Barry Goldwater Jr. changes support from Paul to Romney

[cajuncocoa]

It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to alienate people like this.

I have no intention of alienating him. He's a grown man, and he's free to make whatever political choices he sees fit.

However, as donnay posted, I would LOVE to hear a high-profile liberty-minded individual (besides Ron Paul) publicly say:

"I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate. If the GOP backed the candidate I was backing, then I could stand here and proudly endorse him. Shame on you, GOP, for doing what you did!"

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I understand. I wish it too.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I just wish for once, someone would have the courage (besides Ron Paul) to stand up and say; "I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate. If the GOP backed the candidate I was backing, then I could stand here and proudly endorse him. Shame on you, GOP, for doing what you did!"

That, IMHO, is how you wake up the masses with no bullshit, no lies and just pure, unbridled passion to tell the truth.

That'd be great, but we'd never hear about it. Well, we might, but hardly anyone else would.

 

[Brett85]

He furthered the cause of liberty by supporting Dr. Paul. Twice. And he will be there again, if we run another good candidate. He has also been on the board of at least one of our grassroots endeavors in the past, that I recall.

We have no candidate in the race right now. Just because he has chosen a different course than some of us have, after Dr. Paul has lost this particular race, does not make him an enemy of liberty.

It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to alienate people like this.

Exactly. Every person who endorsed and campaigned for Ron in the Republican primary is a champion of liberty, in my opinion. People are always going to do different things in a general election. Everyone doesn't think in lock step and share a brain.

 

[Brett85]

I have no intention of alienating him. He's a grown man, and he's free to make whatever political choices he sees fit.

However, as donnay posted, I would LOVE to hear a high-profile liberty-minded individual (besides Ron Paul) publicly say:

Ron never said that either. He said he was undecided on how he's going to vote. He's always basically said that he'll vote for the GOP candidate if the candidate moves closer to his positions on the issues.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron never said that either. He said he was undecided on how he's going to vote. He's always basically said that he'll vote for the GOP candidate if the candidate moves closer to his positions on the issues.

If he didn't vote for Bush in 2000, there's no chance he'll vote for Romney in 2012.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Becoming decisively anti-Obama would help this movement make HUGE inroads within the GOP. Not so much pro-Romney, because remember much of the GOP is already holding their nose to vote for him. We just can't be anti-Romney and expect to get anywhere.

The problem is that most of them are anti-Obama for mostly (or, at least, predominantly) "Red Team vs. Blue Team" or "us vs. them" reasons. They may not be entirely pleased with Romney, but they are willing to put up with Romney's Obama-like bullshit (e.g., RomneyCare) while denouncing Obama's Romney-like bullshit (e.g., ObamaCare). Most of us, on the other hand, are anti-Obama for *exactly* the same reasons that we are anti-Romney. It is simply impossible for most of us to be anti-Obama without also being just as anti-Romney.

 

[Occam's Banana]

empty shells inflated for a decade and a half by constant fear, and living in a reality distorted by partisan rhetoric. Still plugged into the matrix, and living in an artfully crafted reality.

And by taking them seriously - by plotting *our* course on the basis of *their* attitudes & reactions - we end up getting sucked into the Matrix, as well. If we base our decisions about what to do upon the behavior of mindless establishment drones, then - in effect - we have allowed those drones to define what we are and to determine what we will do. And so we ourselves become drones-by-proxy. We become the puppets of puppets.

 

[TheGrinch]

And by taking them seriously - by plotting *our* course on the basis of *their* attitudes & reactions - we end up getting sucked into the Matrix, as well. If we base our decisions about what to do upon the behavior of mindless establishment drones, then - in effect - we have allowed those drones to define what we are and to determine what we will do. And so we ourselves become drones-by-proxy. We become the puppets of puppets.

This what we call a non-sequitor (doesn't necessarily follow)

Rather I would say that ignoring the establishment and leaving them alone will only exacerbate the problem, as their power goes unchallenged and minds go unchanged.

There are ways to bring people into the message of liberty without having to water down what the message is.... However, you have to start somewhere with the parts that are easier to swallow as we gain the numbers and more minds change to be able to say "my way or the highway". You simply cannot do that as a minority without majority support.

 

[donnay]

Ron never said that either. He said he was undecided on how he's going to vote. He's always basically said that he'll vote for the GOP candidate if the candidate moves closer to his positions on the issues.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This what we call a non-sequitor (doesn't necessarily follow)

How so?

