An open letter to Ron Paul supporters

[georgia_tech_swagger]

[Note: I believe, like Ronald Reagan, that libertarianism is the very soul of conservatism and the Republican Party. I such I use them interchangeably in this post.]

Perfection is almost always unattainable. That's why so many of us who were apathetic or not politically engaged supported Ron. His voting record was spotless for decades. Even on major issues where you or I disagree with Ron (abortion for me), we admire the fact that he has stood by his position unwaveringly. We haven't seen a Republican with his principles and voting record probably since Robert Taft. Even Reagan and Goldwater don't have such illustrious records in government.

As such, it's foolish to use Ron Paul as the litmus test for every single person running. BJ Lawson doesn't even have a legislative record ... yet we all back him. Before this election cycle, I was largely ignorant on the Federal Reserve and figured that if everybody in DC and the news gushed over Greenspan, he and the Fed must be doing good work for our country. I didn't see anybody holding that against me when I was working for Paul's campaign. Would you hold it against me if I ran for office? What if I said that, like most Americans, I supported the Iraq War at the beginning, and only wanted an open declaration in accordance with the Constitution? "They must have those WMDs the DoD keeps hammering on about ... and I don't want them falling into the wrong hands ... so let's go get 'em." Would you hold THAT against me if I ran for office?

Assuming you wouldn't hold that against me, then why are so many of you being critical of Bob Barr? Barr talks the talk, is a more articulate speaker than Paul, and has the added bonus of instant credibility with some Republicans. In the first comprehensive election poll (46,000 person survey by Zogby) Barr was at 6% nationally. Realize for a second that 6% is on par with Ron Paul's national popular vote percentage throughout the primaries, and is the best a third party has ever done this early, except for Perot in 1992. Barr is just 4% away from being in the debates ... and if he makes it into the debates we'll see a feeding frenzy as that 85% dissatisfied public finally gets to hear a message and a platform offering real solutions to our problems. One rooted in deeply American, deeply conservative, and deeply libertarian principles.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama will win. And if you don't think so, you clearly don't know anybody who manned polling places in the deep South like I do. Blacks who had never voted before turned out in easy all time record numbers all over the state of SC to vote for Obama. It's not racist ... it's a simple observational fact. The Democrat primary in SC had higher turnout than the Republican primary. And we're talking SC -- about as big of a GOP state there is. And guess what -- all those people voting for Obama that rarely or never vote? They don't get polled because of that. Obama's strength is far greater than just what his polling lead shows. Combined with McCain being a mirror image of the most unpopular President in the history of the United States ... and I think you can see where this is going. This brings up two important points:

1) While the general electorate finds Obama light years better than McCain, BOTH McCain and Obama have less than a 50% favorable rating in that same Zogby survey. It's an open invitation for a third party to come in and beat up on unpopular parties and unpopular candidates of those parties.

2) At the rate Republicans are falling, they will soon HAVE to make platform changes or risk being replaced by another party. You can expect the Dems to pickup many Senate and House seats -- and have a near supermajority. I think a total electoral obliteration of McCain -- caused in part by Barr finishing with '92 Perot like numbers or better -- would put a nice exclamation point to the writing on the wall for the current GOP platform of neoconservatism. While I consider myself Republican (and little L libertarian), the Libertarian Party is my hedge bet against neoconservatives destroying the GOP. I wouldn't shed a tear if the Libertarian Party replaced the Republican Party.

Please realize that Barr already has sufficient support to win federal funds for the Libertarian Party, as well as automatic ballot access in some areas. We're talking about a chance to break the two party system and send a powerful message in addition to the message of the R[evol]ution: "Either you start acting Republican again GOP, or you will be replaced." Take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to break through with a third party, and send that message and advance the principles and platform behind the R[evol]ution. If you refuse to simply because Barr is guilty of what I and nearly everybody else here is guilty of (not having a principled record on par with Ron Paul's), you're not helping the R[evol]ution, you're hurting it. You may as well call yourself a Sunshine Patriot -- only coming out to fight when you are handed perfection.

