Extremely angry Romney supporter

In all fairness the Bengals could have easily won that game. They were a very fine team. Actually, those two teams were very similar in many ways.
They were. And it was the same situation when they met again in the '89 Superbowl. Those were the two best, closest and most exciting SBs of the '80s - both decided by less than a touchdown. All the other SBs of that decade were pretty much blowouts. I guess if you're going to lose the Superbowl twice, it might as well be to the Montana-Rice 'niners. There's no shame in that.
 
They were. And it was the same situation when they met again in the '89 Superbowl. Those were the two best, closest and most exciting SBs of the '80s - both decided by less than a touchdown. All the other SBs of that decade were pretty much blowouts. I guess if you're going to lose the Superbowl twice, it might as well be to the Montana-Rice 'niners. There's no shame in that.

Rice was actually still in college during the '82 Super Bowl. Best 49er team IMHO was the 1990 Super Bowl team that made 55-10 over Denver look effortless. They were stacked at every position.
 
Someone Should have told him that even if the entire Liberty movement went behind romney and helped his pathetic ground game, his neo con advisors would still have found a way to hand it over to Bammers as planned. Only Hillary was rooting for Romney.
 
Rice was actually still in college during the '82 Super Bowl.

D'oh! Of course! You're right. I've just got that 4Q drive in SB '89 on the brain.

Best 49er team IMHO was the 1990 Super Bowl team that made 55-10 over Denver look effortless. They were stacked at every position.

Can't argue there. I remember watching that one. Man, that was just ... man.
 
Methinks there are *critical* issues here. Ones that will determine whether the liberty-movement wins in 2014 and 2016, in fact. Meaning that, in my not-so-humble-opinion, there is nothing more important to the liberty-movement than how we respond to Shelly Dankert. First of all, let us put forth some facts about her. Political facts. Alliance facts. Power facts.

#1. Political facts. She lives in Nebraska, which is a heavily-repub-leaning state... but also (along with Maine) one of only two caucus-states in the nation, which means that Obama could win an ecVote from Nebraska back in 2008. She lives in a repub-leaning portion of the state, but almost certainly knows people in the Obama-leaning portion. Although she lives in a rural town by the standards of folks in the UK or Hong Kong, the population of 25k people makes it the ninth largest city in Nebraska. She is only about 100 miles from Omaha, headquarters of Warren Buffett, one of Obama's chief wealthy cronies in the war on laissez-faire capitalism... and the class-warfare of rich against poor -- with the poor supposed to side with Obama. Shelly is poor, as she states on her donate-so-I-can-buy-food-link on her website, but cannot stand Obama, because she hates totalitarian socialism. Also of geographic note, Shelly is within a few hours of the state capitol of Nebraska, and thus (theoretically) has access to folks like Buescher, one of the folks on the platform-cmte in Tampa this year. She is also under a hundred miles from the western border of Iowa, which as you may recall, is the part of the state of Iowa where pauliticians were BEATEN TO A PULP, figuratively speaking (contrast with Louisiana). Romney won the big town near Shelly, which is Sioux City Iowa, and otherwise most of the Iowa counties near here were pure Santorum territory. Ron Paul lost the popvote in Iowa by less than 3000 primary-voters. Similarly, a few months earlier, Ron Paul lost the Ames straw-poll popvote by less than 200 straw-poll-voters (to Michele Bachmann rather than Rick Santorum). Much much later, after staying persistent, Ron Paul outlasted both Bachmann and Santorum, which meant he was able to win 90% of the Iowa delegates to the natcon. That happy outcome WILL NOT happen again, unless we convince more straw-poll-voters and more primary-voters in the state of Iowa that the liberty-candidate is the better choice than the theological one. How do we convince them?

