PDA

View Full Version : Left-Right Coalition for Peace and Freedom




CUnknown
02-04-2008, 11:38 AM
Hi all! :)

I am a liberal supporter of Ron Paul. Seeing as Dr. Paul is the only non-corporate peace candidate left in the race, I am dismayed by the relatively lackluster support he's been getting from the left. However, I have to admit that I felt a little timid at first when joining this mostly right-wing movement.

When I first went to my Ron Paul meetup group, I had a Nader bumper sticker that made me a little fearful as to how people would react. But, now I feel comfortable among Ron Paul people, and proud to be fighting alongside my right-wing brothers for peace and freedom.

The question is, how can we get more left-wingers to make the same sort of journey? After the primaries, how can we form a true left-right Coalition to get people like Ron Paul elected to every local, state, and federal office we can think of? How can we grow this movement to include liberals?

Answer: There should be some compromise on the platform.

This movement started as a right-wing discontent movement, and it should mostly stay that way. If the left-wing had a movement like this, we left-wingers would be in a better position to bargain on the platform, but we don't. That being said, I still think we should craft the platform in such a way as not to alienate any conservatives, but to bring in as many liberals as possible.

Let me now list the different parts of the platform.


Parts of Ron Paul's Platform that we (left and right) can all agree on:

1) End the War.

2) Protect Civil Liberties / Fight the Police State

a) Restore Habeas Corpus
b) End domestic spying
c) Close secret prisons / end torture
d) End the War on Drugs / legalize

3) Fight Corporate Globalism

a) Withdraw from NAFTA
b) Withdraw from the WTO
c) Reject the N. Amercian Union / Mexican Highway

4) Reduce Governmental Spending

a) Bring 'em home! From everywhere, not just Iraq.
b) Eliminate waste and corruption in government wherever possible
c) End Corporate Welfare, including corn / ethanol subsidies

5) Lower taxes as much as possible while still maintaining a balanced budget and social programs such as Medicare and Social security
- Ron Paul himself says he wouldn't go after these programs in his first term, let's not fight about this one guys.

6) Force our government to obey the rule of law - the CONSTITUTION

a) Get rid of the unelected shadow corporation running our economy, the Fed.
(Do most liberals agree with this one? I'm not sure actually. But I do.)
b) Gold and silver as legal tender, why not?
c) Prosecute those who break the law, regardless of the office they may or may not hold (*cough* Bush *cough* Cheney *cough*).

7) Trade and friendship with all nations, alliance with none

a) End the embargo on Cuba
b) Stop threatening Iran
c) End foreign aid, including to Israel

When I list it out like this, it just kills me that more liberals aren't jumping aboard this freedom train. :D

Liberals would be getting so much out of Ron Paul's Presidency that I think we should compromise on some issues:


Parts of Ron Paul's Platform that liberals need to compromise on:

1) The Second Amendment / Gun Control
It's right there in the Bill of Rights people. We have to give up something to get something.

2) Roe v Wade
It may very well be unconstitutional, I am sorry to say. And again, this is the right-winger's revolution, let's not mess with it too much. Also, remember that abortion would still be legal in many states if this was repealed.

3) Universal healthcare
Obviously not going to be a part of this movement, but remember it's something liberals would have to give up to join.


There may be other issues I could put here. Let me see what I can think of on the other side first, though. Anyway, these are big issues to liberals, keep that in mind, conservatives.


Parts of Ron Paul's Platform that conservatives need to compromise on:

1) The Environment / Fight Global Warming

a) We need a cap and trade system.
b) We need to join Kyoto.
c) No more coal-fired power plants. Shut down the ones we have as soon as possible.
d) I'd ask for a carbon tax but I'd get flamed too horribly. Let me just say that global warming is real, it is caused by human activity, and if we don't do everything in our power to stop it, our children will pay the price. We will pay the price as well.

2) The coming energy crisis

Ron Paul is for lowering taxes on companies that invest in green technologies. That is good, but it's just a start. We need subsides on these technolgies and a tax on gas-guzzling SUVs.

3) The UN

Liberals love the UN. It's very hard to tell liberals to support a candidate to wants to withdraw from the UN.

Perhaps if the liberals are giving up the two things listed, the conservatives could pick two out of these three to compromise on? Perhaps the environmental and energy issues?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Ron Paul should compromise on anything. But, the movement as a whole, as it grows beyond Ron Paul himself, we should consider the best way foward, which should include some compromise, imo.

How much are you willing to compromise, conservatives, to help grow this movement? Perhaps if we put the UN on the list of things liberals need to compromise on, would the Enivronmental issues be okay for conservatives to compromise on, do you think?

(Should I maybe post this in a more general discussion section? I am afraid of getting flamed, though.)

athlon64bit
02-04-2008, 11:55 AM
Hi Cu,

Global warming stopped in 2001 though. The mean temperatures haven't been increasing since then.
There was a lively debate on this thread with some good video links.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=95885
You should read the thread and hear the other side of the global warming debate.
With Super Tuesday coming up tomorrow, it is getting late in the campaign to even consider changing the platform. I can't see Ron Paul changing a platform that he has stuck to for all of his life. Ron Paul believes strongly in national sovereignty and is against world government, I can't see him compromising on that issue.
On global warming Ron Paul is very neutral. He doesn't believe in the alarmism of Al Gore, e.g. the earth is coming to an end.
I do think that Ron Paul should point out that the dems support a lot of Bush's platforms eg the patriot act (because they don't want to remove it) and many other issues. So the message of change is not true as far as the dems go. I think pointing this out to libs and comparing the dem candidates to bush can help sway them.

Ross:cool:

JGalt
02-04-2008, 12:31 PM
Compromise is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. No more!

CUnknown
02-04-2008, 12:31 PM
Yeah, I am speaking more to the future of the movement, not to the positions that Ron Paul should or should not be taking himself. Ron Paul should stick to his guns on everything, that is what has gotten him where he is (still in the race when many have dropped out, still making money).

This post is about the movement we will build even after 2008 is over, whether Ron Paul wins or not.

I am with Ron Paul and with you guys all the way, even if there is no compromise on anything! :D

But, for bringing other liberals into the fold, it would make my job doing that so much easier if there was compromise, especially on the environmental stuff. The science is so rock-solid on that, you point me to another thread, but really from my perspective there is no reason to debate it.

I would listen to the other side of the UN issue, but the environment is so important to me that I have to admit I am closed off from any other perspective. Most liberals are the same way, which is why I am asking for some sort of compromise.

I say: there is this amazing Republican candidate you should vote for guys!! I list the pros, then they start asking me about his stand on the environment, then it all starts to go bad.

Help me help the movement to include more liberals, is what I am saying.

affa
02-04-2008, 12:56 PM
First of all, excellent post.

I won't comment on any of the points where everyone agrees.

So, first, commentary on where the left (note that I dislike this terminology, but understand why we're stuck using it for now) need to compromise.

1. Gun Control. I am so far left that I am staunchly against gun control for essentially the same reasons as those on the far right. It's one of those cases which best illustrates that ideology is not a line, but a circle. I view a gov't which doesn't permit its citizens to have guns as a de facto police state. I was not happy when all the subways in nyc suddenly had heavily armed soldiers guarding every stop. It was direct and visible evidence of the path we were about to embark on. I don't know the solution to this, but I agree with you - the left needs to compromise. Furthermore, I think the left actually needs to think deep on this one and understand the importance of the 2nd amendment. I saw one poster on this board eloquently state (to paraphrase) - 'You use your 1st amendment to protect my 2nd amendment, and I'll protect your 1st amendment with my 2nd"

2. Roe vs. Wade. This one took me at least a month to get my head around. And I think it will take some people more than that. I think there are 3 points here that need to be made. 1) As Ron Paul might say, the more controversial the problem, the more local the solution should be. 2) Permitting the gov't to allow something also gives them the right to ban it in the future. 3) The federal gov't has no real business legislating morality one way or the other. It's also important to note that many pro-life people are as appalled that some of their tax money goes to pro-choice related programs as anti-war lefties are that some of their tax money goes towards the war machine. Understanding this tax issue goes far in understanding the essential problem of income taxation - it can only divide a population, since the population will never agree on how their money should be spent, and will, in fact, be ethically/morally against some of it.

3. Universal Healthcare. Another one that took me awhile to get my head around. Fundamentally, I do not believe anyone should be turned away if in need of healthcare. That said, I do not trust our gov't, which we all (should) know is firmly in bed with Big Pharm, to create a fair and just universal health care system that doesn't line the pockets of corporations with our tax money (the only person I trusted on this was Kucinich - definitely not Clinton or Obama). Nor do I think implementing one big system over a huge nation is a good idea. I'm far more partial to states like California and Oregon trying out different systems - and the most successful ones would spread as different states implemented their own programs. Lead by example, not by force. I do not have a quick and easy solution to ensure that everyone got health care - I wish I did. Perhaps some sort of voluntary health care system supported by donation? Don't know.