- georgia_tech_swagger
Volunteer County Coordinator, Ron Paul 2008 PCC
GOP Precinct Committeeman

[acptulsa]

Damn the man! Why won't he run as an independent?

I know why. So there's no excuse for the way they shut him out and try to silence him. Did you see how nervous he made TPTB in the debates and how much they tried to talk over him and convince people he's a kook?

I've seen that expression that McCain wore before. When you tell a psycho he's dead wrong about something, first he tries to intimidate you. If and when that fails, he starts rolling his eyes at everything you say to see if he can get anyone else there on his side and against you. Never, ever fails. And that smug expression of McCains is exactly what it looks like.

Dubya's approval ratings are overshadowed in their historic pitifulness only by those of Congress. If you think this fight's over, you just aren't paying attention! We have a nation to save--and no one since the Revolution has been in a better position to do it! We have them scared. We wouldn't if we weren't doing something right. Fight on!

[runningdiz]

The presidency is not that important get over it. Support Lawson!!!

[georgia_tech_swagger]

Ah -- I see we have some Baldwin supporters lurking about with the instant 1 star rating fest. :D

[georgia_tech_swagger]

The presidency is not that important get over it. Support Lawson!!!

Are you kidding? The Executive Branch is unquestionably where most of the power is in DC now.

[runningdiz]

Are you kidding? The Executive Branch is unquestionably where most of the power is in DC now.

ok support Lawson.

[acptulsa]

The presidency is not that important get over it. Support Lawson!!!

Yes, support Lawson--and any others you can find that are worth it.

Nonetheless, Teddy Roosevelt was right about one thing. The Presidency is a bully pulpit. Hell, even the "stump" podiums along the road to the White House are bully pulpits! So, in an effort to make the biggest possible waves, the presidency and the presidential election have a place of honor and importance...

...and we must make hay while the sun shines. Won't be back out for four years.

[georgia_tech_swagger]

Yes, support Lawson--and any others you can find that are worth it.

Nonetheless, Teddy Roosevelt was right about one thing. The Presidency is a bully pulpit. Hell, even the "stump" podiums along the road to the White House are bully pulpits! So, in an effort to make the biggest possible waves, the presidency and the presidential election have a place of honor and importance...

...and we must make hay while the sun shines. Won't be back out for four years.

This post contains unusually high amounts of win.

[SeanEdwards]

I don't think the dems or repub pres candidates will share a stage with any third party candidates, regardless of any polling numbers. They have no reason to do so.

I think the only serious way to expand the influence of the third parties is through elections other than President. The third parties can't hope to leapfrog from nothing into the highest office in the land. They've got to work on taking congressional seats, and state offices first. Then they can build up the influence needed to seriously compete for the white house.

[Bobster]

Yes, support Lawson--and any others you can find that are worth it.

Nonetheless, Teddy Roosevelt was right about one thing. The Presidency is a bully pulpit. Hell, even the "stump" podiums along the road to the White House are bully pulpits! So, in an effort to make the biggest possible waves, the presidency and the presidential election have a place of honor and importance...

...and we must make hay while the sun shines. Won't be back out for four years.
Win.


I don't think the dems or repub pres candidates will share a stage with any third party candidates, regardless of any polling numbers. They have no reason to do so.

I think the only serious way to expand the influence of the third parties is through elections other than President. The third parties can't hope to leapfrog from nothing into the highest office in the land. They've got to work on taking congressional seats, and state offices first. Then they can build up the influence needed to seriously compete for the white house.
The thing is, just because you're supporting Congressional candidates doesn't mean you can't support Barr. I'd like to see a Libertarian-minded candidate on the stage with the two big parties. If nothing else, it could create waves and set us up for a nice surprise in the elections between now and 2012.

[runningdiz]

Win.


