I used to like Jack Hunter....

[belian78]

Ron worked within the GOP for over 30 years and never once compromised his principles, and millions of people love him for it and have come out of their political apathy to engage their peers in discussion, and to get active in local politics. Why are we to not hold these brave souls and new champions of liberty that now engage in politics to the same standards? There was a time when it was universally agreed upon here that the political machine in DC eventually corrupted the young representatives over time, and we were like teenagers newly in love when it came to the likes of Amash and other liberty trailblazers going to take on the machine. Little by little those and those that have came since have been slipping in regards to the no compromise attitude that we used to cheer, and now we're supposed to be ok with it?

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get active in local politics and enact the changes we want to see, you'll get no argument from me on that. However, I will not ever think it's ok to compromise on principles, even if it's just a minor 'scratch your back now you scratch mine later' on an endorsement or whatnot. Once that path is stepped upon, be it immediately or 10 years down the road, the machine will chew you up and your individual brushfire will be snuffed out.

 

[July]

I agree with what Jack wrote. He's right. There are very few things in life, that are worth doing, that don't involve some kind of risk. Rand is risking co-option and becoming part of the machine, by playing with power, absolutely. Radicals risk marginalization, and worse. There's always risk.

But I also think, it's a false dichotomy. The two types are not mutually exclusive. Like what Doug Wead said, someone needs to be the political one, and practice the art of politics. We need the radicals too--who push the envelope and keep everyone on message. But radicals can afford to say things their political allies cannot. And this is not even going another layer deep, into the intellectual and academic types who are still very much involved in driving the philosophy, researching economics, etc, behind the scenes.

 

[belian78]

I agree with what Jack wrote. He's right. There are very few things in life, that are worth doing, that don't involve some kind of risk. Rand is risking co-option and becoming part of the machine, by playing with power, absolutely. Radicals risk marginalization, and worse. There's always risk.

With Rand's endorsement of Rmoney, and his votes for sanctions on Iran, the co-option has already begun.

 

[AuH20]

I agree with what Jack wrote. He's right. There are very few things in life, that are worth doing, that don't involve some kind of risk. Rand is risking co-option and becoming part of the machine, by playing with power, absolutely. Radicals risk marginalization, and worse. There's always risk.

But I also think, it's a false dichotomy. The two types are not mutually exclusive. Like what Doug Wead said, someone needs to be the political one, and practice the art of politics. We need the radicals too--who push the envelope and keep everyone on message. But radicals can afford to say things their political allies cannot. And this is not even going another layer deep, into the intellectual and academic types who are still very much involved in driving the philosophy, researching economics, etc, behind the scenes.

The radicals are far better suited for behind the scenes work. We need that type of infectious energy and principled approach.

 

[phill4paul]

I pulled this from wikipedia. Is this what you are trying to say?

Fair enough. Wordplay. I understand the miscommunication.

Because if you are, I think you are very wrong. It is possible to have conviction and principles and also want to win, you know.

Fair enough again. I was not thinking of that definition but, again, perhaps as appropriate as my original intent. IMHO. His conviction has become to WIN. Even if that means degrading, demoralizing or demonizing a 'subsect' of the liberty movement that he deems "radical." If that is his position than f*ck him very much. If that is the position of any on this board then my feelings are the same towards those members.

I think you are both correct in your statements about radicals.

Fair enough.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Calling out "the radicals" for their fears that the movement has been co-opted is not a very effective way of convincing anyone it hasn't been. Why don't they leave "the radicals" alone?

The only way this will work is if the people are educated and awoken from their government trances. I can see value in continuing to try and take over the Republican party, but that will only be done by hiding the message. If the people remain brainwashed then our guys will have to continue to hide the message in order to keep their place. It would be great if we wake enough people up and we have enough real allies in place in the party so that a real liberty candidate might have a chance in 2016. It would make it a lot easier. But if everyone tries to rush the party while the voters are still ignorant, nothing productive will come of it.

 

[donnay]

The problem with some of the radicals is that they erroneously think everyone is the enemy, including the milkman and the tavern owner down the street. I don't have a problem with being resolute in principles and fighting for what you believe, but some perspective is needed. I'm not a fan of the circled firing squad.

The enemy is those who are willing to compromise and give up more of their liberty.

 

[AuH20]

With Rand's endorsement of Rmoney, and his votes for sanctions on Iran, the co-option has already begun.

Two things. Rand's endorsement is not unconditional and secondly he endorsed Romney in an isolated match-up between Barack Obama. We know where Rand stands.

Now regarding the whole Iran sanction hub bub, he laid forth a key precedent by specifically inserting language into an amendment that would drag the critical debate of war back to the Congress as opposed to a uniform ceding of a immediate 'green light' to the chief executive if certain economic sanctions weren't maintained.

 

[AuH20]

The enemy is those who are willing to compromise and give up more of their liberty.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

 

[phill4paul]

Speaking of hacks.....

Matt Collins.

That establishment hack has done more to turn this "radical" from YAL and C4L than any liberal spending any amount of dollars.

