Twenty-eight reasons why LP radicals should quit their bitchin'

[Kludge]

Mary Ruwart didn't win. Mike Gravel didn't win. George Phillies didn't win. Steve Kubby didn't win. Oh - and Ron Paul didn't win.


Yes, we know, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. libertarian radicals may not have seen the election results they wanted, but there are still many of reasons to support the LP presidential ticket (even if you don't necessarily support their candidate).

First of all, BOB BARR IS NOT GOING TO WIN COME NOVEMBER. If you choose to vote Libertarian, you vote for libertarianism plain and pure - not the man.



So, if he can't win, why vote for him?

Because the LP can save a LOT of money (I suspect at LEAST $750,000) if they manage to pick up 5% of the GE vote.


How can this be?

Simple - Many states allow ballot access retention if a party takes at least a specified % at the GE. This law is wholly to prevent third parties from competing. The LP spends many hundreds of thousands of dollars every year hiring collectors and lawyers to fight unjust rules, laws, and other decisions. If the candidate is allowed to be on automatically next year, it eliminates a lot of resource stress placed on the LP when they go about trying to collect enough signatures.





National Percentages to retain ballot access status next year:


1% Allows Automatic Ballot Access Next Cycle To :

Connecticut
Georgia
Kansas
Maryland
Wisconsin


2% Allows Automatic Ballot Access Next Cycle To :

California
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
North Carolina


2.5% Allows Automatic Ballot Access Next Cycle To :

South Dakota


3% Allows Automatic Ballot Access Next Cycle To :

Alaska
Arkansas
Massachusetts


4% Allows Automatic Ballot Access Next Cycle To :

New Hampshire


5% Allows Automatic Ballot Access Next Cycle To :

Arizona
Illinois (Illinois is a thorn in the LP's side every year for their ridiculously restrictive rules...)
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Rhode island
Tenessee
Texas
Washington





Why target party radicals?

Many LP radicals were bothered by the choice for Barr, but with the elimination of resource strain next year, it may make a radical libertarian receiving over 1% much more plausible. In essence, I'm asking you to compromise for your future.
But this doesn't only benefit radicals, this is a GREAT reason to donate for regulars and conservatives (and even liberals). This would cement in Libertarian relevancy in mainstream politics and would be like a donation to next year, since your donations will essentially recycle.




Hope that at least convinced a few to vote Barr 2008, the campaign is on track to take ballot access in 48-50 states this year.


http://www.lp.org/

https://www.lp.org/contribute (Every bit helps, and will likely be matched by reduced resource strain next year)

[Peace&Freedom]

+1, and I say so as one who had supported Ruwart.

[Kludge]

Bump.

[yongrel]

Donate to BJ Lawson.

[Kludge]

Donate to BJ Lawson.

Surely someone out there is maxed out for BJ (or possibly for all candidates??? o.O) :p

28.5k allowed to any one party, 65.5k to overall funding of parties AND PACs, 2.3k to any one candidate, 42.7k overall total to candidates for reference. :)

[Cowlesy]

Great thread!

[MRoCkEd]

I have been weighing my three options (barr, baldwin, or paul write-in), and this pushes me even more towards barr. Good points.

[zach]

+1 for sanity.


I have been weighing my three options (barr, baldwin, or paul write-in), and this pushes me even more towards barr. Good points.

Agreed!

[revolutionary8]

Hey now, in whatever 125 question poll I participated in, I was awarded the "Libertarian Radical" ranking, even though I am a disgruntled REPUBLICAN. Do I count? Can I still bitch? I am worried for the LP, I watched our party get jacked. :(
But I do try to contain myself to one "or so" thread if I can help it. :D

I wish all the best in the WORLD for the LP. They need to be checked though. Who better for the job than the disgruntled REPUBLICANS :)

[FindLiberty]

GOOD POINTS - Yes vote LP - Vote Barr/Root.

This will help the LP in 2010 (I'm in IL where the ballot access rules are horrid).

+++++++++++++++++++++

EZ November 2008 Election Procedure for those still unsure about Barr/LP:

Step 1 - Hold nose as you enter the election booth.

Step 2 - Vote for Barr/Root to become POTUS (also vote for any
other LP or freedom candidates that appear on ballot).

Step 3 - Continue to hold nose for the next 4 to 8 years because
there's a high probability overpowering BO will become
our next POTUS.

[Bradley in DC]

I'm a Republican--heck, and I don't know how this happened, they even nominated and elected me to the DC Republican Committee running the "state" party (because of, not despite, my RP activism). Actually, half of the new members were on Dr. Paul's delegate candidate slate!

That said, and everyone knows this, I'm supporting Bob Barr. While not a percentage, but if an LP candidate gets 7,500 votes, then the LP gets "major party" status here.

[The_Orlonater]

Great thread.

[DirtMcGirt]

thanks kludge...

[Agent Chameleon]

I like Baldwin, but I think Bob Barr is the best chance to make the presence of the Ron Paul Revolution known in the General Election.

Plus I think Barr is better for unity since the Christian aspects of the CP makes secular people (who'd otherwise support the CP) uncomfortable.

[brandon]

Terrible thread

Calling me a "radical" does not make me receptive to anything you may say following that. I'm so sick of the labels...especially around here. Marginalizing people with labels is what we are supposed to be fighting against. Of all people, I can't believe Ron Paul supporters would refer to a person who just wants freedom with the derogatory term "radical." I don't go around calling Barr supporters "Spineless unprincipled easy to manipulate sellout pussies." So please don't call me a "radical"

How about "American" or "Individual" or "Independent thinker". They all sound much better then "radical."

[Agent Chameleon]

Terrible thread

Calling me a "radical" does not make me receptive to anything you may say following that. I'm so sick of the labels...especially around here. Marginalizing people with labels is what we are supposed to be fighting against. Of all people, I can't believe Ron Paul supporters would refer to a person who just wants freedom with the derogatory term "radical." I don't go around calling Barr supporters "Spineless unprincipled easy to manipulate sellout pussies." So please don't call me a "radical"

How about "American" or "Individual" or "Independent thinker". They all sound much better then "radical."

+1

[Kotin]

lol still no JoesephtheLibertarian..


Im quite stunned.

props KKKludge.

[Kludge]

Terrible thread

Calling me a "radical" does not make me receptive to anything you may say following that. I'm so sick of the labels...especially around here. Marginalizing people with labels is what we are supposed to be fighting against. Of all people, I can't believe Ron Paul supporters would refer to a person who just wants freedom with the derogatory term "radical." I don't go around calling Barr supporters "Spineless unprincipled easy to manipulate sellout pussies." So please don't call me a "radical"

How about "American" or "Individual" or "Independent thinker". They all sound much better then "radical."

American?

It's a weak argument that those who supported Ruwart over Barr weren't more "pure".

I could call you purists, but then our stormfront friends would giggle.

American, Individual, and Independent thinker doesn't pull out who I want.



