Why Ken Cuccinelli deserved to lose

[Carlybee]

Please note, numerous times I said you and folks like yourself. It's not about you specifically, but those who are like you.

I am a big picture type of guy, and I support candidates with my time and money based on a broad evaluation of the candidate's positions and the impact their victory would have on the overall picture. I believe folks like yourself to have a more narrow focus, as people like yourself tend to get bogged down on an issue or two, rather than seeing the larger picture. The forest and trees analogy is appropriate.

I don't speak for the campaign or the movement, but am stating what I am focusing on. And I recommend this to others, given this is a public venue to express opinions. As I stated there are some who were part of 08/12 who are, for lack of a better term, fickle supporters. I believe that is far better to find new people moving forward that spending time focusing on trying to convince the fickle types to move forward. Folks like yourself, through your comments here, have demonstrated that you are not really on board with the big picture, so why waste time trying to convince them?

Yet you continue to waste your time referring to me as "me and my kind" lol. You better go get busy recruiting. It's not about being fickle. It's about determining which candidates are worth supporting. They have some large shoes to fill. Some of us stand on principle whether you believe it's foolish or fickle or whatever. My point is please don't come on here and misrepresent what happened in those threads when it was implied that Cuccinelli lost the election because of the libertarians or even because people on here who didn't even live there were responsible for questioning his past actions. And then going so far as to accuse people of being obsessed with sodomy. It's disengenuous and it was never about sodomy ..it was about individual rights and what lengths some will go to in order to squash them. You can convince yourself otherwise all day but all you are doing is lowering the bar, and ultimately WE did not cost him the election.

 

[pcosmar]

It did get ridiculous, because those that supported Cuccinelli, spent more time debating those obsessed with the sodomy laws than finding constructive ways to promote the candidate in those final days leading to the election.

Buzzzz,, Nope.

The Sodomy Laws are stupid laws that should have never been written,, and certainly should not be promoted by any "liberty" candidate.. or any "constitutional" candidate.

But that was not my reason for opposing him.. And I stated my reasons several times and MY reasons were ignored and the Sodomy law issue was pushed.

I opposed him because he ties Gun Prohibition to the "Mental Health Industry" (Mind Control Industry).
He want's to use that industry to deny guns to anyone on the grounds of what they think., And what the mind control witch doctors invent as a "mental illness". (thought police/pre-crime)

He supports that Industry and wants to increase their funding.
By his own words and admissions.

I don't want to see hm in any political office.. That shit is fucking dangerous.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yet you continue to waste your time referring to me as "me and my kind" lol. You better go get busy recruiting. It's not about being fickle. It's about determining which candidates are worth supporting. They have some large shoes to fill. Some of us stand on principle whether you believe it's foolish or fickle or whatever. My point is please don't come on here and misrepresent what happened in those threads when it was implied that Cuccinelli lost the election because of the libertarians or even because people on here who didn't even live there were responsible for questioning his past actions. And then going so far as to accuse people of being obsessed with sodomy. It's disengenuous and it was never about sodomy ..it was about individual rights and what lengths some will go to in order to squash them. You can convince yourself otherwise all day but all you are doing is lowering the bar, and ultimately WE did not cost him the election.

Post election analysis has been inconclusive as to whether or not the LP candidate took votes away from Cuccinelli or not. And I have stated this several times.

But yes, there were those who fixated on the sodomy law issue rather than looking at the bigger picture. I, and others like myself, don't let one issue be a reason for a lack of support for a candidate. Others here, whom I refer to as the fickle types, do.

 

[Barrex]

Carlybee. I disagree with you strongly.

I honestly want to know what is your alternative? What is your plan? What do you offer? I understand frustration and despair because of coruption, monopoly of 2 parties and all that but I dont understand why people had to do what they did in KC threads. All I read in all those KC threads and here is you opposing what other activist do. Lets say you find a guy who is pure enough for you. You decide to campaign for him and give your time and money. Since there are no perfect candidates lets say your candidate got only 1 flaw. Just 1. You can choose what it is: anti/pro sodomy, environmentalist/PETA member,asshole doesnt drink beer, vague on gun control, pro/against abortion.... You can choose any flaw you want for this candidate. It doesnt matter which one. As soon as you did it is game over for you and your candidate based on your modus operandi. Why? Because since he got flaw all of us are supposed to flood every single thread and every single outlet to spit, derail, sabotage, throw mud on your candidate, anyone who supports him, any effort and any activist actions to promote your candidate. That is what few of you did in Ken C threads. If everyone followed your path to.... well... I dont know where because I am 100% sure that it wouldnt be to victory. I am not saying shut your mouth or proposing ban. I am for little decency and common sense. Once you made your opinion clear there is no need to spam it over and over again and start flame wars and mud throwing contest until it clogs and derails every single activist thread... until it becomes sabotage. This infighting is becoming poisonous.