#2. Alliance facts. In terms of political policies, Shelly is a tea party member, which doesn't say all that much nowadays -- because the "tea party" moniker is so broadly construed now, that even Paul Ryan can claim to be teax-parteax and many believe him. Not only is Shelly a member, though -- she is an activist, putting out several hundred videos, teaching herself to use a computer, wading around on liberal-leaning forums to try and convert the masses, organizing conservatives. Which sort of politics does she advocate? Economically, she is a paulitician, who believes that Ron Paul is the best tea-party guy of the Mitt/Newt/Sant/RonPaul quartet. She know Mitt & Newt are big-spending types. She's not sure if Santorum is tea party or not, economically -- which seems silly given his senate record of being a big-spending pork-barrel type -- but this uncertainty on Shelly's part can be somewhat forgiven, because she is also aligned with Sarah Palin, who is a particular sub-flavor of the broader tea party movement which involves combining liberty and the constitution (basically ron paul style) with a stronger brand of religious emphasis (more like Santorum style... or Chuck Baldwin slash Virgil Goode style), plus a dash of neocon (McCain style plus especially Santorum style -- seeing islamic militants as a HUGE existential threat rather than just as a particularly rare form of violent criminal). Now, this whole picture is complicated somewhat by her own personal situation, vis a vis the religious world of Reconstructionist Christianity and Literal Biblicalism that is somewhat represented by Sarah Palin and in different way by Rick Santorum -- for the person named Shelly is openly gay (her own term), which means that a true biblical literalist would wish to see her stoned, per the leviticus portions of the old testament. I'm not going to speculate on how Shelly resolves the contradiction, that she is personally gay but that she supports Sarah Palin, and to a lesser extent Rick Santorum... beyond saying that most likely her priority-list is not organized with LBGT issues as numero uno... and that, living in a heavily repub heavily religious part of Nebraska, she already could care less what other people think (her blog says she acquired that skill back in 2010). She is a cigarette smoker, another thing which makes her more of a republican-leaning person... and in particular, makes her an objectivist-leaning person, following in the footsteps of Ayn Rand. Besides her hero Sarah Palin, who is a liberty-leaning strongly-religious tea-party candidate (by constrast Santorum is a libertarian-hating uber-religious semi-tea-party candidate), Shelly also appreciates objectivist activists like Gellar of NYC, and objectivist gone-Galt-stockbroker Barnhardt, among others perhaps... I've not done a complete study of her life, just a bit of depth-first internet-digging. What my digging tells me, on first glance, is that Shelly is 90% allied with exactly the sort of political stances that us pauliticians hold, and probably 96% allied with the sort of political stances that gary-johson-ites hold (since Gary is willing to continue foreign aid that he believes is in our national interests and would also support keeping certain overseas bases open that Ron Paul would likely close... plus as a bonus Gary is openly accepting of LBGT whereas for religious reasons Ron Paul was not). In other words, this lady ought to be our totally blatantly obvious political ally, at least in 2016, if not in 2012. How do we get people like her, tea party folks, Sarah Palin fans, to join us in supporting liberty-candidates over the establishment moderates?

#3. Power facts. Finally, let us speak of the most subtle issue. It is pretty obvious that if we don't win some primary-popvote-beauty-contests, we don't really deserve to win the presidency, even if the delegate-rules are rigged to make that a mathematical possibility. (I'm not saying that it was cheating for Ron Paul to win most of the delegates in Iowa -- we followed the rules as written -- I'm saying that the people who *wrote* the rules, back in the day, were corrupt establishment types who never dreamed that anybody but *them* would get to use the rules in their favor.) If we want to win the popvote-beauty-contests, then we need to have strong activists, helping us convert the masses over to the cause of liberty-n-justice for all. Certainly that means that Ron Paul should keep giving speeches at colleges. Certainly that means that ronpaulforums should continue to educate those that find it. But what about people that are NOT voluntarily attending rallies to hear from Ron? What about people that are NOT already browsing paulitician website forums? Converting and educating and de-sheeple-izing folks that have never actually even *heard* what Ron Paul's actual political positions were, because they get their news from teevee and/or from websites owned lock stock and barrel by the mainstream media, is a terribly difficult job. We need as much help as we can get. Who better to pick as our obvious natural allies than the members of the tea-party, the real original tea party that believes in lower taxes via smaller government and less spending, that believe politicians should tell the truth and keep their promises and represent-not-screw-over their electorate... such as, for example, tea party activists like Shelly. Pragmatically speaking, we ought to be bending over backwards to bring her over to our side, as one of our key assets.