Besides, what's wrong with being radical? I consider myself a fairly radical libertarian and wear it pridefully.

I think you're nitpicking instead of addressing the issues at hand, IMHO of course.

[Kludge]

KKKludge.

See. Just imagine what would have happened if I used the seemingly less offensive label of "purist".

[Agent Chameleon]

I agree with Kludges message although I do agree with brandon yates that it would be nice if we could get over labels.

[slacker921]

It would make a good newspaper ad.. to convince people who might be inclined to stay home and not vote that they need to vote so they can at least help give the third party candidates a better shot in the next election.

[Bradley in DC]

Terrible thread

Calling me a "radical" does not make me receptive to anything you may say following that. I'm so sick of the labels...especially around here. Marginalizing people with labels is what we are supposed to be fighting against.

Points and sentiment well expressed and take, but in this case, the term was chosen by a caucus within the LP to describe themselves. It's short-hand to move the debate along. I think using the self-described label of a group in its proper context (as this is) is meant more to further discussion on a single point of disagreement than polarize people.

[pahs1994]

+1 its a crime that Barr/Root or anyone for that matter has to spend a majority of thier money just to get on the ballot! While the democrats and republicans spend millions on ads to spread their message of.... oh wait... there isn't any real message, just garbage...

[acptulsa]

Two more:

The bigger a percentage the LP puts up on election night, the fewer people decide that voting their ticket is a wasted vote.

The MSM will spin it as voter apathy about McCain unless we irrefutably prove it is complete dissatisfaction amongst conservatives. And putting all our votes in one basket will help with this more than splitting it , I think.

[Kludge]

//

[Kade]

Yes, we know, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. libertarian radicals may not have seen the election results they wanted, but there are still many of reasons to support the LP presidential ticket (even if you don't necessarily support their candidate).


The party is on it's way to be hijacked by the same people we are against... before long the "free market" ideology will turn into the a lobbyist dream come true, with a few well funded candidates taking reign, helping the profit of certain companies and turning the whole party into another corporate sponsored rat race.

[acptulsa]

The party is on it's way to be hijacked by the same people we are against... before long the "free market" ideology will turn into the a lobbyist dream come true, with a few well funded candidates taking reign, helping the profit of certain companies and turning the whole party into another corporate sponsored rat race.

That's certainly looking like the plan. But the proverbial fat lady hasn't sung yet.

[Kludge]

The party is on it's way to be hijacked by the same people we are against... before long the "free market" ideology will turn into the a lobbyist dream come true, with a few well funded candidates taking reign, helping the profit of certain companies and turning the whole party into another corporate sponsored rat race.


Hope not. I intend to become a delegate for the next LNC, but there is no way to really prevent a hijacking of true principles except to create another party - which could also be hijacked.

I'll take my chances, and hope others will do the same, as we are offered no acceptable alternative.

[pahs1994]

Hope not. I intend to become a delegate for the next LNC, but there is no way to really prevent a hijacking of true principles except to create another party - which could also be hijacked.

I'll take my chances, and hope others will do the same, as we are offered no acceptable alternative.

Do you have any info on how to become a delegate for the LNC? I was also thinking of either being one or being involved somehow in the selection of delegates. I just don't know how the LP selects delegates

[Kludge]

Do you have any info on how to become a delegate for the LNC? I was also thinking of either being one or being involved somehow in the selection of delegates. I just don't know how the LP selects delegates

IIRC, it's different in every state - but honestly, I'm unsure. I'd contact my state's LP party, usually www.<stateinitials>.lp.org

I know it's usually done at the state's convention.

[mtmedlin]

Damn you, you do make a point and even though I am completly pissed at the LP for selecting Barr, I would hate to think that it was my vote that didnt help them get automatic ballot access.
I am not saying that I will vote for Barr (because I truly hate him) but I will acknowledge that he will get the highest vote count of the bottom two of the lessor of 4 evils. Maybe if they can get 5% they will select a real libertarian in 2012.

[hypnagogue]

The party is on it's way to be hijacked by the same people we are against... before long the "free market" ideology will turn into the a lobbyist dream come true, with a few well funded candidates taking reign, helping the profit of certain companies and turning the whole party into another corporate sponsored rat race. So what do you suggest then? Reform the GOP? Vote Democrat? Give up?

[amy31416]

Great thread Kludge. I'm actually convinced and will be voting for the LP.

[yongrel]

Hmm. This may be enough for me to consider voting Barr instead of writing in Ron Paul. I haven't made up my mind yet.

[The_Orlonater]

Yay, Kludge actually posted something really good!



For once.. :p

[Kludge]

Hmm. This may be enough for me to consider voting Barr instead of writing in Ron Paul. I haven't made up my mind yet.

Uhh... I'll send an Andrew Jackson BJ's way if you do :p

[revolutionary8]

Points and sentiment well expressed and take, but in this case, the term was chosen by a caucus within the LP to describe themselves. It's short-hand to move the debate along. I think using the self-described label of a group in its proper context (as this is) is meant more to further discussion on a single point of disagreement than polarize people.
dear Lord,
Term (label) was chosen within the LP for the sole reason of Labeling by a collectivist group?
and I thought the GOP was messed up. :(
Dear Lord, please deliver me from politics in to the land of FREEDOM.
-Amen

[Kludge]

dear Lord.
Term (label) chosen within the LP for the sole reason of Labeling?
and I thought the GOP was messed up. :(

What???


The LNC was all about left-wing libertarians vs. purists/radicals vs. right-wing libertarians. Gravel/Ruwart(&Kubby)/Barr(&Root)

It simply isn't a derogatory term and I don't see why anyone would see it that way. It simply describes where they sit on the Nolan chart.

[revolutionary8]

What???


The LNC was all about left-wing libertarians vs. purists/radicals vs. right-wing libertarians. Gravel/Ruwart(&Kubby)/Barr(&Root)

It simply isn't a derogatory term and I don't see why anyone would see it that way. It simply describes where they sit on the Nolan chart.
Chart?????
Dear gawd no wonder RP is a Republican! At least he is OFF THE CHARTS!
Lmao.
Again, RP is a true Republican. His party left HIM.

[Kludge]

Chart?????



http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

[revolutionary8]

http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

OMG. Newt and Reagan belong on the reptilian chart, not some chart you wish to "diagnose" ME WITH. :D

[brandon]

Fixed:
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/356/politicalspaceuw9.jpg

[Peace&Freedom]

This chart is self-servingly secular and liberal (modern sense). Authoritarian leftists who want to impose their social agenda on the right are cast as 'progressives' in the chart. The theocrats are represented by only one totalitarian figure (Khomeni) whereas Christian theocrats range from anarchists to centrist flavors. By this map Paul himself would edge into the authoritarian zone.

