# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  LP Candidate acting as spoiler versus a Ron Paul endorsed candidate

## CaptLouAlbano

The latest polling in the VA Governor race shows Progressive Democrat Terry McAuliffe up by 7 points over Ron Paul endorsed Republican Ken Cuccinelli. LP candidate and gay marriage activist, Robert Sarvis is coming in last with 9 percent.  

Article on the latest polling is here:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/mcauli...rticle/2534902

----------


## Petar

Losertarians gonna loser. 

Yes I know that there are a lot of good people in the party, but $#@! like this has got to go.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Losertarians gonna loser. 
> 
> Yes I know that there are a lot of good people in the party, but $#@! like this has got to go.


To paraphrase Ben Franklin..."those who are willing to trade lower taxes, 2nd Amendment rights, and reduced regulation for homosexual marriage deserve neither."

----------


## cajuncocoa

Aw, I guess they didn't get the memo that they're only supposed to challenge Democratic candidates. 

Is this LP candidate with 9 percent (wow!) opposed to lower taxes and 2nd amendment rights?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Aw, I guess they didn't get the memo that they're only supposed to challenge Democratic candidates. 
> 
> Is this LP candidate with 9 percent (wow!) opposed to lower taxes and 2nd amendment rights?


No but McAuliffe is, and if the polling numbers match the election returns, McAuliffe is what they will get instead of a RON PAUL endorsed candidate, who (if the LP candidate was not in the race) could very well be in the lead.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No but McAuliffe is, and if the polling numbers match the election returns, McAuliffe is what they will get instead of a RON PAUL endorsed candidate, who (if the LP candidate was not in the race) could very well be in the lead.


Yes, I understand that he's spoiling the party for a RON PAUL endorsed candidate...but you said *"trade lower taxes and 2nd Amendment rights ... for homosexual marriage..."*  Just wanted you to admit that your statement isn't true.

Thank you.

As mentioned in another large thread a few weeks ago, the LP doesn't exist to assist the GOP or RON PAUL endorsed candidates.  Stop throwing a hissy-fit every time they poll better than you expect in an election.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> As mentioned in another large thread a few weeks ago, the LP doesn't exist to assist the GOP or RON PAUL endorsed candidates.  Stop throwing a hissy-fit every time they poll better than you expect in an election.


And what do they exist for?  They haven't won an election with a "home grown" candidate for a state legislature seat since the 80's. So what is their purpose?

Your constant defense of the LP, puts you on my radar as an enemy of the liberty movement.

----------


## Petar

> Yes, I understand that he's spoiling the party for a RON PAUL endorsed candidate...but you said *"trade lower taxes and 2nd Amendment rights ... for homosexual marriage..."*  Just wanted you to admit that your statement isn't true.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> As mentioned in another large thread a few weeks ago, the LP doesn't exist to assist the GOP or RON PAUL endorsed candidates.  Stop throwing a hissy-fit every time they poll better than you expect in an election.


The problem in this instance is that the LP doesn't exist to promote liberty, and is actually getting in the way of real actual progress. 

"Losertarianism" defined.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The problem in this instance is that the LP doesn't exist to promote liberty, and is actually getting in the way of real actual progress. 
> 
> "Losertarianism" defined.


And the true libertarian position at the state level would be that the government has no business being in the marriage business, that it should be left up to the churches.  A gubernatorial candidate calling for the government to redefine an English word, and force others to accept that definition is not a liberty position.

----------


## CaptUSA

Poll is biased, anyway.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Poll is biased, anyway.


How so, what do the crosstabs look like to you?  I'm perusing them now while doing some other work.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And what do they exist for?  They haven't won an election with a "home grown" candidate for a state legislature seat since the 80's. So what is their purpose?
> 
> Your constant defense of the LP, puts you on my radar as an enemy of the liberty movement.


So, my defense of a political party's right to field a candidate makes me an enemy of the liberty movement?  LOL 

And, that's really ironic coming from you.  

You act as if you believe the GOP should have the monopoly on all things right-of-center.  They haven't earned that right, RON PAUL endorsed candidates notwithstanding.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

You didn't answer the question - defend your position.

And what do they [the LP] exist for? They haven't won an election with a "home grown" candidate for a state legislature seat since the 80's. So what is their purpose?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You didn't answer the question - defend your position.
> 
> And what do they [the LP] exist for? They haven't won an election with a "home grown" candidate for a state legislature seat since the 80's. So what is their purpose?


My "position" has nothing to do with what the LP stands *for*.   My point is that they (and all other non-GOP parties) don't exist to assist the GOP in defeating only Democrats.

----------


## Petar

> So, my defense of a political party's right to field a candidate makes me an enemy of the liberty movement?  LOL 
> 
> And, that's really ironic coming from you.  
> 
> You act as if you believe the GOP should have the monopoly on all things right-of-center.  They haven't earned that right, RON PAUL endorsed candidates notwithstanding.



Way to totally misconstrue things as usual...

No one is saying that the LP doesn't have the "right" to field whoever they want, whenever they want, but what does that have to do with the fact that they are impeding liberty in this instance? 

"Principle > Party" is something that Losertarians should write on their mirrors to have a good look at every morning.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> My "position" has nothing to do with what the LP stands *for*.   My point is that they (and all other non-GOP parties) don't exist to assist the GOP in defeating only Democrats.


I didn't ask you what they stand for, I asked you what purpose do they serve?  

If their purpose is to promote liberty, then why would they run a candidate against Amash or Cuccinelli?  

I say they exist solely so a group of disaffected individuals can dress up and play politician once a year, just like the folks who attend Renaissance Fairs dress up and pretend to live in medieval times.  In most cases, the LP can be ignored as they are little more than a mere annoyance to the liberty movement, but in cases like this they are potentially impacting the work we are doing. They are not allies, they are enemies.

----------


## erowe1

Why in the world would the LP run a gay marriage activist?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Why in the world would the LP run a gay marriage activist?


Reading over the press releases on the LP of VA site, it appears he was the only one who was interested.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I didn't ask you what they stand for, I asked you what purpose do they serve?  
> 
> If their purpose is to promote liberty, then why would they run a candidate against Amash or Cuccinelli?  
> 
> I say they exist solely so a group of disaffected individuals can dress up and play politician once a year, just like the folks who attend Renaissance Fairs dress up and pretend to live in medieval times.  In most cases, the LP can be ignored as they are little more than a mere annoyance to the liberty movement, but in cases like this they are potentially impacting the work we are doing. They are not allies, they are enemies.


Why is the GOP going to allow other candidates to primary Rand?  If they do, they are our enemies, not our allies.  See  how that works?

Every day you expose yourself on this board as a GOP shill.

----------


## erowe1

> Why is the GOP going to allow other candidates to primary Rand?  If they do, they are our enemies, not our allies.  See  how that works?
> 
> Every day you expose yourself on this board as a GOP shill.


But everybody here knows the GOP are our enemies.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Why is the GOP going to allow other candidates to primary Rand?  If they do, they are our enemies, not our allies.  See  how that works?


If other candidates primary Rand, then those candidates are our enemies.  I have no argument with that.  

I am not a GOP shill.  The Liberty Movement is a movement that exists (and has for many years) within the GOP.  Our goal is to elect candidates to office, persuade voters to our side on various issues, and to influence other elected officials to support our positions on various issues.  Those who oppose us need to be defeated.  

Conversely, every day you expose yourself to be one who is infiltrating the Liberty Movement attempting to cast dispersion on our candidates, elected officials and our efforts.  You offer nothing of value or substance to the overall discussion.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If other candidates primary Rand, then those candidates are our enemies.  I have no argument with that.  
> 
> I am not a GOP shill.  The Liberty Movement is a movement that exists (and has for many years) within the GOP.  Our goal is to elect candidates to office, persuade voters to our side on various issues, and to influence other elected officials to support our positions on various issues.  Those who oppose us need to be defeated.  
> 
> Conversely, *every day you expose yourself to be one who is infiltrating the Liberty Movement attempting to cast dispersion on our candidates, elected officials and our efforts*.  You offer nothing of value or substance to the overall discussion.


Not at all.  I expose myself as someone who thinks more choice is better than less.  You know, like someone who supports freedom and liberty would do. That is all.

----------


## Cap

> But And most everybody here knows the GOP are our enemies.


FIFY

----------


## LibertyEagle

> FIFY


Don't forget that a bunch of us are in the GOP and that includes our liberty candidates.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Not at all.  I expose myself as someone who thinks more choice is better than less.  You know, like someone who supports freedom and liberty would do. That is all.


You are a shill for the opposition, and given how much you agree with the platform of the Green Party and the Socialist Party that is no surprise.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not at all.  I expose myself as someone who thinks more choice is better than less.  You know, like someone who supports freedom and liberty would do. That is all.


But here we face an inner problem and a paradox not only for libertarians, but for any radical, minority ideological movement. For marginal movements attract marginal people. Such movements are filled with what Germans call luftmenschen, people with no steady jobs, incomes, or visible means of support; the sort of people who instinctively alienate the mainstream bourgeois Americans, not so much by the content of their ideas, but by their style, lack of moorings, and “counterculture.” -- Murray Rothbard

If a serious opportunity should arise… for the movement to make a great leap into Middle America, into genuine influence in our society, that Libertarian luftmenschen will react not with enthusiasm but in fear and trembling. For far greater than their professed love of liberty is their hostility to bourgeois America. -- Murray Rothbard

OK, do we want libertarianism to win, to make a big dent in America, or do we not? If we don’t want to win, why be in a political party at all? Why not simply form a social club and forget victory? And if we’re really devoted to liberty, how can we not do our best for liberty to win? Are we really libertarians, or are we just playing around? -- Murray Rothbard

----------


## georgiaboy

> No but McAuliffe is, and if the polling numbers match the election returns, McAuliffe is what they will get instead of a RON PAUL endorsed candidate, who (if the LP candidate was not in the race) could very well be in the lead.


Well, exactly.  Thus far in this movement, we've used the LP to beat up on the GOP and get the GOP to see just what votes they're losing when they nominate a Democrat-lite candidate.  If the GOP nominates a constitutional conservative, we should do everything in our power to get that candidate elected as reward.

The strategy is all about winning elections with the right candidates, not splitting the conservative vote just 'cause we can.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Aw, I guess they didn't get the memo that they're only supposed to challenge Democratic candidates. 
> 
> Is this LP candidate with 9 percent (wow!) opposed to lower taxes and 2nd amendment rights?


No, it's not that, but you'd think that they would focus on states where there are not RP-endorsed candidates running.  Otherwise, they have to know they will be splitting the vote and giving the election to the Democrat.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No, it's not that, but you'd think that they would focus on states where there are not RP-endorsed candidates running.  Otherwise, they have to know they will be splitting the vote and giving the election to the Democrat.


Agreed, and to make matters worse the candidate is embracing a statist position on the gay marriage issue.  So much for the "libertarian principles" of the LP of VA.  Again, a bunch of people dressing up and playing politician, but this time they could very well wind up doing damage.  VA is a key state in 2016 and having one of our own as Governor could help Rand in both the primary and the general.  But of course that doesn't matter to the LP, which is why they are not allies in this battle - they are enemies, just like everyone else who stands in opposition to the work we do.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Don't forget that a bunch of us are in the GOP and that includes our liberty candidates.


Yes, but not always welcomed there.  It's good to have an alternative.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You are a shill for the opposition, and *given how much you agree with the platform of the Green Party and the Socialist Party that is no surprise*.


Out of context, that sounds really, really bad.  _Ooh, watch out....I could be Socialist!_  (Anyone who knows me personally would snort over that one).  

_In context_, the test showed I agree with both of them on Foreign Policy (I'll bet Ron Paul would too), and I agree on some domestic issues with the Green Party.  I'm antiwar and pro-civil liberties, so I'm totally OK with that.  (Link to issues where I agreed with the Socialist party here.)

----------


## Cap

A reminder

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, it's not that, but you'd think that they would focus on states where there are not RP-endorsed candidates running.  Otherwise, they have to know they will be splitting the vote and giving the election to the Democrat.


If their purpose was to assist the GOP, I'm sure that's what they would do.  But it's not, like it or not.  Obviously, I don't count myself among them, but there are many Libertarians (and small "L" libertarians) who don't agree with every stand Ron Paul takes on issues as well.  There are many who will not compromise on any issue at all (and that's not necessarily a bad thing).  

We are not a one-size- or two-sizes-fit-all electorate.  We NEED more choices, not less.

----------


## Carlybee

> And what do they exist for?  They haven't won an election with a "home grown" candidate for a state legislature seat since the 80's. So what is their purpose?
> 
> Your constant defense of the LP, puts you on my radar as an enemy of the liberty movement.


That's an idiotic statement. Vote GOP or die? That makes me want to send money to the LP. You shouldn't even use the term liberty since you are obviously clueless of its meaning. If you are saying the LP is supposed to kiss GOP butt just because Ron Paul endorsed someone I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I love how you bring up Rons name when you need to use him to make a point then in other posts you have all but called him a loser.

----------


## Carlybee

> You didn't answer the question - defend your position.
> 
> And what do they [the LP] exist for? They haven't won an election with a "home grown" candidate for a state legislature seat since the 80's. So what is their purpose?



They exist because they can and because thank God we have some choice on the ballot when both the GOP and Dem candidates are $#@!s.  If my choice for Tx senator was John Cornyn or an L candidate I would choose the L candidate. Don't like it? Tough.

----------


## Cap

I wonder if the good people of Germany, who were opposed to tyranny, thought they could change the Nazi party from within?

----------


## Carlybee

> Why in the world would the LP run a gay marriage activist?


Because they don't believe the govt should have a say in defining marriage.

----------


## Petar

Partisan politics is only valuable insomuch as it promotes liberty. In this instance the LP is doing the opposite.

----------


## Carlybee

> Partisan politics is only valuable insomuch as it promotes liberty. In this instance the LP is doing the opposite.


And calling them losertarians while at the same time expecting them to be in some pact to promote GOP candidates is kind of stupid.

----------


## Cap

> Partisan politics is only valuable insomuch as it promotes liberty. In this instance the LP is doing the opposite.


Pot meet Kettle.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> They exist because they can and because thank God we have some choice on the ballot when both the GOP and Dem candidates are $#@!s.  If my choice for Tx senator was John Cornyn or an L candidate I would choose the L candidate. Don't like it? Tough.


You are just as bad, and just as clueless, as your twin sister.  You are both shown to be infiltrators and enemies of the Liberty Movement.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Because they don't believe the govt should have a say in defining marriage.


This candidate does, and adopts the statist position that the government should endorse gay marriage.  You would know that if you did a little research on the candidate, but instead you chose to talk out your ass as you always do.

----------


## phill4paul

I'm pretty sure, absolutely sure, that I have been told a number of times that the LP vote is insignificant and not needed in the R3volution. 9%. How do you like them apples?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> That's an idiotic statement. Vote GOP or die? That makes me want to send money to the LP. You shouldn't even use the term liberty since you are obviously clueless of its meaning. If you are saying the LP is supposed to kiss GOP butt just because Ron Paul endorsed someone I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I love how you bring up Rons name when you need to use him to make a point then in other posts you have all but called him a loser.


My statement was only idiotic if read by an idiot.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Capt., I thought you said Libertarian Party candidates only ever get 1/2%.  So, no problem, right?

Really, it would be quite surprising to see the results come out that high for the LP guy in the actual election.  For governor, 1 or 2% would be more realistic.  The poll is probably just wrong, unless both mainstream candidates are particularly unattractive, or the LP candidate is very well-known.

If the LP does get 9% in the Virginia governor's race, that would be fantastic!  Good for them!

The point of the LP, by the way, is education about the ideas of liberty.  Running for office gives you a free soapbox.  You can go on radio programs, write newspaper editorials, do interviews on local news, talk at nursing homes, rotary clubs, etc., etc., etc.  That is the point as I see it, and the original reason it was set up.  To see it as a vehicle trying to actually win massive amounts of races would be a misunderstanding and unrealistic, IMHO.

----------


## phill4paul

> You are just as bad, and just as clueless, as your twin sister.  You are both shown to be infiltrators and enemies of the Liberty Movement.


  STFU. Who elected you official spokesperson of the Liberty Movement (TM)?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Capt., I thought you said Libertarian Party candidates only ever get 1/2%.  So, no problem, right?


I believe 1% was the number I typically reference, but that would be in national elections.  Occasionally, their candidates do play the role of spoiler in Congressional and state wide elections.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> STFU. Who elected you official spokesperson of the Liberty Movement (TM)?


I'll add you to the list of people I view as enemies to the movement.  So you can shut the $#@! up as well, I have no patience for $#@!s who do nothing more than try and tear down the work we are doing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, my defense of a political party's right to field a candidate makes me an enemy of the liberty movement?  LOL 
> 
> And, that's really ironic coming from you.  
> 
> You act as if you believe the GOP should have the monopoly on all things right-of-center.  They haven't earned that right, RON PAUL endorsed candidates notwithstanding.


Ron Paul has made some stupid endorsements before, but assuming this guy is actually a Ron Paul type guy, this isn't the kind of thing the LP should be doing, IMO.  They should be playing spoiler for RINOs and the like, not for legitimate conservatives.  At least IMO.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'll add you to the list of people I view as enemies to the movement.  So you can shut the $#@! up as well, I have no patience for $#@!s who do nothing more than try and tear down the work we are doing.


  And I have no patience for party apparatchiks that curse on one hand then whine in the other. LMAO. You're pathetic.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll add you to the list of people I view as enemies to the movement.  So you can shut the $#@! up as well, I have no patience for $#@!s who do nothing more than try and tear down the work we are doing.


You're an enemy of the movement.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> And I have no patience for party apparatchiks that curse on one hand then whine in the other. LMAO. You're pathetic.


I don't support a party, I support a movement within a party.  If you can't understand that then go $#@! yourself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't support a party, I support a movement within a party.  If you can't understand that then go $#@! yourself.


Someone is getting a bit defensive I see.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You're an enemy of the movement.


I have read enough of your drivel on this site.  You defining me as an enemy, I take as a compliment.

----------


## Carlybee

> You are just as bad, and just as clueless, as your twin sister.  You are both shown to be infiltrators and enemies of the Liberty Movement.


Piss off. We were both here before you and unlike you I actually support liberty..the concept. Who died and made you Cromwell?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Someone is getting a bit defensive I see.


No, just clarifying the position.  Many people on here, just like liberals, have a tendency to take things out of context for the advancement of their own clouded agenda.  In all honesty, as much as I dislike you, you are typically not guilty of that.

----------


## Carlybee

> This candidate does, and adopts the statist position that the government should endorse gay marriage.  You would know that if you did a little research on the candidate, but instead you chose to talk out your ass as you always do.


So what? People can either vote for him or against him. Are you so dependent on libertarian votes you are worried?in every other post you say libertarians are not needed or wanted in the liberty movement. Which is it?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Piss off. We were both here before you and unlike you I actually support liberty..the concept. Who died and made you Cromwell?


I could give a flying $#@! what date you signed up for a web forum.  You bring nothing to the table, and seemingly make it your full time job to tear down the work of those candidates and elected officials who are advancing the cause.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'll add you to the list of people I view as enemies to the movement.  So you can shut the $#@! up as well, I have no patience for $#@!s who do nothing more than try and tear down the work we are doing.


 Was "$#@!" too harsh a word? "$#@!" is somehow better? Nice edit. LMAO.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> So what? People can either vote for him or against him. Are you so dependent on libertarian votes you are worried?in every other post you say libertarians are not needed or wanted in the liberty movement. Which is it?


You obviously do not understand the difference between activists and voters.  I'd explain things more for you, but your narrow field of vision would make it incomprehensible for you, and frankly trying to persuade you is not worth my time.

----------


## Carlybee

> My statement was only idiotic if read by an idiot.


I'm not bowing down to your authoritarianism if that's what you think so yes I think your statement was idiotic. I guess if the GOP imploded tomorrow you would go Dem just because you think the big 2 are all that counts.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have read enough of your drivel on this site.  You defining me as an enemy, I take as a compliment.


Political solutions aren't going to work.  Nothing wrong with trying, but we aren't going to get another Calvin Coolidge elected.  I choose to spend my time educating people on just how evil and sick this system is.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

I didn't want to be accused of casting you as a sodomite, so I changed the word.  Either one though is appropriate to describe how I feel about those who do little more than tear down the work of the Liberty Movement.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This candidate does, and adopts the statist position that the government should endorse gay marriage.  You would know that if you did a little research on the candidate, but instead you chose to talk out your ass as you always do.


This candidate that you refer to as a "liberty" candidate doesn't seem to understand the issue of getting the state out of the bedroom, and it's not just about gay marriage:
*
Ken Cuccinelli's crusade against sodomy
*
Liberty candidate..._really?_

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Was "$#@!" too harsh a word? "$#@!" is somehow better? Nice edit. LMAO.





> I didn't want to be accused of casting you  as a *sodomite*, so I changed the word.  Either one though is appropriate  to describe how I feel about those who do little more than tear down the  work of the Liberty Movement.





> This candidate that you refer to as a "liberty" candidate doesn't seem to understand the issue of getting the state out of the bedroom, and it's not just about gay marriage:
> *
> Ken Cuccinelli's crusade against sodomy
> *
> Liberty candidate..._really?_


Gotta love irony.

----------


## Carlybee

> Ron Paul has made some stupid endorsements before, but assuming this guy is actually a Ron Paul type guy, this isn't the kind of thing the LP should be doing, IMO.  They should be playing spoiler for RINOs and the like, not for legitimate conservatives.  At least IMO.


Why? Libertarians are not conservative on all matters...mostly just fiscal.

----------


## Carlybee

> I could give a flying $#@! what date you signed up for a web forum.  You bring nothing to the table, and seemingly make it your full time job to tear down the work of those candidates and elected officials who are advancing the cause.


Bull$#@!. I just call a spade a spade and you sir need to bone up on the meaning of liberty. Either walk the walk or step off.

----------


## phill4paul

> I didn't want to be accused of casting you as a sodomite, so I changed the word.  Either one though is appropriate to describe how I feel about those who do little more than tear down the work of the Liberty Movement.


  Then say what you mean and mean what you say. You're pathetic when you are back pedaling. Hell, you are just pathetic. You can't have it both ways. Either you court the LP or you quit whining when your excoriations result in a possible loss of a GOP candidate.

----------


## phill4paul

> Gotta love irony.


 Indeed. LMAO.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

How is the Green Party polling?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Piss off. We were both here before you and unlike you I actually support liberty..the concept. Who died and made you Cromwell?


Well, I guess if we're not willing to risk life and limb (literally) in the GOP, we're not bringing anything to the table.  Gosh, if I valued CaptLou's opinion, I might feel my life has been lived in vain.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Well, I guess if we're not willing to risk life and limb (literally) in the GOP, we're not bringing anything to the table.


One should be willing to risk everything for the advancement of the Liberty Movement.  I have no respect for those who are not.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> One should be willing to risk everything for the advancement of the Liberty Movement.  I have no respect for those who are not.


I would...for the Liberty Movement. Just not for any political party though. 

Hey, I just posted an article about Ken Cuccinelli.  Can you explain to me  how his position on those issues fit in with the Liberty Movement?

----------


## phill4paul

> One should be willing to risk everything for the advancement of the Liberty Movement.  I have no respect for those who are not.


  What a fail, this rant of yours.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I would...for the Liberty Movement. Just not for any political party though. 
> 
> Hey, I just posted an article about Ken Cuccinelli.  Can you explain to me  how his position on those issues fit in with the Liberty Movement?


Two points: first the Liberty Movement exists within the GOP.  Outside of that, there really is no movement.  Movement by definition infers some sort of motion forward, the LP, CP and other minor parties are not moving at all, they are regressing and in the case of VA potentially hampering the movement of others.

And the link goes to http://www.isidewith.com/results/285315915:10072616.  I don't see any article, re-link it if you can and I'll have a look at it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What a fail, this rant of yours.


Only an enemy of the movement would see it as such.

----------


## Petar

> And calling them losertarians while at the same time expecting them to be in some pact to promote GOP candidates is kind of stupid.


If you point out their hypocrisy enough, then maybe you will eventually get through to them, or at least influence the opinion of onlookers.




> Pot meet Kettle.


