I would be greatly disappointed.  If not, how long do you expect they will hold those positions?  When Democrats keep winning election after election (and they would, with this split in the GOP) we will lose those leadership positions faster than you can say "Ron Paul!"

The point of saying all of that is we are just as much opposed to people and candidates within the GOP as we are those in the Democratic Party or even the Communist USA Party for that matter!  Under those circumstances, our time spent within the GOP will not be a very happy time....for them, or for us.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

If Rand was in a confessional I bet he'd say that R-money can rot in hell for all he cared but to Hannity and the drones he plays them like a fiddle. People don't have to like it but the key to not being tossed to the wolves is maintaining a kosher relationship with the pundits that control your parties voters. Giving an 'endorsement' is not the proverbial 30 pieces of silver yet some round these parts consider it worse. Stick to the issues and clean your own house when it gets dirty. There was no way in the Hannity interview that Rand would've disputed the likelihood of R-money becoming the nominee all the while trying to talk uninterrupted about how the delegate process is playing out and/or the rampant fraud of the R-money/RNC operatives affecting the potential convention. It's called: you live to fight another day w/o the baggage he would've construed on himself for a short term gain that was inevitably unlikely. Going forward, he can question R-money's stances and positions and it's on the pundit to defend them to the audience.

----------


## Carlybee

How honest is that though?  Is it a liberty objective to lie about your beliefs in order to gain political ground?

----------


## parocks

> I'm not worried about a particular race; I'm worried about the Liberty movement in general.
> 
> Yes, I do consider it significant that Rand endorsed Romney.  When you stand for certain principles (non-interventionism, for example) you don't endorse a guy who is ready at the drop of a  hat to go to war with Iran.
> 
> Whether Romney wins or not, it has the effect of weakening the Liberty movement...shows that one of the most vocal among us (Rand Paul) is willing to sacrifice a certain amount for....what?  Well, that I'm not sure; but whatever it is, I don't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter to me whether Ron Paul came up with the label "Revolution".
> ...


"When you stand for certain principles (non-interventionism, for example) you don't endorse a guy who is ready at the drop of a  hat to go to war with Iran."

Yeah you do, when you promised that you'd support the nominee. And Rand promised he'd support the nominee.  Supporting the nominee of the party is pretty much expected.  It always has been expected.  It's noteworthy when it doesn't happen.

The Conservatives are in the Republican Party.  The Conservatives have more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats.  We have a lot in common with Bachmann especially.  Nobody walks the walk as well as Ron Paul.  But that doesn't mean that Bachmann is indistinguishable from a Liberal Democrat.  With Romney, well, he's pretty close to being a Democrat, but the Conservatives, everyone who is closest to Ron Paul, are in the Republican Party, and Ron Paul's philosophy has always been a part of Conservatism since at least Taft, and never part of the Democrat way of thinking.  And if you listen to the words of all 4 of them that you mentioned, they all do sound, at times, a lot more like Ron Paul than Obama sounds like Ron Paul.  The core of Ron Paul is limited government, and typically that's what Republicans talk about.  Obama talks about expanding government, and we talk about shrinking it.  Now, many Republicans are just lying.  But that's a lying issue, not a philosophy issue.  The Democrats never even pretend to want to shrink government.

----------


## parocks

> How honest is that though?  Is it a liberty objective to lie about your beliefs in order to gain political ground?


Who is lying about what beliefs?  What lie did Rand tell?  (I will say that I didn't watch the interview or know what he said really.)

Rand might believe that the Republican nominee is always better than the Democratic nominee.  Most Republicans believe that, so Rand would be normal if he believed that.

----------


## parocks

"In the general election, it's pretty much expected that party leaders will actively campaign for the candidate of their party. Are our people who are getting positions as party leaders going to actively campaign for Romney and other non-Liberty candidates? If so, I would be greatly disappointed. If not, how long do you expect they will hold those positions? When Democrats keep winning election after election (and they would, with this split in the GOP) we will lose those leadership positions faster than you can say "Ron Paul!""

You just have to win those leadership races again.  If the Ron Paul people who put our leaders into place (in county committee meetings, conventions, etc) don't keep showing up to those meetings, we'll lose.  It won't matter if R's win or lose, really.  If the GOP-E or the RINOs or whatever want to fight us for control, they might or might not be able to succeed.  What I'm saying I guess is that there won't be that many "undecided" people at these conventions.  Whether we win or lose, the Establishment will want establishment leaders and Ron Paul Supporters will want liberty leaders.

In some states we could almost take the entire November season off.  If Romney is at the top of the ticket, and the US Senate candidate is uninspiring, not a liberty candidate, and no one really on the whole ballot would be considered a liberty candidate, you might focus entirely on those committee meetings,  making sure that you've lined up candidates, and will be able to turn out people to that meeting.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> "When you stand for certain principles (non-interventionism, for example) you don't endorse a guy who is ready at the drop of a  hat to go to war with Iran."
> 
> Yeah you do, when you promised that you'd support the nominee. And Rand promised he'd support the nominee.  Supporting the nominee of the party is pretty much expected.  It always has been expected.  It's noteworthy when it doesn't happen.


I've suspected all along that Rand wanted to play ball with the GOP, so I'm disappointed but not shocked that he made that promise.  I wish he hadn't made it though.  Maybe this is how many people on this board want to see the Liberty movement going forward, but not me.  I think it's disingenuous. 





> The Conservatives are in the Republican Party.  The Conservatives have more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats.  We have a lot in common with Bachmann especially.  Nobody walks the walk as well as Ron Paul.  But that doesn't mean that Bachmann is indistinguishable from a Liberal Democrat.  With Romney, well, he's pretty close to being a Democrat, but the Conservatives, everyone who is closest to Ron Paul, are in the Republican Party, and Ron Paul's philosophy has always been a part of Conservatism since at least Taft, and never part of the Democrat way of thinking.  And if you listen to the words of all 4 of them that you mentioned, they all do sound, at times, a lot more like Ron Paul than Obama sounds like Ron Paul.  The core of Ron Paul is limited government, and typically that's what Republicans talk about.  Obama talks about expanding government, and we talk about shrinking it.  Now, many Republicans are just lying.  But that's a lying issue, not a philosophy issue.  The Democrats never even pretend to want to shrink government.


I left the GOP when I realized they were more interested in empire-building and social engineering than being the party of "smaller government" as advertised.  Other conservatives can figure it out and do the same.  After November, I will no longer be a Republican and I won't look back.  That said, if a worthy Liberty candidate runs as a Republican, as Ron Paul did, he/she will certainly have my vote.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> How honest is that though?  Is it a liberty objective to lie about your beliefs in order to gain political ground?


How is it lying?  Political parties have always evolved through the years, usually for the worse.  Look how the democrats controlled the south for decades after reconstruction.  We're actually imbuing them with real values, our cause is the most worthy of them all.  At the end of the day, what you call it is meaningless.  Would you drive a Mercedes-Benz if someone slapped a Toyota decal to it?  What matters is what's under the hood.

----------


## parocks

> I've suspected all along that Rand wanted to play ball with the GOP, so I'm disappointed but not shocked that he made that promise.  I wish he hadn't made it though.  Maybe this is how many people on this board want to see the Liberty movement going forward, but not me.  I think it's disingenuous. 
> 
> 
> I left the GOP when I realized they were more interested in empire-building and social engineering than being the party of "smaller government" as advertised.  Other conservatives can figure it out and do the same.  After November, I will no longer be a Republican and I won't look back.  That said, if a worthy Liberty candidate runs as a Republican, as Ron Paul did, he/she will certainly have my vote.


I'm not sure what "liberty movement" really means, actually.  Some seem to be looking for cliffs to jump off of, and whenever they find them, they tell everybody to join them.  We take control of the Republican State Committees, County Committees etc., then recruit liberty candidates, and use the power of the state and county committees to get them in office.  And keep doing that.  Make sure that you're keeping control of those committees.  Is that what the liberty movement is?  That's what I think it is.  It really doesn't matter to me too much that our liberty candidates are perfect.  We have so few.  We need A LOT MORE.  That would be my focus.  That's what I think the Liberty Movement should do.  Not flipping out every time a candidate or office holder does something you don't like.  What is the purpose of that?  After we've gotten a ton of Liberty Politicans, then we can worry a lot more about their purity.

You really don't have much of a practical reason for what you're doing, what you suggest.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Who is lying about what beliefs?  What lie did Rand tell?  (I will say that I didn't watch the interview or know what he said really.)
> 
> Rand might believe that the Republican nominee is always better than the Democratic nominee.  Most Republicans believe that, so Rand would be normal if he believed that.


You should watch or read the interview... seemed like the words were chosen very carefully so Rand could retract the endorsement of Mitt and support Ron ... if Ron can pull it off..

----------


## parocks

> You should watch or read the interview... seemed like the words were chosen very carefully so Rand could retract the endorsement of Mitt and support Ron ... if Ron can pull it off..


What, you mean if Ron gets the nomination?  Of course.  If Ron's the nominee, of course Rand will "endorse" him.  Rand said "I'll endorse the nominee".

I really don't care about what Rand is saying about Romney.  I'm just not sure why people seem to care all that much.  The normal Republican, who wants to be not controversial, is going to endorse the nominee.  It is to be expected.  If the endorsement doesn't come, that's noteworthy.

----------


## Carlybee

> How is it lying?  Political parties have always evolved through the years, usually for the worse.  Look how the democrats controlled the south for decades after reconstruction.  We're actually imbuing them with real values, our cause is the most worthy of them all.  At the end of the day, what you call it is meaningless.  Would you drive a Mercedes-Benz if someone slapped a Toyota decal to it?  What matters is what's under the hood.



At the very least it's lying to yourself if in your heart you believe in the true principles of liberty but outwardly you endorse principles that are in direct opposition to liberty.   And I see how that "embuing them with values" is working out.  LOL.   They have tried to cheat and marginalize us every step of the way.  I see the values are sticking.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> How honest is that though?  Is it a liberty objective to lie about your beliefs in order to gain political ground?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> What, you mean if Ron gets the nomination?  Of course.  If Ron's the nominee, of course Rand will "endorse" him.  Rand said "I'll endorse the nominee".
> 
> I really don't care about what Rand is saying about Romney.  I'm just not sure why people seem to care all that much.  The normal Republican, who wants to be not controversial, is going to endorse the nominee.  It is to be expected.  If the endorsement doesn't come, that's noteworthy.


Of course. That's why the reform-GOP approach is in many ways incoherent. It leads to the expected compromise Rand made, yet many of the Paul supporters are 'shocked, SHOCKED' about it, because their mindset has been  in "no one but Paul" no-compromise mode. Rand has also indicated he will be CAMPAIGNING FOR Romney as well---again, a practical consequence of a GOP-only approach to reform. His actions matter because they act as a canary in the coal mine, to show precisely where this approach leads.

Some of us have chosen not to go down that exclusive mine. So logically, it leads us to NOT embrace working inside the GOP as the main movement building strategy. The difference is, instead of countering with a likewise exclusive and frustrating "3rd party only" alternative, we propose an _integrative_ strategy for the grassroots, where both political channels are used as tools (third parties to vet the principled candidates, major party primaries to get the election victories). This approach permits the rEVOLution to avoid being marginalized either inside or outside the political establishment, and without shunning liberty activism on either side of the ledger. There lies the main path to current and future progress.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


Nice try, but no.  "Extremism" and "dishonesty" are two different things.  If we're dishonest about these things, no one will trust us with political power.

----------


## Carlybee

:


> Nice try, but no.  "Extremism" and "dishonesty" are two different things.  If we're dishonest about these things, no one will trust us with political power.


But it's okay if "we" are dishonest...after all "we" have a higher calling.  But we can still tell "them" that "they" can't be dishonest.

----------


## gte811i

> :
> 
> But it's okay if "we" are dishonest...after all "we" have a higher calling.  But we can still tell "them" that "they" can't be dishonest.


So question: If your wife (assuming you are a guy) asks "does this dress make me look fat?".  What do you say?

----------


## parocks

> Of course. That's why the reform-GOP approach is in many ways incoherent. It leads to the expected compromise Rand made, yet many of the Paul supporters are 'shocked, SHOCKED' about it, because their mindset has been  in "no one but Paul" no-compromise mode. Rand has also indicated he will be CAMPAIGNING FOR Romney as well---again, a practical consequence of a GOP-only approach to reform. His actions matter because they act as a canary in the coal mine, to show precisely where this approach leads.
> 
> Some of us have chosen not to go down that exclusive mine. So logically, it leads us to NOT embrace working inside the GOP as the main movement building strategy. The difference is, instead of countering with a likewise exclusive and frustrating "3rd party only" alternative, we propose an _integrative_ strategy for the grassroots, where both political channels are used as tools (third parties to vet the principled candidates, major party primaries to get the election victories). This approach permits the rEVOLution to avoid being marginalized either inside or outside the political establishment, and without shunning liberty activism on either side of the ledger. There lies the main path to current and future progress.


The reform GOP approach is NOT incoherent.  Yes "many of the Paul supporters are 'shocked, SHOCKED' about it, because their mindset has been in "no one but Paul" no-compromise mode."  But that's not a problem with the reform GOP approach.  That a problem with the Paul supporters.  You didn't see me going NOBP.  I had no idea what NOBP was supposed to mean, what the objective of that was, what purpose that was to serve, what the game plan was, why this was a strategy. 

Listen, Paul supporters have a lot of bad ideas.  I have no real idea exactly where these bad ideas are coming from, and why Ron Paul supporters like these bad ideas so much.  I'm not going to use this thread to try to remember exactly all the bad ideas, all the wrong ways of looking at things  (ok, here's one - what does Gandhi have to do with politics in the US?), but there's a lot there wrong.  Ron Paul supporters are passionate.  That's good.

Rand is simply acting like he should be acting, as a Republican politician.  He is a Republican politician, a Republican US Senator from  Kentucky, so he should be campaigning for Romney.  Our little fringe group might not like it, but you might have noticed that our little fringe group got Ron Paul 0 (Zero) primary wins.  I would not expect Rand Paul to cater to our whims.  We should be the ones to figure out what's up, and not get butthurt so often.

I also really don't know exactly what "liberty movement" actually means.  Same as "principles of liberty".  Don't know what those are.  I want / wanted Ron Paul to win.  I want less government.  I prefer the better politician to the worse politician.  Rand Paul is the best US Senator there is right now.

I don't really understand what this "integrative strategy" means.  Is part of this "integrative strategy" to have politicians run on the Libertarian ticket and win?  If so, when was the last time that happened?  Rand Paul won as a Republican, not as a Libertarian.

Not dumping on Libertarians, or Constitutionalists.  It's nice to have them there as a protest vote.  I would think that many Paul supporters would vote for Johnson to send a message that Romney was not Conservative enough, that the Republicans need to put up a candidate that presents a real choice.

----------


## Carlybee

> So question: If your wife (assuming you are a guy) asks "does this dress make me look fat?".  What do you say?


I'm not a guy and I know better than to ask.

----------


## gte811i

> I'm not a guy and I know better than to ask.


Good for you. Nice avoidance of the point.  For those who don't know better than to ask, what should the guy's response be?

----------


## gte811i

I just don't understand how people can think working within the GOP to reshape remold it is a bad thing.  For anybody that went to any of the county/state conventions they see how easy it is to completely overturn the applecart.  You don't need thousands and thousands of people, you need a dedicated minority.  

Look, the Republican Party exists to get people (Republicans) elected to office.  That is it, it only exists for that 1 function.  Part of that getting Republicans elected to office is to * recruit* people to run and to support them.  If you control that structure you can have a lot of influence into who gets elected to office.  You can throw muscle behind liberty minded Republicans and not throw muscle behind non-liberty minded Republicans.

For better or worse the Libertarian Party exists as 1) a protest vote (glad it is there) and 2) educate people. 

We've got a guy in my CD who is very liberty minded who wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in the general on the L ticket (~5-10%) . . .if he wins the primary he could conceivably win or at least get a solid percentage vote.  If he were on the L ticket, I'd vote for him, if he were on the D ticket I'd vote for him.  For *me* it is about the person.  For the *vast* majority of voters it is about R/D.  Until people in the liberty movement get that in their thick, individualist (that is good!) skulls, they have no chance at actually winning and effecting change.  

What the heck does it mean to be a Republican anyways . . . words change, definitions change, times change.  There is no "true Republican" . . .just like all clubs or organizations it takes on the shape and attitudes of it's members.  For me I see the Republican party as the best way to effect real change, so I join it.  If enough people like me join it then the Republican party will change b/c it will take the shape and attitudes of it's members.

----------


## Carlybee

> Good for you. Nice avoidance of the point.  For those who don't know better than to ask, what should the guy's response be?




Poor analogy...you are comparing how to avoid telling a woman her butt is big to a political candidate trying to decide if he should tell the truth.

----------


## Carlybee

> I just don't understand how people can think working within the GOP to reshape remold it is a bad thing.  For anybody that went to any of the county/state conventions they see how easy it is to completely overturn the applecart.  You don't need thousands and thousands of people, you need a dedicated minority.  
> 
> Look, the Republican Party exists to get people (Republicans) elected to office.  That is it, it only exists for that 1 function.  Part of that getting Republicans elected to office is to * recruit* people to run and to support them.  If you control that structure you can have a lot of influence into who gets elected to office.  You can throw muscle behind liberty minded Republicans and not throw muscle behind non-liberty minded Republicans.
> 
> For better or worse the Libertarian Party exists as 1) a protest vote (glad it is there) and 2) educate people. 
> 
> We've got a guy in my CD who is very liberty minded who wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in the general on the L ticket (~5-10%) . . .if he wins the primary he could conceivably win or at least get a solid percentage vote.  If he were on the L ticket, I'd vote for him, if he were on the D ticket I'd vote for him.  For *me* it is about the person.  For the *vast* majority of voters it is about R/D.  Until people in the liberty movement get that in their thick, individualist (that is good!) skulls, they have no chance at actually winning and effecting change.  
> 
> What the heck does it mean to be a Republican anyways . . . words change, definitions change, times change.  There is no "true Republican" . . .just like all clubs or organizations it takes on the shape and attitudes of it's members.  For me I see the Republican party as the best way to effect real change, so I join it.  If enough people like me join it then the Republican party will change b/c it will take the shape and attitudes of it's members.



The Republican Party comes with a lot of baggage...most of it not good.  It is very difficult to reshape perception and perception is part of the reason one is able to win people over.  The average Joe does not necessarily equate the word Liberty, and all that it stands for, with the Republican Party.  The Republican Party as it stands has very little to do with liberty or any other crucial piece of idealism that can save us from what is coming.  We are running out of time.

----------


## gte811i

> Poor analogy...you are comparing how to avoid telling a woman her butt is big to a political candidate trying to decide if he should tell the truth.


Now you are turning this on its side.  The discussion wasn't about a political candidate trying to decide to tell the truth. The discussion started off here:

"How honest is that though? Is it a liberty objective to lie about your beliefs in order to gain political ground?"

I think it is a relatively good comparison, how honest is it to lie about your belief of how a dress fits on a woman in order to ensure harmony (gain political ground) in a relationship?

The discussion was about working in the GOP and how it isn't prudent to go guns blazing "GOP sucks!, bunch of statists!, I hate Romney!, etc."  Some people think working with the GOP is treason and not spouting off everything you believe is being a traitor.  Just because I say hey honey you look great in that dress (when I don't really think so) doesn't means I'm a lying SOB.  Just because I don't tell everyone in the GOP who isn't a libertarian to go to xxxx or because I choose to actually (heaven forbid!) make friends with them doesn't mean I'm a traitor.

----------


## gte811i

> The Republican Party comes with a lot of baggage...most of it not good.  It is very difficult to reshape perception and perception is part of the reason one is able to win people over.  The average Joe does not necessarily equate the word Liberty, and all that it stands for, with the Republican Party.  The Republican Party as it stands has very little to do with liberty or any other crucial piece of idealism that can save us from what is coming.  We are running out of time.


And you don't think the Democratic or Libertarian parties don't come with a lot of baggage?
I agree we are running out of time.  So what is the best way to get from here to there (actually restoring liberty in this country)?

Option A) Start all over with a "new" party or a "3rd" party?
             This party may or may not have ballot access (requires lots and lots of manhours to get ballot access).
             This party may or may not have name recognition (requires lots and lots of time to get name recognition and get people to actually vote that way)
             Overcome the dreaded "voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away"
             Overcome the "if you vote 3rd party you'll just split the vote and let xyz have it"
             Start an entire new fundraising mechanism
             Start an entire new recuiting candidates to run for office . . . overcome ballot access (again!)

Option B) Start getting involved with a current "major" party that has views most similar to mine . . .and lots of liberty people.
             Start taking over state and local Parties (RPers have at least 10% of the state GOP party).
             Start electing liberty people to major party positions (national committee men/women).
             Party already has a track record of getting some Liberty candidates - see Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Massie, etc.
             Get people elected in positions of power so if/when things go wrong liberty will at least have a voice.

I don't like the fact that we have a 2-party system, I wish we had more.  But the system is set up that way, everything from ballot access, state level, to even the Electoral College.  It is what it is.  So I can either fight the system and lose (and wonder why I never got anything accomplished) or I can try and remake one of the parties.  

If you think going a new 3rd party is the easiest route, good luck.

----------


## parocks

> I just don't understand how people can think working within the GOP to reshape remold it is a bad thing.  For anybody that went to any of the county/state conventions they see how easy it is to completely overturn the applecart.  You don't need thousands and thousands of people, you need a dedicated minority.  
> 
> Look, the Republican Party exists to get people (Republicans) elected to office.  That is it, it only exists for that 1 function.  Part of that getting Republicans elected to office is to * recruit* people to run and to support them.  If you control that structure you can have a lot of influence into who gets elected to office.  You can throw muscle behind liberty minded Republicans and not throw muscle behind non-liberty minded Republicans.
> 
> For better or worse the Libertarian Party exists as 1) a protest vote (glad it is there) and 2) educate people. 
> 
> We've got a guy in my CD who is very liberty minded who wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in the general on the L ticket (~5-10%) . . .if he wins the primary he could conceivably win or at least get a solid percentage vote.  If he were on the L ticket, I'd vote for him, if he were on the D ticket I'd vote for him.  For *me* it is about the person.  For the *vast* majority of voters it is about R/D.  Until people in the liberty movement get that in their thick, individualist (that is good!) skulls, they have no chance at actually winning and effecting change.  
> 
> What the heck does it mean to be a Republican anyways . . . words change, definitions change, times change.  There is no "true Republican" . . .just like all clubs or organizations it takes on the shape and attitudes of it's members.  For me I see the Republican party as the best way to effect real change, so I join it.  If enough people like me join it then the Republican party will change b/c it will take the shape and attitudes of it's members.


good stuff here

----------


## parocks

> Now you are turning this on its side.  The discussion wasn't about a political candidate trying to decide to tell the truth. The discussion started off here:
> 
> "How honest is that though? Is it a liberty objective to lie about your beliefs in order to gain political ground?"
> 
> I think it is a relatively good comparison, how honest is it to lie about your belief of how a dress fits on a woman in order to ensure harmony (gain political ground) in a relationship?
> 
> The discussion was about working in the GOP and how it isn't prudent to go guns blazing "GOP sucks!, bunch of statists!, I hate Romney!, etc."  Some people think working with the GOP is treason and not spouting off everything you believe is being a traitor.  Just because I say hey honey you look great in that dress (when I don't really think so) doesn't means I'm a lying SOB.  Just because I don't tell everyone in the GOP who isn't a libertarian to go to xxxx or because I choose to actually (heaven forbid!) make friends with them doesn't mean I'm a traitor.


it isn't prudent to go guns blazing "GOP sucks!, bunch of statists!, I hate Romney!, etc."

yup.

I'd add that saying that under no conditions are we going to vote for anyone but Ron Paul really isn't a good negotiating tactic, unless your goal is to be completely ignored.  "Guys, what'd'ya think about moving a little toward the liberty position?"  "Well, they won't vote for you, no matter what you do, so, if you're going to do that to try to get enough votes to win, not a good idea."

----------


## Carlybee

> And you don't think the Democratic or Libertarian parties don't come with a lot of baggage?
> I agree we are running out of time.  So what is the best way to get from here to there (actually restoring liberty in this country)?
> 
> Option A) Start all over with a "new" party or a "3rd" party?
>              This party may or may not have ballot access (requires lots and lots of manhours to get ballot access).
>              This party may or may not have name recognition (requires lots and lots of time to get name recognition and get people to actually vote that way)
>              Overcome the dreaded "voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away"
>              Overcome the "if you vote 3rd party you'll just split the vote and let xyz have it"
>              Start an entire new fundraising mechanism
> ...


I am neither a member of the Democrat party or the Libertarian party and after November, the Republican party.  I feel there needs to be a paradigm change.  I don't know what that is going to entail or if it is even possible. I don't think going to a new party will be the easiest route or even the most viable route but I think it may be the closest thing to realizing the liberty ideal.

----------


## romancito

> I am neither a member of the Democrat party or the Libertarian party and after November, the Republican party.  I feel there needs to be a paradigm change.  I don't know what that is going to entail or if it is even possible. I don't think going to a new party will be the easiest route or even the most viable route but I think it may be the closest thing to realizing the liberty ideal.


This is what I think - start the Ron Paul party. It doesn't have to have Ron Paul as a candidate for president. It can be just a party that promotes and pushes the Ron Paul agenda for a political government. I think with a minimum effort it will overtake both Democrat and Republican party very quickly. What people object of Ron Paul's agenda is Ron Paul himself. But by substituting Ron Paul with Sarah Palin or some other person like that it will grow very quickly into a large political force.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This is what I think - start the Ron Paul party. It doesn't have to have Ron Paul as a candidate for president. It can be just a party that promotes and pushes the Ron Paul agenda for a political government. I think with a minimum effort it will overtake both Democrat and Republican party very quickly. What people object of Ron Paul's agenda is Ron Paul himself. But by substituting Ron Paul with Sarah Palin or some other person like that it will grow very quickly into a large political force.


*
WHY* would we want to substitute Ron Paul with Sarah Palin?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you think going a new 3rd party is the easiest route, good luck.


I don't think it would be easy, but I think it would be the most honest approach.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> The reform GOP approach is NOT incoherent.  Yes "many of the Paul supporters are 'shocked, SHOCKED' about it, because their mindset has been in "no one but Paul" no-compromise mode."  But that's not a problem with the reform GOP approach.  That a problem with the Paul supporters.  You didn't see me going NOBP.  I had no idea what NOBP was supposed to mean, what the objective of that was, what purpose that was to serve, what the game plan was, why this was a strategy. 
> 
> Listen, Paul supporters have a lot of bad ideas.  I have no real idea exactly where these bad ideas are coming from, and why Ron Paul supporters like these bad ideas so much.  I'm not going to use this thread to try to remember exactly all the bad ideas, all the wrong ways of looking at things  (ok, here's one - what does Gandhi have to do with politics in the US?), but there's a lot there wrong.  Ron Paul supporters are passionate.  That's good.
> 
> Rand is simply acting like he should be acting, as a Republican politician.  He is a Republican politician, a Republican US Senator from  Kentucky, so he should be campaigning for Romney.  Our little fringe group might not like it, but you might have noticed that our little fringe group got Ron Paul 0 (Zero) primary wins.  I would not expect Rand Paul to cater to our whims.  We should be the ones to figure out what's up, and not get butthurt so often.
> 
> I also really don't know exactly what "liberty movement" actually means.  Same as "principles of liberty".  Don't know what those are.  I want / wanted Ron Paul to win.  I want less government.  I prefer the better politician to the worse politician.  Rand Paul is the best US Senator there is right now.
> 
> I don't really understand what this "integrative strategy" means.  Is part of this "integrative strategy" to have politicians run on the Libertarian ticket and win?  If so, when was the last time that happened?  Rand Paul won as a Republican, not as a Libertarian.
> ...



It's pretty hard to deny the "work inside the GOP" folks have been incoherent, when a large fragment of people who took the Rand endorsement of Mitt the hardest were those activists _who were working inside the GOP_, to win delegate positions and state party positions _as per the reform the GOP_ plan. It's also absurd to blame the 0 primary Paul wins on the 3rd party or independent supporters, when the campaign pursued the two failed primary races entirely along "work inside the GOP" lines, and _specifically shunned_ 3rd party suggestions about pursuing an independent run, challenging GOP election fraud, raising 9-11 truth and other deep politics issues, etc., that could have given the campaign the leverage to change the outcome.

It is the 'transform the Republican Party' side that keeps pushing the same faulty ideas about how to proceed, for two election cycles now, then assert that the independent Paul supporters are the reason they failed. This is compounded by saying one doesn't know what the liberty movement is (??) or what a workable alternative is, such as an integrated/integrative strategy, even though I explained it repeatedly in this very thread. So, two definitions are therefore in order:

*Liberty movement:* a Grassroots ORIGINATED and LED alternative political network uniting constitutionalists, libertarians, paleo-conservatives and patriot movement people around restoring liberty, that often creates novel strategies (e.g., the money bomb) to attain influence despite marginalization by the current political and media establishment. Especially since the 2008 candidacy of Ron Paul (who has used the term himself), its 'pro-liberty' supporters are at minimum unified on these issues: 1) pro-peace/non-interventionist foreign policy, 2) sound money/ending or auditing the Federal Reserve central bank, 3) restoring civil liberties/opposing the post-Patriot Act police state, and 4) pro-Constitution, or strict limits on federal power.

*Integrated approach:* A new, post Ron Paul/post Tea Party grassroots approach to elections putting pro-liberty alternative candidates in a more competitive position to win races, involving running principled '3rd party' style campaigns in a winnable major party primary. The concept is to avoid marginalization both outside the major-party system (due to district gerrymandering and media blackout), and inside of it (due to being co-opted or compromised). It is different from traditional party politics because it does NOT advocate working mainly inside a formal party structure (be it the GOP or LP, et al) to get liberty candidates elected. It regards the major and minor party systems NOT as a final political 'home,' but as TOOLS to leverage individual victories by blending the use of both. 

IAW, our real 'home' is the liberty movement itself, which is treated as a 'virtual party' independent power base that is meant to influence the ENTIRE political scene (major and minor) in our direction. The major parties will continue to run mainly victory-oriented campaigns by lining up interest groups and voting blocs, while minor parties will continue to run mainly education-oriented campaigns to get their principled message out. The integrative approach involves using the liberty 3rd parties as a principled benchmark or vetting system for culling real liberty candidates, who can then run principled campaigns in open seat races as EITHER Ron Paul type Republicans or Ron Paul type Democrats, depending on which way the district historically votes in the election. 

The desired outcome is more elected liberty candidates like Paul in office, whose voting record will be consistently pro-liberty, regardless of their big party label. This is a new approach that is NOT GOP centered or LP centered, despite the attempts of others to so pigeonhole the discussion. This approach also avoids the "but we have more in common with Republicans ideologically" misdirection---that is, please compare Ron Paul's voting record on the core liberty issues, versus almost all other Republicans. Except for peripheral wedge issues, Republicans and Democrats vote the same way 90+% of the time on war, the banksters, the police state, and in disregarding the Constitution. Our ONLY focus should be installing more pro-liberty statesmen, who will vote that way once elected. Thinking this will be accomplished under the old concept of 'transforming' one major party, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, is most likely a recipe for more failure.

----------


## mstrmac1

I know there is no perfect answer to how best advance the Liberty Movement, whether inside the GOP or Third Party. My concern is will we fracture as a unit to how best to move forward? As the last 8 years have been critical... the next 12 months maybe the defining moment as to what will happen. My hope is we all stay banded together. For me, in Ideal world, it would be to advance as the wolf, NOT wearing sheeps clothing and start our own party. With that said, although I feel dirty working inside the GOP, If thats what the majority of us want then I'll do my best to help. In the end I just want to be FREE. Im real confused on how we pull this off without Ron Paul at the helm.

Example: If Rand doesn't run in 2016 then what? Or if Romney wins, then what? We again have no voice in the presidential election?

----------


## Carlybee

> This is what I think - start the Ron Paul party. It doesn't have to have Ron Paul as a candidate for president. It can be just a party that promotes and pushes the Ron Paul agenda for a political government. I think with a minimum effort it will overtake both Democrat and Republican party very quickly. What people object of Ron Paul's agenda is Ron Paul himself. But by substituting Ron Paul with Sarah Palin or some other person like that it will grow very quickly into a large political force.


Sarah Palin?  When pigs fly.

----------


## Carlybee

> It's pretty hard to deny the "work inside the GOP" folks have been incoherent, when a large fragment of people who took the Rand endorsement of Mitt the hardest were those activists _who were working inside the GOP_, to win delegate positions and state party positions _as per the reform the GOP_ plan. It's also absurd to blame the 0 primary Paul wins on the 3rd party or independent supporters, when the campaign pursued the two failed primary races entirely along "work inside the GOP" lines, and _specifically shunned_ 3rd party suggestions about pursuing an independent run, challenging GOP election fraud, raising 9-11 truth and other deep politics issues, etc., that could have given the campaign the leverage to change the outcome.
> 
> It is the 'transform the Republican Party' side that keeps pushing the same faulty ideas about how to proceed, for two election cycles now, then assert that the independent Paul supporters are the reason they failed. This is compounded by saying one doesn't know what the liberty movement is (??) or what a workable alternative is, such as an integrated/integrative strategy, even though I explained it repeatedly in this very thread. So, two definitions are therefore in order:
> 
> *Liberty movement:* a Grassroots ORIGINATED and LED alternative political network uniting constitutionalists, libertarians, paleo-conservatives and patriot movement people around restoring liberty, that often creates novel strategies (e.g., the money bomb) to attain influence despite marginalization by the current political and media establishment. Especially since the 2008 candidacy of Ron Paul (who has used the term himself), its 'pro-liberty' supporters are at minimum unified on these issues: 1) pro-peace/non-interventionist foreign policy, 2) sound money/ending or auditing the Federal Reserve central bank, 3) restoring civil liberties/opposing the post-Patriot Act police state, and 4) pro-Constitution, or strict limits on federal power.
> 
> *Integrated approach:* A new, post Ron Paul/post Tea Party grassroots approach to elections putting pro-liberty alternative candidates in a more competitive position to win races, involving running principled '3rd party' style campaigns in a winnable major party primary. The concept is to avoid marginalization both outside the major-party system (due to district gerrymandering and media blackout), and inside of it (due to being co-opted or compromised). It is different from traditional party politics because it does NOT advocate working mainly inside a formal party structure (be it the GOP or LP, et al) to get liberty candidates elected. It regards the major and minor party systems NOT as a final political 'home,' but as TOOLS to leverage individual victories by blending the use of both. 
> 
> IAW, our real 'home' is the liberty movement itself, which is treated as a 'virtual party' independent power base that is meant to influence the ENTIRE political scene (major and minor) in our direction. The major parties will continue to run mainly victory-oriented campaigns by lining up interest groups and voting blocs, while minor parties will continue to run mainly education-oriented campaigns to get their principled message out. The integrative approach involves using the liberty 3rd parties as a principled benchmark or vetting system for culling real liberty candidates, who can then run principled campaigns in open seat races as EITHER Ron Paul type Republicans or Ron Paul type Democrats, depending on which way the district historically votes in the election. 
> ...



Thoughtful response and I agree with much of it.  We are going to have to see what happens at the convention.  I think seeing how RP's delegates are received is going to determine the mood and tactics going forward.

----------


## donnay

> I just don't understand how people can think working within the GOP to reshape remold it is a bad thing.  For anybody that went to any of the county/state conventions they see how easy it is to completely overturn the applecart.  You don't need thousands and thousands of people, you need a dedicated minority.  
> 
> Look, the Republican Party exists to get people (Republicans) elected to office.  That is it, it only exists for that 1 function.  Part of that getting Republicans elected to office is to * recruit* people to run and to support them.  If you control that structure you can have a lot of influence into who gets elected to office.  You can throw muscle behind liberty minded Republicans and not throw muscle behind non-liberty minded Republicans.
> 
> For better or worse the Libertarian Party exists as 1) a protest vote (glad it is there) and 2) educate people. 
> 
> We've got a guy in my CD who is very liberty minded who wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in the general on the L ticket (~5-10%) . . .if he wins the primary he could conceivably win or at least get a solid percentage vote.  If he were on the L ticket, I'd vote for him, if he were on the D ticket I'd vote for him.  For *me* it is about the person.  For the *vast* majority of voters it is about R/D.  Until people in the liberty movement get that in their thick, individualist (that is good!) skulls, they have no chance at actually winning and effecting change.  
> 
> What the heck does it mean to be a Republican anyways . . . words change, definitions change, times change.  There is no "true Republican" . . .just like all clubs or organizations it takes on the shape and attitudes of it's members.  For me I see the Republican party as the best way to effect real change, so I join it.  If enough people like me join it then the Republican party will change b/c it will take the shape and attitudes of it's members.




How about we infiltrate the mafia?  Take them over to try and make them legit.  You think they would let you?  This is the same analogy--both parties are corrupted to the teeth.  Neither are going to relinquish any of their power.  It's called the false left/right paradigm.  They are both different families working for the same Don.

----------


## TheTexan

Some of you are still operating under the assumption that this country wants freedom and just doesn't know it yet.  Shameless re-post:




> I'll guess that 10% of this country truly wants freedom. Maybe more, maybe less. Definitely no more than 20%. You can win an election with 20%. You can even win an election with 10%, if you tried. But you cannot have real change towards freedom when 80% of the country is working against you.
> 
> The best you can hope for is to slow down tyranny.
> 
> You may say that Dr. Paul had a huge jump in supporters from 2008 to 2012, and you're right, he did. However, that's his ceiling, or very close to it. There may be some stragglers who didn't get a chance to hear his message, but no, for the most part, everyone who voted had a basic understanding of what Dr. Paul stood for, and opposed him. They voted for the exact opposite of liberty.
> 
> If we had ran Rand Paul in his place, we may have very well won the nomination. If we had, it would only be because he's younger, more charismatic, or more compromising. Liberty wouldn't have won. Superficial would have won. Even if Rand had won the Presidency, would he have been able to accomplish anything? No. He would have been opposed at every step, likely by his own party.
> 
> Simply consider how hard the media, and the Republican party fought to oppose Dr. Paul. Do you think they didn't have a good grasp of Dr. Paul's positions? Hell no, those reporters jobs is politics. They could tell you Dr. Paul's stance on every single issue. Same for most Republican party officials. They know Dr. Paul's stances, but simply disagree with them. Strongly. They pulled out every trick in the book, all because they oppose liberty. 
> ...





> The vast majority of those capable of 'waking up' have already woken. Most of the people in this movement took hold of freedom the instant Ron Paul offered it to them. Within 5 minutes of seeing my first Ron Paul video so many years ago, I was hooked. Similar stories can be found across these forums. It was like a flip of a switch.
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the country isn't wired to want freedom. They just want to be fed & entertained, control other people's liberties at the expense of their own, and have most of their choices made for them. No amount of education can fix this. 
> 
> The reason why the Republican Party and the MSM have been marginalizing Ron Paul and pulling out every trick in the book to fight him is not because they don't understand his policies. They know his policies inside out, but simply reject them. Ron Paul's policies of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government are in direct opposition to their desires to control and be controlled.
> 
> They won't ever admit to their tyrannical nature, instead their tendencies manifest themselves as façades of one variety or the other. Those façades being the Republican party or the Democratic party. You see, despite their desire for tyranny, they like to believe they are free. They don't participate in either party from any ideological belief, but instead as a utility to pretend they are free and in control of their lives.
> 
> Of course they are not in control of their lives. They are not free. They like enslaving and being enslaved, but can never admit that, because it would force them to acknowledge the very dark realities of their inner nature. Instead they operate in a state of denial, which is why very few of their arguments are rational. When you force them to look at the truth, they get very defensive and if you continue to press, you find outright hostility. Which is what we've been seeing this entire campaign.
> ...

----------


## parocks

> I am neither a member of the Democrat party or the Libertarian party and after November, the Republican party.  I feel there needs to be a paradigm change.  I don't know what that is going to entail or if it is even possible. I don't think going to a new party will be the easiest route or even the most viable route but I think it may be the closest thing to realizing the liberty ideal.


I have no idea about reaching some "liberty ideal".  It's unlikely to happen.  I'm trying to get the best outcome I can get.  These candidates are often not very different.
Every 4 years there's a bunch of Republicans running for President.  Sometimes they all suck.  Sometimes you a really good one.  The Democrats never have a good one.
I have no idea about what this "liberty movement" is.  I think that if its getting our people into leadership roles, working to find good candidates and get them elected, I'm in favor of the "liberty movement".  If "liberty movement" means that you never vote for a candidate who isn't perfect, it means that the better candidate is likely to lose more often.  It's better to be winning 60/40 than losing 60/40.  And everybody knows that the libertarians can't be counted on, so f em.  These politicians are likely to be trying to appeal to different blocs of voters.  Give them something they want, and get their vote.  We say "NO", and they say "well, nothing for you then".  So things will just get worse and worse for us, because we just don't do that "lesser of 2 evils" thing.  It's similar to how young people get screwed because they don't vote.
Yeah, keep increasing the debt, who cares, they young people aren't voting against all this debt they will have to pay.

----------


## gte811i

> This is what I think - start the Ron Paul party. It doesn't have to have Ron Paul as a candidate for president. It can be just a party that promotes and pushes the Ron Paul agenda for a political government. I think with a minimum effort it will overtake both Democrat and Republican party very quickly. What people object of Ron Paul's agenda is Ron Paul himself. But by substituting Ron Paul with Sarah Palin or some other person like that it will grow very quickly into a large political force.



We already have the Ron Paul Party . . . it's called The Campaign for Liberty.

I love pie in the sky ideas . . . .flying cars are great, I wish we had them.  Unfortunately right now they are not feasible.  You can build 'em but no one would ever buy them b/c they would cost too much and would be too expensive to operate.  Maybe someday it will be feasible.

The Ron Paul Party is *not* feasible right now;  anyone who thinks so is entirely underestimating the time/energy/money/change in attitudes that it takes to create a new party and they are overestimating Ron Paul peoples strength.  Some day I hope it will be, but that day is not today.

----------


## gte811i

> How about we infiltrate the mafia?  Take them over to try and make them legit.  You think they would let you?  This is the same analogy--both parties are corrupted to the teeth.  Neither are going to relinquish any of their power.  It's called the false left/right paradigm.  They are both different families working for the same Don.


False paradigm.  No they aren't going to relinquish power willingly, but have you been paying attention to what has happened in Iowa, Main, Minnesota, Nevada, Alaska (maybe Nebraska).  Of course they will fight every step of the way --- to their own doom.  But to say we can't take it over is to deny what has happened this election cycle.  Yes they are working for the same Don, but it's easy to infilitrate and take over . . . it is relatively easy for us to become the insiders, "establishment", etc.

I get it, some individuals just hate any Party that doesn't conform 100% to their ideals and refuse to work with them.  That's cool, go start a Ron Paul party in your state.  If you want the Ron Paul Party . . . take a leadership role and make it happen.  No that would require too much work- we need someone else to do it for us . . . If you really want a RP Party, go make it happen.  

Unfortunately, we see that just like in the election cycle too many people are again internet tigers.  Rah, rah country is going down, GOP sucks, blah, blah .. . and yet they don't get out and vote, they don't go to conventions, they don't get involved b/c the GOP is "corrupt" and we need to have a "pure party", etc. etc. ad infinitim.  And they somehow think there are more of them then there are of people who just vote based on an R or D . . .

----------


## cajuncocoa

> False paradigm.  No they aren't going to relinquish power willingly, but have you been paying attention to what has happened in Iowa, Main, Minnesota, Nevada, Alaska (maybe Nebraska).  Of course they will fight every step of the way --- to their own doom.  But to say we can't take it over is to deny what has happened this election cycle.  Yes they are working for the same Don, but it's easy to infilitrate and take over . . . it is relatively easy for us to become the insiders, "establishment", etc.
> 
> I get it, some individuals just hate any Party that doesn't conform 100% to their ideals and refuse to work with them.  That's cool, go start a Ron Paul party in your state.  If you want the Ron Paul Party . . . take a leadership role and make it happen.  No that would require too much work- we need someone else to do it for us . . . If you really want a RP Party, go make it happen.  
> 
> Unfortunately, we see that just like in the election cycle too many people are again internet tigers.  Rah, rah country is going down, GOP sucks, blah, blah .. . and yet they don't get out and vote, they don't go to conventions, they don't get involved b/c the GOP is "corrupt" and we need to have a "pure party", etc. etc. ad infinitim.  And they somehow think there are more of them then there are of people who just vote based on an R or D . . .


Can I ask you to think about how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?  Let's say you are a member of the current GOP and you really liked Rick Santorum.  You voted for GOP candidates (the establishment kind)  all of your life and you really don't like this Ron Paul character and the whole Ron Paul Revolution.  You think those people are a bunch of drug-smoking hippies and you want nothing to do with them.  There are millions of Republican voters just like you in every state in the USA.  What are you going to do when these Ron Paul people take over your party?  Are you just going to let them?  Are you going to vote for them even if they are successful in their quest to conquer your party?  

*Hell no.*

Now what?

----------


## donnay

> False paradigm.  No they aren't going to relinquish power willingly, but have you been paying attention to what has happened in Iowa, Main, Minnesota, Nevada, Alaska (maybe Nebraska).  Of course they will fight every step of the way --- to their own doom.  But to say we can't take it over is to deny what has happened this election cycle.  Yes they are working for the same Don, but it's easy to infilitrate and take over . . . it is relatively easy for us to become the insiders, "establishment", etc.
> 
> I get it, some individuals just hate any Party that doesn't conform 100% to their ideals and refuse to work with them.  That's cool, go start a Ron Paul party in your state.  If you want the Ron Paul Party . . . take a leadership role and make it happen.  No that would require too much work- we need someone else to do it for us . . . If you really want a RP Party, go make it happen.  
> 
> Unfortunately, we see that just like in the election cycle too many people are again internet tigers.  Rah, rah country is going down, GOP sucks, blah, blah .. . and yet they don't get out and vote, they don't go to conventions, they don't get involved b/c the GOP is "corrupt" and we need to have a "pure party", etc. etc. ad infinitim.  And they somehow think there are more of them then there are of people who just vote based on an R or D . . .



LOL!  In order to work from within the system you have to compromise.  Haven't we compromised enough, at this juncture?  Or are you new to the game?  Do you honestly think your vote counts?  Have you not paid attention to the corruption that has ensued with voter fraud over the last 12 plus years?  They are much more arrogant and in your face, this time around, because they know people will do nothing about it.

The Declaration of Independence is and excellent read--more people should read it.  The DOI was written to deal with a corrupt tyrannical government.  We just celebrated the day it was written, yet most people look at the 4th of July as a holiday to go to parades, eat hot dogs and hamburgers, pay lip services to the troops, and have fun.  There is no sense of urgency to take down this corrupted system.  To think you can over-throw this tyranny by working within the system is a fools errand.  Sorry to burst your bubble, and those who follow those ideals, but I have studied my history.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> LOL!  In order to work from within the system you have to compromise.  Haven't we compromised enough, at this juncture?


Yes!!  Either we would have to compromise or we would get no more votes than we already have!!

No thanks to this idea.  

Even if we lose every election going forward, I would rather stay true to the principles of Liberty...no compromise on that.  Either people get it or they don't.  If they don't and we  have to compromise, we are sacrificing our ideals to "get along".  

No No No.

----------


## romancito

> False paradigm.  ....
> 
> I get it, some individuals just hate any Party that doesn't conform 100% to their ideals and refuse to work with them.  That's cool, go start a Ron Paul party in your state.  If you want the Ron Paul Party . . . take a leadership role and make it happen.  No that would require too much work- we need someone else to do it for us . . . If you really want a RP Party, go make it happen.


I am just going to apologize to all of you for my generation and for Ron Paul's generation. We left you a country bases on MORE lies. We left you a country that if filled to the brim with plastic simulations and self serving snakes as an educational system. 

What you guys need to do is to learn to sweat again. To work tirelessly leaving the results to chance. To take chance and convert it into a product. 

Ron Paul is a disappointment for me. He said he believed in chance and that he will work to the end allowing chance to determine the outcome but somewhere at the end of May he closed shop. He went back to science (what we have been taught to believe more than anything) I guess by listening I guess to Rand. He did what our generations has always done. He took the route that satisfied his emotional needs and abandoned knowledge and knowhow. 

What makes me more proud than anything is that now your generation has the internet and that the tyrannical university/college system we built to enslave and shackle you with science will crumble down and a new way of learning by doing will usher back into our society. I know you guys will find a way to make liberty the way for your children to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

----------


## gte811i

> LOL!  In order to work from within the system you have to compromise.  Haven't we compromised enough, at this juncture?  Or are you new to the game?  Do you honestly think your vote counts?  Have you not paid attention to the corruption that has ensued with voter fraud over the last 12 plus years?  They are much more arrogant and in your face, this time around, because they know people will do nothing about it.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is and excellent read--more people should read it.  The DOI was written to deal with a corrupt tyrannical government.  We just celebrated the day it was written, yet most people look at the 4th of July as a holiday to go to parades, eat hot dogs and hamburgers, pay lip services to the troops, and have fun.  There is no sense of urgency to take down this corrupted system.  To think you can over-throw this tyranny by working within the system is a fools errand.  Sorry to burst your bubble, and those who follow those ideals, but I have studied my history.


I've studied history too.  This sucker is going down, no question.  The question where do you want to be when it does go down?  Do you want to be sitting on your couch gripping that we need to have a RP party that the parties aren't "pure" enough?  Or do you want good liberty people in some positions of power so that when it does go down Liberty can rise from the ashes.

