Campaign for Liberty solicitations

[sailingaway]

It's not inferring, it's their records. The organizations you listed as examples, and specifically used as examples as to what C4L wants to be like, are pretty much useless giant money organizations that side with government and keep the masses in idiocy, while thinking they're doing some good.

If that were to happen we wouldn't stay, so it would police itself. It has done good things, though so deserves some time to get up and running, imho. But if it goes in the direction of a club for growth money machine, it will die. If it follows Ron's principles and Ron's hot button issues, it won't.

 

[Matt Collins]

I think more people are frustrated at C4L rather than angry at them. We all want them to succeed, well at least I do, which is why we offer constructive criticism but nothing ever changes.

The C4L, like any organization, is what you make of it. If you put a lot of effort into it, you'll get a lot of out it.

 

[sailingaway]

You have to be persistant. Call back, speak to the same person, and ask them again. They have many things on their plate, but as I said, if you really want to advance liberty, you have to push sometimes.

You may find ways to advance liberty that don't involve that extra effort to go through a middle person, though.

The organization needs work, and a different ideological head more in line with Ron, imho. I don't care about nuts and bolts, as much, but ideology and message is key.

Comparisons of YAL to C4L are very telling. I got another email from YAL today, and posted it. They are GOOD.

 

[Matt Collins]

The bottom line is this: Tate and Rothfeld are looking to build C4L into a national-level organization on part with the NRA.

I don't think theyr are under any such delusions. However they are wanting to build a national organization, however they realize that CFL does have a ceiling due to the amont of people who like the philsophy and are also active.

They have decided that in order to do that, they have to recruit huge numbers of mainline conservatives. If you are wondering why these letters and emails don't sound like they're tailored to hard-core Ron Paul R3volutionaries, it's because Tate and Rothfeld are not trying to throw red meat to you. They're interested in growing their membership list and donor base, and that means writing in a way that appeals to and motivates 65-year old NRA, National Right to Work, and National Right to Life devotees.

That doesn't mean that they don't care about monetary and foreign policy. They do. But they've already GOT most of Ron Paul's voters on their contact list. They're looking to grow beyond that, and to do that, they need money, and lots of it.

Very true. And if we are to grow the movement, this is what we have to do. The more people on the lists, the more powerful the organization is, the more money that can be raised which means the more pressure can be put on politicians at the appropriate times.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You may find ways to advance liberty that don't involve that extra effort to go through a middle person, though.

The organization needs work, and a different ideological head more in line with Ron, imho. I don't care about nuts and bolts, as much, but ideology and message is key.

Comparisons of YAL to C4L are very telling. I got another email from YAL today, and posted it. They are GOOD.

Back at it again, I see.

C4L is doing exactly what Ron wants them to do and Tate was hired by Ron. I'm sure he'd appreciate your comments.

 

[sailingaway]

Back at it again, I see.

Expressing my opinion which you don't agree with, on the subject of what I think C4L needs to do? Yeah, I guess so. Back trying to make something dire out of my disagreeing with you again, I see.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Expressing my opinion which you don't agree with, on the subject of what I think C4L needs to do? Yeah, I guess so.

Are you a member? If so, are you involved in your own state? Just curious as to whether you are participating in making C4L the organization you want it to grow to be, or just sitting on the sidelines throwing stones.

I am expressing an opinion too, SA. An opinion that you apparently do not like.

 

[tsai3904]

You have to be persistant. Call back, speak to the same person, and ask them again. They have many things on their plate, but as I said, if you really want to advance liberty, you have to push sometimes.

I have been pushing but not through C4L. I don't understand why I need to push C4L. They have offered me nothing so I don't understand what the point is. It's obvious there is no state coordinator for California as I have not heard from the person since I signed up four years ago. I guess I need to step up and coordinate for the whole state for C4L if I want to advance liberty? If I do that, why I do I need C4L? The problem is I'm not understanding what C4L has to offer. I've seen YAL and that is an organization I can support.

 

[sailingaway]

Are you a member? If so, are you involved in your own state? Just curious as to whether you are participating in making C4L the organization you want it to grow to be, or just sitting on the sidelines throwing stones.

I am expressing an opinion too, SA. An opinion that you apparently do not like.

But I don't go around saying 'you're at it again' as if you don't have the right to even state your opinion.