I'm a little tea-pot, bitch

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Two points: first the Liberty Movement exists within the GOP.  Outside of that, there really is no movement.  Movement by definition infers some sort of motion forward, the LP, CP and other minor parties are not moving at all, they are regressing and in the case of VA potentially hampering the movement of others.
> 
> And the link goes to http://www.isidewith.com/results/285315915:10072616.  I don't see any article, re-link it if you can and I'll have a look at it.


Yep, I'll have to edit the post.  It was supposed to link here:
http://theweek.com/article/index/247...against-sodomy

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Only an enemy of the movement would see it as such.


This "either with us or against us" attitude of yours reminds me of someone, and it's not someone I like very much.

----------


## phill4paul

> Only an enemy of the movement would see it as such.


 Where did you send in your $1 for membership in this "movement?" Did they give you a card? LMAO.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yep, I'll have to edit the post.  It was supposed to link here:
> http://theweek.com/article/index/247...against-sodomy


I read the article, looked at Cuccinelli's site http://www.vachildpredators.com/ and also looked at the law itself: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-361

The issue as I understand it, is that by striking down the law it negates the ability to use that law to prosecute child sex offenders.  Granted the first section of the law is antiquated, and reading Cuccinelli's site, he is not calling for the prosecution of anyone who gives a blow job, as the Terbush article infers.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> This "either with us or against us" attitude of yours reminds me of someone, and it's not someone I like very much.


It is a logical conclusion.  The liberty movement is working to elect candidates to office, support those that are already elected into office, influence voters on issue and persuade other elected officials to support our positions.  Anyone that thwarts those efforts is obviously standing in opposition to the work we are doing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I read the article, looked at Cuccinelli's site http://www.vachildpredators.com/ and also looked at the law itself: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-361
> 
> The issue as I understand it, is that by striking down the law it negates the ability to use that law to prosecute child sex offenders.  Granted the first section of the law is antiquated, and reading Cuccinelli's site, he is not calling for the prosecution of anyone who gives a blow job, as the Terbush article infers.


There are already laws on the books for protecting children against sex offenders. 

Here's the text of the law.  What business is it of the state to control these behaviors in Section A?

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or *carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony*, except as provided in subsection B. 

 B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony. 


  C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.
From the article:




> *While running for attorney general in 2009, Cuccinelli explained that he opposed all "homosexual acts."
> 
> *
> *"My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," he said  at the time. "They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a  natural-law-based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect  that."*

----------


## cjm

This is a fast moving thread, so without quoting anyone I'll try to answer a few of the questions that have come up.

Is Cuccinelli a liberty candidate?  No, he's what many might call a social conservative.  He has, however, been very accommodating toward liberty activists within the Virginia GOP.  I know a RP guy that went to the state convention in 2012 to elect RP delegates for Tampa and ended up becoming one himself working with some Cuccinelli people.  He is someone that liberty people can work with.

Will the LP guy be a spoiler from the GOP point of view?  I doubt it.  I've watched a lot of races and the script always has the third party percentage dropping as we approach the election day.  I'd be surprised if they get a percentage high enough to cover the spread between the D an R candidates.

----------


## phill4paul

> I read the article, looked at Cuccinelli's site http://www.vachildpredators.com/ and also looked at the law itself: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-361
> 
> The issue as I understand it, is that by striking down the law it negates the ability to use that law to prosecute child sex offenders.  Granted the first section of the law is antiquated, and reading Cuccinelli's site, he is not calling for the prosecution of anyone who gives a blow job, as the Terbush article infers.


 Virginia has no other laws to prosecute child sex offenders? It's the same old GOP bull$#@! double speak. Kinda like the tired "government needs to be out of marriage, but that might take a while, so in the meantime we will promote freedom by not allowing gays the same benefits straight couples receive."

----------


## Cap

With the rhetoric of the GOP butt-boys on this thread, it is indicative of the mindset of the GOP establishment. In the opinion of a lot of good liberty minded folks, those that think the GOP can become the standard bearer of liberty are but fools on a fools errand.

----------


## phill4paul

> This is a fast moving thread, so without quoting anyone I'll try to answer a few of the questions that have come up.
> 
> Is Cuccinelli a liberty candidate?  No, he's what many might call a social conservative.  He has, however, been very accommodating toward liberty activists within the Virginia GOP.  I know a RP guy that went to the state convention in 2012 to elect RP delegates for Tampa and ended up becoming one himself working with some Cuccinelli people.  He is someone that liberty people can work with.
> 
> Will the LP guy be a spoiler from the GOP point of view?  I doubt it.  I've watched a lot of races and the script always has the third party percentage dropping as we approach the election day.  *I'd be surprised if they get a percentage high enough to cover the spread between the D an R candidates.*


 This failed thread has only one purpose. The chance for CaptLou to bash the LP and divide the Liberty Movement that he believes he has sole proprietorship over. That is all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Virginia has no other laws to prosecute child sex offenders? It's the same old GOP bull$#@! double speak. Kinda like the tired "government needs to be out of marriage, but that might take a while, so in the meantime we will promote freedom by not allowing gays the same benefits straight couples receive."


EXACTLY.  And now we all know just why the LP is fielding a candidate and polling so well in this race.  Cuccinelli needs to go home, the 1950's are calling.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Cap, phill4paul, and Carlybee:  I owe all of you about a dozen more +reps but can't do right now.

----------


## Carlybee

> Where did you send in your $1 for membership in this "movement?" Did they give you a card? LMAO.


Didnt you get the memo? He invented it...I think he was best buds with one of the founders...not the founders of the liberty movement...the actual founders lol.

----------


## erowe1

> Is Cuccinelli a liberty candidate?  No, he's what many might call a social conservative.


Part of the problem is that this race just feeds the caricature of libertarians being socially liberal.

I bet this LP candidate is less libertarian across the board than Cuccinelli, and just ran LP because that was the only third party on the ballot.

----------


## mczerone

> Way to totally misconstrue things as usual...
> 
> No one is saying that the LP doesn't have the "right" to field whoever they want, whenever they want, but what does that have to do with the fact that they are impeding liberty in this instance? 
> 
> "Principle > Party" is something that Losertarians should write on their mirrors to have a good look at every morning.


If the GOP candidate stepped aside, the LP candidate could be beating the Democrat. So it's the Ron Paul endorsed GOP candidate that's standing in the way of liberty.

Right?

How is one guy "the bad guy" in this?

If the GOP candidate thought that getting the LP candidate out of the race would help, the onus is on the GOP candidate to reach out and make a political deal. Bitching about the LP candidate on an internet forum isn't going to resolve anything.

----------


## erowe1

> If the GOP candidate stepped aside, the LP candidate could be beating the Democrat. So it's the Ron Paul endorsed GOP candidate that's standing in the way of liberty.
> 
> Right?


Where did you get the idea that the LP candidate has anything at all to do with liberty? I doubt that he does.

And where did you get the idea that he could ever beat the Democrat, even if the GOP stepped aside? I more than doubt that he could.

----------


## erowe1

> Bitching about the LP candidate on an internet forum isn't going to resolve anything.


Hopefully we can help get the word out to RP supporters in Virginia that the LP candidate is the wrong guy for them to support this election. I bet they make up a decent amount of that 9% who supposedly support him, and they probably wouldn't if they knew he was a gay marriage activist, and how great Cuccinelli is.

----------


## thoughtomator

My experience living in Virginia has me thinking that perhaps these $#@!s deserve McAuliffe. I won't be here to suffer the consequences of that bad choice, I'm going to SC to vote against Lindsey Graham.

----------


## Carlybee

I can't believe LibertyEagle just neg repped me for being "rude" to Captain Lou after not only his rudeness but the profanity he has leveled at people in this thread. I can get much ruder...I was being nice.

----------


## mczerone

> EXACTLY.  And now we all know just why the LP is fielding a candidate and polling so well in this race.  Cuccinelli needs to go home, the 1950's are calling.


Looking at Cuccinelli's website, it's just mostly bland platitudes from a right-of-center establishment candidate.

Nothing is anti-war, in fact he wants to expand govt spending on veterans.

Nothing is strongly pro-gun, in fact he wants to step up enforcement against "illegal guns"

From his "Jobs Plan":



> Specifically, the plan includes the following proposals:
> 
> Reduce the individual income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 5 percent;
> Reduce the business income tax from 6 percent to 4 percent;
> Establish a Small Business Tax Relief Commission with the following strategic goals:
> Seek ways to eliminate or reduce the harmful effects of the Business Professional Occupational License (BPOL) Tax, the Machine and Tool (M&T) Tax, and the Merchants Capital (MC) Tax, while maintaining local government revenue;
> Identify and eliminate outdated exemptions and loopholes that promote crony capitalism;
> Ensure state government growth does not exceed inflation plus population growth.


So a 15% cut in personal (income) taxes, and a 30% in business (income) taxes. No promises not to increase property or sales taxes. No plan on how to get these taxes passed in the state congress.

Good on him mentioning "crony capitalism" - but how much is really state based? Most subsidies and regulatory enforcement comes from the Feds, and he's not stating that he's going to work against that in his state.

And he promises that the state govt WILL GROW - at a target of "inflation plus population growth."  What the heck does that even mean? How is he going to measure inflation? Will the govt grow at a constant rate with respect to population?


I'll grant that he might be better than "generic republican X" from a liberty standpoint, but he's not even close to addressing liberty.

Next post I'll look at the LP candidate.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> With the rhetoric of the GOP butt-boys on this thread, it is indicative of the mindset of the GOP establishment. In the opinion of a lot of good liberty minded folks, those that think the GOP can become the standard bearer of liberty are but fools on a fools errand.


Actually, the "butt boys", as you call it, are the ones supporting the LP candidate.  lol

Look Cap, I don't see anyone here claiming that ANY party is the standard bearer of liberty.  But, in this particular case, Ron Paul endorsed the Republican candidate.  So, it makes some of us question why the LP would run someone against him.  I mean, there are plenty of other states where there aren't people endorsed by Ron or actual liberty candidates running.  Why doesn't the LP focus on them instead?  It just doesn't make any sense, unless they are either idiots, or simply want to help the Democrat get in office.

----------


## cjm

> Hopefully we can help get the word out to RP supporters in Virginia that the LP candidate is the wrong guy for them to support this election. I bet they make up a decent amount of that 9% who supposedly support him, and they probably wouldn't if they knew he was a gay marriage activist, and how great Cuccinelli is.


Cuccinelli needs to help show how great he is.  He's historically been a great gun rights advocate, but his responses to the VCDL survey this year were lukewarm and only got him a "So-so" rating.  Sarvis got "Very Pro-gun."

http://www.vcdl.org/Candidates_2013_General

----------


## phill4paul

> I can't believe LibertyEagle just neg repped me for being "rude" to Captain Lou after not only his rudeness but the profanity he has leveled at people in this thread. I can get much ruder...I was being nice.


 Wonder if she neg repped Lou for calling me a "$#@!?"

----------


## Carlybee

Since when is the LP beholden to any party other than their own? And why should they support a candidate who is opposed to policies they have in their platform? Its no secret the LP has reached out to gay voters. They are not part of the Republican liberty movement. Some of you have the big L and the little l confused again.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> With the rhetoric of the GOP butt-boys on this thread, it is indicative of the mindset of the GOP establishment. In the opinion of a lot of good liberty minded folks, those that think the GOP can become the standard bearer of liberty are but fools on a fools errand.


The problem here is the cheerleading of the candidate/party running against the Ron approved candidate. However, I do think KC is ruining his chances by past social stance gaffes. As VA-AG, I think one of his main moves was to cut down on adults preying on kids online and perhaps this led into commentary on other issues. Romney didn't win the state and if he can't shake this social nonsense then he'll go down too despite the crookedness of the Dem. That said, this incessant one-upsmanship by some libertarians over others with libertarian stances on certain issues because they aren't libertarian enough in one's libertarian mind is exactly what losertarianism is all about. Libertarians can win w/ coalitions but not without, Ron proved that 1 time in his political career and that was on audit the Fed. If one is positioning their self to, by default, always defer to the LP in any situation where a candidate favorable to most of Ron's stances is running, then don't be surprised if you're labeled a divider or worse - that's your choice. However, if you're going to defend the LP putting up a candidate against the likes of Amash because you have a hardon against anyone involved in restoring the GOP towards liberty, then that's where I draw the line with you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Actually, the "butt boys", as you call it, are the ones supporting the LP candidate.  lol
> 
> Look Cap, I don't see anyone here claiming that ANY party is the standard bearer of liberty.  But, in this particular case, Ron Paul endorsed the Republican candidate.  So, it makes *some of us question why the LP would run someone against him.*  I mean, there are plenty of other states where there aren't people endorsed by Ron or actual liberty candidates running.  Why doesn't the LP focus on them instead?  It just doesn't make any sense, unless they are either idiots, or simply want to help the Democrat get in office.


Your question is answered in post #85.

----------


## mczerone

> Where did you get the idea that the LP candidate has anything at all to do with liberty? I doubt that he does.
> 
> And where did you get the idea that he could ever beat the Democrat, even if the GOP stepped aside? I more than doubt that he could.


Have you gone to http://www.robertsarvis.com/?

He takes a position on guns, transportation, taxes, education, and health care that are more liberty-based than Cuccinelli - in fact it looks like Cuccinelli aped most of the stances and tempered them down to compromise with the anti-liberty GOPers.

He also takes a strong position on the drug war (that Cuccinelli doesn't even touch), legal equality for minorities, civil rights, de-militarizing the police, and school choice.

If we're measuring on the "liberty" scale, there is no one issue that Cuccinelli beats Sarvis. And there's plenty of IMPORTANT issues that Cuccinelli doesn't even touch.

If you're arguing that GOP+LP votes > DEM votes, then why is it okay to assume that the GOP candidate will win if the LP drops out, but not okay to assume that the LP candidate will win if the GOP candidate drops out?  They're the same logical step.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I can't believe LibertyEagle just neg repped me for being "rude" to Captain Lou after not only his rudeness but the profanity he has leveled at people in this thread. I can get much ruder...I was being nice.


I still can't +rep you to offset that (but I can totally believe it happened; I've been on the receiving end of that all too many times)...

Can someone cover this please?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Wonder if she neg repped Lou for calling me a "$#@!?"


Oh, I'm sure she did. 











/sarcasm

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Since when is the LP beholden to any party other than their own? And why should they support a candidate who is opposed to policies they have in their platform? Its no secret the LP has reached out to gay voters. They are not part of the Republican liberty movement. Some of you have the big L and the little l confused again.


Funny, I thought we were trying to get our country back.  I didn't realize it was about kneeling down and giving praise to a political party.  Thanks for letting us know where you stand.

----------


## Cap

> Have you gone to http://www.robertsarvis.com/?
> 
> He takes a position on guns, transportation, taxes, education, and health care that are more liberty-based than Cuccinelli - in fact it looks like Cuccinelli aped most of the stances and tempered them down to compromise with the anti-liberty GOPers.
> 
> He also takes a strong position on the drug war (that Cuccinelli doesn't even touch), legal equality for minorities, civil rights, de-militarizing the police, and school choice.
> 
> If we're measuring on the "liberty" scale, there is no one issue that Cuccinelli beats Sarvis. And there's plenty of IMPORTANT issues that Cuccinelli doesn't even touch.
> 
> If you're arguing that GOP+LP votes > DEM votes, then why is it okay to assume that the GOP candidate will win if the LP drops out, but not okay to assume that the LP candidate will win if the GOP candidate drops out?  They're the same logical step.


The liberty movement is about truth and there was a whole bunch of it in this post.

----------


## mczerone

> Hopefully we can help get the word out to RP supporters in Virginia that the LP candidate is the wrong guy for them to support this election. I bet they make up a decent amount of that 9% who supposedly support him, *and they probably wouldn't if they knew he was a gay marriage activist, and how great Cuccinelli is.*


You overestimate the number of people who agree with you on the gay marriage thing. Your side is rightfully losing that debate.

And how great is Cuccinelli? He looks like a typical establishment GOPer who has some liberty rhetoric, but no actual drive to fight for liberty if it's going to hurt his political career.

----------


## Carlybee

> Funny, I thought we were trying to get our country back.  I didn't realize it was about kneeling down and giving praise to a political party.  Thanks for letting us know where you stand.


I'm not the one calling people enemies on here. I am saying the LP as a party is its own party and not beholden to supporting another party . Duh. Now there are libertarians who vote for different parties such as those of us who have voted Republican for the last few elections and who remain independent. So how is that letting you know where I stand especially given that the last 2 presidential cycles I have voted 95% Republican?  Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Funny, I thought we were trying to get our country back.  I didn't realize it was about kneeling down and giving praise to a political party.  Thanks for letting us know where you stand.


LOL...says someone who is always trying to get us to kneel down before the GOP.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LOL...says someone who is always trying to get us to kneel down before the GOP.


Lying again, I see.




> I'm not the one calling people enemies on here.


I don't agree with the way he said it.  I suppose I have become too politically-correct being on this forum for so long.  HOWEVER, I think he pretty much nailed it.  Yup, I certainly do.  And with each post you and Cajun make, you prove his point.

----------


## Carlybee

> Part of the problem is that this race just feeds the caricature of libertarians being socially liberal.
> 
> I bet this LP candidate is less libertarian across the board than Cuccinelli, and just ran LP because that was the only third party on the ballot.


Um many libertarians ARE socially liberal.  I'm not sure why people think they are 100% conservative.  They are generally fiscally conservative and classically liberal.  They damned sure aren't for legislating what people do in their bedrooms.

----------


## mczerone

> Lying again, I see.


At least pretend that there's evidence that you aren't constantly trying to get people to play nice with GOP voters, to vote for GOP candidates, and claiming that using the GOP political process is the "only hope" for human well being on planet Earth.

----------


## Carlybee

> You overestimate the number of people who agree with you on the gay marriage thing. Your side is rightfully losing that debate.
> 
> And how great is Cuccinelli? He looks like a typical establishment GOPer who has some liberty rhetoric, but no actual drive to fight for liberty if it's going to hurt his political career.


There are quite a few out there hitching their wagons to the Tea Party but Tea Party does not necessarily equate to Liberty positions in all situations. Ron Paul may have endorsed him because he was nearer to liberty positions than anyone else at the time.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> At least pretend that there's evidence that you aren't constantly trying to get people to play nice with GOP voters, to vote for GOP candidates, and claiming that using the GOP political process is the "only hope" for human well being on planet Earth.


Anyone who has been reading here much knows that I have not done what she claims.  It doesn't deserve an answer.

----------


## Carlybee

> LOL...says someone who is always trying to get us to kneel down before the GOP.


Of course.  Don't you know the LP is the red headed stepchild of the GOP?  LOL

----------


## Carlybee

http://www.lp.org/platform


Read it, educate yourselves and stop trying to paint the LP as some party that the GOP "liberty movement" has annexed.  It's a seperate party just like the Green Party is separate from the Democratic Party.  They may share some common ground on issues but they are not the same...ie, any member of the LP is not obligated to support someone just because the Liberty Movement wing of the GOP decrees it.  Meanwhile keep insulting those of us who are small l libertarians who ARE generally supporting Republican liberty candidates.

----------


## mczerone

> Anyone who has been reading here much knows that I have not done what she claims.  It doesn't deserve an answer.


Neither do my specific claims of your history, apparently.

And taking my specific claims as true (which they objectively ARE), it's a logical necessity that it is you who:




> ....is always trying to get us to kneel down before the GOP.


You're right that it doesn't deserve an answer, because it's irrefutable.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Looks like its a good time for this again...

But here we face an inner problem and a paradox not only for libertarians, but for any radical, minority ideological movement. For marginal movements attract marginal people. Such movements are filled with what Germans call luftmenschen, people with no steady jobs, incomes, or visible means of support; the sort of people who instinctively alienate the mainstream bourgeois Americans, not so much by the content of their ideas, but by their style, lack of moorings, and “counterculture.” -- Murray Rothbard

If a serious opportunity should arise… for the movement to make a great leap into Middle America, into genuine influence in our society, that Libertarian luftmenschen will react not with enthusiasm but in fear and trembling. For far greater than their professed love of liberty is their hostility to bourgeois America. -- Murray Rothbard

OK, do we want libertarianism to win, to make a big dent in America, or do we not? If we don’t want to win, why be in a political party at all? Why not simply form a social club and forget victory? And if we’re really devoted to liberty, how can we not do our best for liberty to win? Are we really libertarians, or are we just playing around? -- Murray Rothbard

----------


## Carlybee

> Looks like its a good time for this again...
> 
> But here we face an inner problem and a paradox not only for libertarians, but for any radical, minority ideological movement. For marginal movements attract marginal people. Such movements are filled with what Germans call luftmenschen, people with no steady jobs, incomes, or visible means of support; the sort of people who instinctively alienate the mainstream bourgeois Americans, not so much by the content of their ideas, but by their style, lack of moorings, and “counterculture.” -- Murray Rothbard
> 
> If a serious opportunity should arise… for the movement to make a great leap into Middle America, into genuine influence in our society, that Libertarian luftmenschen will react not with enthusiasm but in fear and trembling. For far greater than their professed love of liberty is their hostility to bourgeois America. -- Murray Rothbard
> 
> OK, do we want libertarianism to win, to make a big dent in America, or do we not? If we don’t want to win, why be in a political party at all? Why not simply form a social club and forget victory? And if we’re really devoted to liberty, how can we not do our best for liberty to win? Are we really libertarians, or are we just playing around? -- Murray Rothbard


He makes good points, however Murray Rothbard is not my daddy.  I will support those I feel are worthy of support because they deserve it, not because I truly believe the GOP is going to be turned into a party that respects liberty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I'd be a lot more upset about this if not for Cucinelli's vehement defense of sodamy laws.  Endorsed by Ron Paul or not, someone wants to oral sex to be a felony they are probably focusing on the wrong things.  So maybe he gets prevented from office by the LP guy.  Oh well, he shouldn't have gone full retard.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'd be a lot more upset about this if not for Cucinelli's vehement defense of sodamy laws.  Endorsed by Ron Paul or not, someone wants to oral sex to be a felony they are probably focusing on the wrong things.  So maybe he gets prevented from office by the LP guy. * Oh well, he shouldn't have gone full retard*.



^this

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Neither do my specific claims of your history, apparently.
> 
> And taking my specific claims as true (which they objectively ARE), it's a logical necessity that it is you who:
> 
> You're right that it doesn't deserve an answer, because it's irrefutable.




How many times do I have to say the same thing over and over again, before a few of you get it?  

I don't pledge allegiance to ANY political party.

But, it is an unfortunate fact that only the 2 major parties get media or are allowed to participate in the debates.  

THEREFORE, if we want to effectively use the political process, we must use one of the above AS A TOOL to get our candidates elected.

This does not mean voting for whatever crap is leftover if our guy doesn't get the nomination.  I certainly do not and this is certainly something that Capt and I disagree on.

I also believe that if we want to give our guys the best chance that we can, it would be beneficial to get elected to as many leadership positions in the GOP that we can.  This will do a lot to curtail the cheating that we have seen.

I also think it is beneficial for as many of us who can, to attend the Leadership conference that Ron's C4L and YAL recommend, so that we know HOW to win.

Please note that nowhere did I say to sell out; nor would I suggest it.  And if any one of you could hear the conversation when the RNC calls my house, you would know what I am saying is true.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> At least pretend that there's evidence that you aren't constantly trying to get people to play nice with GOP voters, to vote for GOP candidates, and claiming that using the GOP political process is the "only hope" for human well being on planet Earth.


Thank you, and +rep

----------


## Carlybee

> How many times do I have to say the same thing over and over again, before a few of you get it?  
> 
> I don't pledge allegiance to ANY political party.
> 
> But, it is an unfortunate fact that only the 2 major parties get media or are allowed to participate in the debates.  
> 
> THEREFORE, if we want to effectively use the political process, we must use one of the above AS A TOOL to get our candidates elected.
> 
> This does not mean voting for whatever crap is leftover if our guy doesn't get the nomination.  I certainly do not and this is certainly something that Capt and I disagree on.
> ...



Someone who wants to legislate people's sex lives does not deserve to be elected...I don't care how many other liberty positions he holds.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'd be a lot more upset about this if not for Cucinelli's vehement defense of sodamy laws.  Endorsed by Ron Paul or not, someone wants to oral sex to be a felony they are probably focusing on the wrong things.  So maybe he gets prevented from office by the LP guy.  Oh well, he shouldn't have gone full retard.