[Kade]

This chart is self-servingly secular and liberal (modern sense). Authoritarian leftists who want to impose their social agenda on the right are cast as 'progressives' in the chart. The theocrats are represented by only one totalitarian figure (Khomeni) whereas Christian theocrats range from anarchists to centrist flavors. By this map Paul himself would edge into the authoritarian zone.

And what is wrong with secular?

[Kade]

http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

That's a pretty decent chart...

I'm plastered on the top left corner, near ACLU... and although I was openly mocked for it, nobody here has beat me yet on the personal liberty score I posted awhile back... :rolleyes:

[The_Orlonater]

That's actually a good chart.

[Kludge]

Fixed:
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/356/politicalspaceuw9.jpg

I lol'd...

[The_Orlonater]

Personally I thought Barr was a good choice. He attracts neo-cons who think about libertarianism. They think he is conservative.

[TurtleBurger]

I like Baldwin, but I think Bob Barr is the best chance to make the presence of the Ron Paul Revolution known in the General Election.

Plus I think Barr is better for unity since the Christian aspects of the CP makes secular people (who'd otherwise support the CP) uncomfortable.

The secular aspects of the LP make Christian people uncomfortable too. I don't think it's written into their platform, but there is a general atmosphere of hostility toward religion in the Libertarian party that makes it a tough sell for us Christians who would otherwise love to be libertarians.

[Truth Warrior]

"LP radicals", just another crummy and bogus statist oxymoron. :p :rolleyes:

[Kludge]

"LP radicals", just another crummy and bogus statist oxymoron. :p :rolleyes:

LP = Libertarian Party

LP Radical = "strong?" (what am I allowed to call them?) libertarians. Principled Libertarians?

The LP has many members who are not "strong" libertarians. Mike Gravel and Wayne Allyn Root to name a couple...

Radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions / extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

[Truth Warrior]

LP = Libertarian Party

LP Radical = "strong?" (what am I allowed to call them?) libertarians. Principled Libertarians?

The LP has many members who are not "strong" libertarians. Mike Gravel and Wayne Allyn Root to name a couple...

Radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions / extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical)

[Kludge]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical)

3.favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms
9.a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
10.a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

[Truth Warrior]

3.favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms
9.a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
10.a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

1.of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.

[Nathan Hale]

1.of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.

Unfortunately this is not the colloquial use of the word. The word "radical", when used contextually to describe Libertarian radicals, implies vast departures from accepted political dialogue. It is used as a synonym for "extremist".

[Nathan Hale]

The secular aspects of the LP make Christian people uncomfortable too. I don't think it's written into their platform, but there is a general atmosphere of hostility toward religion in the Libertarian party that makes it a tough sell for us Christians who would otherwise love to be libertarians.

Carl Milsted, one of the great libertarian thinkers, wrote at his site, www.holisticpolitics.com (or was that .org?) about how to approach Christians (or any really religious person) with libertarianism.

[Truth Warrior]

Unfortunately this is not the colloquial use of the word. The word "radical", when used contextually to describe Libertarian radicals, implies vast departures from accepted political dialogue. It is used as a synonym for "extremist". Yep, that's just usually how most merely semantic disputes get started. :p

Radical, to the root. What's "extremist" about that?

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henrydavid161709.html)

http://www.strike-the-root.com/

Nathan Hale understood. ;)

[Nathan Hale]

Yep, that's just usually how most merely semantic disputes get started. :p

You're talking to a person with a degree in the use of the English language. Let's face it, the definition that you cherry pick from the laundry list of meanings is outmoded. Nobody thinks of the word "radical" and pictures a person taking things "to the root". This is emphasized by reality, because libertarianism is not rooted in anarchocapitalism.


"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henrydavid161709.html)

I love quotes. They enable you to insert the opinion of somebody famous into your argument, even if it doesn't really make much sense. Where Thoreau's quote fails to connect is that within the present political paradigm, striking at the root requires first striking through many branches and sub-roots, each of which requires more of us than simply enough room to wield an axe.




http://www.strike-the-root.com/

Nathan Hale understood. ;)

I like Strike the Root. I've probably read it longer than most people have. But I read it in the same way I read Orwell - a lovely set of opinions, but not always in touch with reality. It's good to be right, but it's better to be effective.

[Truth Warrior]

You're talking to a person with a degree in the use of the English language. Let's face it, the definition that you cherry pick from the laundry list of meanings is outmoded. Nobody thinks of the word "radical" and pictures a person taking things "to the root". This is emphasized by reality, because libertarianism is not rooted in anarchocapitalism.

Pardon me, for not being duly impressed by your degree in English. Cherry pick, my ass. Standard dictionary, first ( preferred ) definition. I didn't write it.

I love quotes. They enable you to insert the opinion of somebody famous into your argument, even if it doesn't really make much sense. Where Thoreau's quote fails to connect is that within the present political paradigm, striking at the root requires first striking through many branches and sub-roots, each of which requires more of us than simply enough room to wield an axe.

Screw the "present political paradigm". :p This same old shit has been around for at least 6,000 years. The root is barbarism.<IMHO> Outgrow it, before it succeeds in finally ending our species' existence.

I like Strike the Root. I've probably read it longer than most people have. But I read it in the same way I read Orwell - a lovely set of opinions, but not always in touch with reality. It's good to be right, but it's better to be effective.

I'll take right. You can have effective. Effective at what, pray tell? :p


:rolleyes:

[georgiaboy]

great thread, Kludge.

If our Republican poll-watchers can see us unite around a set of principles/candidate and turnout in numbers, drawing away from their base, not only will we be energized, so will they, and so will the onlooker.

+1

[kombayn]

The radicals are a good group, they have good well-thought meanings in what they want, it's too bad that the vocal ones act like Anarcho-Fascists. "It's Anarchy or nothing and if you disagree will kill you!" Ever since this Sarah Palin nomination came out, it made me realize, a lot of Anarchists are not even Anarchists at all.

[georgiaboy]

The radicals are a good group, they have good well-thought meanings in what they want, it's too bad that the vocal ones act like Anarcho-Fascists. "It's Anarchy or nothing and if you disagree will kill you!" Ever since this Sarah Palin nomination came out, it made me realize, a lot of Anarchists are not even Anarchists at all.

"Anarchists have a group? They assemble? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?"
- Maggie Gyllenhaal as Anna Pascal, Stranger than Fiction
:)

[kombayn]

"Anarchists have a group? They assemble? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?"
- Maggie Gyllenhaal as Anna Pascal, Stranger than Fiction
:)

HAHAHA! [Hi-5] That was awesome.

[Mesogen]

If John McCain had, somehow, become the Libertarian Candidate for President, would you still be asking people to vote for him?

That's basically the same as asking people to vote for Bob Barr.

[Kludge]

If John McCain had, somehow, become the Libertarian Candidate for President, would you still be asking people to vote for him?

That's basically the same as asking people to vote for Bob Barr.

No I wouldn't, and no it isn't.