Two groups that I may very well have participated in. Teh Collins ruined them for me.

I'm just about done with it.

 

[TheTexan]

I wish everybody here would watch this video at least once:

[video=google;6015291679758430958]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958[/video]

What's going on now with Jack Hunter, Rand Paul and others has been in motion since at least 2007. Yes, even before Ron Paul lost the nomination back in 2008, certain within our movement have been advocating a "reverse co-option" strategy. And yes the strategy is risky as hell. I wish one side could acknowledge that it is indeed risky and the other side could acknowledge that the risks may be worth it, and that both sides could see that attacking the other side for not adopting their strategy is counterproductive.

Is that the Marxist-Leninist video? I watched it a while back. The gist of it is that the Leninist strategy is to just get inside the system by catering to the sheeple's vote.

It's not necessary for us to support Leninist candidates, as the entire objective of Leninism is to say anything and do anything to get elected. That kind of behavior can get the sheeple vote just fine.

In fact, it's counter-productive for us to support Leninist candidates, because the speaker in that video himself says it's paramount that we maintain our principled integrity. We maintain our principled integrity best by demanding philosophical purity.

By definition of Leninist candidates, we don't know who's a Leninist or not. By design, Leninist work individually or as part of a small team. If people were to know they were Leninist, it wouldn't work. Marco Rubio could be a Leninist. Paul Ryan could be a Leninist. It would be obviously absurd to support either of them.

Obviously we're not planning on supporting them, so why make an exception for Rand? Because he's closer to our ideals? Being "close" to our ideals actually isn't part of the Leninist strategy. If being a huge statist is the best way to get elected (and it is), then that's what a Leninist should do.

If you believe the Leninist strategy is the best way forward, then promote the strategy, and not the candidate. It's impossible to know who is a Leninist or not, and it's paramount that we maintain our principles. Tell people to run as Leninist. It could work in theory. But you shouldn't be advocating that people vote for Leninists, because that's not required for the strategy to work, and is actually counter-productive.

 

[phill4paul]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

The point is to bring full measure. Not half-measures. Half-measures get half-ass adherents. Half-ass adherents don't perform half the time.

 

[AuH20]

The point is to bring full measure. Not half-measures. Half-measures get half-ass adherents. Half-ass adherents don't perform half the time.

We are going full measure. Full steam ahead with the a return to constitutional principles. A truly conservative foreign policy, sound money and a restoration of the Bill of Rights. We are changing the national dialogue as opposed to being relegated to a back alleyway.

 

[donnay]

We are going full measure. Full steam ahead with the a return to constitutional principles. A truly conservative foreign policy, sound money and a restoration of the Bill of Rights.

And the people in power are just going to relinquish this power, by being voted out of office? It's a nice dream, I will grant you that.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ron worked within the GOP for over 30 years and never once compromised his principles, and millions of people love him for it and have come out of their political apathy to engage their peers in discussion, and to get active in local politics. Why are we to not hold these brave souls and new champions of liberty that now engage in politics to the same standards? There was a time when it was universally agreed upon here that the political machine in DC eventually corrupted the young representatives over time, and we were like teenagers newly in love when it came to the likes of Amash and other liberty trailblazers going to take on the machine. Little by little those and those that have came since have been slipping in regards to the no compromise attitude that we used to cheer, and now we're supposed to be ok with it?

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get active in local politics and enact the changes we want to see, you'll get no argument from me on that. However, I will not ever think it's ok to compromise on principles, even if it's just a minor 'scratch your back now you scratch mine later' on an endorsement or whatnot. Once that path is stepped upon, be it immediately or 10 years down the road, the machine will chew you up and your individual brushfire will be snuffed out.

+rep

 

[TXcarlosTX]

keep playing the game. get elected then bring the liberty rukus!!!

 

[AuH20]

And the people in power are just going to relinquish this power, by being voted out of office? It's a nice dream, I will grant you that.

Probably not. But we can tighten the screws & grow our numbers with exposure. I'm in it just for the exposure at this point in time. Eventually, the only way the problem will be solved will be by brute force.

 

[phill4paul]

We are going full measure. Full steam ahead with the a return to constitutional principles. A truly conservative foreign policy, sound money and a restoration of the Bill of Rights. We are changing the national dialogue as opposed to being relegated to a back alleyway.

Who do you consider "we" in that fight?

 

[donnay]

Probably not. But we can tighten the screws & grow our numbers with exposure. I'm in it just for the exposure at this point in time. Eventually, the only way the problem will be solved will be by brute force.

Now is the time to capitalize on what the GOP did to Dr. Paul. Lot's of people watched in disbelief what the GOP did to him. To sit down and shut up and not get noisy about it now, is really ridiculous at this point. The ball is in our court to show people how rigged these elections really are.

 

[Jingles]

In general we are all in the same fight. As Jim Lark says, "We are all on the liberty train, we just want to get off at different stops."

Although most in the movement I know, him, and me personally want to take it to the absolute end of the tracks. The thing I don't agree with is defending those whose are obviously not trying to advance our goals (like Romney or whoever).