The thing is, just because you're supporting Congressional candidates doesn't mean you can't support Barr. I'd like to see a Libertarian-minded candidate on the stage with the two big parties. If nothing else, it could create waves and set us up for a nice surprise in the elections between now and 2012.

Well he is not creating waves, hate to break it to you, and he wont be on stage with the two big parties.

[lisajames96]

Win.


The thing is, just because you're supporting Congressional candidates doesn't mean you can't support Barr. I'd like to see a Libertarian-minded candidate on the stage with the two big parties. If nothing else, it could create waves and set us up for a nice surprise in the elections between now and 2012.

Does Bob Barr have an official website(not public forum) where we can read up on issues he is concerned about changing or protecting?

[Bobster]

Well he is not creating waves, hate to break it to you, and he wont be on stage with the two big parties.
Alright, you've convinced me to just sit around and do nothing instead. Hope everything turns out ok!


Does Bob Barr have an official website(not public forum) where we can read up on issues he is concerned about changing or protecting?
Yes, here:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

[georgia_tech_swagger]

Well he is not creating waves, hate to break it to you, and he wont be on stage with the two big parties.

Oh the irony!

And how many times were you told Ron Paul was a kook and would never win. I assume you packed up and went home after George S. on ABC said "that's not gonna happen."

[Barney]

If a Congressman is not accountable to his voting record, then what exactly is he accountable for? His latest speech? Dubya made some nice speeches in 2000. Reagan said a lot of nice things too.

No one's looking for perfection, just some plausibility and honesty.

Lawson is plausible. Barr is a washed up opportunist IMHO.

[Bobster]

Barr is a washed up opportunist IMHO.

I'd agree with that somewhat. I would take him over McCain and Obama, but the whole point is to at least get him into the debate. He'll espouse Libertarian ideals there at least. It could help us in the future.

[lisajames96]

Alright, you've convinced me to just sit around and do nothing instead. Hope everything turns out ok!


Yes, here:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

Thanks Bobster that was a pretty good read. Impressed with Barr's stances.

Question, why do any of the candidates feel we need a federal(national) tax(sales, consumption, etc.)? Maybe I don't understand something, happens alot:)...
Are these proposed taxes going to be levied and controlled by each state and then paid to the federal gov't? Or are these taxes that will be levied and controlled by the federal govt(like federal income tax) and paid directly...
I'm asking because if it's the latter, then is just seems like an out of the frying pan into the fire type thing(no individual state sovereignty, federal bureacracy)...thanks

[SeanEdwards]

I'd agree with that somewhat. I would take him over McCain and Obama, but the whole point is to at least get him into the debate. He'll espouse Libertarian ideals there at least. It could help us in the future.

Why do you imagine that Barr will ever get in a debate with McLame and Obomba?

Has a Libertarian party candidate EVER shared a stage with the dem and repub candidates? Why should this go round be any different?

[SovereignMN]

The thing about Barr is that he's made his entire living off EXPANDING the federal government. He worked for the CIA, then he becomes a US Attorney, then a govt expanding Congressman. All of these jobs he's had his goal has been to expand the reach and authority of the feds.

Maybe he really has converted. Maybe not. I'm not willing to find out because I know that Baldwin has been more consistent in his stances over the years. He's been more outspoken for Paul. For me he is the much more attractive alternative.

[Bobster]

Why do you imagine that Barr will ever get in a debate with McLame and Obomba?

Has a Libertarian party candidate EVER shared a stage with the dem and repub candidates? Why should this go round be any different?
Are you sure you supported the "long shot" candidate Ron Paul? No, it hasn't happened in the past. With that kind of attitude, it never will.

It's like the whole fallacy of "I won't vote for so-and-so because he can't win." So-and-so can't win because people won't vote for him because he can't win because people won't vote for him etc.

Seriously, I'd like to have a Libertarian or CP candidate on the stage with the Reps and Dems. Barr is at 6% nationally according to Zogby. Perot was at 7% this time in '92 where he shook things up quite a bit.