But that is not the subtle issue. The crucial subtle issue here is one of POWER, and how we use it. The crucial subtle issue here is one of how each one of us, members of ronpaulforums, regular visitors over at dailypaul, people that comment on dougwead, folks that *still* attend their liberty-meetup-groups even though the election is over, and liberty-movement people that are joining their GOP county committee now, today, because they are looking forward to 2014 and 2016 with visions of victory dancing in their heads... those people are the liberty-folks. Which means *we* are the liberty-folks, right? Here we are, discussing some person, who in our estimation is not quite a liberty-movement member yet, with utter disdain. We call her names. We laugh *at* her, never with her. We insult her intellect, her personality, her body, her love life, her dreams, her heroes, and her sanity. We spew hatred at her. I am utterly ashamed of us. We have learned nothing from Ron Paul, if this is what we really are. Here, on this forum, we are a majority of sorts, living in the libertarian-leaning echo chamber... just EXACTLY like the neocons and their fox news and their talk radio... just EXACTLY like the libtards and their msnbc and their dailybeast/nytimes. Look at the words we use: neocons, occutards, palinbots. This is the language of hate, of stereotyping, of civil war, of genocide, of the guillotine -- the history of the liberty-movement is nowhere near as bloodstained as the history of the socialists and their cousins the communists, nowhere near as bloodstained as the crusades and the inquisition, nowhere near as bloodstained as corporatists and their cousins the fascists, and certainly nowhere near as bloodstained as tinpot despots and organized criminals such as the mafia and the terrorists. But we are not spotless. Our cousins the sans-culottes killed millions. Our founders made a deal with the slave-powers, the establishment forces of their day, sullying our Constitution with evil. We, the modern pauliticians, are also not perfect.

We must strive to be better citizens. We must strive to be better humans. We must strive to embody the r3V0Jution, which is not supposed to be about gaining power, but about spreading love. Love, dammit. Reading through the comments on this thread, I'm not seeing the spread of love. I'm not seeing people trying to educate Shelly on where she might want to rethink her stances. I'm not seeing people thank her for what she does, with a couple rare exceptions. I'm not seeing people trying to actively figure out how to convince her that in 2014 and 2016 we will be her friends, rather than her hated enemies. I want her to come here someday, and read what we say, and think to herself -- wow, back in 2012, thinking Ron Paul was no good, thinking pauliticians were the enemy, what a mistake! I've read through a goodly portion of her blog. She's a pretty damn smart lady. I've read through this thread. She's not going to be thinking such thoughts as I outlined above, if she ever happens to read it.

In a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is this. There are hundreds or thousands of Shelly Dankert folks out there, strong committed activist grassroots folks, who are 75% or 85% or 95% agreed with the policy-stances of Ron Paul and/or Gary Johnson, but for one reason or another, did not support them in 2012. Therefore, it behooves of to bring them over to our side. The best way to do that is with respect, and with love, not with anger and sarcasm. BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN POINT, because we could bring her over to our side simply by *pretending* to respect her, and by *hiding* our disdain for her, without too much trouble, right? Kinda like the "tribute" video that us pauliticians got, after the broken bones and the snubs and the cheating and all the rest, which just added insult to our injury, and ended up backfiring on the romineey, remember that fiasco of an election? We must maintain the high moral ground, not because we want to win people over with authentic love, but because someday we will *be* the ones in power. We are the future. Unless we are very careful to stick to our morals, to keep working on love, we are going to find out that, having achieved that position of power, we will look around us... we will look in the mirror in other words... and we will see the establishment, the mean-spirited win-at-any-cost lie-if-you-have-to go along to get along go-team-rah-rah establishment... staring back at us. Perish the thought.

