REC Response to Ron Paul's "What If" Video

[JS4Pat]

Someone forwarded the new Ron Paul "What If" video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTVn2tMI3E) to the entire Republican Executive Committee e-mail distribution list.

Below is the Second Vice-Chair's response.





What If?

What if we were to never recognize a war declared on the United States by a group of individuals that seek to destroy the very freedoms that we hold dear?

What if the suicide attacks that we have seen in Israel for the last twenty plus years were perpetrated on the streets of your town?

What if the economic consequences of another domestic terrorist arrack were to be realized on a regular basis bringing about a real depression?

What if, in the rush to make nice with our enemies, our actions were misconstrued as a sign of weakness?

What if Islamo-Fascists were allowed to infiltrate our borders, emboldened by the retreat of American Troops from a war and a theater that has seen total domination and real success?

What if those in political power continue to decide that spending/wasting trillions of dollars is more important than concentrating on finishing the mission in the War on Terror?

What if we allow more money to be spent by our government to save an endangered rat/mouse in San Francisco than will be spent to create a safer world?

What if the Congress actually allowed the American people to review the "Porkulus" Bill, as they promised, as opposed to ramming it through so that Nancy Pelosi can go on her trip to Europe?

What if the Republican Party continued to stand up for conservative values instead of always playing nice with the Democrats?

What if the Republicans were to remove Sen. Specter, Sen. Collins, and Sen. Snowe from the Republican Caucus?

What if a group of people that support a man that received only 19,285 votes nationally (less than Nader, Keyes, Baldwin, Barr, and McKinney) learned that they should stop being a fly in the ointment?

What if we were to actually have elected a conservative to the White House and avoided the Stimulus Bill completely?

What if the mainstream media were to end their infatuation with Pres. Obama?

What if people stopped looking for a handout and took personal responsibility for their actions or inactions?

What if our nation is in danger from our "Blame American First" mentality?

What if the same attention was paid to the nominees to Obama's Cabinet and their tax problems as has been paid in the past to trumped up charges against people like Trent Lott?

What if people were to realize that the drop in the bucket that is spent in the War on Terror is far less than the economic and infrastructure impact of another terrorist attack?

What if the Democratic push for the expansion of government did not have the direct consequence of putting our children and grandchildren in debt?

Finally, what if the United States could speak with one voice so that our enemies would understand, in no uncertain terms, that there are consequences for the bombings of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, 9/11, and the continued attacks on our troops?

[JS4Pat]

My response...



Thanks for engaging in a dialogue. That is a good way for us Republicans to examine our beliefs and the strength of our positions. It is the Ron Paul Republicans and the Republican Liberty Caucus that have been trying very hard to have a conversation about where we are as a party and what it is that we actually will stand FOR and stand AGAINST.

I don't want to fill everyone's e-mail inbox with back and forth responses, so to you and others in the Party who may have objections to where we stand please consider joining our free online Meetup Group. We have an entire policy section where all members are encouraged to debate and discuss issues. We welcome dissent and challenges to our positions. We also welcome any and all to our monthly meetings where policy and positions are debated and discussed.

http://www.meetup.com/RLCNF-org/

I commented on your response below....


What If?

What if we were to never recognize a war declared on the United States by a group of individuals that seek to destroy the very freedoms that we hold dear?

That would be absurd and neither Dr. Ron Paul nor those of us Republicans who advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy would ever turn a blind eye to an enemy who declared war on The United States of America.


What if the suicide attacks that we have seen in Israel for the last twenty plus years were perpetrated on the streets of your town?

Then I would hope that we as Republicans would urge our Representatives in Congress to pass a Declaration of War on the nation responsible for the attacks. If it were individual rogue criminals or "terrorists" then I would hope that we as Republicans would urge our Representatives in Congress to pass a Letter of Marque. This is the constitutional way to deal with such a situation that minimizes costs and the loss of innocent human life.

What if the economic consequences of another domestic terrorist arrack were to be realized on a regular basis bringing about a real depression?

Then I would hope we would figure out why and then formulate a plan that would stop them. The email sent by XXX touches on many of the complexities of our nation's middle east foreign policy over the past 50 years. This isn't a simple case of "might makes right" nor is the United States blameless in all of its policy decisions.


What if, in the rush to make nice with our enemies, our actions were misconstrued as a sign of weakness?

I wouldn't categorize strategic diplomacy as "making nice with our enemies". However assuming your premise is correct my answer would be "So what?". If any enemy who perceives us as weak ever tries an offensive action, then rest assured it would quickly be met with the overwhelming force of the United States military. This would quickly dispel any "America is Weak" misconception.


What if Islamo-Fascists were allowed to infiltrate our borders, emboldened by the retreat of American Troops from a war and a theater that has seen total domination and real success?

"Islamo-Fascists" are already "allowed to infiltrate our borders" due to our broken immigration policy. And let us not forget it was our own party's nominee for President that supported amnesty for all illegal immigrants. That is what makes the "keep us safe" argument for our wars in the middle east so absurd. If we are not serious about controlling our own borders, then how on earth is controlling the borders of foreign countries going to solve this problem?


What if those in political power continue to decide that spending/wasting trillions of dollars is more important than concentrating on finishing the mission in the War on Terror?

"Finishing the War on Terror" is really a meaningless phrase. It can't even be clearly defined. It is a phrase as intellectually empty as "leave no child behind". As to spending/wasting trillions of dollars - no administration in the history of our Republic has done more of this than the Bush administration. (Although it looks like Obama will make a run at the record)

Plus the fact is we can no longer afford this foreign policy. Even if it were proven that a global military interventionist foreign policy were somehow keeping us safer - WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD IT. Bottom line - look at the numbers - this nation is collapsing financially under the weight of this spending!!!

What if we allow more money to be spent by our government to save an endangered rat/mouse in San Francisco than will be spent to create a safer world?

Sorry but this is just one more example of the intellectually meaningless rhetoric that really accomplishes nothing. It is the type of substance free one-liners we hear coming from the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. If you think you can engage in this type of dialogue and move the Republican Party forward - you are mistaken.

What if the Congress actually allowed the American people to review the "Porkulus" Bill, as they promised, as opposed to ramming it through so that Nancy Pelosi can go on her trip to Europe?

You mean like what was done with the Banking Bailout Bill supported by George Bush and John McCain? This is what is so frustrating about what is happening to many in our party. It is no longer about the merits of positions, principles and ideas only what party is doing what.

Of course the American People should have full access and plenty of time to review legislation, but to think this is a "Democrat" issue only - is just being intellectually dishonest.

What if the Republican Party continued to stand up for conservative values instead of always playing nice with the Democrats?

That is a good "What If" and one that the RLC and Ron Paul Republicans fully support.

What if the Republicans were to remove Sen. Specter, Sen. Collins, and Sen. Snowe from the Republican Caucus?