Yeah, my vote doesn't mean jack in the General, but I've got a heck of a lot more influence working on the inside . . .

Because I can guarantee you if Liberty minded people are not in positions of power when it collapses, Liberty doesn't stand a chance . . .

----------


## gte811i

> Can I ask you to think about how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?  Let's say you are a member of the current GOP and you really liked Rick Santorum.  You voted for GOP candidates (the establishment kind)  all of your life and you really don't like this Ron Paul character and the whole Ron Paul Revolution.  You think those people are a bunch of drug-smoking hippies and you want nothing to do with them.  There are millions of Republican voters just like you in every state in the USA.  What are you going to do when these Ron Paul people take over your party?  Are you just going to let them?  Are you going to vote for them even if they are successful in their quest to conquer your party?  
> 
> *Hell no.*
> 
> Now what?


Umm . . . it's called working with people.  Sometimes I wonder if people that are so anti working with those who have opposing viewpoints are married, have a family, have a job . . . you know do anything that requires one to work with people that do not see the world the way you see 100%.

Like it or not the Liberty movement is not a majority and even if it were to shut up the minority would lead to big problems, so one can either try and work with people --- note working with people does NOT mean compromising principles, it means working with them.  Or people can just be stubborn, do nothing and when it all goes down say "see I told you so" when they did nothing to be a solution.

----------


## Carlybee

> Umm . . . it's called working with people.  Sometimes I wonder if people that are so anti working with those who have opposing viewpoints are married, have a family, have a job . . . you know do anything that requires one to work with people that do not see the world the way you see 100%.
> 
> Like it or not the Liberty movement is not a majority and even if it were to shut up the minority would lead to big problems, so one can either try and work with people --- note working with people does NOT mean compromising principles, it means working with them.  Or people can just be stubborn, do nothing and when it all goes down say "see I told you so" when they did nothing to be a solution.


  How's_ their_ ability to work with liberty people working out for you?  The fearmongering here seems vaguely deja vu.  Tell me something....do you plan to vote for Romney if/when he gets the nomination?  Is that your idea of working with them?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Umm . . . it's called working with people.  Sometimes I wonder if people that are so anti working with those who have opposing viewpoints are married, have a family, have a job . . . you know do anything that requires one to work with people that do not see the world the way you see 100%.
> 
> Like it or not the Liberty movement is not a majority and even if it were to shut up the minority would lead to big problems, so one can either try and work with people --- note working with people does NOT mean compromising principles, it means working with them.  Or people can just be stubborn, do nothing and when it all goes down say "see I told you so" when they did nothing to be a solution.


Working with them to what end?  You might as well work with Marxists,  it will get you the same result in the end.  

"Refusing to work with the GOP" and "doing nothing" are not the same thing, BTW.

----------


## gte811i

> How's_ their_ ability to work with liberty people working out for you?  The fearmongering here seems vaguely deja vu.  Tell me something....do you plan to vote for Romney if/when he gets the nomination?  Is that your idea of working with them?


I always vote for the best person on the ballot, regardless of party affiliation or of the consequences.  If Romney is the best I'll vote for him, if he is not I won't vote for him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I always vote for the best person on the ballot, regardless of party affiliation or of the consequences.  *If Romney is the best I'll vote for him,* if he is not I won't vote for him.


That's fine, and it is your right as an American to do so.  Maybe you're not as disgusted with the GOP as I am...maybe that's why you can even consider voting for Romney.  As for me, it's Ron Paul or stay home.

----------


## gte811i

> Working with them to what end?  You might as well work with Marxists,  it will get you the same result in the end.  
> 
> "Refusing to work with the GOP" and "doing nothing" are not the same thing, BTW.


Oh come  . . . GOP == Marxists . . . now this has gone to the deep end.

I'm going to call the trump card on this one.  I have destroyed your arguments about it not working (it is, 5 states and counting show it is!).  I have demonstrated the stark contrast between working with the GOP and not.  I have outlined the benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.

Instead of a rationed response of why it won't work, all I get is hyperbole.  "Their marxists!!!".

Sorry, trump card.  I win this argument and I'm done.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh come  . . . *GOP == Marxists* . . . now this has gone to the deep end.


I did not say GOP==Marxists.  I said "You might as well work with Marxists, it will get you the same result in the end."






> I'm going to call the trump card on this one.  I have destroyed your arguments about it not working (it is, 5 states and counting show it is!).  I have demonstrated the stark contrast between working with the GOP and not.  I have outlined the benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.
> 
> Instead of a rationed response of why it won't work, all I get is hyperbole.  "Their marxists!!!".
> 
> Sorry, trump card.  I win this argument and I'm done.


No, you haven't destroyed my arguments at all.  Let's see what happens when it comes to seating the delegates for those 5 states.  Let's see what happens in those 5 states going forward (I'll get a front row seat; one of the 5 states is the one in which I live).  If you're right and  you're able to make strides in the GOP without compromising Liberty *AT ALL*, I will then say you've destroyed my argument and I will be happy that you have done so.  It's way too soon to make that call now.

----------


## TheTexan

> How's_ their_ ability to work with liberty people working out for you?


Indeed

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I always vote for the best person on the ballot, regardless of party affiliation or of the consequences.  If Romney is the best I'll vote for him, if he is not I won't vote for him.


I'm curious of the differences you see between Obama and Romney..

----------


## Carlybee

> Sorry, trump card.  I win this argument and I'm done.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm curious of the differences you see between Obama and Romney..


Same beast..........New head.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Same beast..........New head.


Still interested in gte811i's answer ..  maybe I missed something

----------


## Carlybee

The way I see it, if working within the GOP is such a great idea, why has the grassroots here all but imploded the minute RP and campaign announced they would not have the delegates to overtake Romney?
Seems like a house of cards.

----------


## gte811i

> I'm curious of the differences you see between Obama and Romney..


Umm . . . there will be 3 people on the ballot (R/D/L), I said I'd vote for the best individual.  I think Romney is more moral the Obama, he hasn't smoked dope, I think he will appoint more moral and less dictatorial individuals to regulatory agencies.  For me: Obama is going 120 mph at a brick wall, Romeny is going 80 mph, Johnson is probably slamming on the emergency breaks trying to throw it into reverse . . .

----------


## gte811i

> The way I see it, if working within the GOP is such a great idea, why has the grassroots here all but imploded the minute RP and campaign announced they would not have the delegates to overtake Romney?
> Seems like a house of cards.


You obviously weren't at my local Republican meeting a few weeks ago (after RP announced they wouldn't have the delegates!), room packed . . . 80% RPers.

----------


## tbone717

> The way I see it, if working within the GOP is such a great idea, why has the grassroots here all but imploded the minute RP and campaign announced they would not have the delegates to overtake Romney?
> Seems like a house of cards.


Some in the grassroots imploded - not all.  And, of course you realize, that the members of RPF only make up a very small percentage of the overall Liberty Movement.  I personally, know many activists that have been involved in the Liberty Movement for many years that don't bother with forums like this.  

The focus of many here was primarily, if not solely, on the Ron Paul campaign.  The focus of others though, was not only the Paul campaign but all the other campaigns across the country where libertarian-conservatives were running for office.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Umm . . . there will be 3 people on the ballot (R/D/L), I said I'd vote for the best individual.  I think Romney is more moral the Obama, he hasn't smoked dope, I think he will appoint more moral and less dictatorial individuals to regulatory agencies.  For me: Obama is going 120 mph at a brick wall, Romeny is going 80 mph, Johnson is probably slamming on the emergency breaks trying to throw it into reverse . . .


You do know there will probably be more than 3 people on the ballot, right? 

 And are you saying you believe that someone who has "smoked dope" is immoral??

----------


## UMULAS

This thread is just causing so much fail in the grassroots. Why don't we just support both parties, we go for the LP party but we can vote for R candidates that are small "L".

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This thread is just causing so much fail in the grassroots. Why don't we just support both parties, we go for the LP party but we can vote for R candidates that are small "L".


I don't support any party, and I never will again.  I will only support candidates who do not sacrifice liberty principles.  Once they've done that (even a little bit) they will be scratched off my list.  

No one else needs to follow my lead, and I'm not interested in following the lead of those who wish to "work within the GOP" or any other party.

I would have thought I might work within a new party that Ron Paul supporters might start, but I can see that there are too many people who don't share my view of what liberty is, or they would sell out liberty principles at the drop of a hat.  While those people believe our movement is no good if we can't get elected, I believe getting elected does no good if we do not stay true to what we believe and reject what we do  not (and that means NOT endorsing candidates who make it clear the Constitution is meaningless to them).

----------


## gte811i

> I don't support any party, and I never will again.  I will only support candidates who do not sacrifice liberty principles.  Once they've done that (even a little bit) they will be scratched off my list.  
> 
> No one else needs to follow my lead, and I'm not interested in following the lead of those who wish to "work within the GOP" or any other party.
> 
> I would have thought I might work within a new party that Ron Paul supporters might start, but I can see that there are too many people who don't share my view of what liberty is, or they would sell out liberty principles at the drop of a hat.  While those people believe our movement is no good if we can't get elected, I believe getting elected does no good if we do not stay true to what we believe and reject what we do  not (and that means NOT endorsing candidates who make it clear the Constitution is meaningless to them).


(sigh)  Murray Rothbard - Mr. Libertarian, the founder of modern anarco-capitalism, prolific writer of umpteen historical Liberty books, Austrian economics, etc. endorsed Bush Sr.  I've read and agree with 99% of just about everything Rothbard has written.  Rothbard helped found the Mises Institute, Cato, 

http://articles.latimes.com/print/19..._1_george-bush

Under your terms, Rothbard would be labeled a sell-out.

Be careful who you label a hypocrite or a sell-out or you might just find yourself under that label.

----------


## tbone717

> This thread is just causing so much fail in the grassroots. Why don't we just support both parties, we go for the LP party but we can vote for R candidates that are small "L".


The debate is essentially between those who see value with working within the GOP, i.e. getting elected at the local level, volunteering, attending GOP meetings, working for other candidates, etc. and those who think they are better off in the LP.  In all honesty, the debate will never be settled as there are some who are dead set against working to reform the GOP, many of them were never part of the GOP in the first place and only registered Republican to support Paul this year or in 08.  And likewise, there are some who see third party ventures as foolish, as third parties have never been able to elect anyone to an office higher than State Rep.  The last person to win an election as a Libertarian Party member was Steve Vaillancourt (NH) in 2000.  Vaillancourt was a Democratic State Rep who lost the Dem primary for State Senate. He  was unable to run for his old seat as a Dem so ran on the LP line.  Vaillancourt is currently registered as a Republican.

All debate aside, there is a large movement (much larger than the members here at RPF) that have been working within the GOP to return it to its founding principles for many years.  Paul was a part of that movement since its inception.  That movement will continue on with or without those who, at the present time, may disagree with the plan and strategy.

At the end of the day, there will be some who go off on their own to the LP, CP or some other party or organization.  Whether or not they will be able to have any real effect on the direction our country takes has yet to be seen.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> (sigh)  Murray Rothbard - Mr. Libertarian, the founder of modern anarco-capitalism, prolific writer of umpteen historical Liberty books, Austrian economics, etc. endorsed Bush Sr.  I've read and agree with 99% of just about everything Rothbard has written.  Rothbard helped found the Mises Institute, Cato, 
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/print/19..._1_george-bush
> 
> Under your terms, Rothbard would be labeled a sell-out.
> 
> Be careful who you label a hypocrite or a sell-out or you might just find yourself under that label.


Maybe that's why we don't get too far...too many willing to sellout.  

That said, things keep changing and evolving....25-30 years ago I might have made the same choice too.  But once I educated myself about the problems facing us and how they got started, I could not forgive myself if I regressed.  If I voted for or endorsed an establishment GOP candidate (or Democrat) I would be selling out.  Period.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The debate is essentially between those who see value with working within the GOP, i.e. getting elected at the local level, volunteering, attending GOP meetings, working for other candidates, etc. and those who think they are better off in the LP.  In all honesty, the debate will never be settled as there are some who are dead set against working to reform the GOP, many of them were never part of the GOP in the first place and only registered Republican to support Paul this year or in 08.  And likewise, there are some who see third party ventures as foolish, as third parties have never been able to elect anyone to an office higher than State Rep.  The last person to win an election as a Libertarian Party member was Steve Vaillancourt (NH) in 2000.  Vaillancourt was a Democratic State Rep who lost the Dem primary for State Senate. He  was unable to run for his old seat as a Dem so ran on the LP line.  Vaillancourt is currently registered as a Republican.
> 
> All debate aside, there is a large movement (much larger than the members here at RPF) that have been working within the GOP to return it to its founding principles for many years.  Paul was a part of that movement since its inception.  That movement will continue on with or without those who, at the present time, may disagree with the plan and strategy.
> 
> At the end of the day, there will be some who go off on their own to the LP, CP or some other party or organization.  Whether or not they will be able to have any real effect on the direction our country takes has yet to be seen.


Whether working within the GOP will have an real effect is also yet to be seen.

----------


## gte811i

> Maybe that's why we don't get too far...too many willing to sellout.


So you are in essence calling Rothbard a sellout?

Please tell me what books of Rothbard you have read . . . surely anyone as educated in the liberty movement and the deep idealogical problems facing us must have read Rothbard.

What about Jefferson?  He must have been a sellout too, his presidency wasn't 100% true to his principles.  

But I'm sure if only you had been elected, you would not have sold-out, you would be 100% true.  We must get you to be president of the US then.


(sarcasm off)
Look, that's cool do your own thing, but to label everyone else who wants to work with the GOP as a sellout is hyperbole.

----------


## tbone717

> Whether working within the GOP will have an real effect is also yet to be seen.


Well, as I see it, you cannot undo 100 years of big government overnight.  Going back as little as 10 years ago, we had very few people in Congress that shared our views of limited Constitutional government.  Today our numbers have grown, we have representation in the Senate, and we were able to put forth a credible run at the GOP nomination.  This year we have the opportunity to send more Liberty Republicans to the House, Senate, state legislatures and local office.  Next year there will be more opportunities, and in 2014 there will be 33 Senate races up for grabs, along with all of the House.  While, we certainly may not be able to dominate those midterm elections yet, I can almost guarantee that a Libertarian Party candidate will not win any of those 468 seats.

Like I said in my previous post, this movement that is working in the GOP will continue on.  The question for RPF members is will they work along side of us, or work against us?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you are in essence calling Rothbard a sellout?
> 
> Please tell me what books of Rothbard you have read . . . surely anyone as educated in the liberty movement and the deep idealogical problems facing us must have read Rothbard.
> 
> What about Jefferson?  He must have been a sellout too, his presidency wasn't 100% true to his principles.  
> 
> But I'm sure if only you had been elected, you would not have sold-out, you would be 100% true.  We must get you to be president of the US then.
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe "sellout" is too strong a word.  Maybe "sacrifice" would be more appropriate.

And, as I said....it's one thing to have endorsed an establishment GOP candidate 25-30 years ago (or more).  In the 80s and 90s we had periods where we really thought everything was going well and all we had to worry about was what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars in the Oval Office.  We don't have the luxury to dally with such frivolous nonsense today.  We need to be more circumspect about our political decisions now.

----------


## TheTexan

> The debate is essentially between those who see value with working within the GOP, i.e. getting elected at the local level, volunteering, attending GOP meetings, working for other candidates, etc. and those who think they are better off in the LP.


And then there's those of us that think all of this party business is foolish

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Like I said in my previous post, this movement that is working in the GOP will continue on.  The question for RPF members is will they work along side of us, or work against us?


Sounds an awful lot like



*"*_You're either with us or against us..." ~ George W. Bush, November 6 2001

_
It's your right to do what you think you must.  And it's my right to do what I must.  There are times when I probably will work against the GOP, and others when I might work with you.  Depends on the candidate, and subject to change depending on what said candidate does/does not do.

----------


## tbone717

> Maybe "sellout" is too strong a word.  Maybe "sacrifice" would be more appropriate.
> 
> And, as I said....it's one thing to have endorsed an establishment GOP candidate 25-30 years ago (or more).  In the 80s and 90s we had periods where we really thought everything was going well and all we had to worry about was what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars in the Oval Office.  We don't have the luxury to dally with such frivolous nonsense today.  We need to be more circumspect about our political decisions now.


Rand's endorsement was a political move.  All sitting Senators endorse the nominee, to not do so would be odd.  I believe Rand does not want to be on a political deserted island like his father was for most of his career.  He has allies in the Senate (DeMint and Lee, with Flake on the way in this year and possibly more) and can be an effective legislator.  Ron had little to no allies in the House for the majority of his career, he was in the minority party for most of his time, and was ideologically outnumbered in his own party - therefore Ron could do the unconventional things (like not endorse the nominee) without it harming his standing.  Rand, on the other hand, has the opportunity to advance on the ground work laid by his father.  He could potentially be in a position to run for Whip or Leader soon.  Not endorsing the nominee, would not benefit him in any other way other than getting props from a handful of RPF and DP members.

----------


## tbone717

> Sounds an awful lot like
> 
> 
> 
> *"*_You're either with us or against us..." ~ George W. Bush, November 6 2001
> 
> _
> It's your right to do what you think you must.  And it's my right to do what I must.  There are times when I probably will work against the GOP, and others when I might work with you.  Depends on the candidate, and subject to change depending on what said candidate does/does not do.


Well, considering that both the LP and the CP (as the US Taxpayers Party) ran a general election candidate against Amash in 2010, I would say in that case they were working against us - and that is just one example.

And obviously, you have every right to pick and choose when you want to be an activist and when you do not.  I do not blindly support a candidate just because they have an R next to their name.  In fact this November, I am sitting out and not doing any canvassing, poll working, etc because there is no one on the ballot that is a Liberty Republican in my area.  

But "working within the GOP" is so much more than supporting a candidate at election time.  It is about an ongoing effort for people to involve themselves in their local GOP.  To volunteer, to run for party offices, to attend meetings, etc.  It is about increasing the amount of people that share our views that make up the leadership and members of the active party body.

For example in my county, the folks that show up at the local GOP meetings amount to no more than 100 or so.  They are the people that are actively involved in the political going-ons of our county.  They are the group that vote on who the county GOP should endorse, the ones that organize speakers to come to the area, rallies, fundraisers, etc - all of the political activity that takes place in the county.  How different would my local county be if the majority of that group was libertarian-conservatives?  What would the party endorsements look like?  What issue activism would be done at the local level?  So, when we speak of taking back the GOP, it is so much more than people on a forum deciding whether or not they are going to put a bumper sticker on their car for a candidate.  It is about being active and involved in your local party as well as the community as a whole.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand's endorsement was a political move.  All sitting Senators endorse the nominee, to not do so would be odd.  I believe Rand does not want to be on a political deserted island like his father was for most of his career.  He has allies in the Senate (DeMint and Lee, with Flake on the way in this year and possibly more) and can be an effective legislator.  Ron had little to no allies in the House for the majority of his career, he was in the minority party for most of his time, and was ideologically outnumbered in his own party - therefore Ron could do the unconventional things (like not endorse the nominee) without it harming his standing.  Rand, on the other hand, has the opportunity to advance on the ground work laid by his father.  He could potentially be in a position to run for Whip or Leader soon.  Not endorsing the nominee, would not benefit him in any other way other than getting props from a handful of RPF and DP members.


You're making my case for me.

I don't give a rat's ass about "harming his standing"...I care more about harming what WE stand for.  

There are many ways Rand could have done this differently...he could have waited until after the convention.  

Or it wouldn't be an issue at all if he wasn't sleeping with the GOP.  Just sayin'.

----------


## Carlybee

> Umm . . . there will be 3 people on the ballot (R/D/L), I said I'd vote for the best individual.  I think Romney is more moral the Obama, he hasn't smoked dope, I think he will appoint more moral and less dictatorial individuals to regulatory agencies.  For me: Obama is going 120 mph at a brick wall, Romeny is going 80 mph, Johnson is probably slamming on the emergency breaks trying to throw it into reverse . . .



Smoking dope is the dealbreaker? LOL. I would be concerned about a few more "immoral" things than smoking dope. Like starting WW3, shift toward total fascism or totalitarianism...which either of those two boobs will have us heading.

----------


## tbone717

> You're making my case for me.
> 
> I don't give a rat's ass about "harming his standing"...I care more about harming what WE stand for.  
> 
> There are many ways Rand could have done this differently...he could have waited until after the convention.  
> 
> Or it wouldn't be an issue at all if he wasn't sleeping with the GOP.  Just sayin'.


Rand did not sell our his principles.  He stands for the same things today that he did before the endorsement.  He said all along that he would endorse the nominee, Romney had more than enough delegates to win the nomination, so he made the endorsement. 

I really don't see why any of this came as a surprise to people - but really it is off topic here and is an issue that has been beaten to death.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't support any party, and I never will again.  I will only support candidates who do not sacrifice liberty principles.  Once they've done that (even a little bit) they will be scratched off my list.  
> 
> No one else needs to follow my lead, and I'm not interested in following the lead of those who wish to "work within the GOP" or any other party.
> 
> I would have thought I might work within a new party that Ron Paul supporters might start, but I can see that there are too many people who don't share my view of what liberty is, or they would sell out liberty principles at the drop of a hat.  While those people believe our movement is no good if we can't get elected, I believe getting elected does no good if we do not stay true to what we believe and reject what we do  not (and that means NOT endorsing candidates who make it clear the Constitution is meaningless to them).


I owe you a +rep

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand did not sell our his principles.  He stands for the same things today that he did before the endorsement.  *He said all along that he would endorse the nominee, Romney had more than enough delegates to win the nomination, so he made the endorsement.* 
> 
> I really don't see why any of this came as a surprise to people - but really it is off topic here and is an issue that has been beaten to death.


I wish he hadn't endorsed and/or promised to do so.

I won't back off from that and I get that you won't back off from wanting to change the GOP.  

I wish you luck, I really do.  And on that note, I think we just have to agree to disagree about it.

----------


## tbone717

Continuing off my post #223, here are some additional thoughts for you all about working in the GOP.

I just looked at my county GOP's events calendar.  Between now and the middle of August they have 4 events scheduled where they will have a booth at the event.  One of them is the county fair which has a huge turnout and lasts a full week.  Each of those events will have people manning the booth, passing our literature and engaging local voters in conversation about the issues of the day.  What would be better - to have the booths manned by GOP-E types or to have the booths manned by libertarian-conservatives like ourselves?   

The more than folks like us get involved in our local GOP, the more likely it will be that booths like those will be manned by folks that share our viewpoint, rather than being manned by moderates, neo-cons or social-conservatives that do not share all of our views.

Taking the party back at the local level is not as hard as it sounds.  In many cases, all it involves is showing up, and being ready to work.

----------


## EBounding

> I would have thought I might work within a new party that Ron Paul supporters might start, but I can see that there are too many people who don't share my view of what liberty is, or they would sell out liberty principles at the drop of a hat.


So what are you going to do instead?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So what are you going to do instead?


 The same thing I always do:  take each election as it comes down, research candidates, and then decide who gets my vote or whether I will even vote at all.

----------


## tbone717

> The same thing I always do:  take each election as it comes down, research candidates, and then decide who gets my vote or whether I will even vote at all.


So you aren't involved in any activism then?  Canvassing, phone banking, tabling, etc?

Have you ever gone to a meeting at your parish GOP to see what it is all about?  If not, you may want to consider it before you make your final decision as to what you are going to do.  You may very well find out that there are some like minded people already involved there locally, your voice could very well be the one that makes a majority.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you aren't involved in any activism then?  Canvassing, phone banking, tabling, etc?


Well, I guess I failed to mention _everything_ I do ....yes, I have done phone banking.  Most recently I participated in the phone-from-home program that was advertised here at the RPF.




> Have you ever gone to a meeting at your parish GOP to see what it is all about?  If not, you may want to consider it before you make your final decision as to what you are going to do.  You may very well find out that there are some like minded people already involved there locally, your voice could very well be the one that makes a majority.


I used to be heavily involved with my local GOP many, many years ago.  Neocons all.  I find it hard to believe that much has changed.  Even if we had a majority of like-minded people, what good does that do in the long run?  I *hate* the idea of being in the GOP....totally hate it.

----------


## tbone717

> I used to be heavily involved with my local GOP many, many years ago.  Neocons all.  I find it hard to believe that much has changed.  Even if we had a majority of like-minded people, what good does that do in the long run?  I *hate* the idea of being in the GOP....totally hate it.


Well being the majority means we are the party (at least at that local level).  I think sometimes people think of the GOP as a monolithic entity, when instead it is made up of people - your neighbors, co-workers, etc -- that is what the GOP is.  The failure we have had in recent years is that we have not been involved enough. Too many people have sat on the sidelines for a long time.  One of the benefits of the RP candidacies is that it has brought a lot of new people into political activism, and hopefully with those people involved we will have the numbers we need to be able to set the agenda and control the debate.  The neo-cons didn't take control of the party by sitting on the sidelines - they showed up at the local meetings, they ran for committeeman and other local offices.  

And as I said, the more folks like us that make up the party the better.  For example, as I mentioned earlier my county GOP organization is essentially made up of about 100 people - that is in a county with 45,000 registered Republicans.  So the party, is essentially those 100 people - 50 of us involved and we have a majority.  That enables us to set the stage for more libertarian-conservatives to run for office, and potentially win.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Smoking dope is the dealbreaker? LOL. I would be concerned about a few more "immoral" things than smoking dope. Like starting WW3, shift toward total fascism or totalitarianism...which either of those two boobs will have us heading.


I agree.  But tell me, are you applying the same logic to Rand Paul endorsing Romney?

----------


## gte811i

> Smoking dope is the dealbreaker? LOL. I would be concerned about a few more "immoral" things than smoking dope. Like starting WW3, shift toward total fascism or totalitarianism...which either of those two boobs will have us heading.


I never said it was a deal-breaker. Someone asked the differences, I said I believe Romney is more moral.  I'll vote for the more moral vs. the immoral if all their positions are the same.  I never said I would vote for Romney.

Some people don't get, working in the GOP != voting GOP in the general . . .

I bet Rand in the voting booth doesn't actually vote for Romney  .. .

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well being the majority means we are the party (at least at that local level).  I think sometimes people think of the GOP as a monolithic entity, when instead it is made up of people - your neighbors, co-workers, etc -- that is what the GOP is.  The failure we have had in recent years is that we have not been involved enough. Too many people have sat on the sidelines for a long time.  One of the benefits of the RP candidacies is that it has brought a lot of new people into political activism, and hopefully with those people involved we will have the numbers we need to be able to set the agenda and control the debate.  The neo-cons didn't take control of the party by sitting on the sidelines - they showed up at the local meetings, they ran for committeeman and other local offices.  
> 
> And as I said, the more folks like us that make up the party the better.  For example, as I mentioned earlier my county GOP organization is essentially made up of about 100 people - that is in a county with 45,000 registered Republicans.  So the party, is essentially those 100 people - 50 of us involved and we have a majority.  That enables us to set the stage for more libertarian-conservatives to run for office, and potentially win.


When we are the majority, where do the neocon activists go?  They too are my neighbors and co-workers who currently make up what the GOP is.  They don't care for what the Ron Paul Revolution is doing now; they aren't going to magically be convinced just because they get outnumbered at a meeting sometime in the future.  If we don't grow in the general population, they will still outnumber us and make sure they don't just get caught sleeping again. 

 If it happens that way, we really haven't won anything.  That's been my point all along.  

If we *do* grow in the general population, we don't need the GOP.  They can have their neocon candidates...let's go up against them in the general election and find out who comes out the winner.

----------


## gte811i

> Well, I guess I failed to mention _everything_ I do ....yes, I have done phone banking.  Most recently I participated in the phone-from-home program that was advertised here at the RPF.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be heavily involved with my local GOP many, many years ago.  Neocons all.  I find it hard to believe that much has changed.  Even if we had a majority of like-minded people, what good does that do in the long run?  I *hate* the idea of being in the GOP....totally hate it.


Well then you are part of the problem and the reason why we are in this mess today.  Maybe, just maybe if more people had gotten involved 20 years ago and had stayed with it we would have liberty people in positions of power.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I never said it was a deal-breaker. Someone asked the differences, I said I believe Romney is more moral.  I'll vote for the more moral vs. the immoral if all their positions are the same.  I never said I would vote for Romney.
> 
> Some people don't get, working in the GOP != voting GOP in the general . . .
> 
> I bet Rand in the voting booth doesn't actually vote for Romney  .. .


I wonder who you think he will vote for? 

 And if not Romney, then why the dishonesty?  

If it's meaningless, then he should have just STFU.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well then you are part of the problem and the reason why we are in this mess today.  Maybe, just maybe if more people had gotten involved 20 years ago and had stayed with it we would have liberty people in positions of power.


LMAO!!  You think the reason we're in the mess we're in today is because I left the GOP?

----------


## gte811i

> When we are the majority, where do the neocon activists go?  They too are my neighbors and co-workers who currently make up what the GOP is.  They don't care for what the Ron Paul Revolution is doing now; they aren't going to magically be convinced just because they get outnumbered at a meeting sometime in the future.  If we don't grow in the general population, they will still outnumber us and make sure they don't just get caught sleeping again. 
> 
>  If it happens that way, we really haven't won anything.  That's been my point all along.  
> 
> If we *do* grow in the general population, we don't need the GOP.  They can have their neocon candidates...let's go up against them in the general election and find out who comes out the winner.


You really think they are neocons in their heart and soul?

They've been sold a song and a dance.  We are in the mess we are today because not enough good liberty people decided to get involved.  This country is a mess because people think all they need to do is show up and vote.  Complain 24/7, show up and vote and by George I've done my duty so leave me alone.

----------


## gte811i

> LMAO!!  You think the reason we're in the mess we're in today is because I left the GOP?


I said part of the problem.  Yes, you and every other individual who decided to not become involved you are part of the problem.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You really think they are neocons in their heart and soul?
> 
> They've been sold a song and a dance.  We are in the mess we are today because not enough good liberty people decided to get involved.  This country is a mess because people think all they need to do is show up and vote.  Complain 24/7, show up and vote and by George I've done my duty so leave me alone.


Yes, I do believe they are neocons in their heart and soul.  These people are nationalists who believe that our country is right NO MATTER WHAT and can do no wrong.  So when someone like Dr. Paul comes along and talks about blowback he gets rejected.  When he says we should treat other nations the way we want to be treated, he gets booed.  And these people are enabled in their way of thinking by their own neighbors, co-workers, Congressmen, Senators, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and FOXNews. They believe it's traitorous for someone to apologize for the U.S., even if we have done wrong. If you feel differently, they will question your patriotism.  Have you not seen this before??




> I said part of the problem.  Yes, you and every other individual who decided to not become involved you are part of the problem.


Once again, it's not the same thing to say one is not involved at all just because one decides to cut ties with the GOP.

----------


## Carlybee

> I agree.  But tell me, are you applying the same logic to Rand Paul endorsing Romney?


I understand why Rand endorsed Romney.  The Tea Party (which is now co-opted and will put their support behind Romney) got Rand elected to the Senate.  My comments on Romney still stand...interpret as you wish.

----------


## Carlybee

> I never said it was a deal-breaker. Someone asked the differences, I said I believe Romney is more moral.  I'll vote for the more moral vs. the immoral if all their positions are the same.  I never said I would vote for Romney.
> 
> Some people don't get, working in the GOP != voting GOP in the general . . .
> 
> I bet Rand in the voting booth doesn't actually vote for Romney  .. .


And you have some sort of moral barometer??  LOL...sorry but that is not a Liberty position.  Which leads me to believe that you are more aligned with the neocon (we are the moral police) position.  Romney is no more moral than Obama.  At the end of the day neither one of them will do what is right for America and they will both continue to shred the Constitution.  Whether one has smoked dope or not is the least of our worries.

----------


## Carlybee

> I said part of the problem.  Yes, you and *every other individual* who decided to not become involved you are part of the problem.


WE have been involved...WE now choose to look at other paths.  YOU don't have a clue when or how or what we have done to be involved.  I was part of the Libertarians Pretending to be Republicans movement in 2008.  I was elected a county delegate.  I have contributed money to Ron Paul in both campaigns.  It's not quite as simplistic as you would like to make everyone believe.  So you really should rethink the broad statements you are making.  Oh and that's libertarian with a small l.  I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party.

----------


## tbone717

In all honesty the debate about this is a moot point.  There has been an ongoing libertarian-conservative movement in the GOP for the last 20+ years.  That movement is growing and we are seeing many successes at the local, state and national level.  Some of those people are part of RPF, most are not.  This movement will continue onward doing what we have been doing all along:  attending local GOP meetings;  running for positions such as committee person, school board, township offices, etc; volunteering for the local GOP to help with voter registration, tabling, etc;  donating to and volunteering for candidates that we support to help them get elected; and a whole host of other things.  This has always been, and will always be much bigger than just the presidential nomination.  The Ron Paul campaigns of 08 and 12, have been very important, but are just one part of a multi-level effort.

Folks here have a choice to make.  They can join us and help with the effort, they can join up with some third party like the LP (and hopefully not oppose Liberty Republicans when they are running for office like they did with Lee, Amash, and others), or they can sit on the sidelines.  It really is that simple.  The small handful of people here at RPF that are in opposition to working within the GOP are not going to stop the effort.  

So rather than bicker about whether or not you are going to work within the GOP, wouldn't it be more profitable to lay out some plans and suggestions for what we can do?

----------


## gte811i

> In all honesty the debate about this is a moot point.  There has been an ongoing libertarian-conservative movement in the GOP for the last 20+ years.  That movement is growing and we are seeing many successes at the local, state and national level.  Some of those people are part of RPF, most are not.  This movement will continue onward doing what we have been doing all along:  attending local GOP meetings;  running for positions such as committee person, school board, township offices, etc; volunteering for the local GOP to help with voter registration, tabling, etc;  donating to and volunteering for candidates that we support to help them get elected; and a whole host of other things.  This has always been, and will always be much bigger than just the presidential nomination.  The Ron Paul campaigns of 08 and 12, have been very important, but are just one part of a multi-level effort.
> 
> Folks here have a choice to make.  They can join us and help with the effort, they can join up with some third party like the LP (and hopefully not oppose Liberty Republicans when they are running for office like they did with Lee, Amash, and others), or they can sit on the sidelines.  It really is that simple.  The small handful of people here at RPF that are in opposition to working within the GOP are not going to stop the effort.  
> 
> So rather than bicker about whether or not you are going to work within the GOP, wouldn't it be more profitable to lay out some plans and suggestions for what we can do?



I might disagree with how big the libertarian-conservative movement in the GOP has been (sometimes an army of 1-RP?), but +1 rep.

----------


## parocks

> Can I ask you to think about how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?  Let's say you are a member of the current GOP and you really liked Rick Santorum.  You voted for GOP candidates (the establishment kind)  all of your life and you really don't like this Ron Paul character and the whole Ron Paul Revolution.  You think those people are a bunch of drug-smoking hippies and you want nothing to do with them.  There are millions of Republican voters just like you in every state in the USA.  What are you going to do when these Ron Paul people take over your party?  Are you just going to let them?  Are you going to vote for them even if they are successful in their quest to conquer your party?  
> 
> *Hell no.*
> 
> Now what?


Most of them would vote for Ron Paul over Obama.

----------


## parocks

> Umm . . . there will be 3 people on the ballot (R/D/L), I said I'd vote for the best individual.  I think Romney is more moral the Obama, he hasn't smoked dope, I think he will appoint more moral and less dictatorial individuals to regulatory agencies.  For me: Obama is going 120 mph at a brick wall, Romeny is going 80 mph, Johnson is probably slamming on the emergency breaks trying to throw it into reverse . . .


What about Virgil Goode?  He should be on the ballot as well at least in some states.

----------


## parocks

> Yes, I do believe they are neocons in their heart and soul.  These people are nationalists who believe that our country is right NO MATTER WHAT and can do no wrong.  So when someone like Dr. Paul comes along and talks about blowback he gets rejected.  When he says we should treat other nations the way we want to be treated, he gets booed.  And these people are enabled in their way of thinking by their own neighbors, co-workers, Congressmen, Senators, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and FOXNews. They believe it's traitorous for someone to apologize for the U.S., even if we have done wrong. If you feel differently, they will question your patriotism.  Have you not seen this before??
> 
> Once again, it's not the same thing to say one is not involved at all just because one decides to cut ties with the GOP.


Nationalists.  I like nationalists.  Not globalists.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Most of them would vote for Ron Paul over Obama.


It seems like none of you have even given a thought to what your opponents' next move will be.  Do you think the machine that is the GOP will just sit by and watch all of this without a response?  Their candidate (Romney) could pull a 3rd party run, the voters and campaign money would follow; plus they own the media to get the word out.  I'm sorry to keep bursting your bubble but it really seems like you guys haven't thought this through.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Nationalists.  *I like nationalists*.  Not globalists.


Not surprised.

----------


## raystone

> In all honesty the debate about this is a moot point.  There has been an ongoing libertarian-conservative movement in the GOP for the last 20+ years.  That movement is growing and we are seeing many successes at the local, state and national level.  Some of those people are part of RPF, most are not.  This movement will continue onward doing what we have been doing all along:  attending local GOP meetings;  running for positions such as committee person, school board, township offices, etc; volunteering for the local GOP to help with voter registration, tabling, etc;  donating to and volunteering for candidates that we support to help them get elected; and a whole host of other things.  This has always been, and will always be much bigger than just the presidential nomination.  The Ron Paul campaigns of 08 and 12, have been very important, but are just one part of a multi-level effort.
> 
> Folks here have a choice to make.  They can join us and help with the effort, they can join up with some third party like the LP (and hopefully not oppose Liberty Republicans when they are running for office like they did with Lee, Amash, and others), or they can sit on the sidelines.  It really is that simple.  The small handful of people here at RPF that are in opposition to working within the GOP are not going to stop the effort.  
> 
> So rather than bicker about whether or not you are going to work within the GOP, wouldn't it be more profitable to lay out some plans and suggestions for what we can do?



Thanks for helping to move along this discussion.  I would also add to the moot point argument by pointing out RPFers voted 3 to 1 in a poll a while back to take back the GOP vs. going 3rd party.

----------


## parocks

> Not surprised.


You a globalist, huh?  One set of laws for everybody in the world? Kumbaya?  That sort of thing?  You want the US Troops under the UN Flag?  That something you like?  You want foreign troops in US, when our troops are elsewhere?  It's Nationalist or Globalist.  And I prefer Americans making laws for Americans, and foreigners not having any say in our laws.  That makes me a Nationalist, and not a Globalist.

----------


## parocks

> It seems like none of you have even given a thought to what your opponents' next move will be.  Do you think the machine that is the GOP will just sit by and watch all of this without a response?  Their candidate (Romney) could pull a 3rd party run, the voters and campaign money would follow; plus they own the media to get the word out.  I'm sorry to keep bursting your bubble but it really seems like you guys haven't thought this through.


This is your hypothetical.  What would happen after something that isn't going to happen, happens?  We have sore loser laws in some cases.  If, somehow Ron Paul got the nomination, Mitt Romney would not be on the ballot.  And, yes, they would vote for Ron Paul over Obama.  A handful (Bill Kristol) would vote for Obama.  

We know there is an endless fight.  There is no bubble, no bursting.  Republican candidates win.  We want that winning brand.  The people who have control of it now don't want to get rid of it.  Because it's a excellent brand, almost exactly as good as the Democrat brand.  Both win elections.  The Libertarian brand is a bad brand, it doesn't get you wins.

Ron Paul is simply part of a long Conservative Tradition in the Republican Party.  If so many of the libertarian minded people didn't just take off to the Libertarian Party, when they should've stayed and fought, we would've been in a lot better shape.

----------


## tbone717

> Thanks for helping to move along this discussion.  I would also add to the moot point argument by pointing out RPFers voted 3 to 1 in a poll a while back to take back the GOP vs. going 3rd party.


There are a lot of people here that explored the 3rd party route at some point in their lives.  We are just trying to communicate from experience what an utter waste of time and money it is to choose that avenue.  We have the numbers to be able to be a real force in taking back the GOP, but even if every RPF member was on board with going third party, we still would be spinning our wheels in political obscurity.  

The fact remains that in large part voters in this country will vote for either a Dem or a Republican.  Most average Republicans agree with us on the large majority of issues that we stand for - then Dems on the other hand are opposed to us on nearly every issue.  We are sowing seeds on fertile ground, and those here who are new to this (either coming along to all this in 08 or 12) are seeing the fruit bearing from the work that was done for the last 10 to 15 years.  And it will only get better from here.  

The more folks that we have actively involved in their local GOP, the more successful we will be.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You a globalist, huh?  One set of laws for everybody in the world? Kumbaya?  That sort of thing?  You want the US Troops under the UN Flag?  That something you like?  You want foreign troops in US, when our troops are elsewhere?  It's Nationalist or Globalist.  And I prefer Americans making laws for Americans, and foreigners not having any say in our laws.  That makes me a Nationalist, and not a Globalist.


Are you kidding me?  No, I'm not a globalist.  Good grief.  Please educate yourself on the meaning of nationalism...you don't have to be a globalist to oppose the idea.

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/
http://whohijackedourcountry.blogspot.com/2006/07/patriotism-vs-nationalism.html
http://www.zengardner.com/patriotism...-blurred-line/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This is your hypothetical.  What would happen after something that isn't going to happen, happens?  We have sore loser laws in some cases.  If, somehow Ron Paul got the nomination, Mitt Romney would not be on the ballot.  And, yes, they would vote for Ron Paul over Obama.  A handful (Bill Kristol) would vote for Obama.  
> 
> We know there is an endless fight.  There is no bubble, no bursting.  Republican candidates win.  We want that winning brand.  The people who have control of it now don't want to get rid of it.  Because it's a excellent brand, almost exactly as good as the Democrat brand.  Both win elections.  The Libertarian brand is a bad brand, it doesn't get you wins.
> 
> Ron Paul is simply part of a long Conservative Tradition in the Republican Party.  If so many of the libertarian minded people didn't just take off to the Libertarian Party, when they should've stayed and fought, we would've been in a lot better shape.


So maybe if I want to start a business selling pasta sauce , I should try to hijack the Coca-Cola name.  After all, it's a winning brand...why bother making a name for myself when I can just steal theirs!!  

Good grief. 

And no, your logic in trying to pin the blame for this failing political system we have on those of us who left the GOP because they no longer represented us is not going to work any better than your idea of taking them over.

----------


## tbone717

Trying to keep on the theme of what actually happens when we take back the GOP.  Let me illustrate:

I mentioned my county before, but here are the numbers again.  The County GOP committee is made up of around 100 folks, these are the committee men and women from the various wards in the county.  There are about 44,000 registered Republicans in the county.  It would take about 50 people being elected as committeeman to take control of the county GOP, maybe less if you have influential folks on board.  Control of the county means control of the mailing lists, the donor lists, the funds, the apparatus as a whole.  So when it comes time for the county GOP to make an endorsement, and mail out information to all those donors and voters - who are they going to endorse?  The liberty candidate of course.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm bowing out of this argument with a wish of good luck to all of you who are working in the GOP.  The only reason I argued against this is because I strongly feel that this is the wrong road for those of us who stand strongly for Liberty without sacrifice or compromise.  I have never been comfortable with the fact that Ron Paul has been running as a Republican, but I held my nose and changed parties to vote for him.  I refuse to accept that he has gained the following he has because he is a Republican...in fact, I tend to feel he has grown this movement *in spite* of being a Republican.  It's his ideas that are popular; not his party.  To stay in the GOP where we are not wanted is to take this movement down the wrong road, in my opinion.  That said, I'm not sure if the GOP wing of the Liberty movement was ever going where I want to go. 

 Anyway, peace out!

----------


## romancito

> I'm bowing out of this argument with a wish of good luck to all of you who are working in the GOP.  The only reason I argued against this is because I strongly feel that this is the wrong road for those of us who stand strongly for Liberty without sacrifice or compromise.  I have never been comfortable with the fact that Ron Paul has been running as a Republican, but I held my nose and changed parties to vote for him.  I refuse to accept that he has gained the following he has because he is a Republican...in fact, I tend to feel he has grown this movement *in spite* of being a Republican.  It's his ideas that are popular; not his party.  To stay in the GOP where we are not wanted is to take this movement down the wrong road, in my opinion.  That said, I'm not sure if the GOP wing of the Liberty movement was ever going where I want to go. 
> 
>  Anyway, peace out!


I am a fan of cajuncocoa and after reading most of the arguments I favor his. The GOP is filled with agendas and philosophies that are simply foreign to good government and most of the elite in the party are there looking for money and to make rich people richer and send poor young people to war. Then when our soldiers go to war in foreign lands they violate every principle of our Constitution which they swore to uphold and protect and the dysfunction and dissonance of that really works to destroy their morale for years and years.

----------


## parocks

> So maybe if I want to start a business selling pasta sauce , I should try to hijack the Coca-Cola name.  After all, it's a winning brand...why bother making a name for myself when I can just steal theirs!!  
> 
> Good grief. 
> 
> And no, your logic in trying to pin the blame for this failing political system we have on those of us who left the GOP because they no longer represented us is not going to work any better than your idea of taking them over.


The Taft Republicans have as much claim to the Republican brand than the neocons do.  We've been fighting the Eastern Establishment the whole time.  Most years since 1940 we've had a candidate in the race, and that candidate usually loses.  There really isn't anything entirely new going on.

People who would support the conservative Republican have left and joined the Libertarian or the Constitutionalist Parties.  But it certainly isn't entirely or largely their fault, the numbers aren't that high.

----------


## parocks

> Trying to keep on the theme of what actually happens when we take back the GOP.  Let me illustrate:
> 
> I mentioned my county before, but here are the numbers again.  The County GOP committee is made up of around 100 folks, these are the committee men and women from the various wards in the county.  There are about 44,000 registered Republicans in the county.  It would take about 50 people being elected as committeeman to take control of the county GOP, maybe less if you have influential folks on board.  Control of the county means control of the mailing lists, the donor lists, the funds, the apparatus as a whole.  So when it comes time for the county GOP to make an endorsement, and mail out information to all those donors and voters - who are they going to endorse?  The liberty candidate of course.


There are other things that the county committee can do as well, at least in some states.  Can the county committee change the times and the places of the meetings to make it as friendly as possible to our favored demo - basically the younger people?

----------


## romancito

> There are other things that the county committee can do as well, at least in some states.  Can the county committee change the times and the places of the meetings to make it as friendly as possible to our favored demo - basically the younger people?


You mean like meeting in college campuses and before sports events, etc. Great idea.

----------


## tbone717

> There are other things that the county committee can do as well, at least in some states.  Can the county committee change the times and the places of the meetings to make it as friendly as possible to our favored demo - basically the younger people?


I don't see any reason why they couldn't. If a county has a large college, it would make sense that the county would have some sort of outreach program there on campus.  We have a very small college here (1700 students) and there is a fairly active GOP club on campus. They have even hosted Congressional candidate debates there in the past.  Not too bad for a college that is smaller than the high school that I went to.

----------


## tbone717

So how does one as an individual go about "working inside the GOP"?  I realize a lot of this talk may be foreign to some people, so here are some thoughts.

1) You need to be involved in your local community.  If you do not know anyone, it will be very difficult for you to be effective as a political activist.  Get out and meet your neighbors, attend local events, attend local gov't meetings (school board, township, etc).

2) Attend your local GOP meetings.  They are generally easy to find.  Just Google your county GOP, find the site and check the calendar.  Sure you may have to sacrifice some of your time to do this, but this is all about making sacrifices.  When you go to the meeting - mingle with folks, make some new friends.  And it should go without saying - don't go there with an attitude.  Remember that we agree with these people on most issues.

3) Volunteer.  Most local GOP groups are desperate to find people to volunteer for their efforts.  This demonstrates to people that you are willing to do some hard work, for no money - and people respect that.

4) The more involved you are, the more you can be involved.  By this I mean that you don't go from total non-involvement to winning a seat as committeeman overnight.  You have to build relationships with people, so that if and when you do decide to take the next step and run for an office, you have a built in base of support that is willing to work for you.

5) Lastly, do not get discouraged.  Rome wasn't built in a day, and you can't expect to reform your local GOP overnight.

No one ever said this was going to be easy.  This will require work on your part, so for those of you who aren't willing to get off the couch and do the work - well you cannot expect change to just magically happen.  But for those who are willing to put in the time and effort it takes to make change happen, you will be very pleased with the results.

----------


## gte811i

> I don't see any reason why they couldn't. If a county has a large college, it would make sense that the county would have some sort of outreach program there on campus.  We have a very small college here (1700 students) and there is a fairly active GOP club on campus. They have even hosted Congressional candidate debates there in the past.  Not too bad for a college that is smaller than the high school that I went to.


Yes and the committees have control of things like monthly luncheens, breakfasts, dinners, etc. where speakers are invited to talk to the GOP involved.  Control the committee, control who speaks at those meeting, bring in liberty speakers to speak to the rand and file, control the message.

As much as I hate Parties, it is what it is.  One can either avoid reality or deal with it.  A really great book on the history of the liberty movement in politics is:

The Betrayal of the American Right by Rothbard

a good excerpt from the intro:
But it isnt just modern conservatism that is at fault for the disappearance of the Old Right down the Orwellian memory hole.  Libertarians, too, must in some cases share the blame. In the late 1970s, Rothbard was personally responsible for inserting the noninterventionist plank into the Libertarian Party platformat a time when, to his amazement, foreign policy seemed to arouse relatively little interest among libertarians. The 2003 Iraq war was justified on the basis of propaganda worthy of the old Pravda; that people calling themselves libertarianswho, after all, are supposed to have an eye for government propagandaswallowed the governments case whole suggests that the problem has not altogether disappeared. (One can only imagine what Mencken, one of Rothbards heroes, would have had to say about that war, its architects, and an American population that continued to believe the discredited weapons of mass destruction [WMD] claims long after everyone, on all sides, had agreed the charges were false.)