All I'm saying is that it'd be nice to have a different voice than the two major parties, and Barr has a better chance of it than Baldwin(although Baldwin is a better candidate in my mind).

[Barney]

I'd agree with that somewhat. I would take him over McCain and Obama, but the whole point is to at least get him into the debate. He'll espouse Libertarian ideals there at least. It could help us in the future.

Don't underestimate the importance of the messenger. Even if he manages to get on stage, he'll be shredded to pieces just like Kerry when he voted for it before he voted against it. And Barr was "for it before he was against it" on almost everything to nab the Libertarian ticket.

When Dr Paul claimed he was the most conservative member on stage, no one dared to challenge him. And they resorted to innuendo and asinine cackling. With Barr, there's a plethora of substantive targets. He's just not plausible.

[SeanEdwards]

Are you sure you supported the "long shot" candidate Ron Paul? No, it hasn't happened in the past. With that kind of attitude, it never will.

It's like the whole fallacy of "I won't vote for so-and-so because he can't win." So-and-so can't win because people won't vote for him because he can't win because people won't vote for him etc.

Seriously, I'd like to have a Libertarian or CP candidate on the stage with the Reps and Dems. Barr is at 6% nationally according to Zogby. Perot was at 7% this time in '92 where he shook things up quite a bit.

All I'm saying is that it'd be nice to have a different voice than the two major parties, and Barr has a better chance of it than Baldwin(although Baldwin is a better candidate in my mind).

Yeah of course it would be nice to have a fair political process where lesser parties were allowed to compete. But wish in one and hand, and spit in the other, and see which fills up first.

This is why Paul was competing for the GOP nomination. He said it himself. The system is rigged. You're acting like if you just wish really hard, that the guys holding the keys to the kingdom will be moved by your passion to let you in on the game. They won't. They don't give a damn about you, what you want, or the Libertarian party. They are the kings of the hill, and they aren't going to meekly allow any competitors to share their lofty position.

The only serious method of building the third parties is by winning local elections, and maybe congressional seats. You can't build a party by placing your bets on winning the political superbowl of the presidency. That's like planning your retirement around buying lottery tickets. It doesn't work.

And don't even try to blame me for this wretched state of affairs. I'm just the messenger.

[georgia_tech_swagger]

Yeah of course it would be nice to have a fair political process where lesser parties were allowed to compete. But wish in one and hand, and spit in the other, and see which fills up first.

This is why Paul was competing for the GOP nomination. He said it himself. The system is rigged. You're acting like if you just wish really hard, that the guys holding the keys to the kingdom will be moved by your passion to let you in on the game. They won't. They don't give a damn about you, what you want, or the Libertarian party. They are the kings of the hill, and they aren't going to meekly allow any competitors to share their lofty position.

The only serious of building the third parties is by winning local elections, and maybe congressional seats. You can't build a party by placing your bets on winning the political superbowl of the presidency. That's like planning your retirement around buying lottery tickets. It doesn't work.

And don't even try to blame me for this wretched state of affairs. I'm just the messenger.

Actually, it's the best way to advance the platform. If your party has 1% of registered voters ... in a nationwide contest you can muster enough manpower and money to do serious campaiging. If you, on the otherhand, are running for State House ... you'll have virtually no cash, and a FARRRRRRRRRR harder time getting media coverage. Quick -- name the last 3 Libertarian candidates for your US Senator. Bet you can't.

[SeanEdwards]

Actually, it's the best way to advance the platform. If your party has 1% of registered voters ... in a nationwide contest you can muster enough manpower and money to do serious campaiging. If you, on the otherhand, are running for State House ... you'll have virtually no cash, and a FARRRRRRRRRR harder time getting media coverage. Quick -- name the last 3 Libertarian candidates for your US Senator. Bet you can't.

How can you do serious campaigning, when everyone knows your candidate has no hope of winning?

