Article title I don't want to post but people should read it

[sailingaway]

Will Ron Paul Fire Jesse Benton?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8435/will-ron-paul-fire-jesse-benton

 

[kathy88]

OMFG

 

[odamn]

I don't care what anybody else thinks ...
i'm gonna trust Ron Paul to know whats best for
Ron Paul.

 

[GRNBO]

That's a fine article.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That is an important article for everyone to read.

 

[Burrows14]

There is so much Benton bashing on here, but I honestly he did a good job with the situation and resources he's in. Ron Paul was never going to appeal to the neoconservative warhawk base of the party. That needs to be stated. I'm a bit dissapointed they didn't focus more on his budget plan, especially running ads about SS!

 

[sailingaway]

bump

 

[Eisenhower]

If Benton screws up, at least he’s a Ron Paul person. It’s a believer in liberty and a believer in Ron Paul as a person, a campaign manager handpicked by that candidate.

He isn't a believer in liberty and a believer in Ron Paul if he has made a deal with the establishment devil.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

If Benton wants to be a career political advisor, that's fine. I don't suggest anyone hires him for more Liberty Candidate Campaigns.

 

[Tinnuhana]

The article seems to be right in that we fed the fire. Time to get back on the front lines. I wish I hadn't maxed out in July. But today, money bomb day, I will donate to our own running for office and to chip ins for transportation to Tampa. I would hope that others will do likewise. If we continue the process and throw in our usual enthusiastic support, this will fade away. Can you see the headline (okay, so of course it won't be in MSM)? "Ron Paul campaign announces draw down; supporters donate $2 million".

Amount: $90.00
Transaction ID: ETYP9AA02C00
Transaction date/time: 2012-05-16 17:52:50

 

[KingNothing]

"Paul’s supporters can, of course, freely and anonymously post their views on the internet, but it must be understood that at this most crucial point at this crossroads of the campaign, many members of the liberty movement are opting to paralyze their own movement.

The liberty movement needs leaders right now instead of a few hurtful anonymous posts on the internet."


Exactly!

 

[jolynna]

"They could admit that maybe they just need to quiet down and follow obediently sometimes."

This line from the article I don't like.

There are some lines that should NOT be crossed no matter WHO tells you to do it.

 

[sailingaway]

"They could admit that maybe they just need to quiet down and follow obediently sometimes."

This line from the article I don't like.

There are some lines that should NOT be crossed no matter WHO tells you to do it.

I'm perfectly capable of ignoring ignorant lines.

Occassionally, following signals and TRUSTING is appropriate, if trust has been earned. NOt saying that is now but that that would be a very different approach than the one being taken.

 

[Lucille]

That was good. Thanks.

 

[jay_dub]

Good article. Methinks someone's been lurking here at RPF, though.

 

[DamianTV]

Ron Paul has earned my trust. I trust him to make the right decision, not only for himself, but what is best for the Country. That is a lot of trust for any man to be had, and it takes even more to earn that trust, especially from people like all of us!

 

[GRNBO]

Good article. Methinks someone's been lurking here at RPF, though.

We could actually do something to determine if there are some subverters, though I would think it is too authoritarianish for Paul supporters. Examine posters that make the same basic statement as articles like in the OP point out, about dissent among people in the liberty movement, and determine if they are actively attempting to subvert. If someone would be attempting shady business on this forum then their sales pitch would be similar to what some "bought media" puts out. The effort to discredit would be topic based, with the intent to push a single tagline. Find that tagline and determine who is trying to push it.

I know that sounds conspiracyish, but that is the military (the establishment) way... full spectrum dominance so to speak. I haven't discounted the idea that there are some intelligent shills on here.

Naa, forget what I'm saying , maybe I'm just being paranoid. It does bring up an interesting philosophical question about the nature of order though.

 

[jmdrake]

+rep! Best thing I've read all week. The campaign ain't over.

 

[jay_dub]

We could actually do something to determine if there are some subverters, though I would think it is too authoritarianish for Paul supporters. Examine posters that make the same basic statement as articles like in the OP, about dissent among people in the liberty movement, and determine if they are actively attempting to subvert.

I know that sounds conspiracyish, but that is the military (the establishment) way... full spectrum dominance so to speak. I haven't discounted the idea that there are some intelligent shills on here.

Naa, forget what I'm saying , maybe I'm just being paranoid. It does bring up an interesting philosophical question about the nature of order though.