Why stop there???? What about Senator John McCain - Pro-Amnesty for illegals, Anti-Gun Rights, Pro-Bailout, Pro-Prescription Drug Give-away, Pro-No Child Left Behind funding, Anti- Free Speech McCain-Fiengold legislation etc. etc. etc.


What if a group of people that support a man that received only 19,285 votes nationally (less than Nader, Keyes, Baldwin, Barr, and McKinney) learned that they should stop being a fly in the ointment?

I think this was already properly addressed in a previous message from XXXX.

"Right is right even when everyone is for it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is against it" - William Penn

Note: For the record Ron Paul did not run in the General Election and he received nearly a millon votes in the Republican primary as well as 14 Delegates to the national convention. If the GOP tries to ignore this and marginalize these supporters they will do so at their own peril.


What if we were to actually have elected a conservative to the White House and avoided the Stimulus Bill completely?

As I recall there was only one Republican running for President who stood in opposition to a Stimulus Bill whether supported by a Republican or Democrat president. Want to take a guess on who????

What if the mainstream media were to end their infatuation with Pres. Obama?

If you think the only media bias problem is a mainstream slant towards the Obama administration - you are being intellectually dishonest again. Ever heard of the Fox News station? We have a serious issue with the mainstream media not reporting truth to the American People.

Check out this example of media bias when you have a couple minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWqt-4660-U&feature=related

What if people stopped looking for a handout and took personal responsibility for their actions or inactions?

That is a good "What If" and one that the RLC and Ron Paul Republicans fully support. Just be aware that the RLC and Ron Paul Republicans will oppose those who violate this fundamental principle - no matter what party or candidate is doing it.

What if our nation is in danger from our "Blame American First" mentality?

Sorry but again this is just one more example of the intellectually meaningless rhetoric that really accomplishes nothing. If you believe America is always right and we can never examine the effectiveness, justification or constitutionality of our government's actions - then you really should not be involved in political activism.

What if the same attention was paid to the nominees to Obama's Cabinet and their tax problems as has been paid in the past to trumped up charges against people like Trent Lott?

If you really think this ranks up there with the most pressing issues of the day - fine. Me? that is so far down on my list of things to focus on that it doesn't even register on my political radar screen.

What if people were to realize that the drop in the bucket that is spent in the War on Terror is far less than the economic and infrastructure impact of another terrorist attack?

Sorry but this is just a blatantly inaccurate statement. We are spending trillions of the next generation's dollars under this banner of a so-called "War on Terror". You really should look at some of the links XXXXX provided in his last e-mail.

What if the Democratic push for the expansion of government did not have the direct consequence of putting our children and grandchildren in debt?

If you only knew how ridiculous that statement sounds coming from a supporter of the Bush administration and our party's 2008 presidential nominee. It would be laughable if our situation were not so dire.

Finally, what if the United States could speak with one voice so that our enemies would understand, in no uncertain terms, that there are consequences for the bombings of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, 9/11, and the continued attacks on our troops?

That would be EXCELLENT! Unfortunately our foreign policy over the past 50 years has sent all kinds of mixed signals to our enemies.

We fund and support em one day and we bomb and kill em on another.

The RLC is working to speak to our enemies in a voice recomended by our Founding Fathers...

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson, 1801 inaugural address.

[pcosmar]

What if, a Neo-Con actually grew a brain?

[MRoCkEd]

Good responses

[dr. hfn]

brilliant reply, I hope you keep engaging this guy and post the replies on the forum! great work! It seems we here are way more enlightened than the GOP leadership!

[liberteebell]

OP, your response is EXCELLENT! Would you mind if I shared it?

[beerista]

My response...

Well done.

[malkusm]

Excellent responses, put into reasonable terms that any person reading them would have a hard time labeling them as "extreme" or some other nonsense.

Great job.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I really hate that "Blame America firsters" slur. They never think that maybe you've followed the evidence and now, after eliminating all the other suspects, you're finally blaming America. The buck stops here. That's pretty American.

We should start calling them "America is never wrongers"

[MRoCkEd]

I really hate that "Blame America firsters" slur. They never think that maybe you've followed the evidence and now, after eliminating all the other suspects, you're finally blaming America. The buck stops here. That's pretty American.

We should start calling them "America is never wrongers"
I prefer "Protect America First"

[nobody's_hero]

Who exactly is the REC and why should I care? :confused:

[JS4Pat]

Who exactly is the REC and why should I care? :confused:

This is the Republican Executive Committee for my county .

I am a Precinct Committeeman so I am a member.

It is supposed to be the body of Republican Leaders for the county.

[JS4Pat]

What if a group of people that support a man that received only 19,285 votes nationally (less than Nader, Keyes, Baldwin, Barr, and McKinney) learned that they should stop being a fly in the ointment?

I think this was already properly addressed in a previous message from XXXX.

"Right is right even when everyone is for it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is against it" - William Penn

Note: For the record Ron Paul did not run in the General Election and he received nearly a millons of votes in the Republican primary as well as 14 Delegates to the national convention. If the GOP tries to ignore this and marginalize these supporters they will do so at their own peril.

Below is the message that I reference in the response above.

The sender is another active Ron Paul Republican in my county.

I am removing the names...



Hello Xxxx,

It is obvious from one of your comments that you are referring to those who supported Congressman Paul for President as being a fly in the ointment of the well oiled Republican Party.

"What if a group of people that support a man that received only 19,285 votes nationally (less than Nader, Keyes, Baldwin, Barr, and McKinney) learned that they should stop being a fly in the ointment?"

To me this is very perplexing. Yes, Congressman Paul did receive very few votes in the primary and his message was soundly rejected by the media and the Republican Party.

As I recall, during the primaries, the DOW was predicted to head to 18,000, the economy was expanding and we were in the greatest economic boom of American History.

However, as Matt Towery points out in the Florida Times Union column yesterday, Maybe we should listen more to much-maligned Ron Paul (below) there was one lone crazy person on the stage telling all of us that things are not as they seem. Ron Paul was telling us that we are on the verge of a financial collapse that can and will lead to a collapse of our monetary system. He stated that the root cause was our monetary policy controlled by the Federal Reserve system that allowed excessive debt and spending to finance both out military adventurism and social programs. He was derided as a loon making such statements during such prosperity.

Now, had Ron Paul been wrong there would be merit to your assertion that those who supported Ron Paul should be dismissed. However, have you seen the news or looked at your 401K lately?

In less than 12 months we as a nation have gone from a belief that we were in the greatest era of economic prosperity America has ever seen to being on the edge of the greatest economic catastrophe this nation has ever seen. Please tell me one other presidential candidate in the party who even remotely anticipated we would be where we are today. Bottom line, they were all very wrong and Ron Paul was spot on. Rather than boating about how few voted Ron Paul received, the party should be questioning how could have been so wrong about such a huge issue; and the crisis has only begun.