I suggest that we treat Shelly as a testcase, to prove whether we have the organizational skills, the persuasive skills, and the loving-kindness skills to bring her over to our side. If we fail now, that probably means we'll also fail in 2014, and then in 2016... but more importantly, if we fail now because we stop remembering that love is the goal of the liberty-movement, even if we *win* every election in 2014 and 2016, we will have accomplished nothing, because we will have become the thing we despise: bitter power-grubbing control freaks. Re-read the ending of Animal Farm, and take the warning to heart. Do not glory over Shelly in misguided schadenfreude -- her misfortune is our own, for one thing, and for another, stooping to that moral level will come back to haunt us -- not in the next life should we be so lucky as to arrive in one, not in some distant future utopian civilization where we have a liberty-president and dual-liberty-supermajorities in congress and plenty of liberty-governors and liberty-state-legislatures to go around, but in just *two* months when then RNCmte re-convenes in January (at the outside 18 months when the 2014 midterm primaries start up). Ron Paul won the moral victory in Tampa this year, but Darth Ginsberg struck him down in anger, via the rules committee, and the newly-rammed-through-rule-twelve, the One Rule To Wring Them All. The question is whether Ginsberg will have the final laugh, or whether his attack on Ron Paul will make the liberty-movement into something more powerful than Ginsberg can possibly imagine.

www.fox19.com/story/19479204/reality-check-dnc-runs-over-delegates-with-scripted-platform-vote

But if you've been following the movie references here, you better remember that we are in the early half of the first movie. We still have to get through the part where the establishment strikes back, before we can restore peace to the galaxy. They will not be striking back in 2016, but in 2013, and at the latest, 2014. The rules that they rammed through via cheating in Tampa will be utilized to destroy the real tea party (including Shelly and her hero Sarah Palin), as well as the pauliticians. We are to be used as the scapegoats. Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, and a bunch of talking heads in the media are going to be trying to pin the blame for Mitt's losing this election on our shoulders. Because we were too foolish to vote for the lesser of two evils. Because we were too foolish to rally around the nominee back in April. Because we were too foolish to compromise with the liberal-leaning lies-with-every-word romineey, holding our noses to get rid of Obama... since we can hardly tell the difference between them. Last but by no means least, pauliticians will be painted as hateful disruptive childish conspiracy nuts, which helps to bring the argument full circle: we must use rule#12 to destroy the pauliticians (oh and also the tea party and sarah palin and rick santorum and anybody not presumtuously-pre-approved by the elite twin-party DC insiders that run this country but we won't mention that little factoid just yet oh no we will keep that on the hush hush for now certainly), and when they complain that rule#12 is a conspiracy, and when they say that the unspecified "friends" that Ginsberg is quoted as being behind rule#12 are out to destroy all that is good-n-true in the world, nobody will believe them. Insert evil laugh. We need to convince Shelly of the truth. We need to show her some love, dammit, the love of patriots for other patriots, even if they disagree on particulars. If we don't do this, now, while there is still time to keep the 58 million everyday repubs that voted for Mitt from turning against us, we are dead.

We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately. Unless they decide not to bother with a public hanging, and just send a killer robot drone to wipe out everything at our geoIP locations. I wish I were joking, but I really don't think I am. Whether or not Shelly is reading this, the NSA is archiving it, and unless we change course, when the currency is wiped out and martial law is declared and the terrified mob installs their shiny new totalitarian dictator, we liberty-folk are in trouble. Besides convincing Shelly in particular, we need to be spreading the teleprompter-video far and wide, now, about how Tampa was rigged, and the Romney-Ryan interviews that show they *knew* their minions were up to shenanigans yet said nothing... and about how 4 years of Obama the liar and the socialist-leaning-corporatist is actually better than 8 years of Mitt the liar and the centrist-leaning-corporatist (to be followed in 2020 by president-for-life Gillibrand). Should we scream the truth? Should we insult those who don't immediately fall in line behind us? Should we foster anger and hate? Or instead, should we follow the paulitician way, speak the truth softly but firmly, insult nobody, respect everybody, and push the message with love?

What's all of this "We" shit? Please don't associate me with all of that screed. Plus you only have one post. We? I don't know about that. You just popped up out of the blue and all of a sudden bring a bunch of "We" scribble. I don't even know you. In fact, I don't really want any parts of this thread if you really want to know the truth. Was just saying that I can understand her frustration with the Internet not being able to function as it should. The rest of my scribble...which you quoted...was really disagreement in the nonsense is see here. That's one heck of a book to write for yer first post though. And you picked lil ol me to share it with. How dood...:rolleyes:

Really though...I don't care what that lady says or does or anything else. As I said. Bigger fish to fry. Scwewy though that so much thought is placed into just another meme.
 