Live and let live.
Volunteer and let others volunteer.

This forum, movement is big enough for all if we learn not to screw with other peoples activist efforts.

 

[Carlybee]

Post election analysis has been inconclusive as to whether or not the LP candidate took votes away from Cuccinelli or not. And I have stated this several times.

But yes, there were those who fixated on the sodomy law issue rather than looking at the bigger picture. I, and others like myself, don't let one issue be a reason for a lack of support for a candidate. Others here, whom I refer to as the fickle types, do.

Funny how post election analysis is always inconclusive unless it supports the desired conclusion. N'est pas?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Funny how post election analysis is always inconclusive unless it supports the desired conclusion. N'est pas?

It is when you know how to read exit polling data, and understand how an MOE works. The exit polling had a spread of I believe 3 points, which was within the MOE. So you cannot really conclude who benefited from Sarvis being in the race. I did however notice that no one on the left has been critical of the Dem funding that came into Sarvis as almost costing them the race, so I gather than they believe that Sarvis helped their candidate. Nonetheless, the polling data was too tight to really give any conclusive reading on it all.

 

[Carlybee]

Carlybee. I disagree with you strongly.

I honestly want to know what is your alternative? What is your plan? What do you offer? I understand frustration and despair because of coruption, monopoly of 2 parties and all that but I dont understand why people had to do what they did in KC threads. All I read in all those KC threads and here is you opposing what other activist do. Lets say you find a guy who is pure enough for you. You decide to campaign for him and give your time and money. Since there are no perfect candidates lets say your candidate got only 1 flaw. Just 1. You can choose what it is: anti/pro sodomy, environmentalist/PETA member,asshole doesnt drink beer, vague on gun control, pro/against abortion.... You can choose any flaw you want for this candidate. It doesnt matter which one. As soon as you did it is game over for you and your candidate based on your modus operandi. Why? Because since he got flaw all of us are supposed to flood every single thread and every single outlet to spit, derail, sabotage, throw mud on your candidate, anyone who supports him, any effort and any activist actions to promote your candidate. That is what few of you did in Ken C threads. If everyone followed your path to.... well... I dont know where because I am 100% sure that it wouldnt be to victory. I am not saying shut your mouth or proposing ban. I am for little decency and common sense. Once you made your opinion clear there is no need to spam it over and over again and start flame wars and mud throwing contest until it clogs and derails every single activist thread... until it becomes sabotage. This infighting is becoming poisonous.

Live and let live.
Volunteer and let others volunteer.

This forum, movement is big enough for all if we learn not to screw with other peoples activist efforts.

Are you even a citizen here? I gave up giving you any credence after you stalked me all over the board the other day calling me a liar and going so far as to quote 2 days of my posts to prove a silly point. Putting you on ignore with erowe1.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Carlybee. I disagree with you strongly.

I honestly want to know what is your alternative? What is your plan? What do you offer? I understand frustration and despair because of coruption, monopoly of 2 parties and all that but I dont understand why people had to do what they did in KC threads. All I read in all those KC threads and here is you opposing what other activist do. Lets say you find a guy who is pure enough for you. You decide to campaign for him and give your time and money. Since there are no perfect candidates lets say your candidate got only 1 flaw. Just 1. You can choose what it is: anti/pro sodomy, environmentalist/PETA member,asshole doesnt drink beer, vague on gun control, pro/against abortion.... You can choose any flaw you want for this candidate. It doesnt matter which one. As soon as you did it is game over for you and your candidate based on your modus operandi. Why? Because since he got flaw all of us are supposed to flood every single thread and every single outlet to spit, derail, sabotage, throw mud on your candidate, anyone who supports him, any effort and any activist actions to promote your candidate. That is what few of you did in Ken C threads. If everyone followed your path to.... well... I dont know where because I am 100% sure that it wouldnt be to victory. I am not saying shut your mouth or proposing ban. I am for little decency and common sense. Once you made your opinion clear there is no need to spam it over and over again and start flame wars and mud throwing contest until it clogs and derails every single activist thread... until it becomes sabotage. This infighting is becoming poisonous. .