"Parts of Ron Paul's Platform that conservatives need to compromise on:"

First off, I'll give the quick response. Ron Paul will never compromise on the constitution. Moreover, he believes strongly in national sovereignty and would be against anything that erodes that. With that in mind:

1. Global Warming.

I do believe global warming exists. It's a huge issue to me, and it's one definite place I disagree with libertarians on. However, I do think Ron Paul makes some great points. Watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC2V6dq9qkI
starting at 4 minutes.
Note that he's the only candidate:
1. providing a path to getting off fossil fuels.
2. talking about ending ethanol and other subsidies
3. talking about LEGALIZING hemp!
4. talking about DEPLETED URANIUM. A presidential candidate talking about this is huge.
5. talking about a very different type of environmental protection - property rights. Note that this is where I don't totally agree with libertarians.
Basically, while I don't agree with him on all aspects of libertarian theory, I do think he has the most robust solution. I also think he has, by FAR, the best understanding of the petro-dollar and its role in the wars of this century. Given that he is a candidate for peace, this also means he has a great interest in ending our reliance on oil and ending the petro-dollar (by re-instituting the gold standard).
Basically, what I'm saying here is that Ron Paul understands the economics of war. And he wants to pull the carpet out from under the bankers, oilmen, and military industrial complex. If we're talking about the environment, we must realize that war is the destroyer. Anyone who is truly pro-peace and pro-environment MUST research these issues. Ron Paul is the only one even talking about them.

2) The coming energy crisis
For better or worse, I doubt we'll get any compromise here. Ron Paul is for a truly free market - one free of gov't taxes AND subsidies. I ride a bike; I'm not really equipped to respond to this, other than to reference his response in the youtube video linked to above. My hope, though, is that by removing our dependency on oil we can move away from gas guzzlers. I know my community already loves bikes, bio-diesel, and electric cars. That change came from the people themselves, not top down.

3. The UN.

This is definitely a difficult one to discuss. I think the only point worth making here is one of national sovereignty. Any organization that is above the United States can effectively determine our policies. For example, our membership in the United Nations can drive us into war. Do we really want our membership in an international organization forcing us into war?
Please research the Korean War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Treaties sound great on paper. They really do. A and B agree to protect each other. B and C agree to protect each other. A and C agree to protect each other. But what does A do when B and C decide to end their treaty and fight? Neutrality is the best option, but they've agreed in advance to defend both B and C, so now everyone is pissed off, and rightfully so. Now, this is obviously oversimplified but hopefully it expresses the point - the best way to stay out of needless war is to stay neutral. We can then decide to enter a 'just' war, if required, but on our own terms.


Conclusion
I don't even know what my conclusion is. I think it's that compromise is important, yes, but we need to be careful where. Ron Paul is the best chance we may ever have. His policies not only will end the war, but will end the REASONS we fight (the petro-dollar). He is going up against - the oil men, the war mongers, the bankers, big pharm... he is, truly, a man of the people. And while I may not agree with him on every point, the last thing I'm going to do is to ask him to compromise his values. The reason he's been able to make it this far, the reason he's shown a lifetime of integrity and consistency, is his refusal to compromise on the Constitution.

So I guess my point is not that he needs to compromise, it's that WE need to figure out ways to best explain his policies to people on the left. It's our responsibility to open eyes.

CUnknown
02-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Great post yourself, affa! :)

Let me read and think, then I will post again. I just wanted to say nice post. :)

athlon64bit
02-04-2008, 01:06 PM
Yeah, I am speaking more to the future of the movement, not to the positions that Ron Paul should or should not be taking himself. Ron Paul should stick to his guns on everything, that is what has gotten him where he is (still in the race when many have dropped out, still making money).

Hi Cu,

Some good news for you. I just listened to a ron paul video, where he was saying how a dem candidate took a lot of ron paul's libertarian, constitutionalist positions and won a seat in a local election. So already this is starting to happen. Politician's hearing Ron Paul's message who lets say agree on say 80% of ron paul's message will run on 80% of his message and adapt the remaining 20% of his views to their views. The main thing is that people hear his message and understand it.


But, for bringing other liberals into the fold, it would make my job doing that so much easier if there was compromise, especially on the environmental stuff. The science is so rock-solid on that, you point me to another thread, but really from my perspective there is no reason to debate it.

I would listen to the other side of the UN issue, but the environment is so important to me that I have to admit I am closed off from any other perspective. Most liberals are the same way, which is why I am asking for some sort of compromise.

Actually the majority of peer reviewed scientific article doesn't say what you think it says. You are putting your faith in 20 or so scientists who write the final report for the U.N. Remember it was the U.N. who pushed the weapons of mass destruction idea and are also pushing the Iran nuclear threat agenda as we speak. As a kid I was a member of wildlife organisations and have always supported green issues. However, it should be remembered that C02 is what plants breath and eat, it is essentially plant food. I honestly don't see how lowering levels of plant food is good for the environment. I would support efforts to protect endangered species and forests and wild life habitats, but I can't agree on the C02 issues.


I say: there is this amazing Republican candidate you should vote for guys!! I list the pros, then they start asking me about his stand on the environment, then it all starts to go bad.

Help me help the movement to include more liberals, is what I am saying.

His stance on the environment I believe is actually the best for the environment in my opinion. Have you seen his stance on the environment. His views on the environment are actually quite good.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/

Ross:D

GravelKucinichPaulNader
03-09-2008, 09:25 AM
Gravel Kucinich Paul Nader;
dare speak truth,
demand peace.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts -

CUnknown
04-24-2008, 03:14 PM
I just posted something very similar to this (the first post) on Alternet just now. I am arguing with both sides here!

It is a little frustrating. Why can't we all just get along? :)

Truth Warrior
04-24-2008, 03:19 PM
Clever switcheroo there, lefty. :p

I'm still holding out for FREEDOM, PEACE AND PROSPERITY! In that order of importance. Freedom leads to peace leads to prosperity.

"Any compromise ( or coaltion :p ) between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Truth Warrior
04-24-2008, 03:38 PM
I just posted something very similar to this (the first post) on Alternet just now. I am arguing with both sides here!

It is a little frustrating. Why can't we all just get along? :)
Oh, aside from the fact that the left is stupid, insane and evil, I can't think of a reason in the world. :rolleyes:

amy31416
04-24-2008, 03:50 PM
I just posted something very similar to this (the first post) on Alternet just now. I am arguing with both sides here!

It is a little frustrating. Why can't we all just get along? :)

By the way, the original post--very good. I think you'll find that we're split on the notion of "compromise" and many of those who are most vehemently against it, are also the loudest.

I'm willing to work with people who are different than me and aren't 100% locked in step, and many others here are as well, especially people as thoughtful as yourself. Stick around and let us know how things are going with the other group. Even the founding fathers had to compromise and get over it in order to get us that Constitution.

I consider this movement to be a dynamic and evolving one, and right now, getting out of the UN is so low on my priority list, it's virtually irrelevant.

amy31416
04-24-2008, 03:51 PM
Oh, aside from the fact that the left is stupid, insane and evil, I can't think of a reason in the world. :rolleyes:

Speaking of :rolleyes:

liberteebell
04-24-2008, 03:55 PM
CUnknown, very good post with thoughtful questions and I hope nobody flames you. Incidentally, for the most part, it has been easier for me to "convert" self-described "leftys" to Ron Paul *IF* they're willing to see past the "R" label.

Affa has written a brilliant response to your thoughts on compromise. As to a conclusion beyond what Affa says here: this is not about left and right; it's about right and wrong and the Rule of Law, the Constitution, US sovereignty and freedom, peace and prosperity for us all.




Conclusion
I don't even know what my conclusion is. I think it's that compromise is important, yes, but we need to be careful where. Ron Paul is the best chance we may ever have. His policies not only will end the war, but will end the REASONS we fight (the petro-dollar). He is going up against - the oil men, the war mongers, the bankers, big pharm... he is, truly, a man of the people. And while I may not agree with him on every point, the last thing I'm going to do is to ask him to compromise his values. The reason he's been able to make it this far, the reason he's shown a lifetime of integrity and consistency, is his refusal to compromise on the Constitution.

So I guess my point is not that he needs to compromise, it's that WE need to figure out ways to best explain his policies to people on the left. It's our responsibility to open eyes.

Check this out: A Socialist Case for Ron Paul:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html

Truth Warrior
04-24-2008, 04:05 PM
Speaking of :rolleyes:
Yeah, I kinda pegged you as a closet lefty. :D

ronpaulhawaii
04-24-2008, 04:05 PM
I just posted something very similar to this (the first post) on Alternet just now. I am arguing with both sides here!

It is a little frustrating. Why can't we all just get along? :)

Just saw this, glad you are still checking in. Thoughtful post.

I think people can come together on some issues.

The UN itself is a corrupt monster, can it be reformed? How else could the world promote dialogue between nations, while avoiding the pitfalls of Bureaucracy?

I'm no expert on the energy thing but IIRC, there are better ways than subsidies to promote green technologies. I believe we should all be promoting green-techs, and reducing waste. Is that a starting point?