Prove to me that they are within a continent of each other in their beliefs.

[NMCB3]

"Anarchists have a group? They assemble? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?"
- Maggie Gyllenhaal as Anna Pascal, Stranger than Fiction
:)No as long as its a voluntary association everything is cool. I`ve never heard a real anarchist say "if you don't agree with me I`ll kill you", but then again there are a lot of posers out there. :)

[Nathan Hale]

Pardon me, for not being duly impressed by your degree in English. Cherry pick, my ass. Standard dictionary, first ( preferred ) definition. I didn't write it.

You're cherry picking because that first listing, as Mirriam-Webster makes abundantly clear, relates to the term's scientific and mathematics uses, not its political use. When the word is used politically, it is as a synonym for extreme.


Screw the "present political paradigm". This same old shit has been around for at least 6,000 years. The root is barbarism.<IMHO> Outgrow it, before it succeeds in finally ending our species' existence.

Easier said that done. The present political paradigm is, unfortunately, the chess board on which we must operate if we ever hope to change the system.


I'll take right. You can have effective. Effective at what, pray tell?

Being right isn't worth a damn if you're not effective in bringing about that right. I'd rather compromise in an effort to make the world a little bit better than demand total justice tomorrow and get nothing for my efforts. The ground of liberty will be gained in inches, friend.

[Truth Warrior]

You're cherry picking because that first listing, as Mirriam-Webster makes abundantly clear, relates to the term's scientific and mathematics uses, not its political use. When the word is used politically, it is as a synonym for extreme.

On the contrary, I am using the radical definition of "radical", by going to the "root". ;)
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < LL rādīcālis having roots, equiv. to L rādīc- (s. of rādīx) root (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=root)1 + -ālis -al (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-al)1http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png] The other definitions are merely distortions and "cherry picking".

Easier said that done. The present political paradigm is, unfortunately, the chess board on which we must operate if we ever hope to change the system.

Indeed. As long as you are constrained by the "present political paradigm" ( so called ), the system will NOT be changed. You are merely playing the "system's" game within the "system's" rules. The "system" is highly change resistant, by design. The game is rigged against your efforts and you will always lose, by system design. The only way to "win" is to NOT play.<IMHO>

Being right isn't worth a damn if you're not effective in bringing about that right. I'd rather compromise in an effort to make the world a little bit better than demand total justice tomorrow and get nothing for my efforts. The ground of liberty will be gained in inches, friend.

It's worth much more than a damn for me. I brought about that right for me. My world is significantly better now, by personally ending my participation in, and support of, the very processes and systems that are continually making the world WORSE, day by day. How much "ground of liberty", over time, has been gained vs. how much lost? How will YOU reverse that trend line?

For your consideration:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

Thanks! :)

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

[newyearsrevolution08]

For your consideration:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

Thanks! :)

if you start making sense then I can't be your friend anymore :eek:

[Truth Warrior]

if you start making sense then I can't be your friend anymore :eek: Your choice and decision.<IMHO> ;) I'll survive either way ........... until I don't. :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

Your choice and decision.<IMHO> ;) I'll survive either way ........... until I don't. :D

Well we can remain friends for now, BUT if you keep making sense then I think we will really have to go separate ways :D

[Truth Warrior]

Well we can remain friends for now, BUT if you keep making sense then I think we will really have to go separate ways :D

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/red-pill-or-blue-pill.jpg

"How Deep the Rabbit Hole Goes" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1054472&postcount=16) ;)

[newyearsrevolution08]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/red-pill-or-blue-pill.jpg

"How Deep the Rabbit Hole Goes" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1054472&postcount=16) ;)

lol, now that shit was funny lol...

I LOVE PILLS so I will take both

woohoo

[Truth Warrior]

lol, now that shit was funny lol...

I LOVE PILLS so I will take both

woohoo Or you could just maybe take the purple pill, "know the truth AND be able to sleep at night". :D

Check out the "rabbit hole" link. ;)

[Nathan Hale]

On the contrary, I am using the radical definition of "radical", by going to the "root".
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < LL rādīcālis having roots, equiv. to L rādīc- (s. of rādīx) root1 + -ālis -al1] The other definitions are merely distortions and "cherry picking".

You're aware that language evolves, right? Radical, when used politically, refers to extremism.


Indeed. As long as you are constrained by the "present political paradigm" ( so called ), the system will NOT be changed.

It's not so called. We exist within a political paradigm, and it is possible to change something from within. In fact, that's how most change happens.


You are merely playing the "system's" game within the "system's" rules.

Exactly. Not the game I'd like to play, but the game I'm forced to play if I ever hope to effect political change.


The "system" is highly change resistant, by design. The game is rigged against your efforts and you will always lose, by system design.

This is where we disagree. I agree that the system is rigged against us. But I don't consider it impenetrable.


The only way to "win" is to NOT play.<IMHO>

Actually, if we choose not the play, the system still wins.


It's worth much more than a damn for me. I brought about that right for me. My world is significantly better now, by personally ending my participation in, and support of, the very processes and systems that are continually making the world WORSE, day by day.

And I agree with you. If you're strictly seeking personal happiness, your best bet is to divorce yourself from society and "the system" as much as possible. But since we're here, discussing activism and political action, our goals are more than personal happiness - we seek change in society. As such, our personal definitions of right and wrong don't really matter unless we can apply them to society at large.


How much "ground of liberty", over time, has been gained vs. how much lost? How will YOU reverse that trend line?

We're losing, no doubt. But the only way to win, barring outright war (which I do NOT support), will be to take the field one yard at a time.


For your consideration:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

I've considered it, and I've been there, but I reject it because it doesn't work. The "educating people" angle has been tried for 30 years, and yet we're further from the goal than ever before. Incrementalism is what sways people. It's what has swayed Americans to the cause of socialism, and it's our best bet to sway them back.

[Truth Warrior]

Does the word "contextomy" have ANY meaning for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy


You're aware that language evolves, right? Radical, when used politically, refers to extremism.

My original IS the preferred definition, in line with the origination. Your preference is merely BS STATIST political "cherry picking".<IMHO>

It's not so called. We exist within a political paradigm, and it is possible to change something from within. In fact, that's how most change happens.

You exist within a political paradigm, by choice. I choose otherwise. When may I reasonably expect ANY reduction in the size of YOUR US Federal government, from the UNCHANGING continuous growth?

Exactly. Not the game I'd like to play, but the game I'm forced to play if I ever hope to effect political change.

Hope is fun and nice, however it's much better to be EFFECTIVE, or so I've recently read. :D

This is where we disagree. I agree that the system is rigged against us. But I don't consider it impenetrable.

Lord save us please, from the folly of the delusional cock-eyed optimistic dreamers.

Actually, if we choose not the play, the system still wins.

Exactly. So why not just find a much better use of your limited time, energy and resources?