Also, non sequitur means "it does not follow" - not "doesn't necessarily follow" (which means "it might or might not follow")

Rather I would say that ignoring the establishment and leaving them alone will only exacerbate the problem, as their power goes unchallenged and minds go unchanged.

There are ways to bring people into the message of liberty without having to water down what the message is.... However, you have to start somewhere with the parts that are easier to swallow as we gain the numbers and more minds change to be able to say "my way or the highway". You simply cannot do that as a minority without majority support.

I don't understand. How is that any different from what I was saying? If we take our marbles and go home, we will be doing exactly what they want us to do. We will be playing their game the way they want us to play it. What are you disagreeing with me about? Are you disagreeing with me?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I would not say never, rather, let's look at it from cost/benefit type of metric.

If you could elect 20 "RP type" Texas House member or one congressman or governor, what would be the better choice?

My NH federal representation is awful.

But my state representation is awesome.

bottom-up > top-down

I'd *love* to see NH (and other states) get enough state legislators to make nullification something with some real (and frequenty-bared) fangs.

That is one of the better & more effective ways of defying federal tyranny. In fact, it's almost certainly *the* best & most effective way.

 

[TheGrinch]

How so?

Also, non sequitur means "it does not follow" - not "doesn't necessarily follow" (which means "it might or might not follow")



I don't understand. How is that any different from what I was saying? If we take our marbles and go home, we will be doing exactly what they want us to do. We will be playing their game the way they want us to play it. What are you disagreeing with me about? Are you disagreeing with me?

Okay, whatever term you prefer for saying "that doesn't necessarily follow" which means that it's being presumptuous to assume that this will be the outcome. Unless you just want to argue semantics, then something not necessarily following is good enough to render the assumption that it does necessarily follow false.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but i took you as saying that if we attempt to reach out to the "drones" then we will become co-opted and become part of the thing we're fighting against. Is that not what you're arguing? Perhaps it's me that doesn't follow.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yes, disregard national politics.

Start local.

Join the FSP.

Disengage, educate and secede.

For the most part, I agree with [Anti Federalist] about working local. However, I do think it will be useful, as everything continues to fall, to have as many of our guys in positions where they have podiums from which to speak. You know and I know that there is going to be a huge effort to move us into a world currency and world government. Heck, we're 1/2 way there now; if not more. The more voices we have standing up to it, the better. That's my opinion, anyway.

+reps to AF & LE, becuase they're both right.

AF because top-down will never work, LE because those "podiums" are critical in fostering greater social credibility for our ideas.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The problem is that most of them are anti-Obama for mostly (or, at least, predominantly) "Red Team vs. Blue Team" or "us vs. them" reasons. They may not be entirely pleased with Romney, but they are willing to put up with Romney's Obama-like bullshit (e.g., RomneyCare) while denouncing Obama's Romney-like bullshit (e.g., ObamaCare). Most of us, on the other hand, are anti-Obama for *exactly* the same reasons that we are anti-Romney. It is simply impossible for most of us to be anti-Obama without also being just as anti-Romney.

Exactly. They couldn't care less about issues...they will gladly put up with the exact same things Obama is doing as long as Romney is the one doing it....just as they did when Bush was doing it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Okay, whatever term you prefer for saying "that doesn't necessarily follow" which means that it's being presumptuous to assume that this will be the outcome. Unless you just want to argue semantics, then something not necessarily following is good enough to render the assumption that it does necessarily follow false.

I do not wish to argue semantics at this time (though there is much I could say on the issue).

So I will simply repeat my previous question, which you did not address: "How so?"

IOW: what, in my stated conclusions, did not follow from my stated premises ("necessarily" or otherwise)?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but i took you as saying that if we attempt to reach out to the "drones" then we will become co-opted and become part of the thing we're fighting against. Is that not what you're arguing? Perhaps it's me that doesn't follow.

Go back and look at what I was replying to. Follow the chain:

AF said he has had a couple of establishment-drone types come "unglued" by screaming at him, etc.

Gunny replied to the effect that the mindless drone types are "empty shells" who are "plugged into the matrix."