----------


## tbone717

> Yes and the committees have control of things like monthly luncheens, breakfasts, dinners, etc. where speakers are invited to talk to the GOP involved.  Control the committee, control who speaks at those meeting, bring in liberty speakers to speak to the rand and file, control the message.
> 
> As much as I hate Parties, it is what it is.  One can either avoid reality or deal with it.


The point about the speakers is a very good one.  

I think part of the issue some have is that they are going to have to go outside their comfort zone in order to invoke change, and there are many who are unwilling to do so.  Sure if you get involved locally, you may very well have to attend some luncheons where the speaker is not to your liking.  You may have to endure some things that you are not a big fan of, in order to see things through.  We just had Romney in for a rally here locally - did our guys protest?  No, they went, they were polite, they clapped, etc.  Sometimes you just have to suck it up, knowing that in the long run change will come about.  

Personally, I think there are some who would rather gather around with a half dozen like minded people, bitch and moan, talk about how right they are and how everyone else is wrong.  Essentially, that is the definition of your local LP meetings.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The point about the speakers is a very good one.  
> 
> I think part of the issue some have is that they are going to have to go outside their comfort zone in order to invoke change, and there are many who are unwilling to do so.  Sure if you get involved locally, you may very well have to attend some luncheons where the speaker is not to your liking.  You may have to endure some things that you are not a big fan of, in order to see things through.  We just had Romney in for a rally here locally - did our guys protest?  No, they went, they were polite, they clapped, etc.  Sometimes you just have to suck it up, knowing that in the long run change will come about.  
> 
> Personally, I think there are some who would rather gather around with a half dozen like minded people, bitch and moan, talk about how right they are and how everyone else is wrong.  Essentially, that is the definition of your local LP meetings.


I'd go, but I wouldn't be able to force myself to clap.  Not booing would have to suffice.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes and the committees have control of things like monthly luncheens, breakfasts, dinners, etc. where speakers are invited to talk to the GOP involved.  Control the committee, control who speaks at those meeting, bring in liberty speakers to speak to the rand and file, control the message.
> 
> As much as I hate Parties, it is what it is.  One can either avoid reality or deal with it.  A really great book on the history of the liberty movement in politics is:
> 
> The Betrayal of the American Right by Rothbard
> 
> a good excerpt from the intro:
> But it isnt just modern conservatism that is at fault for the disappearance of the Old Right down the Orwellian memory hole.  Libertarians, too, must in some cases share the blame. In the late 1970s, Rothbard was personally responsible for inserting the noninterventionist plank into the Libertarian Party platformat a time when, to his amazement, foreign policy seemed to arouse relatively little interest among libertarians. The 2003 Iraq war was justified on the basis of propaganda worthy of the old Pravda; that people calling themselves libertarianswho, after all, are supposed to have an eye for government propagandaswallowed the governments case whole suggests that the problem has not altogether disappeared. (One can only imagine what Mencken, one of Rothbards heroes, would have had to say about that war, its architects, and an American population that continued to believe the discredited weapons of mass destruction [WMD] claims long after everyone, on all sides, had agreed the charges were false.)


You seem to think that all libertarians worship Rothbard. I know very few who fell for the propaganda that led us to war in Iraq. It was the war in Iraq that led me to libertarianism.

As for getting involved in local community..sure you can try. Try to do it in Harris County Texas without sacrificing principle. May work in smaller cities but one can't assume it's true everywhere.
I won't pretend to be them. But this is like beating my head against the wall so good luck.

----------


## gte811i

> I'd go, but I wouldn't be able to force myself to clap.  Not booing would have to suffice.


Oh I've been to several meetings where the best I could do was look to sit stoically with a scowl on my face :-) look at fellow RPers and roll my eyes . . .

----------


## gte811i

> You seem to think that all libertarians worship Rothbard. I know very few who fell for the propaganda that led us to war in Iraq. It was the war in Iraq that led me to libertarianism.
> 
> As for getting involved in local community..sure you can try. Try to do it in Harris County Texas without sacrificing principle. May work in smaller cities but one can't assume it's true everywhere.
> I won't pretend to be them. But this is like beating my head against the wall so good luck.


BS on it not working in big cities, I'm in one of the biggest metropolitan cities in the US and it's working.

If you are a "libertarian" and don't at least highly respect Rothbard then you have no clue as to what being libertarian is really about.  

Rothbard carried the torch of being libertarian for the better part of 3 decades.  Rothbard is the same vein as Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Nock, Lysander Spooner, Mises, Frédéric Bastiat.  In fact, he probably did more to advance the actual cohesive political thought of libertarism into one great theory encompassing political, economical, and social issues that anyone before him.  The reason why I refer to him so much is because he was a prolific writer . . . many other libertarian thinkers wrote, but dang Rothbard wrote a ton.

----------


## tbone717

> As for getting involved in local community..sure you can try. Try to do it in Harris County Texas without sacrificing principle. May work in smaller cities but one can't assume it's true everywhere.
> I won't pretend to be them. But this is like beating my head against the wall so good luck.


But what are the other options?  Joining up with the LP or CP?  They are both infinitesimally small, and have no chance in hell of ever getting someone elected to a high level office.  They have so many things going against them - lack of money, lack of organization, lack of volunteers.  Say for example you link up with the Harris County LP group.  How many people are actively involved in that group?  20, 50, 100?  How is it even conceivable possible that those small number of people can reach out to the 4 million people that live there?  Talk about beating your head against the wall.

So what is the other option?  To sit on the sidelines and do little if anything.  We know that won't create change.

We have a vehicle in the GOP, and a long standing plan.  That plan is already working as it has led to where we are today.  There is no need to sacrifice principles when working within the GOP.  Neither of the Paul's have, nor have the countless people that have been working on this for years.  You go to the meetings, you get yourself involved in your community and the party, and (if you have the means and ability) you run for committeeman or a local office.  There is nothing in that course of action that says you have to agree with people on FP, or donate money to a candidate you don't agree with 100%.

----------


## Carlybee

> But what are the other options?  Joining up with the LP or CP?  They are both infinitesimally small, and have no chance in hell of ever getting someone elected to a high level office.  They have so many things going against them - lack of money, lack of organization, lack of volunteers.  Say for example you link up with the Harris County LP group.  How many people are actively involved in that group?  20, 50, 100?  How is it even conceivable possible that those small number of people can reach out to the 4 million people that live there?  Talk about beating your head against the wall.
> 
> So what is the other option?  To sit on the sidelines and do little if anything.  We know that won't create change.
> 
> We have a vehicle in the GOP, and a long standing plan.  That plan is already working as it has led to where we are today.  There is no need to sacrifice principles when working within the GOP.  Neither of the Paul's have, nor have the countless people that have been working on this for years.  You go to the meetings, you get yourself involved in your community and the party, and (if you have the means and ability) you run for committeeman or a local office.  There is nothing in that course of action that says you have to agree with people on FP, or donate money to a candidate you don't agree with 100%.


I have no intention of joining any party at this point. I am going to at least explore the viability of a nnew party. Yes it would take a lot of money, generous benefactors, and true liberty leadership...which is sadly lacking in lieu of Ron Paul but I don't think it hurts to have the conversation. Otherwise I will be independent and choose my battles. After what the GOP has done at the conventions and the way they have tried to ruin RP's campaign, frankly I wouldn't spit on them. I'm glad it has worked out in the few states it has but it's just not for me and "taking over" doesn't appeal to my sense of what liberty means. Doesnt mean I won't support candidates who are true to the message. I just the the GOP vehicle is a lemon with stinky fumes.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> But what are the other options?


If people don't want to get involved in party politics, there is always issue politics.  In the 200+ towns in NH, during an election, the majority of voting isn't voting for candidates, but voting on issues.  Vote to defund the police, buy a new fire engine or turn off some of the street lights.  These are all important issues and there are 1,000s of other issues people may get involved with.  

Then there is state issue politics.  Start or join a group which works to convince state legislatures on issues.

There is also national issue politics.  Both Downsize DC and Campaign for Liberty do a lot of that but heck, even GOA is good.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have no intention of joining any party at this point. I am going to at least explore the viability of a nnew party. Yes it would take a lot of money, generous benefactors, and true liberty leadership...which is sadly lacking in lieu of Ron Paul but I don't think it hurts to have the conversation. Otherwise I will be independent and choose my battles. After what the GOP has done at the conventions and the way they have tried to ruin RP's campaign, frankly I wouldn't spit on them. I'm glad it has worked out in the few states it has but it's just not for me and "taking over" doesn't appeal to my sense of what liberty means. Doesnt mean I won't support candidates who are true to the message. I just the the GOP vehicle is a lemon with stinky fumes.


See, it's different for me.  I've been registered as a Republican for many years; although I always voted my conscience, regardless of Party.  I was too busy working to notice when the Troskyite Democrats (neocons) took over, but they did it all the same.  I think of what we are doing as taking it back from interlopers and instilling libertarianism back in what was once the Goldwater wing of the party.  

The Party is just made up of people.  If we become it and get in leadership positions, it will look a lot like us.  It will give us a podium that people actually hear, to spread the message, and provide a pipeline to help get liberty candidates elected.

As far as how our guys were treated at the caucuses, well, those are the interlopers trying to hold onto their power.  We shouldn't be surprised.  We just need to pwn the leadership positions and that will kick them to the curb.  That is how _they_ took over to begin with.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> If people don't want to get involved in party politics, there is always issue politics.  In the 200+ towns in NH, during an election, the majority of voting isn't voting for candidates, but voting on issues.  Vote to defund the police, buy a new fire engine or turn off some of the street lights.  These are all important issues and there are 1,000s of other issues people may get involved with.  
> 
> Then there is state issue politics.  Start or join a group which works to convince state legislatures on issues.
> 
> There is also national issue politics.  Both Downsize DC and Campaign for Liberty do a lot of that but heck, even GOA is good.


Most states don't have town halls (like NH) where locals can show up and line item veto things they don't like, merely ballot referendums. I agree that people should get involved in state and/or national issue politics but it's the parties that control who the candidates will be as they are the ones that vote in the state and national legislature. 

The ground is fertile to do other random acts of activism in NH, instead of a focus on politics, where there is already a community of libertarians and anarchists set up for it. The amount of active constitutional conservatives in most states need to band together inside the GOP to better their leverage for effectiveness. Most republicans will always tend to pull the R lever and the more conservative the GOP is in a particular state the more likely the base will always show up to vote. Toning down the GOP's taste for undeclared wars and its weakness on civil liberties will help bring over Reagan dems and indies to bolster our strength.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Most states don't have town halls (like NH) where locals can show up and line item veto things they don't like, merely ballot referendums. I agree that people should get involved in state and/or national issue politics but it's the parties that control who the candidates will be as they are the ones that vote in the state and national legislature.


I know that in a year when Democrats controlled all parts of the NH government and that average Democrats support adult seat belt laws 2-1, we were able to prevent an adult seat belt law from passing in NH through focusing on the issue.  Without the concentrated effort by several of us this year, a fully informed jury bill would not have passed in NH.  I know that, at least in NH, issue advocacy can work, even without a formal group 

You are likely correct about other states vs. NH to some degree, though.  I'v been so focused on NH, perhaps I forgot that it may work a lot differently in other states

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I'm been so focused on NH, perhaps I forgot that it may work a lot differently in other states


Spoiled brat!!

----------


## parocks

> You mean like meeting in college campuses and before sports events, etc. Great idea.


Also - At night.  In bars.  Yes, in colleges, before sports events. Not in government buildings.  Things that old people don't like as much as things that young people do.

----------


## Carlybee

> See, it's different for me.  I've been registered as a Republican for many years; although I always voted my conscience, regardless of Party.  I was too busy working to notice when the Troskyite Democrats (neocons) took over, but they did it all the same.  I think of what we are doing as taking it back from interlopers and instilling libertarianism back in what was once the Goldwater wing of the party.  
> 
> The Party is just made up of people.  If we become it and get in leadership positions, it will look a lot like us.  It will give us a podium that people actually hear, to spread the message, and provide a pipeline to help get liberty candidates elected.
> 
> As far as how our guys were treated at the caucuses, well, those are the interlopers trying to hold onto their power.  We shouldn't be surprised.  We just need to pwn the leadership positions and that will kick them to the curb.  That is how _they_ took over to begin with.


You better figure out how to take over the media then because that was a big contributor to the neocons being able to take over. That and becoming married to the MIC and all its profit tentacles.

----------


## tbone717

One of the main issues why those of us who support working in the GOP try to dissuade people from going the third party route is because many of us have already been down that road before, and know that it is a dead end.  Third parties are just not viable.  They lack the infrastructure, money, people and know-how that it takes to win elections.

Take the LP for example.  Since its creation in 1972 they have won a whopping total of 12 state legislature races.  There are over 7000 state legislature seats in the US; most of those seats are up for grabs every two to four years.  So in the last 40 years there have been hundreds of thousands of state legislature races, and the LP has won 12 of them.  That is a pretty pathetic record.  But, it gets worse...

Out of their 12 victories, 7 of them came from "fusion candidates".  What that means is that they were not only on the LP ballot, but were also on the GOP or Dem ballot as well.  So while the LP can claim a victory, in reality these people were not elected because they were LP members.  The last LP victory was in 2000 when Steve Vaillancourt won election to the NH house (better stated as re-election). Vaillancourt, was a registered Dem, had lost the Dem primary for a seat in the New Hampshire Senate that year and accepted the Libertarian nomination so as to keep his House seat.  Hardly, a victory for the LP.

So truly out of the 12 victories, only 4 of them were real victories for the LP, and all of those were back in the late 70's and early 80's in Alaska.  

I point this out to demonstrate that it is virtually impossible for a third party to have any true, meaningful success.  On the other hand, there have been countless libertarian-conservatives elected in the GOP for decades now.  Hell, we even had one that took a pretty good shot at the presidential nomination.  We currently have a whole host of folks at the federal, state and local level.  Our numbers are growing, and will continue to grow.  The more people that we have on board for this hard work - attending meetings, volunteering, running for office, etc, the sooner we can see ourselves with majority representation in the party.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> The last LP victory was in 2000 when Steve Vaillancourt won election to the NH house (better stated as re-election). Vaillancourt, was a registered Dem, had lost the Dem primary for a seat in the New Hampshire Senate that year and accepted the Libertarian nomination so as to keep his House seat.  Hardly, a victory for the LP.
> 
> So truly out of the 12 victories, only 4 of them were real victories for the LP, and all of those were back in the late 70's and early 80's in Alaska.


Actually, Steve Vaillancourt's win may be the most important victory for the LP ever.  After all, he won while only running as a member of the Libertarian Party.  While Steve isn't perfect, he is still in office and is still a libertarian (though not a LP member).  He isn't as good as Ron Paul but he is better than Rand Paul

----------


## tbone717

> Actually, Steve Vaillancourt's win may be the most important victory for the LP ever.  After all, he won while only running as a member of the Libertarian Party.  While Steve isn't perfect, he is still in office and is still a libertarian (though not a LP member).  He isn't as good as Ron Paul but he is better than Rand Paul


Their late 70's early 80's victories were really the only "organic" ones, as in these folks were not already legislatures and won solely as being on the LP ticket.  Andre Marrou was one of them and I cannot recall the other guy.  Vaillancourt won because he was already known. The point being that other than really local offices, they cannot produce a candidate that runs on his own.  Well, they haven't since the 70's.  

Hell Keith, NH is the most libertarian state out there, with 400 in the state house there, you turn the corner and you have a different rep.  You would think that in all these years they could have won a seat on their own.  But they haven't.  They recent "victories" have either been with fusion candidates or the Vailancourt situation.

----------


## TheTexan

> See, it's different for me.  I've been registered as a Republican for many years; although I always voted my conscience, regardless of Party.  I was too busy working to notice when the Troskyite Democrats (neocons) took over, but they did it all the same.  I think of what we are doing as taking it back from interlopers and instilling libertarianism back in what was once the Goldwater wing of the party.  
> 
> The Party is just made up of people.  If we become it and get in leadership positions, it will look a lot like us.  It will give us a podium that people actually hear, to spread the message, and provide a pipeline to help get liberty candidates elected.
> 
> As far as how our guys were treated at the caucuses, well, those are the interlopers trying to hold onto their power.  We shouldn't be surprised.  We just need to pwn the leadership positions and that will kick them to the curb.  That is how _they_ took over to begin with.


The Republican party as it was before the Trotskyites took over, will not be enough to save this country.  You'll need bigger goals than just to get rid of the trotsky's, if freedom is your objective

----------


## tbone717

> The Republican party as it was before the Trotskyites took over, will not be enough to save this country.  You'll need bigger goals than just to get rid of the trotsky's, if freedom is your objective


A lot of us have laid out our plans, and suggestions on how to work towards accomplishing the short term goals.  What is your plan, strategy and what steps do individuals need to take to accomplish the goals?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Their late 70's early 80's victories were really the only "organic" ones, as in these folks were not already legislatures and won solely as being on the LP ticket.  Andre Marrou was one of them and I cannot recall the other guy.  Vaillancourt won because he was already known. The point being that other than really local offices, they cannot produce a candidate that runs on his own.  Well, they haven't since the 70's.  
> 
> Hell Keith, NH is the most libertarian state out there, with 400 in the state house there, you turn the corner and you have a different rep.  You would think that in all these years they could have won a seat on their own.  But they haven't.  They recent "victories" have either been with fusion candidates or the Vailancourt situation.


So at least 1 (maybe 2 it looks like) of the people won in AK by being soling on the LP ticket just like Steve Vaillancourt?  I wasn't sure if he was the only person in the history of the LP to do that or if there were others.  I guess there is another achievement of the LP.  Since at one time, there were 4 LP state reps elected in NH, the 4 state reps formed a caucus in the state house.  Don Gorman was a NH House Minority Leader as he chaired the caucus.

I don't really understand what you mean by on their own   Steve Vaillancourt won because he had built up a name for himself as a good person that was popular in his community.  That is frequently how people win elections, LP, GOP or Dem.

----------


## TheTexan

> A lot of us have laid out our plans, and suggestions on how to work towards accomplishing the short term goals.  What is your plan, strategy and what steps do individuals need to take to accomplish the goals?


FSP.  Or if you don't like NH, just pack up your $#@! and go somewhere that doesn't suck, and get others to do the same.

If you don't want to leave your home and/or family behind... I'm afraid you've got only the one choice left at that point... defend yourself against those who aggress upon you and your family

----------


## tbone717

> I don't really understand what you mean by on their own   Steve Vaillancourt won because he had built up a name for himself as a good person that was popular in his community.  That is frequently how people win elections, LP, GOP or Dem.


Meaning that Vaillancourt essentially won reelection.  The two that won on their own back in the 70's ran for the first time on the LP ticket and didn't run before.  So they weren't sitting legislators that happened to switch parties.  So basically out of the several hundred thousand state legislators races that have occurred in the last 40 years, the LP has produced 2 people on their own (one was reelected once), all the rest IIRC were either fusion candidates or party switchers.  

The CP has the same issue, they have one victory and it was a party switch by a sitting state rep.

----------


## tbone717

> FSP.  Or if you don't like NH, just pack up your $#@! and go somewhere that doesn't suck, and get others to do the same.
> 
> If you don't want to leave your home and/or family behind... I'm afraid you've got only the one choice left at that point... defend yourself against those who aggress upon you and your family


Gotcha.  So it is a personal action, not a political solution then?  Are you planning on contacting others and suggesting they do the same?  If so, how are you going about doing that?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Meaning that Vaillancourt essentially won reelection.  The two that won on their own back in the 70's ran for the first time on the LP ticket and didn't run before.


I know things may be different in PA but in NH, just because someone is an incumbent doesn't mean they are going to be reelected.  It slightly helps but makes a much smaller difference in NH than in any other state.  Plus, Vallancourt lives in a swing district, anyway 

I do agree, based on what you said, that the people who had never won office before did achieve something greater.  I just wasn't sure they did that (won without ever having office before) before we started this friendly discussion 




> So basically out of the several hundred thousand state legislators races that have occurred in the last 40 years, the LP has produced 2 people on their own (one was reelected once), all the rest IIRC were either fusion candidates or party switchers.


The LP didn't produce anyone, IMO.  3 people (according to your info) ran and won while on a strictly LP ticket.  I know, it is a dismal history.  I gave up on LP activism years ago and am so happy I did!  I think it is great that we are both actively involved in the GOP where we live, winning elections and making a difference.  Hopefully, others follow our example in NH or wherever they live

----------


## tbone717

> I know things may be different in PA but in NH, just because someone is an incumbent doesn't mean they are going to be reelected.  It slightly helps but makes a much smaller difference in NH than in any other state.  Plus, Vallancourt lives in a swing district, anyway 
> 
> I do agree, based on what you said, that the people who had never won office before did achieve something greater.  I just wasn't sure they did that (won without ever having office before) before we started this friendly discussion


Didn't realize that.  Should have though, cause I do know NH politics are quite different with the way your House is set up.




> The LP didn't produce anyone, IMO.  3 people (according to your info) ran and won while on a strictly LP ticket.  I know, it is a dismal history.  I gave up on LP activism years ago and am so happy I did!  I think it is great that we are both actively involved in the GOP where we live, winning elections and making a difference.  Hopefully, others follow our example in NH or wherever they live


Dismal is an understatement when you think of all the time and money that has been spent.  Add the CP to the list too, along with the handful of other conservative minor parties that are out there (Jefferson, American, America First, etc).  One can only wonder where we would be today if those folks who spend all that time and money banging their heads against the wall with their third and minor parties would have directed that energy to working within the GOP.

----------


## cheapseats

> One of the main issues why those of us who support working in the GOP try to dissuade people from going the third party route is because many of us have already been down that road before, and know that it is a dead end.  Third parties are just not viable.  They lack the infrastructure, money, people and know-how that it takes to win elections.
> 
> Take the LP for example.  Since its creation in 1972 they have won a whopping total of 12 state legislature races...
> 
> So truly out of the 12 victories, only 4 of them were real victories for the LP, and all of those were back in the late 70's and early 80's in Alaska.  
> 
> I point this out to demonstrate that it is virtually impossible for a third party to have any true, meaningful success.  On the other hand, there have been *countless libertarian-conservatives elected in the GOP for decades now.  Hell, we even had one that took a pretty good shot at the presidential nomination.  We currently have a whole host of folks at the federal, state and local level.  Our numbers are growing, and will continue to grow.  The more people that we have on board for this hard work - attending meetings, volunteering, running for office, etc, the sooner we can see ourselves with majority representation in the party.*



Sooo, in other words . . . where the rubber of theory meets the asphalt of reality, which is to say where Ordinary People experience actual GROUND CONDITIONS . . . in the same long period during which Libertarians have failed to GET power to achieve stated goals, Libertarians enjoying "success" by masquerading as Republicans (or actual Republicans paying lip service to Liberty) have failed to accomplish stated goals WITH power?

"Liberty-leaning" Republicans have "merely" not accumulated ENOUGH power, is that the party line?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Sooo, in other words . . . where the rubber of theory meets the asphalt of reality, which is to say where Ordinary People experience actual GROUND CONDITIONS . . . in the same long period during which Libertarians have failed to GET power to achieve stated goals, Libertarians enjoying "success" by masquerading as Republicans (or actual Republicans paying lip service to Liberty) have failed to accomplish stated goals WITH power?
> 
> "Liberty-leaning" Republicans have "merely" not accumulated ENOUGH power, is that the party line?


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

----------


## tbone717

> Sooo, in other words . . . where the rubber of theory meets the asphalt of reality, which is to say where Ordinary People experience actual GROUND CONDITIONS . . . in the same long period during which Libertarians have failed to GET power to achieve stated goals, Libertarians enjoying "success" by masquerading as Republicans (or actual Republicans paying lip service to Liberty) have failed to accomplish stated goals WITH power?
> 
> "Liberty-leaning" Republicans have "merely" not accumulated ENOUGH power, is that the party line?


Well considering that just this year we had a candidate who did far better than anyone expected in Ron Paul, and we have a Fed Audit bill that has a ton of support in the House we are making inroads.  Rome wasn't built in a day.  The Taft wing, Goldwater wing or whatever label you want to give it is not nearly as large as it needs to be.  We do not have anyone in leadership, so there is still work to be done.

But I am just one man, and one voice - I do what I can.  I show up, I volunteer, I knock on doors, I donate, I have been a committeeman in the past - these are all individual steps that we can do.

Many here are at a point where they have to make a decision what to do.  Paul has laid out the plan - work within the GOP to continue to reform it.  People have the right to choose whether they will follow his call or not.

----------


## romancito

> One of the main issues why those of us who support working in the GOP try to dissuade people from going the third party route is because many of us have already been down that road before, and know that it is a dead end.  Third parties are just not viable.  They lack the infrastructure, money, people and know-how that it takes to win elections.
> 
> Take the LP for example.  Since its creation in 1972 they have won a whopping total of 12 state legislature races.  There are over 7000 state legislature seats in the US; most of those seats are up for grabs every two to four years.  So in the last 40 years there have been hundreds of thousands of state legislature races, and the LP has won 12 of them.  That is a pretty pathetic record.  But, it gets worse...
> 
> Out of their 12 victories, 7 of them came from "fusion candidates".  What that means is that they were not only on the LP ballot, but were also on the GOP or Dem ballot as well.  So while the LP can claim a victory, in reality these people were not elected because they were LP members.  The last LP victory was in 2000 when Steve Vaillancourt won election to the NH house (better stated as re-election). Vaillancourt, was a registered Dem, had lost the Dem primary for a seat in the New Hampshire Senate that year and accepted the Libertarian nomination so as to keep his House seat.  Hardly, a victory for the LP.
> 
> So truly out of the 12 victories, only 4 of them were real victories for the LP, and all of those were back in the late 70's and early 80's in Alaska.  
> 
> I point this out to demonstrate that it is virtually impossible for a third party to have any true, meaningful success.  On the other hand, there have been countless libertarian-conservatives elected in the GOP for decades now.  Hell, we even had one that took a pretty good shot at the presidential nomination.  We currently have a whole host of folks at the federal, state and local level.  Our numbers are growing, and will continue to grow.  The more people that we have on board for this hard work - attending meetings, volunteering, running for office, etc, the sooner we can see ourselves with majority representation in the party.


I have a feeling from reading this that you don't believe in democracy. I think you believe in power. Democracy is about having as many choices as possible to vote for.

----------


## parocks

> I have a feeling from reading this that you don't believe in democracy. I think you believe in power. Democracy is about having as many choices as possible to vote for.


You need to have numbers to get what you want.  Which is less goverment.  When you lose over and over it's just not very helpful.

----------


## cheapseats

> You need to have numbers to get what you want.  *Which is less goverment.*


GROSS oversimplification.  DICTATORSHIP done "right" constitutes less Government.

Me, I need MORE FREEDOM...not fewer, "smarter" Controllers. 






> When you lose over and over it's just not very helpful.


This will make Ron Paul's THIRD failed bid for the Presidency, twice as a Republican and once as a Libertarian.

But yeah, as there is no substitute for the Corner Office, there is also no substitute for SHEER POPULARITY.  

The Drug War ultimately fails because DRUGS REMAIN POPULAR/DESIRED.  When Americans really WANT something, they are VERY determined and VERY resourceful.  We don't take NO for an answer well, AT ALL.  We TAKE 'no' for an answer but it rubs us the wrong way and, as is our custom, we let the whole world know how we FEEL.  I digress.

----------


## parocks

> GROSS oversimplification.  DICTATORSHIP done "right" constitutes less Government.
> 
> Me, I need MORE FREEDOM...not fewer, "smarter" Controllers. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will make Ron Paul's THIRD failed bid for the Presidency, twice as a Republican and once as a Libertarian.
> ...


Yeah, Less Government is such a controversial statement worth arguing about. </s>

----------


## cheapseats

> Yeah, Less Government is such a controversial statement worth arguing about. </s>



Nice try. The discussion/argument underway is "ON WORKING INSIDE THE GOP". There is some disagreement about that, particularly among NON REPUBLICANS who "only" aligned with the Grand Old Par-taaay on the long-but-incredible-shot of Ron Paul ascending to the Presidency. 

Are you suggesting...even now, DESPITE "the good doctor's" upcoming THIRD failed presidential bid and America's worsening Banana Republic economic SQUALOR...that "Discussion of Working Inside the GOP" shall proceed from the premise that working within the Republican Party is a sacred-cow GIVEN, open to neither debate nor criticism?

----------


## tbone717

> I have a feeling from reading this that you don't believe in democracy. I think you believe in power. Democracy is about having as many choices as possible to vote for.


Well we live in a republic, not a democracy.  That being said we have many choices as to who to vote for.  Each primary season there are numerous candidates on the ballot.  For example the Senate primary here in PA had 6 candidates to choose from.  

My point about the LP and other third parties, is that it is a colossal waste of activists time and resources, because they have yet to produce any real results.  They could granted, if they had a more targeted focus, but they do not.  Years ago I have a very brief stint in the CP.  I made the suggestion at the meeting that instead of running several candidates for House seats all across the state, which spreads the resources of money and manpower very thin - that we instead focus on one or two seats where there is a better chance of being successful.  No one seemed to understand my point, which is why they spent a ton of money and not a single candidate cracked one percent.

So hey, if you want to go the third party route - go for it.  Personally, I choose to continue down the path that Ron Paul and others have laid out, namely working locally to reform the GOP so that we have a much better chance of getting Liberty Republicans elected in the future.

----------


## romancito

> Dismal is an understatement when you think of all the time and money that has been spent.  Add the CP to the list too, along with the handful of other conservative minor parties that are out there (Jefferson, American, America First, etc).  One can only wonder where we would be today if those folks who spend all that time and money banging their heads against the wall with their third and minor parties would have directed that energy to working within the GOP.


Wow. You are very misguided I regret to say. If you follow your logic then anyone who dies (such as a soldier) pursuing a goal would have wasted their her/his life. Everything I did today, fixing my dishwasher, front walk, roof rain cap would be wasted time since one day I will no longer live in this house. What is moral is to be true to the values one have and to serve others, such as the family. That is why science is dead because it has no morals - it has been hijacked to serve the scientist herself/himself.

----------


## romancito

> Well we live in a republic, not a democracy.  That being said we have many choices as to who to vote for.  Each primary season there are numerous candidates on the ballot.  For example the Senate primary here in PA had 6 candidates to choose from.  
> 
> My point about the LP and other third parties, is that it is a colossal waste of activists time and resources, because they have yet to produce any real results.  They could granted, if they had a more targeted focus, but they do not.  Years ago I have a very brief stint in the CP.  I made the suggestion at the meeting that instead of running several candidates for House seats all across the state, which spreads the resources of money and manpower very thin - that we instead focus on one or two seats where there is a better chance of being successful.  No one seemed to understand my point, which is why they spent a ton of money and not a single candidate cracked one percent.
> 
> So hey, if you want to go the third party route - go for it.  Personally, I choose to continue down the path that Ron Paul and others have laid out, namely working locally to reform the GOP so that we have a much better chance of getting Liberty Republicans elected in the future.


I  believe you are misguided in these thoughts but the good thing is that after writing them as you have you will quickly find yourself changing them. If results would be my pursuit then I wouldn't be writing in this forum. This forum is about enjoying the company and exercising the brain, not about results.

Well according to your logic I better get up from my seat and get under my cars to change the oil and filter. That's next. And then go to Lowes to get a bag of mortar to lay a few more bricks left on my front walk. See you later.

----------


## tbone717

> Wow. You are very misguided I regret to say. If you follow your logic then anyone who dies (such as a soldier) pursuing a goal would have wasted their her/his life. Everything I did today, fixing my dishwasher, front walk, roof rain cap would be wasted time since one day I will no longer live in this house. What is moral is to be true to the values one have and to serve others, such as the family. That is why science is dead because it has no morals - it has been hijacked to serve the scientist herself/himself.


This has nothing to do with fixing a dishwasher - this is politics.  Every election there is a winner and those people work within the government to make and/or change laws and policy.  Part of the reason we are in the mess we are in today, is that we have far too few people elected in office that believe in the principles that we libertarian-conservatives hold dear.  The more people like Rand, Ron, Amash, etc that are in office at the federal, state and local level the better.  

Third party and minor party folks have great intentions to a degree, but their energy is completely misguided, because all that they do does not produce any results.  While they toil away in obscurity, they instead could be using that energy and intellect to help further the long standing goal to work within the GOP to elect liberty candidates.  They choose to do otherwise - and I think it is foolish.

It honestly amazed me, how we have so many in here that want to piss all over Ron's plan to reform the GOP, but they offer little to nothing by way of solutions.  

So I will ask you as well, what are you going to do to make a difference in your community?

----------


## cheapseats

> Well considering that just this year we had a candidate who did far better than anyone expected in Ron Paul, and we have a Fed Audit bill that has a ton of support in the House we are making inroads.  Rome wasn't built in a day.


Rome was NOT built in a day, but it also did not FALL in a day. 

There is some doubt as to whether Nero actually DID fiddle while Rome burned, but reports of tyranny and extravagance are confirmed.  

It is also confirmed that Roman Citizens DID pussy-foot around with "business as usual", tho Barbarians were assembling at their gates. 





> The Taft wing, Goldwater wing or whatever label you want to give it is not nearly as large as it needs to be.  We do not have anyone in leadership, so there is still work to be done.


So.  It appears that Ron Paul will NOT become President again, and that son Rand will NOT command the same Troops as his father (tho admittedly he gains others), and that this "takeover" jazz has been in the works for many years.  

Math is math.  We do NOT wanna limp along like Japan, we really don't.







> But I am just one man, and one voice - I do what I can.  I show up, I volunteer, I knock on doors, I donate, I have been a committeeman in the past - these are all individual steps that we can do.


I did not realize this about you when you first advocated for Ron Paul to shift gears to promote WINNABLE Republican contests, now I do.  It is no small thing to have PERSONALLY earned street cred the old-fashioned way...with SHOE LEATHER & PERSONAL PRESENCE.  That is quite different from the odious Political Class that assesses "the Republican Party vehicle" as a faster track to "success" that is defined as none other than POWER.

People who have built their investment in local politics with a Republican foundation would NATURALLY keep on keeping on.  People who have these many years been FORGING relationships and reputations would NOT naturally muddy the waters by changing their labeling.  WHY?  To what purpose?  Only if they "find themselves" in a hotbed of anti-Republican sentiment would they logically consider jumping the Republican kinda battleship kinda cruise ship. 






> Many here are at a point where they have to make a decision what to do.


I know it.  Like playing Musical Chairs, Pin the Tail on the Donkey and Monopoly at the same time...everyone blindfolded, except for Bankers who have colored paper, scissors and black Sharpies with which to whip up cash and investments, and Officials who change the rules throughout the "game".






> Paul has laid out *the* plan - work within the GOP to continue to reform it.  People have the right to choose whether they will follow his call or not.


Ron Paul, one man, has laid out ONE plan.  It is in EVERYONE'S best interests if bona fide Reformers advance within the Republican Party.  This is true also of the Democratic Party.  MORE PRINCIPLES & ETHICS, ALL AROUND...YIPPEE!  

As "Democrats with principles" ought rightly/logically align with Libertarians ON SOME ISSUES, so ought principled Republicans align with Libertarians ON SOME ISSUES.  Unless Democrats and Republicans are eyeballing POWER over Principles, intuitively, BOTH should want Libertarians to have MORE VOICE.

But that's where the GOP TAKEOVER STRATEGY turns to mush.  If history is a guide, a greater number of "libertarian-leaning" Republicans with the long-sought POWER to instigate bona fide reforms will NOT be inclined to make better/fairer the chances of Unknown Newcomers to qualify for ballots and to UNSEAT INCUMBENTS.  A third party WILL lessen the power of TWO parties.

BECAUSE the two-party stranglehold abides, the consequence's of morally flexible game-playing doesn't catch up with Political Wheeler Dealers as it would in the 'hood.  WHAT'RE YA GONNA DO, VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT? (With Democrats similarly excusing THEIR slime as preferable to REPUBLICAN slime.)

----------


## romancito

> Third party and minor party folks have great intentions to a degree, but their energy is completely misguided, because all that they do does not produce any results.  While they toil away in obscurity, they instead could be using that energy and intellect to help further the long standing goal to work within the GOP to elect liberty candidates.  They choose to do otherwise - and I think it is foolish.
> 
> It honestly amazed me, how we have so many in here that want to piss all over Ron's plan to reform the GOP, but they offer little to nothing by way of solutions.  
> 
> So I will ask you as well, what are you going to do to make a difference in your community?


I am sure you will outgrow this stage you are in. The present state of the universe is not purposely fulfilling any purpose. I think you are like one of those who believed in the "Purpose Driven Church" philosophy that corrupted the whole gospel thing for a result oriented effort. Big churches are not better churches. On the contrary, they are worse churches. Millions of GOPrs I think are purpose driven. Just like Mitt Romney I am sure he is where he is because he is one of those who follow the "Purpose Driven Church" pattern and philosophy. That's what Romney is, purposeful driven fellow. You see, what I am going to do in my community is to discover one more truth. Purpose driven is an egocentric maniacal corruption of life. 

In my community I sacrifice by being truthful. Truthfulness is hard to maintain.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> It honestly amazed me, how we have so many in here that want to piss all over Ron's plan to reform the GOP, but they offer little to nothing by way of solutions.


In all fairness, it is a possibility that given a variety of factors, Ron's plan may not be possible in much of the country.  And, it other parts of the country such as MA, RI, CT, NY, CA, OR, WA, HI, MN, NM, VT, MD, NJ... while it may be possible, it may not be of much use as the GOP hasn't had a lot of power based on the results of the last few elections.

----------


## tbone717

> In all fairness, it is a possibility that given a variety of factors, Ron's plan may not be possible in much of the country.  And, it other parts of the country such as MA, RI, CT, NY, CA, OR, WA, HI, MN, NM, VT, MD, NJ... while it may be possible, it may not be of much use as the GOP hasn't had a lot of power based on the results of the last few elections.


I tend to disagree, simply because at the heart of it all is people like you and me getting involved locally.  That is less really about ideology (though that is important) and more about involvement.  If someone is socially, civically and politically active in their community, then running for committeeman is a fairly easy task.  Many times those slots are open and not even challenged.  For example, our committeeman (who btw is a solid guy, and a neighbor of mine) won his seat this spring.  The seat was open, no one else was running for it, so it was a done deal.  

And as far as getting average GOP voters to support our guys - we need to realize that honestly we aren't that far away from the average Republican on most issues.  It is not like Liberty Candidates are out on the stump calling for the legalization of prostitution or other Libertarian side issues.  When you look at the campaigns of Bills, Cruz, Massie, etc - these guys are running very mainstream campaigns.  

The key of being active in the GOP, as I see it, is access to the mailing lists, being able to organize events, the endorsement of candidates, etc.  Take the Glen Bradley race, for example - Glen came in a distant third, but how much different would that race been if Bradley had the endorsement and support of the county committees that make up that State Senate district?  

So as I see it there is a call to action for activists.  Each of us has to do something or do nothing at all.  We can either work within our own local GOP, join up with a third party venture, or sit out.  I imagine too that there are those part time activists, who focus solely on individual races for them it is more of a volunteer effort from time to time, and that is fine, it would be great if more of them became active throughout the entire year, and not just during an election.  I believe that in large part Ron's call to involvement is directed to them, sort of saying - he you did a great job working for me, so don't stop now - here is the next step.

And for those who are little more than "keyboard warriors", in all honesty none of this really applies to them - unless for some reason they decide that they actually want to get out of the house and start doing something.

----------


## tbone717

> I am sure you will outgrow this stage you are in. The present state of the universe is not purposely fulfilling any purpose. I think you are like one of those who believed in the "Purpose Driven Church" philosophy that corrupted the whole gospel thing for a result oriented effort. Big churches are not better churches. On the contrary, they are worse churches. Millions of GOPrs I think are purpose driven. Just like Mitt Romney I am sure he is where he is because he is one of those who follow the "Purpose Driven Church" pattern and philosophy. That's what Romney is, purposeful driven fellow. You see, what I am going to do in my community is to discover one more truth. Purpose driven is an egocentric maniacal corruption of life.


Actually, I am a Calvinist.  I think the PDC model is horrible for the Church.  But honestly, your analogy is poor.  Politics is not a church, political ideology is not the gospel of grace.  We aren't seeking to convert people, we are working on GOTV.




> In my community I sacrifice by being truthful. Truthfulness is hard to maintain.


I am not sure what that means.  Are you actually an activist, as in have you done volunteer work (tabling, canvassing, phone banking, etc) for candidates this year and in the past?  Do you attend local gov't meetings (school board, county, township, etc) so that you have a voice in the process?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> And as far as getting average GOP voters to support our guys - we need to realize that honestly we aren't that far away from the average Republican on most issues.  It is not like Liberty Candidates are out on the stump calling for the legalization of prostitution or other Libertarian side issues.  When you look at the campaigns of Bills, Cruz, Massie, etc - these guys are running very mainstream campaigns.  
> 
> So as I see it there is a call to action for activists.  Each of us has to do something or do nothing at all.  We can either work within our own local GOP, join up with a third party venture, or sit out.


OR we can be active independently of the GOP/Dem or LP/CP "homes," coordinating both to leverage liberty candidates to victory. Collaboration, instead of polarization. Stop thinking of a traditional party as a home, and start thinking of it as a car, or better, a bus. You don't live in, or work inside a vehicle, you use it to get somewhere. Where we need to go requires a transfer. We use the third party bus to get the principled candidates, then we "transfer" to an open, safe seat race on the major party bus route, to get the victories. 

This approach involves respecting the value of both vehicles. It means finding good use in both the major party and minor party universes without calling either one "useless" or a waste, because they each have different metrics for defining victory. It means not calling principled positions "side issues," and admitting we are not controlling a party as a mere wing of it (in the big tent, there is a difference between the clowns, and the ringmasters). 

And it means distinguishing between the true leader of the liberty movement (the bottom-up network, or grassroots itself), versus _the leading candidate_ of this movement (Paul). The rep speaks for the movement, but is not the be all and end all of it, as Paul has himself acknowledged. Ultimately, the difference between the reform GOP mindset and the grassroots is one of believing, as the reformers do, that only gaining power through an existing structure is meaningful, versus the broader grassroots activists, who believe _and have demonstrated_ that freedom is a self organizing concept. The movement created the Paul rEVOLution, and built its network, with NO help from the GOP power structure. That organization, if it stays true to its core issue and principles, can and will continue to grow outside of the oppression of the ringmasters.

----------


## Carlybee

> Ultimately, the difference between the reform GOP mindset and the grassroots is one of believing, as the reformers do, that only gaining power through an existing structure is meaningful, versus the broader grassroots activists, who believe _and have demonstrated_ that freedom is a self organizing concept. The movement created the Paul rEVOLution, and built its network, with NO help from the GOP power structure. That organization, if it stays true to its core issue and principles, can and will continue to grow outside of the oppression of the ringmasters.


I owe you a +rep

----------


## tbone717

> And it means distinguishing between the true leader of the liberty movement (the bottom-up network, or grassroots itself), versus _the leading candidate_ of this movement (Paul). The rep speaks for the movement, but is not the be all and end all of it, as Paul has himself acknowledged. Ultimately, the difference between the reform GOP mindset and the grassroots is one of believing, as the reformers do, that only gaining power through an existing structure is meaningful, versus the broader grassroots activists, who believe _and have demonstrated_ that freedom is a self organizing concept. The movement created the Paul rEVOLution, and built its network, with NO help from the GOP power structure. That organization, if it stays true to its core issue and principles, can and will continue to grow outside of the oppression of the ringmasters.


While that all sounds just wonderful, the reality of the situation is at this stage there are many who need direction and purpose.  Every person has a limited number of hours that they can sacrifice to political activism, so do they spend their time attending the local GOP meeting, and potentially running for a committee seat or do they spend their time with the LP or CP folks.  

The overall discussion here has been directed at those who are regular activists, not just those who occasionally like a candidate and decide whether or not they are going to donate money and volunteer.  Those are part timers, and many of them will continue to be part time - picking an choosing when they will be activists and when they will not.  And I most certainly have not been addressing the keyboard warriors who never leave their house and knock on a door.  

The last two campaigns of Paul, have gotten some new folks involved in ways that they never were before.  Many of them left their comfort zones and canvassed, tabled, phoned, etc.  So what is the next step for these folks who are novices at activism?  As Paul has said, and the campaign has echoed - they would like to see people involved in their local GOP to work to return it to its founding principles.  I agree with this, and as I have stated many times third parties like the LP and CP are not productive uses of one's valuable time, simply because they are unable to produce candidates that can win state or federal elections.  Does this mean that those of us who are working within the GOP are going to blindly support and campaign for candidates simply because they have an R next to their name?  No.  What it does mean is that we are working to change the local GOP to identify and support Liberty Republicans that are running for office, and to make the infrastructure more conducive to them being successful.

If someone wants to spend their time and money on a third party pursuit, they are free to do that.  However, that is not the plan that is being carried out by the broader Liberty Movement.  If one has a few hours per month to dedicate to the Liberty Movement, I contend that the best use of that time is getting involved in your local GOP.  This is the direction that C4L, and other groups are taking at the present time.  I hope many here will join us.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> While that all sounds just wonderful, the reality of the situation is at this stage there are many who need direction and purpose.  Every person has a limited number of hours that they can sacrifice to political activism, so do they spend their time attending the local GOP meeting, and potentially running for a committee seat or do they spend their time with the LP or CP folks.  
> 
> The overall discussion here has been directed at those who are regular activists, not just those who occasionally like a candidate and decide whether or not they are going to donate money and volunteer.  Those are part timers, and many of them will continue to be part time - picking an choosing when they will be activists and when they will not.  And I most certainly have not been addressing the keyboard warriors who never leave their house and knock on a door.  
> 
> The last two campaigns of Paul, have gotten some new folks involved in ways that they never were before.  Many of them left their comfort zones and canvassed, tabled, phoned, etc.  So what is the next step for these folks who are novices at activism?  As Paul has said, and the campaign has echoed - they would like to see people involved in their local GOP to work to return it to its founding principles.  I agree with this, and as I have stated many times third parties like the LP and CP are not productive uses of one's valuable time, simply because they are unable to produce candidates that can win state or federal elections.  Does this mean that those of us who are working within the GOP are going to blindly support and campaign for candidates simply because they have an R next to their name?  No.  What it does mean is that we are working to change the local GOP to identify and support Liberty Republicans that are running for office, and to make the infrastructure more conducive to them being successful.
> 
> If someone wants to spend their time and money on a third party pursuit, they are free to do that.  However, that is not the plan that is being carried out by the broader Liberty Movement.  If one has a few hours per month to dedicate to the Liberty Movement, I contend that the best use of that time is getting involved in your local GOP.  This is the direction that C4L, and other groups are taking at the present time.  I hope many here will join us.


On that clever note, this thread can be locked.

----------


## Carlybee

> On that clever note, this thread can be locked.


Shouldn't the OP be the one to request that?   Why do you keep trying to squash differing opinions?  You and tbone are starting to sound like shills.  JOIN US OR ELSE.
Do you really think that is the most encouraging way to bring people around to your way of thinking?  It's exactly those type of edicts that make me disgusted with the two party system.

Also the constant "If you didn't man a booth, run for office, hit the pavement, blah blah, you ain't $#@!" is not only condescending but insulting to people who may not have been able to do those things but donated to moneybombs the point of not having any left to pay bills with, to the campaign and other fund raising endeavors...and I know there were people who did that.  I've done it myself..not only to moneybombs but in response to emails I've received from Ron Paul and even some of the super pacs.

I would like a moderator to tell me if you and tbone are in charge of what can and cannot be discussed.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Shouldn't the OP be the one to request that?   Why do you keep trying to squash differing opinions?  You and tbone are starting to sound like shills.  JOIN US OR ELSE.
> Do you really think that is the most encouraging way to bring people around to your way of thinking?  It's exactly those type of edicts that make me disgusted with the two party system.
> 
> Also the constant "If you didn't man a booth, run for office, hit the pavement, blah blah, you ain't $#@!" is not only condescending but insulting to people who may not have been able to do those things but donated to moneybombs the point of not having any left to pay bills with, to the campaign and other fund raising endeavors...and I know there were people who did that.  I've done it myself..not only to moneybombs but in response to emails I've received from Ron Paul and even some of the super pacs.
> 
> I would like a moderator to tell me if you and tbone are in charge of what can and cannot be discussed.


I'm in charge of nothing, it's just that I care enough about Paul's plan to restore the GOP that I continue to post about and defend it. I've never acted high and mighty but there's only so many vehicles with audiences to get the point across that becoming delegates in the GOP is the easiest and surest way to affect change. I don't have a problem with anyone and their opinion of what they want or don't want to do but to use this forum to spread that opinion in every thread multiple times is a little offensive to me and others that are adhering to Paul's restoration plan. Also, I refrain from name calling in my endeavors when I'm networking with my fellow liberty lovers.

----------


## Carlybee

Ron Paul also fervently supports free speech. I expect that if me voicing an opinion is all that disruptive that a mod will tell me.  Unlike some I am not telling anyone what they "should" or "better" do.  You can't sweep what has happened with the GOP cheating in the delegate process under the rug and then expect everyone to embrace them as if it will not happen again.  You can't say it's not about Ron Paul not getting the nomination and then continue to invoke his name to shut people up.