And yeah, i'm a member and have donated and joined my state before the election. I am now waiting to see what they plan to do with it because I need a bit more confidence in its direction before I make that the target of my own efforts.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But I don't go around saying 'you're at it again' as if you don't have the right to even state your opinion.

And yeah, i'm a member and have donated and joined my state before the election. I am now waiting to see what they plan to do with it because I need a bit more confidence in its direction before I make that the target of my own efforts.

So, you're not active.

C4L is what its members make of it. There are only a handful of people at national. If you don't think C4L is doing enough, look at yourself. Get active.

 

[sailingaway]

No, it is the leadership and direction that is my issue, not its inactivity. I can't lead it from the bottom, it is NOT set up that way. If it is going in the direction I want to go in, I will become active. Otherwise I'll likely go through a California organization, more.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, it is the leadership and direction that is my issue, not its inactivity. I can't lead it from the bottom, it is NOT set up that way. If it is going in the direction I want to go in, I will become active. Otherwise I'll likely go through a California organization, more.

The latter is probably your best bet, because I doubt Ron is going to be the sole leadership at C4L and that is what you appear to want.

 

[sailingaway]

The latter is probably your best bet, because I doubt Ron is going to be the sole leadership at C4L and that is what you appear to want.

I'll decide when I see what is happening. That would be a shame and I hope Ron starts something new he is in sole leadership of in that case.

The Goldwater organizations can hold and showcase Goldwater principles as the standard, and it would be a crying shame imho if Ron Paul, who is better, can't have as much.

 

[Matt Collins]

I have been pushing but not through C4L. I don't understand why I need to push C4L. They have offered me nothing so I don't understand what the point is. It's obvious there is no state coordinator for California as I have not heard from the person since I signed up four years ago. I guess I need to step up and coordinate for the whole state for C4L if I want to advance liberty? If I do that, why I do I need C4L? The problem is I'm not understanding what C4L has to offer. I've seen YAL and that is an organization I can support.

They have name recognition and Ron's organization behind him. They do have infastructure, although maybe not where you are at currently. They are the best vehicle for advancing liberty on the state level in most places.

 

[Matt Collins]

Oh, and they have sent out several e-mails in the last couple of weeks with candidate survey results.

 

[tsai3904]

Oh, and they have sent out several e-mails in the last couple of weeks with candidate survey results.

How should liberty candidates answer this question on their survey?

14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

Ron Paul's budget doesn't balance for three years so his budget technically increases our debt.

 

[sailingaway]

How should liberty candidates answer this question on their survey?



Ron Paul's budget doesn't balance for three years so his budget technically increases our debt.

actually, he wrote off the debt to the federal reserve to keep from raising the debt limit, so it didn't raise debt. just saying...

 

[tsai3904]

actually, he wrote off the debt to the federal reserve to keep from raising the debt limit, so it didn't raise debt. just saying...

That may work in the first year but not the next years.

Page 4 of his budget here shows debt still increasing every year after the first:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/201...onal-Politics/Graphics/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

 

[sailingaway]

That may work in the first year but not the next years.

Page 4 of his budget here shows debt still increasing every year after the first:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/201...onal-Politics/Graphics/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

they didn't take that into account. At least it doesn't show write down of that, and I thought Ron said in an interview in Iowa with that guy who was really good there that this plan kept the debt limit from being raised while it balanced. but maybe that isn't the same as not being a balanced budget, maybe you are incurring debt and writing it off concurrently and it isn't balance on the year's budget?

 

[tsai3904]

they didn't take that into account. At least it doesn't show write down of that, and I thought Ron said in an interview in Iowa with that guy who was really good there that this plan kept the debt limit from being raised while it balanced. but maybe that isn't the same as not being a balanced budget, maybe you are incurring debt and writing it off concurrently and it isn't balance on the year's budget?

The (1) footnote says it includes policy assumption of HR 2768, which is the cancellation of debt owed to the Fed but you're probably right that with that included, the debt limit wouldn't have to be raised.

The question in the C4L survey asks if you would support any budget that increases our debt (not the debt limit), which would happen after the first year in Ron's budget.

I'm just saying that they could have worded the question better. Amash answered it No and I'm not even sure how Ron would answer that question.