Oh, it's obvious that the media has been lurking here and at the DP. No problem, but they better watch out. LIBERTY IS CONTAGIOUS !!!

 

[Exiled_LFOD]

Oh I am going to weigh in on this thread, and I am going to give it more than a popcorn eating, told you so, casual poop and go.

Regarding this:

Ron Paul has spent 40 years stressing his positions on liberty, 40 years developing his “name brand.” Always the long-game thinker, the long-game thinker that his supporters have come to love, I’m not surprised to see him avoiding a “go for broke” style of thinking. After 40 years of work, the man wants to leave more of a legacy than just “the man who incited riots in the GOP” or “that old guy who spoke on prime time television at the RNC.” The man is a long-game thinker and my guess is, as much as he wants a win in the year 2012, his mind is focused on the future.

There are people who supported Ron Paul because they have a long term vision. They primarily participated because of long term strategy. The long term strategy is a philosophical one. It is the battle of ideas. It is sharing, discussing, and distributing ideas. People with long term vision have always stated victory will not come with electoral politics but electoral politics is merely a symptom of success. People with long term vision have always stated one election does not matter. These people have been ostracized, rejected, banned, or as Tom Woods might put it.. had their heads bitten off because of a view we must prevail at electoral politics. The PC rules implemented on this forum were something like.. though shall not encourage others not to vote and tolerance shall be given to established members.

The absolute last thing I feel like hearing is some politically motivated person try to co-opt the meaning of viable long term strategy and turn it into electoral politics. Hell no! I have listened to that BS long enough. The long term political strategy of the Constitution where anyone can seek power to govern others is a failure of epic proportions. I am willing to be reasonable. You show me some shit that has been repealed. You show me a GOP that after sweeping elections in huge majorities several times the past century reduced government. It hasn't happened. EVER!!! And it is not going to happen until libertarian ideas are successfully sold among the populace. It might only take a small irate minority to effect change but unless you want a civil war it's best to get a lot of good ideas sold.

Ron Paul’s movement is impervious in a similar way. His supporters want transparency, fairness, open systems, rule of law, and constitutional government. Because of the nature of their movement, nothing can take these people down. Their political goals welcome anyone to join the group as long as they share the same message and it’s easy to tell who’s with you or against you. Everyone is welcome into this big tent just as long as they share those similar values.

This isn't gonna fly either because the so called "values" were... elect Ron Paul. I really don't think I need to dig up old threads because the people I am talking about... not only know who I am talking about, but what I am talking about. If you are not here to get Ron Paul elected leave? Does that cover it LE? OP? Dam straight it does, I am hitting the nail on the head so hard I can pound this sucker in with one stroke.

His supporters want transparency

And that little tidbit almost makes me want to dig up the fn thread I was perma banned over where I stated that at least when I advocate transparency I practice it. Political hacks using the term transparent almost make me want to puke. Banned for not pulling a Doug Wead and saying some things are not for public consumption you can read about it in 20 years.... transparency... my ass...

Paul’s supporters can, of course, freely and anonymously post their views on the internet, but it must be understood that at this most crucial point at this crossroads of the campaign, many members of the liberty movement are opting to paralyze their own movement.

The liberty movement needs leaders right now instead of a few hurtful anonymous posts on the internet.

I hate to break it to you but the intellectual capital of the liberty movement is not... well... lets take this recent DP post:
http://www.dailypaul.com/234082/ron-paul-disappointment-and-distributed-power&from=lbp

Forgive me for noticing but the grass roots status quo has some _______ (pun intended) ideas. Don't get me wrong I like Trevor and I am not attacking him personally(your a forum member Sword... feel free to cut me down if I am out of line). I am attacking the ideas espoused because they represent a long standing fissure in the liberty movement. For instance, Trevor says the liberty movement is about blah blah blah... electoral politics. It just absolutely friggen amazes me after all this time he could sum Ron Paul up like that.