Back in 2012, I thought it was pointless to donate money to Kurt Bills, as I didn't think he had any chance to win. Now, I may have mentioned this a time or two, as to my reason why I wasn't donating any money to him - but if I followed the MO of some on here, I would have made it my full time job to let every Kurt Bills supporter know why they were wasting their money.

 

[Carlybee]

It is when you know how to read exit polling data, and understand how an MOE works. The exit polling had a spread of I believe 3 points, which was within the MOE. So you cannot really conclude who benefited from Sarvis being in the race. I did however notice that no one on the left has been critical of the Dem funding that came into Sarvis as almost costing them the race, so I gather than they believe that Sarvis helped their candidate. Nonetheless, the polling data was too tight to really give any conclusive reading on it all.

Well it wasn't Dem funding per se...it was a PAC funded by a rich guy who was a Dem or supported Dems but yeah..when I found out about that it did change my view of Sarvis but by the same token I remember Ron Paul receiving donations from questionable sources as well and him saying he couldn't help who donated to him. Granted if it was to intentionally try to sabotage that's one thing but if as you say the polling data is inconclusive then we don't really know. I've read that it took votes away from MacCauliffe. Ultimately each candidate is responsible for his own campaign and the GOP withheld support too so aren't we tilting at windmills?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Well it wasn't Dem funding per se...it was a PAC funded by a rich guy who was a Dem or supported Dems but yeah..when I found out about that it did change my view of Sarvis but by the same token I remember Ron Paul receiving donations from questionable sources as well and him saying he couldn't help who donated to him. Granted if it was to intentionally try to sabotage that's one thing but if as you say the polling data is inconclusive then we don't really know. I've read that it took votes away from MacCauliffe. Ultimately each candidate is responsible for his own campaign and the GOP withheld support too so aren't we tilting at windmills?

It's not the first time funding like that happens, and it won't be the last - both sides do it really.

As far as the polling. The one that is being quoted most often, I believe polled 2500 people, of those less than 200 were Sarvis voters. Really tough to say how Sarvis' 145,000 votes would have went based on polling of 200 people. Too small of a sample really.

 

[Barrex]

Are you even a citizen here? I gave up giving you any credence after you stalked me all over the board the other day calling me a liar and going so far as to quote 2 days of my posts to prove a silly point. Putting you on ignore with erowe1.

Ad hominem attacks and more lies. I honestly asked for your alternative. I truly did. You gave none. What are you referring to is me proving that you lied and then called me a liar. I just provided evidence that you lied. Nice.

To those who want to know truth here is post she is mentioning:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432425-OFFICIAL-Virginia-Gubernatorial-Election-RESULTS-THREAD&p=5296541&viewfull=1#post5296541

 

[erowe1]

Are you even a citizen here? I gave up giving you any credence after you stalked me all over the board the other day calling me a liar and going so far as to quote 2 days of my posts to prove a silly point. Putting you on ignore with erowe1.

This has been going on long enough that it can no longer be chalked up to lunar phase.

I'm trying to think back to worse posters than this, and I can't think of any. Lots of people have been banned from here who were far less toxic.

 

[belian78]

ITT entitled twats expecting people to give them their vote because 'he is less worse than the other guy' which can be properly translated as, he has (R) behind his name therefore you should vote for him. Now, this isn't defending Sarvis either, and he was pretty bad himself, but good lord you people. You complain about this shit way too much and it is highly off-putting. Whether it is denigrating us Voluntaryists for mostly not voting, or voting for 'the wrong guy' 'he has no shot to win' etc. Last I checked Ron Paul had no chance to win, but you hypocrites voted for him. Instead of attacking each other (esp. with this strategic Rand non-sense (I guess we're playing the corrupt scratch mah back I scratch yours crap now?)), how about we focus more on the targeted activist agenda's such as Stop Watching Us and rallying folks to our causes. Of course, I'm a losertarian because I think education and the moral imperative is more important than the fleeting myopic vote of the boobus which you guys seem to covet as the holy grail. Fickle be thy name.