And I agree with you. If you're strictly seeking personal happiness, your best bet is to divorce yourself from society and "the system" as much as possible. But since we're here, discussing activism and political action, our goals are more than personal happiness - we seek change in society. As such, our personal definitions of right and wrong don't really matter unless we can apply them to society at large.

No you don't. Society is merely a non-existent "abstraction". You're discussing activism and political action. I'm discussing REALITY. I apply my personal definitions of right and wrong EVERYDAY with those INDIVIDUALS that I happen to come in contact with. Society DOES NOT EXIST!

We're losing, no doubt. But the only way to win, barring outright war (which I do NOT support), will be to take the field one yard at a time.

For ~6,000 years, losing. Same old tyrannical barbaric BS. Government is a failed concept and barbaric.<IMHO> Just get over your barbaric "governmentality".

I've considered it, and I've been there, but I reject it because it doesn't work. The "educating people" angle has been tried for 30 years, and yet we're further from the goal than ever before. Incrementalism is what sways people. It's what has swayed Americans to the cause of socialism, and it's our best bet to sway them back.

You reject it because you reject it because you are a barbaric biased gung-ho optimistic political activist, by choice and preference.<IMHO> How are YOU going to SWAY the Americans back, best bet? Since you've now EFFECTIVELY ruled out the possibility of "educating people".

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Thanks! :)

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." -- A. Einstein

[Nathan Hale]

Does the word "contextomy" have ANY meaning for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy

You'll have to point out how it applies to this conversation.


My original IS the preferred definition, in line with the origination. Your preference is merely BS STATIST political "cherry picking".<IMHO>

It's not "cherry picking" when almost every single person other than yourself uses the word "radical", when speaking politically, to refer to an extremist person or position. You're taking a definition of the word that is meant to apply to science and math and using it to apply to politics. I agree with you that it's etymologically correct, but it's not correct in common use - that is, nobody would understand what the fuck you were talking about if you used the word radical, when speaking of politics or activism, in the manner you use it.


You exist within a political paradigm, by choice. I choose otherwise.

So the laws that our government forces on us....don't apply to you?


When may I reasonably expect ANY reduction in the size of YOUR US Federal government, from the UNCHANGED continuous rate of growth?

It's not something you can expect. It's something you have to work for.


Hope is fun and nice, however it's much better to be EFFECTIVE, or so I've recently read.

And I don't contend otherwise. I've never before seen a person open their post by defining a logical fallacy and then committing that very fallacy within the text of their post. Bravo.


Lord save us please, from the folly of the delusional cock-eyed optimistic dreamers.

And you're part of this political movement....why?


Exactly. So why not just find a much better use of your limited time, energy and resources?

Because the system wins. But I guess that's fine with you, which, of course, makes me wonder my question above. Why ever bother posting on these boards? To convince others to just bail and accept things the way they are?


No you don't. Society is merely a non-existent "abstraction". You're discussing activism and political action. I'm discussing REALITY.

No you're not, you're discussing THEORY. Society is an "abstraction" - gimme a break! Close the philosophy textbook and open your front door, because there's society, and the guns it wields are far from abstract.


I apply my personal definitions of right and wrong EVERYDAY with those INDIVIDUALS that I happen to come in contact with. Society DOES NOT EXIST!

Sure it doesn't.


For ~6,000 years, losing. Same old tyrannical barbaric BS. Government is a failed concept and barbaric.<IMHO> Just get over your barbaric "governmentality".

You're aware that this is not an anarchist movement, right?


You reject it because you reject it because you are a barbaric biased gung-ho optimistic political activist, by preference.<IMHO> How are YOU going to SWAY the Americans back, best bet? Since you've now EFFECTIVELY ruled out the possibility of "educating people".

I think it's safe to say that we're done here. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

You'll have to point out how it applies to this conversation.

I think that the provided explanation link is more than clear enough.

Fallacy of quoting out of context

The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Fallacy) and type of false attribution (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/False_attribution) in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context is often a means to set up "straw man (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Straw_man)" arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not held by an opponent, but which may bear superficial similarity to the views of the opponent.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

What of your posts to me have I edited, extracted and excerpted?

It's not "cherry picking" when almost every single person other than yourself uses the word "radical", when speaking politically, to refer to an extremist person or position. You're taking a definition of the word that is meant to apply to science and math and using it to apply to politics. I agree with you that it's etymologically correct, but it's not correct in common use - that is, nobody would understand what the fuck you were talking about if you used the word radical, when speaking of politics or activism, in the manner you use it.

When are you going to inform those who write the dictionaries of their blatant and glaring errors?

BULLSHIT!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

1.of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical)

I see NO reference to either math nor science in that preferred definition.

So the laws that our government forces on us....don't apply to you?

YOUR government has NO legal, moral, rightful, Constitutional right nor authority to force laws on any of us. No more so than the Mafia does, nor any other gang of robbers, murderers, thieves, goons or thugs has, for that matter.

It's not something you can expect. It's something you have to work for.

By whose and what authority does the government grow? Someone has been lying to you.

And I don't contend otherwise. I've never before seen a person open their post by defining a logical fallacy and then committing that very fallacy within the text of their post. Bravo.

Your entire posts have ALWAYS been quoted by me. I cannot say the same for you. So just knock off the BS. :p

And you're part of this political movement....why?

Who told you that lie? I like Ron Paul, and have for decades now. I'm not here for the "movement", but here for the "revolution". ;)

Because the system wins. But I guess that's fine with you, which, of course, makes me wonder my question above. Why ever bother posting on these boards? To convince others to just bail and accept things the way they are?

Hardly! http://www.voluntaryist.com/ , http://www.lewrockwell.com/ , etc., etc., etc. Get a frickin' CLUE!

No you're not, you're discussing THEORY. Society is an "abstraction" - gimme a break! Close the philosophy textbook and open your front door, because there's society, and the guns it wields are far from abstract.

Again get another frickin' clue. Where is society? What are it's characteristics? How big is it? What color is it? What does it have? What does it do? What does it want? What does it think? I've been looking for it for decades now. All I EVER see is only people, individuals.

Sure it doesn't.

Hey you finally got ONE right. :)

You're aware that this is not an anarchist movement, right?

I was not aware that YOU have been granted the power and authority to define WHAT it is. Is it a GOP movement? Is it a libertarian ( not LP ) movement? Is it a STATIST movement? Is it a revolution?

I think it's safe to say that we're done here. :rolleyes:

I think it's safe to say that you're done here. Quit while you're behind. Just stick a fork in it. You've obviously bitten off, far more than you can chew. ;)



:p :rolleyes:

Oh and BTW, FYI ......

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

[Nathan Hale]

I think that the provided explanation link is more than clear enough.

You're mistaken. I know the meaning of the term. I was asking how it applies to this conversation.


What of your posts to me have I edited, extracted and excerpted?

You took the word hope out of my post to make it sound like I was arguing that we just hope for the best.


When are you going to inform those who write the dictionaries of their blatant and glaring errors?