*^^This.*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> How many times do I have to say the same thing over and over again, before a few of you get it?  
> *
> I don't pledge allegiance to ANY political party.
> 
> But, it is an unfortunate fact that only the 2 major parties get media or are allowed to participate in the debates. * 
> 
> THEREFORE, if we want to effectively use the political process, we must use one of the above AS A TOOL to get our candidates elected.
> 
> This does not mean voting for whatever crap is leftover if our guy doesn't get the nomination.  I certainly do not and this is certainly something that Capt and I disagree on.
> ...


If you keep spreading that meme, it will always be true.  The only thing needed to change it is for good people to reject candidates like Cuccinelli when (as Gunny said) they go full retard.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I read the article, looked at Cuccinelli's site http://www.vachildpredators.com/ and also looked at the law itself: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-361
> 
> The issue as I understand it, is that by striking down the law it negates the ability to use that law to prosecute child sex offenders.  Granted the first section of the law is antiquated, and reading Cuccinelli's site, he is not calling for the prosecution of anyone who gives a blow job, as the Terbush article infers.


Doesn't matter what he wants or doesn't want to do with the law, the law is on the books and can be used at any time in the future, and he is defending and trying to keep that law on the books.  If he were principled, he'd be working to amend the law to remove the stupid parts, and either keep or improve the good parts.  That's not what he's doing.  He's fighting to keep the law as-is.  As a former supporter of Cucinelli, I hope this lunacy crushes his aspirations here.

You don't leave a jacked up law on the books because you don't intend to use it, and you sure as hell don't invest yourself into a fight to keep it.  Maybe he doesn't intend to use it but what about the next guy?  Or the guy after that?

No.  Cucinelli deserves to crash and burn for this.  And I used to support the man.

If his claimed intent were true, then he'd not be working to keep the law as-is, he'd be working to *amend* the law into what it SHOULD be and then keep THAT.  That's not what he's doing at all.  So maybe the LP will spoil him.  He deserves it.  And the Republicans of VA deserve to suffer the whack-job liberal for promoting a hard-core social moralist who is OK with calling oral sex a felony to front-runner status.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Someone who wants to legislate people's sex lives does not deserve to be elected...I don't care how many other liberty positions he holds.


I think it was stupid for him to focus on that too.   I also don't like it when gay activists try to force their own beliefs on others using the political process.

----------


## cjm

> And how great is Cuccinelli? He looks like a typical establishment GOPer who has some liberty rhetoric, but no actual drive to fight for liberty if it's going to hurt his political career.


Cuccinelli has be around long enough that "establishment GOPer" is a fair label, but he's not typical.  As I noted above, he has welcomed and supported liberty folks within the Virginia GOP when others have not. He's no Ron Paul, but he's not Mitt Romney either.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think it was stupid for him to focus on that too.   I also don't like it when gay activists try to force their own beliefs on others using the political process.


Cuccinelli is flat wrong.  I don't believe for an instant how he's trying to spin it.  If it were really about child molesters he'd be looking at trying to *fix* the broken law, not trying to *keep* it as-is.  Someone invests their efforts to fight to keep a law on the books that makes the activities of consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms a felony, a freakin FELONY, then he deserves to crash and burn, and the people who put him on top deserve to suffer the whack-job liberal.  If we keep rewarding that lunacy amongst Republicans they will keep doing it.  So they learn the hard way.  At least maybe they will learn.

"Oh, I don't plan to use the law that makes half of Virginia felons, I just want to keep it on the books."

BULL.

Even if he doesn't use it somebody will.  Three felonies a day.  A population of criminals is easier to control than a population of free people.  The mere fact alone that he is willing to keep this law on the books as-is means he _deserves_ to have the LP guy block his reach for power.  Godspeed ye, random LP guy!  Maybe next time Republicans and 'liberty' candidate will think twice before thinking it's somehow OK to make half the population of an entire State into felons.

----------


## compromise

I strongly support Cuccinelli/Jackson for Governor and Lt. Governor and will be donating to his campaign.

Blowjobs are not a major issue for me so I don't really mind his position, given all the areas he agrees with liberty (drones, fiscal issues, etc) and his support for the Constitution and states' rights. Clearly Ron Paul agrees with me over the hardcore Ron Paulists, who prefer an Obama handpicked liberty-hating progressive slimeball be the Governor of Virginia over a true Constitutionalist on the basis that Cooch may slightly hinder their ability to suck cocks while at Kokesh's armed DMT march in Virginia.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I strongly support Cuccinelli/Jackson for Governor and Lt. Governor and will be donating to his campaign.
> 
> Blowjobs are not a major issue for me so I don't really mind his position, given all the areas he agrees with liberty (drones, fiscal issues, etc) and his support for the Constitution and states' rights. Clearly Ron Paul agrees with me over the hardcore Ron Paulists, who prefer an Obama handpicked liberty-hating progressive slimeball be the Governor of Virginia over a true Constitutionalist on the basis that Cooch may slightly hinder their ability to suck cocks while at Kokesh's armed DMT march in Virginia.


That's pretty selfish.  If XYZ doesn't matter to YOU then who cares, right?  I'm not black so why not reinstate slavery?  I don't use drugs, so where's the problem in sending druggies to the penn?  I've never received oral sex in my life so I don't really care if they make half the population of the State into felons.  Come on guy, if fighting for liberty is only about 'me me me' then we will never again know liberty in the United States.

----------


## compromise

> That's pretty selfish.  If XYZ doesn't matter to YOU then who cares, right?  I'm not black so why not reinstate slavery?  I don't use drugs, so where's the problem in sending druggies to the penn?  I've never received oral sex in my life so I don't really care if they make half the population of the State into felons.  Come on guy, if fighting for liberty is only about 'me me me' then we will never again know liberty in the United States.


If fighting for liberty is only about voting for candidates that agree with the libertarian position on every issue, then we will never again know liberty in the United States.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's pretty selfish.  If XYZ doesn't matter to YOU then who cares, right?  I'm not black so why not reinstate slavery?  I don't use drugs, so where's the problem in sending druggies to the penn?  I've never received oral sex in my life so I don't really care if they make half the population of the State into felons.  Come on guy, if fighting for liberty is only about 'me me me' then we will never again know liberty in the United States.


I wish I could +rep you again, Gunny.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If fighting for liberty is only about voting for candidates that agree with the libertarian position on every issue, then we will never again know liberty in the United States.


I would say that supporting a law on the books that make half, or more than half of the population of an entire State into felons is pretty much a no-go issue, whether that issue affects me personally or not.  Cuccinelli is not the solution, he is the problem.  Doing stuff like what he has done here is why America is dying.  I don't think supporting or even just overlooking the kind of wrong-headed policies that killed America in the first place is the right way to bring America back from the dead.

I just looked it up.  The CDC ran a study interviewing 13,500 participants, and discovered that 90 percent of men and 89 percent of women reported having had oral sex with opposite-sex partners.  

When Cuccinelli decided to fight to keep 90% of the population of his state as felons, he utterly disqualified himself as a 'liberty' anything.

Do you not understand the meaning of 'felon?'  Can't vote for the rest of your life.  Can't own a gun for the rest of your life.  Can't get a decent job for the rest of your life.  Cuccinelli fought to make people subject to that kind of penalty just because they had or gave oral sex.  Something 90% of Americans apparently do.  That's called "tyranny."

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'd be a lot more upset about this if not for Cucinelli's vehement defense of sodamy laws.  Endorsed by Ron Paul or not, someone wants to oral sex to be a felony they are probably focusing on the wrong things.  So maybe he gets prevented from office by the LP guy.  Oh well, he shouldn't have gone full retard.


Glenn you are smarter than this. It appears you haven't looked past the leftist spin from the article.  The AG office would use that old law to prosecute child molesters, when the 4th Circuit Court struck down that law, it prevented the AG office from doing it's job and (according to Cuccinelli's site on the issue), "90 sexual predators in Virginia – most of them child sex predators – may be eligible to have their names removed from Virginia’s sex offender registry."  

The article and the liberal spin makes it appear that Cuccinelli is against oral and anal sex by consenting adults, however if you read his site it states, "This case is about using current law to protect a minor girl from a 47 year-old repeat sexual predator. The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not – and cannot be – used against consenting adults acting in private."

Does that law need to be updated?  Yes, but the outright nullification of it, resulted in consequences that are potentially dangerous for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Glenn you are smarter than this. It appears you haven't looked past the leftist spin from the article.


You would be wrong.  I've never read the article.  I only know about the law itself that he fought to keep.  That is all I need to know.




> The AG office would use that old law to prosecute child molesters, when the 4th Circuit Court struck down that law, it prevented the AG office from doing it's job and (according to Cuccinelli's site on the issue), "90 sexual predators in Virginia – most of them child sex predators – may be eligible to have their names removed from Virginia’s sex offender registry."


Again, bull.  Bull bull bull bull.  If that's really what he wanted then he would fight to CHANGE the law into something that is rational.  We change laws all the time.  We re-write murder statutes every couple years and that does not involve releasing murderers.  The quote above is easily as much spin as you accuse me of believing (despite the fact that I never even read it to believe or disbelieve it in the first place.)




> The article and the liberal spin makes it appear that Cuccinelli is against oral and anal sex by consenting adults, however if you read his site it states, "This case is about using current law to protect a minor girl from a 47 year-old repeat sexual predator. The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not – and cannot be – used against consenting adults acting in private."


I have never read the article and I do not intend to read the article, so your comments on my swallowing liberal spin are misplaced and irrelevant.  I am speaking from my own knowledge of the actual law he is trying to preserve, and my experience as a Legislator.  

Cuccinelli's spin here is over the top bovine feces.  What he is claiming as his motive and intent is a bold-faced lie.  If he were telling the truth, he would be fighting to amend the law not to keep it.  And someone's assurances that a law cannot be used against consenting adults is going to be awfully thin comfort in 30 years when they are using the law to throw political dissidents into prison because they have a ready-made felony on the books that cover 90% of the population.




> Does that law need to be updated?  Yes, but the outright nullification of it, resulted in consequences that are potentially dangerous for the citizens of the Commonwealth.


So he should be fighting to amend it.  That's not what he is doing.  You accuse me of swallowing leftist spin from an article I have never laid eyes on, the one here getting spun is you.  All I know about this case is what Cuccinelli himself has said, and the text of the law itself.  I am pretty sure that I did not contrive my own 'leftist spin' and then swallow the spin that I, myself created.

----------


## compromise

> If you keep spreading that meme, it will always be true.  The only thing needed to change it is for good people to reject candidates like Cuccinelli when (as Gunny said) they go full retard.


I think Cuccinelli is better off without some of these "good people" tarnishing his campaign.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Cuccinelli is the AG not a legislator.  It is his job to prosecute under the existing laws, not to introduce new laws or amend existing ones.  VA's Constitution does not give the AG the power to change laws.

http://constitution.legis.virginia.gov/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think Cuccinelli is better off without some of these "good people" tarnishing his campaign.


Yes, we all know what the GOP operatives on this board think of those of us working for real liberty (for all, not "just us").

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Cuccinelli is the AG not a legislator.  It is his job to prosecute under the existing laws, not to introduce new laws or amend existing ones.  VA's Constitution does not give the AG the power to change laws.
> 
> http://constitution.legis.virginia.gov/


But an AG can go to the Legislature and say, "Hey, this law is broken and will result in child molesters getting off, so we need to change it like so before the court invalidates it."  That's how government is supposed to work.  If Cuccinelli doesn't know that there again is another reason he is not qualified to be Governor.

----------


## Carlybee

> If fighting for liberty is only about voting for candidates that agree with the libertarian position on every issue, then we will never again know liberty in the United States.


Neither will we by marginalizing positions of liberty by chipping away at it with concessions.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> But an AG can go to the Legislature and say, "Hey, this law is broken and will result in child molesters getting off, so we need to change it like so before the court invalidates it."  That's how government is supposed to work.  If Cuccinelli doesn't know that there again is another reason he is not qualified to be Governor.


Yes, they can, but this issue arose because of the challenge to the law in one particular case. The striking down of the law, allowed this offender to potentially go free, and would potentially result in other sex offenders being "off the books" if they were prosecuted under that statute.  I agree that the law needs to be changed, but by the Court overturning the law, there was an immediate consequence that had to be dealt with.  At the time of the case, the law was in place, had that defendant not had a feisty lawyer who took the case to the circuit court, none of this would be an issue.  The circuit court cited the Lawrence v. Texas case as their precedent, however, Lawrence v. Texas was about consenting adults in private, not about a 47 year old man trying to get head from a minor girl.

VA had been using the law for nearly 10 years post-Lawrence to prosecute sex offenders without any issue.  Since they were not using the law to prosecute consenting adults in private, they likely felt that there was no immediate need to change the law.  It was a bad ruling by the circuit court since the precedent they used was not germane to the case at hand.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I believe 1% was the number I typically reference, but that would be in national elections.  Occasionally, their candidates do play the role of spoiler in Congressional and state wide elections.


Quite frequently, actually.

But to get 9% in a gubernatorial election would be almost unheard of.  Ed Thompson would be the last one getting something in that realm that I can think of.  He got 11% in Wisconsin in 2002, but he was the brother of a popular former governor, so many people probably voted for the name.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Quite frequently, actually.
> 
> But to get 9% in a gubernatorial election would be almost unheard of.  Ed Thompson would be the last one getting something in that realm that I can think of.  He got 11% in Wisconsin in 2002, but he was the brother of a popular former governor, so many people probably voted for the name.


I wouldn't say frequently, since there are 435 House races every two years, 33 Senate races and of course numerous other state wide races every year (Governor, Lt Gov, etc).  It is a rarity that they play the role of spoiler.  Nonetheless, the LP (whether they are a spoiler or an annoyance) stand in opposition to the Liberty Movement. They are enemies, and like all enemies they need to be eliminated.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I wouldn't say frequently, since there are 435 House races every two years, 33 Senate races and of course numerous other state wide races every year (Governor, Lt Gov, etc).  It is a rarity that they play the role of spoiler.  *Nonetheless, the LP (whether they are a spoiler or an annoyance) stand in opposition to the Liberty Movement. They are enemies, and like all enemies they need to be eliminated.*


I'd love to hear why you feel this way.  Seriously.  You should know that this statement makes you sound like a little dictator, quite the opposite of a proponent of Liberty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, they can, but this issue arose because of the challenge to the law in one particular case. The striking down of the law, allowed this offender to potentially go free, and would potentially result in other sex offenders being "off the books" if they were prosecuted under that statute.  I agree that the law needs to be changed, but by the Court overturning the law, there was an immediate consequence that had to be dealt with.  At the time of the case, the law was in place, had that defendant not had a feisty lawyer who took the case to the circuit court, none of this would be an issue.  The circuit court cited the Lawrence v. Texas case as their precedent, however, Lawrence v. Texas was about consenting adults in private, not about a 47 year old man trying to get head from a minor girl.
> 
> VA had been using the law for nearly 10 years post-Lawrence to prosecute sex offenders without any issue.  Since they were not using the law to prosecute consenting adults in private, they likely felt that there was no immediate need to change the law.  It was a bad ruling by the circuit court since the precedent they used was not germane to the case at hand.


There is a reason that the American form of government puts the burden on the prosecution.  Is child molestation not already a crime that they had to use the wrong law to prosecute?  If they figured that the actual law he broke was too hard to get a conviction on therefore we will charge him on the wrong law because it's easier to convict, then it was the prosecutors who are guilty of subverting justice.

Looks to me like Virginia DOJ has been pissing on the Constitution for nearly 10 years and now the chickens are coming home to roost.  If these offenders were charged under the wrong law because the prosecutors were too lazy to charge them under the statute upon which they were actually guilty, then they need to get busy indicting them for the laws they actually broke, because their prosecutorial malfeasance is now coming back to bite them on their arse.

People of principle do not get to pick and choose which parts of due process they like or do not like. This whole situation has resulted from 10 years of blatant misconduct in the first place.  Now I take a harder line on child molestation than most.  I wouldn't even blink at castration or death for bona fide child molesters.  That doesn't mean I can pervert the entire American system of justice whenever I feel like it because a blowjob conviction happens to be easier to win than a molestation conviction.

If the guy is on trial for an act of child molestation, then you charge him with child molestation.  If there is not enough evidence to convict him if child molestation, then that may be tragic, but that's how our system of justice was designed to work.

There is a thing called principle, and we don't get to just abandon them whenever they are inconvenient.  The American system of justice is predicated on the idea that it is better for 100 guilty to go free than 1 innocent to be convicted.  Ken Cuccinelli has abandoned that principle, and therefore I have abandoned him.  He is unfit to serve in public office.

----------


## ladyjade3

Awww...  couldn't have happened to a nicer anti-sodomy law pusher.  That's a shame.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I wouldn't say frequently, since there are 435 House races every two years, 33 Senate races and of course numerous other state wide races every year (Governor, Lt Gov, etc).  It is a rarity that they play the role of spoiler.  Nonetheless, the LP (whether they are a spoiler or an annoyance) stand in opposition to the Liberty Movement. They are enemies, and like all enemies they need to be eliminated.


In this case, I am pretty sure it's Ken Cuccinelli who is standing in opposition to the liberty movement.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I mean, there are plenty of other states where there aren't people endorsed by Ron or actual liberty candidates running.  Why doesn't the LP focus on them instead?  It just doesn't make any sense, unless they are either idiots, or simply want to help the Democrat get in office.


So, these are good questions and reasonable questions.  If I ran the circus, the LP wouldn't run candidates except in races where there were no liberty candidate (virtually every race) and, ideally, where they had decent, respectable people to run.  Many or most libertarians would agree, and many or most LP members probably also.  So why would such a thing happen despite this?

1) The LP is not a monolithic, centralized national organization.  It is decentralized, much like other political parties.  The national LP cannot decide to skip the VA governor race and "focus on other states instead."  The VA state LP makes the decisions of what candidates to run.  It would be a question not of focusing on other states, but focusing on other races within the state of Virginia and skipping the governor's race.
2) It could be a ballot access issue.  If the party does not get more than X percentage in a statewide race, in many states they lose ballot access and then must waste tons and tons of time getting signatures to run any candidates in any race ever again, every single time.
3) In many states, the party does not and cannot control who runs.  If someone turns in some paperwork at the county courthouse stating they are running for governor as a Libertarian, there's nothing the LP can do to stop it.  If there's only one such person, that person will become the nominee and will be on the ballot in the primary.
4) The VA LP is probably a small group.  The state convention is probably something like this: there's 10 guys who get together and one of them is a pro-gay-marriage guy who wants to run for governor.  Are the other 9 going to tell him no?  Probably not.  That would make him mad.  It's like a club.  They want to keep everyone happy and not discourage anyone who wants to take some initiative.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> In this case, I am pretty sure it's Ken Cuccinelli who is standing in opposition to the liberty movement.


If that's how you see it, then it probably is a good thing that you lost your race.

----------


## Carlybee

> I wouldn't say frequently, since there are 435 House races every two years, 33 Senate races and of course numerous other state wide races every year (Governor, Lt Gov, etc).  It is a rarity that they play the role of spoiler.  Nonetheless, the LP (whether they are a spoiler or an annoyance) stand in opposition to the Liberty Movement. They are enemies, and like all enemies they need to be eliminated.


The only enemies to liberty are those who are against it. Apparently the Liberty Movement just wants to use the moniker if your comments are a barometer. Liberty allows for healthy dissent and competition.  You have partisan politics so far up your backside you have lost sight of the meaning of the term liberty.

----------


## Imperial

> I didn't ask you what they stand for, I asked you what purpose do they serve?  
> 
> If their purpose is to promote liberty, then why would they run a candidate against Amash or Cuccinelli?  
> 
> I say they exist solely so a group of disaffected individuals can dress up and play politician once a year, just like the folks who attend Renaissance Fairs dress up and pretend to live in medieval times.  In most cases, the LP can be ignored as they are little more than a mere annoyance to the liberty movement, but in cases like this they are potentially impacting the work we are doing. They are not allies, they are enemies.


Hey, that's not fair! Don't compare Renaissance Fairs to the LP and give my larping a bad rap.

Anyway, the reason Sarvis gets so much support has nothing to do with Sarvis- as a third party candidate without a big name or a lot of money, the only reason anyone says they support him is because they don't like the Cooch or TMac. His support will deteriorate before election day, as is always the case with 3rd party candidates, but he will still get anywhere from 1-5% of the vote I would guess.

People need to understand that when the LP is called a spoiler, it is not a moral argument- it is a mathematical one. Based on a FPTP system, ideologically similar candidates *inherently* split a base with each other. If we have ranked choice voting or approval voting, then you can get indignant. But as it stands, the electoral system means people who are more similar with each other are drawing from the same base of supporters and can allow a candidate with non-majority support to win. That is basically how Romney won the Republican primary last time around- there was no clear conservative alternative in the eyes of the  voters, and they split between a number of anti-Romneys.

It's math. If you want to run an educational campaign, fine. But I am skeptical of the effectiveness of that empirically and it is counterproductive to actually electing candidates who are on board with much of our agenda.

----------


## Carlybee

> If that's how you see it, then it probably is a good thing that you lost your race.


What we need are more like Gunny who haven't lost sight of the principles of liberty rather than posers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If that's how you see it, then it probably is a good thing that you lost your race.


So wait, subverting the law to convict people on the wrong charge because it's too hard to convict them of what they are actually guilty of is "liberty" to you?

Was Adolph frekin Hitler just liberating the Poles and the Jews?

LOL you don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to obey based on whether they happen to be convenient for the moment!  You either uphold the Constitution or you abrogate it.  It is a binary switch.  You don't get to uphold parts of the Constitution and abrogate parts of it, that abolishes the whole thing.

If you think perverting the law to convict people of something else just because it was too difficult to convict them of their actual crime, then you are not pro liberty at all.  I hear the Communist Party USA is taking volunteers over there ---->>

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Petty tyrants supporting petty tyrants.  Nothing new here.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> This candidate that you refer to as a "liberty" candidate doesn't seem to understand the issue of getting the state out of the bedroom, and it's not just about gay marriage:
> *
> Ken Cuccinelli's crusade against sodomy
> *
> Liberty candidate..._really?_


Yeah, Cucinelli is good geopolitically on "global warming" and Obamacare and federalism....    but his crusade to enforce sodomy laws really makes it impossible for libertarians in Virginia to vote for him.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yeah, Cucinelli is good geopolitically on "global warming" and Obamacare and federalism....    but his crusade to enforce sodomy laws really makes it impossible for libertarians in Virginia to vote for him.


LOL yeah, and we've got someone in this very thread who is glad I lost my State Senate race because I don't want to throw people into prison for getting a blowjob.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If their purpose is to promote liberty, then why would they run a candidate against Amash or Cuccinelli?
> 
> I say they exist solely so a group of disaffected individuals can dress up and play politician once a year, just like the folks who attend Renaissance Fairs dress up and pretend to live in medieval times.


 There are both in the LP.  As a political party, it is pretty hard for them to keep out the luftmenschen people and let in only the respectable liberty-promoting people, both practically hard and also legally in many ways impossible, due to state laws about how they must run their political party.  

For men who want to be a big fish in a small pond, it's naturally a target.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If that's how you see it, then it probably is a good thing that you lost your race.





> What we need are more like Gunny who haven't lost sight of the principles of liberty rather than posers.


Amen to that.  I'd rather be on Team Gunny any day.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Petty tyrants supporting petty tyrants.  Nothing new here.


Yep.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If that's how you see it, then it probably is a good thing that you lost your race.


WHAT???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Now wait just a minute, Capt.  You seriously do not know what you are talking about.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'd love to hear why you feel this way.  Seriously.  You should know that this statement makes you sound like a little dictator, quite the opposite of a proponent of Liberty.


I have gone over this 100 times, but I will once more:

The Liberty Movement has goals of: electing liberty candidates to office through the GOP (why the GOP?  Because it is the only vehicle that has shown to be successful for electing liberty candidates); supporting elected officials that are on our side; persuading voters on particular issues (so that when the election comes around they will support our candidates or they will lobby their representatives to support legislation that our guys are proposing); and influencing other elected officials to side with us on particular issues.  