Nail meet head...spot on. It's what I've been saying too, but I'm an ignorant fuck losertarian.

 

[belian78]

But you, and your kind won't be there in the future unless you are pandered to. Folks like yourself are one issue, or one statement away from dropping support for a candidate and then demonizing them. So from an activist's standpoint, what is a better use of time - to convince Carlybee why she should donate her time and money, or to go out and find ten other people to donate their time and money?

Seriously, you and those that think the way you do are the antithesis of the idealism and hope that started this site and the wave of support for Ron that built the last 6 years.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Seriously, you and those that think the way you do are the antithesis of the idealism and hope that started this site and the wave of support for Ron that built the last 6 years.

I don't operate my life based on idealism. Idealism is for third party purists and their bi-monthly meetings at Denny's where they pat themselves on the back for their "principle" and talk about how everyone else sucks.

I am a realist, not an idealist.

 

[belian78]

I don't operate my life based on idealism. Idealism is for third party purists and their bi-monthly meetings at Denny's where they pat themselves on the back for their "principle" and talk about how everyone else sucks.

I am a realist, not an idealist.

And you are part of why nothing will change in this country until it completely falls apart, and is forced to put it's self back together. Your kind makes me physically ill.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

And you are part of why nothing will change in this country until it completely falls apart, and is forced to put it's self back together. Your kind makes me physically ill.

And I will say the same about your kind as well. You sit there and dream - while folks like myself actually roll up our sleeves and try to do something about it all.

And a little dose of reality for you. If it does all fall apart, if you honestly think the people of this country will gravitate toward liberty rather than full blown socialism, I want some of that stuff you are smoking.

 

[Carlybee]

Okay...tried to be reasonable then the name calling starts. I have things to do. Hopefully I made my point in between being called "me and my kind", "fickle" and "the worst poster ever". Have a lovely day.

 

[pcosmar]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/19/cia-admits-behavioral-engineering-on-humans-mk-ultra/

MIND CONTROLThis may be old information, but many people have yet to hear about project MK Ultra. It was the name for a previously classified research program through the CIA’s scientific intelligence division. It was the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification on human beings that’s now declassified. The United States government even issued a national apology for the program while Bill Clinton was in office. We often hear stories about mind control and human experimentation without really considering the reality behind the phenomenon. Is it really that hard to believe? Scientific experimentation is not only limited to animals. It can be hard to fathom that there are organisations on the planet that would actually subject human beings to experimentation, torture and more in order to manipulate people’s individual mental states as well as alter brain functions. If you step outside of yourself and look at the planet from an external perspective, we have an energy industry that thrives off of oil and suppression of clean, zero point energy. We have a health industry that thrives off of genetically engineering our food. Big pharmaceutical companies and the suppression of cures. And we have a small group of multinational corporations that own the media and all industries mentioned above. What is even more revealing is that all of the money that goes into the department of defense and intelligence agencies is connected to all other industries that govern our planet. It is evidently clear that the ones we give our power over to so easily do not have our best interests at hand, and are searching for information and methods in order to control and manipulate the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Project MKUltra is the code name of an illegal U.S. government human research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division.

Extent of participation

Forty-four American colleges or universities, 15 research foundations or chemical or pharmaceutical companies and the like including Sandoz (now Novartis) and Eli Lilly and Company, 12 hospitals or clinics (in addition to those associated with universities), and three prisons are known to have participated in MKUltra.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...al-health-care-in-virginia-will-be-/?page=all

“I’ve made one spending promise, and it’s mental health,” he said in a recent discussion with reporters and editors from The Washington Times. “And most of that is going to be shifted within Medicaid. We have huge — and I’m talking on the order of the tens of millions of dollars — expenditures in what are called waiver programs, and we can move that money around without federal permission.”

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...elli-says-virginia-no-1-stopping-mentally-il/
"What we’ve done in Virginia is we have become the number one state per capita in screening out people with mental illness from gun purchases,"
Ken Cuccinelli

Virginia became the national leader in submitting mental health records to the national background check system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

Political abuse of psychiatry is the purported misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society.

Dangerous,, Very very dangerous.

 

[pcosmar]

I am a realist, not an idealist.

Reality Sucks..

And electing a dangerous madman will not help it any.
Ken Cuccinelli is dangerous.