At least in a local race it's theoretically possible to win. And Paul is the perfect example! He gets huge funding from Libertarian minded folks from around the country to support his congressional office election campaigns. Then, he gets to use his position to increase the influence and spread the message of libertarian ideals. Paul has done more to advance the libertarian agenda from his GOP congressional seat than the past 30 years of Libertarian party buffoonery.

Nobody cares who the Libertarian party nominates for president. They're a joke. Losers. Paul has showed the way to advance a constitutionalist agenda, and yet you still don't get it. I don't know what else to say. A vote for Barr, or McKinney, or Baldwin, or whoever the American Communists nominate is a WASTED vote. You might as well stay home. You are abdicating any ability to influence the game by backing those losers for president. Your vote will go directly into the round file.

[Chiznaddy]

My biggest reason I will not vote for Barr = Wayne Allen Root.

[Bobster]

How can you do serious campaigning, when everyone knows your candidate has no hope of winning?

At least in a local race it's theoretically possible to win. And Paul is the perfect example! He gets huge funding from Libertarian minded folks from around the country to support his congressional office election campaigns. Then, he gets to use his position to increase the influence and spread the message of libertarian ideals. Paul has done more to advance the libertarian agenda from his GOP congressional seat than the past 30 years of Libertarian party buffoonery.

Nobody cares who the Libertarian party nominates for president. They're a joke. Losers. Paul has showed the way to advance a constitutionalist agenda, and yet you still don't get it. I don't know what else to say. A vote for Barr, or McKinney, or Baldwin, or whoever the American Communists nominate is a WASTED vote. You might as well stay home. You are abdicating any ability to influence the game by backing those losers for president. Your vote will go directly into the round file.

Then I have to know: Who are you voting for?

[SeanEdwards]

Then I have to know: Who are you voting for?

I'm voting for whoever has a realistic chance of beating McCain. Stuffing McCain is the only good thing I can see coming out of the presidential election. And I'll most likely vote a straight Libertarian ticket for any other office on the ballot.

[constituent]

1) [Note: I believe, like Ronald Reagan, that libertarianism is the very soul of conservatism and the Republican Party. I such I use them interchangeably in this post.]


2) As such, it's foolish to use Ron Paul as the litmus test for every single person running. BJ Lawson doesn't even have a legislative record ... yet we all back him.

3) Before this election cycle, I was largely ignorant on the Federal Reserve and figured that if everybody in DC and the news gushed over Greenspan, he and the Fed must be doing good work for our country. I didn't see anybody holding that against me when I was working for Paul's campaign. Would you hold it against me if I ran for office? What if I said that, like most Americans, I supported the Iraq War at the beginning, and only wanted an open declaration in accordance with the Constitution? "They must have those WMDs the DoD keeps hammering on about ... and I don't want them falling into the wrong hands ... so let's go get 'em." Would you hold THAT against me if I ran for office?


4) Assuming you wouldn't hold that against me, then why are so many of you being critical of Bob Barr? Barr talks the talk, is a more articulate speaker than Paul, and has the added bonus of instant credibility with some Republicans.

<snip gratuitous, senseless, shilling drivel>


1) Reagan was a fascist and a bad actor. The most pitiful thing about Reagan is that anyone was so gullible as to have bought the bit (yes, even RP, but only for a little while).

2) You speak for "we all?" Naaah.

3) I would have held it against you, though I didn't know you. I'm getting a Paige Shetley vibe off of you however, so i must assume the listed reasons probably wouldn't have been the only source of my displeasure.

And yes, i would definetely hold it against you if you ran for office. No. Questions. Asked.

I was hip to the rip-off of the fed, the military, health and prison-industrial complexes in jr. high school. You could have been too.

4) Stop assuming.

[georgia_tech_swagger]

How can you do serious campaigning, when everyone knows your candidate has no hope of winning?

At least in a local race it's theoretically possible to win. And Paul is the perfect example! He gets huge funding from Libertarian minded folks from around the country to support his congressional office election campaigns. Then, he gets to use his position to increase the influence and spread the message of libertarian ideals. Paul has done more to advance the libertarian agenda from his GOP congressional seat than the past 30 years of Libertarian party buffoonery.