The LP (and for the sake of shorthand throw in the CP and other libertarian/paleocon minor parties in there as well) when they run candidates for offices are asking people to donate time and money to their campaigns.  When they do so, they potentially funnel time and money away from liberty candidates within the GOP that have a chance to win.  They do so because the LP activists are like "snake oil salesmen" who prey on the disaffected and naive with visions of a "third political party that can take on the two party system".  History shows though that they have no effect whatsoever, other than in rare cases playing the role of spoiler.  The LP takes activist time and money away from these goals, by diverting those activists to other endeavors, thus they stand in direct opposition to the work of the Liberty Movement.  They need to be eliminated.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> WHAT???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Now wait just a minute, Capt.  You seriously do not know what you are talking about.


Oh, good.  Now we're getting somewhere.   Finally.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> WHAT???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Now wait just a minute, Capt.  You seriously do not know what you are talking about.


Ehh, I was angry at first too, then I figured out what was going on.  He lost the debate on the merits and that hurt.  So he tried to hurt me out of revenge.  I'm not angry anymore, now I just pity him for being so petty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have gone over this 100 times, but I will once more:
> 
> The Liberty Movement has goals of: elected liberty candidates to office through the GOP (why the GOP?  Because it is the vehicle that has shown to be successful for electing liberty candidates; supporting elected officials that are on our side; persuading voters on particular issues (so that when the election comes around they will support our candidates or they will lobby their representatives to support legislation that our guys are proposing); and influencing other elected officials to side with us on particular issues.  
> 
> The LP (and for the sake of shorthand throw in the CP and other libertarian/paleocon minor parties in there as well) when they run candidates for offices are asking people to donate time and money to their campaigns.  When they do so, they potentially funnel time and money away from liberty candidates within the GOP that have a chance to win.  They do so because the LP activists are like "snake oil salesmen" who prey on the disaffected and naive with visions of a "third political party that can take on the two party system".  History shows though that they have no effect whatsoever, other than in rare cases playing the role of spoiler.  The LP takes activist time and money away from these goals, by diverting those activists to other endeavors, thus they stand in direct opposition to the work of the Liberty Movement.  They need to be eliminated.


This election between Cuccinelli and his opponents is a prime example of why you're wrong about this.  Cuccinelli is no friend of liberty.  There has to be an alternative, and thankfully, there is .... even if the LP candidate only gets between 1-10% of the vote, Cuccinelli will learn that he can't just stick a label on his lapel and call himself a "Liberty candidate".  That means something more than "supporting lower taxes".

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh, good.  Now we're getting somewhere.   Finally.


Oh come on now, LE is far more an ally than you give her credit for.  Everybody on the planet can be wrong on one issue or the other, myself, yourself, and Ron Paul included.  Let's leave the 'making allies into enemies' for the liberals, neocons, and people like Lou.

----------


## Carlybee

> I have gone over this 100 times, but I will once more:
> 
> The Liberty Movement has goals of: electing liberty candidates to office through the GOP (why the GOP?  Because it is the only vehicle that has shown to be successful for electing liberty candidates); supporting elected officials that are on our side; persuading voters on particular issues (so that when the election comes around they will support our candidates or they will lobby their representatives to support legislation that our guys are proposing); and influencing other elected officials to side with us on particular issues.  
> 
> The LP (and for the sake of shorthand throw in the CP and other libertarian/paleocon minor parties in there as well) when they run candidates for offices are asking people to donate time and money to their campaigns.  When they do so, they potentially funnel time and money away from liberty candidates within the GOP that have a chance to win.  They do so because the LP activists are like "snake oil salesmen" who prey on the disaffected and naive with visions of a "third political party that can take on the two party system".  History shows though that they have no effect whatsoever, other than in rare cases playing the role of spoiler.  The LP takes activist time and money away from these goals, by diverting those activists to other endeavors, thus they stand in direct opposition to the work of the Liberty Movement.  They need to be eliminated.


Eliminated? And how would you propose to do that? Make a law allowing only 2 parties? Or are you talking about trying to get people kicked off this forum who disagree with your definition of the liberty movement just because they weren't around when Barry Goldwater was running?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh, good.  Now we're getting somewhere.   Finally.


STFU, Cajun.  I disagree with what he said about Gunny.  I do not agree with one damn thing YOU said.  So get over yourself.

----------


## Cap

> Ehh, I was angry at first too, then I figured out what was going on.  He lost the debate on the merits and that hurt.  So he tried to hurt me out of revenge.  I'm not angry anymore, now I just pity him for being so petty.


He's had his ass handed to him all over this thread. Your stand is well reasoned.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Eliminated? And how would you propose to do that? Make a law allowing only 2 parties? Or are you talking about trying to get people kicked off this forum who disagree with your definition of the liberty movement just because they weren't around when Barry Goldwater was running?


I'm pretty dar-gone sure that Barry Goldwater would be opposed to felonizing oral sex too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh come on now, LE is far more an ally than you give her credit for.  Everybody on the planet can be wrong on one issue or the other, myself, yourself, and Ron Paul included.  Let's leave the 'making allies into enemies' for the liberals, neocons, and people like Lou.


Maybe you'll be so kind as to let her know the same about me, Gunny.  If I had a dime for every time she's called me a name, I could pay all of your campaign debts.

----------


## cajuncocoa

And there it is, proving me right once again:



> Maybe you'll be so kind as to let her know the same about me, Gunny.  If I had a dime for every time she's called me a name, I could pay all of your campaign debts.





> STFU, Cajun.  I disagree with what he said  about Gunny.  I do not agree with one damn thing YOU said.  So get over  yourself.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm pretty dar-gone sure that Barry Goldwater would be opposed to felonizing oral sex too.


Did they have oral sex back then? J/k

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Did they have oral sex back then? J/k


I'm betting they had it as soon as people figured out they could....well, you know.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm pretty dar-gone sure that Barry Goldwater would be opposed to felonizing oral sex too.


i am entirely convinced he would be opposed to losing the election on that. Baby and bathwater.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Eliminated? And how would you propose to do that? Make a law allowing only 2 parties? Or are you talking about trying to get people kicked off this forum who disagree with your definition of the liberty movement just because they weren't around when Barry Goldwater was running?


They can be eliminated by several means.  For one, they need to be denied funding & support for their candidates, and that is accomplished by exposing the folly that is the LP.  When people are educated, they are less likely to fall for the "pitch" given by the charlatans that bilk people out of their hard earned money so that people can dress up and play politician once a year.  Secondly, as the Liberty Movement gains in strength and our successes grow, people will be less likely to fall for their spiel, again denying them of funding and activist support.

Without money and labor, the LP will die a slow and painful death.  It is happening right now to the CP.  

As far as the forum, I don't give a $#@! about that.  But every time people come on here and extol the virtues of the LP, I (and others) will object.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They can be eliminated by several means.  For one, they need to be denied funding & support for their candidates, and that is accomplished by exposing the folly that is the LP.  When people are educated, they are less likely to fall for the "pitch" given by the charlatans that bilk people out of their hard earned money so that people can dress up and play politician once a year.  Secondly, as the Liberty Movement gains in strength and our successes grow, people will be less likely to fall for their spiel, again denying them of funding and activist support.
> 
> Without money and labor, the LP will die a slow and painful death.  It is happening right now to the CP.  
> 
> As far as the forum, I don't give a $#@! about that.  *But every time people come on here and extol the virtues of the LP, I (and others) will object.*


And we know just who you all are too.  How much does the GOP pay you to post here all day?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> And we know just who you all are too.  How much does the GOP pay you to post here all day?


The same amount the Green Party pays you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe you'll be so kind as to let her know the same about me, Gunny.  If I had a dime for every time she's called me a name, I could pay all of your campaign debts.


Probably not a good metaphor, I've never run a campaign debt.  So that would add up to 'zero' dimes.

I'm probably not around on threads where you and she get into it because I haven't seen it very much.  What I will say is that if everybody is constantly reaching for an eye for an eye, then it's going to leave the whole world blind.  The revenge, and revenge for revenge, and revenge for revenge for revenge cycle is going to end up in a very bad place.  Eventually someone is going to have to step up and be the mature adult and put an end to that cycle.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> i am entirely convinced he would be opposed to losing the election on that. Baby and bathwater.


Well, he did endorse Tricky Dick -- a bridge too far for me.  Nobody said Goldwater was perfect.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The same amount the Green Party pays you.


LMAO.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, he did endorse Tricky Dick -- a bridge too far for me.  Nobody said Goldwater was perfect.


And nobody is saying that KC is perfect.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Probably not a good metaphor, I've never run a campaign debt.  So that would add up to 'zero' dimes.
> 
> I'm probably not around on threads where you and she get into it because I haven't seen it very much.  What I will say is that if everybody is constantly reaching for an eye for an eye, then it's going to leave the whole world blind.  The revenge, and revenge for revenge, and revenge for revenge for revenge cycle is going to end up in a very bad place.  *Eventually someone is going to have to step up and be the mature adult and put an end to that cycle.*


Yep, I guess so.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And nobody is saying that KC is perfect.


No, no one is.  Far from it, in fact....for a so-called Liberty candidate.

----------


## Carlybee

> They can be eliminated by several means.  For one, they need to be denied funding & support for their candidates, and that is accomplished by exposing the folly that is the LP.  When people are educated, they are less likely to fall for the "pitch" given by the charlatans that bilk people out of their hard earned money so that people can dress up and play politician once a year.  Secondly, as the Liberty Movement gains in strength and our successes grow, people will be less likely to fall for their spiel, again denying them of funding and activist support.
> 
> Without money and labor, the LP will die a slow and painful death.  It is happening right now to the CP.  
> 
> As far as the forum, I don't give a $#@! about that.  But every time people come on here and extol the virtues of the LP, I (and others) will object.


I hardly think recognizing their right to exist and run candidates is extolling their virtues although I agree with much of their platform. They have a boatload of flaws as a party but they all do...they just dont have big money financing their flaws therefore they cannot be as competitive.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And nobody is saying that KC is perfect.


But he's OK with defending a law that makes 90% of Virginians felons.  

That's a deal-killer for me.

Even his reasoning for why he took that position is anathema to liberty.

Hey, we don't like that pot-smoker but I can't prove he smoked pot so I will keep IRS auditing him until we have grounds to send him to prison.

Yeah, no.  Anybody who thinks that way is an enemy of liberty by the way he thinks.  You don't get to pervert justice in the name of justice.  That's too much like "I'm going to destroy the free market to save the free market."

Bollocks.

----------


## Carlybee

> But he's OK with defending a law that makes 90% of Virginians felons.  
> 
> That's a deal-killer for me.
> 
> Even his reasoning for why he took that position is anathema to liberty.
> 
> Hey, we don't like that pot-smoker but I can't prove he smoked pot so I will keep IRS auditing him until we have grounds to send him to prison.
> 
> Yeah, no.  Anybody who thinks that way is an enemy of liberty by the way he thinks.  You don't get to pervert justice in the name of justice.  That's too much like "I'm going to destroy the free market to save the free market."
> ...


Or like bombing people to keep them from bombing people

----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Or like bombing people to keep them from bombing people








Very reminiscent of 'we are going to pervert the law to uphold the law' indeed.

This is the very kind of thought process that is destroying America, and exactly what this movement coalesced to oppose.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> LOL yeah, and we've got someone in this very thread who is glad I lost my State Senate race because I don't want to throw people into prison for getting a blowjob.


As someone who doesn't live in Virginia, I would be glad to see Cuccinelli win and give the feds $#@! on global warming and Obamacare.  But if I were living in Virginia and voting in this election, I just couldn't vote for him.

----------


## phill4paul

> If that's how you see it, then it probably is a good thing that you lost your race.


 I've read some stupid $#@! spewed from your keyboard but I think you just topped yourself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As someone who doesn't live in Virginia, I would be glad to see Cuccinelli win and give the feds $#@! on global warming and Obamacare.  But if I were living in Virginia and voting in this election, I just couldn't vote for him.


We're better off if people like Cuccinelli don't win without regard to which state any of us live in.  Either someone gets it or they don't, and if they don't, we're better off without them under ALL circumstances.

----------


## mad cow

> Doesn't matter what he wants or doesn't want to do with the law, the law is on the books and can be used at any time in the future, and he is defending and trying to keep that law on the books.  If he were principled, he'd be working to amend the law to remove the stupid parts, and either keep or improve the good parts.  That's not what he's doing.  He's fighting to keep the law as-is.  As a former supporter of Cucinelli, *I hope this lunacy crushes his aspirations here.*
> 
> You don't leave a jacked up law on the books because you don't intend to use it, and you sure as hell don't invest yourself into a fight to keep it.  Maybe he doesn't intend to use it but what about the next guy?  Or the guy after that?
> 
> No.  *Cucinelli deserves to crash and burn for this.*  And I used to support the man.
> 
> If his claimed intent were true, then he'd not be working to keep the law as-is, he'd be working to *amend* the law into what it SHOULD be and then keep THAT.  That's not what he's doing at all.  *So maybe the LP will spoil him.  He deserves it.  And the Republicans of VA deserve to suffer the whack-job liberal for promoting a hard-core social moralist who is OK with calling oral sex a felony to front-runner status*.


The next Governor of Virginia will be either a Democrat or a Republican.Ron Paul endorsed Cooch.You think I can't find *something* to object about with Walter Jones,Greg Brannon or Glen Bradley?

I know,I know...If you aren't Libertarian on all issues and endorse candidates who aren't Perfect Libertarians,like Ron Paul does all the time,you are the enemy,Like Ron Paul is.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Delving into murky social issues is where campaigns go to die in the 21st century.  Losing to Terry McAuliffe is quite the albatross around the neck.

----------


## angelatc

> But he's OK with defending a law that makes 90% of Virginians felons.  
> 
> That's a deal-killer for me.
> 
> Even his reasoning for why he took that position is anathema to liberty.
> 
> Hey, we don't like that pot-smoker but I can't prove he smoked pot so I will keep IRS auditing him until we have grounds to send him to prison.
> 
> Yeah, no.  Anybody who thinks that way is an enemy of liberty by the way he thinks.  You don't get to pervert justice in the name of justice.  That's too much like "I'm going to destroy the free market to save the free market."
> ...


One bad law that the governor cant change anyway.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The next Governor of Virginia will be either a Democrat or a Republican.Ron Paul endorsed Cooch.You think I can't find *something* to object about with Walter Jones,Greg Brannon or Glen Bradley?
> 
> I know,I know...If you aren't Libertarian on all issues and endorse candidates who aren't Perfect Libertarians,like Ron Paul does all the time,you are the enemy,Like Ron Paul is.


I am pretty sure that making 90% of every citizen _a felon_ is more than just a minor flaw.  You are cramming words into my mouth that have never lived there, and you should be ashamed of yourself.  I have never demanded perfection, and am often criticized around here for too much compromise.  Accepting someone who wants 90% of every adult citizen to be _a felon_ is not compromise, it's abdication.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> One bad law that the governor cant change anyway.


So we should accept a guy *who wants 90%* of _all the adult citizens_ in his state to stand on the wrong side of _a felony_ statute?

SMH

If you show me someone who is perfectly identical to Ron Paul in every way, except he wants to nuke Tehran, guess what, I'm going to oppose that guy too.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe you'll be so kind as to let her know the same about me, Gunny.  If I had a dime for every time she's called me a name, I could pay all of your campaign debts.


You have made your own bed.  Now lie in it.




> Oh come on now, LE is far more an ally than you give her credit for.  Everybody on the planet can be wrong on one issue or the other, myself, yourself, and Ron Paul included.  Let's leave the 'making allies into enemies' for the liberals, neocons, and people like Lou.


I consider Capt. Lou much more my ally than Cajun ever was.  I think you agree with him on a number of things too, Gunny.

----------


## LibertyEagle

This is what you can do if you took the time to get positioned in the GOP, which will also be extremely helpful when elections roll around.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5203102

Spiker can use that podium he has to speak truth to power.  If he had instead chosen to have a tantrum about how horrible the GOP was, in lieu of the hard work it took to get in the position he now is, no one would be hearing him.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You have made your own bed.  Now lie in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I consider Capt. Lou much more my ally than Cajun ever was.  I think you agree with him on a number of things too, Gunny.


I'm not the one telling Lou that I'm glad he failed at something that he's put years of effort into and spent his last dime on simply because I don't like his argument and am unable to counter it.  If Lou wants to shyt on the last 6 years of my life it should come as no surprise to you, him, or anybody that such a thing annoys me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not the one telling Lou that I'm glad he failed at something that he's put years of effort into and spent his last dime on simply because I don't like his argument and am unable to counter it.  If Lou wants to shyt on the last 6 years of my life it should come as no surprise to you, him, or anybody that such a thing annoys me.


I agree that what he said about you was wrong.  But, that doesn't mean that everything he has said is crap, Gunny.  Yet, you categorized him as such.  That isn't like you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You have made your own bed.  Now lie in it.


LOL...I have no problem sleeping in whatever bed I've made.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I agree that what he said about you was wrong.  But, that doesn't mean that everything he has said is crap, Gunny.  Yet, you categorized him as such.  That isn't like you.


I think you may be reading things into my statements that I have never said.  I characterized him as making allies into enemies.  I stand by that characterization because he darn sure tried to do that with me.

----------


## phill4paul

> I agree that what he said about you was wrong.  But, that doesn't mean that everything he has said is crap, Gunny.  Yet, you categorized him as such.  That isn't like you.


 No, what Gunny did was make a principled stand and backed it up with logic. Capt.Lew had nothing to counter and so resorted to being a dick. As he has since this thread started.

----------


## mad cow

> I am pretty sure that making 90% of every citizen _a felon_ is more than just a minor flaw.  You are cramming words into my mouth that have never lived there, and you should be ashamed of yourself.  I have never demanded perfection, and am often criticized around here for too much compromise.  Accepting someone who wants 90% of every adult citizen to be _a felon_ is not compromise, it's abdication.


Have you ever bothered to read Lawrence v Texas?I'm sure Cooch ,as a State Attorney General has.

Maybe this 90% felony rate you are inventing would be after Virginia secedes from the Union again?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, what Gunny did was make a principled stand and backed it up with logic. Capt.Lew had nothing to counter and so resorted to being a dick. As he has since this thread started.


OT, but I love your sig line and I see it came from the AMA Ron did on Reddit.  I haven't read through all of it yet, but that quote certainly sounds different from the idea that supposedly came from Ron that we should work within -- _and only within_ -- the GOP for Liberty.

----------


## compromise

I donated to Glenn's campaign so obviously I'm not happy he lost, but I do agree with Lou that he should put small disagreements on minor social issues aside for the greater good - getting a Ron Paul endorsed constitutionalist into the Governor's mansion in one of the most populous states in the union.

If Glenn thinks he can do a much better job, I'd strongly suggest he run for Governor in North Carolina in 2016.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I donated to Glenn's campaign so obviously I'm not happy he lost, but I do agree with Lou that he should put small disagreements on minor social issues aside for the greater good - getting a Ron Paul endorsed constitutionalist into the Governor's mansion in one of the most populous states in the union.
> 
> If Glenn thinks he can do a much better job, I'd strongly suggest he run for Governor in North Carolina in 2016.


Maybe you would change your mind about this being a "minor social issue" if *you* got locked up for having oral sex with your spouse.  It's only a "minor issue" when the crime doesn't apply to YOU.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Have you ever bothered to read Lawrence v Texas?I'm sure Cooch ,as a State Attorney General has.
> 
> Maybe this _90% felony rate you are inventing_ would be after Virginia secedes from the Union again?


Yes, because the Center for Disease Control is a figment of my imagination.

----------


## phill4paul

> I donated to Glenn's campaign so obviously I'm not happy he lost, but I do agree with Lou that he should put small disagreements on minor social issues aside for the greater good - getting a Ron Paul endorsed constitutionalist into the Governor's mansion in one of the most populous states in the union.
> 
> If Glenn thinks he can do a much better job, I'd strongly suggest he run for Governor in North Carolina in 2016.


 Have YOU been a state house rep? .... thought as much. I'm glad you donated to help him though. Honestly. A governorship will run about $6 million.  +. Ya got that kinda scratch? ...thought as much.

----------


## mad cow

> Yes, because the Center for Disease Control is a figment of my imagination.


The Center for Disease Control wants to make 90% of Americans felons for engaging in oral sex?Gotta link?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think you may be reading things into my statements that I have never said.  I characterized him as making allies into enemies.  I stand by that characterization because he darn sure tried to do that with me.


Ah, I see.  You're right on that.  However, I am getting to be past the point of believing that a few of these folks are allies at all.  People who spend their days not only sticking knives into Rand Paul, but also do their best to discourage anyone from taking part in political action within the GOP.  I don't call those folks, allies.  Maybe I have run out of patience, Gunny.  But, it's gotten to be very discouraging to come to a site where you'd think you'd be surrounded by like-minded people but instead you are forced to do battle to defend our own liberty candidates, much less a strategy that Ron Paul recommended.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I donated to Glenn's campaign so obviously I'm not happy he lost, but I do agree with Lou that he should put small disagreements on minor social issues aside for the greater good - getting a Ron Paul endorsed constitutionalist into the Governor's mansion in one of the most populous states in the union.
> 
> If Glenn thinks he can do a much better job, I'd strongly suggest he run for Governor in North Carolina in 2016.


I don't consider this a minor social issue.  The Center for Disease Control studying some 13,000 random sampled people learned that 90% of Americans have oral sex.  That means that 90% of Virginians are on the wrong side of a felony statute therefore they can be harassed at will at any time the government decides to.

Oh, we don't like what that guy is saying?  Hire a call-girl to seduce him, give him oral sex, and now under her testimony this guy goes to prison as a sex offender.  That is the kind of law that should not be on the books anywhere in the US.  Someone ignoring it in this day and age is forgivable.  Someone fighting to keep it that way is not.

Let's take the social issue aspect out of it altogether.  It's a felony to own a certain type of African Violet in the United States.  Let's say that someone managed to get that issue in front of the courts, and the law making possession of this violet was about to be ruled unconstitutional.  Now say an honest-to-goodness liberty hero like Justin Amash decided to fight tooth and nail to keep the possession of this violet a federal felony "because a thief was once convicted for that and if we overturn the law he will be released."

Guess what?  Someone who does that has abandoned all principle and I will oppose them.

Cuccinelli is wrong on this 6 ways from Sunday, and everyone defending him for it is wrong too.  I am sorry if you do not grasp the fundamental principle of this issue and why it is so vehemently opposed to liberty.

I very much appreciate your having donated to my Senate campaign, and I'm sorry it turned out the way it did.

I can indeed to a better job of Governor, and there are a whole bunch of people in NC who have asked me to run.  Including Greg Brannon.  I might be willing but I am not going to burn donor money on another losing effort.  Show me $5 Million up front and I will go and file the committee tomorrow.

I am not going to run another race outspent over 10 to 1.  I am not going to run another race where I am my own campaign manager.  I am not going to run another race where I am doing literally all the work myself, because I damn near killed myself the last time I did that.

----------


## Carlybee

> for the greater good  
>  .



Liberal

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Center for Disease Control wants to make 90% of Americans felons for engaging in oral sex?Gotta link?


You may need a refund for your grade school reading classes. 

The CDC has concluded that 90% of Americans engage in oral sex.
The law Cuccinelli is defending makes oral sex a felony.
∴ Ken Cuccinelli is fighting in favor of making 90% of the Americans in Virginia guilty of a felony.

Premise, premise, conclusion.  If you have taken Logic 101 you will recognize the format.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Well, Gunny, I'm sure there are some in this thread who would wave a mean sign for you.  That's all that's needed to win, isn't it?  Oh, and as an extra, they would probably curse your state GOP, just to be extra helpful.

----------


## Rocco

I figured it would be productive to outline some of Cucinelli's libertarian positions, just so people here understand what they're throwing away when they support this LP jerk over him:

-This is a man who not only supports Washington and Colorado's right to legalize marijuana, he is somebody who is looking to that when making legalization decisions about his own state. Even the governors who signed the marijuana bills campaigned against them, making Cucinelli the ONLY candidate for a gubernatorial office who has openly talked about legalizing marijuana in the future. He calls state legalization "federalism in action". 

-Cucinelli has been a consistent opponent of eminent domain laws and has fought hard against eminent domain abuse as attorney general. If this isn't a liberty issue I don't know what is. 

-Cucinelli has pledged to invoke the 10th amendment to stop federal encroachments on state sovereignty. He has said this specifically in regards to right to work and cap and trade, but on issues like NDAA and medical marijuana we may find this approach favorable as well. 

