This movement needs to be more tolerant...

[EndTheFed]

I have been in this forum for quite a while now.. I am fully supportive of Ron Paul and really support educating people as t what is going on.

Fully supportive does NOT mean agree with every point. The following issues are important to some here:

The war
Monetary policy
The Federal Reserve
The IRS
End the drug war

The problem is not everyone here is going to agree with everyone else.

Ron Paul seems to believe in LIBERTY which means I have liberty too an you should not be taking my liberty either or calling me names because I believe differently than you.

Some in this movementneeds to GROW UP and learn to win people over and persuade people with facts.

Calling people with differing opinions names is NOT going to help your cause.

Thanks,

 

[Kludge]

I actually think we're starting to mature in that sense, probably helped by Ron Paul endorsing Barr, Baldwin, Nader and Mckinney.

I started talking about getting behind Nader in a thread and was surprised that only the usual unthinking trolls used baseless attacks ("You're out of your mind!" "He's a Communist and you are too if you vote for him!").

 

[Kade]

It's been a very painful process, but I agree with Kludge, we are getting there...

We still got the brainless troggies, like Conza88 and Truth Warrior, but I've made myself a large enough target that the generally will ignore their usual ones.

 

[pacelli]

We have 19,850 people registered on this forum, and probably 200 that are active participants. I think most have realized we can't afford to lose any more patriots to petty squabbles.

 

[berrybunches]

I have always thought the same thing. This forum surely scares new comers away.
If I disagree with someone I try to avoid attacking them with meaningless, unthinking rants. Instead I come at them with arguments supporting my position if anything. I have always said that its easier to sway someone to your side or make someone understand your side by being patient and tolerant.
Like Ron Paul says, its okay for adults to disagree.

 

[EndTheFed]

Well for me, at this point I am voting for the lesser of two evils..

I know, I know... I have read all the arguments against that but I live in the real world and for THIS election either McCain or Obama is going to be elected.

Maybe by next election we will have grown large enough to make a dfference in the outcome but in reality today we are not.
So therefore I must support McAin/Palin

Sorry if that is offensive to anyone BUT I am for Liberty too... Mine!

 

[acptulsa]

Some friction is unavoidable in the building of a diverse coalition. We have also seen many trolls who were out to divide us. Most seem to be gone now, but I don't hold out hope that this blissful situation is permenant.

I think the flaming and derision we see here is better done here than by us in public when trying to convert neophytes to rational political thought, myself. So, I'm for a free and lively debate. But, yes, I do hope that along the way we do learn how to be less dogmatic and more persuasive.

Persuasion ftw!

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well for me, at this point I am voting for the lesser of two evils..

I know, I know... I have read all the arguments against that but I live in the real world and for THIS election either McCain or Obama is going to be elected.

Maybe by next election we will have grown large enough to make a dfference in the outcome but in reality today we are not.
So ther fore I must support McAin/Palin

Sorry if that is offensive to anyone BUT I am for Liberty too... Mine!

I must admit then, you're very tolerant of the status quo.

 

[Jeremy]

Maybe, but when you take the libertarian / Constitutionalist approach you usually get to the same point with the main issues.

I actually think we're starting to mature in that sense, probably helped by Ron Paul endorsing Barr, Baldwin, Nader and Mckinney.

I started talking about getting behind Nader in a thread and was surprised that only the usual unthinking trolls used baseless attacks ("You're out of your mind!" "He's a Communist and you are too if you vote for him!").

Isn't that hypocritical? No one has been tolerant of Barr supporters since the press thing. Besides, Kludge I've said some things to other people who said Nader, but that doesn't mean I "attacked" them

 

[SnappleLlama]

Am I the only one who looks forward to the trainwrecks?

 

[Kludge]

Isn't that hypocritical? No one has been tolerant of Barr supporters since the press thing. Besides, Kludge I've said something to other people who said Nader, but that doesn't mean I "attacked" them

We are beginning to tolerate opposing views is where I was going with it.


If someone thinks Barr is a fascist troll eating children, so be it. We can always disagree, but the argument wouldn't really have any benefits. IMO, we are starting to argue philosophy and underlying concepts instead of shallow MSM crap. I haven't read "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" in a couple weeks, and I think that's better for all of us. Maybe it isn't even us but the fact that we have virtually no political clout this cycle, meaning that trying to herd sheep is pointless anymore. We're starting to have more meaningful arguments -- arguments we can learn from.

 

[acptulsa]

Am I the only one who looks forward to the trainwrecks?

See if I ever invite you to look at my model railroad!

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Am I the only one who looks forward to the trainwrecks?

I do, too.

 

[SnappleLlama]

See if I ever invite you to look at my model railroad!

bwah ha!

 

[constituent]

Absolutely I say:

McCain/Palin '08, End the Fed!

lol.

Why bother to vote if you will merely throw it away?

Also, I have yet to see how either "major" candidates represents a "lesser evil."

If you are looking for tolerant, philisophical discussions, let's begin there.

End the Fed, precisely what is it that makes McCain a lesser evil?

Precisely what will you accomplish by voting in the affirmative for either party?

 

[EndTheFed]

Well for starters

It is very important for the next president (McCain or Obama) to put constitutional (interpret not make law) judges on the supreme court.

I think McCain is much more likely to do this.

Voting for McCain is to insure Obama doesnt win.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well for starters

It is very important for the next president (McCain or Obama) to put constitutional (interpret not make law) judges on the supreme court.

I think McCain is much more likely to do this.

Voting for McCain is to insure Obama doesnt win.

Are you in a swing state? If not, then you shouldn't even be thinking about voting against anybody.

 

[Sandra]

Well for starters

It is very important for the next president (McCain or Obama) to put constitutional (interpret not make law) judges on the supreme court.

I think McCain is much more likely to do this.

Voting for McCain is to insure Obama doesnt win.

It is a pointless argument. It has already been established that Cheney will be in control if McCain wins. Even his former insiders have verified that.

 

[EndTheFed]

It is a pointless argument. It has already been established that Cheney will be in control if McCain wins. Even his former insiders have verified that.

Where is the evidence ?

I do believe "conspiricies" exist but I don't go running with every rumor..

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

People that don't live in a battleground state voting "against" either McCain or Obama are dense because their vote doesn't matter in a solidly blue or a solidly red state, so it might as well go to a third party.