The sad thing about the global warming hysteria is it seems to distract from the valuable debate on the responsible disposal of waste. While I acknowledge that the care of the land is a prime responsiblility, I must wonder at those who choose to use scare tactics, and contested science, while building corporate structures for profit... Again, I believe most can agree that green-techs and the responsible management of waste are things we can all promote.

... and I hope to see us all at The March - July 12 DC :D

amy31416
04-24-2008, 04:17 PM
Yeah, I kinda pegged you as a closet lefty. :D

You got me. Truth is, I'm a left-wing, commie, pinko, red, omnisexual, satan-worshipping hooker with a penchant for prematurely balding luddites.

I think we completely wore out this subject on another thread, that's for sure. :)

Truth Warrior
04-24-2008, 05:27 PM
You got me. Truth is, I'm a left-wing, commie, pinko, red, omnisexual, satan-worshipping hooker with a penchant for prematurely balding luddites.
A problem well defined is half-solved. Confession is very good for the soul. You left out spider phobic. :)
I think we completely wore out this subject on another thread, that's for sure. :)
I wasn't worn out, the rest of you just up and quit.

:D

amy31416
04-24-2008, 05:34 PM
Pfft, I am not defined by my phobias (unless, of course, there's a spider somewhere near.)

After a while I get bored with rehashing the same ol' same ol' just move along, I'm not gonna change your mind, you ain't gonna change mind. Not a fan o' futility.

mdh
04-24-2008, 05:53 PM
1) The Second Amendment / Gun Control
It's right there in the Bill of Rights people. We have to give up something to get something.

This is hardly giving something up. Leftists should instead realize the importance of self defense.


2) Roe v Wade
It may very well be unconstitutional, I am sorry to say. And again, this is the right-winger's revolution, let's not mess with it too much. Also, remember that abortion would still be legal in many states if this was repealed.

Roe v Wade is judicial overstepping. That's a door that swings both ways, and if it isn't stopped here, where will it be? If a liberal supreme court can get away with it, so can a neoconservative one.


3) Universal healthcare
Obviously not going to be a part of this movement, but remember it's something liberals would have to give up to join.

How about instead we get government out of healthcare entirely so that prices go down due to deregulation and market forces? It's much more intelligent than to create a socialist program or force people to buy insurance from corporations.


1) The Environment / Fight Global Warming

a) We need a cap and trade system.
b) We need to join Kyoto.
c) No more coal-fired power plants. Shut down the ones we have as soon as possible.
d) I'd ask for a carbon tax but I'd get flamed too horribly. Let me just say that global warming is real, it is caused by human activity, and if we don't do everything in our power to stop it, our children will pay the price. We will pay the price as well.

I disagree that global warming is real. There are a lot of environmental issues we should tackle, though, as a society. Kyoto is a terrible thing for the US, and anyone advocating signing such a thing has no clue what it actually entails.


2) The coming energy crisis

Ron Paul is for lowering taxes on companies that invest in green technologies. That is good, but it's just a start. We need subsides on these technolgies and a tax on gas-guzzling SUVs.

Why not just agree on getting rid of all subsidies? Most government subsidies go to things that harm the environment, because those are the companies with the most money to hire lobbyists, hence getting them more subsidies for more lobbyists, and the circle continues.


3) The UN

Liberals love the UN. It's very hard to tell liberals to support a candidate to wants to withdraw from the UN.

The UN is a danger to the whole world, and a tool of the globalist corporatist sorts that liberals claim to hate. Leftists should educate themselves about this fact instead of loving an organization that works for their so-called enemies.



It also seems kind of silly to talk about left versus right when today's right-wingers tend to be for all of your left stuff, and what you described as right is more like libertarian.
John McCain, for example, is a big proponent of gun control.

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 05:20 AM
Pfft, I am not defined by my phobias (unless, of course, there's a spider somewhere near.)

After a while I get bored with rehashing the same ol' same ol' just move along, I'm not gonna change your mind, you ain't gonna change mind. Not a fan o' futility.
That's :cool:, and not at all surprising! I really sort of expected it ..... again. :)

BTW, just out of some sense of personal morbid curiosity, just how many, and which, of your "principles" ( so called ) are you prepared to abandon, sacrifice, cave in on and "compromise" away in the spirit of some claimed, nebulous and suggested "coalition building" ( so called )?

You may just want to consider asking "Dr. No" about that one too, only whenever you can manage to muster up the the necessary and required time, interest and persistence that is. :D

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -- Thomas Jefferson

amy31416
04-25-2008, 05:41 AM
That's :cool:, and not at all surprising! I really sort of expected it ..... again. :)

BTW, just out of some sense of personal morbid curiosity, just how many, and which, of your "principles" ( so called ) are you prepared to abandon, sacrifice, cave in on and "compromise" away in the spirit of some claimed, nebulous and suggested "coalition building" ( so called )?

You may just want to consider asking "Dr. No" about that one too, only whenever you can manage to muster up the the necessary and required time, interest and persistence that is. :D

Now now, let's not get into another spitting match here, boy. You imply that I have no "principles" because I don't toe the line you have defined.

You want to be an isolationist and have a pre-defined mold for everyone who is allowed into this "movement?" You feel free. I'm going to work with other people. "Dr. No" himself had no problem with anarchists, liberals, conservatives, constitutionalists, et al being a part of the revolution. If I do recall correctly, he considers Kucinich a friend and works with him. If I'm wrong, please, please correct me. If you want to invoke the all-powerful Ron Paul name in this argument, you might want to reconsider. Even if he didn't work with an ultra-liberal, I would still feel the same way.

Your version is very small and limited, mine has a much larger scope and tolerance for differences. Not everything is black and white, my friend.

As to a particular number? Let's go with 3.141592654. . .

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 06:20 AM
Now now, let's not get into another spitting match here, boy. You imply that I have no "principles" because I don't toe the line you have defined.
Incorrect!
You want to be an isolationist and have a pre-defined mold for everyone who is allowed into this "movement?" You feel free. I'm going to work with other people. "Dr. No" himself had no problem with anarchists, liberals, conservatives, constitutionalists, et al being a part of the revolution. If I do recall correctly, he considers Kucinich a friend and works with him. If I'm wrong, please, please correct me. If you want to invoke the all-powerful Ron Paul name in this argument, you might want to reconsider. Even if he didn't work with an ultra-liberal, I would still feel the same way.
Actually no, that's "non-interventionist". :)
Your version is very small and limited, mine has a much larger scope and tolerance for differences. Not everything is black and white, my friend.
Incorrect! I never claimed that it was, now did I? Black and white? Nope, just the really important stuff, as in principles. You know stuff like, Freedom, Peace, Prosperity for just some basic instances. BTW, did you attend government schools? :D I seem to recognize the current programmed mantra.
As to a particular number? Let's go with 3.141592654. . .
Which ones?


Thanks!

amy31416
04-25-2008, 06:29 AM
Thanks!

You're welcome.

Is Ron Paul selling out his principles for working with Kucinich?

Thanks.

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 06:45 AM
You're welcome.

Is Ron Paul selling out his principles for working with Kucinich?

Thanks.
To the degree that I understand Ron, through his very extensive writings, my best current guess is most probably, no.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

Repeat question ( expanded ) : Which of your principles are open and on the block for "compromise"? Better yet, which ones are not? :)

amy31416
04-25-2008, 06:56 AM
To the degree that I understand Ron, through his very extensive writings, my best current guess is most probably, no.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

Repeat question ( expanded ) : Which of your principles are open and on the block for "compromise"? Better yet, which ones are not? :)

My man, I have no need or desire to tell you my personal business. I've mentioned that while I don't like the UN, it's not a high priority for me to get us out.

I don't compromise on the war, on ditching the Fed and the IRS, I don't compromise on anything that harms other people in tangible ways. And there's much, much more I won't compromise on, but it's truly irrelevant. You want to try to chase away a liberal--have at it.

And from now on, I won't compromise on this: I don't agree with you and I never will on this issue. It's done compadre. I would work with a raging liberal to get rid of the war, the Fed and the war on drugs, among other things. Now drop it. I'm not going to change my opinion.

The Libertarians can go to sleep, all smug about how they are a "no compromise" group. And they will never get anywhere. I want actual change, not just a pipe dream.

Bottom line is: working with people different from yourself is not equal to selling out your principles. I adore reality and will continue to reside there.

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 07:13 AM
My man, I have no need or desire to tell you my personal business. I've mentioned that while I don't like the UN, it's not a high priority for me to get us out.

I don't compromise on the war, on ditching the Fed and the IRS, I don't compromise on anything that harms other people in tangible ways. And there's much, much more I won't compromise on, but it's truly irrelevant. You want to try to chase away a liberal--have at it.

And from now on, I won't compromise on this: I don't agree with you and I never will on this issue. It's done compadre. I would work with a raging liberal to get rid of the war, the Fed and the war on drugs, among other things. Now drop it. I'm not going to change my opinion.

The Libertarians can go to sleep, all smug about how they are a "no compromise" group. And they will never get anywhere. I want actual change, not just a pipe dream.

Bottom line is: working with people different from yourself is not equal to selling out your principles. I adore reality and will continue to reside there.
I couldn't possibly care less about your personal business.