-Cucinelli's economic plan is nothing short of fantastic. He wants to cut the state personal income tax by 13%, the business income tax by 33% and pledged to make sure state government growth does not exceed inflation (this translates to a "no growth" pledge if we use baseline budgeting). The Thomas Jefferson institute predicts this would create 58,000 jobs and add $3.2 billion to the state economy.

So think of these things when you advocate for throwing your vote away to the LP based on a law thats been applied exclusively to child molesters. Cucinelli advocates real libertarian reforms that will help the people of his state. I am proud to support him.

----------


## phill4paul

> much less a strategy that Ron Paul recommended.


  THIS strategy?




> Now the problem is, if we don't have a process whereby you disagree with the two parties, you don't have anyplace to go because it is very difficult to get on the ballot, it's difficult to get in the debates unless you participate in the "so-called" two-party system we have today, and *ultimately the changes come about not by tinkering with either political party - it only comes through education and getting people to understand the wisdom of non-intervention in foreign policy, non-intervention in personal liberties, and non-intervention in the economy. - Ron Paul*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> THIS strategy?


No, THIS one.

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “*eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action*.” -- Ron Paul

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ah, I see.  You're right on that.  However, I am getting to be past the point of believing that a few of these folks are allies at all.  People who spend their days not only sticking knives into Rand Paul,* but also do their best to discourage anyone from taking part in political action within the GOP.*  I don't call those folks, allies*.*  Maybe I have run out of patience, Gunny.  But, it's gotten to be very discouraging to come to a site where you'd think you'd be surrounded by like-minded people but instead you are forced to do battle to defend our own liberty candidates, much less a strategy that Ron Paul recommended.


I know you include me in that number, LE so I'm going to address this again:  you give some of us way too much power.  I don't see myself as having enough influence to discourage anyone from doing what they want to do.  But when I see the behavior of the GOP establishment toward Liberty activists (see 2012 LAGOP convention and the 2012 RNC Convention for reference) I've decided that it's not the best place for ME to be active.  And when the GOP candidate is someone who advocates locking up as felons consenting adults for behavior that 90% of the population has engaged in (taking Gunny's word for the statistic here, but I don't doubt it) that certainly makes me reconsider just how much of a "Liberty candidate" that person is....and I certainly would look for another option (LP) if I lived in Virginia. 

As for "spending all day sticking knives" into Rand, you're engaging in hyperbole again.  I have, in the past but not recently, criticized him (and will again, if necessary).  You much too thin-skinned to be involved in politics, LE.  Rand can take that criticism, I'm sure....why can't you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

I don't give you ANY power, Cajun.  And for that reason, I'm not even bothering to read beyond your first sentence.  You have made it perfectly clear over the last year where you stand.  We are not allies whatsoever.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, Gunny, I'm sure there are some in this thread who would wave a mean sign for you.  That's all that's needed to win, isn't it?  Oh, and as an extra, they would probably curse your state GOP, just to be extra helpful.


  Your damn straight I'll curse MY states GOP. THEY had a chance to really show N.C. what could be done with a conservative leadership and squandered it on Amendment One and other bull$#@!, like gerrymandering Glen out of his district. That he WON from a Dem.  Bunch of $#@!tards, frankly. They'll be lucky to hold it the next go around and I ain't one that will be helping this go around.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well, Gunny, I'm sure there are some in this thread who would wave a mean sign for you.  That's all that's needed to win, isn't it?  Oh, and as an extra, they would probably curse your state GOP, just to be extra helpful.


Stop making personal attacks because people believe in holding a candidates feet to the fire. Would you hire someone if you found out he only believes in stealing a little?  There are some concessions that are not acceptable. Just because someone has an R after their name and hitched their wagon to the liberty train doesn't mean they don't have to walk the walk.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Your damn straight I'll curse MY states GOP. THEY had a chance to really show N.C. what could be done with a conservative leadership and squandered it on Amendment One and other bull$#@!, like gerrymandering Glen out of his district. That he WON from a Dem.  Bunch of $#@!tards, frankly. They'll be lucky to hold it the next go around and I ain't one that will be helping this go around.


Phill, I was talking about WHILE he was running for office.  Silly.  

I have done my fair share of cursing some of the people at the top, directly.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Stop making personal attacks because people believe in holding a candidates feet to the fire. Would you hire someone if you found out he only believes in stealing a little?  There are some concessions that are not acceptable. Just because someone has an R after their name and hitched their wagon to the liberty train doesn't mean they don't have to walk the walk.


It's interesting that you saw yourself in that.  Though, if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it.

----------


## phill4paul

> No, THIS one.
> 
> “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “*eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action*.” -- Ron Paul


  Well, then it seems we have a stalemate. So I'll take my road of voting, helping only principled candidates that can truly educate the populace and you can take YOUR road which is....cheer leading for which ever politician has an R next to their name.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, then it seems we have a stalemate. So I'll take my road of voting, helping only principled candidates that can truly educate the populace and you can take YOUR road which is....cheer leading for which ever politician has an R next to their name.


That is most certainly NOT my road, Phill.  But, feel free to think whatever you want.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, Gunny, I'm sure there are some in this thread who would wave a mean sign for you.  That's all that's needed to win, isn't it?  Oh, and as an extra, they would probably curse your state GOP, just to be extra helpful.


ROFL do I ever have stories!  Democrats have it so easy -- their people will just zombie after anything the guy in charge tells them.  Republicans don't have it as easy as the Democrats but they have it a lot easier than we do, Republican activists will mostly come together on what needs done and then everyone throws in.  

Liberty people, I hate to say it, are mostly useless.  They want to do only what they individually want to do, and to hell with what anybody says is useful or effective.  I had a guy contact me during the Senate campaign who did stencils banners and signs.  I said great!  I have 500 yard signs from my 2008 House campaign that all I need is to block out "House" and stencil in "Senate"

"No, I don't want to do that.   I don't think yardsigns are effective.  I want to make banners to hang on bridges."

Um.  OK thanks.  Good luck and don't hurt yourself.

Even if you account for their skills and direct them in a direction that they are naturally inclined -- it wasn't like I was asking him to CANVASS God forbid -- our people just do what they want to and don't much care about what needs to be done to, you know, actually win.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't give you ANY power, Cajun.  And for that reason, *I'm not even bothering to read beyond your first sentence*.  You have made it perfectly clear over the last year where you stand.  We are not allies whatsoever.


That's why you continue to lie about me.  Why bother to learn the truth when you can just make $#@! up?  If you would read it, you'd stop making a fool of yourself.

----------


## Carlybee

> It's interesting that you saw yourself in that.  Though, if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it.


Gee...I wonder why! You constantly make every thread a cult of personality.  No one died and made you the leader of the liberty movement last time I checked yet you sure like to throw your weight around as if we are supposed to bow down and kiss your feet.  I do what I want.  I support who I want.  $#@! your collective mentality.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Gee...I wonder why! You constantly make every thread a cult of personality.  No one died and made you the leader of the liberty movement last time I checked yet you sure like to throw your weight around as if we are supposed to bow down and kiss your feet.  I do what I want.  I support who I want.  $#@! your collective mentality.


lol.

----------


## Carlybee

> ROFL do I ever have stories!  Democrats have it so easy -- their people will just zombie after anything the guy in charge tells them.  Republicans don't have it as easy as the Democrats but they have it a lot easier than we do, Republican activists will mostly come together on what needs done and then everyone throws in.  
> 
> Liberty people, I hate to say it, are mostly useless.  They want to do only what they individually want to do, and to hell with what anybody says is useful or effective.  I had a guy contact me during the Senate campaign who did stencils banners and signs.  I said great!  I have 500 yard signs from my 2008 House campaign that all I need is to block out "House" and stencil in "Senate"
> 
> "No, I don't want to do that.   I don't think yardsigns are effective.  I want to make banners to hang on bridges."
> 
> Um.  OK thanks.  Good luck and don't hurt yourself.
> 
> Even if you account for their skills and direct them in a direction that they are naturally inclined -- it wasn't like I was asking him to CANVASS God forbid -- our people just do what they want to and don't much care about what needs to be done to, you know, actually win.


I think that's a bit of a broad brush to paint liberty people with.  Maybe in your experience but some of us at the local level here where I live at least went to meet ups, planning sessions, made uber phone calls, canvassed neighborhoods, passed out flyers, took the damned Ron Paul bumper stickers off our cars so we could be "stealth" among the Republicans, fund raised and donated money.  Lots of it.  Sat in the bleachers with the big haired ladies wearing pearls and smiled and nodded like idiots in order to get elected as delegates.  I don't know what else we could have done.

----------


## phill4paul

> That is most certainly NOT my road, Phill.  But, feel free to think whatever you want.


  Perhaps, to me, it just SEEMS that way sometimes. Glen laid out a pretty straight forward argument against the R in this race and you were defending Capt. Lew saying he made some good points. I've yet to see one.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think that's a bit of a broad brush to paint liberty people with.  Maybe in your experience but some of us at the local level here where I live at least went to meet ups, planning sessions, made uber phone calls, canvassed neighborhoods, passed out flyers, took the damned Ron Paul bumper stickers off our cars so we could be "stealth" among the Republicans, fund raised and donated money.  Lots of it.  I don't know what else we could have done.


It may be a broad brush but it's an accurate one.  Phill4Paul came out and canvassed (thanks again!), and he was very effective.  There are exceptions to every rule. In 2008 I had a total of about 8 people willing to actually help do what needed done, and most of them only about 2-5 days each over the course of the entire campaign.

----------


## Carlybee

> It may be a broad brush but it's an accurate one.  Phill4Paul came out and canvassed (thanks again!), and he was very effective.  There are exceptions to every rule. In 2008 I had a total of about 8 people willing to actually help do what needed done, and most of them only about 2-5 days each over the course of the entire campaign.



Could be your area too....the liberty movement was starting to get pretty active here in Houston at least leading up to 2008.  I think it will be again when/if we get some people around here to get fired up about.

----------


## phill4paul

> It may be a broad brush but it's an accurate one.  Phill4Paul came out and canvassed (thanks again!), and he was very effective.  There are exceptions to every rule. In 2008 I had a total of about 8 people willing to actually help do what needed done, and most of them only about 2-5 days each over the course of the entire campaign.


 I can't accept credit where it is not do, Glen. I was never able (financially or time wise or familial obligations) to make it to that side of the state. Much to my chagrin. I did set up your first money bomb though.  There are a bunch of us Phill4Pauls out there though. I've met several. But, I do understand where you are coming from. Herding the conspiracy theorist cats at the meet-up I ran in 2007-8 was excruciating. And I love me some conspiracy, mind you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Perhaps, to me, it just SEEMS that way sometimes. Glen laid out a pretty straight forward argument against the R in this race and you were defending Capt. Lew saying he made some good points. I've yet to see one.


In a nutshell, I was referring to some of the things he said about getting involved.  Look at Gunny's last couple of posts.  We need to learn how to be effective; not just go out and do our own thing thinking that it will somehow work to get someone elected.  It won't.  Just like you would learn how to play football before you went out to play a game that you expected to win, why would anyone believe it required less to get someone elected?

----------


## phill4paul

> In a nutshell, I was referring to some of the things he said about getting involved.  Look at Gunny's last couple of posts.  We need to learn how to be effective; not just go out and do our own thing thinking that it will somehow work to get someone elected.  It won't.  Just like you would learn how to play football before you went out to play a game that you expected to win, why would anyone believe it required less to get someone elected?


   Well, we have just posted two things concerning Ron's thoughts on the matter. Your road is one way. Mine another. To me politics is broken. Are there some good things happening? Amash, Massie..and yes even Rand? Certainly. And to those that continue on this road I don't want to discourage. I do, however, want to remind them of my road. Which is education. It is about keeping a discerning eye on those that wish to govern. Are we not still allies to the end game?

  "non-intervention in foreign policy, non-intervention in personal liberties, and non-intervention in the economy"

----------


## mad cow

> You may need a refund for your grade school reading classes. 
> 
> The CDC has concluded that 90% of Americans engage in oral sex.
> The law Cuccinelli is defending makes oral sex a felony.
> ∴ Ken Cuccinelli is fighting in favor of making 90% of the Americans in Virginia guilty of a felony.
> 
> Premise, premise, conclusion.  If you have taken Logic 101 you will recognize the format.


How many consenting adults would* any* Virginia law against sodomy make felons if Virginia does *not* secede from the union?

You claim 90%.Care to prove it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, we have just posted two things concerning Ron's thoughts on the matter. Your road is one way. Mine another. To me politics is broken. Are there some good things happening? Amash, Massie..and yes even Rand? Certainly. And to those that continue on this road I don't want to discourage. I do, however, want to remind them of my road. Which is education. It is about keeping a discerning eye on those that wish to govern. Are we not still allies to the end game?
> 
>   "non-intervention in foreign policy, non-intervention in personal liberties, and non-intervention in the economy"


Sure we are, Phill.  The only thing though that I would add is that these two strategies are not mutually-exclusive.  There is plenty of education going on both during campaigns and after they are elected.  Rand does that in every one of his interviews, in fact, and if he wasn't a Senator, no one in the media would be giving him the time of day.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How many consenting adults would* any* Virginia law against sodomy make felons if Virginia does *not* secede from the union?
> 
> You claim 90%.Care to prove it?


You have an awful lot of faith in fedgov to protect citizens against State felony statutes.  That's a faith that I do not share.  And the way the English language is constructed, one is a felon the moment they have violated a felony statute.  After they are convicted, they become a convicted felon.  So even if nobody is ever convicted (unlikely, or he wouldn't be fighting to keep the law) or even if nobody is ever indicted, they are still felons.  Simply because the law is on the books.

A nation of felons is easier to control than a nation of sovereigns.

It is wrong that the law is on the books, period.

There is no excuse or justification to fight for maintaining a law that makes the act oral sex a felony under any circumstance.

Amend the law, make it so that oral sex with an unconsenting minor or a minor unable to give consent by virtue of being a minor triggers the felony.  Then the bad guys don't get off, at most they get a re-trial if a judge things the new wording may have affected the outcome of their convictions.  But that's not what's happening here.

What's happening is that over the last 10 years, Virginia DA's became lazy, and unwilling to put in the effort to convict child molesters of child molestation, they went for an easy score and in doing so violated all kinds of juris prudence.

Ken Cuccinelli has decided that it is more important to keep 90% of Virginians as felons than to go back and correct tremendous violations of due process.  That's wrong.  Wrong is wrong.  You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

----------


## mad cow

> *You have an awful lot of faith in fedgov to protect citizens against State felony statutes.  That's a faith that I do not share.*  And the way the English language is constructed, one is a felon the moment they have violated a felony statute.  After they are convicted, they become a convicted felon.  So even if nobody is ever convicted (unlikely, or he wouldn't be fighting to keep the law) or even if nobody is ever indicted, they are still felons.  Simply because the law is on the books.
> 
> A nation of felons is easier to control than a nation of sovereigns.
> 
> It is wrong that the law is on the books, period.
> 
> There is no excuse or justification to fight for maintaining a law that makes the act oral sex a felony under any circumstance.
> 
> Amend the law, make it so that oral sex with an unconsenting minor or a minor unable to give consent by virtue of being a minor triggers the felony.  Then the bad guys don't get off, at most they get a re-trial if a judge things the new wording may have affected the outcome of their convictions.  But that's not what's happening here.
> ...


OK,how many consenting adults has Cooch prosecuted for sodomy since he has been Virginia AG?
10% of the population?50%?*None*?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> OK,how many consenting adults has Cooch prosecuted for sodomy since he has been Virginia AG?
> 10% of the population?50%?*None*?


So the idea that the current guy has no plans to prosecute violations of a horrible law, is an excuse to fight to keep a horrible law on the books?  What about the next AG?  What if that guy is some kind of insane social warrior?  What if they don't actually give a damn about oral sex, but will use it as leverage to make liberty activists shut up when they are saying uncomfortable things?

Obama doesn't plan on drone-striking Americans on American soil, he said so himself.  So what's the big deal legalizing armed drones to fly around in CONUS anyway?  After all Obama _said_ he would never actually _use_ that authority.

One thing I would have thought that people in the liberty movement would have learned by now, is you never give your guy a power that you do not trust the next guy with.

----------


## phill4paul

> OK,how many consenting adults has Cooch prosecuted for sodomy since he has been Virginia AG?
> 10% of the population?50%?*None*?


  Does that somehow excuse his advocacy of it? I recall a similar law in LA in which a sheriff in Baton Rouge actively pursued these convictions. You are not understanding what Glen's point is. Open your mind a little and think outside that box.

----------


## mad cow

> So the idea that the current guy has no plans to prosecute violations of a horrible law, is an excuse to fight to keep a horrible law on the books?  What about the next AG?  What if that guy is some kind of insane social warrior?  What if they don't actually give a damn about oral sex, but will use it as leverage to make liberty activists shut up when they are saying uncomfortable things?
> 
> Obama doesn't plan on drone-striking Americans on American soil, he said so himself.  So what's the big deal legalizing armed drones to fly around in CONUS anyway?  After all Obama _said_ he would never actually _use_ that authority.
> 
> One thing I would have thought that people in the liberty movement would have learned by now, is you never give your guy a power that you do not trust the next guy with.


So you want to saddle us with Terry McAuliffe on the off chance that Lawrence v Texas might be repealed or Virginia might secede from the Union and that Virginia politicians at either of those points  would want to throw 90% of the entire adult population in State prisons against their overwhelming and documented desire to engage in voluntary oral sex with other consenting adult Virginians?

Thanks for nothing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Does that somehow excuse his advocacy of it?* I recall a similar law in LA in which a sheriff in Baton Rouge actively pursued these convictions.* You are not understanding what Glen's point is. Open your mind a little and think outside that box.


http://theadvocate.com/news/police/6...rouge-arrested

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's pretty selfish.  If XYZ doesn't matter to YOU then who cares, right?  I'm not black so why not reinstate slavery?  I don't use drugs, so where's the problem in sending druggies to the penn?  I've never received oral sex in my life so I don't really care if they make half the population of the State into felons.  Come on guy, if fighting for liberty is only about 'me me me' then we will never again know liberty in the United States.


I'm no fan of "Compromise" but I don't think he's saying that he wants oral sex to be criminalized, simply that he's not going to refuse to vote against someone on those grounds.  Personally, I probably wouldn't either, unless he supported unconstitutional tactics to enforce that law.  Its one social issue, and the law will probably never get through anyway.  If he was solid on everything else, I'd probably vote for him.

That said, I can understand why some people would have more of an issue with this than I do.  And I still do have an issue with it, its just not a dealbreaker for me.

----------


## phill4paul

> So you want to saddle us with Terry McAuliffe on the off chance that Lawrence v Texas might be repealed or Virginia might secede from the Union and that Virginia politicians at either of those points  would want to throw 90% of the entire adult population in State prisons against their overwhelming and documented desire to engage in voluntary oral sex with other consenting adult Virginians?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.


 Seems to me Virginians get a choice of $#@! sandwiches. Don't feel too bad, it happens _almost_ everywhere there is a two-party choice. Oh, wait, you DO have a third party candidate.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So you want to saddle us with Terry McAuliffe on the off chance that Lawrence v Texas might be repealed or Virginia might secede from the Union and that Virginia politicians at either of those points  would want to throw 90% of the entire adult population in State prisons against their overwhelming and documented desire to engage in voluntary oral sex with other consenting adult Virginians?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.


You are a funny guy talking about the police state in your signature.

And I guess 'if yer ain't fer us yer agin us' is a new theme?  If I thought McCain was a bad guy does that somehow make Barack Obama my hero?  Pick the lesser of two evils because red koolaid with arsenic is somehow better than blue koolaid with cyanide?

You are now trotting out tropes against me that were worn threadbare by those who hated Ron Paul.  Standing on principle is a lonely place to be, but that's OK.

You clearly from your responses have absolutely no concept of what I am telling you.  Cuccinelli is working to advance the tyrannical police state, and you are defending that.  The real crime, which all of you defenders keep overlooking, is this idea that we cannot convict someone for the actual crime we think he is guilty of, so we will convict him on something else that may not be what he actually did wrong but we can more easily get a conviction.  That is what Cuccinelli is defending, a blatant perversion of justice, due process, and juris prudence.  If some random guy felt that way it would be more excusable, but as a lawyer and an AG he knows better than to just crap all over the Constitution whenever the law becomes inconvenient.

If someone breaks the law, you charge them with breaking the law that they violated.  If there is not enough evidence to convict them of that law, then too bad.  You don't go fishing around for whatever else you can probably convince a jury of until you fince something to notch your belt with a new conviction.

That's more than just 'slightly bad' that's pure awful evil.  We are talking about playing games with peoples lives, and a cold callous disregard for justice.

So you can overlook that kind of thing.  I cannot.  I have principles.

And you are welcome!

----------


## mad cow

> Seems to me Virginians get a choice of $#@! sandwiches. Don't feel too bad, it happens _almost_ everywhere there is a two-party choice. Oh, wait, you DO have a third party candidate.


Heck,we have a third,forth and fifth party candidate.
But only* one* of them is endorsed by Ron Paul.That's my guy,that's Ken Cuccinelli.

----------


## mad cow

> You are a funny guy talking about the police state in your signature.
> 
> And I guess 'if yer ain't fer us yer agin us' is a new theme?  If I thought McCain was a bad guy does that somehow make Barack Obama my hero?  Pick the lesser of two evils because red koolaid with arsenic is somehow better than blue koolaid with cyanide?
> 
> You are now trotting out tropes against me that were worn threadbare by those who hated Ron Paul.  Standing on principle is a lonely place to be, but that's OK.
> 
> You clearly from your responses have absolutely no concept of what I am telling you.  Cuccinelli is working to advance the tyrannical police state, and you are defending that.  The real crime, which all of you defenders keep overlooking, is this idea that we cannot convict someone for the actual crime we think he is guilty of, so we will convict him on something else that may not be what he actually did wrong but we can more easily get a conviction.  That is what Cuccinelli is defending, a blatant perversion of justice, due process, and juris prudence.  If some random guy felt that way it would be more excusable, but as a lawyer and an AG he knows better than to just crap all over the Constitution whenever the law becomes inconvenient.
> 
> If someone breaks the law, you charge them with breaking the law that they violated.  If there is not enough evidence to convict them of that law, then too bad.  You don't go fishing around for whatever else you can probably convince a jury of until you fince something to notch your belt with a new conviction.
> ...


I endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia,maybe I'm a moron.

Ron Paul endorses Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia,maybe he's a moron.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm no fan of "Compromise" but I don't think he's saying that he wants oral sex to be criminalized, simply that he's not going to refuse to vote against someone on those grounds.  Personally, I probably wouldn't either, unless he supported unconstitutional tactics to enforce that law.  Its one social issue, and the law will probably never get through anyway.  If he was solid on everything else, I'd probably vote for him.
> 
> That said, I can understand why some people would have more of an issue with this than I do.  And I still do have an issue with it, *its just not a dealbreaker for me*.


It would be if there was a possibility you could be imprisoned over it.  The bigger issue, however, is whether someone can be referred to as a "liberty candidate" when they're trying to police what can happen between two consenting adults in their own bedroom.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia,maybe I'm a moron.
> 
> Ron Paul endorses Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia,maybe he's a moron.


Can you think for yourself?  Do you know on your own when it's time to eat, or do you need Ron Paul to tell you?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm no fan of "Compromise" but I don't think he's saying that he wants oral sex to be criminalized, simply that he's not going to refuse to vote against someone on those grounds.  Personally, I probably wouldn't either, unless he supported unconstitutional tactics to enforce that law.  Its one social issue, and the law will probably never get through anyway.  If he was solid on everything else, I'd probably vote for him.
> 
> That said, I can understand why some people would have more of an issue with this than I do.  And I still do have an issue with it, its just not a dealbreaker for me.


It's really not about oral sex.  That's just the peak of the iceberg to a far deeper and more expansive issue involving the acceptance of prosecutorial misconduct, and allowing leverage to remain on the books that can be used to hamstring almost anybody in the State they should choose to.

So the little bit you can see on the surface is about this idea that the law he is defending makes oral sex a felony.  I have explained until my fingers are bruised what the deeper and more important issues are, and all the defenders keep making it about oral sex.

Encouraging prosecutorial misconduct is a characteristic of open tyranny.