Nobody cares who the Libertarian party nominates for president. They're a joke. Losers. Paul has showed the way to advance a constitutionalist agenda, and yet you still don't get it. I don't know what else to say. A vote for Barr, or McKinney, or Baldwin, or whoever the American Communists nominate is a WASTED vote. You might as well stay home. You are abdicating any ability to influence the game by backing those losers for president. Your vote will go directly into the round file.

You will find no argument from me that the GOP is the best vehicle to get things accomplished. But our efforts to have a proper candidate from the GOP this cycle have failed. As such the fallback plan is Barr. What you're basically saying is ... "Well we didn't get a candidate who is even close to our position from the GOP this cycle. Woohoo I'm voting McCain anyway!" Principle should always come before party -- no matter which party that is.

[georgia_tech_swagger]

1) Reagan was a fascist and a bad actor. The most pitiful thing about Reagan is that anyone was so gullible as to have bought the bit (yes, even RP, but only for a little while).

2) You speak for "we all?" Naaah.

3) I would have held it against you, though I didn't know you. I'm getting a Paige Shetley vibe off of you however, so i must assume the listed reasons probably wouldn't have been the only source of my displeasure.

And yes, i would definetely hold it against you if you ran for office. No. Questions. Asked.

I was hip to the rip-off of the fed, the military, health and prison-industrial complexes in jr. high school. You could have been too.

4) Stop assuming.

Anybody who thinks Reagan was a fascist isn't playing with a full deck. Go watch his speech at the RNC where he endorses Goldwater. Seems Ron had no problems campaigning with heavy borrowing of Reagan era relations they had.

And regarding the rest ... well if I wanted to talk to an arrogant elitist all day, I'd go find the local Apple store.

[constituent]

Anybody who thinks Reagan was a fascist isn't playing with a full deck. Go watch his speech at the RNC where he endorses Goldwater. Seems Ron had no problems campaigning with heavy borrowing of Reagan era relations they had.

And regarding the rest ... well if I wanted to talk to an arrogant elitist all day, I'd go find the local Apple store.

lol, only insults, no substance (kinda like your fella reagan, all talk)...

Goldwater? You mean, fight the NVA w/ "tactical nukes" Goldwater?

lol.

you fit in well with the libertarian crowd, no doubt.

p.s. "arrogant" was the linguistic stylings of your OP, sometimes we get what we give.

even better, you insult my intelligence/intellectual capacity and then proceed to call me an "elitist"

you're a f*n joke... like Barr, but not as funny

[georgia_tech_swagger]

lol, only insults, no substance (kinda like your fella reagan, all talk)...

Goldwater? You mean, fight the NVA w/ "tactical nukes" Goldwater?

lol.

you fit in well with the libertarian crowd, no doubt.

p.s. "arrogant" was the linguistic stylings of your OP, sometimes we get what we give.

Nobody is perfect. I think Paul is as wrong on abortion as Goldwater was on aggression. It goes back to my original "arrogant post" about comparing everybody against perfection or near perfection. I only wish I could have consulted you on how to do so in the most condescending way possible first. :rolleyes:

And yes, calling Reagan a fascist does call into question ones mental faculties. Will you follow that up with an explanation of how 9/11 was an inside job, or would my clearly inferior brain not be able to comprehend your engineering references? :rolleyes:

[nbhadja]

How can you do serious campaigning, when everyone knows your candidate has no hope of winning?

At least in a local race it's theoretically possible to win. And Paul is the perfect example! He gets huge funding from Libertarian minded folks from around the country to support his congressional office election campaigns. Then, he gets to use his position to increase the influence and spread the message of libertarian ideals. Paul has done more to advance the libertarian agenda from his GOP congressional seat than the past 30 years of Libertarian party buffoonery.