----------


## RickyJ

Taking over the party is one thing, working with the party is another. We need to completely take it over and then set the agenda. If this is not possible then we need our own party. I think we have a decent shot of taking it over if we can end the corruption occurring at high levels within the GOP. It is worth a shot. All I know is I want to see Ron Paul in the White House in January 2013 regardless of party affiliation.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> OR we can be active independently of the GOP/Dem or LP/CP "homes," coordinating both to leverage liberty candidates to victory. Collaboration, instead of polarization. Stop thinking of a traditional party as a home, and start thinking of it as a car, or better, a bus. You don't live in, or work inside a vehicle, you use it to get somewhere. Where we need to go requires a transfer. We use the third party bus to get the principled candidates, then we "transfer" to an open, safe seat race on the major party bus route, to get the victories. 
> 
> This approach involves respecting the value of both vehicles. It means finding good use in both the major party and minor party universes without calling either one "useless" or a waste, because they each have different metrics for defining victory. It means not calling principled positions "side issues," and admitting we are not controlling a party as a mere wing of it (in the big tent, there is a difference between the clowns, and the ringmasters). 
> 
> And it means distinguishing between the true leader of the liberty movement (the bottom-up network, or grassroots itself), versus _the leading candidate_ of this movement (Paul). The rep speaks for the movement, but is not the be all and end all of it, as Paul has himself acknowledged. Ultimately, the difference between the reform GOP mindset and the grassroots is one of believing, as the reformers do, that only gaining power through an existing structure is meaningful, versus the broader grassroots activists, who believe _and have demonstrated_ that freedom is a self organizing concept. The movement created the Paul rEVOLution, and built its network, with NO help from the GOP power structure. That organization, if it stays true to its core issue and principles, can and will continue to grow outside of the oppression of the ringmasters.


+rep!!

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Ron Paul also fervently supports free speech. I expect that if me voicing an opinion is all that disruptive that a mod will tell me.  Unlike some I am not telling anyone what they "should" or "better" do.  You can't sweep what has happened with the GOP cheating in the delegate process under the rug and then expect everyone to embrace them as if it will not happen again.  You can't say it's not about Ron Paul not getting the nomination and then continue to invoke his name to shut people up.


I agree with your frustration with how some state GOPs have treated us. It just inspires me even more to stay involved and get our way all the while pushing the old guard, including those that were/are downright corrupt, to the curb. We shouldn't reward those jerkoffs by allowing their tactics to affect us in a way that we back down and let them stay in charge. That is why I'm so perturbed when some advocate against that increasingly affective strategy. Stop looking at it like we're embracing the GOP, we're using that vehicle to achieve our goals.

----------


## Carlybee

> I agree with your frustration with how some state GOPs have treated us. It just inspires me even more to stay involved and get our way all the while pushing the old guard, including those that were/are downright corrupt, to the curb. We shouldn't reward those jerkoffs by allowing their tactics to affect us in a way that we back down and let them stay in charge. That is why I'm so perturbed when some advocate against that increasingly affective strategy. Stop looking at it like we're embracing the GOP, we're using that vehicle to achieve our goals.


It remains to be seen if it is an appropriate vehicle.  Maybe we will know more after the convention.  In my opinion it's never been a great vehicle for Ron Paul other than it did give us what was sometimes the sole dissenting voice in Congress.  But the fact that sometimes he WAS the sole dissenting voice speaks volumes.  What they have done throughout this campaign and the delegate process has been totally lacking in integrity and in some cases criminal.  I have a real hard time believing that is a good vehicle.  Not to mention the fact that informing people you plan to take over their party is a bit like a hostile takeover which apparently even Ron Paul balked at given that he was concerned about mayhem at the national convention to the point that he all but bowed out of the race.

----------


## tbone717

> It remains to be seen if it is an appropriate vehicle.  Maybe we will know more after the convention.  In my opinion it's never been a great vehicle for Ron Paul other than it did give us what was sometimes the sole dissenting voice in Congress.  But the fact that sometimes he WAS the sole dissenting voice speaks volumes.  What they have done throughout this campaign and the delegate process has been totally lacking in integrity and in some cases criminal.  I have a real hard time believing that is a good vehicle.  Not to mention the fact that informing people you plan to take over their party is a bit like a hostile takeover which apparently even Ron Paul balked at given that he was concerned about mayhem at the national convention to the point that he all but bowed out of the race.


The vehicle is not solely about Ron Paul.  It is about Rand, Amash, Massie and tons of other folks that are elected in office across this country who hold to the same principles that the overall Liberty Movement holds to.  There are already hundreds of solid libertarian-conservatives in office, each and every one of them is a Republican.  The plan is for grassroots activists to work within the GOP alongside these folks, and others to grow the movement.  

This isn't rocket science, but it does require people to actually put in some hard work.  It means sacrificing your time and money for the movement.  It means going to meetings, networking with people in your community, and possibly even running for office.  The Liberty Movement has been fortunate to gain a lot of new people in the last 5 years that are have a new (or renewed) interest in political activism.  It is the desire of Paul and those who work closely with him, to not let this one election be the end of it all, but for those new people to stay involved in this long standing process of reform.

If it is one's desire to see more Rand Paul's in the Senate, more Justin Amashes in the House and more Tom Davises in state legislature then the means by which that can be accomplished is grassroots involvement on the local level.  And this involvement isn't something that we only do once every two to four years, instead it is an ongoing process that continues on a regular basis.  

For example, our State Senator Mike Folmer, who is an outstanding defender of liberty in PA, is up for reelection in 2014.  We are already working here locally to jump start his campaign for fundraising with an event being held in the next month - and the organization behind this effort is our county GOP.  Mailers will be sent out, donors will be contacted directly, the even will be well publicized to the community as a whole. This is possible because we have had liberty-minded people involved at the county level for many years now, and many of them are elected committeemen and women.  What has been done here in my county, has been done in many others across the country - and we hope to see this continue and grow in more and more counties over the next year or two.

----------


## cheapseats

The Republican Par-taaay wants to ABSORB the Liberty Moovement, same as it did the Tea Party.

Insofar as "Liberty Lovers" who continue to cling to the GOP TAKEOVER strategery are the more "conservative" of Ron Paul Supporters (by THEIR definition of Conservative), why wouldn't they simply re-align with the Tea Party?  The bogarted Tea Party has been wayward for a shorter time than the Republican Party.  De-programming THEM seems likelier than de-programming "mainstream" Republicans.  

The "conservative wing" of Ron Paul Support plus the bogarted Tea Party equals the coveted MORE POWER that work-within-the-system people crave.

Liberty Lovers who love liberty more than cramming their agendas down people's throats literally have NO BUSINESS towing Republican lines.  Time to cut bait, and wage this war from different fronts.

----------


## tbone717

> The Republican Par-taaay wants to ABSORB the Liberty Moovement, same as it did the Tea Party.
> 
> Insofar as "Liberty Lovers" who continue to cling to the GOP TAKEOVER strategery are the more "conservative" of Ron Paul Supporters (by THEIR definition of Conservative), why wouldn't they simply re-align with the Tea Party?  The bogarted Tea Party has been wayward for a shorter time than the Republican Party.  De-programming THEM seems likelier than de-programming "mainstream" Republicans.  
> 
> The "conservative wing" of Ron Paul Support plus the bogarted Tea Party equals the coveted MORE POWER that work-within-the-system people crave.
> 
> Liberty Lovers who love liberty more than cramming their agendas down people's throats literally have NO BUSINESS towing Republican lines.  *Time to cut bait, and wage this war from different fronts.*


Ok so you plan to go elsewhere.  What is your strategy and idea.  Is it joining the LP or CP?  Is it creating a new party altogether?  Is it not having any organization at all?  What is the plan to engage voters on the issues?  Canvassing, phone banking, tabling?  

I am not trying to put you on the spot, but it is one thing to say you are going to wage this war from different fronts, and an entirely different thing to actually have a plan of action of what you are going to physically do.

I am saying this because I have heard this stuff so many times in the past.  Not you personally of course, but plenty of times in my 25 years of doing this there have been those that are going to wage the war on a different front, and while they talk a good game their "actions" are nothing more than sitting around bitching and moaning about how everything is corrupt.  From my observations few, if any, actually ever really do anything.

So I am genuinely curious as to what suggestions you have to wage the war on a different front.

----------


## TheTexan

> Ok so you plan to go elsewhere.  What is your strategy and idea.  Is it joining the LP or CP?  Is it creating a new party altogether?  Is it not having any organization at all?  What is the plan to engage voters on the issues?  Canvassing, phone banking, tabling?


I think we need to make brochures explaining all the liberty positions and distribute it everywhere!!!  This way people will be informed and make the right choice!!!  This is how we WIN people!




/s
(nothing against the brochure.. it was worth a try, just didn't work.. for reasons I hope are becoming obvious)

In all seriousness tbone, is "Politics" the only category of solutions you've ever given any thought to?

----------


## tbone717

> In all seriousness tbone, is "Politics" the only category of solutions you've ever given any thought to?


Well there is a certain component of changing people's hearts and minds and that comes with time.  But at the end of the day, twice a year, every year, people go to the polls and vote.  The decision that they choose has an effect on our lives and liberty.  If you have a school board that is filled with people who believe in small government, then you are less likely to see your school taxes raised.  If you have a state legislature that is filled with liberty-minded people then you are more likely to see regulations repealed.  

And again, I am not the creator of this plan - I just execute it.  There is a limited amount of time each month that I can dedicate to this work - the rest of my time is dedicated to my business, family and friends.  So in that limited amount of time, I choose to be as effective as I can, because I care deeply about these issues.  By nature, I am an action oriented person, every action I take in my business I want to see a positive result, I do the same when it comes to my activism.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Republican Par-taaay wants to ABSORB the Liberty Moovement, same as it did the Tea Party.


The establishment may _want_ to, but that doesn't mean they will.  That all depends on us.




> Insofar as "Liberty Lovers" who continue to cling to the GOP TAKEOVER strategery are the more "conservative" of Ron Paul Supporters (by THEIR definition of Conservative),


Are you talking about the real definition of conservatism, as opposed to neoconservatism?




> why wouldn't they simply re-align with the Tea Party?


What?  Probably for the same reason that we DIDN'T.  However, that doesn't mean that we can't sway a good number of those folks.  




> The bogarted Tea Party has been wayward for a shorter time than the Republican Party.  De-programming THEM seems likelier than de-programming "mainstream" Republicans.


For the most part, the Tea Party IS made up of mainstream Republicans. 




> The "conservative wing" of Ron Paul Support plus the bogarted Tea Party equals the coveted MORE POWER that work-within-the-system people crave.


If you want to change the system, you have to get involved politically.  Do we really need to go here yet again?  I guess we do.  Only the 2 major parties get in debates and get any media attention at all.   I hate it, but there it is.  So, if we want to change anything, we need to use one of these two.  The Republican Party makes more sense, because it used to have the Goldwater wing of libertarian-conservatives.  




> Liberty Lovers who love liberty more than cramming their agendas down people's throats literally have NO BUSINESS towing Republican lines.


Who said we were going to "tow Republican lines"?  That isn't the plan at all.  Far from it.




> Time to cut bait, and wage this war from different fronts.


Liberty Lovers who want to continue having 0 impact should bail on Ron's strategy.  But, yes, waging the war from a variety of different fronts is always a good thing.

----------


## parocks

> Nice try. The discussion/argument underway is "ON WORKING INSIDE THE GOP". There is some disagreement about that, particularly among NON REPUBLICANS who "only" aligned with the Grand Old Par-taaay on the long-but-incredible-shot of Ron Paul ascending to the Presidency. 
> 
> Are you suggesting...even now, DESPITE "the good doctor's" upcoming THIRD failed presidential bid and America's worsening Banana Republic economic SQUALOR...that "Discussion of Working Inside the GOP" shall proceed from the premise that working within the Republican Party is a sacred-cow GIVEN, open to neither debate nor criticism?


Just saying that wanting "less government" isn't a jumping off point to saying something else.  3rd parties don't have the numbers to win.

----------


## TheTexan

If the goal is to do the best with what we have, then politics is your answer.  The problem is, the best with what politics can offer, simply isn't good enough for me.

Ultimately, liberty lovers are a minority within a minority.  We're definitely a minority within the Republican party.  Even if, by some miracle, we were to convince all of the Republican party to love liberty, there's still a whole another 50% of the country in the Democratic party... many of whom are steadfastly and proudly socialist.

In this hypothetical (and impossible) scenario, where half the country wants freedom, and the other half wants socialism... guess where that brings us?  A standstill.  Even then we'd get _nothing_ done.

The *best case* and pretty much *impossible* scenario is, we'd freeze the advancement of tyranny and keep this tyranny as it is today.  And worse still, to achieve this hypothetical 50% liberty, we'd need a good couple decades to do it, all the while tyranny would be advancing further.

If you want to *minimize* tyranny, politics is your solution.  If you want to *maximize* liberty, you're going to have look at other options.

----------


## Carlybee

Some of you need to look up paradigm change.  If nothing ever changes...it never changes.  How often does history have to repeat itself?   No offense to them but we have already seen Rand and Amash have to compromise their positions.  Rand on Romney and Amash on Israel.  And we aren't even to the convention yet.  Good luck...no best of luck to those who want to change the GOP.  I understand.  There's been a lot of blood, sweat and tears expended to get this far.  Some of us are still reeling from what we see as a no win situation which was illustrated recently in many of the state conventions and by the campaign making a u-turn.  I have no idea how we will go about changing things or making a new party or whatever we end up doing.  However there is nothing wrong with having the conversation and if your method is so sure-fire solid then you shouldn't feel threatened by a few of us who don't want to compromise our ideals.   The more liberty people in office the better...as long as they stay liberty people.

----------


## TheTexan

Secession is one such viable option.  Hell, even Rick Perry is on board.  It wouldn't make Texas a much better place to live, but it sure would make the leviathan a good chunk smaller.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Some of you need to look up paradigm change.  If nothing ever changes...it never changes.  How often does history have to repeat itself?   No offense to them but we have already seen Rand and Amash have to compromise their positions.  Rand on Romney and Amash on Israel.  And we aren't even to the convention yet.  Good luck...no best of luck to those who want to change the GOP.  I understand.  There's been a lot of blood, sweat and tears expended to get this far.  Some of us are still reeling from what we see as a no win situation which was illustrated recently in many of the state conventions and by the campaign making a u-turn.  I have no idea how we will go about changing things or making a new party or whatever we end up doing.  However there is nothing wrong with having the conversation and if your method is so sure-fire solid then you shouldn't feel threatened by a few of us who don't want to compromise our ideals.   The more liberty people in office the better...as long as they stay liberty people.


An endorsement is not compromising.  Voting for something bad is compromising.  At least in my opinion.  

As far as Amash goes, I didn't like that one vote either.  But, I'm not going to say he's not a liberty candidate because of 1 vote.  Especially when the other 99% were right on.

We should strive for a 100% voting record, but it might be ridiculous to blacklist someone for one vote.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Secession is one such viable option.  Hell, even Rick Perry is on board.  It wouldn't make Texas a much better place to live, but it sure would make the leviathan a good chunk smaller.


Oh, that's all blather on Perry's part.  He doesn't want the crony-capitalist system to change.  It's what made him a wealthy man.

----------


## tbone717

> Secession is one such viable option.  Hell, even Rick Perry is on board.  It wouldn't make Texas a much better place to live, but it sure would make the leviathan a good chunk smaller.


Well secession is something that would need to be accomplished at the state level, so therefore you need to have people in office that support that view - again we are back to a political solution.

However, personal secession (i.e. beating the system to maximize ones personal and economic liberty) is certainly achievable.  You just need to know the system, or pay people who do know the system well enough so that you can keep more of what you earn.

----------


## TheTexan

> Oh, that's all blather on Perry's part.  He doesn't want the crony-capitalist system to change.  It's what made him a wealthy man.


I know, but he's dumb enough that we could trick him into maintaining the rhetoric for us

----------


## Carlybee

> An endorsement is not compromising.  Voting for something bad is compromising.  At least in my opinion.  
> 
> As far as Amash goes, I didn't like that one vote either.  But, I'm not going to say he's not a liberty candidate because of 1 vote.  Especially when the other 99% were right on.
> 
> We should strive for a 100% voting record, but it might be ridiculous to blacklist someone for one vote.


Endorsing someone who is diametrically opposed to your own ideology is compromising.  And I won't judge Amash on that one vote because I do think he is on the right track generally but it's just an example.  Only time will tell how much they will end up having to compromise.

----------


## TheTexan

> Well secession is something that would need to be accomplished at the state level, so therefore you need to have people in office that support that view - again we are back to a political solution.
> 
> However, personal secession (i.e. beating the system to maximize ones personal and economic liberty) is certainly achievable.  You just need to know the system, or pay people who do know the system well enough so that you can keep more of what you earn.


Secession has a political component, but it's not a political solution.

I define a 'political solution' as one that tries to figure out how to work with other people
A 'separation solution' is one that tries to figure out how to sever the ties with those people

The mechanism in which secession occurs may (or may not) happen through politics, but it's not a political solution.

You are right that we'd need to run and elect politicians for that, and if it were done for that purpose, I'd be on board with it completely.  But running and electing politicians so they can play games in DC is an entirely different thing.

----------


## tbone717

> Endorsing someone who is diametrically opposed to your own ideology is compromising.  And I won't judge Amash on that one vote because I do think he is on the right track generally but it's just an example.  Only time will tell how much they will end up having to compromise.


I'm no fan of Romney, but he is not diametrically opposed to Rand. They differ on a lot of issues, but there are some general agreements as well.

There is a tendency on here (not you specifically) to demonize anyone who differs with us on some issues (oddly enough we see more bashing of Republicans than we do Democrats).  What some need to realize is that guys like Rand don't necessarily view Romney as being evil as some here do.  For example, Mike Lee, who is one of Rand's closest allies in the Senate endorsed Romney long before he was the presumptive nominee.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If the goal is to do the best with what we have, then politics is your answer.  The problem is, the best with what politics can offer, simply isn't good enough for me.
> 
> Ultimately, liberty lovers are a minority within a minority.  We're definitely a minority within the Republican party.  Even if, by some miracle, we were to convince all of the Republican party to love liberty, there's still a whole another 50% of the country in the Democratic party... many of whom are steadfastly and proudly socialist.
> 
> In this hypothetical (and impossible) scenario, where half the country wants freedom, and the other half wants socialism... guess where that brings us?  A standstill.  Even then we'd get _nothing_ done.


You are discounting the fact that many, many more people of all ages were on-board in 2012, than in 2008.  We are making progress.




> The *best case* and pretty much *impossible* scenario is, we'd freeze the advancement of tyranny and keep this tyranny as it is today.  And worse still, to achieve this hypothetical 50% liberty, we'd need a good couple decades to do it, all the while tyranny would be advancing further.
> 
> If you want to *minimize* tyranny, politics is your solution.  If you want to *maximize* liberty, you're going to have look at other options.


This is the way I look at it.  If our country falls, people are going to be panicked and will be looking to someone who has the answer to deliver them from the pain they are in.  That is one of the many reasons why I want to have as many liberty candidates in office from dog catcher on up.  Because it is those people who will have a podium from which to speak to the people.

I also want people like Rand in place in the federal government, because if we fall, he can be a voice against those who *will* want to take us totally into a world currency and world government.

Regardless, having people in office, both in the Republican Party and in government, provides more platforms to spread the message and who knows, we may surprise ourselves and a lot more people may wake up and join us.   As things get worse in the economy, they will be looking for answers.  The question is, will we be positioned to offer those answers, or will we have thrown in the towel and given up?

----------


## gte811i

> Secession is one such viable option.  Hell, even Rick Perry is on board.  It wouldn't make Texas a much better place to live, but it sure would make the leviathan a good chunk smaller.



You let me know how secession goes for you when you are sitting in a jail cell.  At some point in the future it might actually happen, but it's not going to happen today and it won't happen if Obama is re-elected.  Things have to be really bad before anything like that comes into play.  The Great Depression was worse economically and politically; FDR was more of a dictator than Obama--FDR was probably the closest we've had to a dictator.  Things *are not* worse than the Great Depression today.  Maybe when the bond market blows up it will be, but not today.

I tell you it's almost like some individuals just really *want* the entire system to blow up so we can "start over".  When it all goes down, you'll wish and pray it didn't.  When a country blows up internally it gets really messy and the outcome is completely uncertain and more likely than not things will be worse after things have stabilized than beforehand.  The people that will determine the direction of the outcome will be those who are in charge, in positions of power . . . they will have the say on how things turn out.  My goal is to have good men/women in those positions who believe in liberty so the outcome of an economic collapse has some chance at Liberty.

And regardless of what someone thinks, those in the R or D will have a frontrow seat to help work on those issues . . . . otherwise one will be on the outside looking in, moaning about this or that etc.

----------


## TheTexan

> I'm no fan of Romney, but he is not diametrically opposed to Rand. They differ on a lot of issues, but there are some general agreements as well.


The main point of difference is that Rand supposedly means what he says, whereas Romney is 100% rhetoric.

(I'm not convinced Rand isn't rhetoric either)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm no fan of Romney, but he is not diametrically opposed to Rand. They differ on a lot of issues, but there are some general agreements as well.
> 
> There is a tendency on here (not you specifically) to demonize anyone who differs with us on some issues (oddly enough we see more bashing of Republicans than we do Democrats).  What some need to realize is that guys like Rand don't necessarily view Romney as being evil as some here do.  For example, Mike Lee, who is one of Rand's closest allies in the Senate endorsed Romney long before he was the presumptive nominee.


Sorry.

No.

I don't agree.

Romney is a Rockefeller-Republican just like his father, which means he shares almost NOTHING with us and he flip-flops more than a fish out of water.  He is a big government leftist Republican.

What do you think he agrees with us on?

The Federal Reserve?  No
Monetary policy?  No
Non-interventionism?  No
The Patriot Act?  No
NDAA?  No
The Constitution?  LOL.  See above.  NO!!

Is there anything he agrees with Dr. Paul on?  Maybe chocolate chip cookies.


Mitt Romney will have my vote when hell freezes over and not before.

----------


## TheTexan

> You let me know how secession goes for you when you are sitting in a jail cell.  At some point in the future it might actually happen, but it's not going to happen today and it won't happen if Obama is re-elected.  Things have to be really bad before anything like that comes into play.  The Great Depression was worse economically and politically; FDR was more of a dictator than Obama--FDR was probably the closest we've had to a dictator.  Things *are not* worse than the Great Depression today.  Maybe when the bond market blows up it will be, but not today.
> 
> I tell you it's almost like some individuals just really *want* the entire system to blow up so we can "start over".  When it all goes down, you'll wish and pray it didn't.  When a country blows up internally it gets really messy and the outcome is completely uncertain and more likely than not things will be worse after things have stabilized than beforehand.  The people that will determine the direction of the outcome will be those who are in charge, in positions of power . . . they will have the say on how things turn out.  My goal is to have good men/women in those positions who believe in liberty so the outcome of an economic collapse has some chance at Liberty.
> 
> And regardless of what someone thinks, those in the R or D will have a frontrow seat to help work on those issues . . . . otherwise one will be on the outside looking in, moaning about this or that etc.


The Liberty movement actually has a great deal of power behind it.  Set to purpose I believe we could make something like this happen.  The problem is people are still in the rat maze, trying to find the cheese

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm no fan of Romney, but he is not diametrically opposed to Rand. They differ on a lot of issues, but there are some general agreements as well.
> 
> There is a tendency on here (not you specifically) to demonize anyone who differs with us on some issues (oddly enough we see more bashing of Republicans than we do Democrats).  What some need to realize is that guys like Rand don't necessarily view Romney as being evil as some here do.  For example, Mike Lee, who is one of Rand's closest allies in the Senate endorsed Romney long before he was the presumptive nominee.


I wasn't demonizing him, just pointing something out.  It's pretty apparent that Rand will have to tow the line to retain his senate seat.  Some think that if fine because maybe he will get "some" good legislation through.  But what if he doesn't?  Then he may as well just be one of them.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I wasn't demonizing him, just pointing something out.  It's pretty apparent that Rand will have to tow the line to retain his senate seat.  Some think that if fine because maybe he will get "some" good legislation through.  But what if he doesn't?  Then he may as well just be one of them.


We will have to watch his votes and if he capitulates, then he's outta there.  I don't expect that to happen, but if he does, that is what we do.

----------


## TheTexan

> Things *are not* worse than the Great Depression today.


Would disagree very strongly with this statement, btw

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Endorsing someone who is diametrically opposed to your own ideology is compromising.  And I won't judge Amash on that one vote because I do think he is on the right track generally but it's just an example.  Only time will tell how much they will end up having to compromise.


We will have to agree to disagree, then.

----------


## tbone717

> Sorry.
> 
> No.
> 
> I don't agree.
> 
> Romney is a Rockefeller-Republican just like his father, which means he shares almost NOTHING with us and he flip-flops more than a fish out of water.  He is a big government leftist Republican.
> 
> What do you think he agrees with us on?
> ...



If Rand is able to get legislation passed in the Senate for any of our key issues, who is more likely to sign it? Romney or Obama?  Again, I'm no fan of Romney, but if we are able to move the House and Senate our way, we want our legislation signed.

----------


## TheTexan

> If Rand is able to get legislation passed in the Senate for any of our key issues, who is more likely to sign it? Romney or Obama?  Again, I'm no fan of Romney, but if we are able to move the House and Senate our way, we want our legislation signed.


Probably Obama, every time he vows not to sign something he ends up signing it anyway

----------


## tbone717

> Probably Obama, every time he vows not to sign something he ends up signing it anyway


LOL True.  Realistically, though the GOP has a shot at controlling both the House and Senate.  So with legislation like the Fed Audit bill moving through the House, it could very well wind up in the Senate and potentially pass.  Obama will likely veto it, as it will be cast as a Republican measure.  Romney will very likely sign it.

The Fed has been Ron's key issue for many, many years - so even though he will be in retirement, it would be excellent if Rand would be able to champion that bill, get it passed and actually have it signed.  It certainly is a step in the right direction.  

While it would have been great for Ron to win the White House, and there be this mass conversion to liberty among the American public - that just isn't happening, so we have to take the small victories when we can.  This is a long term battle that we are waging against those who support big government, and chipping away at it brick by brick is the most probable way that we can see things change in this country.

----------


## gte811i

> Would disagree very strongly with this statement, btw


Has Obama tried to pack the Supreme Court?
Is there a CCC program?
Is a Blue Eagle program in effect? (price controls)
Are we in a major World War?
Is Obama daily manipulating the price of oil and gold?

No doubt things are bad . . . probably the worst it's been since FDR.  But FDR was and is the absolute worst president we have had in modern times.  To say Obama is worse than FDR is either hyperbole or isn't taking into account all the things FDR did because it was so long ago and everyone has forgotten.  Obama is simply building off of what is already inplace; drawing things out to its natural conclusion.  Obama is just the train driver going too fast on the track to tyranny.  FDR took a train that was on the track of a relatively free society, tore up the tracks and relaid the track to tyranny and started the train on it's way.  The transformation that occurred under FDR is staggering. The change under Obama is quite logical given the trajectory before he was in office.

----------


## gte811i

> LOL True.  Realistically, though the GOP has a shot at controlling both the House and Senate.  So with legislation like the Fed Audit bill moving through the House, it could very well wind up in the Senate and potentially pass.  Obama will likely veto it, as it will be cast as a Republican measure.  Romney will very likely sign it.
> 
> The Fed has been Ron's key issue for many, many years - so even though he will be in retirement, it would be excellent if Rand would be able to champion that bill, get it passed and actually have it signed.  It certainly is a step in the right direction.  
> 
> While it would have been great for Ron to win the White House, and there be this mass conversion to liberty among the American public - that just isn't happening, so we have to take the small victories when we can.  This is a long term battle that we are waging against those who support big government, and chipping away at it brick by brick is the most probable way that we can see things change in this country.


I don't know, I go back and forth on this.  I think that 95% of the time it is best to have a divided government.  Pres (D) Congress(R) or visa. versa.  The absolute worst periods of political power over the past 12 years have come when 1 party controls all branches.  At least if it's divided it's harder for them to screw things up worse than they already are.  So I have the sliverest of hopes that ObamaCare is repealed (although 99% of me thinks not)-that IMO is the only reason to have all Rs in there.  The other part of me worries . . . what happens if the Rs get control of everything.  What will they screw up in the next 2 years b/c they are now in complete control?  A war with Iran?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If Rand is able to get legislation passed in the Senate for any of our key issues, who is more likely to sign it? Romney or Obama?  Again, I'm no fan of Romney, but if we are able to move the House and Senate our way, we want our legislation signed.


Neither will.

Sorry man, I do not agree with you about Romney.

----------


## sailingaway

> Neither will.
> 
> Sorry man, I do not agree with you about Romney.


Nor I. Romney and Obama are both anti liberty.  You can't get much more blatant than NDAA.

----------


## TheTexan

> Has Obama tried to pack the Supreme Court?
> Is there a CCC program?
> Is a Blue Eagle program in effect? (price controls)
> Are we in a major World War?
> Is Obama daily manipulating the price of oil and gold?
> 
> No doubt things are bad . . . probably the worst it's been since FDR.  But FDR was and is the absolute worst president we have had in modern times.  To say Obama is worse than FDR is either hyperbole or isn't taking into account all the things FDR did because it was so long ago and everyone has forgotten.  Obama is simply building off of what is already inplace; drawing things out to its natural conclusion.  Obama is just the train driver going too fast on the track to tyranny.  FDR took a train that was on the track of a relatively free society, tore up the tracks and relaid the track to tyranny and started the train on it's way.  The transformation that occurred under FDR is staggering. The change under Obama is quite logical given the trajectory before he was in office.


To say FDR was a worst president than Obama is one thing.  To say that our country is better off "economically and politically" than it was then is quite another.  

Because as you said, tyranny has been rolling down those tracks, for a good long time now.  It's lookin a mighty lot like secession o'clock now a'days, I don't know how you think FDR being worse than Obama changes that

----------


## tbone717

> Neither will.
> 
> Sorry man, I do not agree with you about Romney.


Off the top of my head, I cannot recall a time where a President vetoed a bill that was passed by a Congress controlled by his own party.

----------


## TheTexan

> Off the top of my head, I cannot recall a time where a President vetoed a bill that was passed by a Congress controlled by his own party.


There also haven't been very many liberty bills that have made it to that desk

----------


## tbone717

> There also haven't been very many liberty bills that have made it to that desk


True, I guess we'll have to see what happens if that time comes

----------


## cheapseats

> ...But our home is as Conservative Republicans...



There's the rub.  NOT all Liberty Lovers are CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.  Indeed, "conservative" Republicanism features some forcible moralizing that is decidedly NOT about liberty.  SPARE ME about the liberties of the Unborn, just spare me.

I am not the only one who flew the Republican coop under Bush/Cheney...after more years as a registered R than many Board Members have even been ALIVE.  There is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZIP that warrants reenlisting in one corrupt half of the "broken" (read that, HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED) two-party stranglehold.

This BUSINESS of "winning power" by going along with Wrong to beat Bad Guys at their own game is exactly that: BUSINESS AS USUAL.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> There's the rub.  
> 
> I am not the only one who flew that coop under Bush/Cheney...after more years as a registered R than many Board Members have even been ALIVE.  There is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZIP that warrants reenlisting in one corrupt half of the "broken" two-party stranglehold.
> 
> This BUSINESS of "winning power" by going along with Wrong to get the better of Bad Guys is exactly that: BUSINESS AS USUAL.


If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


You guys are starting to sound more and more like sanctimonious Republicans every day.

----------


## TheTexan

> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


How does one go from a FSP rebel to a Republican pawn, hrmm?  Curious!

----------


## cheapseats

> ...a strategy that's made far more gains for liberty in the last 4 years than 3rd parties have done in the last 40...



I'm not feelin' the GAINS FOR LIBERTY.

----------


## sailingaway

> Off the top of my head, I cannot recall a time where a President vetoed a bill that was passed by a Congress controlled by his own party.


I also doubt congress will repeal NDAA, but if it does, I'm pretty sure you'd see a first with Romney.  Congress under Romney won't ATTEMPT it, just as congress under Obama, when all Dem, didn't attempt repeal of the Patriot Act.

----------


## TheTexan

> I'm not feelin' the GAINS FOR LIBERTY.


lol no $#@!, where are these gains he's talking about, that tyranny train is just rollin onwards as it has for the last 200 years

----------


## cheapseats

> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.



Back atcha, pal.  Lie with dogs, arise with fleas.

----------


## tbone717

Just out of curiosity, for those that do not see working in the GOP as a good choice of time and resources - how long have you been working in the GOP to reform it, if at all?  I'm asking this to see if any of you have already had experience working in the GOP in your local area, and now are abandoning that task.

----------


## TheTexan

I've spent zero time reforming the GOP (never voted, never will), but I have spent time reforming _people_.  And if the people in the GOP are just that... people... I've learned most of them simply cannot be reformed.  It's a psychological impossibility.

If you want to _take over_ the GOP, that may be feasible.  But in doing so, you'd alienate most Republicans, and you may have a brief period of power (2-6 years) at the most, while the Republicans get their $#@! together, and either take the party back, or form a third party (a third party that actually _would_ succeed)

----------


## tbone717

> I also doubt congress will repeal NDAA, but if it does, I'm pretty sure you'd see a first with Romney.  Congress under Romney won't ATTEMPT it, just as congress under Obama, when all Dem, didn't attempt repeal of the Patriot Act.


I doubt it as well, we just don't have the votes for that at this time, maybe in 2 years, maybe in 4.  We don't know.  All we can do is work at the local level to create atmospheres where Liberty Republicans have a better chance of winning office.  The more folks we have in Congress that support our positions, the more likely we can see legislation we support pass.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It might make you feel better, but the GOP was never a respectable party. It had some good opposition factions, but the weight of the party has always been a big govt, evangelical, tyrant.


Actually, no, the evangelical part entered with Reagan.

And the reality is, this used to be where the small government constitutionalists lived.  

I hate political parties, but if we must use one to get our liberty candidates elected, this is the one.

----------


## tbone717

> I've spent zero time reforming the GOP (never voted, never will), but I have spent time reforming _people_.  And if the people in the GOP are just that... people... I've learned most of them simply cannot be reformed.  It's a psychological impossibility.


How do you go about doing that?  Mailers, canvassing, phone work?  




> If you want to _take over_ the GOP, that may be feasible.  But in doing so, you'd alienate most Republicans, and you may have a brief period of power (2-6 years) at the most, while the Republicans get their $#@! together, and either take the party back, or form a third party (a third party that actually _would_ succeed)


I tend to disagree with you here. The views held by libertarian-conservatives are not that far from the views of the average Republican voter.  It is not like we are trying to convince a socialist that small government works best (believe me I have had those discussions with my ex-hippy, leftist mother in law).  I have seen it occur first hand here in my county (as I mentioned, Mike Folmer, our State Senator is a strong libertarian-conservative).  And I know it is occurring elsewhere with success.  I hope to see that replicated elsewhere.

----------


## TheTexan

> I tend to disagree with you here. The views held by libertarian-conservatives are not that far from the views of the average Republican voter.  It is not like we are trying to convince a socialist that small government works best (believe me I have had those discussions with my ex-hippy, leftist mother in law).  I have seen it occur first hand here in my county (as I mentioned, Mike Folmer, our State Senator is a strong libertarian-conservative).  And I know it is occurring elsewhere with success.  I hope to see that replicated elsewhere.


Actions > Words.  When given the opportunity to take action on their limited government words, they *never do*.

That goes for both parties.  It's all just a game to them.  Just a game they like to play.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've spent zero time reforming the GOP (never voted, never will), but I have spent time reforming _people_.  And if the people in the GOP are just that... people... I've learned most of them simply cannot be reformed.  It's a psychological impossibility.


You are wrong.  Perhaps it is your technique.




> If you want to _take over_ the GOP, that may be feasible.  But in doing so, you'd alienate most Republicans, and you may have a brief period of power (2-6 years) at the most, while the Republicans get their $#@! together, and either take the party back, or form a third party (a third party that actually _would_ succeed)


We get in the leadership positions to stop the corruption.  From that point, it is all winning hearts and minds and as we get more people in leadership positions and candidates elected, our message will have a podium.  Also, as in all politics, the spoils go to the people who show up and so very few actually do.  That is in our favor.

Most major changes are caused by the efforts of a dedicated minority.  The smarter we are about how we do it, the faster that change will occur.

----------


## tbone717

> Actions > Words.  When given the opportunity to take action on their limited government words, they *never do*.
> 
> That goes for both parties.  It's all just a game to them.  Just a game they like to play.


Actions --- http://senatorfolmer.com/accomplishments.htm

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not feelin' the GAINS FOR LIBERTY.


Four years ago most Americans didn't know what the Federal Reserve even was.  Today, 80% want it audited.

I call that a gain.

And it only happened because Ron Paul ran for office in the Republican Party and thus got SOME media coverage in debates and interviews.  Even as limited as it was.

----------


## tbone717

> Four years ago most Americans didn't know what the Federal Reserve even was.  Today, 80% want it audited.
> 
> I call that a gain and it only happened because Ron Paul ran for office in the Republican Party and thus got SOME media coverage in debates and interviews.  Even as limited as it was.


I remember the times when he would introduce that bill, and it would have no co-sponsors.  And now, it could very well pass the House.  That is what happens when libertarian-conservative ideas are brought the mainstream - they win.

----------


## sailingaway

> I remember the times when he would introduce that bill, and it would have no co-sponsors.  And now, it could very well pass the House.  That is what happens when libertarian-conservative ideas are brought the mainstream - they win.


It is what happens when Ron Paul supporters melt congressional phone lines.

Your 'libertarian-conservative' candidates who are 'really not that different from mainstream Republicans' are likely to have the sort of support not very different from what mainstream Republicans have:  fickle and apathetic.

----------


## TheTexan

> You are wrong.  Perhaps it is your technique.
> 
> We get in the leadership positions to stop the corruption.  From that point, it is all winning hearts and minds and as we get more people in leadership positions and candidates elected, our message will have a podium.  Also, as in all politics, the spoils go to the people who show up and so very few actually do.  That is in our favor.


I can get people to agree with me easily enough.  Oh, ya I agree, regulations are bad.  Oh ya, I agree we should give power back to the states or local communities.  Oh ya, I agree, we shouldn't be fighting needless wars.  Oh ya, I agree, the government doesn't make jobs.

Then 2-4 weeks later they will have completely forgotten all of that and just talk like those conversations never happened, for example, "ya, I think Obama should do a No Fly Zone for the Syrians, they really need our help"

I'll correct them, and they'll agree, "ya... you have a good point, I didn't look at it from that angle"

Then 2-4 weeks later, completely forgotten.  Again.

As long as you have their attention, they will agree with you and appear to be on your side, but lose their attention for a SECOND, and they will return back to doing and believing whatever their idiot box tells them to do and believe

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Just out of curiosity, for those that do not see working in the GOP as a good choice of time and resources - how long have you been working in the GOP to reform it, if at all?  I'm asking this to see if any of you have already had experience working in the GOP in your local area, and now are abandoning that task.


If I don't see working in the GOP as a good choice, why would I work to reform it for any length of time?  I had my fill of the GOP by the late 1980s and they've only gotten worse since.

----------


## TheTexan

> Four years ago most Americans didn't know what the Federal Reserve even was.  Today, 80% want it audited.
> 
> I call that a gain.
> 
> And it only happened because Ron Paul ran for office in the Republican Party and thus got SOME media coverage in debates and interviews.  Even as limited as it was.


I hope you do realize that the only reason that effort has gained any momentum is because Congress wants the Fed's power for themselves.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It is what happens when Ron Paul supporters melt congressional phone lines.


Then why is it that so many things we oppose keep getting through?  Obamacare, NDAA, just to name two.  What happened there?

----------


## tbone717

> It is what happens when Ron Paul supporters melt congressional phone lines.
> 
> Your 'libertarian-conservative' candidates who are 'really not that different from mainstream Republicans' are likely to have the sort of support not very different from what mainstream Republicans have:  fickle and apathetic.


Not from my experience here locally.  For most activists the majority of their work will be done locally. Sure we can donate to a candidate out of our area, and even phone bank if they have a program for that.  But the day in day out stuff that activists do is going to be in large part in their own back yard.  

Sorry, but I don't see as bleak a picture as many of you do here.  Having been at this for 25 years, I see a lot of progress, and much more on the horizon.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I hope you do realize that the only reason that effort has gained any momentum is because Congress wants the Fed's power for themselves.


The federal government is supposed to coin the money.  Not a semi-private cabal of bankers.

I'm not nearly as concerned about the power being transferred to the government as I am it being moved to the IMF.

----------


## tbone717

> If I don't see working in the GOP as a good choice, why would I work to reform it for any length of time?  I had my fill of the GOP by the late 1980s and they've only gotten worse since.


But were you an activist at any time, or just an observer.  Nothing wrong with being an observer, I am just trying to see if any of you folks have actually been directly involved (i.e. going to meetings, running for office, volunteering for campaigns, doing GOTV work, etc)

Not for nothing, but it seems like many are pissing on an plan that they have never actually been a part of.  Paul has asked his supporters to work within the GOP and restore it to its founding principles.  I have been doing my part in that for a while now - it is a shame that so many aren't even willing to give it a try.

Honestly, it wouldn't hurt for folks to go to a county GOP meeting and check it out?

----------


## TheTexan

> The federal government is supposed to coin the money.  Not a semi-private cabal of bankers.
> 
> I'm not nearly as concerned about the power being transferred to the government as I am it being moved to the IMF.


I don't care who's printing the money.  I just want it to stop being printed.

Or let me use a currency that isn't backed by digital zero's and one's.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But were you an activist at any time, or just an observer.  Nothing wrong with being an observer, I am just trying to see if any of you folks have actually been directly involved (i.e. going to meetings, running for office, volunteering for campaigns, doing GOTV work, etc)
> 
> Not for nothing, but it seems like many are pissing on an plan that they have never actually been a part of.  Paul has asked his supporters to work within the GOP and restore it to its founding principles.  I have been doing my part in that for a while now - it is a shame that so many aren't even willing to give it a try.


Yes, I have been an activist in many campaigns -- not just these last two involving Ron Paul.  I have worked in phone banks, phone-from-home, I have canvassed, gone to meetings, ran a Meetup, voter registration sign-ups, tabling, done GOTV work, etc...in addition to a LOT of online activism and $$ donations.  I've done it for GOP candidates and one Democratic Party candidate.  I hope that answer satisfies you as to my "qualifications" as an activist.

I respect Dr. Paul, but I firmly disagree with him that working within the GOP with any hope of restoring them to "founding principles" is the way to go forward with the Liberty movement.

----------


## tbone717

> Yes, I have been an activist in many campaigns -- not just these last two involving Ron Paul.  I have worked in phone banks, phone-from-home, I have canvassed, gone to meetings, done GOTV work, etc.  I've done it for GOP candidates and one Democratic Party candidate.  I hope that answer satisfies you as to my "qualifications" as an activist.


Didn't mean to single you out, but just wanted to see if people have actually done this type of stuff before they decide they do not want to do it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Guys, if you were thinking we could turnaround in 4 years what took over 100 years to mess up, you were hoping for something that could never be.  

In 4 short years, we have gotten a bit more strategic in our actions.  We have gotten some liberty candidates actually elected and more on their way.  We have organizations such as YAL and C4L to coalesce us around legislative actions, provide activist training, etc.  

We have a long way to go, but I wish you could see it through my eyes.  This is the first time since Goldwater ran that there seems to be hope.  For one, people like us are no longer just voices in the wilderness.  There are a lot of us and more joining up every single day.   As some have pointed out, and rightly so, we have to be careful that we stay true to our principles and while no candidate is going to be perfect, we never change our ideal.

----------


## sailingaway

> Then why is it that so many things we oppose keep getting through?  Obamacare, NDAA, just to name two.  What happened there?


I surely didn't say it always works, and on the Fed we got the left involved.  But it is what DID work with the Fed, education and activism.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't care who's printing the money.  I just want it to stop being printed.
> 
> Or let me use a currency that isn't backed by digital zero's and one's.


I understand that and so do I.  And exposing what is actually happening is the first step to getting there.  Today, more and more Americans are finding out why their dollar is buying less and less.

I wish it could change overnight, but I know of no way to make that happen.  Do you?

----------


## sailingaway

> Not from my experience here locally.  For most activists the majority of their work will be done locally. Sure we can donate to a candidate out of our area, and even phone bank if they have a program for that.  But the day in day out stuff that activists do is going to be in large part in their own back yard.  
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see as bleak a picture as many of you do here.  Having been at this for 25 years, I see a lot of progress, and much more on the horizon.


Yeah, but you are happy with a pretty ordinary candidate.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Didn't mean to single you out, but just wanted to see if people have actually done this type of stuff before they decide they do not want to do it.


I don't mind that you singled me out at all...I have a pretty long resume with regard to my political activism (I added some things I originally forgot to mention to my post since you quoted it).

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Guys, if you were thinking we could turnaround in 4 years what took over 100 years to mess up, you were hoping for something that could never be.  
> 
> In 4 short years, we have gotten a bit more strategic in our actions.  We have gotten some liberty candidates actually elected and more on their way.  We have organizations such as YAL and C4L to coalesce us around legislative actions, provide activist training, etc.  
> 
> We have a long way to go, but I wish you could see it through my eyes.  This is the first time since Goldwater ran that there seems to be hope.  For one, people like us are no longer just voices in the wilderness.  There are a lot of us and more joining up every single day.   As some have pointed out, and rightly so, we have to be careful that we stay true to our principles and while no candidate is going to be perfect, we never change our ideal.


The first time since Goldwater ran?  What about Reagan? Goldwater was Reagan's mentor; and Reagan sat in the Oval Office for 8 years!!  What do we have to show for that?  Oh, I realize that Reagan didn't walk the talk...that's part of the problem I have with rejoining the GOP.  They *talk* a LOT about limited government, but all they do is increase military spending and go to war!!

----------


## tbone717

> Yeah, but you are happy with a pretty ordinary candidate.


I'm happy with someone I agree with 90% of the time or more.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeah, but you are happy with a pretty ordinary candidate.





> I'm happy with someone I agree with 90% of the time or more.


May I ask, who is this "ordinary candidate" with whom you "agree 90% of the time or more"?

----------


## tbone717

> The first time since Goldwater ran?  What about Reagan? Goldwater was Reagan's mentor; and Reagan sat in the Oval Office for 8 years!!  What do we have to show for that?  Oh, I realize that Reagan didn't walk the talk...that's part of the problem I have with rejoining the GOP.  They *talk* a LOT about limited government, but all they do is increase military spending and go to war!!


I think Reagan went in with good intentions, but faced a real hostile Congress, so he had to give some to get some way too often.  After he got shot, things went further south.  I think Reagan had it in mind that his win was just the beginning of a conservative resurgence - sadly Bush brought that to a screeching halt the moment his hand hit the Bible.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There's the rub.  NOT all Liberty Lovers are CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.  Indeed, "conservative" Republicanism features some forcible moralizing that is decidedly NOT about liberty.  SPARE ME about the liberties of the Unborn, just spare me.


No, I won't.  How can you call yourself a "Liberty Lover" if you don't respect the liberty of the unborn?




> I am not the only one who flew the Republican coop under Bush/Cheney...after more years as a registered R than many Board Members have even been ALIVE.  There is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZIP that warrants reenlisting in one corrupt half of the "broken" (read that, HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED) two-party stranglehold.


Oh yes, there is.  If this enables us to get liberty candidates in office, then I would say that more than justifies it.  Ron Paul is a Republican.  Justin Amash is a Republican.  Thomas Massie is a Republican.  Chris Hightower is a Republican.  Gunny is a Republican and on and on.




> This BUSINESS of "winning power" by going along with Wrong to beat Bad Guys at their own game is exactly that: BUSINESS AS USUAL.


Who said we are going to go along with wrong?  That is all in your head.

----------


## tbone717

> May I ask, who is this "ordinary candidate" with whom you "agree 90% of the time or more"?


I am not sure who sailing was referring to.  I am an RLC guy - their site is a mess but you can check out their list of endorsements and current elected officials.  Ron, Rand, Amash, Massie, Bills are all members among others.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The first time since Goldwater ran?  What about Reagan? Goldwater was Reagan's mentor; and Reagan sat in the Oval Office for 8 years!!  What do we have to show for that?  Oh, I realize that Reagan didn't walk the talk...that's part of the problem I have with rejoining the GOP.  They *talk* a LOT about limited government, but all they do is increase military spending and go to war!!


Yeah, that's what they do alright.  I agree.  And that is why I thought we were a part of this movement.  Because we were sick of crap like that.  I know I am.

----------


## TheTexan

> I wish it could change overnight, but I know of no way to make that happen.  Do you?


Yes, but I don't think you'd like it!

----------


## sailingaway

> I am not sure who sailing was referring to.  I am an RLC guy - their site is a mess but you can check out their list of endorsements and current elected officials.  Ron, Rand, Amash, Massie, Bills are all members among others.


a whole lot of others.  Dondero is 'RLC, and uses the term 'libertarian conservative' as the name of his blog.  Some might be decent others not, in my own view.  Liberty watered down to the point where you can think Romney is really not that bad should speak for itself.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am not sure who sailing was referring to.  I am an RLC guy - their site is a mess but you can check out their list of endorsements and current elected officials.  Ron, Rand, Amash, Massie, Bills are all members among others.


I don't blindly trust organizations and that includes the RLC.  I trust proven principles and I judge individuals by those.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think Reagan went in with good intentions, but faced a real hostile Congress, so he had to give some to get some way too often.  After he got shot, things went further south.  I think Reagan had it in mind that his win was just the beginning of a conservative resurgence - sadly Bush brought that to a screeching halt the moment his hand hit the Bible.