We have just entered into a period of financial collapse. It may be temporarily abated or propped up by more inflation with this stimulus package but after this next mini economic boom the shoe will drop. We will see a depression never before seen by the US or the World. The US monetary base will resemble Argentina.
If you want to see what that looks like view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs

Rather than pointing back and saying that these people should be rejected, people should be asking, why did they understand what was coming and how did the Republican Party reject the truth? How was it that the party was led in the wrong direction?

Also, the Republican Party is now rejecting the stimulus package. Didn’t the party, only a couple of months ago rally around Senator McCain while he suspended his campaign to rush back to Washington to ensure the bailout package was passed? Again, we in the RLC rejected the bailout package. I guess we were a fly in the ointment then as well. Think about it, we have not changed our principles. We were against it then when Bush and McCain were for it and we are against it now that Obama is for it. If the party is against this huge welfare now why were they for it then?

“Right is right even if everyone is for it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is against it” –William Penn

Please keep in mind that we had good relations with Iran until we overthrew their elected leader in the 1950’s and installed the Shah. The Shah then killed thousands who opposed him. Iranians viewed these murders as be committed by the US puppet, the Shah. This led to a rise of radicals that ushered in the Ayatollah that culminated with the Iran Hostage Crises.

Palestinians and Jews lived peacefully in Israel until the Palestinians had their homes taken away and their lives destroyed to make a new state for Israel in the 1940s. We should have given the Jews part of Germany for what the Germans did. Why punish the Palestinians for what the Germans did?

We helped Sadaam in his rise to power in the 1980s to counter the radicalism in Iran. Ironically, the war crimes he was executed for , killing the Kurds, was committed by chemical weapons provided to Sadaam by the US.

We supported Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the fight against the Soviets in the 1980's.

Since the Soviets were defeated in the Afghanistan and the cold war, the US escalated its presence in the Middle East.

Our presence in the Middle East and financial and military support of Israel is the root cause of the growth of radicalism against the US in the Middle East.

Our enemies have made this very clear. They will attack us until we leave the Middle East and they will attack us until we quit supporting the relocation, sanction and inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.

And yes, I may be a little naive. But as a dumb country boy I have learned enough that I don’t go kicking ant hills and then stand in the middle of them. And if I did, I definitely would not complain about how violent the ants are while they bite me as I stand in the middle of the hill.

Questioning the judgment of those in Washington that are sending our young men and women into harms way, with a military presence in 140 countries around the world must be examined.

Our soldiers are not allowed to question their mission. If we do not question it for them, who will? Many political leaders view our military as expendable resources to accomplish their individual political objectives. I am convinced that many in Washington are more concerned about their political careers and the desires of their special interest groups than of our troops.

Rest assured, if you want war, Rham Emmanuel (Former Israeli soldier) and Barak Obama are committed to an escalation of war in the Middle East. We will assuredly have many, many more young men proudly and nobly return in body bags before this administration ends.

A non-Intervention foreign policy was the policy of the founding fathers and of the Republican Party. If the party was so incorrect on our econoomic policy is it so wrong to re evaluate our foreign policy?


Regards,
xxx


9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU


'America's Outrageous War Economy!'
Pentagon can't find $2.3 trillion, wasting trillions on 'national defense'
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-we-love-americas-outrageous/story.aspx?guid=0D31C880-32CD-4BA1-8133-329EA57CB069


Iraq war may cost US USD 7 trillion
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=45204&sectionid=3510203


The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html


Iraq war cost estimates run into the trillions
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html


Here are a couple of articles by mainstream non-Ron Paul supporters that may be of interest.

Ron Paul, if only we listened
Dallas Morning News

I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I was a Mike Huckabee man), nor did I write him in on Election Day (I penciled in farmer-poet Wendell Berry). But no Texan this year did more good for conservatism and his country than the congressman from the coast.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-dreher_30edi.State.Edition1.2b92bf2.html



Florida Times Union
Maybe we should listen more to much-maligned Ron Paul
By Matt Towery

It is considered dangerous in the mainstream media ever to reference U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas as anything but a political anomaly.

Well, here I go about Paul.

In November 2007, I was in the pressroom after the CNN/YouTube Republican debate in St. Petersburg, Fla. That was the night Mike Huckabee stole the show with his comment that Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office.

One has to take into account the fact that the debate was taking place in a metropolitan area that had already seen housing prices plummet and home sales dry up.

Yet, not one candidate even raised the issue of housing or the impending financial crisis.

Actually, there was one candidate that night who focused on where the nation was really headed. Attacked and derided by the more "acceptable" GOP candidates, it was Paul who warned that America was "going bankrupt" and that our infrastructure was decaying.

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Paul kept telling anyone who would listen that the nation was literally printing money to pile up massive debts, and that there would be a major price to pay for Congress and the president being asleep at the wheel.

Now look where we are.

We are spending money faster than we can print it, our nation really is going bankrupt, and Congress is being forced to deal with real issues such as infrastructure even as it pours massive amounts of pork into a stimulus bill that in reality has turned into the largest appropriations bill ever passed.

For balance of the Article
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/matt_towery/2009-02-13/story/maybe_we_should_listen_more_to_much_maligned_ron_p au

[JS4Pat]

OP, your response is EXCELLENT! Would you mind if I shared it?

Please do - that is one of the reasons I posted it here.

I always use RP Forums as a reference tool and assume all material is up for grabs. :D

Please use the other message I posted as well. It is even better and I know the person who wrote it would not object.

[kaleidoscope eyes]

Wow, great, level headed responses, does our movement proud.
Keep at 'em!

[Cowlesy]

Great work John!!!!!!!!!!

[xerigen]

Excellent responses. I'd be surprised if they had a rebuttal with any intellectual debate.

[Freedom 4 all]

What if, you're talking directly out of your ass?

[TheConstitutionLives]

Great responses. Maintain your cool and don't let their kindergarten bumper sticker one-liners offset you. Good job

[TheConstitutionLives]

I'd be surprised if they had a rebuttal with any intellectual debate.

- That would require intelligence on their part. Did you read Mr. Repubilican Executive's rebutal? LOL

The guy obviously does nothing but absorb neo-con talk radio every day. These folks are too easy to pick out. They regurgitate talking points. That's it.

[angelatc]

What if the Congress actually allowed the American people to review the "Porkulus" Bill, as they promised, as opposed to ramming it through so that Nancy Pelosi can go on her trip to Europe?

http://volokh.com/posts/1234550664.shtml - draws comparisons to the way the Patriot Act was shoved through.

[Austin]

Excellent response! This is the kind of discussion I like to see; hopefully they responded back.

Also, I think it was Washington, not Jefferson, that said Peace & Commerce with all, alliances with none

[Zolah]

Excellent responses, put into reasonable terms that any person reading them would have a hard time labeling them as "extreme" or some other nonsense.

