Stick a Fork in the Daily Paul ... it's done.

[ChristianAnarchist]

curious. since both the states AND the fedgov are prohibited from being Democracies. (do I need to pause while you look it up?)

why was the Democratic process,
included in the system of checks and balances?



the founders intent was to limit the accumulation of power.
and allow Anarchy to flourish.
I support this effort.

statists have ALWAYS overran non organized anarchists.

So true... because the numbers have never been right. If enough people learn what true liberty is the tide will turn. We have maybe a 10 year window of opportunity. After that the technological advances will make the human race something more akin to the "Borg" than human. Once everyone (or the majority) has their consciousness interfaced into the interwebs it will be all over for liberty. Those who "plug in" will be programmed to hate the "enemy" much like they are now by the lamestream media and public fools system but with a 100% success rate in conversion...

By that time being a "democratic republic" will be nothing more than a title...

 

[acptulsa]

So true... because the numbers have never been right.

So, how do the numbers have to shake out between those who refuse to work together like a herd of cats and those who are willing to team up? Ten of the former to one of the latter? Twenty to one...?

 

[moostraks]

Only if you don't want to advance the cause of liberty

Oh wise one, tell us how we must comply with a centralized vision to embrace liberty. War is peace and all that jazz...

 

[cajuncocoa]

Wait, I'm not exactly agreeing with ctiger2, but now we have to post viewpoints that only agree with the "mission statement"? We can't have any opposing views??

Fall in line or get out, comrade.

 

[Bryan]

Wait, I'm not exactly agreeing with ctiger2, but now we have to post viewpoints that only agree with the "mission statement"? We can't have any opposing views??

To clarify, the Mission Statement does not require you to support a political solution, peaceful non-political activism is within our scope. However it is off topic to push non-voting in a political campaign forum, such as Rands.

Beyond that, I appreciate those who are showing some respect for Michael, let's please drop the bashing. I have talked to Michael a handful of times, meet him in person, consider him a friend and know he has paid a big price for what he has done for liberty.

 

[Suzanimal]

To clarify, the Mission Statement does not require you to support a political solution, peaceful non-political activism is within our scope. However it is off topic to push non-voting in a political campaign forum, such as Rands.

Beyond that, I appreciate those who are showing some respect for Michael, let's please drop the bashing. I have talked to Michael a handful of times, meet him in person, consider him a friend and know he has paid a big price for what he has done for liberty.

Exactly.

 

[Carlybee]

There were lots of non-libertarians in the Ron Paul movement who were attracted to some part of Ron's platform without understanding the entire philosophy: e.g. anti-war lefties, organic food activists, religious homeschoolers, potheads, general conspiracy theorists, etc. The above post, and the many other examples of similarly odd behavior, could be explained by an extreme case of Rand Derangement Syndrome (i.e. Rand is not Ron therefore Rand is Hitler) or it could be that Nystrom was one of these non-libertarian fellow travelers all along (in Nystrom's case: anti-war lefty, I'd say). Or maybe he's nuts...

Really? Promoting organic food and being anti war is odd now and makes one a non libertarian? You may want to engage brain before slinging out those labels. How do you know whether or not those people understood the entire philosophy or not?

 

[orenbus]

Really? Promoting organic food and being anti war is odd now and makes one a non libertarian? You may want to engage brain before slinging out those labels. How do you know whether or not those people understood the entire philosophy or not?

+Rep.

It's pretty shocking the direction some comments were about to take towards in this thread. I'd like to think as a liberty movement, using Ron Paul as an example, we would have become more tolerant of others or at least been mature enough not to use ad hominem attacks on one of our own, seems we still have a long way to go.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He doesn't like Rand. He's said he's shutting it down because he doesn't want it to become a Rand hub.

Oh, so that's it. Everyone's gotta be so picky. Somebody's gotta start a competing website so we can have our Rand version of DP without needing Nystrom.

 

[acptulsa]

Really? Promoting organic food and being anti war is odd now and makes one a non libertarian? You may want to engage brain before slinging out those labels. How do you know whether or not those people understood the entire philosophy or not?

I think that post is being misunderstood. Of course promoting organic food and being anti war does not make one non-libertarian. Nor does it make one libertarian.