And another opportunity bit the dust.  It can happen again too, and it doesn't matter which party the liberty activists are working with...we'll have to go to the back of the bus once again.  If they need a false flag op, they will have one.  They will raise the national security fears once again.  Neocons will smirk "told ya so" and the sheep will believe them.  At least, in our own party, we can hold up our heads...we may not win elections, but we don't lose our integrity.

----------


## TheTexan

> Liberty watered down to the point where you can think Romney is really not that bad should speak for itself.


Indeed

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, but I don't think you'd like it!


Ha ha.  Probably not.

----------


## tbone717

> I don't blindly trust organizations and that includes the RLC.  I trust proven principles and I judge individuals by those.


I was essentially introduced to the RLC though Ron Paul.  They have a set of principles that every member must agree to, and they base their endorsements on those.  I don't always go for their endorsements (for example I worked for Rohrer over their choice of Scaringi in the PA Senate race), but in large part the elected officials that make up the group are a good bunch of people.  If we had more of them and less of the establishment types, we might be in a much better place right now.

----------


## TheTexan

> I think Reagan went in with good intentions, but faced a real hostile Congress


Real hostile Congress.  Yep, that's the commonly cited excuse.  There's always an excuse, for everything.  I'm tired of excuses.

You won't ever get results through politics.  You'll only ever get excuses.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And another opportunity bit the dust.  It can happen again too, and it doesn't matter which party the liberty activists are working with...we'll have to go to the back of the bus once again.  If they need a false flag op, they will have one.  They will raise the national security fears once again.  Neocons will smirk "told ya so" and the sheep will believe them.  At least, in our own party, we can hold up our heads...we may not win elections, but we don't lose our integrity.


And having 0 impact.

We don't have to lose our integrity.  The only people who are going to do that are people who didn't understand or embrace our principles to begin with.  Mises, YAL and C4L are there to remind us, in case anyone starts weakening.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't blindly trust organizations and that includes the RLC.  I trust proven principles and I judge individuals by those.


this^^

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I was essentially introduced to the RLC though Ron Paul.  They have a set of principles that every member must agree to, and they base their endorsements on those.  I don't always go for their endorsements (for example I worked for Rohrer over their choice of Scaringi in the PA Senate race), but in large part the elected officials that make up the group are a good bunch of people.  If we had more of them and less of the establishment types, we might be in a much better place right now.


I don't think Ron Paul has anything at all to do with RLC anymore.  Just like he has nothing to do with FreedomWorks.

----------


## tbone717

> Real hostile Congress.  Yep, that's the commonly cited excuse.  There's always an excuse, for everything.  I'm tired of excuses.  I want results.


Results come with hard work, diligence and patience.  Just like there really are no "get rich quick" schemes, there is not realistic "quick fix" that will undo 100 years of big gov't growth.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm happy with someone I agree with 90% of the time or more.


if the 10% is the important stuff the 90% about naming post offices doesn't really matter much.

----------


## TheTexan

> And having 0 impact.
> 
> We don't have to lose our integrity.  The only people who are going to do that are people who didn't understand or embrace our principles to begin with.  Mises, YAL and C4L are there to remind us, in case anyone starts weakening.


One guy tries the "no compromise" approach and it didn't work... ONE GUY... and then everyone is "oh well, guess we just gotta compromise"

----------


## tbone717

> I don't think Ron Paul has anything at all to do with RLC anymore.  Just like he has nothing to do with FreedomWorks.


He currently serves on their Board of Advisors, and I think he is still part of the Legislative Task Force, but possibly not recently due to his campaign.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Real hostile Congress.  Yep, that's the commonly cited excuse.  There's always an excuse, for everything.  I'm tired of excuses.
> 
> You won't ever get results through politics.  You'll only ever get excuses.


Well, sorry, that it's not happening fast enough for you.  Perhaps if you partook, it might move faster.

----------


## sailingaway

> One guy tries the "no compromise" approach and it didn't work... ONE GUY... and then everyone is "oh well, guess we just gotta compromise"


who tried it and it didn't work?

Because Ron didn't compromise and I see a big difference from if he had never existed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He currently serves on their Board of Advisors, and I think he is still part of the Legislative Task Force, but possibly not recently due to his campaign.


Uh... I don't think so.  I can check, but I think I remember him sending something out in the last election that he had no more affiliation with RLC.

Also, as I recall, the RLC was trying big time to lure RP supporters over to its organization.

----------


## tbone717

> if the 10% is the important stuff the 90% about naming post offices doesn't really matter much.


No I base it on key votes.  I am not a huge fan of the organization, but the John Birch Society does publish a legislative scorecard every session that highlights the major legislative pieces and shows the votes.

----------


## TheTexan

> Results come with hard work, diligence and patience.  Just like there really are no "get rich quick" schemes, there is not realistic "quick fix" that will undo 100 years of big gov't growth.


I have only enough patience as I have years in my life, and politics will surely see the death of all us before we see even a glimpse of freedom.

----------


## tbone717

> Uh... I don't think so.  I can check, but I think I remember him sending something out in the last election that he had no more affiliation with RLC.
> 
> Also, as I recall, the RLC was trying big time to lure RP supporters over to its organization.


Is there an FEC issue with that maybe?  He might not have been able to be active in a group that endorses candidates?  I am not sure.

----------


## TheTexan

> who tried it and it didn't work?
> 
> Because Ron didn't compromise and I see a big difference from if he had never existed.


"Didn't work" from the Randroid perspective.  I agree with you, Ron Paul's campaign worked better than anybody could have hoped for.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Is there an FEC issue with that maybe?  He might not have been able to be active in a group that endorses candidates?  I am not sure.


Ummm, I don't think that was the reason.  lol

----------


## tbone717

> I have only enough patience as I have years in my life, and politics will surely see the death of all us before we see even a glimpse of freedom.


True, it is a cruel mistress.  Sometimes, I wish I didn't care so much and could devote more time to my hobbies instead.  But the political bug is in my blood.

But as far as what you can do in your own life, there are many ways to achieve a measure of personal economic liberty, if you know how the system works.

----------


## tbone717

> Ummm, I don't think that was the reason.  lol


I would be surprised if he has issues with them, considering Rand and Amash both joined post '08.  Nonetheless, as I stated their members are decent folks, and I wish we had more of them.  Are they perfect?  No, but no one is perfect.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have only enough patience as I have years in my life, and politics will surely see the death of all us before we see even a glimpse of freedom.


We have a glimpse of freedom right now and as bad as people thought things were before 9-11, they look pretty damned good right about now.  And if we don't do something, we are going to look back on today and wish that we could get it back.

There is no quick fix reset button.  I wish there was, but there isn't.  Not a feasible one, at least.  So, we either give it our best, while we still can, or be the quitters that we truly would be.  If we quit, I assure you that we will regret it in the future.

----------


## sailingaway

> I would be surprised if he has issues with them, considering Rand and Amash both joined post '08.  Nonetheless, as I stated their members are decent folks, and I wish we had more of them.  Are they perfect?  No, but no one is perfect.


I take individuals one at a time. That seems appropriate, to me.

----------


## cheapseats

> We get in the leadership positions to stop the corruption.


Power corrupts. 





> From that point, it is all winning hearts and minds...


See also: IRAQ. 






> ...and as we get more people in leadership positions and candidates elected, our message will have a podium.


The message will CHANGE with the company it keeps. C'est la vie.

Note the sprawling piece of prime real estate between END THE FED and Audit The Fed.

WITHOUT POPULAR SUPPORT/WILLINGNESS, the more people "we" get into POWER positions, the more the podium will be a "new & improved" Bully Pulpit...obstructed by the OTHER Controllers. Back & forth, back & forth, with even LOSING being lucrative for the odious Political Class.






> Also, as in all politics, the spoils go to the people who show up...


SOME spoils go to the people who experience "liberty gains" by seeking OFFICE=POWER: Candidates & Campaign Staffs.

But the lion's share of spoils from politics go to people who are not IN politics, per se.  Politicians are their LACKEYS.  






> ...and so very few actually do.  *That is in our favor.*


People for whom FEWER people taking an interest, showing up, getting involved, giving a $#@! works in their favor are people by whom I PARTICULARLY do not want to be ruled.






> Most major changes are caused by the efforts of a dedicated minority.  The smarter we are about how we do it, the faster that change will occur.


A dedicated minority with woefully lesser ways 'n means (which leaves out Special Ops) sneaking up on, infiltrating and overtaking the richest and most powerful people on earth does not sound smart, or likely to meet its goals.

----------


## tbone717

> a whole lot of others.  Dondero is 'RLC, and uses the term 'libertarian conservative' as the name of his blog.  Some might be decent others not, in my own view.  Liberty watered down to the point where you can think Romney is really not that bad should speak for itself.


Dondero left the RLC over a decade ago.  

I'm headed to bed, night folks.

----------


## TheTexan

On the flip side of that coin, if 40 years from now we've done all we could politically, and tyranny is still advancing, are we going to look back and say "well, maybe we should have tried something other than politics"

----------


## sailingaway

> Dondero left the RLC over a decade ago.  
> 
> I'm headed to bed, night folks.


Did he really? He was bragging about it much more recently.  I actually did use the RLC list to fill in the gaps for my voting in CA, however, I felt like I hadn't completed my homework, doing it. 

I will support candidates I find move me to support them.  I won't hold being in the RLC against them, particularly if it is true that Dondero is no longer in it.

----------


## TheTexan

> There is no quick fix reset button.  I wish there was, but there isn't.  Not a feasible one, at least.


And there actually is a feasible quick fix reset button.  It's called FSP.

----------


## sailingaway

> On the flip side of that coin, if 40 years from now we've done all we could politically, and tyranny is still advancing, are we going to look back and say "well, maybe we should have tried something other than politics"


we should try everything.

----------


## sailingaway

> And there actually is a feasible quick fix reset button.  It's called FSP.



Kelly Ayote?

but I am very fond of NH.

----------


## TheTexan

> Kelly Ayote?
> 
> but I am very fond of NH.


If this movement were to take the FSP 1/10th as seriously as they do for their support for Rand Paul, NH would have a hell of a lot better senator than Kelly Ayotte

----------


## tbone717

> Did he really? He was bragging about it much more recently.  I actually did use the RLC list to fill in the gaps for my voting in CA, however, I felt like I hadn't completed my homework, doing it. 
> 
> I will support candidates I find move me to support them.  I won't hold being in the RLC against them, particularly if it is true that Dondero is no longer in it.


Yes, Dave Nalle even mentioned in on DP.  See if this link works for you http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2066486

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And there actually is a feasible quick fix reset button.  It's called FSP.


I am an adult, so I'm not really into dancing around without my shirt on, or getting high on a daily basis.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I would be surprised if he has issues with them, considering Rand and Amash both joined post '08.  Nonetheless, as I stated their members are decent folks, and I wish we had more of them.  Are they perfect?  No, but no one is perfect.


I'm pretty sure of what I said, but I am checking with someone.

----------


## tbone717

> If this movement were to take the FSP 1/10th as seriously as they do for their support for Rand Paul, NH would have a hell of a lot better senator than Kelly Ayotte


Conceptually, I think it is a good idea.  There are a lot of practical issues though for people who are established in their lives.  I don't want to open a can of worms on it cause I am going to bed, but take me for example.  We have two businesses, family and friends all of which anchor us to Central PA.  Plus we love it here.  While I thin the FSP is a great idea, there is no way in hell I would move from here.  My guess is for every one who is willing and able to move to NH for this, there are 100's of people like me that for a variety of reasons have no intention of relocating.

----------


## tbone717

> I'm pretty sure of what I said, but I am checking with someone.


No problem, PM it to me.  I really am going to bed this time LOL

----------


## sailingaway

> I am an adult, so I'm not really into dancing around without my shirt on, or getting high on a daily basis.


Are those things an absolute requirement of FSP?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Power corrupts. 
> 
> See also: IRAQ. 
> 
> The message will CHANGE with the company it keeps. C'est la vie.
> 
> Note the sprawling piece of prime real estate between END THE FED and Audit The Fed.
> 
> WITHOUT POPULAR SUPPORT/WILLINGNESS, the more people "we" get into POWER positions, the more the podium will be a "new & improved" Bully Pulpit...obstructed by the OTHER Controllers. Back & forth, back & forth, with even LOSING being lucrative for the odious Political Class.
> ...


That's ok.  The Tories didn't want to help, either.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are those things an absolute requirement of FSP?


I dunno.  It's a worthy question.  lol

----------


## TheTexan

> That's ok.  The Tories didn't want to help, either.


Interesting analogy for you to choose.  Considering that the Tories were the ones hell bent on working within the system.

----------


## gte811i

> On the flip side of that coin, if 40 years from now we've done all we could politically, and tyranny is still advancing, are we going to look back and say "well, maybe we should have tried something other than politics"


tbone717 has asked multiple times what else would you do and no one has given a straight answer.

Some people hate economics, but all economics really is the study of how humans interact with each other.
Some people hate politics, but all politics is how large groups of humans interact with each other.  Politics occurs in every organization on earth, churches, work, etc.  Politics isn't bad or evil, just like private property and money isn't bad or evil.

As long as humans exists economics and politics will exist.  As long as people need to eat, breath, drink, have shelter, etc, and just plain interact with each other politics and economics will exist.  One can live their whole life in denial saying I hate politics, or I hate money, but its a fact of life deal with it.

In economics, I choose to work so I can provide for my family and not starve.
In politics, I choose to become involved so some one else doesn't take what I've worked for.

Some might disagree, but there is a fundamental truth that exists, a society will *always* get the government they deserve.  If a society is weak and decides to become not involved then a few strong individuals will rule.  If a society believes that everyone should always have food, clothing, shelter at the expense of some, that is what they will eventually get.

If Americans are introspective enough they will come to find that the problems don't lie in "the Man" or in government, or in some secret cabal.  The problems lie within each and every individual that decided it was okay to let someone else become involved, they didn't have to.  All they needed to do was show up and vote, that was "fighting for freedom".  The truth of the matter lies that the real problems to this country lie within each and every one of us.  For over 100 years, since ~1900 people have become less and less and less involved in politics.  And because they have become less involved, someone else steps up to fill the void that doesn't share their same values . .. sure they give speeches and platitudes but they don't share the same values.

At the local GOP level there is no "secret plan" or "evil plot", the local level boils down in a large degree to petty high school antics.  And the same thing goes on at the State level and the national level (except its not so noticeable).  At the national levels they have their own "secret clubs", CFR, Bilderberger, etc.  

It really is quite simple, become involved and get good people into those upper echilons and destroy them or don't get involved and let those who are involved destroy your life.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Interesting analogy for you to choose.  Considering that the Tories were the ones hell bent on working within the system.


Actually, the Tories were allegiant to the King.  That is quite a bit different than what we are doing.  But, yes, I will work within the system until there is a workable alternative.

If you have one, lay it out.

----------


## gte811i

> Interesting analogy for you to choose.  Considering that the Tories were the ones hell bent on working within the system.


And so were the non-Tories!!

Even after the Boston Massacre splitting from Britain was seen as ludicrous.  Americans considered themselves British.

The Declaration of Independence wasn't until a full year after Lexington and Concord, and the Declaration wasn't a given when the Continental Congress started meeting.

----------


## TheTexan

> And so were the non-Tories!!
> 
> Even after the Boston Massacre splitting from Britain was seen as ludicrous.  Americans considered themselves British.


If it were up to the Tories we'd still be a British colony

----------


## TheTexan

> tbone717 has asked multiple times what else would you do and no one has given a straight answer.


I've given straight answers.  You just didn't like the answers very much.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually, the Tories were allegiant to the King.  That is quite a bit different than what we are doing.  But, yes, I will work within the system until there is a workable alternative.
> 
> If you have one, lay it out.


it doesn't have to be one or the other.

----------


## TheTexan

> Actually, the Tories were allegiant to the King.  That is quite a bit different than what we are doing.  But, yes, I will work within the system until there is a workable alternative.
> 
> If you have one, lay it out.


I've laid out two alternatives.  I consider them workable, you don't.  You consider politics workable, I don't.  Thus, we're at an impasse.

----------


## gte811i

> And so were the non-Tories!!
> 
> Even after the Boston Massacre splitting from Britain was seen as ludicrous.  Americans considered themselves British.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence wasn't until a full year after Lexington and Concord, and the Declaration wasn't a given when the Continental Congress started meeting.


As much as many gun-ho people are out there thinking of a new revolution, I've got news for you it's not happening.  The biggest thing coming our way is a complete blowup of the dollar and the bursting of the bond bubble.  Unless we pay down the massive amount of individual, local, state, corporate, etc, debt it will eventually happen.  Hu knows when that happens, but that will be the big societal shift.

----------


## gte811i

> I've given straight answers.  You just didn't like the answers very much.


The answer I seem to get from you is revolution and secession.

And how in the world is that actually going to happen?  If RP can't even win a primary, how in the world is there going to actually be enough support to do something like that?

----------


## sailingaway

> The answer I seem to get from you is revolution and secession.
> 
> And how in the world is that actually going to happen?  If RP can't even win a primary, how in the world is there going to actually be enough support to do something like that?


Ron had plenty of support, but if the media doesn't report it, it doesn't count.  He was polling in second place nationally with 21% per Reuters in Feb.  With anyone else, this wouldn't be the first time you'd be hearing that -- media would have plastered it all over.

----------


## TheTexan

> The answer I seem to get from you is revolution and secession.
> 
> And how in the world is that actually going to happen?  If RP can't even win a primary, how in the world is there going to actually be enough support to do something like that?


Revolution and secession are two things a tireless irate minority are very good at.  Politics not so much.

----------


## gte811i

> Revolution and secession are two things a tireless irate minority are very good at.  Politics not so much.


Dead wrong.  You cannot have those things without the support of a very large swath of the population.  An irate minority of 5% in any type of movement like that would gt you squashed like a bug.  You'd end up causing the very thing you fight against, tyranny.  And you'd cause it b/c the other 95% of the population would see you as the insurgent "terrorist".

----------


## TheTexan

> Dead wrong.  You cannot have those things without the support of a very large swath of the population.  An irate minority of 5% in any type of movement like that would gt you squashed like a bug.  You'd end up causing the very thing you fight against, tyranny.  And you'd cause it b/c the other 95% of the population would see you as the insurgent "terrorist".


I haven't fact checked this recently, but I believe it to be true




> Here’s a very important set of facts about the Revolutionary War that every person who would call themselves an American should know.
> 
> During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain.
> Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent.
> Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.
> Towards the climatic end of the war, approximately THIRTY percent actually fought on the side of the British.
> The rest of the citizens had no disposition either way. They didn’t care. They didn’t want anything to do with what they deemed to simply be a political issue

----------


## gte811i

> Ron had plenty of support, but if the media doesn't report it, it doesn't count.  He was polling in second place nationally with 21% per Reuters in Feb.  With anyone else, this wouldn't be the first time you'd be hearing that -- media would have plastered it all over.


And what does that have to do with talk of secession?  21% big deal  . . .in a Republican primary . . . this even proves my point even further.  If an irate minority actually tried to secede what do you think the news media would report, the truth?  An irate minority can't get Ron the nomination and yet it's going to be able to change the world if only we have a third party or secede?

The logical fallacy here is ridiculous.  Working within politics doesn't work because the GOP is evil and too many people are neo-cons and can't be worked with without compromise.  That doesn't work, yet secession, which is something way more drastic than working with the GOP, would work?  

You guys haven't been talking to St. Germane or the men on the moon have you?

----------


## TheTexan

> And what does that have to do with talk of secession?  21% big deal  . . .in a Republican primary . . . this even proves my point even further.  If an irate minority actually tried to secede what do you think the news media would report, the truth?  An irate minority can't get Ron the nomination and yet it's going to be able to change the world if only we have a third party or secede?
> 
> The logical fallacy here is ridiculous.  Working within politics doesn't work because the GOP is evil and too many people are neo-cons and can't be worked with without compromise.  That doesn't work, yet secession, which is something way more drastic than working with the GOP, would work?  
> 
> You guys haven't been talking to St. Germane or the men on the moon have you?


Says the Tory.

----------


## gte811i

> I haven't fact checked this recently, but I believe it to be true


I'd check your facts again.  The saying 1/3rd opposed 1/3rd for, 1/3 against was a WAG.  For anything truly drastic you've got to have a large segment supporting your cause.

----------


## gte811i

> I haven't fact checked this recently, but I believe it to be true


I'm done with this line of conversation.  The logical fallacy is killing me.  

I'm starting to wonder if some of these guys are agent provocateurs; cause I sure has heck know if I had any type of real inclination to do anything like that I sure as crap would not be saying it on an internet message board.  All I got to say, if you honestly believe that is the only option you are sadly mistaken.  Some day if we actually get a dictator, Congress is shut down (Reichstage fire, etc), then maybe that becomes an option, but barring anything like that I will work with the system as long as I can.

----------


## TheTexan

> I'd check your facts again.  The saying 1/3rd opposed 1/3rd for, 1/3 against was a WAG.  For anything truly drastic you've got to have a large segment supporting your cause.


A quick review of the facts seem to support my position.  It may be slightly exaggerated (5% reality; 3% claimed), but the general point stands true.

Where's your evidence that claims you've got to have a large segment supporting the cause?  If I provide research that proves my point, would you change your position?  Or would it simply be a waste of my time?

----------


## TheTexan

> I'd check your facts again.  The saying 1/3rd opposed 1/3rd for, 1/3 against was a WAG.  For anything truly drastic you've got to have a large segment supporting your cause.


A quick review of the facts seem to support my position.  It may be slightly exaggerated (5% reality; 3% claimed), but the general point stands true.

Where's your evidence that claims you've got to have a large segment supporting the cause?  If I provide research that proves my point, would you change your position?  Or would it simply be a waste of my time?

----------


## cheapseats

> That's ok.  The Tories didn't want to help, either.






> Americans today think of the War for Independence as a revolution, but in important respects it was also a civil war. *American Loyalists, or "Tories" as their opponents called them, opposed the Revolution*, and many took up arms against the rebels. Estimates of the number of Loyalists range as high as 500,000, or 20 percent of the white population of the colonies.
> 
> What motivated the Loyalists? Most educated Americans, whether Loyalist or Revolutionary, accepted John Locke's theory of natural rights and limited government. Thus, the Loyalists, like the rebels, criticized such British actions as the Stamp Act and the Coercive Acts. *Loyalists wanted to pursue peaceful forms of protest because they believed that violence would give rise to mob rule or tyranny. They also believed that independence would mean the loss of economic benefits derived from membership in the British mercantile system...*


http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-33.htm

----------


## sailingaway

> And what does that have to do with talk of secession?  21% big deal  . . .in a Republican primary . . . this even proves my point even further.  If an irate minority actually tried to secede what do you think the news media would report, the truth?  An irate minority can't get Ron the nomination and yet it's going to be able to change the world if only we have a third party or secede?
> 
> The logical fallacy here is ridiculous.  Working within politics doesn't work because the GOP is evil and too many people are neo-cons and can't be worked with without compromise.  That doesn't work, yet secession, which is something way more drastic than working with the GOP, would work?  
> 
> You guys haven't been talking to St. Germane or the men on the moon have you?


personal attacks are the best you can do?

I am not pushing secession or revolution, just pushing back against your dismissive 'if he couldn't even win a primary' which is what we generally get from outsiders, not people who support the principles we do.

----------


## awake

If you think that you can join the Hells Angels and somehow convert them to a neighborhood watch patrol you are sadly mistaken. Washington is a testament to good men who wanted to do just that, but instead they became just another member.

----------


## cheapseats

> I think Reagan *went in with good intentions, but...*



The road to hell, PAVED with 'em.

Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

----------


## sailingaway

> Famous last words.
> 
> The road to hell, PAVED with 'em.


well, Reagan did get shot.

----------


## cheapseats

> well, Reagan did get shot.


Did you hear about Ron Paul's media blackout?

EXCUSES R US.

If Ronald Reagan was no longer up to the job of holding the line on the principles on which he ran for office, he should have resigned.  Or was he no longer even capable of THAT level of Reason & Righteousness and was he, in his diminished capacity, railroaded by OTHER REPUBLICANS?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Actually, no, the evangelical part entered with Reagan.
> 
> And the reality is, this used to be where the small government constitutionalists lived.  
> 
> I hate political parties, but if we must use one to get our liberty candidates elected, this is the one.


http://mises.org/daily/3848

mczerone is right, even the Old Right was in opposition to the machinations of the GOP.

And an amazingly brief encapsulation of what the GOP has always been:




> [the Old Right] set the tone, since individualist and libertarian rhetoric provided the only general concepts with which New Deal measures could be opposed. The result, however, was that hack Republican politicians found themselves mouthing libertarian and antistatist slogans that they did not really believe — a condition that set the stage for a later "moderation" and abandonment of their seemingly cherished principles.





> the Libertarians, especially in their sense of where they stood in the ideological spectrum, fused with the older conservatives who were forced to adopt libertarian phraseology (but with no real libertarian content) in opposing a Roosevelt Administration that had become too collectivistic for them, either in content or in rhetoric. World War II reinforced and cemented this alliance; for, in contrast to all the previous American wars of the century, the pro-peace and "isolationist" forces were all identified, by their enemies and subsequently by themselves, as men of the "Right." By the end of World War II, it was second nature for libertarians to consider themselves at an "extreme right-wing" pole with the conservatives immediately to the left of them; and hence the great error of the spectrum that persists to this day. In particular, the modern libertarians forgot or never realized that opposition to war and militarism had always been a "left-wing" tradition which had included libertarians; and hence when the historical aberration of the New Deal period corrected itself and the "Right-wing" was once again the great partisan of total war, the Libertarians were unprepared to understand what was happening and tailed along in the wake of their supposed conservative "allies." The liberals had completely lost their old ideological markings and guidelines.

----------


## Victor Grey

> I'm starting to wonder if some of these guys are agent provocateurs; cause I sure has heck know if I had any type of real inclination to do anything like that I sure as crap would not be saying it on an internet message board.


Yeah.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> well, Reagan did get shot.


He was awful as governor of California, though.

----------


## parocks

> I think Reagan went in with good intentions, but faced a real hostile Congress, so he had to give some to get some way too often.  After he got shot, things went further south.  I think Reagan had it in mind that his win was just the beginning of a conservative resurgence - sadly Bush brought that to a screeching halt the moment his hand hit the Bible.


Getting shot by the crazy Hinkley, who happened to be a family friend of the Bush's.  What a coincidence!  Nothing to see here.  So, yeah, Reagan got the message there.

----------


## parocks

> tbone717 has asked multiple times what else would you do and no one has given a straight answer.
> 
> Some people hate economics, but all economics really is the study of how humans interact with each other.
> Some people hate politics, but all politics is how large groups of humans interact with each other.  Politics occurs in every organization on earth, churches, work, etc.  Politics isn't bad or evil, just like private property and money isn't bad or evil.
> 
> As long as humans exists economics and politics will exist.  As long as people need to eat, breath, drink, have shelter, etc, and just plain interact with each other politics and economics will exist.  One can live their whole life in denial saying I hate politics, or I hate money, but its a fact of life deal with it.
> 
> In economics, I choose to work so I can provide for my family and not starve.
> In politics, I choose to become involved so some one else doesn't take what I've worked for.
> ...


good stuff here

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> As Paul has said, and the campaign has echoed - they would like to see people involved in their local GOP to work to return it to its founding principles.  I agree with this, and as I have stated many times third parties like the LP and CP are not productive uses of one's valuable time, simply because they are unable to produce candidates that can win state or federal elections.  Does this mean that those of us who are working within the GOP are going to blindly support and campaign for candidates simply because they have an R next to their name?  No.  What it does mean is that we are working to change the local GOP to identify and support Liberty Republicans that are running for office, and to make the infrastructure more conducive to them being successful.


I have outlined a more successful alternative at length, but it keeps being ignored, or mis-described. I am NOT asserting "go LP" VERSUS "going with the GOP." Note the issue keeps getting re-framed or pigeon-holed as GOP vs. LP/CP as bases of activism, with the latter painted as "unproductive" if it doesn't directly deliver power. What has been actually argued for by me is _precisely_ a more efficient approach, but one that is _independent_ of relying on the big OR small parties, or pitting use of one against the other. _I say again, collaboration, not polarization._ I also say again, layups are more doable than half-court shots. Focusing on the 5-10% of races at any given time that truly are open or competitive, is a better, higher percentage use of the time and resources of liberty activists than dividing our time across races all over the country, mainly on behalf of one major party. I think we'll run up a higher score trying to make 10 lay-ups, than trying to score in 100 half-court shot attempts.

Full time reform efforts within major parties like the Republican and Democratic structures are not the best use of one's valuable time, simply because they are unable to produce UNCOMPROMISED candidates who work towards CHANGES IN POLICY. The big parties have a gigantic, multi-decade track record of forcing liberty minded activists and candidates to drop or subordinate their convictions. The result is, movement after movement, the party neutralizes them through co-opting or through purging them. Some believe this is actually what the parties are designed for, to block true alternative political movements. In "Matrix" terms, we are the remnant, while parties like the GOP are the Architect, who coldly speaks for the System with his refrain, "this is the X time we have destroyed Zion, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it."

Working mainly within the major structures also makes us immediately susceptible to control by the interest groups, namely big banks, big business, big oil, big weapons contractors, big pharma, neocons and the rest. The first thing that happened to the Tea party candidates elected into office in 2010 is they got descended on by PACs representing the Lockheeds and Pfizers, the JP Morgans and AIPACs with donation and support offers---yes, to buy their cooperation with big government by tying their re-election to complying with their big donors' wishes. Thus, the establishment can be 'efficient' too, so leaving this little detail out of discussions of "resources" is a big part of the problem in seriously believing in any reform approach. This is literally mostly what the big party power structure IS, not ideology. Again, for all the 'liberty' talking conservatives in office, _how many of them have a voting record like Paul's?_ Almost none or none, because the interest groups have compromised them, to ensure the core policies never change. 

Ignoring all that history of compromise, and the entire landscape of big money showered on the hacks to keep them in line, is yet another reason why a party takeover attempt is most likely going no where. It's the synthetic approach, where principle-heavy and PAC-free candidates are elected by independent means of support, that shows better promise. The liberty grassroots can provide that support, IF it stays on the outside, and focuses on the open/safe seat opportunities that arise within either big party, instead dissipating its resources in too many low-percentage GOP campaigns. That is where the liberty movement is really going if it is to have a future.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Getting shot by the crazy Hinkley, who happened to be a family friend of the Bush's.  What a coincidence!  Nothing to see here.  So, yeah, Reagan got the message there.


What message? Reagan was a statist failure as governor of California, no need to shoot him to make sure he'd be a statist failure as president.

Just as an aside, for someone who calls the grassroots embarrassing, you sure like to partake in conspiracy theories.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> http://mises.org/daily/3848
> 
> mczerone is right, even the Old Right was in opposition to the machinations of the GOP.
> 
> And an amazingly brief encapsulation of what the GOP has always been:


I agree with you on a lot of things, but you are wrong about this and posting an article by someone at Mises who backs you up, doesn't do a thing to convince me.  I've been in the Republican Party for a long time and my parents before me.  I am very aware of what happened and what did not.

And this extreme attempt to divide libertarians from conservatives in the Republican Party is just asinine.  In a great many cases, the two ideologies are in the same person's beliefs.  I am an example of that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> For those looking instant gratification, then politics is probably not the best place for you.


In the wake of the atrocious _Kelo v. New London_ SCROTUS decision, NH had a constitutional amendment on the books banning eminent domain takings for private use.

In less than two years. 

I'm proud to say I played a role in making that happen.

For those that cannot stand trying to stem the tide of $#@! from DC, local action is much more effective, especially if done with "concentrated fire" from an FSP type organization.

----------


## tbone717

> In the wake of the atrocious _Kelo v. New London_ SCROTUS decision, NH had a constitutional amendment on the books banning eminent domain takings for private use.
> 
> In less than two years. 
> 
> I'm proud to say I played a role in making that happen.
> 
> For those that cannot stand trying to stem the tide of $#@! from DC, local action is much more effective, especially if done with "concentrated fire" from an FSP type organization.


That is an excellent example.  And in those two years, I am sure it took a lot of hard work on the part of people.  What methods did you folks use to garner support for the issue?  Did you have state reps/senators that were supportive of it working alongside you?

I am curious about this, because we have an issue here in PA that has been trying to move through the legislature off and on for 30 years now - the privatization of liquor stores.  In PA, for those who do not know, the state owns all the liquor stores, only beer sales are privatized.  There has been an effort to get the govt out of this business for years.  At the present time, we have a governor who would sign the legislation if it passed.  The issue, as I see it, is that those who oppose privatization make a very good emotional appeal in their rhetoric (it would cost jobs, protection of kids from liquor, etc, etc).  While those who support privatization really do not have any sort of emotional aspect to it.  

One of the downsides to getting privatization passed, is that the majority of folks do not see it as a problem that needs to be fixed.  And they are correct really in that assertion.  There are plenty of stores, the prices are very good, the selection is excellent.  Of course, I support privatization on the basis that the govt has no reason to be involved in retail trade of liquor.  But there is not much of an emotional component to sell this on.

----------


## gte811i

> personal attacks are the best you can do?
> 
> I am not pushing secession or revolution, just pushing back against your dismissive 'if he couldn't even win a primary' which is what we generally get from outsiders, not people who support the principles we do.


I'm not attacking you sailing . . . it is absolutely ridiculous that individuals believe that secession has a chance when RP garnered about 10% of the popular vote.  No good facts exist on how many people actually supported the Revolutionary War, anyone who claims to know is full of it.  Any estimates from the actual time period were WAGs.  No way exists to actually determine the percent of the American population that was in hard core support/soft support/opposed/hard core opposed.  The data just doesn't exist.  We do know from experience (Egypt, Argentina, etc.) that in order for an actual overthrow of the government to exist the portion of the population that is in the hard core support (i.e. the fighters on the ground) and the soft support must be greater than the soft opposed and the hard core opposed.  The soft support for/against is the most easily manipulated ground and unless those in power to something really stupid and oppressive it is really easy to manipulate the soft support to view the hard core support as insurgents.

Look at the conventions if you want a good taste of actual revolution events.  People trust those in charge (the Chairman).  A few people are diametrically opposed to RP supporters at the conventions and actively plot to oppose us.  Most establishment republicans just show up and vote the way they are "supposed to".  If the Chairman stood up and put all RP supporters on the delegate lists the rank and file would vote for it.  Because the Chairman is trusted and controls the airwaves so to speak, those who oppose him are seen as insurgents.  As soon as that happens, battle lines form real fast with those who want to "overthrow" the Chairman to those who don't.  The only way those who want to overthrow the chairman will win is if they have a majority of the support of those in attendance.  It is the same concept Nationally.  There must be more in support than those who oppose for change to happen.

----------


## gte811i

> If you think that you can join the Hells Angels and somehow convert them to a neighborhood watch patrol you are sadly mistaken. Washington is a testament to good men who wanted to do just that, but instead they became just another member.


Why not . . .people change, I've seen it many times over in my life.  You don't start by trying to convert "Hells Angels", you start by trying to convert Bob who is a member of Hells Angels.

----------


## gte811i

> That is an excellent example.  And in those two years, I am sure it took a lot of hard work on the part of people.  What methods did you folks use to garner support for the issue?  Did you have state reps/senators that were supportive of it working alongside you?
> 
> I am curious about this, because we have an issue here in PA that has been trying to move through the legislature off and on for 30 years now - the privatization of liquor stores.  In PA, for those who do not know, the state owns all the liquor stores, only beer sales are privatized.  There has been an effort to get the govt out of this business for years.  At the present time, we have a governor who would sign the legislation if it passed.  The issue, as I see it, is that those who oppose privatization make a very good emotional appeal in their rhetoric (it would cost jobs, protection of kids from liquor, etc, etc).  While those who support privatization really do not have any sort of emotional aspect to it.  
> 
> One of the downsides to getting privatization passed, is that the majority of folks do not see it as a problem that needs to be fixed.  And they are correct really in that assertion.  There are plenty of stores, the prices are very good, the selection is excellent.  Of course, I support privatization on the basis that the govt has no reason to be involved in retail trade of liquor.  But there is not much of an emotional component to sell this on.


Wow, liquor stores are government owned, interesting.  Yeah, not much you can sell it on besides principles.

----------


## tbone717

> Wow, liquor stores are government owned, interesting.  Yeah, not much you can sell it on besides principles.


Yeah, I believe its left over from the prohibition days.  And like I said, it is a hard sell, because they actually do a decent job with it.  Though I am ideologically opposed to it, the one store in Hershey has the best selection of wines I have ever seen in one location, and the prices are great because the state buys in such large quantities, they get a really good price.  

If the stores were $#@!, it would be an easy sell for our side.  But like I said, it's one of those "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" type of things.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I agree with you on a lot of things, but you are wrong about this and posting an article by someone at Mises who backs you up, doesn't do a thing to convince me.  I've been in the Republican Party for a long time and my parents before me.  I am very aware of what happened and what did not.
> 
> And this extreme attempt to divide libertarians from conservatives in the Republican Party is just asinine.  In a great many cases, the two ideologies are in the same person's beliefs.  I am an example of that.


But the actual truth matters, and as the extraordinary Mises article (documented by dozens of footnotes) shows, beliefs and patronage are two different things, while labels are flexible. In ideologically based organizations, philosophical consistency wins out, while in patronage-based structures like the major parties, interest groups win out. In history, the words "progressive" and "liberal" used to be distinct or even opposite terms. Republicans, the party of big business, were the promoters of progressive POLICY on behalf of big business, regardless of their classical liberal rhetoric. 

The rhetoric is what a major party may campaign on, the policy is what is put in place, at the behest of its interest groups. In a policy sense, "conservative" meant what conserved the interests of big business and the elite, which is not "conservative" in the modern ideological sense. FDR campaigned on sound money and fiscal conservatism. Once elected, obviously he flipped the script, but he ran as a classical liberal. What FDR realized in office was the completion of the evolution of the two party system into two big government/big business establishment parties, in the policies that were delivered, with the Democrats surpassing the Republicans as the leading deliverer of progressive policy. 

As a consequence, ideological labels flipped around for campaign flavor purposes, but we've been living in the duopoly zone ever since. Classical liberals adopted the "conservative" label in protest, to distinguish their principles from this newly emerged "liberalism" that had corrupted the meaning of the classical term. Later, neo-conservatives and 'big government conservatives' would come along to in turn dilute that term as well.

----------


## sailingaway

Regardless, the GOP is a shell and fiscal conservatives fled being active in it it when the neocons banded with the moral majority foot soldiers under Bush I / Clinton.  The demographics are on our side, but the cheating is on theirs.

As long as Ron is active and pushing the GOP I'll follow his lead.  Our own third party sounds awfully attractive at this point, though, where we don't get our fingers broken participating, then get blamed for the 'ruckus'.  After Ron retires, really retires, I mean, since if he is leading through C4L that isn't retired, I'll look at where we are.

I've been GOP since I was 18 but I know what I want now, and what is possible.  It remains to be seen if it is possible within the GOP.

----------


## tbone717

> Our own third party sounds awfully attractive at this point, though, where we don't get our fingers broken participating, then get blamed for the 'ruckus'.


Here is what you would need:

1) Money, and tons of it.  A new party would need to brand itself, advertise like crazy to attract new people.  You also need money for website development, infrastructure, places to meet, phones, staffing, etc.  And that is just to get started.

2) People and many of them.  If you think of the total number of RP activists, there are a good number of them, but spread those people out among the 50 states and it is not many per state.  To make matters worse, spread those same people out over the 435 CD's and you have an even smaller number per CD.  

3) Ballot Access.  So if you are able to get past steps one and two, then if you did find someone willing to run for office, you have to get them on the ballot.  Depending on the state that can be a lot of signatures.  For example, to get someone on the ballot here for US House you'll need about 4500 signatures.  Now, depending on how many people you have willing to go collect signatures, that can be a huge task.  

4) And let's say that you were able to get someone on the ballot.  Now what?  You need money again, lots of it.  For example, our Congressman raised a little over 1 million for this election, and he doesn't even have a formidable challenger.  Now of course, there is the opportunity to raise money online, but if this new party is running races all across the country, there is a limit as to how much one can raise.  Without money you have no TV, no radio, no events, hell - you may not even be able to afford bumper stickers.

For these, and so many other reasons, I do not see the attractiveness of it at all.  If for some reason, Paul was to lead a charge of dozens, if not hundreds of elected officials out of the GOP and into a new party - well then there is a chance that new party may succeed.  But starting from scratch with only hopes and dreams, is not something that most skilled activists are willing to take on.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here is what you would need:
> 
> 1) Money, and tons of it.  A new party would need to brand itself, advertise like crazy to attract new people.  You also need money for website development, infrastructure, places to meet, phones, staffing, etc.  And that is just to get started.
> 
> 2) People and many of them.  If you think of the total number of RP activists, there are a good number of them, but spread those people out among the 50 states and it is not many per state.  To make matters worse, spread those same people out over the 435 CD's and you have an even smaller number per CD.  
> 
> 3) Ballot Access.  So if you are able to get past steps one and two, then if you did find someone willing to run for office, you have to get them on the ballot.  Depending on the state that can be a lot of signatures.  For example, to get someone on the ballot here for US House you'll need about 4500 signatures.  Now, depending on how many people you have willing to go collect signatures, that can be a huge task.  
> 
> 4) And let's say that you were able to get someone on the ballot.  Now what?  You need money again, lots of it.  For example, our Congressman raised a little over 1 million for this election, and he doesn't even have a formidable challenger.  Now of course, there is the opportunity to raise money online, but if this new party is running races all across the country, there is a limit as to how much one can raise.  Without money you have no TV, no radio, no events, hell - you may not even be able to afford bumper stickers.
> ...


We will deal with our needs if we decide to go that route.  ballot access would be easy.  there are a LOT of us, all willing to get signatures FOR THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.  The only thing we really need is more 'right candidates'.  Ron Paul doesn't have trouble getting funded.  People excited about Ron Paul won't necessarily be excited by every no record congressional candidate.  As I said, if we can get the right candidate, the rest falls in line to a great extent.  We just need a compelling story for why they are the right candidate.

----------


## romancito

> ... and what is possible.  It remains to be seen if it is possible within the GOP.


Whatever it is it is not possible within the GOP, not even a good chicken with rice and puertorican beans and lettuce and tomato salad. Nothing absolutely nothing is possible within the GOP. Ron Paul has shown that now. End of all evil.

Lets make the Ron Paul Party.

----------


## thoughtomator

Everyone should look up the rapidly rising Italian 5 Star Movement, it could well be a template for overthrowing the corrupt establishment.

----------


## tbone717

> We will deal with our needs if we decide to go that route.  ballot access would be easy.  there are a LOT of us, all willing to get signatures FOR THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.  The only thing we really need is more 'right candidates'.  Ron Paul doesn't have trouble getting funded.  People excited about Ron Paul won't necessarily be excited by every no record congressional candidate.  As I said, if we can get the right candidate, the rest falls in line to a great extent.  We just need a compelling story for why they are the right candidate.


How many people do you think you have?  Someone referenced a poll on here way back in this thread that only 1/3 of the forum members were on board with a 3rd or new party?  I don't know how many of that 1/3 would be up for a new party, instead of going the the LP or CP.  But assuming that they were all on board with your idea, between here DP and wherever else you can find folks, how many people do you actually think you have that are willing to do this?

----------


## sailingaway

> How many people do you think you have?  Someone referenced a poll on here way back in this thread that only 1/3 of the forum members were on board with a 3rd or new party?  I don't know how many of that 1/3 would be up for a new party, instead of going the the LP or CP.  But assuming that they were all on board with your idea, how many people do you actually think you have that are willing to do this?


I don't know that I myself am on board right now, so long as Ron is active in the GOP.  But overall there are a lot of us, you are here trying to get us to support your candidates for that reason.  We have no particular need for being in the GOP unless that seems the best way to accomplish our aims.  If it clearly stops being the best way, we have other alternatives.  And if they are going to cheat away our gains as has been done in SEVERAL STATES, they seem more like the enemy than something we should be grateful to work within.  Or am I missing something there?

----------


## Barrex

Someone mentioned 5 Star Movement in Italy. That is not even close to situation in US.
There is an anecdote about 3 politicians from my country who were eager  young idealistic and who split from our core liberty movement... They  were in similar position that this revolution is now. All of them believed in  same thing and they all wanted same thing (freedom of my people...lol I never thought I will use this phrase).  They were good men but history remembers them by this short story told  by another good politician who was wise enough to see importance of  sticking together:

He called them Crab, Wolf and Donkey. They (those 3 animals representing  3 politicians) were put in charge of moving chariot (that was  representing our country). So they started to work hard. Crab was pulling  sideways, Wolf was pulling back and Donkey was pulling forward. Chariot  was moving few inches forward and then few inches back etc. but would  always return on starting point. So 3 great minds of our freedom  movement failed to move our country 1 centimeter closer to liberty/  independence..... and that is how people remember them. 3 failures who  had opportunity but were not able to move in same direction. They dont  remember their brilliant books, their astonishing achievements. They are  remembered as failures....as someone who weakened our revolution (by  weakened i mean there were blood spilled by our oppressors).

In Europe we had a lot of parties and a lot of movements. The unwritten rule is if  movement or party splits, splitter fraction is extinguished. It dies  slowly and quietly after initial "spark". In my country not single  splitter party/fraction is significant enough that can do anything! 

You are doing the same. Some of you are pulling toward libertarian  party, some are pulling toward anarchy and some are pulling toward  "preparing for the end".... Splitters.

Ron Paul laid a plan: Infiltrate party and take over. If you all pull in  same direction I dont have doubt that this movement has enough power  stamina and strength to make it. But only if you act together and work  together. If you all start pulling on your own side and following your  own plan, well excuse my French but "avoir le gueule de bois".

Sad.

P.s.
I know reposting is evil.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> But the actual truth matters, and as the extraordinary Mises article (documented by dozens of footnotes) shows, beliefs and patronage are two different things, while labels are flexible. In ideologically based organizations, philosophical consistency wins out, while in patronage-based structures like the major parties, interest groups win out. In history, the words "progressive" and "liberal" used to be distinct or even opposite terms. Republicans, the party of big business, were the promoters of progressive POLICY on behalf of big business, regardless of their classical liberal rhetoric. 
> 
> The rhetoric is what a major party may campaign on, the policy is what is put in place, at the behest of its interest groups. In a policy sense, "conservative" meant what conserved the interests of big business and the elite, which is not "conservative" in the modern ideological sense. FDR campaigned on sound money and fiscal conservatism. Once elected, obviously he flipped the script, but he ran as a classical liberal. What FDR realized in office was the completion of the evolution of the two party system into two big government/big business establishment parties, in the policies that were delivered, with the Democrats surpassing the Republicans as the leading deliverer of progressive policy. 
> 
> As a consequence, ideological labels flipped around for campaign flavor purposes, but we've been living in the duopoly zone ever since. Classical liberals adopted the "conservative" label in protest, to distinguish their principles from this newly emerged "liberalism" that had corrupted the meaning of the classical term. Later, neo-conservatives and 'big government conservatives' would come along to in turn dilute that term as well.


Couldn't say it better myself.

----------


## thoughtomator

The 5 Star movement isn't an exact analogue to any US movement but it shares qualities with both the Liberty and Occupy movements. It should not be dismissed out of hand without pondering the reasons for their amazing out-of-the-blue electoral successes. See the following link for a reasonably clear explanation of the movement's principles.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...aph-shows.html

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But the actual truth matters, and as the extraordinary Mises article (documented by dozens of footnotes) shows, beliefs and patronage are two different things, while labels are flexible. In ideologically based organizations, philosophical consistency wins out, while in patronage-based structures like the major parties, interest groups win out. In history, the words "progressive" and "liberal" used to be distinct or even opposite terms. Republicans, the party of big business, were the promoters of progressive POLICY on behalf of big business, regardless of their classical liberal rhetoric. 
> 
> The rhetoric is what a major party may campaign on, the policy is what is put in place, at the behest of its interest groups. In a policy sense, "conservative" meant what conserved the interests of big business and the elite, which is not "conservative" in the modern ideological sense. FDR campaigned on sound money and fiscal conservatism. Once elected, obviously he flipped the script, but he ran as a classical liberal. What FDR realized in office was the completion of the evolution of the two party system into two big government/big business establishment parties, in the policies that were delivered, with the Democrats surpassing the Republicans as the leading deliverer of progressive policy. 
> 
> As a consequence, ideological labels flipped around for campaign flavor purposes, but we've been living in the duopoly zone ever since. Classical liberals adopted the "conservative" label in protest, to distinguish their principles from this newly emerged "liberalism" that had corrupted the meaning of the classical term. Later, neo-conservatives and 'big government conservatives' would come along to in turn dilute that term as well.


Continue with your label bull$#@!.  All you are doing is making me detest libertarians.  I know what principles I believe in and it is nothing your bull$#@! article says.  But, by all means, go forth and alienate more traditional conservatives who have been supporting Ron Paul before most of this "movement" was even born.  Good job.  And while you are doing that, you may want to consider that a significant percentage of the remnant that Ron Paul often speaks of and said recently that tended to be OLDER, do not call themselves your preferred label of libertarian.

There's some truth for ya.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't know that I myself am on board right now, so long as Ron is active in the GOP.  But overall there are a lot of us, you are here trying to get us to support your candidates for that reason.  We have no particular need for being in the GOP unless that seems the best way to accomplish our aims.  If it clearly stops being the best way, we have other alternatives.  And if they are going to cheat away our gains as has been done in SEVERAL STATES, they seem more like the enemy than something we should be grateful to work within.  Or am I missing something there?


Grateful?  Where did that come from?