You're missing the point. Dictionary definitions apply to different uses of the word. Not every definition of a word applies in every instance.


BULLSHIT!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I wasn't making a logical argument subject to the rules of logical fallacy, I was stating the fact of the matter. Truth is, regardless of how I'm arguing the point of the word's "meaning", it doesn't matter what the word means on paper. What matters is what the population thinks the word means, because when it comes to politics, the public interpretation is what is important.


1.of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical

I see NO reference to either math nor science in that preferred definition.

First, stop using the term "preferred definition" because dictionaries don't list their definitions in order of preference. Second, the meaning doesn't have to state that its limited to math and science. Welcome to the prescriptive vs descriptive debate had for centuries among English scholars.


YOUR government has NO legal, moral, rightful, Constitutional right nor authority to force laws on any of us. No more so than the Mafia does, nor any other gang of robbers, murderers, thieves, goons or thugs has, for that matter.

I never said that OUR government has the right to do what they do. I said that they DO what they do, and will continue to do what they do - to you, if necessary. You don't get to choose your degree of involvement once the guns of government are trained on you.


By whose and what authority does the government grow? Someone has been lying to you.

What they're doing is wrong. I don't deny this. But how do you fight it? You seem to think that the solution is to just go about your business and educate people.


Your entire posts have ALWAYS been quoted by me. I cannot say the same for you. So just knock off the BS.

Excuse you - I quote you VERBATIM and in the entirety. If you think I've misquoted you or abused my quoting pattern in any way, then state the specific instance.


Who told you that lie? I like Ron Paul, and have for decades now. I'm not here for the "movement", but here for the "revolution".

The revolution IS the movement. We're not here to fight the government, we're here to work within it for change.


Hardly!

Your attitude suggests otherwise.


http://www.voluntaryist.com/ , http://www.lewrockwell.com/ , etc., etc., etc. Get a frickin' CLUE!

I hate to break it to you, but I'm already well aware of where you're coming from. I've been there. Then I got a clue.


Again get another frickin' clue. Where is society? What are it's characteristics? How big is it? What color is it? What does it have? What does it do? What does it want? What does it think? I've been looking for it for decades now. All I EVER see is only people, individuals.

What is a business? I mean, I go in the store, and I see individuals. Individuals stocking shelves, individuals manning the register, individuals scratching their butts in aisle 3. I guess business doesn't exist either.


Hey you finally got ONE right.

I was being sarcastic.


I was not aware that YOU have been granted the power and authority to define WHAT it is.

And I've never made a claim to the contrary. But I do know that most of the people involved in this movement are anything but anarchists. Therefore, this is not an anarchist movement.


Is it a GOP movement?

In some ways, because Ron Paul's stated goal is to seek reform within the GOP.


Is it a libertarian ( not LP ) movement?

In some ways, because many people in the movement are self-described libertarians, and most would fall into the libertarian quadrant of the political spectrum.


Is it a STATIST movement?

If you consider "statist" to mean anybody who doesn't want anarchy tomorrow, then yes, it is.


Is it a revolution?

Yes, in that it does advocate radical changes from the norm.


I think it's safe to say that you're done here.

Ooh, good one! I'll have to remember to tell my 4th grader to use that one quick before he starts 5th grade and it becomes too juvenile to use as a respectable burn.


Quit while you're behind. Just stick a fork in it. You've obviously bitten off, far more than you can chew.

Keep saying that. Really. It's very affirming for your self-esteem. And hey, if you say it enough, one day it just might become true!

[Truth Warrior]

You're mistaken. I know the meaning of the term. I was asking how it applies to this conversation.

Not hitting the quote button and replying point by point AKA "cherry picking".

You took the word hope out of my post to make it sound like I was arguing that we just hope for the best.

Just responding to the full provided context statement. Hope was the dominant verb, action word.

You're missing the point. Dictionary definitions apply to different uses of the word. Not every definition of a word applies in every instance.

I don't think that you are in any position to EXPLAIN dictionaries to me.

I wasn't making a logical argument subject to the rules of logical fallacy, I was stating the fact of the matter. Truth is, regardless of how I'm arguing the point of the word's "meaning", it doesn't matter what the word means on paper. What matters is what the population thinks the word means, because when it comes to politics, the public interpretation is what is important.

Correct, you weren't. Sorry I'm NOT a democrat and am not particularly swayed nor influenced by mass public opinion. BTW, screw barbaric politics.

First, stop using the term "preferred definition" because dictionaries don't list their definitions in order of preference. Second, the meaning doesn't have to state that its limited to math and science. Welcome to the prescriptive vs descriptive debate had for centuries among English scholars.

Mine do. I didn't say "limited" I said "NO reference to". BTW, I'm with the side of that centuries old debate that you are not.

I never said that OUR government has the right to do what they do. I said that they DO what they do, and will continue to do what they do - to you, if necessary. You don't get to choose your degree of involvement once the guns of government are trained on you.

Yes, YOUR government does what it does, REGARDLESS or what you or I do. Yep, just the same as any other armed thug on the street. I avoid them TOO. So far, so good! Actually I have much more respect for the street thug. He only robs me ONCE and then runs away. And then he doesn't expect me to be thankful and appreciative of his efforts.

What they're doing is wrong. I don't deny this. But how do you fight it? You seem to think that the solution is to just go about your business and educate people.

I've served my time in the trenches. It's been turned over now to the young'uns. Yep, that's the best that I can do in keeping with my principles. I have NO messiah nor martyr complex nor interest.

Excuse you - I quote you VERBATIM and in the entirety. If you think I've misquoted you or abused my quoting pattern in any way, then state the specific instance.

Just compare my posts and your extraction replies to them. The differences are stark and more than obvious.

The revolution IS the movement. We're not here to fight the government, we're here to work within it for change.

A movement moves a distance and then stops. A revolution goes round and round. Hence the different words. I seriously doubt that they are synonyms.

Your attitude suggests otherwise.

Your seriously flawed and bogus interpretation of my attitude suggests otherwise.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm already well aware of where you're coming from. I've been there. Then I got a clue.

It's only just too bad that you did not get the correct one. Most barbarians don't. Otherwise they would not still be barbarians. It's a choice and a decision.

What is a business? I mean, I go in the store, and I see individuals. Individuals stocking shelves, individuals manning the register, individuals scratching their butts in aisle 3. I guess business doesn't exist either.

Bogus analogy is not acceptable. I can and do see business, I can not and do not see society. Many bogus collectivist "slippery slope" abstractions are that way.

I was being sarcastic.

You're not very good at it.

And I've never made a claim to the contrary. But I do know that most of the people involved in this movement are anything but anarchists. Therefore, this is not an anarchist movement.

Then why does Ron Paul so strongly endorse, recommend and support LRC?

In some ways, because Ron Paul's stated goal is to seek reform within the GOP.