So Joe Evans is suspected of doing a crime.  The police investigate and there is not the evidence needed to convict him of that crime, or there is enough evidence but the case is not solid.  The DA is concerned for his reputation, because you know their conviction rate is how they secure their jobs and their promotions, so they tell the cops, "that crime is not a slam dunk.  Keep digging until you find something that is a slam dunk.  I want to get promoted after all, and I have an election coming up."

So the cops go back and keep digging and digging, and finally they find the dried petal for some flower inside his wedding album.  Destructive DNA testing confirms that it is a prohibited African violet, so BOOM!  now we can indict him for possession of an African violet and the DA gets to notch his belt.

This is like the 4th or the 5th time in this thread that I took oral sex and social issues all the way out of it and explained why this is evil and tantamount to tyranny.  Do people still not get it?

The fact that Cucinelli is OK with this behavior disqualifies him from public office, period.  The fact that he is active defending this behavior and encouraging it to continue into the future makes him an active petty tyrant.  

If you can't convict someone of violating the actual law that they broke, then you either refrain from indicting them until you do have enough evidence, or you take them to trial and deal with the acquittal.  What Cuccinelli is advocating/defending here is not just 'a little bit wrong' it is pure outright evil, and it perpetuates the tyranny that we are supposed to be fighting against.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia,maybe I'm a moron.
> 
> Ron Paul endorses Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia,maybe he's a moron.


The Ron Paul endorsement came before this sodamy law kerfluffle.  I was a Cuccinelli supporter at that time also.  It was when he unmasked himself as a petty tyrant that I stopped supporting him.  Revoking an official endorsement is almost unheard of, so I do not blame Ron Paul for just going away and leaving the situation alone.

----------


## mad cow

> Can you think for yourself?  Do you know on your own when it's time to eat, or do you need Ron Paul to tell you?


I can think for myself as can Ron Paul.We both endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia all on our own.
And we both don't give a rat's ass who cajuncocoa endorses for Governor of Virginia,all on our own.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The fact that Cucinelli is OK with this behavior disqualifies him from public office, period.  The fact that he is active defending this behavior and encouraging it to continue into the future makes him an active petty tyrant.


But, but, but he wants to lower taxes!

----------


## phill4paul

> It's really not about oral sex.  That's just the peak of the iceberg to a far deeper and more expansive issue involving the acceptance of prosecutorial misconduct, and allowing leverage to remain on the books that can be used to hamstring almost anybody in the State they should choose to.
> 
> So the little bit you can see on the surface is about this idea that the law he is defending makes oral sex a felony.  I have explained until my fingers are bruised what the deeper and more important issues are, and all the defenders keep making it about oral sex.
> 
> Encouraging prosecutorial misconduct is a characteristic of open tyranny.
> 
> So Joe Evans is suspected of doing a crime.  The police investigate and there is not the evidence needed to convict him of that crime, or there is enough evidence but the case is not solid.  The DA is concerned for his reputation, because you know their conviction rate is how they secure their jobs and their promotions, so they tell the cops, "that crime is not a slam dunk.  Keep digging until you find something that is a slam dunk.  I want to get promoted after all, and I have an election coming up."
> 
> So the cops go back and keep digging and digging, and finally they find the dried petal for some flower inside his wedding album.  Destructive DNA testing confirms that it is a prohibited African violet, so BOOM!  now we can indict him for possession of an African violet and the DA gets to notch his belt.
> ...


   I have to wonder if the mere threat of the charge has lead to some pleading to another, unrelated, offence.

----------


## krugminator

Wow. Sarvis is at 10% and 9% in the latest two polls and that's without being in the debates. Pretty solid academic resume along with a Master's in econ from George Mason to top it off. I would probably be a sucker and vote for him if I lived in VA.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Libertarian Party is a sad, sad joke. 

It's a complete waste of time and money.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I don't want Libertarianism to be hijacked by those who can basically be described as Republicans who support SSM and abortion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It would be if there was a possibility you could be imprisoned over it.


That's unlikely if they're following the constitution.  


> The bigger issue, however, is whether someone can be referred to as a "liberty candidate" when they're trying to police what can happen between two consenting adults in their own bedroom.


I don't think so.



> It's really not about oral sex.  That's just the peak of the iceberg to a far deeper and more expansive issue involving the acceptance of prosecutorial misconduct, and allowing leverage to remain on the books that can be used to hamstring almost anybody in the State they should choose to.
> 
> So the little bit you can see on the surface is about this idea that the law he is defending makes oral sex a felony.  I have explained until my fingers are bruised what the deeper and more important issues are, and all the defenders keep making it about oral sex.
> 
> Encouraging prosecutorial misconduct is a characteristic of open tyranny.
> 
> So Joe Evans is suspected of doing a crime.  The police investigate and there is not the evidence needed to convict him of that crime, or there is enough evidence but the case is not solid.  The DA is concerned for his reputation, because you know their conviction rate is how they secure their jobs and their promotions, so they tell the cops, "that crime is not a slam dunk.  Keep digging until you find something that is a slam dunk.  I want to get promoted after all, and I have an election coming up."
> 
> So the cops go back and keep digging and digging, and finally they find the dried petal for some flower inside his wedding album.  Destructive DNA testing confirms that it is a prohibited African violet, so BOOM!  now we can indict him for possession of an African violet and the DA gets to notch his belt.
> ...


OK, if its an attempt to "Get people for crimes they didn't actually commit" than I think I can agree with you.




> I don't want Libertarianism to be hijacked by those who can basically be described as Republicans who support SSM and abortion.


Me  either.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's unlikely if they're following the constitution.


Therein lies the problem...too many elected officials don't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Therein lies the problem...too many elected officials don't.


OK, let me be clear, IF I trusted a governor to follow the constitution, I wouldn't worry so much about social conservatism, even extreme social conservatism, on one or two issues.  Drug legalization and sexual freedom would both fall under that category.  They aren't dealbreakers for me IF I can trust the candidate to follow the constitution.

If I can't trust them to follow the constitution, they wouldn't get my vote even if they supported freedom on every issue.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> OK, let me be clear, IF I trusted a governor to follow the constitution, I wouldn't worry so much about social conservatism, even extreme social conservatism, on one or two issues.  Drug legalization and sexual freedom would both fall under that category.  They aren't dealbreakers for me IF I can trust the candidate to follow the constitution.
> 
> If I can't trust them to follow the constitution, they wouldn't get my vote even if they supported freedom on every issue.


But that governor you trust won't be in office forever. Do you want laws like that to be on the books when the next governor takes office, if that governor is someone much less trustworthy?

----------


## cjm

Ken Cuccinelli or Terry McAuliffe will be the next governor of Virginia.  

We all know that the polls are accurate.  If one or the other is dominating around election time and a hard core libertarian wants to throw a vote to Sarvis, I'm ok with that.  There is no threat there.  History has shown that it almost never matters.  If, however, the race is close between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli, one has to ask himself if the liberty movement would be better off if one or the other is governor.  Some will say it doesn't matter and still vote for Sarvis.  That's ok, we can agree to disagree on that point.

Some will say that McAuliffe would be better for the liberty movement since it sends a message to establishment GOPers that Cuccinelli is not acceptable and we want a more libertarian candidate; or that it will help rally the troops if we have McAuliffe as governor.  If you believe that, vote for McAuliffe or Sarvis.  

Some will say that Cuccinelli is better for the liberty movement since there is a significant difference between he and McAuliffe on important issues and the liberty movement will gain *some* ground. 

If you're in Virginia, I only ask that you think about what is in the best interest of the liberty movement in both the short term and the long term.

In a close race, I'm going with Cuccinelli.

----------


## compromise

Cuccinelli isn't even establishment. He's an anti-establishment Tea Party candidate.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> OK, let me be clear, IF I trusted a governor to follow the constitution, I wouldn't worry so much about social conservatism, even extreme social conservatism, on one or two issues.  Drug legalization and sexual freedom would both fall under that category.  They aren't dealbreakers for me IF I can trust the candidate to follow the constitution.
> 
> If I can't trust them to follow the constitution, they wouldn't get my vote even if they supported freedom on every issue.


The people who wrote the damn thing didn't even follow it. Nobody, not even a president Ron Paul, would have followed the constitution to the letter. That's the problem with a monopolistic claim on violence. It corrupts, feeds itself, and creates a perpetual cycle of growth that cannot be stopped from within.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ken Cuccinelli or Terry McAuliffe will be the next governor of Virginia.  
> 
> *We all know that the polls are accurate.  If one or the other is dominating around election time and a hard core libertarian wants to throw a vote to Sarvis, I'm ok with that.  There is no threat there.  History has shown that it almost never matters.  If, however, the race is close between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli, one has to ask himself if the liberty movement would be better off if one or the other is governor.  Some will say it doesn't matter and still vote for Sarvis.  That's ok, we can agree to disagree on that point.*
> 
> Some will say that McAuliffe would be better for the liberty movement since it sends a message to establishment GOPers that Cuccinelli is not acceptable and we want a more libertarian candidate; or that it will help rally the troops if we have McAuliffe as governor.  If you believe that, vote for McAuliffe or Sarvis.  
> 
> Some will say that Cuccinelli is better for the liberty movement since there is a significant difference between he and McAuliffe on important issues and the liberty movement will gain *some* ground. 
> 
> If you're in Virginia, I only ask that you think about what is in the best interest of the liberty movement in both the short term and the long term.
> ...


I'm done with choosing between the lesser of two evils the 2-party monopoly provides.  Issues matter to me, and I put a high priority on civil liberties.   If I lived in VA and the GOP wanted my vote, they should have put up a better, more civil-liberties-minded candidate.  To me, McAuliff and Cuccinelli are both terrible candidates for different reasons, and neither would get my vote if I lived in VA.

----------


## Nic

I think what a lot of you guys living outside of Virginia are missing is that Sarvis is polling so high because the other two candidates are literally that unpopular. You can't ignore the controversy within the GOP when Cooch was nominated in the first place, which will have a lot of the hard-core establishment writing in Bill Bolling and you also can't discount the fact that Cooch is mired in the midst of the Star Scientific scandal that could possibly wind up with Gov McDonnell seeing federal charges. Cooch accepted gifts from that slime ball as well and it's been a big story in VA.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Cuccinelli isn't even establishment. He's an anti-establishment Tea Party candidate.


That's fine and I appreciate outsiders, but this begs the question of how many branches on the crazy theocrat tree they've hit before landing?  The tea party are especially prone to bringing these theocrats to the forefront because they speak our language, but you have to kick the tires of these candidates to see if anything falls off.

----------


## cjm

> I'm done with choosing between the lesser of two evils the 2-party monopoly provides.  Issues matter to me, and I put a high priority on civil liberties.


I understand completely.  I was a dues paying member of the LP for almost 20 years.




> If I lived in VA and the GOP wanted my vote, they should have put up a better, more civil-liberties-minded candidate.


We're working on it.  Rome wasn't built in a day.

----------


## angelatc

> The Ron Paul endorsement came before this sodamy law kerfluffle.  I was a Cuccinelli supporter at that time also.  It was when he unmasked himself as a petty tyrant that I stopped supporting him.  Revoking an official endorsement is almost unheard of, so I do not blame Ron Paul for just going away and leaving the situation alone.


Ron Paul is all about state's rights.  I'm not sure this is something his political panties would bunch over.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

The sodomy law will not actually be reinstated, no matter what any governor tries to do.  We are in much more danger of having the US taken over by extreme social liberals who will arrest people for following their religion.  Just look at hate speech laws in Canada and the UK.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## MichaelDavis

The Libertarian Party should just give up. If a party has never won a major election in 40 years, it is a colossal failure. The LP would be much more effective as an interest group that endorses major party candidates with libertarian beliefs, similar to FreedomWorks and the Club For Growth.

----------


## phill4paul

//

----------


## phill4paul

> The Libertarian Party should just give up. If a party has never won a major election in 40 years, it is a colossal failure. The LP would be much more effective as an interest group that endorses major party candidates with libertarian beliefs, similar to FreedomWorks and the Club For Growth.


  Ron Paul:




> Now the problem is, if we don't have a process whereby you disagree with the two parties, you don't have anyplace to go because it is very difficult to get on the ballot, it's difficult to get in the debates unless you participate in the "so-called" two-party system we have today, and *ultimately the changes come about not by tinkering with either political party it only comes through education and getting people to understand the wisdom of non-intervention in foreign policy, non-intervention in personal liberties, and non-intervention in the economy.*

----------


## angelatc

> Ron Paul:



SO all that time Paul was telling us to do what he eventually did, which was to join the GOP, he was lying to us?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> SO all that time Paul was telling us to do what he eventually did


 He didn't say "do what I did."  He said "do whatever you want."  But let it not be said that we did nothing.

----------


## phill4paul

> SO all that time Paul was telling us to do what he eventually did, which was to join the GOP, he was lying to us?





> He didn't say "do what I did."  He said "do whatever you want."  But let it not be said that we did nothing.


  I really don't have much more to say than helmuths response.

  And honestly, angelatc, you'd have to THAT up with him.

----------


## angelatc

> He didn't say "do what I did."  He said "do whatever you want."  But let it not be said that we did nothing.


He told us to join the GOP, become delegates am\nd get assigned to the central committee.  And after his brief stint in the LP, he came home to the GOP specifically because he couldn't get any attention as a Libertarian.

If he couldn't, what makes you think you can?

----------


## Carlybee

> He told us to join the GOP, become delegates am\nd get assigned to the central committee.  And after his brief stint in the LP, he came home to the GOP specifically because he couldn't get any attention as a Libertarian.
> 
> If he couldn't, what makes you think you can?


I wonder how much he believes that now after his last run.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## fr33

> He told us to join the GOP, become delegates am\nd get assigned to the central committee.  And after his brief stint in the LP, he came home to the GOP specifically because he couldn't get any attention as a Libertarian.
> 
> If he couldn't, what makes you think you can?


What makes you think Ron Paul's judgement is 100% sound? I've seen you criticize his judgement in multiple topics. 

If the 3 liberty-oriented politicians we got into office never repeal laws or successfully stop laws, which is what is happening, and Rand is not elected president, then staying with the LP was right. The public has been educated to hate liberty. If we can't reverse that using the GOP, then we've been wasting our resources.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

It is probably a the case that a lot of Sarvis' support comes from pro-gay, pro-abortion voters who usually go with Democrats.  But McAuliffe is like a cariacature of sleaze, and a lot of people just can't vote for that.  It doesn't hurt that Sarvis is a successful entrepreneur and professional, either.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What makes you think Ron Paul's judgement is 100% sound? I've seen you criticize his judgement in multiple topics. 
> 
> If the 3 liberty-oriented politicians we got into office never repeal laws or successfully stop laws, which is what is happening, and Rand is not elected president, then staying with the LP was right. The public has been educated to hate liberty. If we can't reverse that using the GOP, then we've been wasting our resources.


You're kidding, right?  You think THREE people out of 535 can repeal laws all by their little lonesome?   They need help and lots of it!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> He told us to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee.


 You find the quote wherein he said that.  Or, multiple quotes (it sounds like he said it a lot!).  Then, we can talk about it.  Thanks!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You find the quote wherein he said that.  Or, multiple quotes (it sounds like he said it a lot!).  Then, we can talk about it.  Thanks!


Bumping because I would like to see these quotes too.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You find the quote wherein he said that.  Or, multiple quotes (it sounds like he said it a lot!).  Then, we can talk about it.  Thanks!


I don't know of a specific quote, but he sure said it because that's how I got fully involved in 2007-2008 following this very advice from the man himself.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron Paul:


There you go again, Phill.

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but *“eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.”* -- Ron Paul

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I wonder how much he believes that now after his last run.


Seeing as how it was talked about during his last rally at the RNC, I would imagine he felt the same.

----------


## phill4paul

> There you go again, Phill.
> 
> “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but *“eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.”* -- Ron Paul



 The LP is politically active. I think that was the whole point of this thread. No? Again, reference the quote I gave.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The LP is politically active. I think that was the whole point of this thread. No? Again, reference the quote I gave.


Here's the problem as I see it, Phill.  You seem to believe that running a successful campaign from a platform where you have a chance in hell in getting elected (NOT the Libertarian Party as history has proven) and education are mutually-exclusive.   They are NOT, as Ron Paul's last two presidential campaigns should have proven to you.  If Rand Paul had not won his election, if Justin Amash had not won his, nor Thomas Massie, the media would not be covering their ideas as they are now.  It would have been like them speaking to the wind; no one but the choir would have heard them and they would not be changing the conversation in America as they most certainly are doing right now.  If you don't call that education, what on earth would you call it?

If you honestly think you can win by running in the LP, do it.  If you think you can win by running in the Democratic Party, do it.  If you think you have the best chance of winning by running in the Republican Party, then get your ego out of it, and do it.

----------


## ThePenguinLibertarian

> I think it was stupid for him to focus on that too.   I also don't like it when gay activists try to force their own beliefs on others using the political process.





> What we need are more like Gunny who haven't lost sight of the principles of liberty rather than posers.


your arrogance has become astounding.

----------


## ThePenguinLibertarian

Then again, Ken Cucinelli is not that great, i hope he becomes governor. Rob Sarvis, is more of a social liberal libertarian. I don't think he can win but if he does. i would actually be happy. However, the whole gay marriage courtship is bull$#@!. All in all, i hope something good happens and the LP wins. But having cucinelli lose might be bad for rand.

----------


## philipped

If I were in VA, the LP candidate would have my vote the second I found out his name. People need to stop putting all their chips into the GOP. LP is not as bad as some of you on this site label them to be. I mean $#@!, they're stances and Ron Paul's only differ by a few things. Why is it so hard for some to vote GOP & LP?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't know of a specific quote, but he sure said it because that's how I got fully involved in 2007-2008 following this very advice from the man himself.


 I am skeptical that he said it.  I have heard him say multiple times that there are many ways to fight for liberty, and that he more or less supports all of them (or at least he will list several that he supports).  He also expressed delight at the "miscellaneous, spontaneous" nature of the campaign, and did not seem to want to micro-manage his supporters in any way.  You and angelatc seem to be putting forward the contrary idea that he told us all to get involved in the GOP in very specific ways.  Furthermore, at least she seems to believe that this pronouncement put forward as universal.  I, on the other hand, have never heard it at all.  This is what angelatc claimed:

_"He told us to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee."_

I am challenging that claim.  I do not remember Ron Paul saying in any speech, nor any article, "please, friends, if you support me then become delegates and get assigned to the central committee."  Do you really remember him saying that?  Was this advice in a private conversation?  If it was in a public speech, you should be able to find the speech.

----------


## Rocco

Are you serious? If you need a public speech, then I think "we will become the tent" qualifies, but what do you think the point of the strategy was in the first place?







> _"He told us to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee."_
> 
> I am challenging that claim.  I do not remember Ron Paul saying in any speech, nor any article, "please, friends, if you support me then become delegates and get assigned to the central committee."  Do you really remember him saying that?  Was this advice in a private conversation?  If it was in a public speech, you should be able to find the speech.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Are you serious? If you need a public speech, then I think "we will become the tent"


 I am serious.  Where did he say "please, friends, if you support me then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee"?  I did not hear that there.  I heard a rallying cry predicting the eventual triumph of liberty.

Obviously the Ron Paul campaign strategy was a caucus strategy, and in 2012 the campaign manager as well as Ron publicly stated as much.  That means getting involved and taking over the GOP to rule the caucus results.  Ron clearly signed off on this strategy.  And we carried it through for him.  But he was never big on telling people "this is exactly what you need to be doing."  He repeatedly said the exact opposite: "do whatever you think best."

If angelatc, and GunnyFreedom, and now you, are putting forward the idea that Ron Paul told us all to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee, then you should put forward some documented instances where he actually said that!  Just one, even!  I have listened to an awful lot of Ron Paul speeches.  But maybe you have listened to some that I didn't.

----------


## Cleaner44

> I am serious.  Where did he say "please, friends, if you support me then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee"?  I did not hear that there.  I heard a rallying cry predicting the eventual triumph of liberty.
> 
> Obviously the Ron Paul campaign strategy was a caucus strategy, and in 2012 the campaign manager as well as Ron publicly stated as much.  That means getting involved and taking over the GOP to rule the caucus results.  Ron clearly signed off on this strategy.  And we carried it through for him.  But he was never big on telling people "this is exactly what you need to be doing."  He repeatedly said the exact opposite: "do whatever you think best."
> 
> If angelatc, and GunnyFreedom, and now you, are putting forward the idea that Ron Paul told us all to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee, then you should put forward some documented instances where he actually said that!  Just one, even!  I have listened to an awful lot of Ron Paul speeches.  But maybe you have listened to some that I didn't.


I can tell you what was happening in 2007 out here in AZ.  We had meetings with Ron Paul campaign people telling us to join the Republican party, first so we could vote in the primary and second so we could start to take positions within the party.  Now Ron was not at these meetings, but this was the plan to advance liberty in our nation through the Republican party.  I would say its working!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I can tell you what was happening in 2007 out here in AZ.  We had meetings with Ron Paul campaign people telling us to join the Republican party, first so we could vote in the primary and second so we could start to take positions within the party.  Now Ron was not at these meetings, but this was the plan to advance liberty in our nation through the Republican party.  I would say its working!


 Do you understand the point I'm making?  I already preemptively agreed with you in my last post: yes, obviously the strategy was to take over the GOP.  The point I'm making is that Ron has what you might call a nuanced view on this.  People looking for marching orders of how to help his campaign?  Sure, he might have some ideas for them on what to do.  But at the same time, is he going to tell his friend Lew Rockwell that he really needs to register to vote?  Is he going to tell Gary North that he needs to stop spending so much time on education and start spending more time winning elections?  Is he going to tell a liberty lover who chooses to run for an office under the banner of the Libertarian Party to cease and desist, that he's doing it wrong?  

No, he is not.  That is my point.  People trying desperately to put those words into his mouth are misguided.  The words don't fit.  Ron is far more tolerant than they.

----------


## Rocco

If you think that Ron had us take over all those chairmanships because he didn't want us to follow through on the continued taking over of the party you're completely delusional. Do you contend that he wouldve been fine if AJ Spiker and the rest of our group in Iowa had simply resigned after the election ended? Don't forget that getting Rand elected is a major part of what this is all about.

If you need Ron Paul to spell it out for you then you haven't been paying close enough attention. 




> I am serious.  Where did he say "please, friends, if you support me then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee"?  I did not hear that there.  I heard a rallying cry predicting the eventual triumph of liberty.
> 
> Obviously the Ron Paul campaign strategy was a caucus strategy, and in 2012 the campaign manager as well as Ron publicly stated as much.  That means getting involved and taking over the GOP to rule the caucus results.  Ron clearly signed off on this strategy.  And we carried it through for him.  But he was never big on telling people "this is exactly what you need to be doing."  He repeatedly said the exact opposite: "do whatever you think best."
> 
> If angelatc, and GunnyFreedom, and now you, are putting forward the idea that Ron Paul told us all to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee, then you should put forward some documented instances where he actually said that!  Just one, even!  I have listened to an awful lot of Ron Paul speeches.  But maybe you have listened to some that I didn't.

----------


## Saint Vitus

I love Ron Paul, but his endorsements mean very little to me.  He endorsed Ted Cruz who wants to nuke Iran, and he endorsed Lamar Smith, one of the worst congressmen there is.  I don't live in Virginia, but if I did, there I seriously doubt I would vote for Cuccinelli.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Do you understand the point I'm making?  I already preemptively agreed with you in my last post: yes, obviously the strategy was to take over the GOP.  The point I'm making is that Ron has what you might call a nuanced view on this.  People looking for marching orders of how to help his campaign?  Sure, he might have some ideas for them on what to do.  But at the same time, is he going to tell his friend Lew Rockwell that he really needs to register to vote?  Is he going to tell Gary North that he needs to stop spending so much time on education and start spending more time winning elections?  Is he going to tell a liberty lover who chooses to run for an office under the banner of the Libertarian Party to cease and desist, that he's doing it wrong?  
> 
> No, he is not.  That is my point.  People trying desperately to put those words into his mouth are misguided.  The words don't fit.  Ron is far more tolerant than they.


I do understand you and I agree that Ron would never presume to tell people what to do with their individual choices in life.  At the same time he would certainly advise that if an American wants to make a difference working within the existing political system, they will get involved in the 2 party system, because he knows from experience that the Libertarian Party is shut out from the process.  Sure we have the freedom to be in a 3rd party or no party at all, but we aren't allowed to compete in the political market if we aren't a Republicrat.  I would guess that you understand the point that I am making.