Great job.

Yeah this is what I would say :) Good responses.

[ClayTrainor]

Awesome responses man!

[JS4Pat]

Also, I think it was Washington, not Jefferson, that said Peace & Commerce with all, alliances with none

That is what I thought as well. I pulled that from a "Great Libertarian Quotes" website.

[JS4Pat]

Oh well - so much for making headway...

The Second Vice-Chair of the Republican Executive Committee Responds....


John,

Thank you for your continued invitations. However, I would appreciate, in the future that you please stop asking. I am not inclined to accept based on the fact that continued efforts to find common ground with your group fall on deaf ears. You seek only to push your narrow agenda and there is no place for such extreme views in the Republican Party. I would also ask you to cease your continued veiled efforts to convince people, that do not know the entire story of your group, to join you in your cause. From the mounting evidence that has been presented over the past year your group has proven to say one thing in a meeting an preach another on the Internet. Your efforts are not consistent with the values and traditions of the Republican Party and grow old and stale.

Please understand that I do not wish to keep you from making your points. I only find fault with the deceitful way that you have tried to use the Republican Party to gain legitimacy for your beliefs.

More work to do...

And no there has been NO efforts on the part of the REC Leadership to "find common ground". If there had been - believe me we would be listening and cooperating....

[Philmanoman]

man,that guy would piss me off...old and stale?I think Id make it a point to make him look like a fool.

[nobody's_hero]

Then it seems the GOP is on its way down; we can only grow stronger as a result.

[ItsTime]

You are not going to change the GOPs mind with this approach.

[jkr]

this made me VERY angry.


what if america wasn't a fascist collective who was so paranoid we pre-emptivly attacked an entire planet.

what if we waited to ACTUALLY BE ATTACKED before we assulted our neighbors

what if we listened to Yeshua and turned the other cheek

what if we had not invinted the most destructive weapon on the planet

what if we minded our own businesss

what if we voted these jerks out of office, so they could try and be productive members of society

what if we followed our own "rule of law"

what if all the good productivee caring people of this land moved away

what if we did not let speculation, rumor, & innuendo rule our lives

[pcosmar]

Oh well - so much for making headway...

The Second Vice-Chair of the Republican Executive Committee Responds....



More work to do...

And no there has been NO efforts on the part of the REC Leadership to "find common ground". If there had been - believe me we would be listening and cooperating....

You had good responses to them, Well reasoned and polite.
I ran into the same hardheadedness in my area. At this point you are only banging your head against a wall.


More work to do...
Yup, with a shovel and an unused piece of ground.
Bury the rotting carcass of the GOP and walk away.

[Conza88]

Someone forwarded the new Ron Paul "What If" video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTVn2tMI3E) to the entire Republican Executive Committee e-mail distribution list.

Below is the Vice-Chair's response.

Just gonna pick out some insanity questions.

What if we were to actually have elected a conservative to the White House and avoided the Stimulus Bill completely?

WTF did this cnt do? :rolleyes:



http://collegeotr.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blogs/649d1b0dbfc1edc2f610eaa7149d20fa.jpg



What if the mainstream media were to end their infatuation with Pres. Obama?

:eek: ZOMG?!?!!111


http://meltyourfaceoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg

</jest>

[Dary]

Oh well - so much for making headway...

The Second Vice-Chair of the Republican Executive Committee Responds....

Duval or St. John's?

[Dary]

Oh well - so much for making headway...


The Second Vice-Chair of the Republican Executive Committee Responds...


You seek only to push your narrow agenda and there is no place for such extreme views in the Republican Party.

Which narrow agenda is he referring to? The one of Freedom? The Constitution? Small government? Peace?

Extreme views? Like responsibility? Accountability? Truth?


I would also ask you to cease your continued veiled efforts to convince people that do not know the entire story of your group, to join you in your cause.

John, I would ask you to keep up the good work. Whatever his version of the entire story is, it should be exposed to scrutiny. Don’t be afraid to fight the good fight and expose these neo-cons for what they are.


From the mounting evidence that has been presented over the past year your group has proven to say one thing in a meeting and preach another on the Internet.

What "mounting evidence" is it exactly that he is referring to? Something was said in a meeting that ran counter to what has been said on the Internet?

This person obviously believes that we are bad, bad, bad and he clearly thinks that we shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the party at all.

Is the leadership aware of his attempts at stifling the growth of the Republican Party? Are they aware that he is actively doing his utmost to discourage people from donating time and money in support of republican candidates?

[liberteebell]

Please do - that is one of the reasons I posted it here.

I always use RP Forums as a reference tool and assume all material is up for grabs. :D

Please use the other message I posted as well. It is even better and I know the person who wrote it would not object.

Thanks and I agree, if something good is posted here, we should "take it to the streets".

[liberteebell]

- That would require intelligence on their part. Did you read Mr. Repubilican Executive's rebutal? LOL

The guy obviously does nothing but absorb neo-con talk radio every day. These folks are too easy to pick out. They regurgitate talking points. That's it.

+1

We still need to respond with "thinking points", just as the OP has done.

My personal experiences at waking people up since the economic downfall began stuns even me. Right now, it's easier than ever and I'm no longer getting shouted down. I've done it primarily by just putting out rational and logical arguments and information in a very calm way.

[The_Orlonater]

I'm for amnesty.

[JS4Pat]

Duval or St. John's?

This is St. Johns County.

We have had some surprising success in Duval County.

The new Chairman respects who we are and what we are doing. He is not as aggressive as we are - but hey - this is big time progress.

[torchbearer]

I'm for amnesty.

Only in a truly free society, with no welfare and such.
If each person who crossed that border came here for the sole purpose to make a good life for their family through hard work... then let them all come.

[Freedom 4 all]

What if, a Neo-Con actually grew a brain?

That's an easy one. He would join the RLC and CFL and start backing Ron Paul.

[satchelmcqueen]

for the 100th time...they dont want us on board and they say so. good responses though.

[nobody's_hero]

I predict that you'll see the GOP losing presidential elections by about 3% for a while. We're that 3%; we are the thorn in their side; the itch they can't scratch; the sludge in their engines; the horse that won't 'giddy up'; the "fly in the ointment."

It is an honor and a priviledge.

[ghengis86]

It is an honor and a priviledge.

+1

yes it is!

[JS4Pat]

Brian A. Iannucci is the newly elected Second Vice Chair of the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee.

It is he who sent out the original message in response to Ron Paul's "What If" speech.

Well in researching this guy a little further I stumbled across another one of his insightful writings.

In it Brian refers to our movement as "the trash of the Republican Party".