You cited several issues, but very few, if any, principles that I could determine. No surprise there. :D

I guess that you just didn't care to answer the government school question .... either. :(

So be it! Whatever!

http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/103.php ( re: concerning harming others in tangible ways )

Have a good day! :)

ronpaulhawaii
04-25-2008, 09:21 AM
...
BTW, just out of some sense of personal morbid curiosity, just how many, and which, of your "principles" ( so called ) are you prepared to abandon, sacrifice, cave in on and "compromise" away in the spirit of some claimed, nebulous and suggested "coalition building" ( so called )?

...

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -- Thomas Jefferson

None, and I wonder why you think people need to sacrifice principals in the search for points of agreement? That is absurd to me. Amy makes a good point about RP & DK; they work together, and so can we. ISTM- the kind of people who are afraid to work with [people of other beliefs] are those who may be insecure in their own...

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 09:35 AM
None, and I wonder why you think people need to sacrifice principals in the search for points of agreement? That is absurd to me. Amy makes a good point about RP & DK; they work together, and so can we. ISTM- the kind of people who are afraid to work with [people of other beliefs] are those who may be insecure in their own...
OK! I'll be happy to further expand the original statement for you.

"Any compromise (or coalition), on principles, between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Is that better now? :)

Thanks!

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -- Thomas Jefferson

ronpaulhawaii
04-25-2008, 10:26 AM
OK! I'll be happy to further expand the original statement for you.

"Any compromise (or coalition), on principles, between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Is that better now? :)

Thanks!

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -- Thomas Jefferson

You can expand all you want but I'd rather you answered my question, "why you think people need to sacrifice principals in the search for points of agreement?"

The nature of good and evil is completely subjective and a matter of debate since the dawn of history; well and fine for bespeckled warriors in their ivory towers, yet not when they hinder work being down on the ground. Anarchy is fine as an ideal, minarchry is better as a rule. Realism trumps Idealism.

Anyway, the points the OP is looking for agreement in include:

The UN.

The Environment

Energy

What specific "principals" do you think apply?

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 10:44 AM
You can expand all you want but I'd rather you answered my question, "why you think people need to sacrifice principals in the search for points of agreement?"
Is that what I said? I don't think that they need to. It's really more of a choice, carrying with it both personal individual responsibility and accountability.
The nature of good and evil is completely subjective and a matter of debate since the dawn of history; well and fine for bespeckled warriors in their ivory towers, yet not when they hinder work being down on the ground. Anarchy is fine as an ideal, minarchry is better as a rule. Realism trumps Idealism.
Ah, a moral relativist I see. What's your subjective take on genocide? How about nuclear annihilation of the human species, subjectively of course?
Anyway, the points the OP is looking for agreement in include:

The UN.

The Environment

Energy

What specific "principals" do you think apply?
How about freedom from the whole leftist statist NWO agenda implementations? How about the non-aggression principle? Is that enough?

Thanks!

ronpaulhawaii
04-25-2008, 11:13 AM
rph-You can expand all you want but I'd rather you answered my question, "why you think people need to sacrifice principals in the search for points of agreement?"
tw-Is that what I said? I don't think that they need to. It's really more of a choice, carrying with it both personal individual responsibility and accountability.



Yes, it was what you implied with the following:



...which, of your "principles" ( so called ) are you prepared to abandon, sacrifice, cave in on and "compromise" away.




Realism trumps Idealism.
Ah, a moral relativist I see.


I'd like to think more of an Einstienian Relativist :p


Anyway, the points the OP is looking for agreement in include:

The UN.

The Environment

Energy

What specific "principals" do you think apply?
How about freedom from the whole leftist statist NWO agenda implementations? How about the non-aggression principle? Is that enough?

While there is a certain entertainment value in watching the vast-right wing conspiracy duke it out with the leftist statist NWO, hurling fecal projectiles and mussing up each others white towers; there is little practical value in getting involved in the debate. Indeed, some crap is hard to wash off...

As others have said, this movement ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong. The more points of agreement we can find, without sacrificing our principals, the more we will grow and hasten success.

and I can't really think of anything I wouldn't sacrifice for this cause. Learning to get along with others seems a small price to pay

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 11:56 AM
Yes, it it was you implied with the following:
Haven't we had a previous micro set to about the dishonesty of out of context extractions? My views of that haven't changed a bit, nor have yours, it would seem. :(

I'd like to think more of an Einstienian Relativist :p
Subjectively, of course. :)

While there is a certain entertainment value in watching the vast-right wing conspiracy duke it out with the leftist statist NWO, hurling fecal projectiles and mussing up each others white towers; there is little practical value in getting involved in the debate. Indeed, some crap is hard to wash off...

As others have said, this movement ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong. The more points of agreement we can find, without sacrificing our principals, the more we will grow and hasten success.
Exactly! Right and wrong, good and evil, really is precisely and ultimately what it all boils down to, and what we're talking about here, isn't it? It is for me, at least.

and I can't really think of anything I wouldn't sacrifice for this cause. Learning to get along with others seems a small price to pay
WOW! Not anything, really? Gee, and some folks call me a fanatic. :D I can't help but wonder what, if anything, Ron would not give up? Hey I know, let's just "compromise" here and get along, OK? :)

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."-- Ronald Reagan

ronpaulhawaii
04-25-2008, 03:30 PM
rph-Yes, it it was you implied with the following; ...
tm-Haven't we had a previous micro set to about the dishonesty of out of context extractions? My views of that haven't changed a bit, nor have yours, it would seem. :(


Cant see how it was out of context, in fact it was just about all you said:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1418144&postcount=21



I'd like to think more of an Einstienian Relativist :p
Subjectively, of course. :)


Wouldn't have it any other way.;)



While there is a certain entertainment value in watching the vast-right wing conspiracy duke it out with the leftist statist NWO, hurling fecal projectiles and mussing up each others white towers; there is little practical value in getting involved in the debate. Indeed, some crap is hard to wash off...

As others have said, this movement ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong. The more points of agreement we can find, without sacrificing our principals, the more we will grow and hasten success.
Exactly! Right and wrong, good and evil, really is precisely and ultimately what it all boils down to, and what we're talking about here, isn't it? It is for me, at least.


Unfortunately, boiling sterilizes, and philosophical BS sends most people running away. Not a good way to fertilize and grow a movement:p

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/rightwrong.jpg



and I can't really think of anything I wouldn't sacrifice for this cause. Learning to get along with others seems a small price to pay
WOW! Not anything, really? Gee, and some folks call me a fanatic. :D I can't help but wonder what, if anything, Ron would not give up? Hey I know, let's just "compromise" here and get along, OK? :)


Funny:rolleyes: how you complain about context at the top...

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 03:33 PM
Cant see how it was out of context, in fact it was just about all you said:





Wouldn't have it any other way.;)



Unfortunately, boiling sterilizes, and philosophical BS sends most people running away. Not a good way to fertilize and grow a movement:p

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/rightwrong.jpg



Funny:rolleyes: how you complain about context at the top...
Full context was included, was it not? :)

ronpaulhawaii
04-25-2008, 04:18 PM
Full context was included, was it not? :)

Cute...:rolleyes:

Anyway, I have no desire to debate the nature of good and evil. The OPs point is if we can find agreement in 3 areas, growth would be much easier.

The UN

I could move this down on my list of priorities. I would hold that, after we take care of high priorities, (like breaking the power of the MSM and the false 2 party system), we need to have an honest national debate about the UN.

The Environment

I'm all for protecting the environment. What I am against is a bunch of corporate crooks preying on the sensitivities of the young and... dim. I think we all can agree that the umbilical cord between the State and the corporations needs to be cut. From that, I imagine we will see plenty of innovation that will speed our entry into a sustainable future.

Energy

This topic could be merged with the above.

So TW,

If you have no desire to address these issues specifically, I fail to see any reasons for posting... All large orgs have good elements, and evil elements. The relative piety of the organizations has little, to no, bearing on the discussion.

liberteebell
04-25-2008, 04:53 PM
TW, I'm trying to understand your point and maybe I'm just dense.

I am completely unwilling to compromise any of my principles. However, I am all for building coalitions with people and groups with whom I agree on one or several issues, even if they don't (yet) buy the whole ball of wax.

The reason being that we are all works in progress. Take the OP, for example. He has obviously has done some serious and thoughtful analysis on several subjects. Should we shun and flame him because he doesn't agree on every little issue? Or should we "take him in" and gently help educate him? I firmly believe that if we work with people such as the OP, especially with someone who obviously IS open minded enough to think about the issues with which there is disagreement, it won't take long before we can win people like this over.

Snub, shun and flame them and we perpetuate the false left-right paradigm and alieniate those whom we should be welcoming with open arms.

As for forming coalitions with groups not in total agreement on every issue: when we do this, we amplify each other's voices. Again, who says we have to be the ones to compromise? I won't, but I sure will try to help another group fighting an issue on which we agree.

I believe Ron Paul does just that when he works with Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank on a specific issue of agreement. That doesn't diminish Ron Paul's principles; it amplifies the voices on a specific issue and ultimately, I believe anyway, more and more people will come Ron Paul's way.