I support libertarian candidates that challenge corrupt, liberal, progressive, neo-conservative Republicans, regardless of which party they run in.  I don't support Libertarian candidates that challenge libertarian candidates that are running within the Republican party.  With that said, I don't know anything about the candidates that are the subject of this thread.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I am serious.  Where did he say "please, friends, if you support me then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee"?  I did not hear that there.  I heard a rallying cry predicting the eventual triumph of liberty.
> 
> Obviously the Ron Paul campaign strategy was a caucus strategy, and in 2012 the campaign manager as well as Ron publicly stated as much.  That means getting involved and taking over the GOP to rule the caucus results.  Ron clearly signed off on this strategy.  And we carried it through for him.  But he was never big on telling people "this is exactly what you need to be doing."  He repeatedly said the exact opposite: "do whatever you think best."
> 
> If angelatc, and GunnyFreedom, and now you, are putting forward the idea that Ron Paul told us all to join the GOP, become delegates and get assigned to the central committee, then you should put forward some documented instances where he actually said that!  Just one, even!  I have listened to an awful lot of Ron Paul speeches.  But maybe you have listened to some that I didn't.



So now any quotes found have to match precisely this wording of your choice or they don't count?  Any other requirements, like "they can only have been said during the third week of a January" you got for this?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So now any quotes found have to match precisely this wording of your choice or they don't count?  Any other requirements, like "they can only have been said during the third week of a January" you got for this?


 I simply did not see "we will become the tent" as being synonymous with "please, friends, if you support me then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee."  Certainly wording does not need to match.  It just needs to be functionally equivalent.  I would be very loose on this.  But there is no way I can twist "we will become the tent" in my mind to be at all functionally equivalent to an order that "if you support me, then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee."

I think you will not succeed in finding any functionally equivalent quotes.  The quote LibertyEagle already posted (the _only_ quote LibertyEagle loves to post) is the closest, I think, and even it does not say anything like what angelatc claims Ron Paul was saying for 8 years.  No, Ron Paul speeches are remarkably lacking in any sort of directives.  Even simple "Vote for Me"s are very sparse -- usually nowhere to be found!  Unprecedented for a politician!  "He just gave an hour-long speech, mentioned the Federal Reserve 22 times, but never once asked us to vote for him".  Yep, that's our boy, Ron Paul.  Instead, he would say things like "Come join us in this great cause of liberty."

But anyway, feel free to find some quotes, and then we can discuss them.  Anything _even roughly kind-of sort-of_ saying that all liberty lovers ought to join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee.  Until then, my position is clearly the best-supported and so I will feel fully justified in maintaining it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I would guess that you understand the point that I am making.


 Yes, I do.



> With that said, I don't know anything about the candidates that are the subject of this thread.


We're in the same boat.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I simply did not see "we will become the tent" as being synonymous with "please, friends, if you support me then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee."  Certainly wording does not need to match.  It just needs to be functionally equivalent.  I would be very loose on this.  But there is no way I can twist "we will become the tent" in my mind to be at all functionally equivalent to an order that "if you support me, then join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee."
> 
> I think you will not succeed in finding any functionally equivalent quotes.  The quote LibertyEagle already posted (the _only_ quote LibertyEagle loves to post) is the closest, I think, and even it does not say anything like what angelatc claims Ron Paul was saying for 8 years.  No, Ron Paul speeches are remarkably lacking in any sort of directives.  Even simple "Vote for Me"s are very sparse -- usually nowhere to be found!  Unprecedented for a politician!  "He just gave an hour-long speech, mentioned the Federal Reserve 22 times, but never once asked us to vote for him".  Yep, that's our boy, Ron Paul.  Instead, he would say things like "Come join us in this great cause of liberty."
> 
> But anyway, feel free to find some quotes, and then we can discuss them.  Anything _even roughly kind-of sort-of_ saying that all liberty lovers ought to join the GOP, become delegates, and get assigned to the central committee.  Until then, my position is clearly the best-supported and so I will feel fully justified in maintaining it.


My life is a 'functionally equivalent quote.'  My whole involvement with the GOP and political activism came directly as a result of Ron Paul's advice in 2007 & 2008.  I do what I do because in 2007 Ron Paul said "this is what you need to do." So I did it.  Now you are trying to tell me that it was all a figment of my imagination?  Like I would hate politics more than anything else on the planet, and yet devote 100% of mylife to it because of what I ... imagined ... Ron Paul saying?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My life is a 'functionally equivalent quote.'  My whole involvement with the GOP and political activism came directly as a result of Ron Paul's advice in 2007 & 2008.  I do what I do because in 2007 Ron Paul said "this is what you need to do." So I did it.  Now you are trying to tell me that it was all a figment of my imagination?  Like I would hate politics more than anything else on the planet, and yet devote 100% of mylife to it because of what I ... imagined ... Ron Paul saying?


No, I did not accuse you of imagining it.  Rather, I have already asked you the relevant question.

 I do not remember Ron Paul saying in any speech, nor any article, "please, friends, if you support me then become delegates and get assigned to the central committee." Do you really remember him saying that?* Was this advice in a private conversation?* If it was in a public speech, you should be able to find the speech.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, I did not accuse you of imagining it.  Rather, I have already asked you the relevant question.
> 
>  I do not remember Ron Paul saying in any speech, nor any article, "please, friends, if you support me then become delegates and get assigned to the central committee." Do you really remember him saying that?* Was this advice in a private conversation?* If it was in a public speech, you should be able to find the speech.


I don't have any recordings of it, it was a speech from around August or September 2007.  Don't know where it was or what event, but I saw it, and I took his advice.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't have any recordings of it, it was a speech from around August or September 2007.  Don't know where it was or what event, but I saw it, and I took his advice.


 Great, so in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I am free to believe whatever I want to about this speech.  I choose to believe that he probably said something about the idea of working to change the Republican Party from the inside, that you liked the idea, and that you did it, it worked for you, and that's fantastic.  And thanks for all you've done in those lines, by the way, furthering our great cause of liberty!

But I do not choose to believe that he said anything so heavy-handed as "Everyone, thou shalt go do XYZ."

As I said, if you had the actual quotes we could talk about them.  But as it is, we are just talking about our own personal interpretations of what Ron Paul is about.  And the angelatc view has nothing to back it up.  I have many quotes which seem to support my own view of his tolerance of a variety of activism methods.  For instance:

letitnotbesaidthatwedidnothing.com

----------


## Nic

Sarvis is at 12% in the latest poll

hxxp://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/politico-poll-government-shutdown-backlash-terry-mcauliffe-ken-cuccinelli-virginia-governor-election-97953.html

----------


## AuH20

Virginia deserves McAuliffe. So does Sarvis's followers.

----------


## AuH20

> Cuccinelli isn't even establishment. He's an anti-establishment Tea Party candidate.


The Chamber of Commerce despises him. Neither Republican nor Democrat establishment is a fan of Cuccinelli which tells you something. Yet this Sarvis loser refuses to bail out in a close race. If Cuccinelli was down 20 points, I don't think anyone would care that Sarvis is in the race. But this is complete bull$#@!.

----------


## torchbearer

Capt, if it makes you feel any better LP candidates play spoilers to LP candidates to.
we have two qualified in the same race. how does that happen?
because the party doesn't run candidates. people choose to run as a LP candidate and sign up to run.
Some come to the LP for endorsement. some don't.

----------


## fr33

> You're kidding, right?  You think THREE people out of 535 can repeal laws all by their little lonesome?   They need help and lots of it!


And at the rate we're going the US will be a dictatorship or official subsidiary of the NWO long before we ever have a chance at repealing all these laws. I participate in this politics BS only to help educate people.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Great, so in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I am free to believe whatever I want to about this speech.  I choose to believe that he probably said something about the idea of working to change the Republican Party from the inside, that you liked the idea, and that you did it, it worked for you, and that's fantastic.  And thanks for all you've done in those lines, by the way, furthering our great cause of liberty!
> 
> But I do not choose to believe that he said anything so heavy-handed as "Everyone, thou shalt go do XYZ."
> 
> As I said, if you had the actual quotes we could talk about them.  But as it is, we are just talking about our own personal interpretations of what Ron Paul is about.  And the angelatc view has nothing to back it up.  I have many quotes which seem to support my own view of his tolerance of a variety of activism methods.  For instance:
> 
> letitnotbesaidthatwedidnothing.com


Clearly, several thousands of other RP activists heard the exact same thing from multiple different encounters with Ron Paul, or we would not have even mounted the nationwide convention effort in 2008.  You can change the wording and move the goalposts and demand this phrasing or that phrasing or require some absurdly narrow definition in order to 'win' some argument that people aren't even arguing with you.  Ron Paul told us to get involved in the GOP in 2007, and we did.  Whatever you have to say on the matter isn't going to change the past.

----------


## FindLiberty

100% GF post #321 about RP's plan, and...

I really love a good three-way... one that brings the two tyrannical GOP and DEM wannabe sociopathic candidates and all their precinct operatives together (and out in the open) for others to see their ultimate *common goal* of keeping the LP candidate off of the ballot, at all costs.  This works wonders to maintain the existing two party system with its built-in, tried and true, "vote for the lessor of two evils" protection feature. I've seen (and experienced) that it's not easy to be a LP candidate.

----------


## AuH20

Sarvis considers himself another Gary Johnson? Jesus. His site looked decent until I saw this comment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...lli-97591.html



> Sarvis sees himself more in the mold of Gary Johnson, who will fly out to campaign with him on Oct. 25.

----------


## Nic

> Virginia deserves McAuliffe. So does Sarvis's followers.


You're right. If Cuccinelli is the best the republican party can come up with, Virginia does deserve MCAuliffe. Were it not for Sarvis being in the race, I would be abstaining from voting.

----------


## fr33

> Sarvis considers himself another Gary Johnson? Jesus. His site looked decent until I saw this comment.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...lli-97591.html


Sounds good. I don't have any politicians "representing" me that are as good as Gary Johnson. Even though he has his faults; Thornberry, Cruz, Cornyn, Obama and the more local reps don't even come close to Johnson.

----------


## mad cow

> You're right. If Cuccinelli is the best the republican party can come up with, Virginia does deserve MCAuliffe. Were it not for Sarvis being in the race, I would be abstaining from voting.


Ron Paul looks at it differently,he endorsed Cooch.

----------


## fr33

> Ron Paul looks at it differently,he endorsed Cooch.


He also endorsed Michelle Bachman and Lamar Smith. Rand endorsed Romney and will endorse McConnell. Endorsements are bull$#@!. Think for yourselves. Stop being cult members.

----------


## mad cow

> He also endorsed Michelle Bachman and Lamar Smith. Rand endorsed Romney and will endorse McConnell. Endorsements are bull$#@!. Think for yourselves. Stop being cult members.


I think for myself.I also endorse Cooch.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Clearly, several thousands of other RP activists heard the exact same thing from multiple different encounters with Ron Paul, or we would not have even mounted the nationwide convention effort in 2008.  You can change the wording and move the goalposts and demand this phrasing or that phrasing or require some absurdly narrow definition in order to 'win' some argument that people aren't even arguing with you.  Ron Paul told us to get involved in the GOP in 2007, and we did.  Whatever you have to say on the matter isn't going to change the past.


You are far over-complicating this, and in addition you are stating untruths regarding what I have allegedly "changed", "moved", "demanded", and "required".  I have done none of the things you allege.  You can read my simple and clear words as put forth in the few simple, clear posts in this thread.  If you will do that, happily you will nowhere find me doing the changing, moving, demanding, and requiring you accuse me of.  Rather, you will find me repeatedly making a very simple statement.

I do not believe Ron Paul told us all to do what angelatc claims he told us all to do.  I never heard him say what her posts seem to imply that he said repeatedly.  I don't think he ever even said it once, much less made a habit or pattern of it.

She seems to believe he did.  If so, she should show us where he said it.  Absent that, it is unlikely productive conversation can continue.  
"Ron Paul said we all need to do X."  
"I never heard him say that."  
"Yes he did."  
"Where did he say that?" 
"Yes he did." 
"Can you show me?" 
"Yes he did."  
"Please?"  
Silence.

I do not read you making the same claim angelatc is, despite your trying to roughly align yourself with her and against me in this discussion.  Thus I have been careful not to lump your view in with hers.  I have not attacked your view, exactly, I think you will find.  I believe you are just saying that you were trying to help the Ron Paul campaign (and liberty in general), and that Ron Paul had a plan and an idea of how that should be done, and you took his plan and ran with it and it got you where you are today.  I do not challenge any of that.  You are quite obviously 100% correct both about Ron Paul's caucus/GOP-infiltration plan and, it goes without saying, about your own life experience, on which you are the #1 expert.

The view I am attacking is angelatc's.  *I am saying I believe Ron Paul is and was tolerant of a variety of liberty activism methods, including supporting, participating in, and running for office in the Libertarian Party* (a party which stands firmly and proudly for the same principles, broadly speaking, for which he stands).  I am saying that Ron Paul did _not_ have one prescription which he wanted to jam down everyone's throats.  He did _not_ think that becoming active in the GOP and going to endless inane committee meetings was the *only* way to advance liberty.  It was certainly one way, and a way which he promoted, but not the only way.  I do not know that you disagree with this.  In fact, I think you likely agree.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are far over-complicating this, and in addition you are stating untruths regarding what I have allegedly "changed", "moved", "demanded", and "required".  I have done none of the things you allege.  You can read my simple and clear words as put forth in the few simple, clear posts in this thread.  If you will do that, happily you will nowhere find me doing the changing, moving, demanding, and requiring you accuse me of.  Rather, you will find me repeatedly making a very simple statement.
> 
> I do not believe Ron Paul told us all to do what angelatc claims he told us all to do.  I never heard him say what her posts seem to imply that he said repeatedly.  I don't think he ever even said it once, much less made a habit or pattern of it.
> 
> She seems to believe he did.  If so, she should show us where he said it.  Absent that, it is unlikely productive conversation can continue.  
> "Ron Paul said we all need to do X."  
> "I never heard him say that."  
> "Yes he did."  
> "Where did he say that?" 
> ...


Actually what you are arguing, is that thousands of Ron Paul supporters in 2007 and 2008 utterly deluded ourselves to the exact same idea independently of one another, and because we were all too busy to take screen captures we are wrong, and somehow immoral for having followed the advice we all heard from Ron Paul.

You don't have any desire to take over the GOP machine.  Fine.  Don't you do what you detest, even if I am doing what I detest for the sake of this country.  The problem is that you are trying to make Ron Paul into something other than what he is, because you, personally, can't accept that the rest of us heard his advice and took it.

So in 2007 we were all too busy campaigning to try and take screen shots or record stuff off the television, or whatever.  That's not a license to derogate the active half of the R3volution by marking them delusional, or that they only imagined the whole Ron Paul thing.

Audio/Video evidence is only one kind of evidence.  The fact that literally tens of thousands of Ron Paul supporters heard basically the same thing ans went out and DID it, is also evidence.  Evidence which you reject out of hand.  That's your call, but it does go to your rational state.  Your preconceptions are more important than what may (or may not) be reality, and so your standard of evidence constantly changed, refined, narrowed, until you were left with ONLY a video WITH audio of Ron Paul saying EXACTLY the phrase in EXACTLY the way you articulated it would do.

Again, that's fine.  This is America, and you are free to be as irrational as you want.  Getting upset that the rest of us are not playing your game though...  Yeah you probably want to drop that bit.

----------


## Nic

> I think for myself.I also endorse Cooch.





> Ron Paul looks at it differently,he endorsed Cooch.


How much thinking for yourself are you really doing when you try to justify to yourself your need to feel like you're right by pointing out that somebody else endorsed a candidate? If Cuccinelli were a decent liberty candidate, do you really think the libertarian would be polling at 12%?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> How much thinking for yourself are you really doing when you try to justify to yourself your need to feel like you're right by pointing out that somebody else endorsed a candidate? If Cuccinelli were a decent liberty candidate, do you really think the libertarian would be polling at 12%?


There was a slew of LP people that didn't vote for Ron in Iowa.  Some were actually quite hostile to him out of jealousy I think.

----------


## Nic

> There was a slew of LP people that didn't vote for Ron in Iowa.  Some were actually quite hostile to him out of jealousy I think.


Apples to oranges. There's 3 horses in this race and if the other 2 weren't such terrible candidates, Sarvis would not be polling anywhere near double digits.

----------


## erowe1

My impression has been that the so-called "libertarians" who don't like Cuccinelli are really just social liberals who don't like his conservatism.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> My impression has been that the so-called "libertarians" who don't like Cuccinelli are really just social liberals who don't like his conservatism.


I don't like Cuccinelli.  I advocated for him before this all started.  Now I hope the LP guy takes him down.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Wasting a great opportunity to get Liberty in the Virginia Governor's Mansion, it's these kinds of people who would run against Rand Paul on the LP ticket because abortion and gay marriage.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> How much thinking for yourself are you really doing when you try to justify to yourself your need to feel like you're right by pointing out that somebody else endorsed a candidate? If Cuccinelli were a decent liberty candidate, do you really think the libertarian would be polling at 12%?


1 of the best points I've seen in this thread. He really isn't that bad. Sure, he wants to ban things that you want to do, and throw you in jail for them, if he doesn't like them. And yes, he is certainly corrupt... But compared to the average candidate for governor, even with his noticeable flaws, he is still well above average.

I wouldn't personally try to push a libertarian into voting for him, but in an ideal world, I'd hope they would. On the bright side, the LP guy is young so he might have decades to run again. Than again, in a decade, people won't be as upset about Cooch's scandals and if he changes his positions on same sex stuff, he might be popular with people in VA in 10 years.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 1 of the best points I've seen in this thread. He really isn't that bad. Sure, he wants to ban things that you want to do, and throw you in jail for them, if he doesn't like them. And yes, he is certainly corrupt... But compared to the average candidate for governor, even with his noticeable laws, he is still well above average.
> 
> I wouldn't personally try to push a libertarian into voting for him, but in an ideal world, I'd hope they would. On the bright side, the LP guy is young so he might have decades to run again. Than again, in a decade, people won't be as upset about Cooch's scandals and if he changes his positions on same sex stuff, he might be popular with people in VA in 10 years.


My opposition has nothing to do with same sex stuff.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't like Cuccinelli.  I advocated for him before this all started.  Now I hope the LP guy takes him down.


But he won't take him down.  Terry McAuliffe will win a plurality and the LP guy will fad into oblivion.  Losing Virginia to the likes of a DNC insider like McAuliffe will be a big blow to all liberty advocates come 2014 and 2016.  I'm the furthest thing from a social conservative, but I think Cuccinelli would be the strategic choice here.

Rand will need Virginia in 2016.  Cuccinelli would help campaign for Rand and it would generate a great deal of positive media if governors from important states endorsed him.  If McAuliffe wins he'll take Hillary Clinton on a barnstorming tour of Virginia.  We gain absolutely nothing from a McAuliffe victory, and creep even closer to a Hillary Presidency.

----------


## Nic

> But he won't take him down.  Terry McAuliffe will win a plurality and the LP guy will fad into oblivion.  Losing Virginia to the likes of a DNC insider like McAuliffe will be a big blow to all liberty advocates come 2014 and 2016.  I'm the furthest thing from a social conservative, but I think Cuccinelli would be the strategic choice here.
> 
> Rand will need Virginia in 2016.  Cuccinelli would help campaign for Rand and it would generate a great deal of positive media if governors from important states endorsed him.  If McAuliffe wins he'll take Hillary Clinton on a barnstorming tour of Virginia.  We gain absolutely nothing from a McAuliffe victory, and creep even closer to a Hillary Presidency.


Living here in VA and talking to people, both political and non-political, I'd definitely say that Cuccinelli is a stigma we don't want Rand associated with. I really wish he hadn't endorsed him at all. Cooch is immensely unpopular, and even moreso since the Star Scientific scandal. Rand is better off around here if this guy just fades into obscurity over the next few years.

----------


## AuH20

> But he won't take him down.  Terry McAuliffe will win a plurality and the LP guy will fad into oblivion.  Losing Virginia to the likes of a DNC insider like McAuliffe will be a big blow to all liberty advocates come 2014 and 2016.  I'm the furthest thing from a social conservative, but I think Cuccinelli would be the strategic choice here.
> 
> Rand will need Virginia in 2016.  Cuccinelli would help campaign for Rand and it would generate a great deal of positive media if governors from important states endorsed him.  If McAuliffe wins he'll take Hillary Clinton on a barnstorming tour of Virginia.  We gain absolutely nothing from a McAuliffe victory, and creep even closer to a Hillary Presidency.


What is so amusing is that Sarvis may have voted for Cuccinelli for AG prior!!! Then he says something the other day about Cuccinelli's extreme social views. It's complete hogwash. Sarvis and Cuccinelli agree on probably 85% but Sarvis is running more as a Gary Johnson libertine than a libertarian. I hope McAuliffe and the VA legislature run wild on Virginia after McAuliffe is elected. That's what Virginia deserves. Make life there painful as possible.

----------


## AuH20

> Wasting a great opportunity to get Liberty in the Virginia Governor's Mansion, it's these kinds of people who would run against Rand Paul on the LP ticket because abortion and gay marriage.


You sir win the prize.

Here's the priority list:

1. Gay marriage 
2. gay marriage
3. gay marriage
4. abortion
5. abortion
6. drug legalization




48. less state intervention and regulation


100. less taxes

As long as there will be abortion and gay marriage in the FEMA camps, I'm down!!! Where do I sign up? Voting for exclusively social issues is a sign of a lower life-form. And this applies to the religous right as well.

----------


## mczerone

> You sir win the prize.
> 
> Here's the priority list:
> 
> 1. Gay marriage 
> 2. gay marriage
> 3. gay marriage
> 4. abortion
> 5. abortion
> ...


Here's the real priority list:

1. minimal taxes
2. ending drug war
3. equal treatment

Whereas here's Cucinelli's:

1. Appeasement of Democrats
2. weak talk about reductions in proposed increases in taxes
3. decapitating "sodomites"
4. fellating the military industrial complex

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You sir win the prize.
> 
> Here's the priority list:
> 
> 1. Gay marriage 
> 2. gay marriage
> 3. gay marriage
> 4. abortion
> 5. abortion
> ...


I'm anti-abortion and I don't give a spit about gay marriage.  Where do I fit into your paradigm?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But he won't take him down.  Terry McAuliffe will win a plurality and the LP guy will fad into oblivion.  Losing Virginia to the likes of a DNC insider like McAuliffe will be a big blow to all liberty advocates come 2014 and 2016.  I'm the furthest thing from a social conservative, but I think Cuccinelli would be the strategic choice here.
> 
> Rand will need Virginia in 2016.  Cuccinelli would help campaign for Rand and it would generate a great deal of positive media if governors from important states endorsed him.  If McAuliffe wins he'll take Hillary Clinton on a barnstorming tour of Virginia.  We gain absolutely nothing from a McAuliffe victory, and creep even closer to a Hillary Presidency.


Well, then I guess you are lucky I don't live in Virginia.  This guy wants to throw people into prison for stuff that governments have no right even regulating much less making felonies out of, and on issues that not just liberty people but the vast majority of Americans think are loony-tunes.  This guy FOUGHT to keep oral sex between consenting adult men and women (even if they are married!!) a _FELONY._  Sure you can argue "well nobody bothers to prosecute that kind of thing nowadays" as if that were an excuse, but that makes it even worse.  As if the whole concept of 'law' isn't already perverted enough this guy advocates perverting it even further to keep people on a sex offender list when they didn't have enough evidence for a legitimate conviction.  Bollocks!

This guy isn't 'a step in the right direction,' he's a step in the *wrong* direction.  The reason America is in peril today is because our lawmakers have perverted the meaning of words, perverted justice, and perverted the Constitution and the laws to uses that were never intended by the founders, framers, or the lawmakers.  That's the very perversion of law that I have stood against long, long before I got involved in politics.  It's not about drugs or gay anything.  It's not even about sex, although I could foresee this guy mandating cameras in the bedroom for big-brother to monitor.  It's about perverting the law towards personal ends that do not belong in intent.  