Nobody cares who the Libertarian party nominates for president. They're a joke. Losers. Paul has showed the way to advance a constitutionalist agenda, and yet you still don't get it. I don't know what else to say. A vote for Barr, or McKinney, or Baldwin, or whoever the American Communists nominate is a WASTED vote. You might as well stay home. You are abdicating any ability to influence the game by backing those losers for president. Your vote will go directly into the round file.
McCain and Obama are losers, not the 3rd party candidates.

[constituent]

And yes, calling Reagan a fascist does call into question ones mental faculties. Will you follow that up with an explanation of how 9/11 was an inside job, or would my clearly inferior brain not be able to comprehend your engineering references? :rolleyes:

lol, typical Paige Shetley Libertarian.

talk about elitist.

then you smarmy pricks wonder why no one rallies round.

your inferior brain? you said it, not me.

what is funny is that you were the one just accusing me of lacking in faculties. awful jackass.

[constituent]

Before this election cycle, I was largely ignorant on the Federal Reserve and figured that if everybody in DC and the news gushed over Greenspan, he and the Fed must be doing good work for our country. I didn't see anybody holding that against me when I was working for Paul's campaign. Would you hold it against me if I ran for office? What if I said that, like most Americans, I supported the Iraq War at the beginning, and only wanted an open declaration in accordance with the Constitution? "They must have those WMDs the DoD keeps hammering on about ... and I don't want them falling into the wrong hands ... so let's go get 'em."


See bolds.

Typical of the inculcated masses.

A George Bush war cheerleader, and you insult my intelligence (repeatedly)?

Also, despite what you've heard on tv, most americans never supported the war, though many may have conditionally.

[Bobster]

See bolds.

Typical of the inculcated masses.

A George Bush war cheerleader, and you insult my intelligence (repeatedly)?

Also, despite what you've heard on tv, most americans never supported the war, though many may have conditionally.



talk about elitist.

then you smarmy pricks wonder why no one rallies round.


Pot, kettle, etc.

[SeanEdwards]

You will find no argument from me that the GOP is the best vehicle to get things accomplished. But our efforts to have a proper candidate from the GOP this cycle have failed. As such the fallback plan is Barr. What you're basically saying is ... "Well we didn't get a candidate who is even close to our position from the GOP this cycle. Woohoo I'm voting McCain anyway!" Principle should always come before party -- no matter which party that is.

Yeah, except I ain't voting GOP. No way in hell is that party getting my vote after they rejected nominating Paul. I don't give a shit if the Dems snatch everyone's guns, and build drive-through abortion clinics on every corner. I've got a narrow focus come November: "McCain must lose. Big." That's all I care about.

[SeanEdwards]

McCain and Obama are losers, not the 3rd party candidates.

McCain and Obama both suck, and will be terrible for the United States.

And one of those two will be elected President, regardless. Only way one of those two bozos isn't taking the oath of office in 2009 is if Bush institutes martial law.

I'd quite confidently wager my life that Barr will not win. I'd even give odds. Care to bet? My life, versus your $5. How about it?

[constituent]

Pot, kettle, etc.

Naaah, i'm just having fun. This guy seems to take himself seriously.

[malkusm]

3) I would have held it against you, though I didn't know you. I'm getting a Paige Shetley vibe off of you however, so i must assume the listed reasons probably wouldn't have been the only source of my displeasure.

And yes, i would definetely hold it against you if you ran for office. No. Questions. Asked.

I was hip to the rip-off of the fed, the military, health and prison-industrial complexes in jr. high school. You could have been too.

Alienating 80-90% of the people in the movement by telling them that they are stupid because they didn't know years ago is a great way to be. The goal of this campaign and movement has been to convert such people for a long, long time now, and yet you're still willing to be openly hostile to those who are converted. Good luck winning an election by telling people that they are idiots.

If you're not trying to convert the "idiots" that you're whining about (since they obviously aren't good enough to be "one of us"), what exactly are you doing?