And further, I'm sure his fellow congressmen have taken note of his accomplishments. Who else in recent history has put together such a diverse group of people--my meetup group had every age, religion, race, background, you name it (it still brings tears to my eyes to think about it). It was a true cross-section of America. I believe we can do the same without compromising a scintilla of principle.

amy31416
04-25-2008, 06:13 PM
Well said Liberteebell.

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 08:48 AM
Cute...:rolleyes:
Thanks! I liked it too. :D I'd have posted more, but my wife called me away for something or other. Excuse the brevity, please.

Anyway, I have no desire to debate the nature of good and evil. The OPs point is if we can find agreement in 3 areas, growth would be much easier.
OK! Is right and wrong still on the table? :)

The UN

I could move this down on my list of priorities. I would hold that, after we take care of high priorities, (like breaking the power of the MSM and the false 2 party system), we need to have an honest national debate about the UN.
To me, THE key question is, what is Ron's take on the UN?
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=UN (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=UN)
Not a fan it clearly appears. Go Ron! Right ON!

The Environment

I'm all for protecting the environment. What I am against is a bunch of corporate crooks preying on the sensitivities of the young and... dim. I think we all can agree that the umbilical cord between the State and the corporations needs to be cut. From that, I imagine we will see plenty of innovation that will speed our entry into a sustainable future.
Mother Nature is a big girl now and is very much capable of taking care of herself ... and us to, if and whenever she takes a mind to. She's got around 4.5 billion years of on the job experience compared to our species what, 50,000 or so. < LOL >

Energy

This topic could be merged with the above.
GEEZ guy, the whole friggin' universe is energy. How much do you want?

So TW,
Yes .....
If you have no desire to address these issues specifically, I fail to see any reasons for posting...
And this fine line of reasoning applies to just how many of the threads and posts here on the RPF, if I may politely ask?
All large orgs have good elements, and evil elements.
Again with the good and evil? Didn't you already pretty much address that a little higher up in this post? :)
The relative piety of the organizations has little, to no, bearing on the discussion.
Yeah almost all institutions just tend to give me the creeps. Well, I certainly understand your wish and point of view. Thanks for sharing. Ron disagrees with you BTW. You may want to take it up with him. Just a thought! :D

Thanks!

Have a good one!

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 09:14 AM
TW, I'm trying to understand your point and maybe I'm just dense.

I am completely unwilling to compromise any of my principles. However, I am all for building coalitions with people and groups with whom I agree on one or several issues, even if they don't (yet) buy the whole ball of wax.

The reason being that we are all works in progress. Take the OP, for example. He has obviously has done some serious and thoughtful analysis on several subjects. Should we shun and flame him because he doesn't agree on every little issue? Or should we "take him in" and gently help educate him? I firmly believe that if we work with people such as the OP, especially with someone who obviously IS open minded enough to think about the issues with which there is disagreement, it won't take long before we can win people like this over.

Snub, shun and flame them and we perpetuate the false left-right paradigm and alieniate those whom we should be welcoming with open arms.

As for forming coalitions with groups not in total agreement on every issue: when we do this, we amplify each other's voices. Again, who says we have to be the ones to compromise? I won't, but I sure will try to help another group fighting an issue on which we agree.

I believe Ron Paul does just that when he works with Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank on a specific issue of agreement. That doesn't diminish Ron Paul's principles; it amplifies the voices on a specific issue and ultimately, I believe anyway, more and more people will come Ron Paul's way.

And further, I'm sure his fellow congressmen have taken note of his accomplishments. Who else in recent history has put together such a diverse group of people--my meetup group had every age, religion, race, background, you name it (it still brings tears to my eyes to think about it). It was a true cross-section of America. I believe we can do the same without compromising a scintilla of principle.
Perhaps, I may be able to clarify for you. I'll give it a shot. No guarantees though.

It seems me, that we ( America ) has already had way way to much of the good ol' boy wheelin' and dealin', compromise, coalition, don't make waves, don't rock the boat, go along to get along, wink and a nod, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, etc., etc., etc. ... ad infinitum, ad nausem.

This is EXACTLY more of how we ( America ) has gotten itself into the current state of embroilment with seemingly insoluble troubles and predicaments. ( grossly understated, for kindness purposes )

Solution: Not the same old crap!

Did that help some? I hope so.

Thanks!

Have a good one. :)

soapmistress
04-26-2008, 10:13 AM
For the leftist people I've come across, it has been pretty easy to blow universal healthcare out of the water when you compare govt-run hmo-type crappy coverage to the health freedom aspects of opening up the insurance market to areas like midwives, lactation consultants, non-vaccinating, chiropractics and alternative therapies, etc.

Then the clincher is that if they kept their income tax, it would offset their lost WIC vouchers and they could always use that money to buy the organic yogurt and soy milk that they desire instead of the dairy milk and cheese and non-free-range eggs that they so detest being handed for free.

There's also a huge home-schooling, Waldorf-schooling and no-schooling faction among lefty moms that goes un-noticed. They don't want their children indoctrinated any more than the rest of us.

I think among the female 30'ish crowd, abortion seems to be the wall that the pro-choice and the pro-life camps won't climb over to reach "Camp Ron Paul, where we can all get along".

Or maybe it's just that the left doesn't realize that Ron Paul is a rockstar, and the right still thinks that rockstars are devil-worshippers. It could be as simple as that.

ronpaulhawaii
04-26-2008, 11:33 AM
For the leftist people I've come across, it has been pretty easy to blow universal healthcare out of the water when you compare govt-run hmo-type crappy coverage to the health freedom aspects of opening up the insurance market to areas like midwives, lactation consultants, non-vaccinating, chiropractics and alternative therapies, etc.

Then the clincher is that if they kept their income tax, it would offset their lost WIC vouchers and they could always use that money to buy the organic yogurt and soy milk that they desire instead of the dairy milk and cheese and non-free-range eggs that they so detest being handed for free.

There's also a huge home-schooling, Waldorf-schooling and no-schooling faction among lefty moms that goes un-noticed. They don't want their children indoctrinated any more than the rest of us.

I think among the female 30'ish crowd, abortion seems to be the wall that the pro-choice and the pro-life camps won't climb over to reach "Camp Ron Paul, where we can all get along".

Or maybe it's just that the left doesn't realize that Ron Paul is a rockstar, and the right still thinks that rockstars are devil-worshippers. It could be as simple as that.

Yes, but do we need to be blowing people out of the water. Perhaps more like navigating lifeboats to shore, picking up as many survivors from the sinking shambles of the ships of state as possible along the way, and doing some serious house-cleaning when we get there...


...

Solution: Not the same old crap!

Did that help some? I hope so.

...

No, you are not helping the vein of reasoning begun by the OP. I am suprised:rolleyes: you don't see that. You are simply attempting to engage others in a timeless and distracting debate. I kinda picture you in the dungeoun of one of them castles above...

Your avoidance of Amy's question, and the reality of RP working with Barney Frank, gives lie to one of the principal foundations of your [red herring?] position. It is sad that you feel the need to dissuade people from finding points of agreement, indeed it is a form of tyranny you practice here, forcing others to sift through your obfuscating pontifications, just to talk about something that doesn't even interest you.

So, what was that about the non-aggression principle?:)



I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy.
- Oscar Wilde (Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wilde) (http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Oscar-Wilde-(Oscar-Fingal-O'Flahertie-Wilde)/1/index.html) - Importance of Being Earnest (act II)

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 11:50 AM
Let me predict/guess here on the "compromise" coalition final position on the Federal Reserve and the income tax.

"Let's make a motion to recommend the establishment of a study group to consider a tentative preliminary committee to test the feasibility of a possible investigative team charged with forming an independent task force to further study the questions and to perhaps address some of the resulting issues and submit a thorough final "consensus" report, sometime in the future, as long as nothing else more important comes up or we become overwhelmed by a previously unforeseen event emergency situations somewhere else in the known or unknown universe, depending on a unanimous declaration of support by the entire Congress." :rolleyes: :p

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 12:58 PM
Nice editing job there Slick, on a poached post addressed to someone else. That's another one of my very favorites. Way to go, atta boy, you're sure on a roll!:p

No, you are not helping the vein of reasoning begun by the OP. I am suprised:rolleyes: you don't see that. You are simply attempting to engage others in a timeless and distracting debate. I kinda picture you in the dungeoun of one of them castles above...
Whatever it takes to turn you on and float your boat! Fantasize away, with my blessings! :D

Your avoidance of Amy's question, and the reality of RP working with Barney Frank, gives lie to one of the principal foundations of your [red herring?] position.
Would you mind repeating the question please? ( Methinks that Amy perhaps may just have put him on her counsel staff. :) ) I guess you didn't much care for nor were satisfied by my last answers to the questions either, or so it would seem. :(

It is sad that you feel the need to dissuade people from finding points of agreement, indeed it is a form of tyranny you practice here, forcing others to sift through your obfuscating pontifications, just to talk about something that doesn't even interest you.
Actually what I'm guilty of doing is merely "attempted" disagreement, I leave the tyranny to big guys, the government pros, that's their specialized area of expertise and their job. I think that you're bestowing little 'ol me with way more credit for powers and influence far beyond what could ever be reasonably established. You do realize that the job of designated scapegoat for abysmal failures, really sucks big time. BTW, I'm no shepherd wannabe. Whatsamatter, is the forum "ignore" function broken? :D

So, what was that about the non-aggression principle?:)
Man you're all over the map here, aren't you? Oh yeah, non-aggression principle, right. Pretty cool! Thanks for asking. Check it out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) I have much more info on it available only if you are truly interested, unfortunately it's upon request only. :D
Are we having any fun here yet? :D Consume some fresh pineapple for me wouldya? Pooey on the poi! :)

amy31416
04-26-2008, 01:16 PM
Truth Warrior speweth forth:


( Methinks that Amy perhaps may just have put him on her counsel staff. ) I guess you didn't much care for nor were satisfied by my last answers to the questions either, or so it would seem.