Last edited:
What's all of this "We" shit? Please don't associate me with all of that

As you wish -- I hereby replace all mentions of 'we' with 'I', except as includes others reading who aren't you, and who happen to agree with me. Ummm, happy? If not, reflect that when advocating some position, either you use the scientific-we (Feynman), the royal-we (Romney), or the movement-we (you-know-we-all-oughtta), or you get stuck in the incredibly awkward kind of phrases like personally-I-believe-that-it-would-be-in-many-of-the-folks-who-I-see-here-best-interest(s)-to-band-together-and-decide-X... when what you really can just say is we-oughtta-X... and my apologies in advance for referring to the abstract-grammatical-you-pronoun in this sentence, when I'm actually not at all talking about the personal-identifying-you-pronoun going by the internet handle of NaturalCitizen.

I don't really want any parts of this thread if you really want to know the truth... was really disagreement in the nonsense is see here. ... As I said. Bigger fish to fry.

This is the fragment from your original post, which you have repeated again here, that prompted my reply. You said we (sorry) have bigger fish to fry, and apparently making allies with the tea-party-folks is not one of the fish you consider worthwhile, or at least, top priority. You also have posted elsewhere about how the 2016 race begins now, and about how we (sorry) need to focus on what matters, and so on. But with few details on exactly what you think matters. I'm not asking for a five-thousand-word essay, just a simple listing of what you think the top five or top ten things we (sorry) should be working on now. You seem pretty clueful, but you also seem pretty reticient about putting forth your concrete ideas -- besides myself, Deborah K also asked you a question along these same lines at one point. You are under no obligation to do as I ask, of course, but I did actually pick lil ol you, because you piqued my curiosity. Consider yourself a kew1 d00d if you so wish. [grin]

p.s. The other reason I picked you is because I have the same exact problem with posting things here... always have to copy, click reply, get error, click back, lose all text, click reload, login two or three times, paste what I'm trying to say as needed, and EVENTUALLY it will finally work. But it's like pulling teeth. And if you forget and fail to copy the text, woe is you -- the stupid autosave feature is *also* broken. Have you tried sending a PM to some admin? Since you have 800 posts to my 8, maybe they'll listen to you. I'm running firefox on a windows box, and have not checked the remember-me box (which prolly matters).
 
As you wish -- I hereby replace all mentions of 'we' with 'I', except as includes others reading who aren't you, and who happen to agree with me. Ummm, happy? If not, reflect that when advocating some position, either you use the scientific-we (Feynman), the royal-we (Romney), or the movement-we (you-know-we-all-oughtta), or you get stuck in the incredibly awkward kind of phrases like personally-I-believe-that-it-would-be-in-many-of-the-folks-who-I-see-here-best-interest(s)-to-band-together-and-decide-X... when what you really can just say is we-oughtta-X... and my apologies in advance for referring to the abstract-grammatical-you-pronoun in this sentence, when I'm actually not at all talking about the personal-identifying-you-pronoun going by the internet handle of NaturalCitizen.



This is the fragment from your original post, which you have repeated again here, that prompted my reply. You said we (sorry) have bigger fish to fry, and apparently making allies with the tea-party-folks is not one of the fish you consider worthwhile, or at least, top priority. You also have posted elsewhere about how the 2016 race begins now, and about how we (sorry) need to focus on what matters, and so on. But with few details on exactly what you think matters. I'm not asking for a five-thousand-word essay, just a simple listing of what you think the top five or top ten things we (sorry) should be working on now. You seem pretty clueful, but you also seem pretty reticient about putting forth your concrete ideas -- besides myself, Deborah K also asked you a question along these same lines at one point. You are under no obligation to do as I ask, of course, but I did actually pick lil ol you, because you piqued my curiosity. Consider yourself a kew1 d00d if you so wish. [grin]

p.s. The other reason I picked you is because I have the same exact problem with posting things here... always have to copy, click reply, get error, click back, lose all text, click reload, login two or three times, paste what I'm trying to say as needed, and EVENTUALLY it will finally work. But it's like pulling teeth. And if you forget and fail to copy the text, woe is you -- the stupid autosave feature is *also* broken. Have you tried sending a PM to some admin? Since you have 800 posts to my 8, maybe they'll listen to you. I'm running firefox on a windows box, and have not checked the remember-me box (which prolly matters).