I think if someone needed to reach Brian by e-mail they could do so by sending a message to: brian@brianiannucci.com (I'm just saying) ;)


Why the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) is not Republican
Posted by Brian A. Iannucci on Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:57:17 PM

Over the past few months there has been an increased amount of "noise" made by a group calling itself "The Republican Liberty Caucus." It seems that this group has grown tired of being members of the Libertarian Party so they are trying to take over the Republican Party. Using the Ron Paul candidacy this group is trying to leverage Paul’s measly three percent of the vote into a national voice. This well organized and well funded group of reactionary individuals has made it their goal to bring their fringe belief to the forefront and try to become the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Their strategy is simple; to take over from within. By starting at the precinct level, the RLC is trying to elect their people to precinct chairmanships. This leads to a takeover of the county chairmanships. Next, the RLC wants to change the state representatives and chairmanships and then take over the national party leadership. This ruthless tactic is occurring throughout the nation. Everyone should be aware that it is happening and should take note.

Since the debate should be about ideas here are the facts behind the differences between the RLC and real Republicans.

The first argument that the RLC will use is that the only difference between their beliefs and the GOP is that they feel that the war should end and we should withdraw our troops. Their foreign policy platform is more like the liberals in this nation and is nothing like the GOP stance on the issue. However, the idea that the foreign policy debate is the only part of this groups' beliefs that is not in line with the GOP is false. The Republican Liberty Caucus, per their website, has several issues that are not in line with the GOP platform.

First and foremost is the RLC’s isolationist position with regards to our national security. It is naive to believe that a pull back in the War on Terror will appease the Islamic Fascists. Our enemy in this war has been fighting the United States and western beliefs longer than the RLC is willing to acknowledge. From the bombings of US Embassies, the Khobar Towers, the Beirut barracks, the USS Cole, and many other offensive movements against our nation, not to mention 9/11, Islamic Fascists have made it clear they detest western ideals and they will continue to pursue offensive activities that will be a detriment to our nation. By burying our heads in the sand our nation will invite further attacks domestically. Such attacks will lead to a further constricting of liberty in this nation due to the fear of suicide bombings in this county. The more there is a terrorist threat in this nation the tighter the security will become at our airports, buildings, and schools. To pull out right now would embolden our enemies and show weakness.

Second, the RLC takes the Libertarian position on the legalization of drugs. This will bring about further social problems in this country by expanding addiction, easing access to illicit drugs, and allowing for the further deteriorization of the social fabric of this nation by endorsing use and abuse of drugs.

Finally, the lack of a litmus test for judicial nominees is a thinly veiled illusion to the current conflict over abortion and Roe v. Wade. Without vetting nominees to the bench we allow for the continued promotion of judicial activism which has brought about poor judicial decisions such as Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion, gay marriage in California and Massachusetts, and is a direct threat to second amendment rights.

These fundamental differences are in direct conflict with the current Republican platform. As I have discussed before, there are three legs to "The Republican Stool." Security, Social, and Economic Republican stances are necessary to be considered a member of our party. The RLC, and by extension, its members, are only Economic conservatives and are missing many of the core principles that our party requires. To have representatives of our party that are not in line with our platform would be detrimental to our future as a party. The beliefs that the RLC espouses are more in line with the Libertarian Party and those that are in line with these beliefs should consider membership in that organization as opposed to trying to bastardize the Republican Party.

The only course of action is to bring out these issues to the entire GOP at large and then to the media and those who will bring attention to it. These facts are crucial to the decision making process for the voters and should be the cornerstone of any campaign against the RLC movement. Letters to Editors, public meetings and debates, and an e-mail campaign are essential to the defeat of the RLC.

Don’t let this be the last time that the issue of the RLC is brought up. The critical time for action is now. The GOP must work to remove imposters from their ranks and remember that the GOP stands for true conservative values and not this half-hearted attempt at change. The RLC should not be allowed to run roughshod over the GOP. The time for being nice is over.

Let’s take out the trash.


http://brianiannucci.blogtownhall.com/

[AdamT]

These moronic neo-cons will never get it....

[JS4Pat]

Ron Paul and the Paul-istas are Trying to Ruin the GOP
Posted by Brian A. Iannucci on Monday, May 26, 2008 5:46:22 PM

Ron Paul? A Republican? Seriously?

Certainly this must be a mistake. How is it that an avowed member of the Libertarian Party seek the nomination of the GOP and get away with it? Simply put, this is just another example of the Republican Party’s lack of leadership. The constant barrage of attacks from the “Paul-istas” demonstrates the need for a firm and resolved direction for our party.

The idea that a faction of disillusioned Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians can push a candidate like Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for president is certainly a problem. However, without the votes to sustain a campaign and the paltry minority that the Paul-istas have brought to the polls there is a new problem that is emerging. The problem is that we now have to deal with this cadre of Paul-istas trying to transform our party into a shell of its former self.

Through e-mails, protests, annoyances, and vilifying the leadership of the local counties, the Paul-istas are seeking to be a vocal minority that allows for the destruction of the Republican Party. With national vote totals barely at 6% and a pathetic 19 delegates Ron Paul’s supporters are trying to sway the national opinion of the GOP by being the fly in the ointment. Further, they are trying to take over grassroots positions at the local level to further their cause.

Much like Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, the Paul-istas are attacking the GOP and trying to affect the outcome of the convention. While the national media’s eye is focused on the Democratic Primary the truth of the matter is that there is no cooptation of the Democrat Party structure such as is being attempted by the Paul-istas against the GOP. Further, if a group of individuals, obviously not Democrats, tried to affect these sort of changes that the Paul-istas are trying, the media and Democrat Party backlash would be so great that it would quash the entire plan.

As conservatives we must stand up to this stupidity. Go to you local Republican Party meetings and observe for yourself the stupidity that a small faction of fools can make. As conservatives we are loosing our party to the middle and just becoming a party that is more “Democrat Light” than Reagan-esque.

Forget big tent for a minute. We must fight for what we know to be principally right and not allow for the inclusion of ideas that are detrimental to our cause. Lower taxes, border security, reduced pork barrel spending, and victory in the War of Terrorism are the basic premises we must espouse. If we think for a minute that there are not enemies among us then we are sorely mistaken.

I would rather have a party that is morally right and stands on conservative principles then be subject to compromise. This is the only way to push the right agenda for America. We must stand for our principles and fight for what we know to be right.

Finally, a heart-felt thank you is in order for the members of the armed service pas and present and their families. On this Memorial Day we remember your sacrifices and acknowledge the fact that our nation would not be where it is today without your efforts.

God Bless you all!!

http://brianiannucci.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/26/ron_paul_and_the_paul-istas_are_trying_to_ruin_the_gop.thtml

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Earlier today I sent Mr. Iannucci a response to his blog post:


I am a Republican

Mr. Iannucci,

I am deeply offended by some of your positions regarding the Republican Liberty Caucus. Let me state up front that yes, I am a member of the RLC, and I have been since last July.