What? Methinks thou doth eateth too many paint chips.

My question was how you reconcile the fact that Ron Paul works with people very different from himself in their principles, people such as Barney Frank, Kucinich, et al and yet he magically does not fall into the category of people who compromise their principles.

But if we work together with some liberals, some religious people (RP is, I believe born-again or Baptist, btw) we are selling out, compromising our principles.

You have your high-horse, your soapbox, your pedestal, whatever--you can keep it and see how much you accomplish while looking down on us alleged sell-outs. Unless, of course, you have a way to fix everything from up there.

If that's the case, have a report on my desk by Monday morning.

Thanks.

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 01:32 PM
Truth Warrior speweth forth:



What? Methinks thou doth eateth too many paint chips.

My question was how you reconcile the fact that Ron Paul works with people very different from himself in their principles, people such as Barney Frank, Kucinich, et al and yet he magically does not fall into the category of people who compromise their principles.

But if we work together with some liberals, some religious people (RP is, I believe born-again or Baptist, btw) we are selling out, compromising our principles.

You have your high-horse, your soapbox, your pedestal, whatever--you can keep it and see how much you accomplish while looking down on us alleged sell-outs. Unless, of course, you have a way to fix everything from up there.

If that's the case, have a report on my desk by Monday morning.

Thanks.
I must have just missed the question mark in there. :D

Answer: Uh, how about he's got a politician's job and unfortunately that's just what they're far too often required to do. :rolleyes: What's your excuse?

Sorry the rest of your post was apparently irretrievably garbled in transmission somehow.

Whatever! :)

amy31416
04-26-2008, 02:11 PM
I must have just missed the question mark in there. :D

Answer: Uh, how about he's got a politician's job and unfortunately that's just what they're far too often required to do. :rolleyes: What's your excuse?

Sorry the rest of your post was apparently irretrievably garbled in transmission somehow.

Whatever! :)

I was stating the question I had asked.

I get it. Your position is that it's okay for RP to "compromise" with other politicians to try to make something happen (because he's a politician,) but it's not okay for us peons, because you object. I see the light now.

THANKS! :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 03:00 PM
I was stating the question I had asked.

I get it. Your position is that it's okay for RP to "compromise" with other politicians to try to make something happen (because he's a politician,) but it's not okay for us peons, because you object. I see the light now.

THANKS! :rolleyes:

Nope, not even close. I never said it was OK, now did I? If Ron votes for funding federal abortions that would be a sacrifice of his principles, for a very blatant and obvious example.<IMHO> What does my objection have to do with it, or for anything else for that matter?

I'd like to be able to assume that I am dealing with adult, rational, honorable, principled, personally responsible, and accountable for their actions, grown up human beings. But far too often that just is simply not the case. :( It seems most often we just get namby-pamby, wishy-washy, weenie-butt, pathetic and petulant, pouty children who just can't stand being told "NO!". SHEESH!

Turn off the dark bulb! See the light ......... only in your dreams! Get a clue!

Thanks!

Have a great day! :)

amy31416
04-26-2008, 03:27 PM
Nope, not even close. I never said it was OK, now did I? If Ron votes for funding federal abortions that would be a sacrifice of his principles, for a very blatant and obvious example.<IMHO> What does my objection have to do with it, or for anything else for that matter?

I'd like to be able to assume that I am dealing with adult, rational, honorable, principled, personally responsible, and accountable for their actions, grown up human beings. But far too often that just is simply not the case. :( It seems most often we just get namby-pamby, wishy-washy, weenie-butt, pathetic and petulant, pouty children who just can't stand being told "NO!". SHEESH!

Turn off the dark bulb! See the light ......... only in your dreams! Get a clue!

Thanks!

Have a great day! :)

How is what I'm talking about any freaking different? Abortion, ending the war, 2nd and 1st amendment, etc.--those are some of my principles, Senor Clueless. There are in fact things I won't compromise on.

You are the one who has it completely wrong. It would be compromising my principles to work with someone like yourself who is so stubborn that when he realizes he's wrong, he can't quit arguing. You are the one who's being a petulant child who isn't getting his way. It takes a big man to admit when you're wrong, you might want to try it. Now you're slowly edging toward ad hominem attacks. The last and lowest bastion of one who is losing an argument.

Enough of you, I'm off to work with some gay Buddhists.

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 03:36 PM
How is what I'm talking about any freaking different? Abortion, ending the war, 2nd and 1st amendment, etc.--those are some of my principles, Senor Clueless. There are in fact things I won't compromise on.

You are the one who has it completely wrong. It would be compromising my principles to work with someone like yourself who is so stubborn that when he realizes he's wrong, he can't quit arguing. You are the one who's being a petulant child who isn't getting his way. It takes a big man to admit when you're wrong, you might want to try it. Now you're slowly edging toward ad hominem attacks. The last and lowest bastion of one who is losing an argument.

Enough of you, I'm off to work with some gay Buddhists.

ad hominems duly noted! :D

Thanks!

ronpaulhawaii
04-26-2008, 04:00 PM
Nope, not even close. I never said it was OK, now did I? If Ron votes for funding federal abortions that would be a sacrifice of his principles, for a very blatant and obvious example.<IMHO> What does my objection have to do with it, or for anything else for that matter?

Strawman - yawn...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-files-1)



I'd like to be able to assume that I am dealing with adult, rational, honorable, principled, personally responsible, and accountable for their actions, grown up human beings. But far too often that just is simply not the case. :( It seems most often we just get namby-pamby, wishy-washy, weenie-butt, pathetic and petulant, pouty children who just can't stand being told "NO!". SHEESH!

Turn off the dark bulb! See the light ......... only in your dreams! Get a clue!

Thanks!

Have a great day! :)

Ad-Hominem - yawn...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack) an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 04:04 PM
So much for Peace and Freedom. Now about that Prosperity? :D

Truth Warrior
04-26-2008, 05:57 PM
Strawman - yawn...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-files-1)




Ad-Hominem - yawn...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack) an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context :D - yawn ...

ronpaulhawaii
04-26-2008, 06:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context :D - yawn ...

:rolleyes:

:p

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/Strawman.jpg

:)

Truth Warrior
04-27-2008, 04:31 AM
:rolleyes:

:p

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/Strawman.jpg

:)
Coming from a moderator, without additional clarification, I'll assume that the intention there, is to be taken as a thinly veiled symbolic threat. Noted. :(

BTW, and FYI ....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moderator

I guess that Lord Acton is validated yet once again and proven correct.

Truth Warrior
04-27-2008, 06:10 AM
Peace and Freedom Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Freedom_Party

The Peace and Freedom Party
The Peace and Freedom Party is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality. We represent the working class, those without capital in a capitalist society. We organize toward a world where cooperation replaces competition, a world where all people are well fed, clothed and housed; where all women and men have equal status; where all individuals may freely endeavor to fulfill their own talents and desires; a world of freedom and peace where every community retains its cultural integrity and lives with all others in harmony.
http://peaceandfreedom.org/home/

Where have I heard that collectivist BS before? Here, pull the other one too. :D

Gee, no clash on any of those old pesky principles anywhere in there, maybe we can all just play nice and work together on some common issues. :rolleyes:

Yeah right, you betcha! :p We're about Right and Wrong, my foot. And perhaps a merger between the PFP and the LP could even be arranged somehow too. No problemo!

In the name and spirit of compromise and coalition, perhaps Ron should just cave in and go ahead and endorse and vote for McCain too. :rolleyes: He is a brother Republican after all. :D

How else are we ever possibly going to get anything done? :rolleyes: Let's see what are our choices here? Do we want a bigger more tyrannical Federal government or merely a bigger more tyrannical Federal government? Hmm, real tough choice there, as usual. PASS!

Gee, UN, Environment, Energy ...... what could the most probable party platform and agenda items be on those beauties? < LOL ! >

Clues for sale! Get 'em right here! "If you go to bed with the dogs, don't be too surprised when you wake up with fleas."