Ron Paul is for liberty. Not liberty so long as it is governed with limited regulation... but total freedom. Do we really need to go over old videos and interviews that drive the statists batshit insane up a wall? Set the proper damn goal. Total freedom or if you prefer, liberty qualified by the NAP. Ron Paul has espoused the NAP. Ron Paul embraces the NAP. On the other hand Ron Paul's political career does represent advocating the best path to total freedom is limited constitutional government. Who knows if Ron Paul would advocate for eliminating the state if we actually had limited government. I don't think Ron Paul cares because he has chosen his path. Let me take that back. I think he does care philosophically but as far as equating ideology to action he has chosen a path and stuck with it. Instead of taking the Mises or anarchist approach, Ron has chosen to engage in electoral politics. Now unfortunately you can look at that two ways. You can say his political career is an epic failure because what did he get repealed.... or you can pat him on the back and talk about how after 40 years he managed to bring a large group of people together to support a losing campaign that embraced libertarian ideas. It was even mentioned in a thread recently other Ron Paul candidates are not getting elected.

The interesting part of this point is that everything about Ron Paul with regards to political results in office or running for President is losing. The only context of victory is spreading of ideas (which, ironically, have often been buried out of sight around here). Now I recently pooped a drive by droplet on electoral efficiency and this is what I am talking about. Is finally getting a result distributing ideas after 40 years efficient? If so by all means continue on taking over the GOP and ban, ostracize, or ridicule the shit out of anyone who is not down with that plan.

If you do not consider this efficient, I suggest you think about the long standing fissure. In my opinion based on observation I have to credit statist leaning liberty minded people with action. Hey I will admit, you all are pretty damn good on the action side by showing up to what I consider boring as hell, I'd rather be any place but here, executive committee meetings and participating in the process. On the other hand if you are going to look at intellectual capital that has inspired Ron Paul you are going to find a few anarchist skeletons in the closet.

The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism -Ronald Reagan

Using Reagan's own phrase I would suggest conservatism is the body (action) and the libertarianism is the soul (idea). So take the grass roots status quo. I would say the meme is 'ists' can only coexist in the liberty movement if certain 'ists' participate in the electoral process and even if you are participating in the process keep the ________ to yourself because "this is about Ron Paul" err... "this is about getting Ron Paul elected".. err until possibly recently cuz uh err... I'm not sure... can I get back to you on that?

I am not going to argue there is not a proper venue for all things. What I am going to argue is the goal can not be electoral politics. The goal must be the evolution and distribution of ideas about freedom or liberty. This is what Ron Paul refers to as changing hearts and minds, the philosophy, etc. It is a prerequisite to any possible electoral success.

I find it ironic as hell some people were finding solace in a Lew Rockwell article posted recently. An article that reinforces one of the first points in this post. Any electoral success can only come after philosophical success resulting from the successful distribution of ideas.

I don't even know if I would consider the liberty movement that great of a success thus far because I would measure success by how many people in the liberty movement are "experts" on liberty subject matter. Many people around here would not define success of the liberty movement in those terms. To them success is more delegates.

I don’t like the defeatism I hear coming from people in Ron Paul’s campaign. I don’t care for their negativity. I don’t like the many mistakes they make.

And that’s OK.

unless you are a mundane grass roots supporter espousing similar views... then you are collectively an anarchist terrorist sowing dissent at best or a so called troll at worst.

On a serious note. If the Lew Rockwell article praised is correct in that electoral success can only come after philosophical success spreading ideas of liberty... then how can their possibly be a deafest attitude. You should already know and embrace you are losing but that is not the reason you are participating in the process.

Think of it this way...

RON PAUL KNEW NONE OF HIS LEGISLATION WOULD EVER GET PASSED. RON PAUL WOKE UP AND WENT TO WORK KNOWING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT WAS NOT GOING TO GET SMALLER THAT DAY... IF YOU ASKED RON PAUL WOULD HE BLOW SMOKE UP YOUR TAILPIPE AND TELL YOU IT WAS GOING TO PASS OR GET SMALLER? OF COURSE NOT, BUT YOU WOULD NOT ACCUSE RON PAUL OF HAVING A DEFEATIST ATTITUDE FOR SUCH AN ADMISSION.

TO TOP IT OFF... THE MAN ENDURED SHOWING UP TO LOSE FOR YEARS AND YEARS. HELL PEOPLE AROUND HERE CAN'T EVEN MAKE IT THROUGH ONE CAMPAIGN....

Allow me to write what ought to be written:

The electoral and political lessons of Ron Paul:

1. Compete hard when it is time to compete.
2. Lose with respect and dignity.
3. Even when you think you can't win show up and participate.
4. Most importantly, know why you are doing 1-3, and tell people about why you are doing 1-3 at every opportunity.