The establishment hates us, yes.  The rank-and-file do not.  And most conservatives do agree with us on about 90% of the issues.  Our biggest hurdle is foreign policy, but as time goes by, more and more are seeing the stupidity of our interventionism.  

The whole idea of getting elected to leadership positions within the GOP is so that we can stop the cheating.  Surely, you knew that.   The fact still remains that until something happens to change it, only the 2 major parties get in debates and likewise any media attention.  If they aren't in one of those two, or a billionaire like Ross Perot, most voters will not give them a second thought.  There are still not nearly enough of us to win by ourselves.  We must win more over.

At this point, I see no reason to give up on the strategy.  It seems to be working in that Rand was elected, Amash was elected, Bills at least has the Republican nomination and so do Massie and Hightower. 

This isn't directed towards you, but is a general statement.  Maybe instead of people griping here, saying that it's not going to work, perhaps it might be more constructive to actually do something to help these guys win their elections.

----------


## tbone717

> This isn't directed towards you, but is a general statement.  Maybe instead of people griping here, saying that it's not going to work, perhaps it might be more constructive to actually do something to help these guys win their elections.


Funny you should say that.  I started a thread this morning (link) with the intention of having folks share ideas and experiences of how we can work at the local level.  It got one reply, and (as slow as it is here) is off the front page of the site.  

Back during the primary season if someone dared to say something critical of the campaign strategy, the post was deleted, warnings were issued, etc.  Wasn't there an alternatives to the official campaign section buried in the basement of this forum?  Now though, in GRC people are allowed to piss all over Ron's plan.  Perhaps there should be a sub-forum for "alternatives to the Ron Paul call to action"

----------


## LibertyEagle

Yes, I have noticed that too.  

As far as your suggestion goes, you may want to suggest it in Forum Feedback.

----------


## TheTexan

> Back during the primary season if someone dared to say something critical of the campaign strategy, the post was deleted, warnings were issued, etc.  Wasn't there an alternatives to the official campaign section buried in the basement of this forum?  Now though, in GRC people are allowed to piss all over Ron's plan.  Perhaps there should be a sub-forum for "alternatives to the Ron Paul call to action"


If you want to follow the "Ron Paul call to action" at least do it right




> Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. *So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles. We must forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited authority under Article I, Section 8.*


Many candidates you have spoken praise of do *not* meet these qualifications.  Continuing to compromise your principles in the name of Ron Paul's call to action, and at the same time ignoring his very instructions, is hypocritical, destructive, and dishonest.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Continue with your label bull$#@!.  All you are doing is making me detest libertarians.  I know what principles I believe in and it is nothing your bull$#@! article says.  But, by all means, go forth and alienate more traditional conservatives who have been supporting Ron Paul before most of this "movement" was even born.  Good job.  And while you are doing that, you may want to consider that a significant percentage of the remnant that Ron Paul often speaks of and said recently that tended to be OLDER, do not call themselves your preferred label of libertarian.
> 
> There's some truth for ya.


John T. Flynn, in 1940:




> "I see the standard of liberalism that I have followed all my life flying over a group of causes which, as a liberal along with all liberals, I have abhorred all my life."





> "In short, this libertarian Right based itself on eighteenth and nineteenth century liberalism, and began systematically to extend that doctrine even further."


The Old Right were all liberals, and identified as such. Hazlitt, Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, H.L. Mencken... many of them supported FDR as a candidate, because his platform was as follows:




> 1. An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of Federal government.
> 
> 2. Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced .
> 
> 3. A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.





> It was  actually an old-time Democratic platform based upon fairly well-accepted principles of the traditional Democratic party. That party had always denounced the tendency to strong central government, the creation of new bureaus. It had always denounced deficit financing. Its central principle of action was a minimum of government in business.


and was saying things like this:




> I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peace time in all American history  one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs or reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer. We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical nor necessary. In addition to this, we are attempting too many functions and we need a simplification of what the Federal government is giving to the people.





> Toward the end of the campaign he cried: "Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!" Then to impress his listeners with his inflexible purpose to deal with this prodigal monster, he said: "Before any man enters my cabinet he must give me a twofold pledge: Absolute loyalty to the Democratic platform and especially to its economy plank. And complete cooperation with me in looking to economy and reorganization in his department."


You can be upset all you want, but prior to FDR, liberal meant limited government (or no government), and conservative was the domain of Lincoln and Hoover. This isn't controversial, and there isn't a need to be angry about it. Heck, the article you're trashing even goes into why the Old Right began calling themselves conservatives.

----------


## tbone717

> If you want to follow the "Ron Paul call to action" at least do it right...Many candidates you have spoken praise of do *not* meet these qualifications.  Continuing to compromise your principles in the name of Ron Paul's call to action, and at the same time ignoring his very instructions, is hypocritical, destructive, and dishonest.


Which candidates are you referencing?  My discussion here in large part is regarding what we can do as individuals locally.  As in attending meetings, volunteering, running for committee seats, etc.  The only congressional candidates that I recall mentioning in this thread would be Massie, Amash, Bills, and Cruz.  Do you have a problem with those guys?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You can be upset all you want, but prior to FDR, liberal meant limited government (or no government), and conservative was the domain of Lincoln and Hoover. This isn't controversial, and there isn't a need to be angry about it. Heck, the article you're trashing even goes into why the Old Right began calling themselves conservatives.


Perhaps you were unaware, but the definitions of those labels have changed quite a bit and some, more than once.  

The issue I have, Abscess, is in how some were trying to use the article, in their attempt to minimalize Ron's strategy and also conservatives.  Definitions have changed over time.  You know that.  But, the fact is that the Republican Party is the major party that still has some in it that believe in the Constitution and limited government.  

Note:  I am sick to death of how some here act like "libertarian" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It's bull$#@!.  Not to mention, obnoxious, pompous and deluded.  Do you realize how many people it turns off?  

I'm willing to accept libertarians and I wish some of you guys would act the same about conservatives.  We really are not very far apart as far as principles go.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Which candidates are you referencing?  My discussion here in large part is regarding what we can do as individuals locally.  As in attending meetings, volunteering, running for committee seats, etc.  The only congressional candidates that I recall mentioning in this thread would be Massie, Amash, Bills, and Cruz.  Do you have a problem with those guys?



Can you be freaking honest for a change? I won't speak for bxm042 but this thread leaps to mind:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Your-Support!



Every time someone calls you out on your support of marginal, non-Ron Paul Republicans you try to pull the babe in the woods bs and act like you don't know what they're talking about. 

I've outed myself as a voluntaryist a long time ago. I would ask you to do the same and list your exact agreements *and disagreements* with the philosophy of liberty but I wouldn't really trust your response anyway.

----------


## TheTexan

> Perhaps you were unaware, but the definitions of those labels have changed quite a bit and some, more than once.  
> 
> I am sick to death of how some here act like "libertarian" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It's bull$#@!, is what it is.  Not to mention, obnoxious, pompous and deluded.


What exactly is a traditional conservative anyway?  The way I understand it is a traditional conservative is a libertarian that likes to legislate morality, correct me if I'm wrong.

----------


## sailingaway

> What exactly is a traditional conservative anyway?  The way I understand it is a traditional conservative is a libertarian that likes to legislate morality, correct me if I'm wrong.


no.  that is a moral majority or 'values voter'. 

paleoconservatives are fiscally conservative and stay the hell out of my business.

Gurley Martin comes to mind.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Perhaps you were unaware, but the definitions of those labels have changed quite a bit and some, more than once.  
> 
> I am sick to death of how some here act like "libertarian" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It's bull$#@!, is what it is.  Not to mention, obnoxious, pompous and deluded.


Have the labels really changed, though? Reagan was a conservative, but he raised taxes and massively expanded government, both as governor and as president. Bush ran as a conservative and massively expanded the government. Many current conservatives voted for Bush's programs and expansions. Liberal was certainly hijacked, but conservatism largely remains what it's always been; all rhetoric, no action.

It just seems to me that fighting to change conservatism is a futile endeavor; going back to liberal would certainly stir things up and make people think (we would certainly stand out from their big government calls), whereas calling ourselves conservatives just blends us in with the GOP, thanks to their incessant pandering and rhetoric.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> no.  that is a moral majority or 'values voter'. 
> 
> *paleoconservatives are fiscally conservative and stay the hell out of my business.*
> 
> Gurley Martin comes to mind.


Yes.

Barry Goldwater was also a conservative.

----------


## tbone717

> Can you be freaking honest for a change? I won't speak for bxm042 but this thread leaps to mind:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Your-Support!
> 
> 
> 
> Every time someone calls you out on your support of marginal, non-Ron Paul Republicans you try to pull the babe in the woods bs and act like you don't know what they're talking about. 
> 
> I've outed myself as a voluntaryist a long time ago. I would ask you to do the same and list your exact agreements *and disagreements* with the philosophy of liberty but I wouldn't really trust your response anyway.


Each one of the candidates on that list agrees to the principles of the RLC.  It is part of the endorsement process.  In the RLC principles is specifically states, "_We support the Constitutional restrictions on federal government powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 as an absolute limit on all government functions and programs. We oppose the adoption of broad and vague powers under the guise of general welfare or interstate commerce._."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Have the labels really changed, though? Reagan was a conservative, but he raised taxes and massively expanded government, both as governor and as president. Bush ran as a conservative and massively expanded the government. Many current conservatives voted for Bush's programs and expansions. Liberal was certainly hijacked, but conservatism largely remains what it's always been; all rhetoric, no action.


Ron Paul has said he is the most conservative member of Congress.  Do you think he's all rhetoric and no action?

I agree with you about Reagan.  He talked a good game, but his actions showed he was all hot air.  It was, and still is, hard for me to admit.  Because I loved what he said.  I truly did.  But, I know he didn't walk his talk.  He fooled Dr. Paul for awhile too, until it became clear that he wasn't what he said he was.  So, in other words, Reagan was NOT a conservative.  He expanded the size and scope of government and in my book, that makes him a big, fat leftist.

EDIT:



> It just seems to me that fighting to change conservatism is a futile endeavor; going back to liberal would certainly stir things up and make people think (we would certainly stand out from their big government calls), whereas calling ourselves conservatives just blends us in with the GOP, thanks to their incessant pandering and rhetoric.


I've never had a problem with calling what we are doing, the liberty movement, or by others referring to us as the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Traditional conservatives/paleocons have also been referred to as libertarian-conservatives.  In fact, it is my understanding that the Libertarian Party was started by disgruntled conservatives.  

I'm sure we differ on a few things, but then again, I've seen quite a few libertarians who disagree with Ron Paul on a few things too.  

Bottom line, we agree on the major things.  At least I think we do.  I know I do with Ron Paul.

Paleocons are low-hanging fruit.  They all should be with us.  These are the people I hope that Rand can get to and make them remember.

----------


## cheapseats

> Note:  I am sick to death of how some here act like "libertarian" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It's bull$#@!.  Not to mention, obnoxious, pompous and deluded.  Do you realize how many people it turns off?



Note: Non Republicans are sick to death of how MANY here have acted like "REPUBLICAN" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It has been bull$#@!, right from the time Ron Paul elected to cling to Party over Principle.  Not to mention, but you did so I will too, it has been obnoxious, pompous and deluded.  Do you realize how many people YOU personally chased off?

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Each one of the candidates on that list agrees to the principles of the RLC.  It is part of the endorsement process.  In the RLC principles is specifically states, "_We support the Constitutional restrictions on federal government powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 as an absolute limit on all government functions and programs. We oppose the adoption of broad and vague powers under the guise of general welfare or interstate commerce._."


I'm completely unimpressed. Why avoid mentioning that thread when he accused you of supporting marginal republicans? Why try to say you only mentioned 4 in this thread and act like you didn't know? Why defend the rep that Shemdogg pointed out a_ctively worked against Ron Paul delegates in that thread_?You're a professional bser and I don't trust a word you type. 


I would have more respect for you if you'd own up to your beliefs, but again, I wouldn't trust it even if you did.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Note: Non Republicans are sick to death of how MANY here have acted like "REPUBLICAN" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It has been bull$#@!, right from the time Ron Paul elected to cling to Party over Principle.  Not to mention, but you did so I will too, it has been obnoxious, pompous and deluded.  Do you realize how many people YOU personally chased off?


Although, I've tried to chase YOU off, to no avail, since you do not support Ron Paul.  

I support Ron Paul's strategy and that includes using the Republican Party to get liberty candidates in office.  If you consider that obnoxious and pompous, I'm not surprised, since you have never liked Ron Paul.

----------


## TheTexan

> Note:  I am sick to death of how some here act like "libertarian" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It's bull$#@!.  Not to mention, obnoxious, pompous and deluded.  Do you realize how many people it turns off?  
> 
> I'm willing to accept libertarians and I wish some of you guys would act the same about conservatives.  We really are not very far apart as far as principles go.


I don't see enough difference between libertarianism and paleoconservatism to warrant a strong dislike for either label. 

But I think it would be safe to say, that paleoconservatism is a good philosophy because of its libertarian influences.

----------


## tbone717

> I'm completely unimpressed. Why avoid mentioning that thread when he accused you of supporting marginal republicans? Why try to say you only mentioned 4 in this thread and act like you didn't know? Why defend the rep that Shemdogg pointed out a_ctively worked against Ron Paul delegates in that thread_?You're a professional bser and I don't trust a word you type. 
> 
> 
> I would have more respect for you if you'd own up to your beliefs, but again, I wouldn't trust it even if you did.


I have long stated in this forum that I am an RLC guy, it's been my avatar for a long time as well.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> I have long stated in this forum that I am an RLC guy, it's been my avatar for a long time as well.



Which is almost completely meaningless. Proving my point. 

What specific issues do you disagree with Ron Paul on?
How much are you willing to compromise to support non-Ron Paul Republicans?
You still haven't addressed why you pretended that thread didn't exist in your original response to bxm042, so I'll answer for you: because you want to be sneaky and make people think you're on their side as much as possible.


I don't trust you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have long stated in this forum that I am an RLC guy, it's been my avatar for a long time as well.


I could be wrong, but I'm guessing they are talking about your statements about Romney.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Although, I've tried to chase YOU off, to no avail, since you do not support Ron Paul.  
> 
> I support Ron Paul's strategy and that includes using the Republican Party to get liberty candidates in office.  If you consider that obnoxious and pompous, I'm not surprised, since you have never liked Ron Paul.


Not to speak for cheapseats, but my impression is that liking or supporting Ron Paul the _candidate_, is different from supporting his _strategy_ of working mainly within the GOP, as the best plan going forward for the movement. The preponderance of historical evidence to date is that it is not, or is severely flawed. The insistence that the entire grassroots fall in line with it, while maligning liberty activism outside the GOP as worthless, is what is obnoxious and pompous. Cooperation within the whole movement, instead of invective, is the better model.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not to speak for cheapseats, but my impression is that liking or supporting Ron Paul the _candidate_, is different from supporting his _strategy_ of working mainly within the GOP, as the best plan going forward for the movement. The preponderance of historical evidence to date is that it is not, or is severely flawed. The insistence that the entire grassroots fall in line with it, while maligning liberty activism outside the GOP as worthless, is what is obnoxious and pompous. Cooperation within the whole movement, instead of invective, is the better model.


In her case, she has done neither.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Some around here get too hung up with labels and not hung up enough with results.

----------


## tbone717

> What specific issues do you disagree with Ron Paul on?


None.  Though I believe that a troop withdraw and base closures should probably be done incrementally, as opposed to all at once.  Perhaps over the course of a year or two, so that the impact of the troops coming home and reassigned to domestic bases, can be done efficiently.  Personally, I would begin with the hot spots and then end with the bases in places like Greenland, etc.  But other than that (and that is really minor), I do not take issue at all with his policies, which is why I was one of folks encouraging the draft movement in 07.




> How much are you willing to compromise to support non-Ron Paul Republicans?


I suppose it depends on your definition of a "non-Ron Paul Republican", even Amash does not vote with him all the time.  Nonetheless, as I have stated if I agree with a candidate/elected official on 90% or more of the key issues I consider them an ally.  




> You still haven't addressed why you pretended that thread didn't exist in your original response to bxm042, so I'll answer for you: because you want to be sneaky and make people think you're on their side as much as possible.


From the conversation, I assumed he was referring to candidates that I had mentioned earlier in this thread.  Nonetheless, I do not have a problem defending the RLC guys/girls because they pledge to a set of principles in which the statement bxm042 quoted from Paul is very similar to the one the RLC principles contain.





> I don't trust you.


I honestly do not care.

----------


## parocks

> Ron Paul has said he is the most conservative member of Congress.  Do you think he's all rhetoric and no action?
> 
> I agree with you about Reagan.  He talked a good game, but his actions showed he was all hot air.  It was, and still is, hard for me to admit.  Because I loved what he said.  I truly did.  But, I know he didn't walk his talk.  He fooled Dr. Paul for awhile too, until it became clear that he wasn't what he said he was.  So, in other words, Reagan was NOT a conservative.  He expanded the size and scope of government and in my book, that makes him a big, fat leftist.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 
> I've never had a problem with calling what we are doing, the liberty movement, or by others referring to us as the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
> 
> ...


Don't forget that Reagan was shot by Hinckley, a Bush family friend.  This was in March 1981 right after he took office.  It's very possible that being shot was a "wake up call".

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't forget that Reagan was shot by Hinckley, a Bush family friend.  It's very possible that being shot was a "wake up call".


He also promised paleocons that he would not choose an insider as his VP.  He did.  

Reagan wasn't a naive man.  If he wasn't willing to do what he needed to do to be true to his word, he should have never run.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> None.  Though I believe that a troop withdraw and base closures should probably be done incrementally, as opposed to all at once.  Perhaps over the course of a year or two, so that the impact of the troops coming home and reassigned to domestic bases, can be done efficiently.  Personally, I would begin with the hot spots and then end with the bases in places like Greenland, etc.  But other than that (and that is really minor), I do not take issue at all with his policies, which is why I was one of folks encouraging the draft movement in 07.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it depends on your definition of a "non-Ron Paul Republican", even Amash does not vote with him all the time.  Nonetheless, as I have stated if I agree with a candidate/elected official on 90% or more of the key issues I consider them an ally.  
> 
> 
> 
> From the conversation, I assumed he was referring to candidates that I had mentioned earlier in this thread.  Nonetheless, I do not have a problem defending the RLC guys/girls because they pledge to a set of principles in which the statement bxm042 quoted from Paul is very similar to the one the RLC principles contain.
> ...


I could rehash all the anti-campaign, "give up now while we still can" and the "I might actually vote for the GOP nominee for the first time ever" bs but I'll just link 2 past threads because its gotten really old and I don't want you to keep trying to avoid your past statements whenever it suits you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?378900-Why-was-tbone717-banned&p=4460732&viewfull=1#post4460732


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4428884

----------


## tbone717

> I could rehash all the anti-campaign, "give up now while we still can" and the "I might actually vote for the GOP nominee for the first time ever" bs but I'll just link 2 past threads because its gotten really old and I don't want you to keep trying to avoid your past statements whenever it suits you.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?378900-Why-was-tbone717-banned&p=4460732&viewfull=1#post4460732
> 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4428884


I did say that I may possibly vote for the nominee, Rand's endorsement has given me reason to consider it.  I am still undecided at this point.  I have no plans to do any sort of volunteer work for any candidate this fall however.  

As far as my desire for people to shift gears mid-campaign, it was because there were many other races that were taking place that needed help as well. Take Gunny for example. When it became apparent that winning the nomination was not possible, I felt it was necessary to focus on other races, while still working on the delegate process for those that were directly involved in that. I guess though, multitasking is a foreign concept for some. 

I have no problem with the positions I hold, you do.  And like I said earlier, I honestly do not care.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> I did say that I may possibly vote for the nominee, Rand's endorsement has given me reason to consider it.  I am still undecided at this point.  I have no plans to do any sort of volunteer work for any candidate this fall however.  
> 
> As far as my desire for people to shift gears mid-campaign, it was because there were many other races that were taking place that needed help as well. Take Gunny for example. When it became apparent that winning the nomination was not possible, I felt it was necessary to focus on other races, while still working on the delegate process for those that were directly involved in that. I guess though, multitasking is a foreign concept for some. 
> 
> I have no problem with the positions I hold, you do.  And like I said earlier, I honestly do not care.


It was the Ron Paul campaign's stated goal to try to win in a brokered convention, and you were on here repeatedly telling people to give it up. That's enough for me to not trust you. 

You repeatedly claim that non-libertarians are libertarians in a hannity-esque attempt to coopt labels. 


Back to the original point that bxm042 made: Ron Paul has stated that we should
1) work within the GOP
2) fight for bedrock principles

You clearly agree with #1 and not #2, but rather than fess up and address this head on in your response you try to obfuscate, ignore your earlier posts and make me write 5 different responses trying to pin you down on where you stand. Consequently I'll continue to take everything you post with a very large grain of salt.

----------


## tbone717

> It was the Ron Paul campaign's stated goal to try to win in a brokered convention, and you were on here repeatedly telling people to give it up. That's enough for me to not trust you.


The chance for a brokered convention was extremely low all along, but when Santorum dropped out the chance of it became virtually impossible.  Again, are you unable to mutitask?  




> You repeatedly claim that non-libertarians are libertarians in a hannity-esque attempt to coopt labels.


I intentionally, use the term libertarian-conservative, because that is descriptive of the overall Liberty Movement.  Particularly the RLC candidates and elected officials. This includes Ron, Rand, Massie, Amash as well as DeMint, Lee, Flake and others.  While I do not agree with every person that makes up the group of Liberty Republicans on every single issue, they pass that 90% threshold on key issues that I look for.   





> Back to the original point that bxm042 made: Ron Paul has stated that we should
> 1) work within the GOP
> 2) fight for bedrock principles
> 
> You clearly agree with #1 and not #2, but rather than fess up and address this head on in your response you try to obfuscate, ignore your earlier posts and make me write 5 different responses trying to pin you down on where you stand. Consequently I'll continue to take everything you post with a very large grain of salt.


I will post the larger preamble to the RLC statement of principles then for your information:

"_The Republican Liberty Caucus supports individual rights, limited government and free enterprise.

We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law. We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

We support the Constitutional restrictions on federal government powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 as an absolute limit on all government functions and programs. We oppose the adoption of broad and vague powers under the guise of general welfare or interstate commerce.

We oppose all restrictions on the voluntary and honest exchange of value in a free market. We favor minimal, equitable, and fair taxation for the essential functions of government. We oppose all legislation that concedes Congressional power to any regulatory agency, executive department, or international body.

We support the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, the republican form of government it requires, and the right of all citizens to fair and equitable representation.

We believe these are also the proper positions of the Republican Party."_

You can read the rest if you desire to here.

That is a good summation of what I stand for, and I have no issue agreeing to their statement of principles.  If you have a problem with candidates that pledge to adhere to those principles then that is your issue to deal with.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> The chance for a brokered convention was extremely low all along, but when Santorum dropped out the chance of it became virtually impossible.  Again, are you unable to mutitask?


This was before Santorum dropped out. It's very hard for me to believe your just being forgetful this often.





> That is a good summation of what I stand for, and I have no issue agreeing to their statement of principles. If you have a problem with candidates that pledge to adhere to those principles then that is your issue to deal with.


And when candidates do something to contradict those principles (such as anti-liberty votes or endorsements) it needs to be called out and addressed, not excused like you've done repeatedly.

----------


## tbone717

> This was before Santorum dropped out. It's very hard for me to believe your just being forgetful this often.


Apparently though, you recall everything I have every posted, so I'll check in with you if I have a question.  Thanks for paying attention.  No offense, but I really don't recall much if anything of what you have posted.  I have a lot more going on in my life to worry about than what some anonymous person on a internet forum posted 3 months ago.




> And when candidates do something to contradict those principles (such as anti-liberty votes or endorsements) it needs to be called out and addressed, not excused like you've done repeatedly.


If they vote in a way that I disagree with, then I send them an email, or whatever I can do from my end to let them know I disagree with the vote.  But just because someone votes contrary to my views on one of two issues, I don't write them off as "anti-liberty".  Are you suggesting that Rand is now "anti-liberty" because of the Romney endorsement?

Perhaps you should view Jack Hunter's new video.  In it he mentions that folks who vote our way 90% of the time, are our strong allies.  He goes on to name a lot of the people that you seem to have issue with including DeMint and Lee.  It is on this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-ve-come!-quot

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Apparently though, you recall everything I have every posted, so I'll check in with you if I have a question.  Thanks for paying attention.  No offense, but I really don't recall much if anything of what you have posted.  I have a lot more going on in my life to worry about than what some anonymous person on a internet forum posted 3 months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> If they vote in a way that I disagree with, then I send them an email, or whatever I can do from my end to let them know I disagree with the vote.  But just because someone votes contrary to my views on one of two issues, I don't write them off as "anti-liberty".  Are you suggesting that Rand is now "anti-liberty" because of the Romney endorsement?
> 
> Perhaps you should view Jack Hunter's new video.  In it he mentions that folks who vote our way 90% of the time, are our strong allies.  He goes on to name a lot of the people that you seem to have issue with including DeMint and Lee.  It is on this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-ve-come!-quot


When I see people on an anonymous Internet forum who claim to be supporers and then actively try to undermine the campaign, yes, I make note of that.  That's why I remember you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

The things is tbone, we don't want another Reagan.  Reagan was not at all what he professed to be.  He drastically increased the size and scope of government.  So no, that would be a failure.   

Maybe you were meaning what Reagan *professed* to be...    What I want is someone who will *do* what he only talked about.




> Well nasonex, you are free to have your own opinions, but a lot of us are moving in one direction.  You are free to do whatever you choose.  I know it is disappointing but Ron Paul will not be the nominee, nor will he be President.  But as Jack Hunter says in his piece, Paul could very well be the Goldwater to this generation's Reagan.


As far as DeMint goes, did he vote for the Patriot Act and NDAA?  How about the others?

See, I have a congressman that many believe is conservative, but I see him as a go along to get along, spineless little man.  He voted for the above, even when he had people pointing out to him what was in those bills.  And he has not apologized for doing so.  So, while he is a good little Republican in that he votes with the herd, if he would vote for legislation that is unconstitutional to its very core, he is in no way shape or form, a conservative, but is a traitor, in my book.

People grow and change, so if someone denounces their previous actions and starts voting with the Constitution, then I will forgive them.  But, unless they do, they aren't anything that I would support.  It's not enough that they vote against bills put forth by the Democrats.

----------


## tbone717

> When I see people on an anonymous Internet forum who claim to be supporers and then actively try to undermine the campaign, yes, I make note of that.  That's why I remember you.


Yes, I am single-handedly responsible for Paul's loss.  

Sadly, it was folks like Gunny that suffered from people's inability to multi-task.

----------


## tbone717

> The things is tbone, we don't want another Reagan.  Reagan was not at all what he professed to be.  He drastically increased the size and scope of government.  So no, that would be a failure.   
> 
> Maybe you were meaning what Reagan *professed* to be...    What I want is someone who will *do* what he only talked about.


I believe what Hunter meant in that statement is that Goldwater laid the groundwork, and Reagan secured the victory. Yeah, I am well aware that Reagan did not govern like he campaigned.

----------


## sailingaway

> I believe what Hunter meant in that statement is that Goldwater laid the groundwork, and Reagan secured the victory. Yeah, I am well aware that Reagan did not govern like he campaigned.


yeah, but there are people who win now, they just aren't people we want.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Note: Non Republicans are sick to death of how MANY here have acted like "REPUBLICAN" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy.  It has been bull$#@!, right from the time Ron Paul elected to cling to Party over Principle.  Not to mention, but you did so I will too, it has been obnoxious, pompous and deluded.  Do you realize how many people YOU personally chased off?


Amen.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Amen.


I don't think everyone has to do what Ron Paul suggested.  Not at all.  But, I don't think it is constructive for some to spend all their efforts denouncing his strategy.  Do what you want to do.  Whatever it is.  And let those of us who want to continue with Ron Paul's strategy, do so without being constantly derided.

And I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that Republicans are God's gift to anything.

----------


## Ivash

Tbone did repeatedly state that the odds for a brokered convention were long, even when Santorum was running, which is probably the reason why he advocated not trying for it. I actually remember that because he was the only person that agreed with me on this subject- I always believed that the odds of such a convention were less than 1%. In the current primary system brokered conventions, by design, do not occur.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Amen.


Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling. ~50% of people will vote one way or the other, so restoring one of those ways to liberty becomes a win. The vast majority of republicans champion most of our issues and can likely take on more of the foreign policy/civil liberties stances when the RP name is not immediately involved so the media and radio mafia can drag it through the mud.

----------


## tbone717

> Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling. ~50% of people will vote one way or the other, so restoring one of those ways to liberty becomes a win. *The vast majority of republicans champion most of our issues and can likely take on more of the foreign policy/civil liberties stances when the RP name is not immediately involved so the media and radio mafia can drag it through the mud.*


The fact that there are Liberty Republicans winning races, advocating a non-interventionist FP and civil liberties is a testament to that.  The more voices we have in the House and Senate, I feel we will have less resistance to our FP and CL stances come 2016 or 2020.

----------


## EBounding

> Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling.


That's a good point.  People who think it's futile to work within the Republican party should ask themselves "What if the Libertarian party had the same successes as those liberty candidates in the Republican party?"  It'd be considered a huge accomplishment.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> That's a good point.  People who think it's futile to work within the Republican party should ask themselves "What if the Libertarian party had the same successes as those liberty candidates in the Republican party?"  It'd be considered a huge accomplishment.


Yep, I go where the successes go. Not the bullpuss. Own the #2 area, then win it over and swing for the fences.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That's a good point.  People who think it's futile to work within the Republican party should ask themselves "What if the Libertarian party had the same successes as those liberty candidates in the Republican party?"  It'd be considered a huge accomplishment.


Here, here!  There's been no official Libertarian elected to House or Senate in their history.  We've elected several Liberty candidates to both House and *Senate* and are poised to do it again.  Results speak for themselves.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> The fact that there are Liberty Republicans winning races, advocating a non-interventionist FP and civil liberties is a testament to that.  The more voices we have in the House and Senate, I feel we will have less resistance to our FP and CL stances come 2016 or 2020.





> Here, here!  There's been no official Libertarian elected to House or Senate in their history.  We've elected several Liberty candidates to both House and *Senate* and are poised to do it again.  Results speak for themselves.


Are they starting to win because of within-GOP organizing, or because area or national *grassroots* support, from both within and outside the party? If the latter, it more backs up the "whole movement collaboration, but based independently of the GOP" integration model. In any case, let's see if the "liberty Republicans' go on to have a liberty voting record (ala Paul's) to verify their commitment. And will they maintain that record, once worked over by the PACs and big donors?

----------


## tbone717

> Are they starting to win because of within-GOP organizing, or because area or national grassroots support, from both within and outside the party? If the latter, it more backs up the "whole movement collaboration, work independently of the GOP" integration model. In any case, let's see if the "liberty Republicans' go on to have a liberty voting record to verify their commitment. And will they maintain that record, once worked over by the PACs and big donors?


Well I can best speak for my own county.  Our State Senator first won in 06 and was reelected in 10.  His support came from both the county committee and his own grassroots base.  His voting record is sound.  

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the big advantages of having Liberty Movement activists work within the local GOP is the accessibility to the infrastructure of the party, once we have a majority or near majority presence on the county committee.  The mailing lists, the donor lists, the ability to organize events and fundraisers, and the county GOP endorsements are all in the hands of liberty-minded folks if we have that presence.  Having access to that infrastructure gives liberty candidates for state or federal office, a major upper hand on their competition.  

Again, using the example of our State Senator, if he were to have a challenger for the nomination in 2014 (let's say a neo-con type, or establishment moderate type), that challenger would not be endorsed by our county GOP, he would not have the hundreds of volunteers that stand at the polls on election day passing out the county endorsement ballot, etc.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I don't think it matters all that much whether a good Liberty candidate has the GOP label, the LP label, or even the label of a new party that we could start.  The grassroots for Liberty have been organized now (thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paul) and we would learn about that candidate...we would still put out the same effort to canvass, phone, donate, etc.  I don't think the GOP deserves us, quite frankly.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

I love TBone... he's the only one here who tries to base his opinions in reality and he's consistently slammed over and over, as well as infracted and banned, for doing so.

Keep fighting TBone...

----------


## tbone717

> I don't think it matters all that much whether a good Liberty candidate has the GOP label, the LP label, or even the label of a new party that we could start.  The grassroots for Liberty have been organized now (thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paul) and we would learn about that candidate...we would still put out the same effort to canvass, phone, donate, etc.  I don't think the GOP deserves us, quite frankly.


A lot of it boils down to the allocation of time and resources.  So hypothetically let's say that in 2014 there are two major races occurring in an activist's immediate area, a US House race and a State Senate race.  For examples sake, let's say that the CD race has an incumbent Republican (not a liberty candidate), a liberal Dem, and an LP candidate - in this race the incumbent Repub has a huge lead in the polls.  The State Senate race has a Liberty Republican and a liberal Dem - this race is a dead heat.

So, our activist in question only has so much time and money that he/she can devote to activism.  Do they split the time and money between the LP House candidate and the State Senate candidate?  Or do they concentrate all their efforts on the winnable State Senate race?

While you are right that labels should not matter, the reality is that each one of us only has so much time and money to dedicate to working for a candidate.  If we make the best use of the time and money we have then we can see this movement continue to grow and have greater representation in government.

----------


## Carlybee

A lot of liberty candidates running under the GOP bannner who have been successful have also been under the national media radar. If the media had the power to marginalize Ron Paul enough to lose Iowa where he was favored, how on earth do you think that won't be any different when the establishment decides to join forces with them in order to save their party from a "takeover"?

----------


## tbone717

> A lot of liberty candidates running under the GOP bannner who have been successful have also been under the national media radar. If the media had the power to marginalize Ron Paul enough to lose Iowa where he was favored, how on earth do you think that won't be any different when the establishment decides to join forces with them in order to save their party from a "takeover"?


House races and State legislature races usually do not have the power of the media attack machine behind them like we see in state wide races.  Nonetheless, we deal with situations as they come up.  Personally, I would rather continue the hard work, then worry about the "what ifs".  

And again, the crux of the plan is individual involvement on the local level.  If Liberty activists run for offices like committeeman, they have the opportunity to have great influence, if not majority control over their county GOP.  The best thing that we as individuals can do is stay involved on a local level, and additionally financially support candidates that are out of our local areas if we have the means.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> A lot of liberty candidates running under the GOP bannner who have been successful have also been under the national media radar. If the media had the power to marginalize Ron Paul enough to lose Iowa where he was favored, how on earth do you think that won't be any different when the establishment decides to join forces with them in order to save their party from a "takeover"?


Granted the campaign should've prepared a response to the "Racist newsletters" smear job.  They had to know it was going to come and we'd get hit over the head with it, especially at zero hour in Iowa.  The campaign's response was to send Dr. Paul into hiding in Texas and cease campaigning in the waning hours.  They also had zero campaign commercial response to the accusation.  The Revolution Super PAC had to step in and set the record straight and did so beautifully, albeit too late for Iowa.  The damage had been done.  

My two biggest campaign grips are: not knowing who Sacha Baron Cohen is and not being properly prepared to deal with the "Racist Newsletters" allegations.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't think it matters all that much whether a good Liberty candidate has the GOP label, the LP label, or even the label of a new party that we could start.  The grassroots for Liberty have been organized now (thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paul) and we would learn about that candidate...we would still put out the same effort to canvass, phone, donate, etc.  I don't think the GOP deserves us, quite frankly.


Duly noted.  Hey I think "Libertarian" sounds cooler than Republican, but running as third party you're not only fighting to get your message out, but the near insurmountable stigma that voting for you is a wasted vote.  You end up in philosophical third party political debates and not enough about you as a candidate.  Add to that little to no fund raising because who wants to waste their money supporting someone who doesn't have a chance...you see where I'm going with this?  This is the prevailing attitude you're up against.  

Maybe 50 years from now when we control the Republican party, and therefore country, we can reeducate the populace, streamline our elections, and dissolve built in bias against third parties.  But that is a very long term endeavor.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling. ~50% of people will vote one way or the other, so restoring one of those ways to liberty becomes a win. The vast majority of republicans champion most of our issues and can likely take on more of the foreign policy/civil liberties stances when the RP name is not immediately involved so the media and radio mafia can drag it through the mud.


I agree. 

As for foreign policy, I think the GOP will go back to the typical conservative non-ideological stance (which excludes Ron Paul/Rothbardian non-interventionism ideology as much as the 2nd generation of neoconservatives internationalism/interventionism) as the memory of 9/11 and the following Bush wars wanes. The platform will be more similar to a Taft/Eisenhower/Nixon approach.

As for "civil liberties" (I don't like that expression, liberties are liberties), I think that the TSA, PIPAs and Obamacare mandates have already moved the GOP base a lot. I notice that in conservative websites like Hotair or RedState the support for, say, the Patriot Act extension among commentators is now a minority position when it used to be almost hegemonic a couple of years ago.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I agree. 
> 
> As for foreign policy, I think the GOP will go back to the typical conservative non-ideological stance (which excludes Ron Paul/Rothbardian non-interventionism ideology as much as the 2nd generation of neoconservatives internationalism/interventionism) as the memory of 9/11 and the following Bush wars wanes. The platform will be more similar to a Taft/Eisenhower/Nixon approach.
> 
> As for "civil liberties" (I don't like that expression, liberties are liberties), I think that the TSA, PIPAs and Obamacare mandates have already moved the GOP base a lot. I notice that in conservative websites like Hotair or RedState the support for, say, the Patriot Act extension among commentators is now a minority position when it used to be almost hegemonic a couple of years ago.


Just wait until the GOP is back in power, Hotair and RedState will go right back to cheering for the PATRIOT Act and the rest so we can kill terrorists.

----------


## DeMintConservative

Working within the two party system isn't for everyone. Some people just don't have the disposition and temper for it and that's perfectly fine. 

What you can't expect to work though is to be in and out at the same time. You can't attack the GOP (or the Dems) in the morning and call them the enemy and then in the afternoon work within the party. Every group that has attempted to do that ended up purged and for good reason. 

Each individual needs to choose a way of acting in the political arena and then take full responsibilities for that choice. If you decide to be a partisan, you're expected to act like one.

----------


## tbone717

> Duly noted.  Hey I think "Libertarian" sounds cooler than Republican, but running as third party you're not only fighting to get your message out, but the near insurmountable stigma that voting for you is a wasted vote.  You end up in philosophical third party political debates and not enough about you as a candidate.  Add to that little to no fund raising because who wants to waste their money supporting someone who doesn't have a chance...you see where I'm going with this?  This is the prevailing attitude you're up against.


Add manpower to that.  Our county has 55 polling locations.  Polls are open from 7a to 8p - that's 715 man hours needed to have people at the polls handing out literature.  Our county GOP has the volunteers that are willing to do the work.  Typically about 200 volunteers are needed for this, as most people can only dedicate a few hours to the work.

----------


## EBounding

Everyone on this forum should read this:

The Real Nature of Politics and Politicians: Americas System Works, but Not the Way You Think!

Here's some important excerpts:




> In America, through a brilliant system of rewards and punishments, checks and balances, and diffusion of authority, we have acquired a habit and history of politics mostly without violence and excessive corruption.
> 
> *The good news for you and me is that the system works.*
> 
> The bad news is it is hard, and sometimes unpleasant work, for us to succeed in enacting policy.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason for you to spend your time, talent, and money in politics except for this:  *If you do not, laws will be written and regulations enforced by folks with little or no interest in your well-being.*





> Sometimes, activists make the local newspaper or media the target.  The thinking goes, If we can just get them to understand the problem, things will change. * It is fortunate that this is not correct, because the media in the U.S. is overwhelmingly committed to big government, gun control, and the supremacy of state-controlled education over parent controlled education.*
> _
> The fact is newspapers cast no votes.  The national evening news controls no elections.  If this were not true, Ronald Reagan would never have been President_

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Duly noted.  Hey I think "Libertarian" sounds cooler than Republican, but running as third party you're not only fighting to get your message out, but the near insurmountable stigma that voting for you is a wasted vote.  You end up in philosophical third party political debates and not enough about you as a candidate.  Add to that little to no fund raising because who wants to waste their money supporting someone who doesn't have a chance...you see where I'm going with this?  This is the prevailing attitude you're up against.  
> 
> Maybe 50 years from now when we control the Republican party, and therefore country, we can reeducate the populace, streamline our elections, and dissolve built in bias against third parties.  But that is a very long term endeavor.


Let me address your second point first:  I don't think the country can survive another 50 years under the current system.

No matter what label under which our liberty candidates run, we still have educating to do in order to turn "running" into "getting elected".   We already had to fight to get our message out.  Ron Paul participated in several GOP debates, but I know many here remember how disgusted we were when he wasn't getting equal time to answer questions.  And the mainstream GOP members in the audience in S.C. (IIRC) booed him when he invoked the golden rule!!  As long as those people are not on board with our message, we can't win unless we _pretend_ to be one of them.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> And the mainstream GOP members in the audience in S.C. (IIRC) booed him when he invoked the golden rule!!  As long as those people are not on board with our message, we can't win unless we _pretend_ to be one of them.


The jury is still out on whether the booing was orchestrated by Fox having placed key people in the audience to invoke said response as they scripted that certain question towards Ron. Either way, it could also be just herd mentality that was started by a few and many others there followed along because they were preconditioned to come off negative toward Ron on foreign policy related matters. 

In general the bottom line is, the Ron part of Paul is a permanently tarnished name amongst the conservative base because of the repeated attacks by the MSM and radio mafia over a 5 year period. Hence, Rand is playing safe with his terminology when commenting on foreign policy subjects so as to not bury himself before he has a shot at it. The way he campaigned for Senate in KY is the way we'll likely see him campaign for prez and it won't be to the liking of the purists. Basically, those of us around here that trust him based upon his voting record will be running cover for him not throwing truth bombs because the purists will be bickering over every little thing. Normally, I'd be considered a purist but I guess I lose that label when I see the need for going stealth so as not to be sabotaged in the media which is sometimes hard to fight off especially in a larger ballpark.

----------


## sailingaway

> The jury is still out on whether the booing was orchestrated by Fox having placed key people in the audience to invoke said response as they scripted that certain question towards Ron. Either way, it could also be just herd mentality that was started by a few and many others there followed along because they were preconditioned to come off negative toward Ron on foreign policy related matters. 
> 
> In general the bottom line is, the Ron part of Paul is a permanently tarnished name amongst the conservative base because of the repeated attacks by the MSM and radio mafia over a 5 year period. Hence, Rand is playing safe with his terminology when commenting on foreign policy subjects so as to not bury himself before he has a shot at it. The way he campaigned for Senate in KY is the way we'll likely see him campaign for prez and it won't be to the liking of the purists. Basically, those of us around here that trust him based upon his voting record will be running cover for him not throwing truth bombs because the purists will be bickering over every little thing. Normally, I'd be considered a purist but I guess I lose that label when I see the need for going stealth so as not to be sabotaged in the media which is sometimes hard to fight off especially in a larger ballpark.


RON is the only one with the record to show what he says is what he will do, and isn't just pandering.  That, and the fact that he is the only one who never panders.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Well I can best speak for my own county.  Our State Senator first won in 06 and was reelected in 10.  His support came from both the county committee and his own grassroots base.  His voting record is sound.  
> 
> As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the big advantages of having Liberty Movement activists work within the local GOP is the accessibility to the infrastructure of the party, once we have a majority or near majority presence on the county committee.  The mailing lists, the donor lists, the ability to organize events and fundraisers, and the county GOP endorsements are all in the hands of liberty-minded folks if we have that presence.  Having access to that infrastructure gives liberty candidates for state or federal office, a major upper hand on their competition.  
> 
> Again, using the example of our State Senator, if he were to have a challenger for the nomination in 2014 (let's say a neo-con type, or establishment moderate type), that challenger would not be endorsed by our county GOP, he would not have the hundreds of volunteers that stand at the polls on election day passing out the county endorsement ballot, etc.


That liberty incumbency has not stopped establishment GOP leaders from trying, repeatedly in the case of Paul over the years, to get him out of his House seat, including even recasting the district. The internal lists and organized events have value, but access can also be infiltrated by the enemy, especially if you choose to sleep with the enemy within the same structure. The worry right now, for example, is that the CFL lists, donors and volunteers built up meticulously by Paul over the years will be forked over to the regular GOP universe, to back the candidacies of prowar/pro-Fed hacks in the interests of "getting along" with the rest of the party. Again, access can cut both ways.

The real way to judge efficiency of use of resources is in terms of what you are trying to achieve, as it bears on the available opportunities to realistically achieve it. Nearly all districts are gerrymandered to ensure either a Dem or GOP wins the election, and stays in office, but 5% of those are open seats, or "Weinergate" scandal situations where there is an opening. If the point is to have liberty candidates win more seats, and our agenda is clearly different than either that of standard Republicans or Democrats, why restrict yourself to wearing only one shoe? Since open seats come up in both safe Democratic and safe Republican districts, _how is it the best use of liberty activists' resources to ignore 50% of the best opportunities for getting our candidates in office?_

An _independent_ grassroots can field, vet and support liberty candidates for BOTH open seat Republican and open seat Democratic primary races, while a GOP-only effort cannot. What is the primary loyalty here, getting liberty candidates more seats, or getting Republicans more seats? If the latter, it leads to wasting more time trying to get liberty Republicans elected in uphill situations (in both the primary and the election) that are not honestly winnable, because we have restricted our efforts to only one big party universe. Relatively speaking, open seats are lay-ups, compared to 50 ft jumpshot attempts against incumbents. Focusing on the latter structurally sets up activists for failure from the outset, while abandoning half the playing field. That is not the best or the optimal use of the movement's time to accomplish its electoral goals.

----------


## tbone717

> An _independent_ grassroots can field, vet and support liberty candidates for BOTH open seat Republican and open seat Democratic races, while a GOP-only effort cannot. What is the primary loyalty here, getting liberty candidates more seats, or getting Republicans more seats? If the latter, it leads to wasting more time trying to get liberty Republicans elected in uphill situations (in both the primary and the election) that are not honestly winnable, because we have restricted our efforts to only one big party universe. Relatively speaking, open seats are lay-ups, compared to 50 ft jumpshot attempts against incumbents. It structurally sets up activists for failure from the outset. That is not the best or the optimal use of the movement's time to accomplish its electoral goals.


The GOP is the path of least resistance.  Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see his supporters continue with an active role of involvement in the GOP.  I have not heard anyone from C4L, the Paul campaign, or any other connected organization suggest the idea of working in the Democratic party.  If that is your desire to do so, you are free to choose whichever path you wish.  However, the plan as it has been communicated is to work locally within the GOP.  

Look I get that you disagree with the strategy, but this is the plan as most of us here understand is being communicated to us from Paul, Hunter, etc.  If you choose to be an "independent activist" you are free to do so.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The jury is still out on whether the booing was orchestrated by Fox having placed key people in the audience to invoke said response as they scripted that certain question towards Ron. Either way, it could also be just herd mentality that was started by a few and many others there followed along because they were preconditioned to come off negative toward Ron on foreign policy related matters. 
> 
> In general the bottom line is, the Ron part of Paul is a permanently tarnished name amongst the conservative base because of the repeated attacks by the MSM and radio mafia over a 5 year period. Hence, Rand is playing safe with his terminology when commenting on foreign policy subjects so as to not bury himself before he has a shot at it. The way he campaigned for Senate in KY is the way we'll likely see him campaign for prez and it won't be to the liking of the purists. Basically, those of us around here that trust him based upon his voting record will be running cover for him not throwing truth bombs because the purists will be bickering over every little thing. Normally, I'd be considered a purist but I guess I lose that label when I see the need for going stealth so as not to be sabotaged in the media which is sometimes hard to fight off especially in a larger ballpark.





> RON is the only one with the record to show what he says is what he will do, and isn't just pandering.  That, and the fact that he is the only one who never panders.


Agreed, sailingaway....I'm not interested in another politician who panders.  It's time for cold, hard truth and that's what Dr. Paul always gave us.  If Rand can't do that, he won't be my candidate in 2016.  Perhaps I won't have a candidate in 2016...but I'm not going to vote for anyone who appears to play ball with neocons.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> RON is the only one with the record to show what he says is what he will do, and isn't just pandering.  That, and the fact that he is the only one who never panders.


Perhaps but the good is not the enemy of the perfect. Just because Rand won't campaign on explicit non-interventionism doesn't mean deep down he doesn't support it. I agree with others that things are rather imminent and we don't have another generation available to not regain control of our govt but no matter how right Ron is about foreign affairs, the media is always there to trash him and make the outside observer run from the non-intervention standpoint. There isn't even a fair debate that's allowed to be played about it in the media or elsewhere. So, I can't blame Rand or someone similar to walk the line on that issue or maybe even offer lukewarm support. I doubt Rand would've been elected Senator if he quoted his dad ad infinitum on foreign policy. I wish things were different but they aren't.

----------


## sailingaway

I think Rand is the best Senator in the Senate.  I really think he made a wrong move at minimum on the timing of the endorsement while his Dad's base, which funded his primary win, is still fighting for his Dad against Romney.  I am not trying to open that up again.  But I will let 2016 take care of itself when it comes.

----------


## Carlybee

> The GOP is the path of least resistance.  Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see his supporters continue with an active role of involvement in the GOP.  I have not heard anyone from C4L, the Paul campaign, or any other connected organization suggest the idea of working in the Democratic party.  If that is your desire to do so, you are free to choose whichever path you wish.  However, the plan as it has been communicated is to work locally within the GOP.  
> 
> Look I get that you disagree with the strategy, but this is the plan as most of us here understand is being communicated to us from Paul, Hunter, etc.  If you choose to be an "independent activist" you are free to do so.