JS4Pat
04-27-2008, 06:43 AM
When I list it out like this, it just kills me that more liberals aren't jumping aboard this freedom train. :D

Not as much as it kills me that more right-wing conservatives aren't jumping aboard this freedom train. :D

liberteebell
04-27-2008, 09:29 AM
Perhaps, I may be able to clarify for you. I'll give it a shot. No guarantees though.

It seems me, that we ( America ) has already had way way to much of the good ol' boy wheelin' and dealin', compromise, coalition, don't make waves, don't rock the boat, go along to get along, wink and a nod, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, etc., etc., etc. ... ad infinitum, ad nausem.

This is EXACTLY more of how we ( America ) has gotten itself into the current state of embroilment with seemingly insoluble troubles and predicaments. ( grossly understated, for kindness purposes )

Solution: Not the same old crap!

Did that help some? I hope so.

Thanks!

Have a good one. :)


We're in 100% agreement on this. But from your posts, you're either making a giant leap that we're the ones who have to compromise our principles if we work with others not in total agreement with us; that we have to give something up to get something we want or that it's either black or white: either our way 100% or the highway.

The only thing black and white is the right and wrong thing. Even so, sometimes there's a path to getting there for the "unenlightened".

Were you lucky enough to have been raised by parents who instilled all this knowledge in you at a very early age? I'd hazard a guess that most of us were not, and that most of us suffered from publik skool brainwashing and/or effects from the old media.

I came to this way of thinking rather late in life, and I didn't have an epiphany all in one day. And it pretty much began with a single issue: taxes. It took time, it took hearing libertarians speak and argue their positions, it took lots of reading and discovering Ron Paul :cool:

In fact, it was all the other side's complete refusal to consider the rationality of any argument made by a libertarian/objectivist/constitutionalist that made me research more on those positions. They made logical and rational sense. The others just screeched and spewed what they knew, mostly that all republicans=good, all democrats or liberals=bad. They refused to think outside the box.

Sure, the OP is asking us to compromise (which I won't) but I believe that if someone like him is willing to work with us non-compromisers on points of agreement, he (and others) will eventually completely come to our side just because they will see the logical sense in the "entire package". I base this on my life experience and the experiences I've had convincing many other people from all sides of the political spectrum. I usually work from a single issue point of agreement and go from there. I've personally changed a LOT of minds this way and I've swayed people on the most contentious of issues, abortion included. Heck, I completely changed one of my sisters' way of thinking by arguing for private property rights on a local smoking ban. She'd just never heard anyone present it like that (of course not!).

I believe amy and rphawaii are saying the same things; it's more about method than it is about compromising principles.

Ever heard of incrementalism? The Boiling Frog Principle? That's what got us where we are. Why can't we use those same tactics to get where we want to be?

A couple of examples to illustrate:

Ron Paul has stated that he would sign the FairTax if it came across his desk even though his stated principles are to get rid of the income tax and abolish the IRS (Amen! But this concept is far too radical for most to wrap their minds around). I think Ron Paul thinks the FairTax is a step in the right direction, as do I, even if it doesn't reach the final goal. Do you think that's compromising principles?

Locally, a number of people from disparate groups are working together to fight RealID in our state, from a bunch of Ron Paul supporters to the John Birch Society, several political parties, Christian groups, 911 Truthers and RKBA activists have formed a coalition against Real ID. How is anyone compromising their principles working towards a cause that affects liberty?

A number of us have decided to work within the republican party to effect change towards liberty. Believe me, not being a joiner in the first place, this was difficult for me to do, and I did consider whether I was compromising my own principles in joining the repubs. I realize, however, that working within the republican party *may* be the best way to effect the most dramatic change more quickly, simply because of the ingrained two party system. I am willing to give it the good ol' college try. Am I compromising my principles by joining them and bringing them to our side? Is Ron Paul compromising his principles by staying within the party?

Sitting up on a principled high-horse looking down at anyone who doesn't completely agree on every single thing is counter productive to changing hearts and minds. That kind of "imperialistic" thinking is what turns people off and away from a new way of thinking. The OP has already come a long, long way. It wouldn't take much to convince him to "see the light" on the issues of disagreement.

Just remember this though: honey attracts more flies than vinegar.

Truth Warrior
04-27-2008, 10:04 AM
We're in 100% agreement on this. But from your posts, you're either making a giant leap that we're the ones who have to compromise our principles if we work with others not in total agreement with us; that we have to give something up to get something we want or that it's either black or white: either our way 100% or the highway.

The only thing black and white is the right and wrong thing. Even so, sometimes there's a path to getting there for the "unenlightened".

Were you lucky enough to have been raised by parents who instilled all this knowledge in you at a very early age? I'd hazard a guess that most of us were not, and that most of us suffered from publik skool brainwashing and/or effects from the old media.

I came to this way of thinking rather late in life, and I didn't have an epiphany all in one day. And it pretty much began with a single issue: taxes. It took time, it took hearing libertarians speak and argue their positions, it took lots of reading and discovering Ron Paul :cool:

In fact, it was all the other side's complete refusal to consider the rationality of any argument made by a libertarian/objectivist/constitutionalist that made me research more on those positions. They made logical and rational sense. The others just screeched and spewed what they knew, mostly that all republicans=good, all democrats or liberals=bad. They refused to think outside the box.

Sure, the OP is asking us to compromise (which I won't) but I believe that if someone like him is willing to work with us non-compromisers on points of agreement, he (and others) will eventually completely come to our side just because they will see the logical sense in the "entire package". I base this on my life experience and the experiences I've had convincing many other people from all sides of the political spectrum. I usually work from a single issue point of agreement and go from there. I've personally changed a LOT of minds this way and I've swayed people on the most contentious of issues, abortion included. Heck, I completely changed one of my sisters' way of thinking by arguing for private property rights on a local smoking ban. She'd just never heard anyone present it like that (of course not!).

I believe amy and rphawaii are saying the same things; it's more about method than it is about compromising principles.

Ever heard of incrementalism? The Boiling Frog Principle? That's what got us where we are. Why can't we use those same tactics to get where we want to be?

A couple of examples to illustrate:

Ron Paul has stated that he would sign the FairTax if it came across his desk even though his stated principles are to get rid of the income tax and abolish the IRS (Amen! But this concept is far too radical for most to wrap their minds around). I think Ron Paul thinks the FairTax is a step in the right direction, as do I, even if it doesn't reach the final goal. Do you think that's compromising principles?

Locally, a number of people from disparate groups are working together to fight RealID in our state, from a bunch of Ron Paul supporters to the John Birch Society, several political parties, Christian groups, 911 Truthers and RKBA activists have formed a coalition against Real ID. How is anyone compromising their principles working towards a cause that affects liberty?

A number of us have decided to work within the republican party to effect change towards liberty. Believe me, not being a joiner in the first place, this was difficult for me to do, and I did consider whether I was compromising my own principles in joining the repubs. I realize, however, that working within the republican party *may* be the best way to effect the most dramatic change more quickly, simply because of the ingrained two party system. I am willing to give it the good ol' college try. Am I compromising my principles by joining them and bringing them to our side? Is Ron Paul compromising his principles by staying within the party?

Sitting up on a principled high-horse looking down at anyone who doesn't completely agree on every single thing is counter productive to changing hearts and minds. That kind of "imperialistic" thinking is what turns people off and away from a new way of thinking. The OP has already come a long, long way. It wouldn't take much to convince him to "see the light" on the issues of disagreement.

Just remember this though: honey attracts more flies than vinegar.

The right has been on the losing end of a reactionary, defensive rear guard action and effort for nigh on to a century now. They just don't seem to ever catch on, until too late, about when they're being conned, nor about the true nature of the multiple enemies of individual freedom.

There are several paths up the mountain and some arrive at the top sooner than others, for any variety of reasons.

Personally, I have much less that zero interest in attracting flies, I'll gladly delegate my part of the "opportunities" to you though, if you wish to further pursue it. :D My activist optimistic recruiting efforts days lie far far in the past.

Good luck and happy mountain climbing! Take the "red pill", it really helps with the clarity of the vision thing.<IMHO>

Thanks! :)

liberteebell
04-27-2008, 11:04 AM
The right has been on the losing end of a reactionary, defensive rear guard action and effort for nigh on to a century now. They just don't seem to ever catch on, until too late, about when they're being conned, nor about the true nature of the multiple enemies of individual freedom.

There are several paths up the mountain and some arrive at the top sooner than others, for any variety of reasons.

Personally, I have much less that zero interest in attracting flies, I'll gladly delegate my part of the "opportunities" to you though, if you wish to further pursue it. :D My activist optimistic recruiting efforts days lie far far in the past.

Good luck and happy mountain climbing! Take the "red pill", it really helps with the clarity of the vision thing.<IMHO>

Thanks! :)

OK, I guess I am really just dense. I don't understand your obscure message. I guess my "red pill" wasn't red enough...:confused: I really don't think I have any illusions as to the true nature of the multiple enemies of individual freedom. But maybe you know something I don't yet know. Please do share!

What path up the mountain do you suggest? Is it hopeless? Should we all just give up? Should we take up arms and effect a bloddy revolution? Should we just sit back and wait until all hell breaks loose and we're all in detention camps so we can smugly say, "I told you so"?