First, you say that "this group has grown tired of being members of the Libertarian Party so they are trying to take over the Republican Party." I would like to note, for the record, that I have always been a Republican, and I'm sure you can find that in my voter registration records. I have never belonged to any other party. I have never considered it. Also, I do not wish to "take over" anything, but merely guide my party back to Constitutional values. I really don't care who is in charge, so long as they follow the Constitution.

I also did not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. However, I will point out that you cannot knock his minority as not being a national voice, because I'd remind you that Republican candidates who made it through the primary didn't do terribly well. I suppose the national voice is to have communism, because that is what Obama will bring us and Obama received the majority of votes. The national voice is to reject the Republican Party, because we lost big in the last two elections. The national voice is to reject the policies of the last eight years, even if they did vote to continue many of them.

You talk about this group being "well funded" but do not realize why. It is because the people believe in it. There are a lot of people out there willing to help. We are far from being rich (in fact, I had to skip a few meals over the last week because I was low on money), and we are not funded by special interests. This is no "fringe belief." If you poll the American people, regardless of party, and ask them how they feel, you will find they agree on the platform that the RLC believes in almost entirely. That is hardly "fringe." The mainstream rejected your socialist policies, so I would suggest instead that many of the people leading the Republican Party right now are instead clinging to "fringe beliefs."

The strategy for any political group which wishes to effect change within a system is to effect that change from the bottom up. So if the intent were to "take over," then that would simply be the correct strategy. It was likely how the current socialist structure took over the Republican Party. However, our goal as precinct committeemen and committeewomen has been to help the party grow and to help Republican voters who may have issues that they feel should be addressed. You forgot what it meant to be precinct committeemen and committeewomen. You have an obligation to your precinct, but you do not fulfil it. Instead, you believe it is simply a position of power, a seat to give you a vote with no other responsibilities attached. This is a seriously misguided idea. However, if someone comes in to actually perform these duties, it is such a shock to your system that you immediately question their motives. God forbid Republican precinct committeemen and committeewomen actually talk to the people of their precinct, learn their concerns, and try to convince more people to join the Republican Party. I suppose the Republican Executive Committee is nothing more than a fundraising tool, an overglorified exclusive club with no real purpose for serving the people? I would like to believe it's more than that.

You claim that the RLC's position on war is more like the liberals' than the GOP, but how is that possible? Obama is now in office. He kept the same Secretary of Defense, which means he agrees with the current strategy in Iraq. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan and even invade Pakistan. President Clinton involved us in a series of wars to "aid other countries." So it seems the liberals and GOP (thank you for not differentiating those views as conservative, simply party views) have the same ideas when it comes to war.

Nobody said that we should appease any group of terrorists (and you should appreciate the naivety of using terms like "Islamic Fascists"). The point has always been to defend ourselves if attacked, but not to invite attack by inserting ourselves into foreign affairs and foreign wars. Who armed the Taliban? We did. Who aided Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran, which he did with chemical weapons that he also used on his own people? We did. Then we wonder why Iran hates us and why Hussein was emboldened to attack other bordering nations? We gave him the go-ahead. Then we told him no, it was only okay to attack nations we allowed him to. We claimed this strategy was fine when we first got heavily involved in it during the Cold War, because the Soviets were using it. The Soviets were communists and imperialistic. Did we really want to follow in their footsteps?

You talk about such attacks leading to constricting of liberty in this nation. But where did the attacks come from? A group we aided and armed. Where did the constriction of liberties come from? A Republican president and Congress. If we seek to stop the attacks on our lives, then we should not get involved in matters that do not affect our nation's security, and should not aid foreign groups against each other. If we seek to stop the attacks on our liberties, then we should tell our politicians, even if it means standing against people within our own party, that using such excuses to tighten the noose on the American people and keep them in line is not right and it should be stopped.

Our "ideals" are detested because we try to spread them to other nations by use of force. And look how well they've done here. Our country is falling apart, and no outside force did this to us. We destroyed our own economy. We're destroying our own freedom. And we want to "export" this to other nations by invading them, destroying their government, and replacing it with our "idealistic" structure which is currently collapsing? If some other nation tried to enforce that on us, we'd reject them. We said it was wrong for the USSR to do it, why is it right for the USA to do it?

You talk about the drug issue and yet you miss so many points. First, alcohol was banned at one point for the same reasons. How did that work out? People had access to lower quality alcohol which was dangerous; there was a surge in crime (including violent crimes); and alcohol was still pretty much easily attainable. So really all they did was hurt society by attempting that. Right now we allow alcohol and tobacco. Both are drugs. Both alter your mind and affect your body and over time will poison and kill you. My lungs are damaged from second-hand smoke. I don't even smoke, but my lungs are forever damaged because of other people puffing on a legalized drug. My knees and left shoulder and badly damaged, and I have a ruptured disc in my back, because of two accidents involving drunk drivers, and I've been involved in five accidents where someone driving drunk rear-ended the automobile I was in. So don't preach about the "dangers" of pot or anything like that. The current legalized drugs have caused me a good deal of pain. They kill people every year. There were 12,998 alcohol-related fatalities in car accidents in 2007. Each year, approximately 440,000 people die from smoking in the United States alone. That's about 50 people per hour. Half a million! This is estimated to rise to ten millions deaths per year worldwide by 2020, according to the WHO. But those are legal. Well, if you're so very much against harmful drugs, let's ban alcohol and tobacco. If you'll agree to that, I suppose we can agree that other, less harmful, drugs should also continue to be banned. Let me make it clear to you that nobody is suggesting we legalize meth, or ecstasy, or even endorsing the use of any drugs, though I can't go a day without seeing a current legal endorsement for a drug (alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs which don't have any real positive effect and simply damage your body... which I've had the "pleasure" of experiencing a few of).

Your comments on a litmus test for judicial nominees are quite misguided. You don't want judicial activism, you say? But then, you actually do want it, so long as they do what you want them to. As for issues like gay marriage, that is an issue for the states to decide, and if they choose to do so, then they should be allowed to, as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it, but there is a clause stating that rights not determined by the Constitution may be determined by the individual states. And in case you missed the news, California put this issue to a vote of its people, and they rejected it, which means there is no gay marriage in California any more. More to the point, however, you are actually arguing against personal freedoms and liberty there, and your "moral" argument is basically something akin to, "My version of my religion tells me that it's immoral and wrong, therefore you must accept my religious views and not do that which your heart believes you should." Please remember that this is not a theocracy, and I would not have you press your morals on me or anyone else. I have quite a nice moral code as it is. I'd also remind you that the same argument was once used to against interracial marriages.

On the last point regarding the litmus test, "a direct threat to second amendment rights," I would recommend that you not try to state such an issue as a difference with the RLC. See, RLC members are quite adamant about their Second Amendment rights, and I'd wager that we are more so than anyone else. Now, granted, I am also unhappy with the blows that legislation within the last ten years have caused to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If you're not sure what I'm referring to, please go back and look over the legislation that has been passed, find a copy of the Bill of Rights, and think about it.