There are a lot of "Blue Republicans"...Dems who switched over to vote for Ron Paul because of his anti-interventionist stance.  Do they just get tossed under the bus now or do you really expect them to want to become part of the GOP?   And since when does Jack Hunter give us marching orders?   I will take the independent activist stance myself.

----------


## tbone717

> There are a lot of "Blue Republicans"...Dems who switched over to vote for Ron Paul because of his anti-interventionist stance.  Do they just get tossed under the bus now or do you really expect them to want to become part of the GOP?   And since when does Jack Hunter give us marching orders?   I will take the independent activist stance myself.


Blue Republicans can make their choice whether they want to continue to work for liberty candidates or not, and whether they want to be involved in the local GOP or not.  Paul rec'd about 2 million votes in the primaries.  Do you know how many of those people were "Blue Republicans"?  Were there solely supportive of RP because of his FP stance, or did they embrace other small government issues? 

Jack Hunter is employed by the campaign.  If you watched his recent video he expressed how far we have come in the last 4 years, and mentioned a bunch of candidates that are worthy of support.  As far as the "marching orders" Paul has expressed a desire for activists to work in the GOP to reform it.  That is the next step as far as we understand it.  No one is holding a gun to your head, so you can choose your own path.  

Many have agreed with Paul's desire to see the GOP reformed.  Someone referenced a poll that it had 66% support here.  It would be nice if those of us who are on board with Paul's plan can discuss it without constantly having to defend it.  Wouldn't it be far more profitable for those like yourself who don't want to follow the strategy to go off on your own and figure out what you all can do?  Or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the efforts of those who are on board with Paul's vision?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Blue Republicans can make their choice whether they want to continue to work for liberty candidates or not, and whether they want to be involved in the local GOP or not.  Paul rec'd about 2 million votes in the primaries.  Do you know how many of those people were "Blue Republicans"?  Were there solely supportive of RP because of his FP stance, or did they embrace other small government issues? 
> 
> Jack Hunter is employed by the campaign.  If you watched his recent video he expressed how far we have come in the last 4 years, and mentioned a bunch of candidates that are worthy of support.  As far as the "marching orders" Paul has expressed a desire for activists to work in the GOP to reform it.  That is the next step as far as we understand it.  No one is holding a gun to your head, so you can choose your own path.  
> 
> Many have agreed with Paul's desire to see the GOP reformed.  Someone referenced a poll that it had 66% support here.  It would be nice if those of us who are on board with Paul's plan can discuss it without constantly having to defend it.  Wouldn't it be far more profitable for those like yourself who don't want to follow the strategy to go off on your own and figure out what you all can do?  Or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the efforts of those who are on board with Paul's vision?


I'm certainly not intentionally trying to "sabotage" anything...just the opposite, in fact.  I'm trying to KEEP our efforts from being sabotaged as they surely will by the GOP if we continue down this road!  

Someone once mentioned that a majority of Ron Paul supporters are not active on this board, so that whole "66% support here" thing is not really relevant.  Many Ron Paul supporters I know are fed up with the false two party paradigm.   I have no idea what issues are important to that Blue Republican group, but once they saw their way out of the Democratic Party, I'm pretty sure they're not interested in joining up with a bunch of neocons on the hope that we can magically transform them into something more palatable.  

Here's the link to their Facebook page, if you're interested in asking them how they feel about it:  http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican

----------


## cajuncocoa

*by Thomas J. DiLorenzo*




> For the past century and a half the Republican Party has gratuitously labeled itself as "The Party of Great Moral Ideas." The Party of Great Moral Frauds is more like it. The party began as the party of mercantilism, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, constitutional subterfuge, central banking, and imperialism. Its 1860 presidential platform promised not to disturb Southern slavery; its first president supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery; the party committed treason by "levying war upon the states" (the precise definition of treason in the Constitution) and murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens in order to destroy the voluntary union of the states that was established by the founding fathers. It refused to do what Britain, Spain, France, the Dutch, Denmark, Sweden, and the Northern states in the U.S. had done about slavery and end it peacefully. Instead, it used the slaves as pawns in a war that was about consolidating all political power in Washington, D.C. in general, and in the hands of the Republican Party in particular.
> 
> Three months after the War to Prevent Southern Independence ended the Republican Party commenced a twenty-five year war of genocide against the Plains Indians, killing as many as 60,000 of them, including thousands of women and children, and putting the rest in concentration camps. It did this, according to General Sherman who orchestrated this horribly immoral crusade, to "make way for the railroads" that were being heavily subsidized by the Republican Party. It also plundered the conquered South with exorbitant taxes and the legalized theft of vast tracts of property by party hacks for a decade after the war (so-called "reconstruction"), while doing virtually nothing for the freed slaves. It did nothing while as many as 1 million former slaves died of disease shortly after the war in the worst public health disaster in American history.
> 
> The Grant administrations were most known for the colossal corruption associated with the building of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroads that was finally made public during the Credit Mobilier scandal.
> 
> The Republican Party has always been about disguising a lust for economic plunder with phony ideas about "freedom," "Christianity," "equality," "civilization,"and other nice-sounding words. The War to Prevent Southern Independence allowed it to finally usher in the Hamiltonian "American System" of high protectionist tariffs for the benefit of Northern manufacturers at the expense of everyone else; a nationalized money supply with its Legal Tender and National Currency Acts; and vast amounts of corporate welfare, starting with the government-subsidized railroad corporations. It created the internal revenue system, invented dozens of new taxes, created the military/industrial complex, ran up historically high levels of debt, and destroyed the founders system of federalism or states rights as a check on centralized governmental power.
> 
> The war of genocide against the Plains Indians was a way of socializing the cost of building the government-subsidized railroads. Having succeeded in eradicating the Indians, the Republican Party next turned to tiny little countries like Cuba and the Philippines to plunder under the usual phony excuse of spreading "freedom" and "the American way" around the globe. The Republican Party claimed to embrace the message of Reverend Josiah Strongs 1885 book, Our Country, which proclaimed a supposedly sacred American duty to "civilize and Christianize inferior peoples." They portrayed themselves as one big gang of Mother Theresas, selflessly sacrificing endlessly for the benefit of strangers in foreign lands.
> ...


http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo233.html

----------


## tbone717

> I'm certainly not intentionally trying to "sabotage" anything...just the opposite, in fact.  I'm trying to KEEP our efforts from being sabotaged as they surely will by the GOP if we continue down this road!  
> 
> Someone once mentioned that a majority of Ron Paul supporters are not active on this board, so that whole "66% support here" thing is not really relevant.  Many Ron Paul supporters I know are fed up with the false two party paradigm.   I have no idea what issues are important to that Blue Republican group, but once they saw their way out of the Democratic Party, I'm pretty sure they're not interested in joining up with a bunch of neocons on the hope that we can magically transform them into something more palatable.  
> 
> Here's the link to their Facebook page, if you're interested in asking them how they feel about it:  http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican


I'll say it again one last time, because honestly this is getting boring.  

Paul and others closely associated with him have talked about many times working within the GOP.  If you folks don't want to do it, that is fine.  Frankly, I have been at this long before most of you even heard of Ron Paul, so I am just going to continue what I am doing.

If others want to go to the LP, CP, form another party, sit out, stay home, only be activists when they feel like it, or whatever it really doesn't matter to me at all.  

For those that are interested in getting involved in their local GOP and need some tips, I will be more than happy to help you out.  Feel free to PM me.  I am sure there are others that are in this thread that can be equally willing to help you.

----------


## Carlybee

> Blue Republicans can make their choice whether they want to continue to work for liberty candidates or not, and whether they want to be involved in the local GOP or not.  Paul rec'd about 2 million votes in the primaries.  Do you know how many of those people were "Blue Republicans"?  Were there solely supportive of RP because of his FP stance, or did they embrace other small government issues? 
> 
> Jack Hunter is employed by the campaign.  If you watched his recent video he expressed how far we have come in the last 4 years, and mentioned a bunch of candidates that are worthy of support.  As far as the "marching orders" Paul has expressed a desire for activists to work in the GOP to reform it.  That is the next step as far as we understand it.  No one is holding a gun to your head, so you can choose your own path.  
> 
> Many have agreed with Paul's desire to see the GOP reformed.  Someone referenced a poll that it had 66% support here.  It would be nice if those of us who are on board with Paul's plan can discuss it without constantly having to defend it.  Wouldn't it be far more profitable for those like yourself who don't want to follow the strategy to go off on your own and figure out what you all can do?  Or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the efforts of those who are on board with Paul's vision?


Did someone die and make you Ron Paul's spokesman?  I get the emails. I'm an individual with my own mind and I am hardly sabotaging anything.  I assume people on here are not sheep and can decide for themselves how to proceed.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'll say it again one last time, because honestly this is getting boring.  
> 
> Paul and others closely associated with him have talked about many times working within the GOP.  If you folks don't want to do it, that is fine.  Frankly, I have been at this long before most of you even heard of Ron Paul, so I am just going to continue what I am doing.
> 
> If others want to go to the LP, CP, form another party, sit out, stay home, only be activists when they feel like it, or whatever it really doesn't matter to me at all.  
> 
> For those that are interested in getting involved in their local GOP and need some tips, I will be more than happy to help you out.  Feel free to PM me.  I am sure there are others that are in this thread that can be equally willing to help you.


How old are you and how long have you been at it?

----------


## tbone717

> How old are you and how long have you been at it?


44, I have been actively involved in either campaigns or the GOP since 86.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'll say it again one last time, because honestly this is getting boring.  
> 
> Paul and others closely associated with him have talked about many times working within the GOP.  If you folks don't want to do it, that is fine.  *Frankly, I have been at this long before most of you even heard of Ron Paul,* so I am just going to continue what I am doing.
> 
> If others want to go to the LP, CP, form another party, sit out, stay home, only be activists when they feel like it, or whatever it really doesn't matter to me at all.  
> 
> For those that are interested in getting involved in their local GOP and need some tips, I will be more than happy to help you out.  Feel free to PM me.  I am sure there are others that are in this thread that can be equally willing to help you.


I hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back like that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 44, I have been actively involved in either campaigns or the GOP since 86.


Well, aren't you the old-timer?  I started working in the GOP in 1984.

----------


## tbone717

> I hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back like that.


My point being that this notion of working in the GOP is nothing new to a lot of folks - which is the reason some of us were in here, i.e. to assist those that were new to this whole thing at becoming more effective.  So, I am sorry if you are put off by age and experience, but there are some people in this world that consider those valuable.

Some folks here have never stepped foot inside a political meeting of any kind, so dialoging with people that have done is countless times is a good thing.

----------


## tbone717

> Well, aren't you the old-timer?  I started working in the GOP in 1984.


Great - so maybe instead of crapping all over Ron's plan you can lend your assistance to those that are interested.  Or is it your mission to talk everyone out of it?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Great - so maybe instead of crapping all over Ron's plan you can lend your assistance to those that are interested.  Or is it your mission to talk everyone out of it?


*YES*, it *IS* my mission to talk everyone out of it (glad you finally realized that!)  I strongly feel the GOP is going to sabotage the progress we've made here.  It may be true that we got where we are because Dr Paul was able to get his message across in the GOP debates (in the small amount of time they allowed him to speak), but I feel like we've ridden this GOP bus as far as we can.  We should leave them, and they deserve it.

P.S.  I didn't stay long in the GOP; I left in 1988...something always bothered me about the Bush family.

----------


## tbone717

> *YES*, it *IS* my mission to talk everyone out of it (glad you finally realized that!)  I strongly feel the GOP is going to sabotage the progress we've made here.  It may be true that we got where we are because Dr Paul was able to get his message across in the GOP debates (in the small amount of time they allowed him to speak), but I feel like we've ridden this GOP bus as far as we can.  We should leave them, and they deserve it.


So really your issue is with the direction that Paul has laid out for us.  

Honestly, I think it would be foolish, as there are tons of candidates and elected official within the GOP that need our support right now, and along with that there are plenty of folks waiting in the wings to run for offices next year and the following.  The more that activists like us can be involved, and make the conditions favorable to their runs for office the better chance we have of packing the state legislatures and congress with libertarian-conservatives.

Leaving only puts activists on the sidelines, or worse yet chasing windmills with a 3rd party.  Sure we can have folks that are at this part time, and work for candidates they like when the election cycle comes up, but improving the conditions for these candidates by having liberty-minded people serving at the local level as committeeman, etc is highly beneficial.  I made mention many times of my own county, if my county was controlled by neo-cons or moderates, I highly doubt that the county GOP would be organizing a fund raiser for our State Senator.  It is because there have been folks like you and me working here locally for many years that we have a strong enough presence within the GOP that we are able to influence the county committee as a whole, and hold an event like this.

----------


## sailingaway

come on tbone, you have specific people you want people working for, within the GOP, who aren't specific people Ron Paul has endorsed, you want your list adopted.  THat is fine, you are hardly the only person here trying to 'direct' Ron Paul supporter energy and as long as you are not directing it AGAINST acting for Ron, I, for one, don't have a particular problem with you making your pitch. But listening to Ron's suggestions and following you are not one and the same thing.  I see no reason why those who do want to work in the GOP shouldn't work with you as they will be working with others, but you are kinda pushing the idea that your idea is Ron's idea and they aren't exactly identical.

----------


## tbone717

> come on tbone, you have specific people you want people working for, within the GOP, who aren't specific people Ron Paul has endorsed, you want your list adopted.  THat is fine, you are hardly the only person here trying to 'direct' Ron Paul supporter energy and as long as you are not directing it AGAINST acting for Ron, I don't mind. But listening to Ron's suggestions and following you are not one and the same thing.  I see no reason why those who do want to work in the GOP shouldn't work with you as they will be working with others, but you are kinda pushing the idea that your idea is Ron's idea and they aren't exactly identical.


Actually most of the people on that list (at least the congressional candidates) were mentioned in the Hunter video.  Oddly enough Hunter even makes mention of the fact that people that agree with us 9 times out of 10 are our allies and we should support them.  He even made mention of the work Rand has done with Lee and Demint (two names which are vilified on this site more than Obama's name) Paul hasn't endorsed anyone at the state level, so state candidates are a moot issue in regards to Ron's endorsements.

If you look at the RLC list I posted, it is a fine group of folks that pledge to a set of principles that most people in here should agree with.  It is a small government, non-interventionist, personal liberty platform.  Is everyone of those candidates perfect?  No.  But if someone is looking for absolute perfection then they will never be satisfied.  It does not appear that Ron Paul is looking for perfection, and the Hunter piece again states how people who agree with us on most issues are good folks to support.

And in reality, people can only do real work at their local level.  Sure they can donate money to candidates outside their area, or they can click "like" buttons if that really does anything --- but the real work is done right in your own county.  Whether it is knocking on doors, attending meetings, running for office, or other activities - the real work of talking face to face with voters is in large part done at home.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> come on tbone, you have specific people you want people working for, within the GOP, who aren't specific people Ron Paul has endorsed, you want your list adopted.  THat is fine, you are hardly the only person here trying to 'direct' Ron Paul supporter energy and as long as you are not directing it AGAINST acting for Ron, I, for one, don't have a particular problem with you making your pitch. But listening to Ron's suggestions and following you are not one and the same thing.  I see no reason why those who do want to work in the GOP shouldn't work with you as they will be working with others, but you are kinda pushing the idea that your idea is Ron's idea and they aren't exactly identical.


This point you made about "directing Ron Paul supporter energy" is exactly what worries me about the GOP going forward.  I'm not suggesting that tbone has anything but the best intentions, but we all know that there are others within the GOP who are wolves in sheep's clothing.  Just as we've infiltrated them, they will infiltrate our liberty movement.  It's probably already happened.

----------


## tbone717

> This point you made about "directing Ron Paul supporter energy" is exactly what worries me about the GOP going forward.  I'm not suggesting that tbone has anything but the best intentions, but we all know that there are others within the GOP who are wolves in sheep's clothing.  Just as we've infiltrated them, they will infiltrate our liberty movement.  It's probably already happened.


If there is someone who does not live up to their promises, then we have the power to run against them and/or vote them out.  There is a remedy for that.

Of course, the more people you have on your parish's GOP committee the better.  You can have influence over the endorsements, talk directly with candidates so that you can get a feel for where they stand on important issues.  If someone then does not pass the smell test, then the committee can place their time and money in other directions.

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

----------


## Carlybee

> 44, I have been actively involved in either campaigns or the GOP since 86.


I'm older than you and could give 2 spits about the GOP or the Democrats. I vote and donate via my conscience. If you think that is somehow sabotage that's your problem. Or else you think people on here are too stupid to make their own decisions and follow the path they see fit. Stop trying to marginalize the true liberty stance with your RLC agenda.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> My point being that this notion of working in the GOP is nothing new to a lot of folks - *which is the reason some of us were in here, i.e. to assist those that were new to this whole thing at becoming more effective*.  So, I am sorry if you are put off by age and experience, but there are some people in this world that consider those valuable.
> 
> Some folks here have never stepped foot inside a political meeting of any kind, so dialoging with people that have done is countless times is a good thing.


So, you and some others are members of this forum are here to try to direct us?    You may have the best of all intentions, but this more than makes me feel uncomfortable.

----------


## Carlybee

> Actually, it kinda appears like that is exactly what you are trying to do.


Why? Because I stated my opinion? Did I tell anyone to follow my opinion? Do you think people on here are zombies with no opinions of their own?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why? Because I stated my opinion? Did I tell anyone to follow my opinion? Do you think people on here are zombies with no opinions of their own?


My bad.  I'm sick right now and for some reason thought that both of the comments I quoted were from the same person.  Sorry.

----------


## tbone717

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *by Thomas J. DiLorenzo*


Cajun, isn't DiLorenzo an anarchist?

----------


## tbone717

> So, you and some others are members of this forum to try to direct us?    You may have the best of all intentions, but this more than makes me feel uncomfortable.


If people with experience offering to assist people that do not have experience makes you uncomfortable then I really don't know what I can say.  You folks can have at all of this alone.  Seriously, I am tiring of this.  

I can tell that my opinions are not welcome here.  Enjoy your time here.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I do find it interesting that you say there is a "true liberty stance" as opposed to what the RLC stands for (which as we all know Paul is a former chair of the RLC, and Massie, Amash, Rand and others are members).  But, tell me Carly - what position of theirs on their statement of principles do you find differs from your "true liberty stance"?
> 
> http://www.rlc.org/about/statement-of-principles/ there is the link.  I would be interested what you find on there that is problematic.


I still haven't gotten an answer to the question I sent off, but Tbone, like I told you before, I'm pretty damn sure that Ron Paul stopped being affiliated with the RLC some time ago.   So, please do not imply that what the RLC does is in keeping with Ron Paul's beliefs.   Ron Paul helped establish FreedomWorks too and we have all seen it slip from its once more principled stances.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cajun, isn't DiLorenzo an anarchist?


no idea, so what?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If people with experience offering to assist people that do not have experience makes you uncomfortable then I really don't know what I can say.  You folks can have at all of this alone.  Seriously, I am tiring of this.  
> 
> I can tell that my opinions are not welcome here.  Enjoy your time here.


Hell yes it does.  Are you surprised?  Movement after movement have been co-opted.   Offering suggestions to those interested about how to be more effective in the GOP is one thing; steering them towards a list of RLC-approved candidates is quite another.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> no idea, so what?


Most of the Mises crowd do not vote, nor do they advocate anyone else do it either.   

Look, I like the institute, but deferring to them about political activism does not make much sense.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Most of the Mises crowd do not vote, nor do they advocate anyone else do it either.   
> 
> Look, I like the institute, but deferring to them about political activism does not make much sense.


Now this is getting really confusing:  someone who adheres to Austrian Economics is suddenly considered an anarchist who should not be trusted to offer an opinion about political parties?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Now this is getting really confusing:  someone who adheres to Austrian Economics is suddenly considered an anarchist who should not be trusted to offer an opinion about political parties?


If they have chosen to sit on the sidelines and not partake of political activism, then no, in my opinion, they should not.  Not everyone who believes in Austrian economics believes in not voting, or is an anarchist for that matter, you realize, right?  By the way, more than a few anarchists vote.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If they have chosen to sit on the sidelines and not partake of political activism, then no, in my opinion, they should not.  *Not everyone who believes in Austrian economics believes in not voting, or is an anarchist for that matter, you realize, right?  By the way, more than a few anarchists vote.*


It was you who said "most of the Mises crowd do not vote" ... thanks for clarifying.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It was you who said "most of the Mises crowd do not vote" ... thanks for clarifying.


True, but before I take someone's advice about political activism, I want to know what their stance is.  It's not like the Mises Institute has been promoting political activism; rather, the opposite is what I have seen.  lol

----------


## TheTexan

> True, but before I take someone's advice about political activism, I want to know what their stance is.  It's not like the Mises Institute has been promoting political activism; rather, the opposite is what I have seen.  lol


I'm obviously an opponent of political activism, but if it's done in a manner similar to Ron Paul, with conviction, integrity, and a *firm* foundation in principles, then I am all for it.  That just rarely happens.

People are generally more concerned with winning than principles... and winning without principles, as has been proven time and time again, is no win at all.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I understand your concern, bxm.  I have the same.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm obviously an opponent of political activism, but if it's done in a manner similar to Ron Paul, with conviction, integrity, and a *firm* foundation in principles, then I am all for it.  That just rarely happens.
> 
> People are generally more concerned with winning than principles... and winning without principles, as has been proven time and time again, is no win at all.


And that is why I feel as I do...too many years of party over principle.

----------


## gte811i

> If they have chosen to sit on the sidelines and not partake of political activism, then no, in my opinion, they should not.  Not everyone who believes in Austrian economics believes in not voting, or is an anarchist for that matter, you realize, right?  By the way, more than a few anarchists vote.


This Mises Institute is an education institution not a political institution.  I would suggest that those who want to do something, but outside the political structure of Parties, get involved with them.

You will find lots of members of the Mises Institute involved in personal political activity, but it would be wholly inappropriate for the Mises Institute to endorse or support political candidates.  The do invite Liberty minded politicians to speak at their functions from time to time, but that is quite different than endorsing.

This is the same issue in the Republican party, for example the County Party Chairman cannot use his position to endorse any candidate.  He can personally endorse them, but should not say "I'm the Chairman of xyz and I endorse blah".

----------


## gte811i

> And that is why I feel as I do...too many years of party over principle.


Have you watched the Maddow segment on the 18 year-old that beat out the former Governor.  That is political activism, and it only happened because enough people decided to get involved.

I really don't understand why individuals do not understand the simple concept that a Party or any organization is just made up of individuals.  It isn't organic, it doesn't breath . . . the individuals that make up the group live, breath, make decisions.

----------


## Carlybee

> Have you watched the Maddow segment on the 18 year-old that beat out the former Governor.  That is political activism, and it only happened because enough people decided to get involved.
> 
> I really don't understand why individuals do not understand the simple concept that a Party or any organization is just made up of individuals.  It isn't organic, it doesn't breath . . . the individuals that make up the group live, breath, make decisions.


Yes it is also collectivist and central planning if you want to get technical. No one is saying people shouldn't do it. I just prefer not to be associated with the brand. I also find the meme of "taking over" to be hostile and anti liberty. If the meme had stayed true to RP's idea of taking the party back to it's roots that would have been one thing. We saw how well taking over was received in Nevada, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Yes it worked well in a few states and good for them.  I don't get why some are trying to shove belng a member of the GOP down our throats. I won't repeat myself as to what I think about the concessions that will be made to work within that party.

----------


## tbone717

"Just by seeing a flood of my delegates in Tampa, you and I can respectfully send a loud and clear message that *we are the future of the Republican Party*. Seeing so many new and young faces at the RNC will show that despite their best efforts to maintain their iron grip over the Republican Party, *our liberty movement is the future of the GOP*" - Ron Paul (Email to supporters and delegates 07/13/12, emphasis added)

----------


## mstrmac1

So for those who think working inside the GOP is the way to go.... How's that speaking slot for Dr Paul going? How's our voice being heard so far? What have we changed on the books? Were doing so well we can't even get a speaking slot at the convention! Taking back the GOP is a dream wrapped in a fallacy.. But I'll continue with the plan...who are we voting for in 2016 if Romney is elected? 

I so hope your all right and this works!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So for those who think working inside the GOP is the way to go.... How's that speaking slot for Dr Paul going? How's our voice being heard so far? What have we changed on the books? Were doing so well we can't even get a speaking slot at the convention! Taking back the GOP is a dream wrapped in a fallacy.. But I'll continue with the plan...who are we voting for in 2016 if Romney is elected? 
> 
> I so hope your all right and this works!


Perhaps you missed it.  

We have Kurt Bills winning the Republican nomination and he needs our help to win the general. We have Thomas Massie winning his Republican nomination. Chris Hightower won his Republican nomination too. And those are just for starters. We have liberty folks in leadership positions in the GOP in more than a few states and that will make it much easier in those states to get liberty people elected. It looks like the Audit the Fed legislation might just pass this time. And Ron Paul has brought in a whole ton of more people to this movement.

There was never a magic bullet to turnaround in one swell swoop what has taken decades to destroy. It's going to take a lot of more hard work and strategy. But, we are making progress. Not as fast as we wanted, but we are making progress. What's the alternative? Just gripe and give up?

----------


## mstrmac1

Perhaps I didn't. Perhaps, because you have 30 billion posts that makes you all high and mighty! Or perhaps you missed the fact that we have made such inroads that our guy cant get a lousy 15 min speaking slot in your beloved party.. Or perhaps maybe you still have not answered the question... Who do we vote for in 2016 if Rand doesn't run or Romney wins!? Will you vote Romney? Perhaps you will...or Perhaps you will just always think that the discussion of third party is just for the stupid.

----------


## idiom

> Perhaps I didn't. Perhaps, because you have 30 billion posts that makes you all high and mighty! Or perhaps you missed the fact that we have made such inroads that our guy cant get a lousy 15 min speaking slot in your beloved party.. Or perhaps maybe you still have not answered the question... Who do we vote for in 2016 if Rand doesn't run or Romney wins!? Will you vote Romney? Perhaps you will...or Perhaps you will just always think that the discussion of third party is just for the stupid.


That 15 minutes represents a huge amount of power gained. If RP had another 4 years we would win it all. We would go from having no speaking time to having four days and the neo-cons getting nothing. Control of the Convention is pretty binary.

----------


## Natural Citizen

After reading through this thread, I'm a bit more comfortable in the notion that folks aren't so quick to suck down the _instant_ tea like they used to be. Gives me some hope  in that regard at least.

----------


## tbone717

> Who do we vote for in 2016 if Rand doesn't run or Romney wins!? Will you vote Romney? Perhaps you will...or Perhaps you will just always think that the discussion of third party is just for the stupid.


There are 535 Congressional seats, over 7000 state legislatures seats, 50 Governors, numerous other state offices (Lt Gov, State Treasurer, etc), and tens of thousands of local government offices.  While POTUS is the big one, it is not the only office that the Liberty Movement needs to be concerned about.  So if Rand doesn't run in 2016?  So what - there will be plenty of people at the congressional, state and local level that will need support.  

One cannot control what goes on around them, we can only control what we ourselves do with our time and money.  Those who are committed to full time grassroots activism can do what we know works.  Show up at meetings, run for committee offices, support liberty minded candidates as they run for office, and work as hard as humanly possible in our own backyards.  

While I can appreciate your concerns for the "what ifs" of the future, many of us are focused on what we can do right now.  We have a lot of great candidates running for office this year (Cruz, Bills, Kerry B, Amash, Massie, etc, etc, etc)  - these folks need money and volunteers.

----------


## romancito

> After reading through this thread, I'm a bit more comfortable in the notion that folks aren't so quick to suck down the _instant_ tea like they used to be. Gives me some hope  in that regard at least.


What a difference a day makes. Yesterday night here you said exactly the opposite ...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...MASS-Delegates...

This whole forum tread gets cancelled by what appears to be the result of working inside the GOP, death to Liberty and healthy government. 

For those who are always looking for data, the data on that video clip should be sufficient, no?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What a difference a day makes. Yesterday night here you said exactly the opposite ...
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...MASS-Delegates...
> 
> This whole forum tread gets cancelled by what appears to be the result of working inside the GOP, death to Liberty and healthy government. 
> 
> For those who are always looking for data, the data on that video clip should be sufficient, no?


No, I didn't. In the thread you redirected to I was merely pointing out the obvious in the fact that the spew in the video was classic infiltration and hijacking technique. There are many different flavors of TEA these days. None seem to reflect the flavor of the original Ron Paul home made stuff. But they try to pretend as if they do with the added benefit of reframing the terms of controversy...like the folks in the video tried to do.

I saw reflections of that same shenanigan in this thread and was glad to see that it was noticed. So I said so.

I don't see where I contradicted anything at all. I'm rather careful about that when posting with many people accross a given platform. Especially since I tend to carry the same notion(s) accross several threads where relevance exists...in my opinion. Obviously relevance is dependant upon ones own perspective

----------


## romancito

> No, I didn't. In the thread you redirected to I was merely pointing out the obvious in the fact that the spew in the video was classic infiltration and hijacking technique. There are many different flavors of TEA these days. None seem to reflect the flavor of the original Ron Paul home made stuff. But they try to pretend as if they do with the added benefit of reframing the terms of controversy...like the folks in the video tried to do.
> 
> I saw reflections of that same shenanigan in this thread and was glad to see that it was noticed. So I said so.
> 
> I don't see where I contradicted anything at all. I'm rather careful about that when posting with many people accross a given platform. Especially since I tend to carry the same notion(s) accross several threads where relevance exists...in my opinion. Obviously relevance is dependant upon ones own perspective


Okay, so you see them as pretenders. Then I read you wrong. Sorry. 

I don't see them as pretenders but as typical for those Ron Paul supporters that get confident working inside the GOP. Then they want to integrate seamlessly. But that's what I think.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Okay, so you see them as pretenders. Then I read you wrong. Sorry. 
> 
> I don't see them as pretenders but as typical for those Ron Paul supporters that get confident working inside the GOP. Then they want to integrate seamlessly. But that's what I think.


I think they are reframing the terms of controversy rather blatantly and scripted while reserving the idea that their vision is in the best interests of the practical cause that used to be. They're not really _pretending_ anything at all as far as the platform they support. If they want to support Mitt Romney then fine. But don't tell me how to act at a rally or a convention by hijacking the theoretical issue that Ron Paul supporters are problematic and then play Liberty lover in front of a youtube bound camera and then turn it around to offer up your own means of order as the example to be followed is all I'm saying. And there was more to the shenanigan than just that but it is what it is. Transparent at the very least, it is. Reminds me of Frank Luntz type tactics. Problem, reaction, solution 101.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> While I can appreciate your concerns for the "what ifs" of the future, many of us are focused on what we can do right now.



You mean like those wonderful bailouts that wrecked us...that had to be done _right then..._or else? QE3...could go on and on. I think we need to stop trying to speed up and get in a big hurry to go nowhere. I was telling eleganz the story of the two bulls a ways back. This one seems to be right up that same alley.

How many tyrannical bills have passed because folks promoted the idea of hurrying up and getting it done...without knowing the aftermath of the damage they were doing? How many lives have been destroyed and homes lost because folks promoted the idea to hurry up and appease the money changers? How many students will fall prey to predatory lending for educations for jobs that do not exist in an infrastructure blocked from change by old men in power?

Change takes time if it's to be had at all. Can't just hurry up and say here, do this  sign the dotted line....now.

----------


## Peace Piper

> What a difference a day makes. Yesterday night here you said exactly the opposite ...
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...MASS-Delegates...
> 
> This whole forum tread gets cancelled by what appears to be the result of working inside the GOP, death to Liberty and healthy government. 
> 
> For those who are always looking for data, the data on that video clip should be sufficient, no?


That video is very creepy



"follow the rules"

If everyone always did that there wouldn't even be a US

there are evil winds blowing and many innocents will be sucked into the updraft

----------


## romancito

> There are 535 Congressional seats, over 7000 state legislatures seats, 50 Governors, numerous other state offices (Lt Gov, State Treasurer, etc), and tens of thousands of local government offices.  While POTUS is the big one, it is not the only office that the Liberty Movement needs to be concerned about.  So if Rand doesn't run in 2016?  So what - there will be plenty of people at the congressional, state and local level that will need support.  
> 
> One cannot control what goes on around them, we can only control what we ourselves do with our time and money.  Those who are committed to full time grassroots activism can do what we know works.  Show up at meetings, run for committee offices, support liberty minded candidates as they run for office, and work as hard as humanly possible in our own backyards.  
> 
> While I can appreciate your concerns for the "what ifs" of the future, many of us are focused on what we can do right now.  We have a lot of great candidates running for office this year (Cruz, Bills, Kerry B, Amash, Massie, etc, etc, etc)  - these folks need money and volunteers.


I see you used the word 'control' twice in the middle of your statements. 

I think you fear democracy. Plain and simple and you seek control, power, manipulation. 

I think Republicans fear democracy and self-determination and change. 

I personally like Egyptian democracy where the list of candidates and parties was 20 pages long. 

The practicality of the two party system had its time under the sun. Right now I think it seem obnoxious and nauseating.

----------


## Barrex

I had hopes for this movement but every time I read this thread and other similar to this I see that this movement is dying.

I understand fatigue and that some people want to quit but I dont understand why those people yell at others to quit too. If there is a plan in place. Plan to take over GOP. Plan made by Ron Paul. Ron Paul who is most experienced and knowledgeable among us.... Why the $#@! people keep persuading people to give up, to stop working on that plan when the plan is working (Iowa, Alaska are won and some others, there are libertarian candidates being elected and so on and so on....)???
What is your alternative?
Create new party? Not realistic (stupid even to discuss it)
Give up? Ok you can give up your life your body your future but you dont have to pull the rest down with you.
Join libertarian party? and then what? 0 influence

Bottom line: ENTROPY....dispersal of energy. If everyone just goes their own separate ways then this movement is dead. If everyone works alone and doesnt cooperate with anyone then this is over.

Make a plan, stick to it, work together. (I personally think Ron Pauls plan is working)

----------


## cheapseats

> You mean like those wonderful bailouts that wrecked us...that had to be done _right then..._or else? QE3...could go on and on. I think we need to stop trying to speed up and get in a big hurry to go nowhere.


WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!






> How many tyrannical bills have passed because folks promoted the idea of hurrying up and getting it done...without knowing the aftermath of the damage they were doing? How many lives have been destroyed and homes lost because folks promoted the idea to hurry up and appease the money changers? How many students will fall prey to predatory lending for educations for jobs that do not exist in an infrastructure *blocked from change by old men in power*?


YES, to "haste makes waste".

YES, to "he who hesitates is lost".

YES, to "patience is a virtue".

Yes, to "NO GUTS, NO GLORY".

Confuse not CRAZY-FAST with CRAZY LIKE A FOX.






> Change takes time if it's to be had at all.


With respect, that is an OVERGENERALIZED SOUND BYTE.  And like so many, it has some truth without being True on a TRUE/FALSE test.

Obama's "brilliance" in running on a platform of Change is that CHANGE HAPPENS, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.

Other than Death, CHANGE is practically the only certainty in Life.  Change is continuous. Occurrence is one thing. Repetition is another, different thing. Sustainability is another, different thing. CONTINUOUS is another, different thing.

LOSING WEIGHT is not done overnight.  Shaving your head? Not INSTANT-instant, but pretty damn quick.  Getting hit by a bus?  Even quicker.






> Can't just hurry up and say here, do this  sign the dotted line....now.


Depends what they hope to gain by signing &/or what they fear about NOT signing.






> At least not amongst thinking folks who have seen the meme in all it's wonder already.


Do you believe that millions and millions and millions and millions of Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan signatories have learned their lesson?






> That's the kind of stuff you would expect from a used car salesman.


One of America's surpluses is DEFINITELY Unscrupulous Salespeople.

----------


## tbone717

> I had hopes for this movement but every time I read this thread and other similar to this I see that this movement is dying.
> 
> I understand fatigue and that some people want to quit but I dont understand why those people yell at others to quit too. If there is a plan in place. Plan to take over GOP. Plan made by Ron Paul. Ron Paul who is most experienced and knowledgeable among us.... Why the $#@! people keep persuading people to give up, to stop working on that plan when the plan is working (Iowa, Alaska are won and some others, there are libertarian candidates being elected and so on and so on....)???
> What is your alternative?
> Create new party? Not realistic (stupid even to discuss it)
> Give up? Ok you can give up your life your body your future but you dont have to pull the rest down with you.
> Join libertarian party? and then what? 0 influence
> 
> Bottom line: ENTROPY....dispersal of energy. If everyone just goes their own separate ways then this movement is dead. If everyone works alone and doesnt cooperate with anyone then this is over.
> ...


Excellent observation.  In all honesty, I think it comes down to two sets of people that were part of the Ron Paul movement:  one group was myopic and focused solely on the race for the White House; the other had a broader view and saw the nomination contest as just one piece of a much larger project.

----------


## romancito

> I had hopes for this movement....


Tell me Barrex why is Germany the strongest economy in the world? 

Why is Germany again on top of Europe's direction? 

What's different there?

----------


## Carlybee

It is not stupid to discuss a new party Barrex. Were the founders stupid to want to break away from King George?
Some here seem incapable of seeing beyond the left/right paradigm. Discussing something shouldn't be a threat to a plan unless the plan is unstable to begin with and my aren't some getting their noses out of joint because they can't force people to acquiesce without question.

----------


## tbone717

> It is not stupid to discuss a new party Barrex. Were the founders stupid to want to break away from King George?
> Some here seem incapable of seeing beyond the left/right paradigm. Discussing something shouldn't be a threat to a plan unless the plan is unstable to begin with and my aren't some getting their noses out of joint because they can't force people to acquiesce without question.


I'll bite.  

So to start a new party you need a lot of people and a ton of money.  You need marketing people to be able to promote this new party to the masses so that you have more people willing to donate money and time.  You need people willing to put their lives & careers on hold to run for office.  You need ballot access - so you need people that are willing to volunteer their time knocking on doors and doing whatever it takes to accomplish that.  You need an organizational structure, otherwise you have a bunch of people going off in a thousand different directions.  You need places to meet, so you either have to buy or rent space for that.  You need websites, phones, employees, television ads, radio ads, paper, buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.

I am sure that you are aware that there a dozens and dozens of political parties out there.  None of them have been able to elect a candidate to a state office (with the exception of the LP & CP who last did it about 10 years ago) 

So how do you propose you get all that you need to get started, and to be able to be successful at what so many others have failed at?

----------


## cheapseats

> ...I think it comes down to two sets of people that were part of the Ron Paul movement...


As an example chosen at random from the bickering audience, Pro Choice and Pro ENJOIN MY BELIEFS UPON OTHERS, UNDER THREAT OF GRAVE PENALTY comprise Irreconcilable Differences.  




> ...one group was myopic and focused solely on the race for the White House; the other had a broader view and saw the nomination contest as just one piece of a much larger project.


Nice try.

One group MYOPICALLY clings to the Republican Party...which is inarguably one-half of the two-party stranglehold that stewarded our country into EXACTLY the cluster$#@! in which we "find ourselves".  Another group of FREER Thinkers has ZERO cause, post Ron Paul, to keep tolerating the SOCIAL ENGINEERING embraced by "Liberty Republicans" of the Hardright and Holy Roller persuasions.

----------


## tbone717

> One group MYOPICALLY clings to the Republican Party...one-half of the two-party stranglehold that stewarded the country to EXACTLY where it is...and Independents with less of a SOCIAL ENGINEERING streak.


Well that group includes Ron Paul, Rand, Amash, Massie and others - I'll stick with them.

----------


## BattleFlag1776

> Tell me Barrex why is Germany the strongest economy in the world? 
> 
> Why is Germany again on top of Europe's direction? 
> 
> What's different there?


For starters, this:
http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/garrisons.htm

----------


## Barrex

> Tell me Barrex why is Germany the strongest economy in the world? 
> 
> Why is Germany again on top of Europe's direction? 
> 
> What's different there?


Where are you going with this?




> It is not stupid to discuss a new party Barrex. Were the founders stupid to want to break away from King George?
> Some here seem incapable of seeing beyond the left/right paradigm. Discussing something shouldn't be a threat to a plan unless the plan is unstable to begin with and my aren't some getting their noses out of joint because they can't force people to acquiesce without question.


It is ok to discuss it but to move it as viable alternative to Ron Paul plan is weakening and damaging (it is not going to happen and will only weaken movement). History of political parties in entire world tells us that that "way" doesnt work. I am from Croatia/BiH. I witnessed a birth of democracy and political parties; I traveled entire Europe and know how political parties work and how they die...everything I know about political parties tells me it is not going to work. Only thing it will do is weaken entire movement as people split and try "their own way"(popular front). Line undre botom line: Ron Pauls plan is working and I honestly dont see and advantage or benefit from abandoning it and trying something that failed again and again und immer wieder und immer wieder et encore i prdež.

I apologize if I insulted anyone. It was not my intention to do so.(but it is like farting....comes natural with/to (???) me. Sorry...look at him he tells fart jokes he is not serious; we cant take him seriously ipso facto he is wrong) 




> For starters, this:
> http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/garrisons.htm


Lol....good one

----------


## Carlybee

Tbone...how has the GOP infrastructure contributed money or resources to the liberty movement? Other than the few SuperPacs we had this year, seems to me the movement has been funded by grassroots. The only thing the GOP has contributed has been a vehicle in which to travel and that vehicle is a lemon. As for how to go about starting a new party...it's premature...but worth thinking about. I have no doubt we have many visionaries and talented people among us.

----------


## tbone717

> Tbone...how has the GOP infrastructure contributed money or resources to the liberty movement? Other than the few SuperPacs we had this year, seems to me the movement has been funded by grassroots. The only thing the GOP has contributed has been a vehicle in which to travel and that vehicle is a lemon. As for how to go about starting a new party...it's premature...but worth thinking about. I have no doubt we have many visionaries and talented people among us.


We are doing a fundraiser here in our county this month for our State Senator who is a libertarian-conservative.  SuperPacs are external organizations and not affiliated with the local GOP.

The more folks that we have in committee seats the better.  Are you aware of what a committeeman/committeewoman does?  If so, I don't want to rehash all the info.

----------


## Carlybee

> Where are you going with this?
> 
> 
> 
> It is ok to discuss it but to move it as viable alternative to Ron Paul plan is weakening and damaging (it is not going to happen and will only weaken movement). History of political parties in entire world tells us that that "way" doesnt work. I am from Croatia/BiH. I witnessed a birth of democracy and political parties; I traveled entire Europe and know how political parties work and how they die...everything I know about political parties tells me it is not going to work. Only thing it will do is weaken entire movement as people split and try "their own way"(popular front). Line undre botom line: Ron Pauls plan is working and I honestly dont see and advantage or benefit from abandoning it and trying something that failed again and again und immer wieder und immer wieder et encore i prdež.
> 
> I apologize if I insulted anyone. It was not my intention to do so.(but it is like farting....comes natural with/to (???) me. Sorry...look at him he tells fart jokes he is not serious; we cant take him seriously ipso facto he is wrong) 
> 
> 
> ...


With all due respect Barrex, this is not Europe nor do we wish to be. Unfortunately from an economic standpoint it may not be long before we experience the same type of debt crisis, but I don't buy the rest of it. My mom used to say "Can't never could do anything.".  The liberty movement was born from true patriotism and that is a powerful thing.

----------


## romancito

> I'll bite.  
> 
> So to start a new party you need a lot of people and a ton of money.  You need marketing people to be able to promote this new party to the masses so that you have more people willing to donate money and time.  You need people willing to put their lives & careers on hold to run for office.  You need ballot access - so you need people that are willing to volunteer their time knocking on doors and doing whatever it takes to accomplish that.  You need an organizational structure, otherwise you have a bunch of people going off in a thousand different directions.  You need places to meet, so you either have to buy or rent space for that.  You need websites, phones, employees, television ads, radio ads, paper, buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.
> 
> I am sure that you are aware that there a dozens and dozens of political parties out there.  None of them have been able to elect a candidate to a state office (with the exception of the LP & CP who last did it about 10 years ago) 
> 
> So how do you propose you get all that you need to get started, and to be able to be successful at what so many others have failed at?


I think Ron Paul has everything you require in paragraph one.

Please, the country is in dear straights precisely because there is a lack of democratic process.

No one has failed at anything. Parties don't fail when they loose their election. Is a democracy stupid (not directed at you personally)(not trying to be disrespectful).

----------


## Carlybee

> We are doing a fundraiser here in our county this month for our State Senator who is a libertarian-conservative.  SuperPacs are external organizations and not affiliated with the local GOP.
> 
> The more folks that we have in committee seats the better.  Are you aware of what a committeeman/committeewoman does?  If so, I don't want to rehash all the info.


I know SuperPacs by way of SEC rules can't be affilated but are valuable assets for ad buys. And i do know that committe people's main function..or one of them is recruitment.

----------


## tbone717

> I think Ron Paul has everything you require in paragraph one.
> 
> Please, the country is in dear straights precisely because there is a lack of democratic process.
> 
> No one has failed at anything. Parties don't fail when they loose their election. Is a democracy stupid (not directed at you personally)(not trying to be disrespectful).


But Ron Paul is not starting a new party.  Did you see his most recent email?  In it he stated "the liberty movement is the future of the GOP".

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Tbone...how has the GOP infrastructure contributed money or resources to the liberty movement? Other than the few SuperPacs we had this year, seems to me the movement has been funded by grassroots. The only thing the GOP has contributed has been a vehicle in which to travel and that vehicle is a lemon. As for how to go about starting a new party...it's premature...but worth thinking about. I have no doubt we have many visionaries and talented people among us.


I'm not totally against discussing a new party down the line if our efforts in the GOP aren't continually achieving success. And I'm basing that on what happened in '08, the addition of Rand and Lee + a few more in '10, mass delegate victories in certain states/reclaiming certain states' party leadership/potential Senate and Congressman additions here in 2012 and perhaps even the Presidency, then more achievements going into '14 etc. That said, the major way to justify the new party route is to hope against or continually question the concept of restoring the GOP to minimize active participation in doing so. Since this is an RP board, the GOP restoration project is the main objective.

----------


## romancito

> Where are you going with this?
> 
> It is ok to discuss it but to move it as viable alternative to Ron Paul plan is weakening and damaging (it is not going to happen and will only weaken movement). History of political parties in entire world tells us that that "way" doesnt work. I am from Croatia/BiH. I witnessed a birth of democracy and political parties; I traveled entire Europe and know how political parties work and how they die...everything I know about political parties tells me it is not going to work. Only thing it will do is weaken entire movement as people


So all that European experience freezes you like a rock and you can't even understand where a question can take you. Okay.

----------


## tbone717

> I know SuperPacs by way of SEC rules can't be affilated but are valuable assets for ad buys. And i do know that committe people's main function..or one of them is recruitment.


Ok well basically here is how it goes.  A committeeman's (woman too, I am tired of typing that each time) is responsible for his ward, primarily for GOTV.  He sits on the county committee who (in the primary season) will endorse candidates.  For example this year in the US Senate primary there were 6 candidates.  The state GOP committee, endorsed Steve Welch who was a typical establishment type.  But county GOP's made their own endorsements, based on the make up of their committee.  For example, Berks County endorsed Sam Rohrer.  The committeemen then go to their wards, recruit volunteers and canvass asking people to support Rohrer in the primary.  They have the lists, the donor info, etc.  So in a county like Berks Rohrer won the county by a pretty good clip.  Now he lost statewide to Tom Smith (sort of a fiscal conservative Pat Toomey type), but you can see when you look across the state that the counties generally go for the candidate whom the county GOP was behind.

So that is how the infrastructure is beneficial.  When you are a committeeman you have the list for your ward.  When you have a bunch of committeemen on the county GOP, you can strongly influence the endorsements.  When you have a lot of counties, you can have influence over the state GOP, etc.

So the key to all this is getting people involved at the local level. If someone has the time and ability to run for committeeman that is great.  If not, then simply being involved in the local GOP can garner some influence.  Committeemen are representatives of the voters, so they should listen to the concerns of the people they represent - otherwise you vote them out.  The more people that are involved in their county GOP, the more committee seats we can hold, the more committee seats we hold the more likely liberty candidates will get the endorsement.  County GOP's (in most states) also effect the make up of the state GOP committee, as they elect committeemen to the state GOP.  So it is a building process.  It takes time, but we are seeing a huge amount of progress from where we were 4 years ago.  Folks just need to have patience and perseverance to see it through.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> So that is how the infrastructure is beneficial.  When you are a committeeman you have the list for your ward.  When you have a bunch of committeemen on the county GOP, you can strongly influence the endorsements.  When you have a lot of counties, you can have influence over the state GOP, etc.


+ rep

----------


## Barrex

> With all due respect Barrex, this is not Europe nor do we wish to be. Unfortunately from an economic standpoint it may not be long before we experience the same type of debt crisis, but I don't buy the rest of it. My mom used to say "Can't never could do anything.".  The liberty movement was born from true patriotism and that is a powerful thing.


You face same obstacles like people in Europe and the rest of the world.... You should learn from their failures. 




> So all that European experience freezes you like a rock and you can't even understand where a question can take you. Okay.


Not sure but I think that you are being a dick. Just my impression. You ask question so broad  and so "related" to this topic and I didnt understand where were you going with it, what is your point......but hey if it makes you happy spit.

----------


## romancito

> Since this is an RP board, the GOP restoration project is the main objective.


Okay then tell or have Ron Paul stop the silent treatment, the hiding, the going back to Congress to work to avoid the press. Tell Ron Paul to get going with campaign appearances for the candidates tbone717 lists. If I see Ron Paul going at it without every insecurity he shows, if I see Ron Paul trying to gain acceptance and track with Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, and others, even including Jindal. If I see Ron Paul confronting the RNC and Romney wrestling with them on a one to one basis. If I see Ron Paul certifying that the states that he is supposed to have won the plurality of delegates are going to nominate him, then restoring the GOP project may have traction. No?