So the guy has one or two policies that we might like.  So did Mitt Romney.  So (allegedly) does Barack Obama.  I'm not one who is willing to do real damage to our progress towards a free republic of law, just to gain a 1% tax cut.  You may not like it, but I perceive that perverting the writ and intent of law in order to accomplish some personal vendetta is exactly what is wrong with America, and you couldn't get me to vote for the guy with a gun to my head.  It's a matter of principle, and the principle that I require to support a candidate for office, Cooch simply does not have.  If he's going to pervert some random sodamy laws that nobody even cares about anymore to paint people with felonies because they lack the evidence to convict on their real crimes, then God only knows what he's going to do about the Constitution.

It's an abrogation of the fundamental principles of American liberty.  No thanks.

And all y'all who just _insist_ that anybody who doesn't like Cooch must be because they want to get stoned and have gay marriages and gay sex on the steps of the capitol building, you and your BS rhetoric can take a long walk off a short pier and get stuffed in the belly of a great white for all I care.  You aren't arguing, you are propagandizing.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Why in the world would the LP run a gay marriage activist?


I don't understand the point of your question? Do you mean that since some people consider government marriage to be anti-liberty, anyone supporting the ability for people to get a government marriage cannot be associated with the LP? That's the best I can think of but I'm guessing I'm wrong.

----------


## AuH20

> Well, then I guess you are lucky I don't live in Virginia.  This guy wants to throw people into prison for stuff that governments have no right even regulating much less making felonies out of, and on issues that not just liberty people but the vast majority of Americans think are loony-tunes.  This guy FOUGHT to keep oral sex between consenting adult men and women (even if they are married!!) a _FELONY._  Sure you can argue "well nobody bothers to prosecute that kind of thing nowadays" as if that were an excuse, but that makes it even worse.  As if the whole concept of 'law' isn't already perverted enough this guy advocates perverting it even further to keep people on a sex offender list when they didn't have enough evidence for a legitimate conviction.  Bollocks!
> 
> This guy isn't 'a step in the right direction,' he's a step in the *wrong* direction.  The reason America is in peril today is because our lawmakers have perverted the meaning of words, perverted justice, and perverted the Constitution and the laws to uses that were never intended by the founders, framers, or the lawmakers.  That's the very perversion of law that I have stood against long, long before I got involved in politics.  It's not about drugs or gay anything.  It's not even about sex, although I could foresee this guy mandating cameras in the bedroom for big-brother to monitor.  It's about perverting the law towards personal ends that do not belong in intent.  
> 
> So the guy has one or two policies that we might like.  So did Mitt Romney.  So (allegedly) does Barack Obama.  I'm not one who is willing to do real damage to our progress towards a free republic of law, just to gain a 1% tax cut.  You may not like it, but I perceive that perverting the writ and intent of law in order to accomplish some personal vendetta is exactly what is wrong with America, and you couldn't get me to vote for the guy with a gun to my head.  It's a matter of principle, and the principle that I require to support a candidate for office, Cooch simply does not have.  If he's going to pervert some random sodamy laws that nobody even cares about anymore to paint people with felonies because they lack the evidence to convict on their real crimes, then God only knows what he's going to do about the Constitution.
> 
> It's an abrogation of the fundamental principles of American liberty.  No thanks.
> 
> And all y'all who just _insist_ that anybody who doesn't like Cooch must be because they want to get stoned and have gay marriages and gay sex on the steps of the capitol building, you and your BS rhetoric can take a long walk off a short pier and get stuffed in the belly of a great white for all I care.  You aren't arguing, you are propagandizing.


You're falling for the same nonsense that 14 billions dollars has been spent on! Cuccinelli has no intention of banning oral sex or other slippery slope assumptions. Keep your eye on the ball. The following is what I'm concerned with as opposed to legal hypotheticals in rare court cases. Ken Cuccinelli is opposed to emminent domain, 2nd amendment restrictions, taxes, sanctuary cities & marijauna restrctions. That's the real meat that you make your decision on a candidate as opposed to manufactured hypotheticals. There is one bad candidate in this race and his name is Terry McAuliffe.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You're falling for the same nonsense that 14 billions dollars has been spent on! Cuccinelli has no intention of banning oral sex. Keep your eye on the ball. The following is what I'm concerned with as opposed to legal hypotheticals in rare court cases. Ken Cuccinelli is opposed to emminent domain, 2nd amendment restrictions, taxes, sanctuary cities & marijauna restrctions. That's the real meat where you make your decision on a candidate as opposed to manufactured hypotheticals.


You are talking out of your posterior, and failing (or just not bothering) to read what I write.  My complaint is perverting the law.  The fact that he's defending a law that nobody will prosecute it's intent makes it even worse.  The fact that he's perverting intent to seek a personally desired outcome makes it even worse than that.  If you stand for nothing then you will fall for anything.  I suggest, sir, that it is you who have fallen for the nonsense that it is OK to pervert the laws of this nation when you like the outcome, or when the guy has a policy or two we may like.

As for me, it is NEVER OK to pervert the laws of this nation no matter how much 'other stuff' he's got that I may like.  That perversion is WHY AMERICA IS DYING.  When America sits in smoldering ruin, I will not have her blood on my hands.  I can not and will not support Cooch, he is emblematic of precisely why America is broken.

AND FREAKING AGAIN you are ascribing to me motives that I just do not hold.  So until you decide to grow up and be an adult about discussing this, you can just stop trying to pretend you know what I am thinking or why I believe the way I do.  I've laid it out a dozen times in this thread, in language a 4th grader can understand, and you are still painting me as something I am not.

As I said, propaganda.  If all you guys have is propaganda, and lying about what others think and feel, then you are pushing me even more vehemently away from the guy.  If he needs lies and propaganda to build support, then he is unworthy of support from the start.

----------


## AuH20

> You are talking out of your posterior, and failing (or just not bothering) to read what I write.  My complaint is perverting the law.  The fact that he's defending a law that nobody will prosecute it's intent makes it even worse.  The fact that he's perverting intent to seek a personally desired outcome makes it even worse than that.  If you stand for nothing then you will fall for anything.  I suggest, sir, that it is you who have fallen for the nonsense that it is OK to pervert the laws of this nation when you like the outcome, or when the guy has a policy or two we may like.
> 
> As for me, it is NEVER OK to pervert the laws of this nation no matter how much 'other stuff' he's got that I may like.  That perversion is WHY AMERICA IS DYING.  When America sits in smoldering ruin, I will not have her blood on my hands.  I can not and will not support Cooch, he is emblematic of precisely why America is broken.
> 
> AND FREAKING AGAIN you are ascribing to me motives that I just do not hold.  So until you decide to grow up and be an adult about discussing this, you can just stop trying to pretend you know what I am thinking or why I believe the way I do.  I've laid it out a dozen times in this thread, in language a 4th grader can understand, and you are still painting me as something I am not.
> 
> As I said, propaganda.  If all you guys have is propaganda, and lying about what others think and feel, then you are pushing me even more vehemently away from the guy.  If he needs lies and propaganda to build support, then he is unworthy of support from the start.


So the entire liberty community is wrong about Ken? Rand is risking his good name for the nefarious pursuit of propaganda? I understand your reasoning for not supporting Ken, but I don't agree with it, as I laid out. The pros severely outweight the cons of this partiuclar candidate. Secondly, it's not like we're picking a lifelong mate when we're selecting a candidate. All the abstract liberty in the world is not going to keep out a high-ranking lieutenant of the Clinton crime family from becoming the next governor of the Virginia. And another candidate bites the dust.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So the entire liberty community is wrong about Ken? Rand is risking his good name for the nefarious pursuit of propaganda? I understand your reasoning for not supporting Ken, but I don't agree with it, as I laid out. The pros severely outweight the cons of this partiuclar candidate. Secondly, it's not like we're picking a lifelong mate when we're selecting a candidate. All the abstract liberty in the world is not going to keep out a high-ranking lieutenant of the Clinton crime family from becoming the next governor of the Virginia. And another candidate bites the dust.


"The entire liberty community?"

So I'm not liberty anymore because I oppose your golden boy?

What about that LP guy polling at 12%?

Oh that's right, they all just want to have gay sex on the steps of the capitol building. 

If you want me to take you seriously, lay off the propaganda.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

And perverting the law is not 'abstract.'  It is WHY AMERICA IS DYING.

----------


## AuH20

> "The entire liberty community?"
> 
> So I'm not liberty anymore because I oppose your golden boy?
> 
> What about that LP guy polling at 12%?
> 
> Oh that's right, they all just want to have gay sex on the steps of the capitol building. 
> 
> If you want me to take you seriously, lay off the propaganda.


Those 12% are extremely gullible and nearsighted. I'll leave it at that.  Terry McAuliffe. For Christ's sake. You're going to punt Ken Cuccinelli for a goddamn Clinton Crime Family Lt?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Those 12% are extremely gullible and nearsighted. I'll leave it at that.  Terry McAuliffe. For Christ's sake. You're going to punt Ken Cuccinelli for a goddamn Clinton Crime Family Lt?


So abandon principle and vote for the guy who is destroying America at 55mph because the other guy will destroy America at 60mph?  What exactly do you think destroying America at a slightly slower rate (and in the name of Republicans) will accomplish?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

And your statement about the 12% is, once again, propaganda.  How you can claim to know their motives and thought processes is beyond me.

----------


## AuH20

> So abandon principle and vote for the guy who is destroying America at 55mph because the other guy will destroy America at 60mph?  What exactly do you think destroying America at a slightly slower rate (and in the name of Republicans) will accomplish?


Not even remotely comparable. Go throught my list.

Where does Terry McAuliffe stand on the following:

Carbon emissions?
the 2nd amendment?
emminent domain?
10th amendment?
Illegal immigration?
Taxes?

These candidates are not in the same stratosphere. It isn't even a valid discussion.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Not sure why the "gay marriage" meme keeps getting thrown around.  

Let's revisit a post from earlier in the thread.    No matter how each of us feel about this issue personally, I fail to see how someone who is referred to as a "liberty" candidate takes this position:


> This candidate that you refer to as a "liberty" candidate doesn't seem to understand the issue of getting the state out of the bedroom, and it's not just about gay marriage:
> *
> Ken Cuccinelli's crusade against sodomy
> *
> Liberty candidate..._really?_

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not even remotely comparable. Go throught my list.
> 
> Where does Terry McAuliffe stand on the following:
> 
> Carbon emissions?
> the 2nd amendment?
> emminent domain?
> 10th amendment?
> Illegal immigration?
> ...


Perverting the law.  Deal-breaker.  If he's going to pervert the law to his own ends, I can't trust a word he says.  For all I know he's going to end up more Marxist than Obama, his rhetoric notwithstanding.  What he stands for is why America is dying.  You can flavor cyanide with grape kool-aid, but it doesn't make it any less deadly just because it tastes good.  Perverting the law is cyanide to America.  The issues you cite are the wonderful tasting koolaid that the cyanide is mixed into.  Drink up America!

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I doubt he would actually arrest people who sodomize, he probably just wants it to be illegal but not enforced, not a position I agree with, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Actually what you are arguing, is that thousands of Ron Paul supporters in 2007 and 2008 utterly deluded ourselves to the exact same idea independently of one another, and because we were all too busy to take screen captures we are wrong, and somehow immoral for having followed the advice we all heard from Ron Paul.


 *If* I was arguing that, then I would at minimum make that statement, and then I would hopefully proceed to make a good case for why it is true.




> You don't have any desire to take over the GOP machine.  Fine.  Don't you do what you detest, even if I am doing what I detest for the sake of this country.  The problem is that you are trying to make Ron Paul into something other than what he is, because you, personally, can't accept that the rest of us heard his advice and took it.


*If* I didn't have any desire to do that, then I wouldn't have *done it*.




> So in 2007 we were all too busy campaigning to try and take screen shots or record stuff off the television, or whatever.  That's not a license to derogate the active half of the R3volution by marking them delusional, or that they only imagined the whole Ron Paul thing.


 *If* I was trying to derogate anyone, I probably would have made derogatory remarks, or at least insulting insinuations.  *If* I was trying to mark anyone as delusional, I would have at minimum made a statement to that effect, and then I would hopefully proceed to make a good case for why it is true.




> Audio/Video evidence is only one kind of evidence.  The fact that literally tens of thousands of Ron Paul supporters heard basically the same thing ans went out and DID it, is also evidence.  Evidence which you reject out of hand.


 Evidence for _what_, kemo sabe?  A careful reading of my posts will indicate it is evidence for something which I also believe to be true.




> That's your call, but it does go to your rational state.  Your preconceptions are more important than what may (or may not) be reality, and so your standard of evidence constantly changed, refined, narrowed, until you were left with ONLY a video WITH audio of Ron Paul saying EXACTLY the phrase in EXACTLY the way you articulated it would do.


 *If* this were truly my standard, then I would have stated as much.  Instead, I have simply asked for any quote from Ron Paul in which he said what angelatc claims he said.  That could be writing, audio, or video.  It could be handwritten, it could be typed, it could be sign-languaged.  It need not match any particular wording, it simply need contain the idea that every freedom lover needs to do XYZ.  Even some rough approximation of the idea.  Even something that you feel might give the vague impression that "Ron Paul is telling me what to do, here."  

You won't find it.  That's just not what he does.  Ron Paul doesn't boss his supporters around.  He stays so far from heavy-handedness, he needs bar-bells just to hold his arms down.




> Again, that's fine.  This is America, and you are free to be as irrational as you want.  Getting upset that the rest of us are not playing your game though...  Yeah you probably want to drop that bit.


 *If* I was upset, I probably would have expressed some agitation.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I doubt he would actually arrest people who sodomize, he probably just wants it to be illegal but not enforced, not a position I agree with, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.


Since almost every adult has done that, arresting almost every adult would be pretty hard. But banning something that is sexual that pretty much everyone has done would be like banning all carbonated beverages at the same time. If it was actually part of his platform and well publicized, he would be considered a joke and maybe get in the single digits.

There is always the possibility that he has a narrow definition of the term. But in that case, it is playing the Southern politics of discrimination and likely doesn't deserve to be taken serious by anyway. 

More likely he doesn't want to ban it at all. Most likely he sodomized many times, anyway.

----------


## erowe1

"Since almost every adult has done that"

Uh... what?!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> "Since almost every adult has done that"
> 
> Uh... what?!


Gunny gave his sources. It should be 100% (or as close as you can possibly get to it) of married Christian couples, since God blessed it in Song of Solomon.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

There's an easy solution to all this bickering and Cooch winning the race.

*10th amendment

10th amendment

10th amendment*

Look at that; I just won you the race Cooch and it didn't cost you a million dollar consulting fee.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> There's an easy solution to all this bickering and Cooch winning the race.
> 
> *10th amendment
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> 10th amendment*
> 
> Look at that; I just won you the race Cooch and it didn't cost you a million dollar consulting fee.


He's not running for federal office.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> "Since almost every adult has done that"
> 
> Uh... what?!





> anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also :  copulation with an animal


Merriam-Webster




> Never in my 79 years, nearly 59 of them married to the only man I have ever known, did I imagine being able to say -- much less write -- this:
> 
> I am guilty of sodomy.
> 
> For that matter, so is my husband, pleasurably so. (Our youngest would have me use more graphic terms; they apply, but I am a 'reticent' white-haired grandmother, moderate in my speech, sometimes.)
> 
> We live in Virginia, home base for all our married -- as well as courting -- years. And in Virginia, the state's anti-sodomy law is again front and center. The law describes sodomy as "crimes against nature," which include all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults, and is to be prosecuted as a felony. In other words, ordinary human behavior, criminalized.
> 
> Even though the statute is still on the books, as are anti-sodomy laws in fourteen states, it has effectively been unenforceable since 2003. That year, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that "statutes criminalizing private acts of consensual sodomy between adults are inconsistent with the protections of liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and thus unconstitutional.
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margar...b_3689165.html

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Merriam-Webster
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margar...b_3689165.html


My issue here is more fundamental than the law itself; the practice of using the wrong law to obtain a conviction when you do not have enough evidence (or are too lazy) to convict under the right law, is itself a perversion of justice and a perversion of the intent of the law.  If he's going to do that here, then what will he do to the Constitution?  The principle is both deeper and more imperative than either the case cited or any sex act of itself.  The principle is one of fidelity to the principle of law itself.  If this guy can't be faithful to the principle of law while serving as Attorney General, then it's a pretty sure bet he's not going to be faithful to the Constitution as Governor.

----------


## erowe1

> Gunny gave his sources. It should be 100% (or as close as you can possibly get to it) of married Christian couples, since God blessed it in Song of Solomon.


I haven't kept up with the thread. And I don't see where that is.

But before I hunt too much, we're talking about anal sex. Right?

ETA: I see it includes more than that. And I assume the statement I was replying to was based on that broader definition than I was using.

I don't want to get into how common oral sex is. But since you brought up Song of Solomon, where do you see either that or anything else in there that could fit any definition of sodomy?

ETA again: Never mind. I did a little googling. I think it's pretty debatable that it's in Song of Solomon. But I don't want to get into that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I haven't kept up with the thread. And I don't see where that is.
> 
> But before I hunt too much, we're talking about anal sex. Right?


No.  The term traditionally covers any and all sexual activity _except_ for missionary copulation between a man and a woman.

----------


## mad cow

Ron Paul Endorses Ken Cuccinelli For Governor
Ratings: 0|Reads: 583|Likes: 0
Published by kencuccinelli
Ron Paul Endorses Ken Cuccinelli For Governor

 Paid for by Liberty PAC
October 11, 2013The Honorable Kenneth Cuccinelli, II10560 Main Street, Suite 218Fairfax, VA 22030Dear Ken,We have a federal government that is out of control, spends toomuch, borrows too much, taxes too much and continues to infringeon the constitution and states' rights.This current administration has even gone so far as to suestates they disagree with.That is why Virginia needs a governor who is willing to stand upto the politicians of both parties in Washington and tell them,"Enough is Enough."As someone who has watched you in action as both a State Senatorand as Virginia’s Attorney General, I know you will be thatGovernor.My good friend Donna Holt put it best by saying; “Ken Cuccinellihas been the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General wehave ever had in Virginia. He is the only one who hasconsistently worked with the Liberty movement and the only onewho has the guts to stand up to Washington”.That’s why I am proud to strongly endorse your campaign forGovernor of Virginia.Of course, one of the most egregious assaults on states’ rightsand individual freedom has been the passage and implementationof ObamaCare.Your almost immediate court challenge to ObamaCare shows thatyou exactly the kind of person we need in Richmond to lead theCommonwealth.I have endorsed you in your past elections and I am proud to doso again. I feel you are the right choice for governor.


 Below is a quote from me that you can use in a press release oron your website, or in any of your voter communications:
"Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government, he has consistenly and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up toWashington's continued abuses on our individual liberties.I am proud to endorse to Ken for Governor of Virginia."
Good luck in November.For Liberty,Ron Paul

http://www.cuccinelli.com/ronpaulendorsement/

----------


## AuH20

> Ron Paul Endorses Ken Cuccinelli For Governor
> Ratings: 0|Reads: 583|Likes: 0
> Published by kencuccinelli
> Ron Paul Endorses Ken Cuccinelli For Governor
> 
>  Paid for by Liberty PAC
> October 11, 2013The Honorable Kenneth Cuccinelli, II10560 Main Street, Suite 218Fairfax, VA 22030Dear Ken,We have a federal government that is out of control, spends toomuch, borrows too much, taxes too much and continues to infringeon the constitution and states' rights.This current administration has even gone so far as to suestates they disagree with.That is why Virginia needs a governor who is willing to stand upto the politicians of both parties in Washington and tell them,"Enough is Enough."As someone who has watched you in action as both a State Senatorand as Virginias Attorney General, I know you will be thatGovernor.My good friend Donna Holt put it best by saying; Ken Cuccinellihas been the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General wehave ever had in Virginia. He is the only one who hasconsistently worked with the Liberty movement and the only onewho has the guts to stand up to Washington.Thats why I am proud to strongly endorse your campaign forGovernor of Virginia.Of course, one of the most egregious assaults on states rightsand individual freedom has been the passage and implementationof ObamaCare.Your almost immediate court challenge to ObamaCare shows thatyou exactly the kind of person we need in Richmond to lead theCommonwealth.I have endorsed you in your past elections and I am proud to doso again. I feel you are the right choice for governor.
> 
> 
> ...


So Ron Paul is "in on it" as well? LOL

----------


## Saint Vitus

Isn't this guy basically the same as Rick Santorum?  What liberty issues does he advocate other than lip service to smaller government?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Isn't this guy basically the same as Rick Santorum?  What liberty issues does he advocate other than lip service to smaller government?


He's much better than Rick Santorum.  Closer to a Paul Braun type, but he's run a hideous campaign.  His Romney Team advisers have had him play down every issue that makes him worth voting for except this sodomy law of all things.  The Libertarian challenger seems like a cosmotarian douche, and the Democrat of course is probably the openly corrupt politician in America.  Virginia is a lost cause.  The General Assembly needs to work on a deal with Maryland to trade NoVa for the Western Counties and the Eastern Shore.  The thieves in the Maryland Legislature would actually jump on such a trade since it would be a huge net tax base win for them.  Without the parasites of NoVa, Virginia can go back to being Virginia.  Otherwise, they'll just have to resign themselves to being slaves of the greater DC metropolitan area.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> "Since almost every adult has done that"
> 
> Uh... what?!


Count me into the group who didn't realize that "sodomy" included oral sex.  In fact, with how it's loosely defined, some may consider contracepted sex as sodomy as well!

-- But thankfully Cooch doesn't want to actually ban sodomy, eh?

Yes that's true but it seems he has full intent to use the statute to punish people found _innocent_ in fair trials.

-- But it's only the bad guys, the pedophiles, who will have to be worried about this.

I wonder where we've heard this logic before... _flashbacks to post 9/11 America where only the terrorists have to worry about the destruction of the 4th amendment_

I really just don't have a good feeling about this guy, but I'd definitely vote for him as the only guy who has a chance to beat someone a whole lot worse.

----------


## fr33

If Sarvis is perceived as a "spoiler" then that's Kooch's fault for not being libertarian enough. He isn't entitled to receive votes. He must earn them. Unfortunately it's necessary to explain the free market to Republican supporters over and over again since apparently they don't understand it.

----------


## eduardo89

> No.  The term traditionally covers any and all sexual activity _except_ for missionary copulation between a man and a woman.


That's wrong. It has nothing to do with missionary or any other position, as long as it is vaginal sex between a man and a woman it is no sodomy. I'd like to see where you got the missionary part of the definition, I have never seen that. Sodomy originally only referred to anal sex, but the term has expanded over the years to pretty much any non-procreative sexual act (oral sex, anal sex, bestiality, handjobs, etc).

----------


## GopBlackList

> Apples to oranges. There's 3 horses in this race and if the other 2 weren't such terrible candidates, Sarvis would not be polling anywhere near double digits.


THIS.




> My impression has been that the so-called "libertarians" who don't like Cuccinelli are really just social liberals who don't like his conservatism.


what's conservative about having the gov't define marriage for everyone and getting the gov't in our bedrooms?

----------


## CG1976

I hope everyone has given cash to cuccinelli, I just did. Whatever Ron says goes in my book.

----------


## GopBlackList

> I hope everyone has given cash to cuccinelli, I just did. Whatever Ron says goes in my book.


How about thinking for yourself, since RP has always encouraged people to do. Likewise, I gave cash... to Sarvis.

----------


## MichaelDavis

"One reason McAuliffe is ahead is that he wins 92 percent of Democrats while Cuccinelli has only 81 percent of Republicans," Brown said, noting that 11 percent of Republicans favor Sarvis. "If Cuccinelli can't bring more Republicans home, he is likely to be toast." Two percent of Democrats polled said they favored Sarvis.
http://news.yahoo.com/democrat-holds...192039519.html

----------


## TaftFan

> "One reason McAuliffe is ahead is that he wins 92 percent of Democrats while Cuccinelli has only 81 percent of Republicans," Brown said, noting that 11 percent of Republicans favor Sarvis. "If Cuccinelli can't bring more Republicans home, he is likely to be toast." Two percent of Democrats polled said they favored Sarvis.
> http://news.yahoo.com/democrat-holds...192039519.html


Ron Paul needs to go campaign for him IN Virginia.

These endorsements are nice, but how many Virginians actually know?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Ron Paul needs to go campaign for him IN Virginia.
> 
> These endorsements are nice, but how many Virginians actually know?


That's a whole lot to ask of Ron Paul. Rand Paul is in VA all of the time, and he is campaigning for Ken in VA.

----------