The beliefs that we in the RLC hold are in line with traditional Republican values and, more to the point, they are Constitutional. Do you really believe we should ignore that document whenever it isn't convenient?

The Republican Party is at its lowest point in decades. It is facing further setbacks. You are suggesting to people that they actively fight to remove from the party a very active part of it? You are going against party leadership and actually proposing that the party take the members of it who are most fired up and ready to do anything to help, and cast them out simply because their views are not socialist enough? You would add another crushing blow to the party, simply to "cleanse" it of anyone who inconveniently believes in personal freedoms and responsibilities, smaller government, security at home, defending America, helping Americans, and following the Constitution?

The GOP should remove imposters from its ranks, and should be for true conservative values. To that end, I request that you step down from any position you hold within the party, and no longer claim to be a Republican.

If you wish to start a public information campaign against the RLC, I will do you a favor and recommend right now that you not do it. I think we are well prepared to deal with any campaign. All we need to do is provide facts. You will seek to distort the truth and provide the media with disinformation. We will simply inform people regarding history, introduce them to decisions made within the party, state our positions, and remind people of the Constitution of this great nation. The majority of people are with us. We *are* the mainstream. We *are* the Republican Party, the true party. You bandy about the "Libertarian" label so much. Well, being a "diehard Republican" I suppose you are a fan of President Ronald Reagan. Let me provide you with some comments from Reagan on that subject:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

"REASON: Now that you’re in the minority party, how do you feel about other prospects for minor parties or third party activities?

REAGAN: Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind–the side we’re out to defeat wins. I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn’t vote, more than half of them now say they didn’t vote because they don’t see any difference between the parties. I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.

REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?

REAGAN: I’d like to see the Libertarian Party–I don’t say they should quit being a party–I’d like to see them, I’d like to see the conservatives, I’d like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I’m talking–I’d like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK we’re not saying to you give up what you’re doing, but, can’t we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what they’re doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)?"

So your policy is exactly the opposite of what Reagan would support, and you're trying to drive out the people that believe in what he refers to as "the very heart and soul of conservatism."

The leadership of the party has claimed they want to work with the "Ron Paul Republicans" and groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus. Were those just empty words to get support for election or reelection? I can certainly tell you how the public will feel if the party then tries to oust those people that it tried to court in order to get votes. And if you try to do this disinformation campaign to harm the RLC, then those facts will come out. The leadership's comments will be displayed for all the public to see, followed by actions within the party that go directly against those promises. You will destroy our party just so you can have the party remain closer to liberalism than true conservatism.

I hope you reconsider. But for the sake of my party, the Republican Party, and my country, and not for the sake of the RLC or anyone else, I will lead the way in defeating your disinformation campaign. And when that is over, I will help, along with all of the other people you seek to ostracize, in rebuilding the Grand Old Party.
--
Erik Setzer
Chairman of Marketing and Public Relations

Republican Liberty Caucus
http://www.rlcnf.org

[Pauls' Revere]

To have representatives of our party that are not in line with our platform would be detrimental to our future as a party.

What a blessing that would be! because W. Bush wasn't enough of an embarassment?

WTF!!!

[anaconda]

What's a "second vice chair?"

This guy sounds like the definition of a neocon schmuck. These people are ONLY taking their marching orders from the military-industrial complex.

We just need about 15% defections from the Republican Party into the RP Revolution. Then they will have to change or they will never win another election.

[anaconda]

LOL. Mr. Iannucci says that RP Revolution people getting involved in the local party politics is a "ruthless tactic." LOL. Participating in democracy is a "ruthless tactic." Sounds like they are a tad scared however.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

We just need about 15% defections from the Republican Party into the RP Revolution. Then they will have to change or they will never win another election.

There has been a massive exodus from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party or becoming "Independent," on top of the Republicans within the party that it has alienated - whether they are libertarian Republicans or not. There's no need for a further exodus. They are in no position to win an election until they try to fix the party. It was something Reagan noted: The party has become too liberal, and that's driven the true conservative (libertarian) members out, weakening the party severely. The only way to fix the party is to at the very least find some common ground, but if they're unwilling to do that, then they'll continue to lose voters.

[FindLiberty]

+1 for those OP responses.

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

+1776 to cure the root problem(s): Widespread faith in the lies of fractional reserve banking and free lunches, NWO/elite central planners, MilitaryIndustrialComplex, Corporate media, gubermint laws/regulation and party poly-tics in general. These are all communicable diseases that thrive on ignorance.

[tommyzDad]

Wow, great, level headed responses, does our movement proud.
Keep at 'em!


Yes, what she said!!

[JS4Pat]

You are not going to change the GOPs mind with this approach.

Good point. And I thought about that.

I don’t believe we will change this individual’s mind nor the mind’s of those in the current leadership who find our type of “change” threatening to them.

However, I do believe there are some members of the REC who with repeated exposure to our determination and consistent message will side with liberty. But my goal in using this type tactic is not necessarily to win over the “current REC members”. My goal is to take advantage of the stage that the REC provides for drawing attention to our conservative message. Our actions in the REC over the past 2 years have made literally thousands of people in the county (Republicans & Independents) realize that the candidates/message of the GOP of the last 8 years was not acceptable to all Republicans. Otherwise, the REC would have all marched in lock step with no dissenting opinion and praising anti-Republican actions like increased federal spending, an interventionist foreign policy, taxpayer bailouts, deficits etc. Who knows the positive impact we have had beyond that little monolithic group of misinformed folks. This will not be accomplished overnight. We need a steady, patient, level headed and consistent approach.

We forced 2 Front Page Newspaper Articles
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144923

[georgiaboy]

I predict that you'll see the GOP losing presidential elections by about 3% for a while. We're that 3%; we are the thorn in their side; the itch they can't scratch; the sludge in their engines; the horse that won't 'giddy up'; the "fly in the ointment."

It is an honor and a priviledge.

yes.

something about a 'tireless minority' or something comes to mind...;)

great responses, JS.

[anaconda]

There has been a massive exodus from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party or becoming "Independent," on top of the Republicans within the party that it has alienated - whether they are libertarian Republicans or not. There's no need for a further exodus. They are in no position to win an election until they try to fix the party. It was something Reagan noted: The party has become too liberal, and that's driven the true conservative (libertarian) members out, weakening the party severely. The only way to fix the party is to at the very least find some common ground, but if they're unwilling to do that, then they'll continue to lose voters.

Very well spoken Soft Spoken Storm. But I am not as optimistic as you. When Obama fails and disillusions then they will be infected with voter apathy and exodus to Green/Independent/Libertarian and then the GOP-military-industrial-party will close the gap again on the general election. The bright spot I see in this is the possibility of a growing 3rd Party apparatus that could catch fire and spread.