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm not totally against discussing a new party down the line if our efforts in the GOP aren't continually achieving success. And I'm basing that on what happened in '08, the addition of Rand and Lee + a few more in '10, mass delegate victories in certain states/reclaiming certain states' party leadership/potential Senate and Congressman additions here in 2012 and perhaps even the Presidency, then more achievements going into '14 etc. That said, the major way to justify the new party route is to hope against or continually question the concept of restoring the GOP to minimize active participation in doing so. Since this is an RP board, the GOP restoration project is the main objective.


Then a moderator can tell me that. RP has been a bit quixotic lately and the campaign has done nothing but send mixed messages and in some cases has tried to sabotage the delegate process. So please don't give us a mandate.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I don't think it's fair to say that those who want to break away from the GOP (a party that never wanted us in the first place and will do everything to sabotage any success we make) are being "myopic and focused solely on the race for the White House."  Speaking for myself, just the opposite is true.  I would love nothing more than to have this movement grow, but I'm not convinced that the GOP is the way.  


Ron Paul says it is, but did anyone consider that he may be thinking more about Rand's future than the future of the Liberty movement? (No, they're not one and the same....not after Rand's endorsement of Romney).


As for the GOP fundraising for Liberty candidates...don't make me laugh.  Even if they do, they will want something in return (see above reference to endorsement of Romney).  


That cheapens our movement IMO.  I would rather lose every election than win that way...because winning by compromising with the devil isn't winning at all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Since this is an RP board, the GOP restoration project is the main objective.


If GOP restoration is now part of the mission statement of this board, then (1) it would be nice to hear this from board management and (2) if true, I'm out.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Then a moderator can tell me that. RP has been a bit quixotic lately and the campaign has done nothing but send mixed messages and in some cases has tried to sabotage the delegate process. So please don't give us a mandate.


There's a reason that RP has been mum about what's really good lately but he's told everyone to show up to Tampa and that is where he'll likely spill the beans but not before. That said, we've all trusted in him for years but now some feel a little distanced and I can understand that. But still, Ron has done nothing to make anyone think that he doesn't have our best interests at heart. Politics is very rarely a 100% transparent endeavor, so the closest we can come to that while achieving success the better. And please stop insinuating that I'm mandating anything when I'm just pointing out the obvious.

----------


## Carlybee

> You face same obstacles like people in Europe and the rest of the world.... You should learn from their failures. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure but I think that you are being a dick. Just my impression. You ask question so broad  and so "related" to this topic and I didnt understand where were you going with it, what is your point......but hey if it makes you happy spit.


Well thank you Barrex. Next time I feel confused I will consult the European operating manual for answers. Nevermide the Fed, the MIC, the CIA, and the Oligarchy and any other number of factors that play into the political process. Also the pecking order...you know the one that keeps people like Ron Paul out and puts people like Mitt Romney in? I am well aware of how history repeats itself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Here's our future, working in the GOP:

*A Message to the Massachusetts GOP*

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> If GOP restoration is now part of the mission statement of this board, then (1) it would be nice to hear this from board management and (2) if true, I'm out.


Come on... It's RPF and a site based on Ron (for now) likely will be following his '08 mission of "restoring the GOP to its roots". It appeared back then that that plan was pie-in-the-sky but nobody can say that we haven't had many successes since. Yall did great in LA, much better than we did here in Mich, so I can't for the life of me see why you wouldn't be proud and pumped to keep pushing the corrupt bastards to the side.

----------


## tbone717

> There's a reason that RP has been mum about what's really good lately but he's told everyone to show up to Tampa and that is where he'll likely spill the beans but not before. That said, we've all trusted in him for years but now some feel a little distanced and I can understand that. But still, Ron has done nothing to make anyone think that he doesn't have our best interests at heart. Politics is very rarely a 100% transparent endeavor, so the closest we can come to that while achieving success the better. And please stop insinuating that I'm mandating anything when I'm just pointing out the obvious.


I think the Hunter video from a week or so ago makes it pretty obvious as well.  He rattled off a bunch of candidates, stressing the need for support.  He even mentioned the aspect that people that agree with us 90% of the time are our allies.  

And in all honesty, this is nothing new.  Paul has been part of the broader liberty movement and the effort to reform the GOP since the 90's.

----------


## romancito

> you happy spit.


In summary those countries that embrace change find new opportunities that arise from unknown sources. Those countries that know it all, don't. Those parties that know it all, grow stale. Those politicians that embrace change find new opportunities, those that don't don't. Look at Putin. Isn't he back to his old job. Oh yes he has all the power in Russia's democracy. Ha ha.

----------


## Carlybee

> There's a reason that RP has been mum about what's really good lately but he's told everyone to show up to Tampa and that is where he'll likely spill the beans but not before. That said, we've all trusted in him for years but now some feel a little distanced and I can understand that. But still, Ron has done nothing to make anyone think that he doesn't have our best interests at heart. Politics is very rarely a 100% transparent endeavor, so the closest we can come to that while achieving success the better. And please stop insinuating that I'm mandating anything when I'm just pointing out the obvious.


And what is that reason since you seem to know? I love Ron Paul...but he never told me to stop thinking for myself or speaking as an individual.

----------


## Barrex

> Well thank you Barrex. Next time I feel confused I will consult the European operating manual for answers. Nevermide the Fed, the MIC, the CIA, and the Oligarchy and any other number of factors that play into the political process. Also the pecking order...you know the one that keeps people like Ron Paul out and puts people like Mitt Romney in? I am well aware of how history repeats itself.


Passive aggressive. You think Europe doesnt have MIC, Oligarchy, lobbyists, Fed (equivalent) etc? Still doesnt change my point: Splitting never works out. Starting new party is even harder. 


Ok.  What is your plan?

 For all of you who are against Ron Paul Plan can you please tell me in details what is your plan. I am honestly curious. I dont mock you. I am not condescending.*  I honestly want to know what is your plan.* No conflicts. No insults. No patronizing. No ad hominem attacks. Just your plan. Please.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And what is that reason since you seem to know? I love Ron Paul...*but he never told me to stop thinking for myself or speaking as an individual.*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If GOP restoration is now part of the mission statement of this board, then (1) it would be nice to hear this from board management and (2) if true, I'm out.


If you have a plan that you believe is a better one and that also furthers the mission of this forum, why don't you start a new thread and present it?

----------


## romancito

> Passive aggressive. You think Europe doesnt have MIC, Oligarchy, lobbyists, Fed (equivalent) etc? Still doesnt change my point: Splitting never works out. Starting new party is even harder. 
> 
> 
> Ok.  What is your plan?
> 
>  For all of you who are against Ron Paul Plan can you please tell me in details what is your plan. I am honestly curious. I dont mock you. I am not condescending.*  I honestly want to know what is your plan.* No conflicts. No insults. No patronizing. No ad hominem attacks. Just your plan. Please.


If Ron Paul is not able to act with a secure confidence within the GOP and get them to accept that his ideas are the future path to fiscal sanity and citizen's natural rights to walk free from government intervention in their lives at every freaking corner, then get his wares and establish the Ron Paul Revolutionary Party. No more no less.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ok.  What is your plan?
> 
>  For all of you who are against Ron Paul Plan can you please tell me in details what is your plan. I am honestly curious. I dont mock you. I am not condescending.*  I honestly want to know what is your plan.* No conflicts. No insults. No patronizing. No ad hominem attacks. Just your plan. Please.


Not speaking for Carlybee, but since we're on the same page here are my suggestion(s)...not plan, per se:

Work within a party that would welcome us...maybe the Libertarian party or some new party that we start.
Yes, that's difficult, but it's worth it.
No, I have no idea how to get that done, but there are some very clever people on this site and I would be willing to work to help them.

The GOP does not deserve our money or our time.  Anything we do would be better than that.  I will not sell my soul to the GOP.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you have a plan that you believe is a better one and that also furthers the mission of this forum, why don't you start a new thread and present it?


see post #653

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

I see updates like this everyday, from all over the nation, from people who spend more time getting things done than talking about getting things done

*Chris Dixon*13 hours ago via mobile


_Tonight, I was appointed to chair the Androscoggin County Republican Party's U.S. Congress Legislation Monitoring committee!_

----------


## tbone717

> The GOP does not deserve our money or our time.  Anything we do would be better than that.  I will not sell my soul to the GOP.


For the thousandth time - the GOP is not a monolithic entity, it is comprised of the people that make up the committees.  If you parish's committee was made up of 100% liberty-minded people than YOU are the GOP.  You are the ones that endorse candidates, you are the ones that decide who the fundraising efforts go to.  You are the ones who organize the GOTV efforts, voter registration events, etc.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> For the thousandth time - the GOP is not a monolithic entity, it is comprised of the people that make up the committees.  If you parish's committee was made up of 100% liberty-minded people than YOU are the GOP.  You are the ones that endorse candidates, you are the ones that decide who the fundraising efforts go to.  You are the ones who organize the GOTV efforts, voter registration events, etc.


And what about the Republican *National* Committee?  You just plan to ignore them in  your state?  How is that going to work out for ya?

----------


## Carlybee

> Passive aggressive. You think Europe doesnt have MIC, Oligarchy, lobbyists, Fed (equivalent) etc? Still doesnt change my point: Splitting never works out. Starting new party is even harder. 
> 
> 
> Ok.  What is your plan?
> 
>  For all of you who are against Ron Paul Plan can you please tell me in details what is your plan. I am honestly curious. I dont mock you. I am not condescending.*  I honestly want to know what is your plan.* No conflicts. No insults. No patronizing. No ad hominem attacks. Just your plan. Please.



Passive/Aggressive?  Thank you Doctor Barrex...glad you can not only discern tone and inflection on the internet but can also diagnose psychological issues.  For the 100th time, there is no plan.  There is a discussion.  No one has claimed to have a plan.  I have stated several times that I have no intention of what I personally plan to be doing until after the convention and I am sticking by that.  I will still cheer on our delegates and I will still vote for NOBP, no matter what.  So take it as ad hominem as you wish (which reminds me of something a libtard would say).  As long as people think like you do, no one will ever get past the left/right lie.   When Ron Paul comes out after the convention with a concise plan we shall see...but right now his campaign has squashed any desire I have to be a part of the GOP because I won't compromise my principles and lie in order to "fit in"...and anyone who says that's not what they are going to have to do is kidding themselves. (See Amash's vote on Israel....see Rand's endorsement of Romney).  It's a GAME of politics.  In 100 years...if we last that long as a sovereign country, people will still be trying to play the stupid game.

----------


## tbone717

> And what about the Republican *National* Committee?  You just plan to ignore them in  your state?  How is that going to work out for ya?


Local committees influence the make up of the state committees.  The state committees influence the make up of the national committee.  Reince Priebus was formerly the chair of the WI state committee.  Prior to being on the state committee he served on a local committee. 

Again, it all begins in your own backyard.

----------


## Carlybee

> Local committees influence the make up of the state committees.  The state committees influence the make up of the national committee.  Reince Priebus was formerly the chair of the WI state committee.  Prior to being on the state committee he served on a local committee. 
> 
> Again, it all begins in your own backyard.


How many decades do you suppose it will take to replace all the neocons?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> And what about the Republican *National* Committee?  You just plan to ignore them in  your state?  How is that going to work out for ya?


About the RNC, here is a sampling...

[QUOTE]Linda Bean (a Ron Paul supporter) elected to represent Maine on RNC platform committeetoday, beating back prior RNC committeewoman in a 10 to 7 vote. [/QUOTE]



> http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/05/0...-this-weekend/
> 
> By Sunday in Maine, Republican convention-goers elected Paul supporters as their state party secretary and chairman, changing the convention atmosphere and altering party operations going forward.  They also elected the state’s RNC committee man and woman, and swept four of four electors... Other recent developments in Nevada include Paul supporters electing a Paul-friendly state GOP chair by a 2-to-1 margin, the election of a Paul-friendly Nye County GOP chair, acquiring a two-thirds controlling interest in the Clark County GOP executive board, and gaining control of both of the state’s RNC slots.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> And what about the Republican *National* Committee?  You just plan to ignore them in  your state?  How is that going to work out for ya?


In order to change that we gotta reclaim our state parties to get people moved up to national. Either way, it's not like the RNC has done much for state parties outside shoving R-money down our throats. MN was running a million $ shortfall prior to the Paul swiftboat and I didn't see the RNC come to the rescue. Frankly, who needs them. We just spend our money in states where we have more say in the party and on candidates that really are pro-liberty. Since Paul came on the big scene in '08, there's been less and less activity in the third parties than ever and more activity in the liberty wing of the GOP. If some people want to play third party politics, that's fine. I stopped playing third party games when I got tired of spinning my wheels. Been there, done that.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> How many decades do you suppose it will take to replace all the neocons?


Don't need to replace them all, just have a majority in the party and control the leadership. Let them be the outsiders. The conservative base will side with us when the issues are laid out on the table. They aren't apparatchiks that live and breathe party politics, they usually care about their kids' futures and all things pertaining to that. The debt and job availability being the main issue, it's clear to see that the insiders have had the wrong answers for too long.

----------


## Carlybee

Okay let me put this another way.  What if some of us who are small (l) libertarians don't want to be Republicans?  Even though we still admire, respect and care for Ron Paul and see him as our ideological mentor?  Does that mean that because this board is apparently going to be "Change the GOP from within" only now, that we no longer have a voice or can no longer voice our dissent with that plan on this board?  What do we tell the Democrats who we talked into changing their party to vote for Ron Paul?  Just say...sorry either BE a Republican or piss off?   CajunCocoa and I have both spent literally years trying to change the minds of people who we knew were pro second amendment and anti-war, but who were members of the Democrat party and have had some modest success.  That's not right.  It is not our place to tell people if they want liberty they have to acquiesce to a PARTY mentality when we spent a lot of time convincing them that it's not about parties but about saving our country.  Plus not everyone who is pro-liberty necessarily embraces all of the social conservative issues.  THAT is why I (not speaking for anyone else) think there has to be a discussion of an alternative.

----------


## tbone717

> How many decades do you suppose it will take to replace all the neocons?


I don't know but it will be a lot less time then it will be to build a third party that has the ability to elect someone to Congress.  So far, not one has been able to do so.

All it takes is for liberty activists to run for the offices and we can see a massive swing.  It just takes people with the desire, the knowledge and the ability to demonstrate the competency to do the job to a relatively small amount of people.  For example, our committeeman won his seat with only 285 votes - and I don't live in the middle of nowhere.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't know but it will be a lot less time then it will be to build a third party that has the ability to elect someone to Congress.  So far, not one has been able to do so.
> 
> All it takes is for liberty activists to run for the offices and we can see a massive swing.  It just takes people with the desire, the knowledge and the ability to demonstrate the competency to do the job to a relatively small amount of people.  For example, our committeeman won his seat with only 285 votes - and I don't live in the middle of nowhere.


Not one has been able to do so because they haven't had the fire in their bellies to do so.  IMO.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Okay let me put this another way.  What if some of us who are small (l) libertarians don't want to be Republicans?  Even though we still admire, respect and care for Ron Paul and see him as our ideological mentor?  Does that mean that because this board is apparently going to be "Change the GOP from within" only now, that we no longer have a voice or can no longer voice our dissent with that plan on this board?  What do we tell the Democrats who we talked into changing their party to vote for Ron Paul?  Just say...sorry either BE a Republican or piss off?   CajunCocoa and I have both spent literally years trying to change the minds of people who we knew were pro second amendment and anti-war, but who were members of the Democrat party and have had some modest success.  That's not right.  It is not our place to tell people if they want liberty they have to acquiesce to a PARTY mentality when we spent a lot of time convincing them that it's not about parties but about saving our country.  Plus not everyone who is pro-liberty necessarily embraces all of the social conservative issues.  THAT is why I (not speaking for anyone else) think there has to be a discussion of an alternative.


I have few problems with people talking about all kinds of strategies, but do note that this thread is a "Discussion of Working inside the GOP". If that does not interest you, why are you commenting in this particular thread. 

The fact remains that this particular strategy is the one RP has led people to, so there will naturally be resistance to stopping following RP and going off on our own. This is Ron Paul Forums...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Passive/Aggressive?  Thank you Doctor Barrex...glad you can not only discern tone and inflection on the internet but can also diagnose psychological issues.  For the 100th time, there is no plan.  There is a discussion.  No one has claimed to have a plan.  I have stated several times that I have no intention of what I personally plan to be doing until after the convention and I am sticking by that.  I will still cheer on our delegates and I will still vote for NOBP, no matter what.  So take it as ad hominem as you wish (which reminds me of something a libtard would say).  As long as people think like you do, no one will ever get past the left/right lie.   When Ron Paul comes out after the convention with a concise plan we shall see...but right now his campaign has squashed any desire I have to be a part of the GOP because I won't compromise my principles and lie in order to "fit in"...and anyone who says that's not what they are going to have to do is kidding themselves. (See Amash's vote on Israel....see Rand's endorsement of Romney).  It's a GAME of politics.  In 100 years...if we last that long as a sovereign country, people will still be trying to play the stupid game.


+rep

----------


## tbone717

> Not one has been able to do so because they haven't had the fire in their bellies to do so.  IMO.


Good luck with that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have few problems with people talking about all kinds of strategies, but *do note that this thread is a "Discussion of Working inside the GOP". If that does not interest you, why are you commenting in this particular thread.* 
> 
> The fact remains that this particular strategy is the one RP has led people to, so there will naturally be resistance to stopping following RP and going off on our own. This is Ron Paul Forums...


Do  note that the original title of the thread was *The "we need to infiltrate the republican party" is making us look weak!


*See OP: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4511886

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I have few problems with people talking about all kinds of strategies, but do note that this thread is a "Discussion of Working inside the GOP". If that does not interest you, why are you commenting in this particular thread. 
> 
> The fact remains that this particular strategy is the one RP has led people to, so there will naturally be resistance to stopping following RP and going off on our own. This is Ron Paul Forums...


Amen. I've tried stating it different ways but you've described it best.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Do  note that the original title of the thread was [B]The "we need to infiltrate the republican party" is making us look weak!


Yep, I've been against the infiltrate and takeover concepts and have recently decided to relinquish using the "purge" term when dealing with insider hackers, but I'm not above pushing the corrupt bastards to the side.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have few problems with people talking about all kinds of strategies, but do note that this thread is a "Discussion of Working inside the GOP". If that does not interest you, why are you commenting in this particular thread. 
> 
> The fact remains that *this particular strategy is the one RP has led people to, so there will naturally be resistance to stopping following RP and going off on our own.* This is Ron Paul Forums...





> Amen. I've tried stating it different ways but you've described it best.


Now you're starting to sound like an Obamabot.  If Ron Paul told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?  I love Ron Paul, but when I think he's wrong I will say so.  Ron Paul doesn't think for me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yep, I've been against the infiltrate and takeover concepts and have recently decided to relinquish using the "purge" term when dealing with insider hackers, but I'm not above pushing the corrupt bastards to the side.


The corrupt bastards will push you back. That's why they call them "corrupt bastards".  Don't say I didn't warn you.

----------


## Carlybee

Fine..a moderator has confirmed what I thought so I will bow out. I am quite aware it is a private forum and therefore not bound by freedom of speech issues.
Good luck because y'all are about to lose a lot of supporters like myself by trying to force us to march in lockstep.  Of course you can say don't let the door hit ya...but multiply me by many who are sitting out here confused by the actions of the campaign and not too surprised by the actions of the GOP machine.

----------


## tbone717

> The corrupt bastards will push you back. That's why they call them "corrupt bastards".  Don't say I didn't warn you.


If one truly believes what they stand for is right, then they should not be afraid to defend their beliefs and principles.  If fear of someone fighting back is going to prevent someone from systematically moving forward, then they were not cut out for this in the first place.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If one truly believes what they stand for is right, then they should not be afraid to defend their beliefs and principles.  If fear of someone fighting back is going to prevent someone from systematically moving forward, then they were not cut out for this in the first place.


I don't disagree with that.  What remains to be seen is which side comes out the winner.  Good luck!

----------


## tbone717

> Good luck because y'all are about to lose a lot of supporters like myself by trying to force us to march in lockstep.  Of course you can say don't let the door hit ya...but multiply me by many who are sitting out here confused by the actions of the campaign and not too surprised by the actions of the GOP machine.


It is a shame, because there a many people with skills and talents that could be useful moving forward.  Nonetheless, this happens when any diverse group of people moves from their original shared goal onto the next step.  It is my hope though that many of the people that are new to activism (those that have come on board in the last 5 years) will see the wisdom in Paul's vision and learn to best utilize their time and energy on setting achievable goals.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Fine..a moderator has confirmed what I thought so I will bow out. I am quite aware it is a private forum and therefore not bound by freedom of speech issues.
> Good luck because y'all are about to lose a lot of supporters like myself by trying to force us to march in lockstep.  Of course you can say don't let the door hit ya...but multiply me by many who are sitting out here confused by the actions of the campaign and not too surprised by the actions of the GOP machine.


I'm curious how me stating my opinion (or anything I've said) is in any way, shape, or form, "trying to force us to march in lockstep" ???

I am wary (and weary) of such hyperbole...

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm curious how me stating my opinion (or anything I've said) is in any way, shape, or form, "trying to force us to march in lockstep" ???
> 
> I am wary (and weary) of such hyperbole...



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4540132

Sorry if I misread it but that's what it sounded like to me.  Since the original title of the thread was changed to say something completely different it leads one to believe that dissenting voices are unwelcome here. If that constitutes hyperbole then I don't know what else to say. I didn't realize that discussion equals derailment. Seems this topic was derailed from the get go though.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4540132
> 
> Sorry if I misread it but that's what it sounded like to me.  Since the original title of the thread was changed to say something completely different it leads one to believe that dissenting voices are unwelcome here. If that constitutes hyperbole then I don't know what else to say. I didn't realize that discussion equals derailment. Seems this topic was derailed from the get go though.


truth is that I am having trouble keeping track of all these threads... I do note that in this thread I see multiple people asking for the dissenters to start a thread with their own solution/strategy. This is direct evidence contrary to the feeling that "dissenting voices are unwelcome here". 

As far as I'm concerned people should respect Topic Starters intent. Many of these threads are about working in the GOP, not about the wisdom of working in the GOP; that is a separate topic.

And the terms "force/lockstep" certainly looks like hyperbole to me...

----------


## Carlybee

That wasn't the original title of the thread though. But fine.  We are going to start a poll and discussion thread about new party viability over at our forum if anyone is interested but you have to sign up..we screen for spammers.
That way it won't "derail" any discussions here. http://seekingamerica.org/topic/9651580/1/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> truth is that I am having trouble keeping track of all these threads... I do note that in this thread I see multiple people asking for the dissenters to start a thread with their own solution/strategy. This is direct evidence contrary to the feeling that "dissenting voices are unwelcome here". 
> 
> *As far as I'm concerned people should respect Topic Starters intent. Many of these threads are about working in the GOP, not about the wisdom of working in the GOP; that is a separate topic.*
> 
> And the terms "force/lockstep" certainly looks like hyperbole to me...


Not trying to start an argument with ya, but if you read the OP's post, you will see that questioning the wisdom of working in the GOP IS/WAS the original intent of this topic.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That wasn't the original title of the thread though. But fine.  We are going to start a poll and discussion thread about new party viability over at our forum if anyone is interested but you have to sign up..we screen for spammers.
> That way it won't "derail" any discussions here. http://seekingamerica.org/topic/9651580/1/


What she said.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Not trying to start an argument with ya, but if you read the OP's post, you will see that questioning the wisdom of working in the GOP IS/WAS the original intent of this topic.




Fair enough. No one is perfect (and I just proved that, once again  )

----------


## Carlybee

It's okay...some of these topics are starting to run together because I feel like I am repeating myself.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What she said.


I looked at that board for a bit. Seems like an interesting platform although I only read some of the science speak. Maybe a couple other tid bits here and there.

----------


## Carlybee

> I looked at that board for a bit. Seems like an interesting platform although I only read some of the science speak. Maybe a couple other tid bits here and there.


Thanks for checking it out...it's a small rather inactive place I'm afraid but we do have some pretty good discussions.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Perhaps you missed it.  
> 
> We have Kurt Bills winning the Republican nomination and he needs our help to win the general. We have Thomas Massie winning his Republican nomination. Chris Hightower won his Republican nomination too. And those are just for starters. We have liberty folks in leadership positions in the GOP in more than a few states and that will make it much easier in those states to get liberty people elected. It looks like the Audit the Fed legislation might just pass this time. And Ron Paul has brought in a whole ton of more people to this movement.
> 
> There was never a magic bullet to turnaround in one swell swoop what has taken decades to destroy. It's going to take a lot of more hard work and strategy. But, we are making progress. Not as fast as we wanted, but we are making progress. What's the alternative? Just gripe and give up?


Here, here!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> There are 535 Congressional seats, over 7000 state legislatures seats, 50 Governors, numerous other state offices (Lt Gov, State Treasurer, etc), and tens of thousands of local government offices.  While POTUS is the big one, it is not the only office that the Liberty Movement needs to be concerned about.  So if Rand doesn't run in 2016?  So what - there will be plenty of people at the congressional, state and local level that will need support.  
> 
> One cannot control what goes on around them, we can only control what we ourselves do with our time and money.  Those who are committed to full time grassroots activism can do what we know works.  Show up at meetings, run for committee offices, support liberty minded candidates as they run for office, and work as hard as humanly possible in our own backyards.  
> 
> While I can appreciate your concerns for the "what ifs" of the future, many of us are focused on what we can do right now.  We have a lot of great candidates running for office this year (Cruz, Bills, Kerry B, Amash, Massie, etc, etc, etc)  - these folks need money and volunteers.


Another excellent post!  We have hundreds of liberty candidates running around the country, and a slew of state offices.  These are exciting times!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Come on... It's RPF and a site based on Ron (for now) likely will be following his '08 mission of "restoring the GOP to its roots". It appeared back then that that plan was pie-in-the-sky but nobody can say that we haven't had many successes since. Yall did great in LA, much better than we did here in Mich, so I can't for the life of me see why you wouldn't be proud and pumped to keep pushing the corrupt bastards to the side.


No kidding.  That guy is from one of the better Ron Paul states and he's on here arguing with us.  Priorities

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No kidding.  That guy is from one of the better Ron Paul states and he's on here arguing with us.  Priorities


Small correction:  I'm not a guy.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> No kidding.  That guy is from one of the better Ron Paul states and he's on here arguing with us.  Priorities


Our priority is to bring AMERICA back to its roots in liberty, not just one party's. RPF forums reflects, or should reflect, the pro-Paul grassroots, but it is not the RP campaign, so it should not act like Paul is the last word on everything. Paul became who he is now because the broader liberty movement enlarged him. The grassroots is the movement, not any one man. 

Paul's GOP reform plan has shown some success, but it is an inferior plan, as discussed at length on this thread. The purpose of pointing this out has not been to argue, but to save a lot of people frustration and wasted effort trying to gain major influence in a structure dominated by multi-billion dollar special interests (banks, defense contractos, AIPAC et al) who will outflank us at every turn, if history is any guide. Besides, BOTH major parties, and the mainstream media as well, need reforming. We are better positioned to acheive this as an independent movement, that coordinates (not denigrates) supporters within and without the GOP to get liberty candidates elected.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Our priority is to bring AMERICA back to its roots in liberty, not just one party's. RPF forums reflects, or should reflect, the pro-Paul grassroots, but it is not the RP campaign, so it should not act like Paul is the last word on everything. Paul became who he is now because the broader liberty movement enlarged him. The grassroots is the movement, not any one man. 
> 
> Paul's GOP reform plan has shown some success, but it is an inferior plan, as discussed at length on this thread. The purpose of pointing this out has not been to argue, but to save a lot of people frustration and wasted effort trying to gain major influence in a structure dominated by multi-billion dollar special interests (banks, defense contractos, AIPAC et al) who will outflank us at every turn, if history is any guide. Besides, BOTH major parties, and the mainstream media as well, need reforming. We are better positioned to acheive this as an independent movement, that coordinates (not denigrates) supporters within and without the GOP to get liberty candidates elected.


You've said this better than I ever could.  Thank you, and +rep.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Our priority is to bring AMERICA back to its roots in liberty, not just one party's. RPF forums reflects, or should reflect, the pro-Paul grassroots, but it is not the RP campaign, so it should not act like Paul is the last word on everything. Paul became who he is now because the broader liberty movement enlarged him. The grassroots is the movement, not any one man. 
> 
> Paul's GOP reform plan has shown some success, but it is an inferior plan, as discussed at length on this thread. The purpose of pointing this out has not been to argue, but to save a lot of people frustration and wasted effort trying to gain major influence in a structure dominated by multi-billion dollar special interests (banks, defense contractos, AIPAC et al) who will outflank us at every turn, if history is any guide. Besides, BOTH major parties, and the mainstream media as well, need reforming. *We are better positioned to acheive this as an independent movement, that coordinates (not denigrates) supporters within and without the GOP to get liberty candidates elected.*


What makes you think that we still aren't an independent movement?  We can be registered as Republicans and still be liberty-activists.  I never entered my mind that people would stop being liberty-activists, whether registered as Republicans, or not.

Political parties are just tools to get our guys elected.  Nothing more and nothing less.

----------


## tbone717

> What makes you think that we still aren't an independent movement?  We can be registered as Republicans and still be liberty-activists.  I never entered my mind that people would stop being liberty-activists, whether registered as Republicans, or not.
> 
> Political parties are just tools to get our guys elected.  Nothing more and nothing less.


This seems to be a big misunderstanding that people have.  Our goal as activists is not to get Republicans elected, but to get liberty candidates elected, and the means by which that will occur is through the GOP.  By involving ourselves in our local GOP, or by running for committee seats we can create a far more fertile ground for liberty candidates to win primaries and general elections.  It has been mentioned in here time and time again, that the county GOP committee has access to the infrastructure, funding and resources needed to win elections.  Our committeeman here in my ward happens to be a solid guy and a personal friend.  He has a list of every single home in the ward, who lives in the home, their registration info, and how often they voted.  That information is very valuable when it comes time to organize canvassing activities in the ward.  Additionally, the county committee endorses candidates in the primary, and through that endorsement and the work of the committee the vote can be steered in one direction or another come election day.

While I am sure there are some well-intentioned people that may run on a CP or LP ticket, history has proven that they do not have the ability to win office at the state or federal level.  With each of us only having a limited amount of time and money to devote to a candidate we need to make the best use of our resources.

----------


## Barrex



----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


If you don't have a plan B, you've planned to fail.

----------


## Carlybee

> What makes you think that we still aren't an independent movement?  We can be registered as Republicans and still be liberty-activists.  I never entered my mind that people would stop being liberty-activists, whether registered as Republicans, or not.
> 
> Political parties are just tools to get our guys elected.  Nothing more and nothing less.


And the fact that they know that is part of the reason we've been so marginalized at caucuses and primaries. Ie, we really don't like you, we just want to use you to get elected.

----------


## Carlybee

> What makes you think that we still aren't an independent movement?  We can be registered as Republicans and still be liberty-activists.  I never entered my mind that people would stop being liberty-activists, whether registered as Republicans, or not.
> 
> Political parties are just tools to get our guys elected.  Nothing more and nothing less.


And the fact that they know that is part of the reason we've been so marginalized at caucuses and primaries. Ie, we really don't like you, we just want to use you to get elected.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And the fact that they know that is part of the reason we've been so marginalized at caucuses and primaries. Ie, we really don't like you, we just want to use you to get elected.


Duh!

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> While I am sure there are some well-intentioned people that may run on a CP or LP ticket, history has proven that they do not have the ability to win office at the state or federal level.  With each of us only having a limited amount of time and money to devote to a candidate we need to make the best use of our resources.


Agreed, but running on the CP or LP lines to win office is not what I suggested as an alternative. The main resources that have helped the movement get our candidates elected, or made them competitive instead of just educational candidacies, have been a NATIONAL mailing list, internet-based networking, a bank of non-aligned or LP/CP activists, the meet-up groups, the CFL PAC, concepts like the money bomb, all of which were independent of the regular big party infrastructure. The major political parties are just tools to get elected, correct, but the main reason to run on their lines is because most districts are hardwired to be safe Democratic or Republican seats, not because of their internal resources.  We can utilize either major party situationally to our purposes without making ourselves dependent on those resources.

That is mainly what I mean by "independent," as it does not have to rely on that structure to win. It means not playing politics within that structure to negotiate access to the resources, and not being vulnerable to compromise when the big PACs and donors offer billion dollar perks to the elected candidate's district (or millions to the candidate directly). If we proceed separate from an official party and lose races, we still have a movement to carry on with. If we proceed joined at the hip to the enemy, we stand to not just lose elections anyway, but become disintegrated as a movement as well. Like all the others.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Small correction:  I'm not a guy.


I stand corrected.  A Yorkie dog named cocoa.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> And the fact that they know that is part of the reason we've been so marginalized at caucuses and primaries. Ie, we really don't like you, we just want to use you to get elected.


As opposed to holding a third party caucus at the local Olive Garden?  What's the point of electing someone to wear a Burger King crown for a day?  Those in power would love nothing more than if we made ourselves irrelevant again and disappeared off the political scene. The Liberty movement is currently electing Federal House seats, United State Senate seats.  Chairmanship and all kinds of positions within the party hierarchy.  State House and Senate seats are being targeted by hundreds of liberty candidates.  What Ron Paul suggested is working, we're having influence and impact.  You guys have absolutely nothing that can compare to the results we're having.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Agreed, but running on the CP or LP lines to win office is not what I suggested as an alternative. The main resources that have helped the movement get our candidates elected, or made them competitive instead of just educational candidacies, have been a NATIONAL mailing list, internet-based networking, a bank of non-aligned or LP/CP activists, the meet-up groups, the CFL PAC, concepts like the money bomb, all of which were independent of the regular big party infrastructure. The major political parties are just tools to get elected, correct, but the main reason to run on their lines is because most districts are hardwired to be safe Democratic or Republican seats, not because of their internal resources.  We can utilize either major party situationally to our purposes without making ourselves dependent on those resources.
> 
> That is mainly what I mean by "independent," as it does not have to rely on that structure to win. It means not playing politics within that structure to negotiate access to the resources, and not being vulnerable to compromise when the big PACs and donors offer billion dollar perks to the elected candidate's district (or millions to the candidate directly). If we proceed separate from an official party and lose races, we still have a movement to carry on with. If we proceed joined at the hip to the enemy, we stand to not just lose elections anyway, but become disintegrated as a movement as well. Like all the others.


Ron Paul found success and was able to ignite this movement because he got into nationally televised debates *within a major party*.  If it wasn't for that 99.99% wouldn't be here and this forum wouldn't exist either.  It has largely nothing to do with what you said.  Our candidates need to have a realistic chance at winning for people to passionately volunteer and donate millions of dollars.  That is where everything you discussed above crashes into the wall of reality.

Ron Paul is the greatest political figure in our lifetime to have run for the Presidency.  And even though he has all these wonderful attributes they would've went unnoticed if he ran under a third party label.  Same with Rand, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash.  You could be the greatest person in the world and it amounts to squat if you don't have an elevated platform for your ideas.  Case in point, take the exchange between Dr. Paul and Rudy Giuliani.  That moment _made_ Ron Paul.  Those moments are only possible within a major party.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As opposed to holding a third party caucus at the local Olive Garden?  What's the point of electing someone to wear a Burger King crown for a day?  Those in power would love nothing more than if we made ourselves irrelevant again and disappeared off the political scene. The Liberty movement is currently electing Federal House seats, United State Senate seats.  Chairmanship and all kinds of positions within the party hierarchy.  State House and Senate seats are being targeted by hundreds of liberty candidates.  What Ron Paul suggested is working, we're having influence and impact.  You guys have absolutely nothing that can compare to the results we're having.


Every time I read one of your antagonistic scribbles, I'm reminded of Lawrence Odonnell.

----------


## cajuncocoa

As Kenny Rogers once sang "you gotta know when to fold 'em"

We built this movement from Ron Paul's exposure in the GOP...yes, it's good that he participated in debates (when they allowed him to speak).

And in return our votes were stolen, our delegates cheated (and some even got their hips and fingers broken and/or dislocated by GOP thugs).

The GOP doesn't deserve to have us continue in their ranks.  If you build a new Ron Paul party based on this r3volution, we will follow.  If you stay in the GOP, some of us will watch from the sidelines...waiting to ascertain that any candidate that wears the "Liberty" label is worthy before donating.  

We came, we saw, we used the GOP....time to fold 'em.

----------


## romancito

Double post - please excuse.

----------


## romancito

> As Kenny Rogers once sang "you gotta know when to fold 'em"
> 
> We built this movement from Ron Paul's exposure in the GOP...yes, it's good that he participated in debates (when they allowed him to speak).
> 
> And in return our votes were stolen, our delegates cheated (and some even got their hips and fingers broken and/or dislocated by GOP thugs).
> 
> The GOP doesn't deserve to have us continue in their ranks.  If you build a new Ron Paul party based on this r3volution, we will follow.  If you stay in the GOP, some of us will watch from the sidelines...waiting to ascertain that any candidate that wears the "Liberty" label is worthy before donating.  
> 
> We came, we saw, we used the GOP....time to fold 'em.


That's exactly what I say. People think the future will be like the past. No. Tomorrow will not be like today. The GOP is the Fall of Republicanism - Neoromanism, yuk. To that I say, run, run as fast as you can from that. Lets make democracy work for the young-ens. 

Basta ya de la absoluta hipocrecia.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As Kenny Rogers once sang "you gotta know when to fold 'em"
> 
> We built this movement from Ron Paul's exposure in the GOP...yes, it's good that he participated in debates (when they allowed him to speak).
> 
> And in return our votes were stolen, our delegates cheated (and some even got their hips and fingers broken and/or dislocated by GOP thugs).
> 
> The GOP doesn't deserve to have us continue in their ranks.  If you build a new Ron Paul party based on this r3volution, we will follow.  If you stay in the GOP, some of us will watch from the sidelines...waiting to ascertain that any candidate that wears the "Liberty" label is worthy before donating.  
> 
> We came, we saw, we used the GOP....time to fold 'em.


Some of us who are old enough to have learned a thing or three through the years understand that the fight for liberty started long before there ever was a Ron Paul in the mix. And although he's been a shining star in waking others up it must also be noted that there be wolves out there who would jump on his bandwagon. Already, we have seen language from some of these folks that once elevated to some meaningful position of relevance decide to forget where they came from...assuming they are actually a part of the TEA Party that _was_ as opposed to the instant stuff that is so popular these days.

To sit here and separate folks with the old us and you language simply reflects the days of the GOP speaking of the libertarian. It also makes one wonder just how quickly the ways of the establishment GOP rub off on some who are placed in a position of relevance.

My biggest gripe in the matter thus far as that I in no way want a tea party patriot mindset playing the bringer of liberty role. Especially after debating them for years.

----------


## tbone717

In all honesty, I am tired of the detractors.  Real solutions are needed, rather than theory.  We need people who are willing to do something, not simply talk about doing something.  We need people that are willing to get out from behind their computers and get out and meet real people.  We need people that are able to engage in political discourse with people that may have different views than they do, not people who want to sit around with like-minded people and complain about how bad things are.

So to keep the focus on the task at hand I wanted to throw out a few steps that any one us can do to be politically active and continue this long standing plan to reform the GOP.  Feel free to add some thoughts to this:

1)  Run for committeeman/woman.  The importance of this office has been discussed before, so I don't need to add much to that.  

2)  Run for school board, township office, or other municipal seats.  While these offices govern locally, those that hold these seats do have the ability to network in their community which can be beneficial for campaigning for those running for state and federal seats.

3)  Volunteering for the local GOP.  For those who are unable to run for an elected seat, there are many ways you can still be involved at the county level.  Most larger counties do have volunteer opportunities available for fundraising events, voter registration drives, etc.  Again, this is a good way to meet people in your community and become someone who has influence over the electorate.

Any others?

----------


## Natural Citizen

[QUOTE=tbone717;4541921]In all honesty, I am tired of the detractors.  Real solutions are needed, rather than theory.  We need people who are willing to do something, not simply talk about doing something.  We need people that are willing to get out from behind their computers and get out and meet real people.  We need people that are able to engage in political discourse with people that may have different views than they do, not people who want to sit around with like-minded people and complain about how bad things are QUOTE]

Well. Don't go thinking folks cannot and do not engage. You're wrong about that. They do. In all of your wisdom to achieve public throne of sort I can see where it would be easy to neglect the discussion with the lady at the supermarket checkout trying to rub two nickels together for bread and milk for the kids. Or the chat with the neighbor out by the street in the morning while retreiving the newspaper. Or the parent sitting beside you at juniors tee ball game. Or the student debating on whether to take out an over priced loan for an education that will serve only those who made the buck off it since the old men who control infrastructure wish it to remain the same.

Don't get so full of yourself with aspects of life you may find to be...tiring. That's obtuse.  

People engage. Every day of every week of every month all year long. And they'll continue. long after those cherished thrones become occupied. It's always been that way.

What are you going to do if these discouraged people of like mind, who do exist and who are the majority, decide that the idea of empowering more politicians in the same game is why things are the way they are and have been and they don't want to stand under and provide support for the very existence of the left right paradigm that they may feel forms the walls of the political pyramid pushing toward each other constantly with Hegelian talking points serving only to provide support for the fat cat who sits atop of it all?

Regular people are to that point. These "ordinary Americans" as the anointed ones have chosen to deem them. I've heard before that it's the delegates that support it all. That's just wrong in scope. That's not the case. Heck, the Mass. video is proof enough of that. They were fairly quick to jump right up onto the next level and fuse with one of two opposing forces that _are_ the walls of that paradigm. Who is left on the bottom...still holding it up? The lady who left the store with just the loaf of bread? Which, btw, is a fraction of the weight it used to be. Still the same price though. Growth, I think she called it.

People engage, my friend. Make no mistake about it. Every day. And I suspect only a small fraction are well enough off to have a fireside chat about the shenanigans at the local Olive Garden as some may be so naive to imagine. That's no _theory_. It's a fact.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> In all honesty, I am tired of the detractors.  Real solutions are needed, rather than theory.  We need people who are willing to do something, not simply talk about doing something.  We need people that are willing to get out from behind their computers and get out and meet real people.  We need people that are able to engage in political discourse with people that may have different views than they do, not people who want to sit around with like-minded people and complain about how bad things are.
> 
> So to keep the focus on the task at hand I wanted to throw out a few steps that any one us can do to be politically active and continue this long standing plan to reform the GOP.  Feel free to add some thoughts to this:
> 
> 1)  Run for committeeman/woman.  The importance of this office has been discussed before, so I don't need to add much to that.  
> 
> 2)  Run for school board, township office, or other municipal seats.  While these offices govern locally, those that hold these seats do have the ability to network in their community which can be beneficial for campaigning for those running for state and federal seats.
> 
> 3)  Volunteering for the local GOP.  For those who are unable to run for an elected seat, there are many ways you can still be involved at the county level.  Most larger counties do have volunteer opportunities available for fundraising events, voter registration drives, etc.  Again, this is a good way to meet people in your community and become someone who has influence over the electorate.
> ...


Great post.  At some point the rubber has to meet the road.  There's people making things happen, like yourself and Michael Moresco, out there in the _real_ world and attaining _real_ results.  The detractors will forever be internet forum theorists; they'll never achieve anything of noteworthy substance because their ideas, to the extent they can be called that, are fundamentally flawed.

----------


## Carlybee

> Great post.  At some point the rubber has to meet the road.  There's people making things happen, like yourself and Michael Moresco, out there in the _real_ world and attaining _real_ results.  The detractors will forever be internet forum theorists; they'll never achieve anything of noteworthy substance because their ideas, to the extent they can be called that, are fundamentally flawed.


Sounds like baiting to me.  Given that you have no clue what the "detractors" are out here doing or how they are participating, I would say it's also a very broad statement.  Assuming that people who aren't "with you" must be internet trolls living in their momma's basement is not exactly the way to win people over.  I'm beginning to wonder if some of you are teenagers with some of the reckless, immature "us or them" remarks that are being made.   Perhaps some of you should take a class in how to recruit people or something because the way you are going about it is not working.  Keep throwing it out there though...sooner or later something may stick..like when you toss a piece of spaghetti on the ceiling.  Sometimes it sticks..sometimes it falls back down and lands on your face.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Great post.  At some point the rubber has to meet the road.  There's people making things happen, like yourself and Michael Moresco, out there in the _real_ world and attaining _real_ results.  The detractors will forever be internet forum theorists; they'll never achieve anything of noteworthy substance because their ideas, to the extent they can be called that, are fundamentally flawed.


While I can agree that the process is all that we have in our current state and that it _can_ work, I don't particularly agree that those who have been hit the hardest have a voice in the discussion at the next level after hearing dialogue from some recent delegates. Which is basically what I was saying. It's not like they don't know what Romney has been supporting. They do. He's very open about it. For this demograph to think that new faces in an established party will do anything to help them after they explicitely say they'll support the establishment politicians platform is absurd to them. You must agree with that at the very least.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Sounds like baiting to me.  Given that you have no clue what the "detractors" are out here doing or how they are participating, I would say it's also a very broad statement.  Assuming that people who aren't "with you" must be internet trolls living in their momma's basement is not exactly the way to win people over.  I'm beginning to wonder if some of you are teenagers with some of the reckless, immature "us or them" remarks that are being made.   Perhaps some of you should take a class in how to recruit people or something because the way you are going about it is not working.  Keep throwing it out there though...sooner or later something may stick..like when you toss a piece of spaghetti on the ceiling.  Sometimes it sticks..sometimes it falls back down and lands on your face.


I thought the old "they'll never achieve anything" gag was a hoot. It's not like some of us just opened up the old crackerjack box and "poof" you're a physicist. Some stuff takes a lot of time and hard work, you know. Whatever though.  Was funny to read that.

----------


## tbone717

> Great post.  At some point the rubber has to meet the road.  There's people making things happen, like yourself and Michael Moresco, out there in the _real_ world and attaining _real_ results.  The detractors will forever be internet forum theorists; they'll never achieve anything of noteworthy substance because their ideas, to the extent they can be called that, are fundamentally flawed.


One of the things that may be helpful moving forward is the development of a master list of every electoral district in the country, so that liberty activists can see if their district has an open committee seat or make a determination of who the committeeman/woman currently is and where they stand on the political spectrum.

One of the reasons the GOP is so heavily dominated by neo-conservatives, is because the neo-conservatives ran for these seats and thus took control of the party.  So a systematic approach of looking at each district and running a candidate for that seat would be a good way to evaluate our progress at the local level on a national scale.

Anyone up for the task of compiling that info?  Maybe we can get one person from each state to work on their own state.

----------


## romancito

> I thought the old "they'll never achieve anything" gag was a hoot. It's not like some of us just opened up the old crackerjack box and "poof" you're a physicist. Some stuff takes a lot of time and hard work, you know. Whatever though....


Yes, people like that think that birds, squirrels, ants and dear are not contributing to the Ron Paul campaign and are not contributing to the universe. Achieving is not as valuable as being true to nature. The worse part of achievers are the garbage, ill will and corrupting influence they spread.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Ron Paul found success and was able to ignite this movement because he got into nationally televised debates *within a major party*.  If it wasn't for that 99.99% wouldn't be here and this forum wouldn't exist either.  It has largely nothing to do with what you said.  Our candidates need to have a realistic chance at winning for people to passionately volunteer and donate millions of dollars.  That is where everything you discussed above crashes into the wall of reality.


Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 candidacies are a _prime example_ of what I'm talking about. He ran a principled third party type campaign within a major party primary in a winnable situation, using grassroots resources outside of the mainstream GOP machine to succeed as much as he did. The only thing the GOP and the debates provided was a 'main-event' stage to get his message out, and the electoral college leverage to win the election if nominated. I think a consistent liberty candidate, if they had Paul's skills, could have done the same thing in the Democratic primaries. The grassroots can likewise draw from the rich bank of independent-minded principled liberty candidates inside and outside the GOP, or inside or outside a third party, to run in a major party primary when an opening is available to win. If the candidate gets access to the party's resources, that's gravy, but the husk of the effort should be based on the grassroots infrastructure, not the big party machine.




> One of the reasons the GOP is so heavily dominated by neo-conservatives, is because the neo-conservatives ran for these seats and thus took control of the party.  So a systematic approach of looking at each district and running a candidate for that seat would be a good way to evaluate our progress at the local level on a national scale.


The neo-cons are also a prime example of the independent concept. They have integrated or coordinated their resources to have a strong influence on policy and seats in BOTH MAJOR PARTIES, without being subordinate to either. Instead of the grassroots, in their case the power base is institutional, as it comes from the defense industry, neo-con think tanks, and the Israeli lobby, but the principle is the same. You can obtain more success based mainly on applying pressure on a major party from without it, than from being squished from within it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The neo-cons are also a prime example of the independent concept. They have integrated or coordinated their resources to have a strong influence on policy and seats in BOTH MAJOR PARTIES, without being subordinate to either. Instead of the grassroots, in their case the power base is institutional, as it comes from the defense industry, neo-con think tanks, and the Israeli lobby, but the principle is the same. You can obtain more success based mainly on applying pressure on a major party from without it, than from being squished from within it.


What is also concerning is the fact that they may very well be leading where controlling the terms of controversy lay relevant to exposing the main stream media. What is frightening is that they are well on their way to _theoretically_ exposing bs by simply running interference with even _more_ bs. Problem, reaction, solution.

Of course, that's just an observation.

----------