You know, I had started working on some things I find relevant just because I said I would in another thread. By the time I got half way through it I found that it would damage the candidates image in a manner than few who are working hard to popularize would be able to defend. In scope, that is. Short term perhaps little arguments could be made for immediate self gratification. It's certainly not practical to instigate that so I didn't. Probably will not. Often I read scribbles that reflect a long term project yet the entirety of the issues are not truly presented for debate. And they should be debated even if one is already in support of the candidate. If for no other reason than for the benefit of the casual browser. I find it much easier to understand first how well informed folks are. It's probably a fault of mine but is what it is. There's a good bit of big boy stuff we don't discuss here but should. Or at least not in a manner consistent with the old everything in it's place and a place for everything gag.

Anyhow..I didn't even get passed your first paragraph in the initial post. I got to we and whatserface and didn't read any further. So, my apologies for perhaps making you feel as if I was being disrespectful or obtuse. I'll go read it. I already have my predispositions about that though. In fact, I think it was silly to put her in that video. I spend more time discussing matters with the old guard TEA PARTY PATRIOT types than the demograph she seems to reflect. Although I do like the fact that she was concerned that folks didn't appreciate the time she takes to really search the "news". That's something that people should do. Even if they find it biased and the like. It's important to pay attention to them. For a lot of reasons.
 
Last edited:
...I had started working on some things I find relevant... I got half way through it... little arguments could be made... the entirety of the issues are not truly presented... a good bit of big boy stuff we don't discuss here but should.

What things? What arguments? What issues? What stuff? You are being too vague for me to even have the slightest clue about what you are referencing. Post your halfway-through-it, that would be better than nothing. Or use the send-private-message button at the top, if you're worried it will be vaguely damaging to the broader something vagueness something, and I'll keep it to myself. But you are dropping hints without anything substantial, as yet. Where's the beef?

I find it much easier to understand first how well informed folks are. It's probably a fault of mine

That sounds a lot like you-go-first. Okay, fair enough, here is my top five list of priorities for the next six months, not necessarily in order.

1. document the abuses of the 2012 election cycle, in a way that brings it home to the average clueless everyday repub that Romney was a stooge, and his captains cheated like mad, and 98% of the media sucks
2. document the delegate-strategy of 2012, and the popvote failures of 2012, which were mostly because we failed to block-walk during 2009 and 2010 and 2011... start block-walking in January 2013... start preparing for the 2014 conventions and the 2016 conventions today, with strategies and parliamentary training materials
3. make enough contacts (and stay in touch) w/ the liberty movement outside my home state, so that when there is an issue that needs broader attention, I can contact enough good people to make a difference
4. help get alleged-new-rule#12 revoked, the one they rammed through via teleprompter-rigging in Tampa -- the One Rule To Wring Them All -- which will use pauliticians as the scapegoats, as an excuse to eliminate the tea party (plus also pauliticians) from ever running a grassroots campaign again
5. continue making friends in the tea-party, not just the tea-party-patriot groups (many of which need help to resist neocons and theocons however), but also with 9-12 groups like Shelly Dankert slash Sarah Palin slash Glenn Beck, and with Virgil Goode slash Chuck Baldwin slash Alan Keyes groups, and with the broader constitutionalist movement -- plenty of everyday repubs are fond of the founders, after all... but many of them have no idea what the founders actually stood for, and what the Constitution actually means... now is the time to start teaching them, when they have just seen McCain and now Romney take a whooping for *refusing* to stand up for the ideals of the founders and the strict interpretation of the Constitution

Longer-term goals, partial list, very much not in any order.