In this context, go back & reread my post: I was agreeing with Gunny and pointing out how, if we let them drive us away because of their spittle-spewing vitriol, we would be playing directly into their gambit. We would be doing exactly what they want us to do. By allowing our enemies to define us & determine what we ought do, we would be accepting their "reality" and "plugging into the matrix" right along with them. They are puppets of the establishment. By indulging in RE-action (rather than PRO-action), we become the puppets of the puppets of the establishment.Therefore, we should reject their attempts to drive us away.

I was saying nothing at all, one way or another, about "reaching out to the drones" - I was addressing the question of whether we should allow them to dictate terms to us.

 

[Anti Federalist]

In this context, go back & reread my post: I was agreeing with Gunny and pointing out how, if we let them drive us away because of their spittle-spewing vitriol, we would be playing directly into their gambit. We would be doing exactly what they want us to do. By allowing our enemies to define us & determine what we ought do, we would be accepting their "reality" and "plugging into the matrix" right along with them. They are puppets of the establishment. By indulging in RE-action (rather than PRO-action), we become the puppets of the puppets of the establishment.Therefore, we should reject their attempts to drive us away.

A valid point.

Of course, you must understand, I was "playing" them as well.

In spite of my usual shouting and ranting and cursing, I can play it cool, calm and soothing when I have to.

Which is just what I did, in the cases I mentioned, which in turn drove those people into apoplectic fits.

 

[Tudo]

So? Isn't this guy part owners of this scam in NY state that used to claim to sell "authentic silver from the depths of the world trade center"? What's there motto barry, get into there retirement moneys trick em and rip em?

If that's the same barry goldwater he's also known as a slimebag so the flip to romney and the slimey statement should come as no surprise to anyone.

Goldwater defends maker of 9/11 coin

Chad Graham
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 24, 2006 12:00 AM

Barry Goldwater Jr., son of an Arizona political icon, is continuing his role as the celebrity face of a New York company forced last year to refund more than $2 million to customers who bought its Sept. 11-related "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar."

On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the attacks, National Collector's Mint Inc. has released a new commemorative token, called the "Fifth Anniversary World Trade Center Commemorative," featuring a pop-up image of the World Trade Center.

Sales of the $29.95 medallion, which is being advertised nationally and in the Valley, are hot. Demand has pushed delivery of the product to least six to eight weeks, according to the company. advertisement




Goldwater said he believes the company is fully complying with the law.

"I watch them pretty closely, and they've made restitutions or are making restitutions," said the 68-year-old former California congressman, who added that the company gives portions of its proceeds to Sept. 11 charities. "I followed (the 2005 case), and the people involved are very good people, and they're solid citizens who are out there working hard to make a living and provide a product and a service."

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer disagreed last year when he sued National Collector's Mint over its advertised claim that the Freedom Tower coin was a "government issue" silver dollar and a "U.S. territorial minting" from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The coin was not government issued. The islands use U.S. currency and are not authorized to mint legal tender.

In October, a New York Supreme Court judge, the equivalent of Arizona's Superior Court, ordered National Collector's Mint to pay nearly $370,000 in civil penalties.

According to Spitzer's office, about 20,000 customers canceled their orders for the coin and about 5,000 returned their orders and sought a refund.

National Collector's Mint paid out $2.2 million in a combination of refunds and cancellations.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0824biz-goldwater0824.html?&wired

Just another one of the same band of liars thieves and murderers

 

[Occam's Banana]

Of course, you must understand, I was "playing" them as well.

They're so playable, aren't they? Like wind-up dolls, really.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad & frightening ...

In spite of my usual shouting and ranting and cursing, I can play it cool, calm and soothing when I have to.

Which is just what I did, in the cases I mentioned, which in turn drove those people into apoplectic fits.

Oh, I have no doubt. I know just what kind of people you're talking about.

I have no desire to waste any time trying to cajole or "convert" such creatures. They're lost causes.

I just hope we can reach a point where we can simply kick them to the curb - or at least render them impotent.

Time will tell.

 

[Travlyr]

I would not say never, rather, let's look at it from cost/benefit type of metric.

If you could elect 20 "RP type" Texas House member or one congressman or governor, what would be the better choice?

My NH federal representation is awful.

But my state representation is awesome.

Which is close in line with the original intent of the Constitution. Strong local governance and weak Federal government. The 17th amendment undermined that, in 1913, of course, along with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Income Tax, and California's making hemp illegal. 1913 was a very bad year for liberty.