In every walk of life you find people who fully understand why the federal government is screwing up the business they are in, yet support federal government mucking about in any other business because the sales pitch about why it feels the need to convinces them. They see how the government's excuses for doing it to them are poor, but don't consider that these other excuses might be just as poor. It happens all the time. And causes that people get involved in though it isn't their business are certainly no exception.

If people could extend their empathy enough to see that they do this, we'd have won by now. Indeed, government could never have gotten away with getting as intrusive as it is.

He isn't saying everyone who has those interests failed to become libertarians. He's saying some didn't, even though they would have if they were wise and truly believed in their causes, and now they aren't hanging around any more.

 

[HVACTech]

So true... because the numbers have never been right. If enough people learn what true liberty is the tide will turn. We have maybe a 10 year window of opportunity. After that the technological advances will make the human race something more akin to the "Borg" than human. Once everyone (or the majority) has their consciousness interfaced into the interwebs it will be all over for liberty. Those who "plug in" will be programmed to hate the "enemy" much like they are now by the lamestream media and public fools system but with a 100% success rate in conversion...

By that time being a "democratic republic" will be nothing more than a title...

I fear that you are correct here. (and very well said I might add. )

however it came about, carrying the light of Liberty has fallen to us, in and at this time. the same technology that has brought us together, can also be used to quash dissent and cement the propaganda.

it is my belief that the founders gave us the tools , within the still intact basic structure. to turn this thing around.
the phrases "Democratic Republic" as well as "Representative Republic" are meaningless. without a "Rule of Law" that is ONLY applicable to the Fedgov and the states.

it needs to be clearly understood that our original Rule of Law (the Constitution) does NOT apply to the people. it is a contract between the states and the fedgov.

it was designed to protect the "rights" that Man is born with. NOT create them.
what is needed is an architectural schematic (perhaps a flowchart) of the founders intent and methodology to stymie the statists.

thoughts?

 

[Carlybee]

I think that post is being misunderstood. Of course promoting organic food and being anti war does not make one non-libertarian. Nor does it make one libertarian.

In every walk of life you find people who fully understand why the federal government is screwing up the business they are in, yet support federal government mucking about in any other business because the sales pitch about why it feels the need to convinces them. They see how the government's excuses for doing it to them are poor, but don't consider that these other excuses might be just as poor. It happens all the time. And causes that people get involved in though it isn't their business are certainly no exception.

If people could extend their empathy enough to see that they do this, we'd have won by now. Indeed, government could never have gotten away with getting as intrusive as it is.

He isn't saying everyone who has those interests failed to become libertarians. He's saying some didn't, even though they would have if they were wise and truly believed in their causes, and now they aren't hanging around any more.

Even so, labeling people as oddballs because they promote organic food or anti war themes, etc. is insulting. I'm referring to the "other odd behavior" comment. That being said, I was never a DP poster..I read it occasionally but ultimately, it's a private property issue, he can do whatever he wants with it. Maybe since he doesn't like Rand he doesn't want the site he established and presumedly to which his name is attached to become something else.

 

[JK/SEA]

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Really? Promoting organic food and being anti war is odd now and makes one a non libertarian?

No, that's not what I said.

I didn't say that one cannot be a libertarian if one is an organic foods activist, an anti-war activist, etc.

I said that there are some organic foods activists, anti-war activists, etc who are not libertarians.

....many of whom joined the Ron Paul movement because of his advocacy for their pet issue, rather than because they embraced the entire libertarian program.

Even those who have subsequently adopted libertarianism in its entirety still prioritize their pet issues. For instance, when I see an alleged libertarian comparing Rand unfavorably to Jimmy Carter, that tells me he probably started out as an anti-war leftist attracted to Ron's anti-war message who - while paying lip-service to libertarianism - still cares primarily about foreign policy. Likewise when I see people going apeshit over something Rand said (or didn't say) about GMO labeling, or teh joos, or drug legalization, etc. These comments scream "Single Issue Libertarian" to me.

Even so, labeling people as oddballs because they promote organic food or anti war themes, etc. is insulting.

Again, you're misrepresenting what I said.

What I called odd were Nystrom's statements about Jimmy Carter vis a vis Rand.

There's nothing odd in advocating organic food or non-interventionism.