[constituent]

This will bring about further social problems in this country by expanding addiction, easing access to illicit drugs, and allowing for the further deteriorization of the social fabric of this nation by endorsing use and abuse of drugs.

the de-terior-ization, eh?

lol.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Excellent responses. I'd be surprised if they had a rebuttal with any intellectual debate.

They don't seem to bother responding to intellectual messages. A shame, really.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

I was very encouraged by the Duval County REC meeting last night. First, when Sam Newby said that we need to "take back our country and take back our party" (one the RLC's slogans is "Let's take it back!" referring to the party as "it"). And then Marco Rubio made a comment throwing Charlie Crist under the bus. Those were some definite high points.

SJCREC is a bunch of stuck-up elitists, but we seem to be making real headway in the DCREC. Now, I am remaining *cautiously* idealistic... but idealistic nonetheless.

[Toureg89]

lmao, "Islamo-Fascist", thats a contradiction in terms.

[speciallyblend]

JS4PAT after reading your responses. I think you should get that guys job;)

[speciallyblend]

There has been a massive exodus from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party or becoming "Independent," on top of the Republicans within the party that it has alienated - whether they are libertarian Republicans or not. There's no need for a further exodus. They are in no position to win an election until they try to fix the party. It was something Reagan noted: The party has become too liberal, and that's driven the true conservative (libertarian) members out, weakening the party severely. The only way to fix the party is to at the very least find some common ground, but if they're unwilling to do that, then they'll continue to lose voters.

we might consider leaving the republican party in Colorado and forming the RGOP

REAL REPUBLICANS (not a 3rd party),that way we can offer a choice to republicans and voters.then they could re-affiliate.. It wouldn't be a 3rd party,just republicans working outside of the corrupt party leadership.

of course the RGOP would be open to all members of all parties. The Platform, Liberty and the US Constitution and Republican Values!!

just an idea but it seems in colorado they do not want republicans. i wonder if the cogop can win an election losing up to 1/3 of their party?? they will just replace us republicans with illegal aliens and hispanics! i heard hispanics are flocking to the gop(sarcasm).

[Feenix566]

they will just replace us republicans with illegal aliens and hispanics! i heard hispanics are flocking to the gop(sarcasm).

What's up with the xenophobia? That doesn't belong in this thread. Why does everything have to always come back to that?

[speciallyblend]

What's up with the xenophobia? That doesn't belong in this thread. Why does everything have to always come back to that?

dude it was a joke but yes we have a problem in colorado with illegal aliens and my wife is hispanic/pueblo indian and white.(my wife is more native american then any of us)

the fact is the gop said they were courting mexicans(or should i say hispanic? so i do not offend you?) and if you notice i seperated mexican/hispanic and illegal aliens,since not aLL MEXICANS ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. IT IS CALLED A JOKE!!! IF YOU TAKE IT FURTHER THEN THAT,then that is your fault not mine!!! sorry caps button.


come back to what??? i did not bring racism up(i assume this is what your trying to say?). i brought a true fact. the gop is courting mexicans,now for the illegal part ,that was a joke!!

the punchline to the joke is the fact the gop thinks it will win over legal mexicans!! if that doesn't work i am sure they will find away to court the illegals!

they surely do not give a rats ass about us republicans!!

sorry no xenophobia,just sarcasm

[speciallyblend]

What's up with the xenophobia? That doesn't belong in this thread. Why does everything have to always come back to that?

i could possibly say the samething about your avatar;)

you do know if nothing changes in our government. obama will not be the blame. It will be us for not doing enough locally! i do like your avatar but what does it prove?

if you had your avatar on a t-shirt, you think it would help change minds??

some might label you like you tried to label me!
let me know when your singing russian folk songs and picking wheat in the fields;) by order from obama!

[Feenix566]

i am sure they will find away to court the illegals!


There you go again. Referring to a person as an "illegal" is xenophobic. They're human beings. A human being cannot be "illegal".

I know it was a joke. I didn't think it was funny.

[speciallyblend]

There you go again. Referring to a person as an "illegal" is xenophobic. They're human beings. A human being cannot be "illegal".

I know it was a joke. I didn't think it was funny.

no i am referring to an illegal because guess what?? they are illegal

there you go again!!!
there is not a dam thing wrong with the term illegal! it is what is is bill clinton!

if a person is here illegally what are they called??? answer is illegal aliens . i guess you would be offended if 1+1=2?? sorry i left the world alien off illegal

if they are here illegally they are breaking the law they are called criminials!! if your here legally then you will not be here illegally and your term does not fit the definition unless they are here legally/illegal and i am fearful which i am not, i am not xenophobic. I just want people who come to our country to be here legally. if that is xenophobic, then your the definition of insanity!!

I am somewhat fearful of people who would break the law and act like it is ok to be here illegally when it is not! I have plenty of hispanic friends so to assume im fearful because i want people to follow the immigration laws. well that is a joke in itself!

and it is not funny:)

[JS4Pat]

JS4PAT after reading your responses. I think you should get that guys job;)

Hey - thanks.

Funny you say that.

I ran against Brian in the race for second vice chair in December and I was beaten soundly.

Of course - much like the Ron Paul primaries - the playing field was not exactly "even". :rolleyes:

[Feenix566]

no i am referring to an illegal because guess what?? they are illegal

there you go again!!!
there is not a dam thing wrong with the term illegal! it is what is is bill clinton!

if a person is here illegally what are they called??? answer is illegal aliens . i guess you would be offended if 1+1=2?? sorry i left the world alien off illegal

if they are here illegally they are breaking the law they are called criminials!! if your here legally then you will not be here illegally and your term does not fit the definition unless they are here legally and i am fearful which i am not, i am not xenophobic. I just want people who come to our country to be here legally. if that is xenophobic, then your the definition of insanity!!

Okay, let's test your commitment to what you just said. How would you feel about an open border policy that allowed everyone to come here legally? Then they wouldn't be breaking the law. By your logic, you should then have no beef with them at all.

Unless, of course, the thing that is irritating you about them has to do with something other than their position with respect to our immigration policies.

Oh, by the way, when was the last time you broke a posted speed limit? Failed to properly fill out all your tax forms? Crossed the street without being on a cross walk? Failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? According to your argument, anyone who has done any of those things is also an "illegal". I guess you'd better start calling yourself an illegal.

[speciallyblend]

Hey - thanks.

Funny you say that.

I ran against Brian in the race for second vice chair in December and I was beaten soundly.

Of course - much like the Ron Paul primaries - the playing field was not exactly "even". :rolleyes:

If we had a even playing field RON PAUL would be President right now;)

[JS4Pat]

The Neo-Con version of Ron Paul's "What If" has been posted on the TownHall.com Blog...

http://brianiannucci.blogtownhall.com