Ron is an optimist too.<IMHO> But I still like HIM. BTW, the "smart" money is not with him on the odds of his long term success chances. Sometimes, being correct and right is sadly just not enough.

In some ways, because many people in the movement are self-described libertarians, and most would fall into the libertarian quadrant of the political spectrum.

I'm a libertarian too. But here on the RPF the barbarian statist GOP ( LP ) has high jacked, corrupted and distorted that term also, just like in 1971 and since. So it was / is necessary to pick another description, while I'm here.

If you consider "statist" to mean anybody who doesn't want anarchy tomorrow, then yes, it is.

But I don't. I consider a statist as a barbarian that blindly follows the philosophy of Statism, without even understanding nor questioning it.

Yes, in that it does advocate radical changes from the norm.

EXTREME! :eek:

Ooh, good one! I'll have to remember to tell my 4th grader to use that one quick before he starts 5th grade and it becomes too juvenile to use as a respectable burn.

Please feel free and be my guest to use it wherever you think it's appropriate, until you can manage to come up with your own.

Keep saying that. Really. It's very affirming for your self-esteem. And hey, if you say it enough, one day it just might become true!

Once was enough, I made my point.



Are we having any fun here yet? :D

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it." -- H.L. Mencken

[Nathan Hale]

Not hitting the quote button and replying point by point AKA "cherry picking".

I did hit the quote button. Then, using simple html such as "quote" and "/quote" I broke down your quote so I could reply to each instance of you making a point to which I needed to reply. That's not cherry picking.


Just responding to the full provided context statement. Hope was the dominant verb, action word.

Yes, but that sentence was not meant to state our plan of action. You took hope as the action I intended to perform in order to reach my goal, but my post clearly stated nothing of the sort.


I don't think that you are in any position to EXPLAIN dictionaries to me.

Odd, considering that I probably know more about the English language than three generations of your entire family.


Correct, you weren't. Sorry I'm NOT a democrat and am not particularly swayed nor influenced by mass public opinion. BTW, screw barbaric politics.

You missed my point. Forget it.


Mine do.

That's because they're wrong.


I didn't say "limited" I said "NO reference to". BTW, I'm with the side of that centuries old debate that you are not.

Sure you are.


Yes, YOUR government does what it does, REGARDLESS or what you or I do. Yep, just the same as any other armed thug on the street. I avoid them TOO. So far, so good! Actually I have much more respect for the street thug. He only robs me ONCE and then runs away. And then he doesn't expect me to be thankful and appreciative of his efforts.

But the armed thug on the street isn't as powerful as a government, by orders of magnitude. Because a government has the backing not just of law, but of the population itself. So regardless of whether you want to call this goverment "yours" or "ours", it is ours, because you, should you ever cross paths with it, will be controlled by it. Though, as I've already stated, you're welcome to run off to the hills in an attempt to avoid it.


I've served my time in the trenches. It's been turned over now to the young'uns. Yep, that's the best that I can do in keeping with my principles. I have NO messiah nor martyr complex nor interest.

Okay, great. Cya later! I don't mind you having put your time in and bowing out. What I mind is you trying to convince us that the effort itself is worthless, and that we should all just bail out and "educate" people by our unflinching example.


Just compare my posts and your extraction replies to them. The differences are stark and more than obvious.

You're the one with the claim. If you think I've misquoted you, point to the specific instance and I'll be happy to engage.


A movement moves a distance and then stops. A revolution goes round and round. Hence the different words. I seriously doubt that they are synonyms.

Once again you think that every definition in a dictionary applies in every instance of the word's use. A revolution in politics is characterized by drastic change - it doesn't mean revolution in the sense that something spins in circles.


Your seriously flawed and bogus interpretation of my attitude suggests otherwise.

Ummm, whatever.


It's only just too bad that you did not get the correct one. Most barbarians don't. Otherwise they would not still be barbarians. It's a choice and a decision.

You can say it all you like, but it doesn't become true until you show it.


Bogus analogy is not acceptable. I can and do see business, I can not and do not see society. Many bogus collectivist "slippery slope" abstractions are that way.

Really? Whenever I claim that something is not analogous, I say WHY. So tell me WHY business is something that can be seen but society is not.


You're not very good at it.

Apparently not, since you bought it hook, line, and sinker.


Then why does Ron Paul so strongly endorse, recommend and support LRC?

The LRC is not an anarchist organization.


Ron is an optimist too.<IMHO> But I still like HIM. BTW, the "smart" money is not with him on the odds of his long term success chances. Sometimes, being correct and right is sadly just not enough.

He's not an optimist. The most optimistic thing for a politico of Paul's philosophical credentials is to follow your heart and join the LP. But Paul wants to fight for the GOP because he is realistic and practical.


I'm a libertarian too. But here on the RPF the barbarian statist GOP ( LP ) has high jacked, corrupted and distorted that term also, just like in 1971 and since. So it was / is necessary to pick another description, while I'm here.

So what does libertarianism mean, to you?


But I don't. I consider a statist as a barbarian that blindly follows the philosophy of Statism, without even understanding nor questioning it.

So if you can be something other than an anarchist without being a statist, then what exactly is statism, to you?


Please feel free and be my guest to use it wherever you think it's appropriate, until you can manage to come up with your own.

Perhaps you didn't understand. The joke was that your response was too juvenile to be considered appropriate in adult society. Though perhaps you're not a member of adult society, which would explain a lot (though I have no intention of delving into that side of things, I'll stick to our conversation at hand).


Once was enough, I made my point.

But it's not true yet. You need to keep saying it. Repeat it as a mantra before you go to sleep. Then, just then, it might become real - at which point it will have a far greater effect on these boards.

Cheers!;)

[Truth Warrior]

I did hit the quote button. Then, using simple html such as "quote" and "/quote" I broke down your quote so I could reply to each instance of you making a point to which I needed to reply. That's not cherry picking.

< YAWN >

Yes, but that sentence was not meant to state our plan of action. You took hope as the action I intended to perform in order to reach my goal, but my post clearly stated nothing of the sort.

I took it how I took it, < shrug >

Odd, considering that I probably know more about the English language than three generations of your entire family.

Odd, that you would make such an absurd and idiotic claim based on ZERO knowledge of my entire family.

You missed my point. Forget it.

Got your point, glad to forget it.

That's because they're wrong.

Yep, we've truly been "dumbed down" as a country.

Sure you are.

:rolleyes:

But the armed thug on the street isn't as powerful as a government, by orders of magnitude. Because a government has the backing not just of law, but of the population itself. So regardless of whether you want to call this goverment "yours" or "ours", it is ours, because you, should you ever cross paths with it, will be controlled by it. Though, as I've already stated, you're welcome to run off to the hills in an attempt to avoid it.

Armed is armed and dead is dead.

Okay, great. Cya later! I don't mind you having put your time in and bowing out. What I mind is you trying to convince us that the effort itself is worthless, and that we should all just bail out and "educate" people by our unflinching example.