There's something very odd in calling oneself a libertarian, and then saying you prefer Jimmy Carter to Rand Paul. See "Single Issue Libertarian" above.

it's a private property issue, he can do whatever he wants with it.

Of course. No one's denying that. That's not the issue.

Analogy: If you tell me you're going to buy a Rembrandt and then set it on fire, I'll unequivocally acknowledge your right to do so, but I'm still going to call you an asshole.

 

[Carlybee]

No, that's not what I said.

I didn't say that one cannot be a libertarian if one is an organic foods activist, an anti-war activist, etc.

I said that there are some organic foods activists, anti-war activists, etc who are not libertarians.

....many of whom joined the Ron Paul movement because of his advocacy for their pet issue, rather than because they embraced the entire libertarian program.

Even those who have subsequently adopted libertarianism in its entirety still prioritize their pet issues. For instance, when I see an alleged libertarian comparing Rand unfavorably to Jimmy Carter, that tells me he probably started out as an anti-war leftist attracted to Ron's anti-war message who - while paying lip-service to libertarianism - still cares primarily about foreign policy. Likewise when I see people going apeshit over something Rand said (or didn't say) about GMO labeling, or teh joos, or drug legalization, etc. These comments scream "Single Issue Libertarian" to me.



Again, you're misrepresenting what I said.

What I called odd were Nystrom's statements about Jimmy Carter vis a vis Rand.

There's nothing odd in advocating organic food or non-interventionism.

There's something very odd in calling oneself a libertarian, and then saying you prefer Jimmy Carter to Rand Paul. See "Single Issue Libertarian" above.



Of course. No one's denying that. That's not the issue.

Analogy: If you tell me you're going to buy a Rembrandt and then set it on fire, I'll unequivocally acknowledge your right to do so, but I'm still going to call you an asshole.

I see. Well, if one calls oneself a libertarian and prefers Jimmy Carter over anyone..they are a liberal, however supporting Rand is also not necessarily a libertarian position either. Not sure I would compare DP to a Rembrandt.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I see. Well, if one calls oneself a libertarian and prefers Jimmy Carter over anyone..they are a liberal

Nystrom Says: "Where is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century, the President who's not going to fire a bullet or drop a bomb? Where is that guy? That is the guy I want to vote for. I don't care about the rest. I don't care what his last name is or what party he comes from. That's the guy I'll vote for."

....so there's that.

however supporting Rand is also not necessarily a libertarian position either.

True, one can be a libertarian and not support Rand. I think that makes one a foolish libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless.

But supporting someone like Carter over Rand is another matter altogether.

Not sure I would compare DP to a Rembrandt.

It's a platform for libertarian activism that will be difficult/impossible to replace.

The whole "well just go start your own DailyRand or sumptin" idea is wide of the mark. It's not the DP's software or even it's accumulated content which is at stake. It's the user community. It took years and years to bring all those people together. Now they're going to scatter to the wind. I could go build a DP clone but it doesn't matter if the user base doesn't transfer over. Some would, but most wouldn't just out of inertia.

= major and totally unncessary loss for the liberty movement - unforced error

And you have to think beyond Rand as well. Even if you hate Rand, might you not want to keep the DP alive for other, future endeavors? Apparently not.

....but, anyway, this is all just pissing into the wind. Nystrom isn't going to change his mind. There's nothing to be done.

 

[Smitty]

I'm not sure what the guy's motive is, but I can't see that anyone is under any obligation to behave in a manner which benefits a candidate that they don't support.

Some people support Rand,...some don't. Those who don't support Rand don't owe anything to those who do.

 

[orenbus]

I'll admit Ron Paul would never have gotten as much support as he did, and may not have even registered on many American's radar (regardless of political persuasion) if it wasn't for this moment which had an impact on a lot of people, including most likely many on this forum and dp.

 

[Cabal]

Seems to me the site was his property. If he wanted to take it down, that's his choice. Somehow I'm not surprised that there are people here who are taking issue with the free exercise of someone's property rights. And that in itself is a sad commentary.

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

I know one thing, when Michael opened up registration I signed up with a new name to represent Rand Paul and after a few days of using the new handle I got deleted for no reason with no comment or warning. The hatred for Rand by Michael is strong.