[constituent]

Alienating 80-90% of the people in the movement by telling them that they are stupid because they didn't know years ago is a great way to be. The goal of this campaign and movement has been to convert such people for a long, long time now, and yet you're still willing to be openly hostile to those who are converted. Good luck winning an election by telling people that they are idiots.

If you're not trying to convert the "idiots" that you're whining about (since they obviously aren't good enough to be "one of us"), what exactly are you doing?

lol. nice try. let's examine


Alienating 80-90% of the people in the movement by telling them that they are stupid because they didn't know years ago is a great way to be.

Canard, i told him i would have held his poor judgement against him, not that he was stupid. If you want to debate, at least figure out what we are or are not debating and who has and has not said what.


The goal of this campaign and movement has been to convert such people for a long, long time now, and yet you're still willing to be openly hostile to those who are converted.

What campaign? Which movement? LoL, at you for still buying into that garbage.

And please, stop referring to it as a "conversion," this is not a religious cult.

And define your idea of what constitutes "converted."

I assure you, everyone's is different.


Good luck winning an election by telling people that they are idiots.

Who did I call an idiot? Wait. No one.

That aside, which election am I-or are we-trying to win?


If you're not trying to convert the "idiots" that you're whining about (since they obviously aren't good enough to be "one of us"), what exactly are you doing?

WTF are you even talking about? Who said anything about "one of us?" And again with the "idiots"

[malkusm]

3) I would have held it against you, though I didn't know you. I'm getting a Paige Shetley vibe off of you however, so i must assume the listed reasons probably wouldn't have been the only source of my displeasure.

And yes, i would definetely hold it against you if you ran for office. No. Questions. Asked.

I was hip to the rip-off of the fed, the military, health and prison-industrial complexes in jr. high school. You could have been too.


You didn't say the word "idiot." I quoted myself saying it. I guess "you could have been too" wasn't supposed to have a hint of supremacy anywhere in it, right?


And please, stop referring to it as a "conversion," this is not a religious cult.

con·ver·sion [kuhn-vur-zhuhn, -shuhn] –noun
4. change from one religion, political belief, viewpoint, etc., to another.

Sorry, some of us are not so closed minded as to see a vision of a monk or priest at the mention of such a word.


That aside, which election am I-or are we-trying to win?

If you're not here to help candidates who adhere to Constitutional beliefs, or the ideals of freedom, then I don't know why you're here. Maybe you can enlighten us all, by insulting people who actually care.

[runningdiz]

Alright, you've convinced me to just sit around and do nothing instead. Hope everything turns out ok!

Have fun...



Oh the irony!

And how many times were you told Ron Paul was a kook and would never win. I assume you packed up and went home after George S. on ABC said "that's not gonna happen."

What? Read what i wrote! Ron made waves and was on stage so i don't know what your talking about....

[constituent]

If you're not here to help candidates who adhere to Constitutional beliefs, or the ideals of freedom, then I don't know why you're here. Maybe you can enlighten us all, by insulting people who actually care.

lol, i thought we were all here for the "Campaign for Liberty," or i mean, "Break the Matrix," no, freeople.com, no wait.. it's freedoms ground..

or was it Free State Project?

the Libertarian Party?

Whose revolution is this again?

Are we all here just to support candidates (i thought that's what the "Other Presidential Candidates" sub-forum was for)?

You know better than that.


...and you seem to forget that the insults first flew from the OP in my direction,
i'm not certain why you seem so determined to overlook that fact (is it personal? do i know you?)

Show me a candidate worth supporting, and i'll say hoooray!

Which ones are you rootin' for? Enlighten me as to their merits, since supporting them is (by implication) your primary reason for being here.

[constituent]

You didn't say the word "idiot." I quoted myself saying it. I guess "you could have been too" wasn't supposed to have a hint of supremacy anywhere in it, right?


No, it was a reference to his inability to accept responsibility for his ignorance.

That has nothing to do w/ "supremacy"

however you define "supremacy"