Why should I give a frick on what you mind? :rolleyes: A rhetorical question.

You're the one with the claim. If you think I've misquoted you, point to the specific instance and I'll be happy to engage.

Nah, I've had just about enough of you.

Once again you think that every definition in a dictionary applies in every instance of the word's use. A revolution in politics is characterized by drastic change - it doesn't mean revolution in the sense that something spins in circles.

You obviously have no idea what I think. Your telling me what I think is both presumptuous and idiotic.

Ummm, whatever.

Ummm, whatever.

You can say it all you like, but it doesn't become true until you show it.

Truth is truth whether it's shown or not. Gee, you sure seem to like just making up bogus rules.

Really? Whenever I claim that something is not analogous, I say WHY. So tell me WHY business is something that can be seen but society is not.

Really! You figure it out.

Apparently not, since you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Nope, got it from the start and bought nothing. I was laughing at you. DUH!!!

The LRC is not an anarchist organization.

What does "anti-state" mean to you? Again, only rhetorical.

He's not an optimist. The most optimistic thing for a politico of Paul's philosophical credentials is to follow your heart and join the LP. But Paul wants to fight for the GOP because he is realistic and practical.

You have very strange definitions of realistic and practical TOO.

So what does libertarianism mean, to you?

More than I want to type and much more than you could even begin to understand based on what I've seen from you so far.

So if you can be something other than an anarchist without being a statist, then what exactly is statism, to you?

Look it up.

Perhaps you didn't understand. The joke was that your response was too juvenile to be considered appropriate in adult society. Though perhaps you're not a member of adult society, which would explain a lot (though I have no intention of delving into that side of things, I'll stick to our conversation at hand).

Don't flatter yourself. You really AREN'T that bright.

But it's not true yet. You need to keep saying it. Repeat it as a mantra before you go to sleep. Then, just then, it might become real - at which point it will have a far greater effect on these boards.

Dream on, Goober.

Cheers!;)

You're done, due to my boredom and the further useless waste of my time and interest.

[constituent]

You're aware that language evolves, right?

christ, don't get me started.

[Nathan Hale]

< YAWN >

Duck the truth however you like.


I took it how I took it, < shrug >

You took it wrong.


Odd, that you would make such an absurd and idiotic claim based on ZERO knowledge of my entire family.

Obviously it's meant to be an exaggeration.


Got your point, glad to forget it.

If you got my point, you would not have replied as you did.


Yep, we've truly been "dumbed down" as a country.

We have.


Armed is armed and dead is dead.

So I guess my point stands then.


Why should I give a frick on what you mind? A rhetorical question.

Of course it's a rhetorical question, because you don't have a care for this movement/revolution/whatever-we-call-it.


Nah, I've had just about enough of you.

I could imagine. It's tough to have to support baseless claims.


You obviously have no idea what I think. Your telling me what I think is both presumptuous and idiotic.

I didn't tell you what you think - I told you that you're using the word revolution wrong.


Truth is truth whether it's shown or not. Gee, you sure seem to like just making up bogus rules.

Correct, truth is truth. But when truth is contested between individuals, those individuals need to support their claim of truth. It's not a bogus rule.


Really! You figure it out.

It's not my job to figure out your wacky theories.


Nope, got it from the start and bought nothing. I was laughing at you. DUH!!!

It's getting fairly clear that you're not reading what I write.


What does "anti-state" mean to you? Again, only rhetorical.

You're right. I misread what you said, thinking you wrote RLC - Republican Liberty Caucus, rather than LRC - Lew Rockwell.com. But to your point, I like Lew Rockwell too, he has some great articles. I also like Strike the Root. But that doesn't make me anti-state. And it doesn't make Ron Paul anti-state.


You have very strange definitions of realistic and practical TOO.

Yeah. Me and Noah Webster both, I guess.


More than I want to type and much more than you could even begin to understand based on what I've seen from you so far.

Choosing to duck again? And with a baseless insult thrown in for good measure. You don't have to be scared of me. I'm here to help you.


Look it up.

I already know the answer. I ask you because I don't think you do.


Don't flatter yourself. You really AREN'T that bright.

And yet I'm always one step ahead of you.


Dream on, Goober.

:rolleyes:


You're done, due to my boredom and the further useless waste of my time and interest.

Once again - keep saying it, and it just might be true. But I agree, you are really best off walking your keister out of this thread ASAP.

[Nathan Hale]

christ, don't get me started.

While I have no desire to get you started, I am curious as to how my statement could have evoked such an intemperate reaction from you. Why does the concept of language evolving rile you so?

[Truth Warrior]

Duck the truth however you like.



You took it wrong.



Obviously it's meant to be an exaggeration.



If you got my point, you would not have replied as you did.



We have.



So I guess my point stands then.



Of course it's a rhetorical question, because you don't have a care for this movement/revolution/whatever-we-call-it.



I could imagine. It's tough to have to support baseless claims.



I didn't tell you what you think - I told you that you're using the word revolution wrong.



Correct, truth is truth. But when truth is contested between individuals, those individuals need to support their claim of truth. It's not a bogus rule.



It's not my job to figure out your wacky theories.



It's getting fairly clear that you're not reading what I write.



You're right. I misread what you said, thinking you wrote RLC - Republican Liberty Caucus, rather than LRC - Lew Rockwell.com. But to your point, I like Lew Rockwell too, he has some great articles. I also like Strike the Root. But that doesn't make me anti-state. And it doesn't make Ron Paul anti-state.



Yeah. Me and Noah Webster both, I guess.



Choosing to duck again? And with a baseless insult thrown in for good measure. You don't have to be scared of me. I'm here to help you.



I already know the answer. I ask you because I don't think you do.



And yet I'm always one step ahead of you.



:rolleyes:



Once again - keep saying it, and it just might be true. But I agree, you are really best off walking your keister out of this thread ASAP.

DONE! DUH!!! :p :rolleyes:

[Nathan Hale]

DONE! DUH!!! :p :rolleyes:

Duh? Not quite. If you say that you're done and then go on to reply to my entire post, as you did, then you're not done, and you should have expected my reply.

Sorry pal, but you don't get a free parting shot at me.

[Kludge]

And now I wonder.... Did I do the right thing by later rejecting Barr?

2012 finally looks to be Ruwart's year to lead the LP.

[Nathan Hale]

And now I wonder.... Did I do the right thing by later rejecting Barr?

2012 finally looks to be Ruwart's year to lead the LP.

Finally? The only good thing I can see coming from a Ruwart presidential nod is that the GOP's Ron Paul Republican nominee won't risk a vote split by a credible libertarian candidate.

[Kludge]

GOP's Ron Paul Republican nominee

lolololololol

[Nathan Hale]

lolololololol

Care to elaborate? Please. I'd love to hear how Mary Ruwart would stand out as a leader in the LP (I assume we're talking presidential nominee).