A. figure out some startup ideas to make a metric ton of money, so that when the active campaign season rolls around again, I can work fulltime on getting liberty-candidates into seats
B. hammer out a practical system of voluntary taxation, a transition plan for the mixed economy to a full-blown laissez faire system, and an areligious religion to promote the ethics of capitalism
C. solve the problem of patents, copyrights, research grants, primogeniture, trademarks, and internet nomenclature in a way that jives with both capitalist economics and libertarian government
D. finish working out gory details for a practical voting-system which does not mathematically tend towards two-party-dominance, favorite-betrayal, and other dangers... cf the zeroth amendment & evil NPVIC
E. classified information please insert your two-factor crypto-token to decode this info %*!(@#*%))^*!)@#&^*%)$*%(&%)*)$#)^*%@&#!$($@*!)*^&)@$!)@*%$)!@*#%^)&%$)#*^%()*!@#*&.

I'm not real interested in survivalism at the moment, but that might change if we see 200% hyperinflation or imposition of martial law in 20 cities or somesuch. I'm actively against third-party-stuff, for mathematical reasons, except as a way to become famous (cf Gary Johnson 2012 presidential run... I hope he become Senator Johnson R-NM in 2014 so he can be in the repub primary debates of 2015). I'm not much interested in secession, free state projects, seasteading, nanobot-powered extropianism, mind-uploading singularities, or colonizing the galaxy in the next five years, although most of those have very-long-term interest for me. Conspiracy theories about something that happened before 2009 are extremely boring to me, although I have a pet conspiracy theory that Reagan had something to do with Andropov's sudden demise. Conspiracy theories involving the rigging of election outcomes via teleprompter, which we have video proof of from Tampa in 2012, are of considerable interest to me. Cf the fake-slate Charlie Cheater conspiracy in Maine. Most especially, I want to get in touch with somebody who was an insider on the Romney campaign, and has digital or paperwork evidence showing the dirty nasty connections between all the various dots.

Anyhow..I didn't even get passed your first paragraph in the initial post. I got to we and whatserface and didn't read any further. So, my apologies for perhaps making you feel as if I was being disrespectful or obtuse. I'll go read it.

Heh heh. No offense taken, but thanks for caring -- hard to see the person on the other side of the plaintext, sometimes. As you might have noticed, verbosity is my strong suit, parsimoniousness is not. The kids nowadays just say TL;DR aka too long didn't read. Use it as necessary, I won't be insulted. Often as not, I write it down for the purpose of getting my own thoughts organized, rather than for an audience, which is just gravy.

I think it was silly to put her in that video. I spend more time discussing matters with the old guard TEA PARTY PATRIOT types than the demograph she seems to reflect. Although I do like the fact that she was concerned that folks didn't appreciate the time she takes to really search the "news". That's something that people should do. Even if they find it biased and the like. It's important to pay attention to them. For a lot of reasons.

My argument is that we need to spend more time with groups where we are *outside* our comfort zones. As for the silly aspect... well, she put herself in the video, with her full name and her choice of beverage. Her fifteen minutes of fame were entirely her own fault, and it was a pretty silly thing to do to herself. But it is also incredibly silly of us (generic term! not intended to encompass all possible referents of the 'us' term! opt out as individually necessary!) pauliticians to make fun of her. Clearly she is angry at Ron Paul fans, libertarian fans, and so on... when she is drunk. That's because her big talk-radio hero Glenn Beck has been filling her brain with mush. But when you read the rest of her blog postings, you see that she is actually pretty cogent and savvy. She cares. She tries hard. She wants to make things better. Her rant was about how frustrated she was at reality, not about how she hates liberty. From what I can tell, she's one step away from being a paulitician. Yet instead of being nice to her, forgiving her rant, figuring out the source of it, and bringing her over to our cause (which has practical benefits outlined in my first reply to you), instead we laugh at her, like we were third-graders. Alienating our most likely allies is going to be the death-knell of the liberty-movement, if we aren't careful. That's not only pure-D stupid for us to do, if we're concerned with the short-term survival of the liberty-movement (we *must* have help from 9-12 groups and other tea-party folks to get alleged-new-rule#12 repealed), it's also the opposite of what Ron Paul has been trying to teach us.

https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/why-petraeus-and-not-clinton/#comment-34012
Rough transcript of Ron Paul's farewell-speech on the floor of the House, see the video-link for the full thing (a couple comments higher)
 
gop-tx-300x258.jpg
 
Back
Top