Truth Warrior
04-27-2008, 11:19 AM
OK, I guess I am really just dense. I don't understand your obscure message. I guess my "red pill" wasn't red enough...:confused: I really don't think I have any illusions as to the true nature of the multiple enemies of individual freedom. But maybe you know something I don't yet know. Please do share!

What path up the mountain do you suggest? Is it hopeless? Should we all just give up? Should we take up arms and effect a bloddy revolution? Should we just sit back and wait until all hell breaks loose and we're all in detention camps so we can smugly say, "I told you so"?

Sure, glad to help.

You may want to consider continuing the trek with one or more of these:
http://www.voluntaryist.com/
http://www.voluntaryist.com/links.php

Happy trails! :)

liberteebell
04-27-2008, 11:44 AM
Sure, glad to help.

You may want to consider continuing the trek with one or more of these:
http://www.voluntaryist.com/
http://www.voluntaryist.com/links.php

Happy trails! :)


Ahhh, TW, thank you for these links!

I have never seen this before. It's a lot to read and I will read it but a brief scan of a couple of pages says to me that the voluntaryists are thinking way outside the box and "getting off the grid". I have actually been working on a few of those things in my own life in a small way without knowing that there is something in existence that explains it.

Thus, you have SO proven my point: see what happens when someone "hangs out" with someone with a new way of thinking???? I would NEVER have made this leap 11 or so years ago; now, because of the process, the revolution between my ears, I'm ALL ears. :D

And I understand the conundrum that working within The System implies that the system is legitimate. That's why I've never been a joiner of political groups in the first place. But how 'bout, for the moment, I voluntarily do my thing in order to help change minds and wake people up?

Truth Warrior
04-27-2008, 12:11 PM
Ahhh, TW, thank you for these links!

I have never seen this before. It's a lot to read and I will read it but a brief scan of a couple of pages says to me that the voluntaryists are thinking way outside the box and "getting off the grid". I have actually been working on a few of those things in my own life in a small way without knowing that there is something in existence that explains it.

Thus, you have SO proven my point: see what happens when someone "hangs out" with someone with a new way of thinking???? I would NEVER have made this leap 11 or so years ago; now, because of the process, the revolution between my ears, I'm ALL ears. :D

And I understand the conundrum that working within The System implies that the system is legitimate. That's why I've never been a joiner of political groups in the first place. But how 'bout, for the moment, I voluntarily do my thing in order to help change minds and wake people up?
"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

The guy that started The Voluntaryist and I, shared the same libertarian mentor, now deceased unfortunately.

The "red pill" analogy is from "The Matrix", of course. I still can't believe that it took me 3 viewings for it to finally "click" for me. :D I must have slowed down just a tad in my senior years. :) If it hasn't "clicked" for you yet, please watch it again. Focus especially, on the whole Morpheus/Neo intro scene. Yes, the red pill will get you waaaaay outside the box.

Attempted mind changing of others, will teach you a whole lot about yourself, perhaps more than you want to know, I'd say, go for it.

Free yourself first!

Enjoy!

CUnknown
04-28-2008, 04:32 PM
Wow, I am so glad for this discussion! You guys rock! :)

I've been thinking about it some, too, and I think now that asking people to compromise is sort of the wrong word for it. It's not really compromising -- people shouldn't be watering down their beliefs. One of the things that makes the Ron Paul movement so great is that we stick to our guns, we know what we think is best for us and for America, and are unwilling to compromise on what we believe in. I don't want that to change!

So, I'm not asking for compromise.

I'm not even sure what the right word for it is. I guess just joining together is what I mean. Unifying.

Those on the Left tend to view those on the Right, even Ron Paul people, as the enemy. And even Ron Paul conservatives tend to view Liberals as the enemy -- they are called "collectivists" or "socialists" as a pejorative.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as odd, when so many of the objectives we on the Left and we on the Right are trying to acheive are exactly the same? (No more war, restore Civil Liberties, see first post for more). Why do we consider each other enemies when, if we worked together, we could multiply our forces and each achieve so much more of what we both want?

I personally put myself right in-between both camps. I don't agree with liberals on everything, I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything. I don't think that we should be trying to change each other's minds.

I think we should be trying to cultivate a respect for the other side's viewpoint. I think you can respect people's opinions, even if you don't agree with them necessarily.

Once we do that, then we can form a coalition. Anything that the Left and Right sides of this coalition don't agree with, we will have to keep the status quo for. Which won't sit well with many people on both sides, but once we form this coalition, we will have far more political power than either side could have seperately.

Imagine a Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity Coalition composed of socialists, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, paleocons, etc. etc... who know that they all have a common enemy -- I call him "The Man!" Until we've taken the power back for the PEOPLE, until we have defeated The Man, it doesn't matter what we disagree on. We need to agree to disagree until we have succeeded.

Because, why argue about socialized medicine? Why? Why argue about the UN? The socialists will never have their socialized medicine (single-payer, Medicare for all)-- they can't do it. There's too much resistance by the "medical-industrial complex." It's not happening.

And, let's face it, the US is not pulling out of the UN anytime soon. It's just not happening. So why argue with liberals about it?

These things that the Left and Right disagree on, are things that neither one can actually do anyway (in a reasonable time-frame). So, let's agree to disagree for now, and put our efforts towards doing things that we can do together -- like restore Civil Liberties. Like end the American Empire. Like break the 2-party system.

I believe that the Coalition, with a lot of work and preparation, could get maybe 15-20% of the general election vote nearly every election cycle. If everyone (all Ron Paul people, all Nader people, all Greens, all Libertarians, etc.) was on board that is.

I know that Perot got that % of the vote and didn't really change anything. But, if he had stuck around, he could have. The key will be committment and sticking around. I think the Ron Paul movement has that. I think the Ron Paul movement should be the nucleus for this Coalition. But we need to bring in other people to make it work, as many people as possible.

Once we're getting 15-20% of the vote routinely, the 2-party system is dead. We just killed it. We would get invited to the debates. We would get real consideration from millions of voters. And you know what? People would flock to us, because our message is obviously better than the Republicrats'.

So, we get real political power. Then what? Well then we'd probably break apart, the Greens would go one way (UN, socialized medicine, yay!!) and the Libertarians would go another (UN, booo! Socialized medicine, you suck!!).

So, what's the point you say? We would have accomplished so much, even if/when we break apart. I think the Repubs and Dems would truely form the Republicrat party -- they'd really form one party. And the Libertarians and the Greens would be nearly on equal footing with them as 3 viable parties.

And we can go back to arguing about the UN, healthcare, global warming, whatever.. Because at this point, the people would have gained their power back, and all that is left is deciding what we wanted to do with that power. That would be the time to have arguments and debates, but not now.

QUICK SUMMARY

Anti-Establishment Liberals and Conservatives disagree on a lot, sure, but they agree on a lot too! They have common enemies: neo-liberals and neo-conservatives. Our common enemies currently hold power. Until we gain power for ourselves, there is no point in arguing about the things we disagree on. Let's focus on what we agree on instead.

Not arguing is not the same as compromising. Let's respect each other and fight the real enemies instead, until we gain power. Then we can fight each other. :)

ronpaulhawaii
04-28-2008, 04:40 PM
...

The key will be committment and sticking around. I think the Ron Paul movement has that. I think the Ron Paul movement should be the nucleus for this Coalition. But we need to bring in other people to make it work, as many people as possible.

Once we're getting 15-20% of the vote routinely, the 2-party system is dead. We just killed it. We would get invited to the debates. We would get real consideration from millions of voters. And you know what? People would flock to us, because our message is obviously better than the Republicrats'.

So, we get real political power. Then what? Well then we'd probably break apart, the Greens would go one way (UN, socialized medicine, yay!!) and the Libertarians would go another (UN, booo! Socialized medicine, you suck!!).

So, what's the point you say? We would have accomplished so much, even if/when we break apart. I think the Repubs and Dems would truely form the Republicrat party -- they'd really form one party. And the Libertarians and the Greens would be nearly on equal footing with them as 3 viable parties.

And we can go back to arguing about the UN, healthcare, global warming, whatever.. Because at this point, the people would have gained their power back, and all that is left is deciding what we wanted to do with that power. That would be the time to have arguments and debates, but not now.

QUICK SUMMARY

Anti-Establishment Liberals and Conservatives disagree on a lot, sure, but they agree on a lot too! They have common enemies: neo-liberals and neo-conservatives. Our common enemies currently hold power. Until we gain power for ourselves, there is no point in arguing about the things we disagree on. Let's focus on what we agree on instead.

Not arguing is not the same as compromising. Let's respect each other and fight the real enemies instead, until we gain power. Then we can fight each other. :)

+2008

Truth Warrior
04-28-2008, 04:50 PM
Then just stop voting for "The Man" ( "Big Brother" ). Doesn't seem like it really takes any type of rocket science to me.

Truth Warrior
04-29-2008, 04:06 AM
IF the US federal government was just one individual ( "The Man" ), nobody would have anything to do with him.


"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell