I have a problem with retaking Congress.

[10thAmendment]

When the Founders established the federal government, they reserved the lion's share difference of total government power, minus the limited powers delegated by the Constitution to the feds, to the states. The problem is that the Constitution-ignoring MSM has seized the opportunity provided by epidemic constitutional ignorance to turn the Oval Office into a throne room. So the Constitution-ignorant people now unthinkingly revere the president as if he were a king, likewise with Congress.

So the problem that I have with the idea of retaking Congress is the following. Given that the evil, Constitution-ignoring Congress isn't going to listen to good citizens anyway, we really need to retake state legislatures in 2010 with pro-state power state leaders who will do as follows. Pro-state power state leaders need to demand that the federal government surrenders back to the states state powers that the federal government has been unconstitutionally usurping from the states.

Finally, to pull the plug on the renegade federal government, state lawmakers need to repeal the 16th Amendment, in my opinion, the amendment that gives the feds the power to tax citizens directly. The problem with that amendment is that it has made it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes.

[abrahamclark]

I agree but I think we should be fighting for both, not just the State. What good is having a State that rebels when our entire military is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. We need to take back both.

If you are old enough, you should run for State. I'm thinking about it.

[spcmckay]

Another problem with running for Congress is that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply and the elections. It is impossible to have fair elections using fiat dollars and if the ballots are counted in secret by machine. We have to reclaim our independace the way our founding fathers did. Eventually there will have to be more civil disobedience.

I think Bob Schulz of We the People foundation has it right. We can no longer play by their rules. He is proposing a Continental Congress in 2009. The states would elect three representatives to attend this CC where they would start a petition of grievances against our government. This would be based on the original Continental Congress.

For more information go to www.givemeliberty.org

[nayjevin]

In other news, draft Adam Kokesh (http://www.draftkokesh.com/)

[crushingstep7]

Another problem with running for Congress is that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply and the elections. It is impossible to have fair elections using fiat dollars and if the ballots are counted in secret by machine. We have to reclaim our independace the way our founding fathers did. Eventually there will have to be more civil disobedience.

I think Bob Schulz of We the People foundation has it right. We can no longer play by their rules. He is proposing a Continental Congress in 2009. The states would elect three representatives to attend this CC where they would start a petition of grievances against our government. This would be based on the original Continental Congress.

For more information go to www.givemeliberty.org



I wish I could actually run for something.
I feel I have the ability to help out quite a bit, but my age (18) is limiting.
Is there any other role a person could play?

[pahs1994]

When the Founders established the federal government, they reserved the lion's share difference of total government power, minus the limited powers delegated by the Constitution to the feds, to the states. The problem is that the Constitution-ignoring MSM has seized the opportunity provided by epidemic constitutional ignorance to turn the Oval Office into a throne room. So the Constitution-ignorant people now unthinkingly revere the president as if he were a king, likewise with Congress.

So the problem that I have with the idea of retaking Congress is the following. Given that the evil, Constitution-ignoring Congress isn't going to listen to good citizens anyway, we really need to retake state legislatures in 2010 with pro-state power state leaders who will do as follows. Pro-state power state leaders need to demand that the federal government surrenders back to the states state powers that the federal government has been unconstitutionally usurping from the states.

Finally, to pull the plug on the renegade federal government, state lawmakers need to repeal the 16th Amendment, in my opinion, the amendment that gives the feds the power to tax citizens directly. The problem with that amendment is that it has made it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes.

I agree with all of this. I bet all these guys in power ignore the constitution so much that they don't realize we can repeal from the state level.

[acptulsa]

I really don't see how any of that means bending Congress to the will of the American people would be a bad thing. In my opinion the federal government is more out of control, and doing more harm to the people, than the governments of all fifty states combined. And I think the equation holds even if you throw in the territorial governments as well.

[Elle]

I wish I could actually run for something.
I feel I have the ability to help out quite a bit, but my age (18) is limiting.
Is there any other role a person could play?

Yes, you can educate people in your district on how your current reps have voted on things such as the bailouts. Also educate them on the constitution. Seek out people that are old enough to run that agree on following the constitution and the principles of liberty and encourage them to run. Help them out with their campaign or with whatever you can. Attend local meetings. Get together with other like minded people and start holding your own meetings. Talk to anyone that will listen. One voice speaking to many ears can accomplish a lot.

[South Park Fan]

I really don't see how any of that means bending Congress to the will of the American people would be a bad thing. In my opinion the federal government is more out of control, and doing more harm to the people, than the governments of all fifty states combined. And I think the equation holds even if you throw in the territorial governments as well.

True, though that may be a better reason to run for state office. You have a better chance getting elected to state legislature than to Congress, and if you are a state legislator, that will give you a venue when you could push through radical solutions such as nullification and secession. That has a better chance of happening than trying to get 51% of seats in Congress.

[Nathan Hale]

I wish I could actually run for something.
I feel I have the ability to help out quite a bit, but my age (18) is limiting.
Is there any other role a person could play?

Yes - help a campaign. For every candidate among us, we need dozens of volunteers to put out lawn signs, attend rallies, hand out literature, go door-to-door, etc. Find a viable pro-liberty candidate in your area and offer your time on their campaign.

[Nathan Hale]

Another problem with running for Congress is that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply and the elections. It is impossible to have fair elections using fiat dollars and if the ballots are counted in secret by machine.

I don't see how the federal reserve puts pro-liberty candidates at a disadvantage in elections. Wouldn't the fiat money supply and the federal reserve's control of it effect all candidates?


We have to reclaim our independace the way our founding fathers did. Eventually there will have to be more civil disobedience.

We're not there yet - this is simply not an analogous situation to the run-up to the War of Independence. If you want to write off political action, Campaign for Liberty is not your movement.


I think Bob Schulz of We the People foundation has it right. We can no longer play by their rules. He is proposing a Continental Congress in 2009. The states would elect three representatives to attend this CC where they would start a petition of grievances against our government. This would be based on the original Continental Congress.

Yeah....uhh, good luck with that.

[GunnyFreedom]

"I have a problem with retaking Congress."

Getting all the pitch-forks past the metal detectors? :D

Seriously, I agree that the several State's legislatures are equally, if not more important. The leverage is being applied all up and down the lever arm; the 10th Amendment is going famously here in NC.

Efforts on all fronts to restore the Constitutional Order are not a bad thing.

[cheapseats]

...We have to reclaim our independace the way our founding fathers did. Eventually there will have to be more civil disobedience...





We're not there yet - this is simply not an analogous situation to the run-up to the War of Independence.

Taxation without representation is taxation without representation.

Corruption in office is corruption in office.

Abuse of power is abuse of power.

Tyranny is tyranny.




If you want to write off political action, Campaign for Liberty is not your movement.



Ironically, Campaign 4 Liberty sometimes has sort of an our-way-not-that-we're-a-collective-or-the-highway way about it.

Lyin', schemin', backroom dealin' Barack Fake Change Obama just ordered TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND troops to Afghanistan. Is there a magic number of dead among them that will constitute our "being there"?

It is disturbing in a way that Obamamania was disturbing -- the UNTHINKINGNESS of it -- when otherwise intelligent, ethical Americans continue to eschew violence as "a last resort." Just as surely as we have announced that CRIME PAYS IN AMERICA, we may as well announce that violence perpetrated against American troops and non-Americans doesn't count.

[Nathan Hale]

Taxation without representation is taxation without representation.

Corruption in office is corruption in office.

Abuse of power is abuse of power.

Tyranny is tyranny.

Oh, we have analogous grievances. What I said was that we don't have an analogous situation. We don't enjoy the support that the rebels enjoyed in the 1770s. This is not the time to take your path.


Ironically, Campaign 4 Liberty sometimes has sort of an our-way-not-that-we're-a-collective-or-the-highway way about it.

It's a campaign. Campaigns are not and should not be libertarian in their structure. That's what killed the Free State Project. They had huge momentum but failed to develop the organization. The "plan" was that everybody would do their own thing for their own reasons and it would all work out okay. Problem is, that approach does not work. The Campaign needs structure. It needs fewer Chiefs and more Indians. It needs set objectives and strategic thinking.


Lyin', schemin', backroom dealin' Barack Fake Change Obama just ordered TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND troops to Afghanistan. Is there a magic number of dead among them that will constitute our "being there"?

It is disturbing in a way that Obamamania was disturbing -- the UNTHINKINGNESS of it -- when otherwise intelligent, ethical Americans continue to eschew violence as "a last resort." Just as surely as we have announced that CRIME PAYS IN AMERICA, we may as well announce that violence perpetrated against American troops and non-Americans doesn't count.

This seems off-topic considering the rest of our conversation, so I won't comment, in the interest of brevity.

[cheapseats]

Oh, we have analogous grievances. What I said was that we don't have an analogous situation. We don't enjoy the support that the rebels enjoyed in the 1770s.

Please tell me we are not waiting for help from France.



This is not the time to take your path.

I trust you do not mean that you are the decision-maker for my path-taking, rather, that this is not the time for YOU to take MY path. Which is perfectly understandable.




It's a campaign. Campaigns are not and should not be libertarian in their structure.

Libertarian campaigns with non-libertarian structures sounds a lot like politics over principles. Politics over principles paves the way for personalities over principles.




That's what killed the Free State Project. They had huge momentum but failed to develop the organization. The "plan" was that everybody would do their own thing for their own reasons and it would all work out okay. Problem is, that approach does not work. The Campaign needs structure. It needs fewer Chiefs and more Indians. It needs set objectives and strategic thinking.


I quite agree that everybody doing their own thing is not a Plan. That said, I will suggest that a lack of vision supersedes poor organization in both the Free State and Secessionist movements.




Lyin', schemin', backroom dealin' Barack Fake Change Obama just ordered TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND troops to Afghanistan. Is there a magic number of dead among them that will constitute our "being there"?

It is disturbing in a way that Obamamania was disturbing -- the UNTHINKINGNESS of it -- when otherwise intelligent, ethical Americans continue to eschew violence as "a last resort." Just as surely as we have announced that CRIME PAYS IN AMERICA, we may as well announce that violence perpetrated against American troops and non-Americans doesn't count.



This seems off-topic considering the rest of our conversation, so I won't comment, in the interest of brevity.

In the last day or two, I heard on the radio that a United States Navy vessel was attacked i.e. fired upon by Somali pirates. Know what the United States Navy response was? "Evasive maneuvers and verbal reprimands." American troops FIRED UPON, and their orders are to engage in evasive maneuvers and deliver verbal reprimands? Do you suppose that has more to do with aversion to violence, or embrasure of politics?

I sense that the families and friends of slain Iraqi citizens, and the families and friends of slain Afghani citizens, and the families and friends and Brothers In Arms of slain American troops would not find mention of Americans' idiosyncratic definitions of force and violence to be "off topic."

[Nathan Hale]

Please tell me we are not waiting for help from France.

Funny, but not speaking to my point.


I trust you do not mean that you are the decision-maker for my path-taking, rather, that this is not the time for YOU to take MY path. Which is perfectly understandable.

That depends on whether or not you are a part of this movement or just following your own path. If you want to be part of a movement, well, often that means compromising your ideal path in order to take a path that leads to success. Sometimes that means (gasp!) voluntarily submitting yourself to somebody else's path.


Libertarian campaigns with non-libertarian structures sounds a lot like politics over principles. Politics over principles paves the way for personalities over principles.

It has nothing to do with "politics over principles". The structure of our organization is not a political statement because campaign organizations/businesses are not governments. Political theory is not business/campaign theory.


I quite agree that everybody doing their own thing is not a Plan. That said, I will suggest that a lack of vision supersedes poor organization in both the Free State and Secessionist movements.

I disagree. The FSP had vision, great vision. What they lacked was organization, and it was apparent in their lack of cohesive efforts to further their vision.


In the last day or two, I heard on the radio that a United States Navy vessel was attacked i.e. fired upon by Somali pirates. Know what the United States Navy response was? "Evasive maneuvers and verbal reprimands." American troops FIRED UPON, and their orders are to engage in evasive maneuvers and deliver verbal reprimands? Do you suppose that has more to do with aversion to violence, or embrasure of politics?

I sense that the families and friends of slain Iraqi citizens, and the families and friends of slain Afghani citizens, and the families and friends and Brothers In Arms of slain American troops would not find mention of Americans' idiosyncratic definitions of force and violence to be "off topic."

How is this relevant to the rest of our conversation??? I'm not trying to put down the severity of this news, only that it doesn't seem to relate to what we're otherwise talking about.

[cheapseats]

Funny, but not speaking to my point.

Funny and NOT funny, it DOES speak to the point. As I understand our history, American Revolutionaries did NOT "enjoy" such widespread support. As now, there were plenty of people who preferred to take the peace-at-any-price road more traveled.




That depends on whether or not you are a part of this movement or just following your own path. If you want to be part of a movement, well, often that means compromising your ideal path in order to take a path that leads to success. Sometimes that means (gasp!) voluntarily submitting yourself to somebody else's path.


I confess that I cannot recall a single instance of "wanting to be part of a movement." As to submitting to another's path, again I must confess, I don't like the sound of that at all. But that's me -- far more libertarian than most libertarians, minus the label. In my book, lockstep is a creepy concept.

'Course I never imagined I'd see my country, and not coincidentally my own affairs, fall apart like this -- so I'm trying to be open-minded, though not in a Craigslist sort of way.

Pray tell, how would YOU define the Movement of which you are a part?




It has nothing to do with "politics over principles". The structure of our organization is not a political statement because campaign organizations/businesses are not governments. Political theory is not business/campaign theory.

That campaigning for office is Big Business is at the heart of our trouble.




I disagree. The FSP had vision, great vision. What they lacked was organization, and it was apparent in their lack of cohesive efforts to further their vision.


I'll grant vision of the wouldn't-it-be-loverly variety. Unless a person is one of our increasingly numerous and therefore powerful Gimme Freebie folk, what's not to like about the concept of a Free State? I mean vision of the practical-how-to variety.

Larger segments of the world -- more governments AND more people -- constitute a threat to the United States. Yes, I KNOW that we are much to blame for our own demise. How we got here doesn't change the location. The idea of SMALLER parcels of land with FEWER people being stronger and safer simply doesn't hold water. Better run, yes. More efficient, yes. Stronger and safer, no.

And speaking of water, the notion of a sovereign state with no oceanfront is like asking for a side of supply shortage to go with your physical vulnerability.



How is this relevant to the rest of our conversation??? I'm not trying to put down the severity of this news, only that it doesn't seem to relate to what we're otherwise talking about.

How this is relevant to the rest of the conversation is that a truly demoralizing number of my countrymen refuse to execute people who give every evidence of improving the world by their absence, while accepting AND PAYING FOR -- year after bloody year -- a slaughter of Innocents that, incredibly, we casaully chalk up to Collateral Damage. We don't even keep track of the NUMBER of people that we permit to be killed on our behalf with our money.

[Original_Intent]

So the problem that I have with the idea of retaking Congress is the following. Given that the evil, Constitution-ignoring Congress isn't going to listen to good citizens anyway, we really need to retake state legislatures in 2010 with pro-state power state leaders who will do as follows. Pro-state power state leaders need to demand that the federal government surrenders back to the states state powers that the federal government has been unconstitutionally usurping from the states.

Finally, to pull the plug on the renegade federal government, state lawmakers need to repeal the 16th Amendment, in my opinion, the amendment that gives the feds the power to tax citizens directly. The problem with that amendment is that it has made it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes.

While I agree that we need to focus on state legislatures also, what you have written here doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

Number 1, you say we should not retake Congress because Congress egnores both the Constitution and good citizens. That is the POINT of retaking Congress - to get people in there that do not ignore the Constitution and good citizens. So I found that to be poor reasoning.

Second bolded point above, I do not believe state legislatures CAN repeal amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Doesn't it take a new amendment to the Constitution to repeal a previous amendment? Therefore it would have to go thru the process of passing Congress and then being voted on by the states just like any amendment. Which actually makes retaking Congress MORE important.

[spacehabitats]

Constitution-ignoring Congress isn't going to listen to good citizens anyway...
Sorry you feel that way, although I can understand how you would have come by such cynicism.
Of all the branches of the federal government, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES was meant to be the most responsive to the people. And it WILL BE, when we get up off our defeatist butts and start working at it.

A good start would be supporting Mike Vasovski for congress (http://www.vasovskiforcongress.com/).

[Nathan Hale]

Funny and NOT funny, it DOES speak to the point. As I understand our history, American Revolutionaries did NOT "enjoy" such widespread support.

You understand wrong. John Ferling, in his definitive text on the War of Independence entitled "Almost a Miracle" points out, as do other scholars, that support for the armed resistance was strong - in fact such support was a prerequisite for the existence of the Continental Congress and Washington's army, to say nothing of the insurgency that festered in nearly every town, supported by the local population.


As now, there were plenty of people who preferred to take the peace-at-any-price road more traveled.

The Revolution was itself a "peace at any price" endeavor, in the beginning. Independence did not gain traction as a meme among the revolutionaries until a year after Lexington and Concord.


I confess that I cannot recall a single instance of "wanting to be part of a movement."

That's unfortunate, because it's going to take a movement in order to effect libertarian change in this country.


As to submitting to another's path, again I must confess, I don't like the sound of that at all.

Perhaps the terminology is a turn-off, but think of the concept. You and three friends need to accomplish a task that requires all four of you to accomplish. how do you go about it? Well, you each can't just do your own thing because the task requires you all to work together. So you all compromise between yourselves in order to find a common path that you all, for the most part, support, in order to achieve your goal. That's what I'm talking about.


But that's me -- far more libertarian than most libertarians, minus the label. In my book, lockstep is a creepy concept.

I'm not asking for lockstep, I'm asking for teamwork.


'Course I never imagined I'd see my country, and not coincidentally my own affairs, fall apart like this -- so I'm trying to be open-minded, though not in a Craigslist sort of way.

Not sure what you mean here.


Pray tell, how would YOU define the Movement of which you are a part?

A movement in the direction of smaller government.


That campaigning for office is Big Business is at the heart of our trouble.

You missed my point. Libertarianism is a great political theory in that it defines the goals and structure of government in a manner superior to other political theories. The problem is that libertarianism doesn't translate well into business theory, or along the same vein, to campaign theory. The objectives held by businesses or campaigns are best served by a different structure than the ideal structure of government.

Even speaking of morality, Libertarianism as a moral entity applies because we are forced to be subject to our government. When we become involved with a business or campaign we choose to be a part of it, so the libertarian moral high horse does not apply.


I'll grant vision of the wouldn't-it-be-loverly variety. Unless a person is one of our increasingly numerous and therefore powerful Gimme Freebie folk, what's not to like about the concept of a Free State? I mean vision of the practical-how-to variety.

I still disagree. The FSP had great practical vision. Their plan was sound and pragmatic. But they didn't organize. They defined themselves strictly as a clearinghouse to move people in state, after which it is "do what you want, it'll all work out". In THAT they failed, because they didn't make themselves into a campaign.


Larger segments of the world -- more governments AND more people -- constitute a threat to the United States. Yes, I KNOW that we are much to blame for our own demise. How we got here doesn't change the location. The idea of SMALLER parcels of land with FEWER people being stronger and safer simply doesn't hold water. Better run, yes. More efficient, yes. Stronger and safer, no.

Tell that to the Swiss.


And speaking of water, the notion of a sovereign state with no oceanfront is like asking for a side of supply shortage to go with your physical vulnerability.

Though I could defer to the Swiss again, I'll mention that NH actually has 18 miles of coastline with a naval base featured prominently on it.


How this is relevant to the rest of the conversation is that a truly demoralizing number of my countrymen refuse to execute people who give every evidence of improving the world by their absence, while accepting AND PAYING FOR -- year after bloody year -- a slaughter of Innocents that, incredibly, we casaully chalk up to Collateral Damage. We don't even keep track of the NUMBER of people that we permit to be killed on our behalf with our money.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I don't see how it relates to the rest of our conversation. What did I say that the above quoted text is a response to?

[cheapseats]

You understand wrong. John Ferling, in his definitive text on the War of Independence entitled "Almost a Miracle" points out, as do other scholars, that support for the armed resistance was strong - in fact such support was a prerequisite for the existence of the Continental Congress and Washington's army, to say nothing of the insurgency that festered in nearly every town, supported by the local population.

Philadelphia must also understand wrong. When I traveled there this past September, among the sites and memorabilia are recounts of future-Americans who decidedly did NOT want the fuss of independence or dangers of revolution. Some of them, as today, were of the "have more to lose" variety.

The folk that our Founding Fathers kicked it with were clear and fearless -- that's a huge advantage. They REFUSED to live a certain way. They had a line in the sand. Those who were not on board with that line in the sand -- just to mix metaphors ;) -- didn't have a DIFFERENT line about which they were equally adamant-read-that-willing-to-die.




The Revolution was itself a "peace at any price" endeavor, in the beginning. Independence did not gain traction as a meme among the revolutionaries until a year after Lexington and Concord.

"We" declared our independence via the oh-so-aptly named Declaration of Independence a FULL YEAR before the war broke out.




That's unfortunate, because it's going to take a movement in order to effect libertarian change in this country.

I am not declaring war but, rather, declaring my independence. I think it's unfortunate that you think that's unfortunate. I am free until I am not free. Everybody dies one day and, to hear some tell it with conviction, then I'll REALLY be free.





Perhaps the terminology is a turn-off, but think of the concept.

If you're gonna play the politics game and get into the campaign business, you'll not want to sluff off off-putting terminology.




You and three friends need to accomplish a task that requires all four of you to accomplish. how do you go about it? Well, you each can't just do your own thing because the task requires you all to work together. So you all compromise between yourselves in order to find a common path that you all, for the most part, support, in order to achieve your goal. That's what I'm talking about.


Oh, I know what you're talking about. I'm DISAGREEING with you.

Human relationships require compromise (excluding those featuring exquisitely macho men for whom Might Makes Right). You're now talking about special task forces, right? Agenda-driven associations of people -- COLLECTIVES, for the record -- compelled to work together i.e. compromise in order to accomplish a necessary feat.

Where, when and on what do the Libertarians EVER compromise? Other than on softening the demand for bona fide reform in exchange for more seats in a government that they say out of the other side of their mouths we shouldn't even have.

Libertarian showed EXTREMELY poorly in the polls, and yet there's an above-reproach attitude of doubling down. SEND MORE MONEY.

On what basis would the group be deferring to YOUR-not-your way as THE way. From where I sit, if y'all don't change things up, you're as liable to glean two-and-a-half percent as ten percent in the next presidential election.

But there IS the consolation that a few more fellows from YOUR-not-your "side" will be living the Life Of Riley at citizen expense.




I'm not asking for lockstep, I'm asking for teamwork.


Everyone working together doing it YOUR way?



'Course I never imagined I'd see my country, and not coincidentally my own affairs, fall apart like this -- so I'm trying to be open-minded, though not in a Craigslist sort of way.


Not sure what you mean here.

I'm just as pissed off about this as I could be but -- conditions on the ground having changed just an awful lot, emphasis on awful -- it appears that I truly and seriously need to hook up with a big, strong (silent okay, I talk enough for three), God-fearing, right-acting, duty-and-honor-bound man's man.

Lemme put it this way. When my last go-round with sexists on this board prompted me to go on hiatus, I turned to Craigslist. Oh. My. God.

Taking a break from message board? Super good idea. Craigslist for tracking down Mr. Ride Out This Shit Storm With Me? Superlatively bad idea. ;)





A movement in the direction of smaller government.

That's IT? The long and short of a "movement" for which you would have me restrain/alter my convictions and to which you would have others donate money/time is that it is "in the direction of smaller government"?

Slow as molasses in January THAT movement will be. Count up yer welfare recipients, add 'em to yer federal employees, and THEN consider the number of aging Baby Boomers.




You missed my point. Libertarianism is a great political theory in that it defines the goals and structure of government in a manner superior to other political theories.

I am not MISSING your points, I am DISAGREEING with them.

Libertarianism is NOT a great political theory if the People don't warm to it. Libertarianism sans popular support would be another imposition of some people's preferences onto others.





The problem is that libertarianism doesn't translate well into business theory, or along the same vein, to campaign theory.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT CAMPAIGNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT RIGHTLY A BUSINESS.




The objectives held by businesses or campaigns are best served by a different structure than the ideal structure of government.


Exactly so. The objective in business is TURNING A PROFIT. The objective in campaigning is WINNING.

You propose that the ends justify the means. I disagree.




Even speaking of morality, Libertarianism as a moral entity applies because we are forced to be subject to our government. When we become involved with a business or campaign we choose to be a part of it, so the libertarian moral high horse does not apply.

Libertarianism is NOT a moral entity. High horse are best left stabled, Libertarian or otherwise.





Tell that to the Swiss.

Talk to a non-Swiss who has ever lived in Switzerland. It is one of the most strictly regulated societies on earth. And turn your radio down.




Though I could defer to the Swiss again, I'll mention that NH actually has 18 miles of coastline with a naval base featured prominently on it.


I was thinking more of some of the others e.g. Montana, Oklahoma.

STILL . . .

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/litwit/new_england.jpg

Compare New Hampshire's little bit of beach with Maine's, with its long seashore and its many pirate-y inlets and isles. Eighteen miles of seafront seems not so daunting to blockade. The United States from which New Hampshire proposes to be free is unlikely to bequeath New Hampshire a naval base, I think.




Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I don't see how it relates to the rest of our conversation. What did I say that the above quoted text is a response to?


...We have to reclaim our independace the way our founding fathers did. Eventually there will have to be more civil disobedience...




We're not there yet -


The only reason we're not there is because we're PAST DUE. The American People are reluctant unto denial in the assumption of their responsibilities and the discharge of their duties. Feeding more good money and more good people into the dastardliness of existing Washington politics is like sending more good money and more good people down the money pits in the Middle East.

[Mosheh Thezion]

When the Founders established the federal government, they reserved the lion's share difference of total government power, minus the limited powers delegated by the Constitution to the feds, to the states. The problem is that the Constitution-ignoring MSM has seized the opportunity provided by epidemic constitutional ignorance to turn the Oval Office into a throne room. So the Constitution-ignorant people now unthinkingly revere the president as if he were a king, likewise with Congress.

So the problem that I have with the idea of retaking Congress is the following. Given that the evil, Constitution-ignoring Congress isn't going to listen to good citizens anyway, we really need to retake state legislatures in 2010 with pro-state power state leaders who will do as follows. Pro-state power state leaders need to demand that the federal government surrenders back to the states state powers that the federal government has been unconstitutionally usurping from the states.

Finally, to pull the plug on the renegade federal government, state lawmakers need to repeal the 16th Amendment, in my opinion, the amendment that gives the feds the power to tax citizens directly. The problem with that amendment is that it has made it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes.

if you want to fix the problem..

recognise that the reason the Federal government is able to do these things.. is.. because... it is operating under emergency war powers.

and has been for 80 years.

that is the problem.. and most people running for office, dont even know.

You.. probubly dont know.

that is the problem.

Demand that those running for office, promise to vote to end ALL states of emergency and restore the constitution as law!!!!!!!!!

and if they wont... THEN YOU KNOW.. THEY ARE TRAITORS.!!!!!!!


PERIOD.

AND INFORM YOUR FRIENDS, AND START A PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.

NOT TO AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION.. but to restore it as law once again.

because it hasnt been for 80 years!!!!!!!!

that is the core issue, and the only one which can fix the nation.

-MEMAT

[Nathan Hale]

Philadelphia must also understand wrong. When I traveled there this past September, among the sites and memorabilia are recounts of future-Americans who decidedly did NOT want the fuss of independence or dangers of revolution. Some of them, as today, were of the "have more to lose" variety.

A lot of people were. I never denied this. My point was that the War of Independence was orders of magnitude more popular than this movement is today, and your response doesn't contest that point. You're just setting up a straw man and employing anecdotal evidence to knock it down.


The folk that our Founding Fathers kicked it with were clear and fearless -- that's a huge advantage. They REFUSED to live a certain way. They had a line in the sand. Those who were not on board with that line in the sand -- just to mix metaphors ;) -- didn't have a DIFFERENT line about which they were equally adamant-read-that-willing-to-die.

It seems as though you've seen a lot of movies about the War of Independence but have little practical knowledge of the time, because you're romanticizing the whole thing.


"We" declared our independence via the oh-so-aptly named Declaration of Independence a FULL YEAR before the war broke out.

This little factoid of yours serves to clarify my above point.


I am not declaring war but, rather, declaring my independence. I think it's unfortunate that you think that's unfortunate. I am free until I am not free. Everybody dies one day and, to hear some tell it with conviction, then I'll REALLY be free.

Correct, you're free until you're not free. Problem is, you live in a society where a lot of what should be a matter of freedom is NOT. So you're free until you are unlucky enough to cross the government's path, at which point you will not be free. This movement exists because that possibility is not acceptable to us. So you're welcome to go off and live your life until sooner or later you happen across a police officer or IRS agent under the wrong circumstances, but I'm here because we need to work for change so that we don't have to live in fear of this happening.


If you're gonna play the politics game and get into the campaign business, you'll not want to sluff off off-putting terminology.

I choose not to because if there's anything a libertarian needs to develop, it's a thicker skin to words like "submitting".


Oh, I know what you're talking about. I'm DISAGREEING with you.

It sounded more like you had no idea of the concept. My bad.


Human relationships require compromise (excluding those featuring exquisitely macho men for whom Might Makes Right). You're now talking about special task forces, right? Agenda-driven associations of people -- COLLECTIVES, for the record -- compelled to work together i.e. compromise in order to accomplish a necessary feat.

Compulsion is not a trait found in a voluntary association, and a collective carries much more colloquial meaning than your example implies, but that's the gist of it.


Where, when and on what do the Libertarians EVER compromise? Other than on softening the demand for bona fide reform in exchange for more seats in a government that they say out of the other side of their mouths we shouldn't even have.

Even assuming the libertarian goal of eliminating the federal government, it makes sense to win seats and appointment in the federal government.


Libertarian showed EXTREMELY poorly in the polls, and yet there's an above-reproach attitude of doubling down. SEND MORE MONEY.

On what basis would the group be deferring to YOUR-not-your way as THE way. From where I sit, if y'all don't change things up, you're as liable to glean two-and-a-half percent as ten percent in the next presidential election.

But there IS the consolation that a few more fellows from YOUR-not-your "side" will be living the Life Of Riley at citizen expense.

To clarify, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, and I agree with your criticisms of the Libertarian Party. They refuse to engage the political system in any meaningful way but still take part in the electoral process to their detriment. If the LP actually attempting to win elections we'd be in a much better country today. But I'm not turning this thread toward LP political strategy as that is much discussed elsewhere.


Everyone working together doing it YOUR way?

No.


I'm just as pissed off about this as I could be but -- conditions on the ground having changed just an awful lot, emphasis on awful -- it appears that I truly and seriously need to hook up with a big, strong (silent okay, I talk enough for three), God-fearing, right-acting, duty-and-honor-bound man's man.

Lemme put it this way. When my last go-round with sexists on this board prompted me to go on hiatus, I turned to Craigslist. Oh. My. God.

Taking a break from message board? Super good idea. Craigslist for tracking down Mr. Ride Out This Shit Storm With Me? Superlatively bad idea. ;)

I don't want to sound rude here, but I still have absolutely no idea what this has to do with our conversation.


That's IT? The long and short of a "movement" for which you would have me restrain/alter my convictions and to which you would have others donate money/time is that it is "in the direction of smaller government"?

You act as though such a goal is no great feat. Movements are defined by direction, not destination. They are so because it allows people with different destinations to work together, so long as their direction is the same. It's smart strategy.


Slow as molasses in January THAT movement will be. Count up yer welfare recipients, add 'em to yer federal employees, and THEN consider the number of aging Baby Boomers.

And this proves your point....how?


I am not MISSING your points, I am DISAGREEING with them.

You missed my point because your supposed disagreement didn't actually address the point, it addressed some straw man.


THE PROBLEM IS THAT CAMPAIGNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT RIGHTLY A BUSINESS.

I never said it was. I said that a campaign (never once did I limit that to a campaign for public office) is similar to a business in that libertarian theory does not produce the best management and operational structure.


Exactly so. The objective in business is TURNING A PROFIT. The objective in campaigning is WINNING.

Turning a profit IS winning, for a business. Regardless, the most effective organization for a business or a campaign is far from a libertarian's vision for society at large.


You propose that the ends justify the means. I disagree.

Really? Please support your claim that I propose that the ends justify the means.


Libertarianism is NOT a moral entity. High horse are best left stabled, Libertarian or otherwise.

Libertarians often cite libertarianism as a moral choice, therefore libertarianism is to them a moral entity, in that it is a vehicle for their morality.


Talk to a non-Swiss who has ever lived in Switzerland. It is one of the most strictly regulated societies on earth. And turn your radio down.

That is immaterial to our conversation. You said that the idea of smaller parcels of land with fewer people being stronger and safer simply doesn't hold water. I replied by saying "tell that to the Swiss", who are a relatively small population living on a relatively small parcel smack dab in the middle of France, Germany, Italy and Spain, all great aggressor-nations, and yet Switzerland maintained its territorial integrity for the last 600 years without being involved in an official war.


I was thinking more of some of the others e.g. Montana, Oklahoma

STILL . . .

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/litwit/new_england.jpg

Compare New Hampshire's little bit of beach with Maine's, with its long seashore and its many pirate-y inlets and isles.

Sure, it would be great if NH had a better seacoast, but a seacoast alone does not an ideal secession make.


Eighteen miles of seafront seems not so daunting to blockade. The United States from which New Hampshire proposes to be free is unlikely to bequeath New Hampshire a naval base, I think.

The US would be unlikely to bequeath NH any of its land, but if NH's goal is secession they're going to take their landmass by virtue of the definition of secession. The question you need to ask is whether or not the US would fight a war to stop them.



The only reason we're not there is because we're PAST DUE. The American People are reluctant unto denial in the assumption of their responsibilities and the discharge of their duties. Feeding more good money and more good people into the dastardliness of existing Washington politics is like sending more good money and more good people down the money pits in the Middle East.

And I repeat - we're not there yet. If members of this movement started civil disobedience they'd be ignored. A few people have already tried this, to zero fanfare. Nothing was gained. Working to reform the system from within, however, is a viable strategy, so long as the appropriate operations and tactics are used in support of that strategy. Change is possible, so long as enough seats are won. It's a hell of a lot more probable than civil disobedience leading to the elimination of Washington politics.

[cheapseats]

A lot of people were. I never denied this. My point was that the War of Independence was orders of magnitude more popular than this movement is today, and your response doesn't contest that point. You're just setting up a straw man and employing anecdotal evidence to knock it down.

I contend, and believe I can rustle up many who agree, that OUR OWN HISTORY IS NOT A STRAW MAN.

Is that how we shall chart a Right course, by whatever is most popular?




It seems as though you've seen a lot of movies about the War of Independence but have little practical knowledge of the time, because you're romanticizing the whole thing.


Like hell I am. It seems as though you've seen a lot of C-SPAN but have little practical knowledge about business and human nature. You are reducing legendary sovereignty of the individual AND greatness of nation to How To Make Friends And Influence People.





"We" declared our independence via the oh-so-aptly named Declaration of Independence a FULL YEAR before the war broke out.




This little factoid of yours serves to clarify my above point.

If this is a "little factoid" in your political world, it is possible that we have gone as far as we can go with this debate.





Correct, you're free until you're not free. Problem is, you live in a society where a lot of what should be a matter of freedom is NOT. So you're free until you are unlucky enough to cross the government's path, at which point you will not be free.
This movement exists because that possibility is not acceptable to us. So you're welcome to go off and live your life until sooner or later you happen across a police officer or IRS agent under the wrong circumstances, but I'm here because we need to work for change so that we don't have to live in fear of this happening.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you would draw some satisfaction were "unluckiness" to befall me. You told me so, it proves your point, et al. NOTHING gets straightened out without SOMEONE taking a hit -- you DO realize that, yes?

Americans ALREADY live in fear of this happening -- where ya been?

It's ALREADY happening.

You propose going along with Politics As Usual for YEARS. THAT is what is unacceptable.





I choose not to because if there's anything a libertarian needs to develop, it's a thicker skin to words like "submitting".

I couldn't disagree more.

It is the very casualness of all the submitting that is most disturbing. Oh well, if that's the way it's gonna be . . . where's mine?




Even assuming the libertarian goal of eliminating the federal government, it makes sense to win seats and appointment in the federal government.

It makes just as much sense, it stands on sounder principle, and it'd be a helluva lot cheaper to run 'em all outta town on rails. Just sayin'.




If the LP actually attempting to win elections we'd be in a much better country today.

The Libertarian Party would have altogether greater credibility if Ron Paul had run on the ticket.




But I'm not turning this thread toward LP political strategy as that is much discussed elsewhere.

Threads are akin to dots. Many of them not only CAN be but SHOULD be connected, your determination to keep a vigilant eye on the small picture notwithstanding.





I don't want to sound rude here, but I still have absolutely no idea what this has to do with our conversation.


You don't sound rude. You sound obtuse, or obstinate.




You act as though such a goal is no great feat. Movements are defined by direction, not destination. They are so because it allows people with different destinations to work together, so long as their direction is the same. It's smart strategy.


Stipulating that I GET IT about the journey being the trip -- ohhhhm -- in the world-wide-real-time-here-and-now, accomplishment is defined by arrival.





That's IT? The long and short of a "movement" for which you would have me restrain/alter my convictions and to which you would have others donate money/time is that it is "in the direction of smaller government"?

Slow as molasses in January THAT movement will be. Count up yer welfare recipients, add 'em to yer federal employees, and THEN consider the number of aging Baby Boomers.



And this proves your point....how?


Welfare recipients LOVE big government. The gigantic federal workforce that is increasing by the day LOVES big government. The Baby Boomers NEED big government to make good on all the Social Security they've been paying into for most of their adult lives.




You missed my point because your supposed disagreement didn't actually address the point, it addressed some straw man.


Fiddle de dee.



I never said it was. I said that a campaign (never once did I limit that to a campaign for public office) is similar to a business in that libertarian theory does not produce the best management and operational structure.


Theory NEVER produces the best management or operational structure.




Turning a profit IS winning, for a business.


It follows that Movements and Campaigns -- frankly, all special interests -- should model themselves after EXXON.





Really? Please support your claim that I propose that the ends justify the means.


You are rationalizing Same Old Same Old -- BUSINESS AND BULLSHIT AS USUAL -- in order to "gain" more leverage "inside." In my world view and in my moral view, that is tantamount to saying that the ends justify the means.





Libertarians often cite libertarianism as a moral choice, therefore libertarianism is to them a moral entity, in that it is a vehicle for their morality.


Because "they" say it, you buy it? Libertarianism is no more a "moral entity" than a corporation is a person.





Talk to a non-Swiss who has ever lived in Switzerland. It is one of the most strictly regulated societies on earth. And turn your radio down.



That is immaterial to our conversation.

Between promoting a thicker skin about words like "submitting" and deeming uber state regulation of the individual irrelevant, it becomes clear that you are indeed not a Libertarian. At the same time, it becomes less and less clear what you DO stand for -- other than gaining more position in Officialdom.

Pray tell, do you mean to run for office or will you garner a salary and/or lifestyle enhancement by working for someone who means to run for office?





You said that the idea of smaller parcels of land with fewer people being stronger and safer simply doesn't hold water. I replied by saying "tell that to the Swiss", who are a relatively small population living on a relatively small parcel smack dab in the middle of France, Germany, Italy and Spain, all great aggressor-nations, and yet Switzerland maintained its territorial integrity for the last 600 years without being involved in an official war.


Hello? That would be because Switzerland is the Vault Country -- y'know, where the Big Boys hide their assets. I'm thinking it'll be a long-ass time before the world's Aggressors & Assholes view America as a safe place to hoard assets.





Sure, it would be great if NH had a better seacoast, but a seacoast alone does not an ideal secession make.

Not least because smaller and fewer in number does NOT translate to greater security in an increasingly hostile world -- not to mention except I will, after a hostile secession. Free Staters are FAR more romantic than I.





The US would be unlikely to bequeath NH any of its land, but if NH's goal is secession they're going to take their landmass by virtue of the definition of secession. The question you need to ask is whether or not the US would fight a war to stop them.


No, that isn't the question. The question is whether, if the US brings force to bear, can New Hampshire withstand it?




And I repeat - we're not there yet.

Just so we're clear that repeating yourself doesn't necessarily make you Right.






If members of this movement started civil disobedience they'd be ignored.


That is not MY experience. It is MY real-world experience, beside which your words pale, that the messages everyone is so keen on sending are being ignored. The emails, the letters, the phone calls, all the Waxmanian politeness -- it's all falling on deaf ears. American Government is impervious to Americans. Look only at the bailouts that steamrolled right over public protest.

I am not talking about you personally, mind, but I spy cowardice masquerading as civility.




A few people have already tried this, to zero fanfare.

I draw your attention to the quantifier FEW. Not just Americans now but People ALWAYS need more, not fewer, who elect to go All In on principle.





Nothing was gained.

I couldn't disagree more.





Working to reform the system from within, however, is a viable strategy, so long as the appropriate operations and tactics are used in support of that strategy.

Empirical evidence to the contrary abounds.




Change is possible, so long as enough seats are won.

And so long as no one trades signatures to get their pet legislation passed, and so long as all the newcomers are not only immune to corruption but inclined to expose those colleagues who ARE corrupt, and so long as no special interests exert undue influence, and and and and and. Magical thinking.

You propose to fix the problem, why didn't we think of this sooner, by simply getting in there and fixing the problem. IN THERE = ELITE = a bedrock problem.




It's a hell of a lot more probable than civil disobedience leading to the elimination of Washington politics.

Tell you what, we've got the same destination. Different people's direction toward the same destination depends where we're coming from, obviously. You and I are NOT coming from the same place. You get there your way and I'll get there mine, and we can provide posterity with more sets of notes. I suspect they'll need all the help they can get.

Peace.

[Nathan Hale]

I contend, and believe I can rustle up many who agree, that OUR OWN HISTORY IS NOT A STRAW MAN.

That wasn't what my post says.


Is that how we shall chart a Right course, by whatever is most popular?

No, you're misreading my post. My point was that American Independence succeeded because a critical mass had been reached among the population that made such success possible.


Like hell I am. It seems as though you've seen a lot of C-SPAN but have little practical knowledge about business and human nature. You are reducing legendary sovereignty of the individual AND greatness of nation to How To Make Friends And Influence People.

I'm starting to wonder if replying to your messages is worth it. I said that you were romanticizing the revolutionary period of American history, and you reply with the above paragraph that has nothing to do with my accusation, which stands, by the way.



If this is a "little factoid" in your political world, it is possible that we have gone as far as we can go with this debate.

I made fun of your factoid because it was dead wrong. We declared independence more than a year AFTER the first shots of the war were fired.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you would draw some satisfaction were "unluckiness" to befall me.

You're wrong.


You told me so, it proves your point, et al. NOTHING gets straightened out without SOMEONE taking a hit -- you DO realize that, yes?

Nothing personal, but your replies are totally non sequitur to what I've been writing.


Americans ALREADY live in fear of this happening -- where ya been?

EXACTLY. You can't just say "I'm going to live my life free" because there is always the threat of the guns of government beating down your door. So you have to engage the system.


You propose going along with Politics As Usual for YEARS. THAT is what is unacceptable.

I don't propose "going along with politics as usual", I propose engaging the system. Big difference.


I couldn't disagree more.

It is the very casualness of all the submitting that is most disturbing. Oh well, if that's the way it's gonna be . . . where's mine?

The problem with your way of thinking is that the world isn't like Braveheart. Not even the real William Wallace story was like Braveheart. You're thinking too much with your heart. That's nice, in theory, but victory comes only after you start thinking with your head.


It makes just as much sense, it stands on sounder principle, and it'd be a helluva lot cheaper to run 'em all outta town on rails. Just sayin'.

Assuming all that is true, you're still faced one overwhelming problem - your plan is totally unrealistic and incapable of succeeding.


The Libertarian Party would have altogether greater credibility if Ron Paul had run on the ticket.

If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian he would've ended up like Bob Barr. The "Revolution" succeeded because it engaged the establishment by conceding that the legacy parties are the best vehicles for electoral success.


Threads are akin to dots. Many of them not only CAN be but SHOULD be connected, your determination to keep a vigilant eye on the small picture notwithstanding.

What the hell are you talking about? honestly, you're replying randomly to something like half of the parsings you make in my post. By "thread" I was referring to the message board topic in which we are having this debate. Message board topics are referred to as "threads". With that in mind, re-read my post. hope this helps.


You don't sound rude. You sound obtuse, or obstinate.

Don't be afraid. I'm here to help you.


Stipulating that I GET IT about the journey being the trip -- ohhhhm -- in the world-wide-real-time-here-and-now, accomplishment is defined by arrival.

How do you figure?


Welfare recipients LOVE big government. The gigantic federal workforce that is increasing by the day LOVES big government. The Baby Boomers NEED big government to make good on all the Social Security they've been paying into for most of their adult lives.

Even assuming that every welfare recipient loves big government and every federal employee loves big government (I won't give you Baby Boomers because they are a demographic split, just like the rest of us), they're still a vast minority of the voting population.


Theory NEVER produces the best management or operational structure.

You must be a teenager, right? Because you clearly have zero experience with management and operations. Every manager follows a management or operational theory. Not necessarily an academic theory but a set of best practices and organization that together becomes a theory of management. My point, which continues to stand, is that the best performance organizations are not libertarian in their organization.


It follows that Movements and Campaigns -- frankly, all special interests -- should model themselves after EXXON.

I don't see how it does. Exxon makes a ton of profits, but not because they are an optimally structured organization.


You are rationalizing Same Old Same Old -- BUSINESS AND BULLSHIT AS USUAL -- in order to "gain" more leverage "inside." In my world view and in my moral view, that is tantamount to saying that the ends justify the means.

See, I don't support the "Same old same old". Choosing to work within the system is not a strategy of the ends justifying the means because I don't see a problem with the means. Running for political office isn't evil. Lobbying for change isn't evil. Perhaps if you're some anarcho-capitalist or Randroid it's problematic, but I'm neither of the two.

That said, I actually agree with the concept of the ends justifying the means. Not with everything, but occasionally the ends do justify the means. Employing a small evil to defeat a bigger evil is sometimes justified, because by choosing to not employ the small evil, you are allowing the greater evil to win - the lesser of two evils dilemma is a viable moral conundrum.


Because "they" say it, you buy it? Libertarianism is no more a "moral entity" than a corporation is a person.

Ones philosophy is a moral statement. If Bob's philosophy is "government exists only to protect my life, liberty and property, and should have the right to do no more", that is a moral statement.


Between promoting a thicker skin about words like "submitting" and deeming uber state regulation of the individual irrelevant, it becomes clear that you are indeed not a Libertarian. At the same time, it becomes less and less clear what you DO stand for -- other than gaining more position in Officialdom.

If you limit the definition of "libertarian" to people who score 100% on the World's Smallest Political Quiz then no, I'm not a libertarian. But if that's the criteria for libertarianism than you will never amount to anything.


Pray tell, do you mean to run for office or will you garner a salary and/or lifestyle enhancement by working for someone who means to run for office?

Immaterial to the conversation.


Hello? That would be because Switzerland is the Vault Country -- y'know, where the Big Boys hide their assets. I'm thinking it'll be a long-ass time before the world's Aggressors & Assholes view America as a safe place to hoard assets.

The vaults and the bombs in some of them are a part of Switzerland's defense, but Hitler actually attempting to draw up plans to invade before being advised that it wasn't worth the effort. but Hitler is only one aggressor - the Swiss avoided conflict for hundreds of years by staying out of the way of other nations affairs, arming themselves to the teeth, and digging in.


Not least because smaller and fewer in number does NOT translate to greater security in an increasingly hostile world -- not to mention except I will, after a hostile secession. Free Staters are FAR more romantic than I.

Of course smaller and fewer isn't the key to greater security, but the size of NH and the population of NH doesn't put it at a disadvantage either.


No, that isn't the question.

Actually, it's the most viable question in the event of a state's secession.


The question is whether, if the US brings force to bear, can New Hampshire withstand it?

That depends. If the US carpet nukes NH, then probably not. But if they attempt to occupy a guerrilla effort could well run them out of town.


Just so we're clear that repeating yourself doesn't necessarily make you Right.

Nor did I contest that it did. What follow that repetition was what makes me right.


That is not MY experience. It is MY real-world experience, beside which your words pale, that the messages everyone is so keen on sending are being ignored. The emails, the letters, the phone calls, all the Waxmanian politeness -- it's all falling on deaf ears. American Government is impervious to Americans. Look only at the bailouts that steamrolled right over public protest.

It falls on deaf ears because we have yet to begin the work of placing people within the government to respond to our needs.


I am not talking about you personally, mind, but I spy cowardice masquerading as civility.

Then you might want to work on your espionage abilities.


I draw your attention to the quantifier FEW. Not just Americans now but People ALWAYS need more, not fewer, who elect to go All In on principle.

That's poor strategy. "It's not working yet, all we need is MORE".


I couldn't disagree more.

Why am I not surprised...


Empirical evidence to the contrary abounds.

Excellent. Why don't you enlighten us with empirical evidence that disproves the exact statement I made in the previous post.


And so long as no one trades signatures to get their pet legislation passed, and so long as all the newcomers are not only immune to corruption but inclined to expose those colleagues who ARE corrupt, and so long as no special interests exert undue influence, and and and and and. Magical thinking.

I'm not saying it was going to be easy. Caucus development and supporter involvement is important to hold friendly elected officials in line. But it's possible. Which is a step above your plan.


You propose to fix the problem, why didn't we think of this sooner, by simply getting in there and fixing the problem. IN THERE = ELITE = a bedrock problem.

It's flawed thinking to assume that people we elect will become corrupt. You obviously are so emotionally involved that your myopia is blinding you to the fact that many people in government aren't corrupt robber barons snickering and sneering as they enslave mankind. I know a few Congresspersons, and they're actually normal people.


Tell you what, we've got the same destination. Different people's direction toward the same destination depends where we're coming from, obviously. You and I are NOT coming from the same place. You get there your way and I'll get there mine, and we can provide posterity with more sets of notes. I suspect they'll need all the help they can get.

Problem is, neither of us is going to get anywhere unless we work together, which was my original point in this thread.

[GunnyFreedom]

I still say the only real problem with retaking Congress is getting the pitchforks past the metal detectors...

[cheapseats]

I still say the only real problem with retaking Congress is getting the pitchforks past the metal detectors...

No need to get past metal detectors in a metaphorical street fight. INSIDE is where the cooties are.

[cheapseats]

I'm starting to wonder if replying to your messages is worth it.

Right back atcha.




I said that you were romanticizing the revolutionary period of American history, and you reply with the above paragraph that has nothing to do with my accusation, which stands, by the way.

The hell it doesn't.

My estimation-not-to-say-accusation ALSO stands.



Like hell I am. It seems as though you've seen a lot of C-SPAN but have little practical knowledge about business and human nature. You are reducing legendary sovereignty of the individual AND greatness of nation to How To Make Friends And Influence People.






I made fun of your factoid because it was dead wrong. We declared independence more than a year AFTER the first shots of the war were fired.


I do not represent myself as a scholar of the American Revolution but, since you kinda DO, perhaps you can instruct?

The 1775 "shot heard 'round the world" wasn't really the "start" of the Revolutionary War, was it? If the "shot heard 'round the world" were the official start of the American Revolutionary War, I'm guessing the same phrase wouldn't have been used to mark the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the commencement of World War I.

There had been and there continued to be skirmishes, while Colonists i.e. still British Colonials continued to PETITION the Crown. No dice, no dice, the Crown wasn't backing down and neither were what you call a "critical mass" of Colonists.

Critical mass can obviously be defined by numbers, but critical mass can ALSO be defined by Passion. Ten men who will go to the wall or die trying are a more critical mass than 100 weenies, yes?

The SECOND Continental Congress submitted our Declaration of Independence in 1776, AFTER WHICH the king declared our forebears to be in rebellion.





Nothing personal, but your replies are totally non sequitur to what I've been writing.

You ARE gettin' a little personal, also a little pissy. But I attribute that to your pretty much losing traction in this argument.




EXACTLY. You can't just say "I'm going to live my life free" because there is always the threat of the guns of government beating down your door. So you have to engage the system.

I don't propose "going along with politics as usual", I propose engaging the system. Big difference.

Not only can I "just" say that I am going to live my life free, I can MEAN what I say AND I can display latter-day American ingenuity and stick-to-it-ive-ness. You haven't much regard for my thinking and that's okay -- I GET IT that you can't please all the people all the time -- but I'm generally considered to be pretty damn smart.





The problem with your way of thinking is that the world isn't like Braveheart.
Not even the real William Wallace story was like Braveheart. You're thinking too much with your heart. That's nice, in theory, but victory comes only after you start thinking with your head.

You are in rarefied company, thinking that my thinking is too emotional or theoretical.





Assuming all that is true, you're still faced one overwhelming problem - your plan is totally unrealistic and incapable of succeeding.


Sez the guy who proposes that "getting inside" will do the trick.




If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian he would've ended up like Bob Barr.

It is more likely that if Ron Paul had run as a Libertarian, Bob Barr wouldn't have ended up like Bob Barr.





The "Revolution" succeeded because it engaged the establishment by conceding that the legacy parties are the best vehicles for electoral success.


We are not ambling, we are not strolling, we are not walking or even hurrying, we are RACING toward bona fide Communism. Define "succeeded."





What the hell are you talking about? honestly, you're replying randomly to something like half of the parsings you make in my post. By "thread" I was referring to the message board topic in which we are having this debate. Message board topics are referred to as "threads". With that in mind, re-read my post. hope this helps.

Yep. More obtuse than obstinate.




Don't be afraid. I'm here to help you.

Patrician bullshit.





Even assuming that every welfare recipient loves big government and every federal employee loves big government (I won't give you Baby Boomers because they are a demographic split, just like the rest of us), they're still a vast minority of the voting population.


I advise you to get a better handle on the number of people who receive federal aid, the number of people who work for the federal government, and the number of Baby Boomers who just saw their retirement portfolios slashed by 50%.





You must be a teenager, right?

Interestingly, I've been wondering whether lack of life experience accounts for your pollyanna certitude that "working within the system" works for anything but elevating a few more into our rancid Political Elite.

The System IS the problem.

American politics and American justice are BOTH pay-to-play games. Nuthin' Christian about it, nuthin' ethical about it, nuthin' honorable about it, nuthin' constructive about it, nuthin' NECESSARY about it.

Your answer is that Americans who are experiencing a steady decline in their standard of living (and a steady erosion of their rights) should send NEW politicians MORE money so we can give same-old-same-old another whirl.

And SPARE ME that "engaging the system" isn't same-old-same-old.




Because you clearly have zero experience with management and operations.


If this is clear to you, you may wish to re-visit some of your other premises. But you DO provide me with the perfect segue to a challenge that I have been struggling to formulate for posting in Freedom Living, so I thank you for that.

You make a business out of campaigning and I'll make a business out of dragon-slaying. There is a plurality of roads in the all-roads-lead-to-Rome paradigm . . . lemme guess, you have no idea what I'm talking about.




Every manager follows a management or operational theory. Not necessarily an academic theory but a set of best practices and organization that together becomes a theory of management.


Good management does not FOLLOW theory. Good management subscribes to a theory, applies a theory, sure. But then theory meets reality. That's where the alchemy of innovation and improvisation takes place.

Necessity is the mother of invention, I expect you've heard. SEND MORE MONEY / OUR PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT is not only stale, it is not credible.




Running for political office isn't evil. Lobbying for change isn't evil. Perhaps if you're some anarcho-capitalist or Randroid it's problematic, but I'm neither of the two.

There remains some confusion as to what you DO stand for -- other than a smaller government of which you have a bigger piece of the action.

NOT to say that we don't need good people to go into GOVERNMENT, because we do. Government is a necessary evil, therefore staffing it is necessary. But make no mistake, politics ARE evil and lobbying is WORSE.





That said, I actually agree with the concept of the ends justifying the means. Not with everything, but occasionally the ends do justify the means. Employing a small evil to defeat a bigger evil is sometimes justified, because by choosing to not employ the small evil, you are allowing the greater evil to win - the lesser of two evils dilemma is a viable moral conundrum.

No shit, it's how we choose our presidents.

But we are at an impasse. I do NOT consider a bunch of new or former loser candidates scurrying around fundraising on the heels of the last campaign-o-rama to be means that justify ends. On the contrary, I find it money-grubbing and off-putting.





Ones philosophy is a moral statement. If Bob's philosophy is "government exists only to protect my life, liberty and property, and should have the right to do no more", that is a moral statement.


I would draw prospective donors' attention to your slipperiness, and your determination that NOTHING you say shall be wrong. Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand and, voila, an entity is transformed into a statement.




If you limit the definition of "libertarian" to people who score 100% on the World's Smallest Political Quiz then no, I'm not a libertarian. But if that's the criteria for libertarianism than you will never amount to anything.


Speaking of non-sequiturs.





Between promoting a thicker skin about words like "submitting" and deeming uber state regulation of the individual irrelevant, it becomes clear that you are indeed not a Libertarian. At the same time, it becomes less and less clear what you DO stand for -- other than gaining more position in Officialdom.

Pray tell, do you mean to run for office or will you garner a salary and/or lifestyle enhancement by working for someone who means to run for office?




Immaterial to the conversation.


Whether you will personally benefit by the "Retake Congress" movement is immaterial to doubt and debate about Retaking Congress? DONORS TAKE HEED.





The vaults and the bombs in some of them are a part of Switzerland's defense, but Hitler actually attempting to draw up plans to invade before being advised that it wasn't worth the effort. but Hitler is only one aggressor - the Swiss avoided conflict for hundreds of years by staying out of the way of other nations affairs, arming themselves to the teeth, and digging in.


Hitler loosely had a plan to invade and take over all of Europe, location of Switzerland.

If you think that Switzerland's long and successful neutrality doesn't turn on the fanTABulous riches that they hold for, well, the Rich, it speaks directly to your naivete about changing the system from "within" the system.





Of course smaller and fewer isn't the key to greater security, but the size of NH and the population of NH doesn't put it at a disadvantage either.

Recall that we are talking about a now independent and sovereign New Hampshire, no longer protected by the collective strength/force/resources of the now-not-United States. The size and population of tiny New Hampshire shall not constitute disadvantage in global hostilities? Are we presuming that, because Free Staters are peaceable and not acquisitive, that everyone else will simply and always respect that, and leave them alone?





That depends. If the US carpet nukes NH, then probably not. But if they attempt to occupy a guerrilla effort could well run them out of town.

The two words New Hampshire will have to worry about are not Nuclear Attack, but Economic Sanctions.





Nor did I contest that it did. What follow that repetition was what makes me right.


You're right, that's IT? We can all go home?





It falls on deaf ears because we have yet to begin the work of placing people within the government to respond to our needs.

You must mean that YOUR people have not get begun to work on getting YOUR people "within" the government, 'cuz I have definitely been watching a lotta lotta politicking and a lotta lotta fundraising these past several years and I'm pretty damn sure that everyone wasn't just playing tiddlywinks.





Then you might want to work on your espionage abilities.

Interesting word choice, from the "infiltration" crowd.






That's poor strategy. "It's not working yet, all we need is MORE".

It's poor strategy to call up more people to go All In on principle, but it's good strategy for people to send more money to more politicians to do more legislating? Like I said, we're coming from different places.




Why am I not surprised...


Right back atcha on that, too.





Excellent. Why don't you enlighten us with empirical evidence that disproves the exact statement I made in the previous post.


Howz that 2006 "mandate" working out? I know, I know, they weren't the RIGHT new politicians.




It's flawed thinking to assume that people we elect will become corrupt.

Are you for real? I will suggest that only a simpleton or a conniver would NOT assume that people who are elevated into positions of power are not corrupted by power.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely -- again, where ya been?





You obviously are so emotionally involved that your myopia is blinding you to the fact that many people in government aren't corrupt robber barons snickering and sneering as they enslave mankind.


MY myopia, Mr. Work Within The System?






I know a few Congresspersons, and they're actually normal people.



Coupla things.

"Normal" is a highly relative and subjective term.

Whether or not they are normal, CLEARLY they are ineffectual.

Someone on this Board once asserted that, if there are bad cops, there are no good cops. He was alluding to the quote-unquote good cops turning a blind eye and otherwise shielding bad cops. Ditto, in my league, with priests and politicians.




Problem is, neither of us is going to get anywhere unless we work together, which was my original point in this thread.

I'm definitely getting somewhere, with or without you. If you can't get anywhere without my support, then I advise you that you will have to revise the Plan.

[cheapseats]

It matters not if you run for office

Merely thinking of it proves that you care

Blanket assurances more than suffice

Hit us up ‘til every wallet is bare.



Irrelevant our human history

It’s obvious you’re unlike all others

We applaud the endless pleas for money

We’d give more if we had our druthers.



We dismiss our past and defy the odds

Probability theory is boring

No chance that you’ll become DeLays or Dodds

We are touched by your ceaseless imploring.



At last we have candidates we can trust

Even more if they elect not to run

Where governance makes compromise a must

Fundraising abbreviated is Fun.



Listen not to calls for animation

Disregard track records of malfeasance

Forget the drama of revolution

Politicking is a marathon dance.



Step lively in donating hard earned coin

Rest easy about war chest and coffer

Fundraising is THE collective to join

The ultimate no strings attached offer.



Send them your dollars and send them your cents

It’s the thing of paramount consequence

Cut to the chase, dispense with all pretense

Temples sans moneychangers is nonsense.



Sages say love makes the world go around

But money is what keeps it on axis

Skeptics and cynics and cheapskates abound

Send everything but what will pay taxes.



The bulk let us give to politicians

Wheeling and dealing do not come cheaply

Give extra to sexists and patricians

Though men got us into this shit deeply.

www.rhymeoverreason.com

[Nathan Hale]

I am trimming the parts of our exchange that are unproductive (i.e. your lobbing unfounded insults). I write this b/c I usually make it a point to parse everything written as I hate to be accused of "cherry picking".



The hell it doesn't.

The American Revolution was made possible because of its popularity. The popularity led the revolution, not vice versa. Therefore, my point stands.


My estimation-not-to-say-accusation ALSO stands.

Really? Prove it.


I do not represent myself as a scholar of the American Revolution but, since you kinda DO, perhaps you can instruct?

The 1775 "shot heard 'round the world" wasn't really the "start" of the Revolutionary War, was it? If the "shot heard 'round the world" were the official start of the American Revolutionary War, I'm guessing the same phrase wouldn't have been used to mark the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the commencement of World War I.

Well, you could look at it that way. Or you could look at it this way - the "Shot heard 'round the world" in the War of Independence wasn't a single shot, it was the first shot of a pair of full-on battles (Lexington wasn't much of a fight, but Concord was a full military engagement). After the events of Lexington and Concord there was an army in the field full time until the end of the war, though granted much of that first year of fighting was spent laying siege to Boston. During that time the dominant meme among the fighters was reconciliation, not independence, which emerged in the mainstream only as reconciliation on decent terms seemed less and less likely following pronouncements from London.


There had been and there continued to be skirmishes, while Colonists i.e. still British Colonials continued to PETITION the Crown. No dice, no dice, the Crown wasn't backing down and neither were what you call a "critical mass" of Colonists.

Critical mass can obviously be defined by numbers, but critical mass can ALSO be defined by Passion. Ten men who will go to the wall or die trying are a more critical mass than 100 weenies, yes?

You're not talking about critical mass. One of my friends, also interested in the War of Independence once said, and I agree, that "The War of Independence was the war we fought. The American Revolution was not the war, but the dramatic change in thought that preceded the war". That dramatic change was brought on initially by the oft-quoted "tireless minority". Voices help. But the War itself succeeded because that tireless minority had managed to spread their message through the population until a critical mass was reached. This was my original point - it's too soon to walk away from the system because we have yet to reach that sociodynamic critical mass.


The SECOND Continental Congress submitted our Declaration of Independence in 1776, AFTER WHICH the king declared our forebears to be in rebellion.

The subject of American rebellion was all over Parliament in the second half of 1775 and the early part of 1776, and you'd be hard pressed to find a revolutionary scholar who attests that the war didn't start until July of 1776.


Not only can I "just" say that I am going to live my life free, I can MEAN what I say AND I can display latter-day American ingenuity and stick-to-it-ive-ness. You haven't much regard for my thinking and that's okay -- I GET IT that you can't please all the people all the time -- but I'm generally considered to be pretty damn smart.

You're welcome to just live your life however you want, but we are here today because Ron Paul and those like him consider it unacceptable that we might one day, while living our lives free, happen across a government agent who thinks we should be living our lives the way the mob wants us to. So we're working to change that arrangement.


Sez the guy who proposes that "getting inside" will do the trick.

I don't contend that it is a sure way to do the trick. I contend that it has the best chance of success. There is no easy road.


It is more likely that if Ron Paul had run as a Libertarian, Bob Barr wouldn't have ended up like Bob Barr.

You're right, as I said. Bob Barr ran as a libertarian and failed. Paul would likely have followed the same trajectory.


We are not ambling, we are not strolling, we are not walking or even hurrying, we are RACING toward bona fide Communism. Define "succeeded."

It succeeded because it generated this board and many like it. It generated a huge fundraising pool for pro-liberty candidates. It generated a wealth of attention for Ron Paul and many like him. Many good things happened as a result of Paul's run.


I advise you to get a better handle on the number of people who receive federal aid, the number of people who work for the federal government, and the number of Baby Boomers who just saw their retirement portfolios slashed by 50%.

If you're looking to make this point, then link to your numbers.


Interestingly, I've been wondering whether lack of life experience accounts for your pollyanna certitude that "working within the system" works for anything but elevating a few more into our rancid Political Elite.

I'm surprised you actually wonder that, because people solve problems each and every day by working within existing systems. Even if their goal is to change the system in question to a new system, they still accomplish that most effectively by working within the existing system.


The System IS the problem.

We all agree with this. We're all here to change the system. The question is how do we do that most effectively.


American politics and American justice are BOTH pay-to-play games. Nuthin' Christian about it, nuthin' ethical about it, nuthin' honorable about it, nuthin' constructive about it, nuthin' NECESSARY about it.

But American politics and justice are here. And they're here to stay in their present form, unless we can do something about it.


Your answer is that Americans who are experiencing a steady decline in their standard of living (and a steady erosion of their rights) should send NEW politicians MORE money so we can give same-old-same-old another whirl.

Yes. Because we don't have any other choice. We can't just "walk away" because that doesn't solve the problem and it puts us at greater risk. We can't take to the field because we are far from a critical mass.


And SPARE ME that "engaging the system" isn't same-old-same-old.

There's that strategic myopia again.


If this is clear to you, you may wish to re-visit some of your other premises. But you DO provide me with the perfect segue to a challenge that I have been struggling to formulate for posting in Freedom Living, so I thank you for that.

It's clear to me because I AM an expert in management and operations, and your answers have betrayed a base lack of understanding in the field.


You make a business out of campaigning and I'll make a business out of dragon-slaying. There is a plurality of roads in the all-roads-lead-to-Rome paradigm . . . lemme guess, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Okay, I'm going to repeat my original point because you just run with a wealth of incorrect assumptions. My point was that campaigns that succeed follow an organizational structure that is not libertarian in nature, because libertarianism is not a good operational structure in campaigns and/or business.


Good management does not FOLLOW theory. Good management subscribes to a theory, applies a theory, sure. But then theory meets reality. That's where the alchemy of innovation and improvisation takes place.

While innovation and improvisation are necessary parts of management, management still follows a theory, both in day to day operations and in moments when innovation and improvisation are called for, because even in those moments of innovation and improvision, the choices made are made in part by the operational theory to which the manager subscribes.


Necessity is the mother of invention, I expect you've heard. SEND MORE MONEY / OUR PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT is not only stale, it is not credible.

Actually, it works quite a lot.


There remains some confusion as to what you DO stand for -- other than a smaller government of which you have a bigger piece of the action.

I don't want a piece of the action, I want people who believe in small government in general to have a bigger piece of the action.


NOT to say that we don't need good people to go into politics, because we do. Government is a necessary evil, therefore people to staff it are necessary. But make no mistake, politics ARE evil and lobbying is WORSE.

Lobbying and politics aren't evil. Lobbying and politics in their current incarnations are evil.


But we are at an impasse. I do NOT consider a bunch of new or former loser candidates scurrying around fundraising on the heels of the last campaign-o-rama to be means that justify ends. On the contrary, I find it money-grubbing and off-putting.

Your personal biases aside, it's necessary to raise money in order to run a campaign. Would that it were different, but that's the way it is. So we can either a) accept defeat, or b) work with that set of rules in an attempt to win the game.


I would draw prospective donors' attention to your slipperiness, and your determination that NOTHING you say shall be wrong. Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand and, voila, an entity is transformed into a statement.

This doesn't address my prior post.


Whether you will personally benefit by the "Retake Congress" movement is immaterial to doubt and debate about Retaking Congress? DONORS TAKE HEED.

Do I have a financial or inside interest in the movement? No. Do I benefit? ABSOLUTELY. We all do. But this remains immaterial because this is an internet debate board on which I am anonymous, so everything about my background is taken on faith, if at all. In other words, it makes no sense delving into my background because I can make my background whatever I want it to be.


Hitler loosely had a plan to invade and take over all of Europe, location of Switzerland.

That's not what I said. What I sad was that Hitler wanted to invade, specifically, Switzerland. Switzerland is located on key strategic geography in Europe. Hitler wanted it. But he was advised against the action because an invasion would cost too much to achieve, if it was achievable at all.


If you think that Switzerland's long and successful neutrality doesn't turn on the fanTABulous riches that they hold for, well, the Rich, it speaks directly to your naivete about changing the system from "within" the system.

I never denied that Swiss' banking policy helped Swiss neutrality, but to say that it was somehow the only thing keeping the Swiss safe is naive.


Recall that we are talking about a now independent and sovereign New Hampshire, no longer protected by the collective strength/force/resources of the now-not-United States. The size and population of tiny New Hampshire shall not constitute disadvantage in global hostilities?

Considering the 194 commonly-accepted nations in the world, New Hampshire is tiny in neither size nor population.


Are we presuming that, because Free Staters are peaceable and not acquisitive, that everyone else will simply and always respect that, and leave them alone?

No.


The two words New Hampshire will have to worry about are not Nuclear Attack, but Economic Sanctions.

Economic sanctions from who?


You must mean that YOUR people have not get begun to work on getting YOUR people "within" the government, 'cuz I have definitely been watching a lotta lotta politicking and a lotta lotta fundraising these past several years and I'm pretty damn sure that everyone wasn't just playing tiddlywinks.

Pro-liberty candidates have not yet begun the work. This movement is in its infancy. This Revolution is the start of our attempts to seriously win office.


It's poor strategy to call up more people to go All In on principle, but it's good strategy for people to send more money to more politicians to do more legislating? Like I said, we're coming from different places.

You're right. You assume that all politicians are the same, and reality says otherwise. We're beginning to work to get real pro-liberty candidates in office, and we're sending money to those ends.


Howz that 2006 "mandate" working out? I know, I know, they weren't the RIGHT new politicians.

Exactly. People fell for the Democrats trap and elected them to produce "change". And they're getting their change - because the politicians they chose weren't the right (read: pro-liberty) politicians.


Are you for real? I will suggest that only a simpleton or a conniver would NOT assume that people who are elevated into positions of power are not corrupted by power.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely -- again, where ya been?

Lovely bumper sticker logic, but it's just not true. Power CAN corrupt. But corruption is nothing to assume. People are capable of handling power, so long as they take on a degree of responsibility for the execution of that power. People wield power responsibly all the time.


MY myopia, Mr. Work Within The System?

You're trying to make fun of me, but what I wrote (and you replied to with the above line) is absolutely true.


Coupla things.

"Normal" is a highly relative and subjective term.

The kind of people you'd meet at a cocktail party and not realize who they were until it came up 15 minutes into the conversation. Congresspeople aren't cut from a different cloth than the rest of us.


Whether or not they are normal, CLEARLY they are ineffectual.

Why, because the 3 Congresspeople I know can't direct the whole of the 435 person body?


Someone on this Board once asserted that, if there are bad cops, there are no good cops. He was alluding to the quote-unquote good cops turning a blind eye and otherwise shielding bad cops. Ditto, in my league, with priests and politicians.

Really? Because cops blow whistles all the time. There are bad cops, and there are good cops. There are bad priests, and there are good priests. There are bad politicians, and there are good politicians. We see evidence of this every day.


I'm definitely getting somewhere, with or without you.

Good to hear. Where are you getting? What is your plan?


If you can't get anywhere without my support, then I advise you that you will have to revise the Plan.

While I'd like anybody and everybody to support the goal of changing America through social and political action, if you're intent not to help it's not going to ruin the movement, it'll just be a shame not to have you.

[cheapseats]

I am trimming the parts of our exchange that are unproductive (i.e. your lobbing unfounded insults). I write this b/c I usually make it a point to parse everything written as I hate to be accused of "cherry picking".

A-HEM. I'm all for gettin' back on the high road, but let us be clear who started the party in ditch.



...It seems as though you've seen a lot of movies ... little practical knowledge ... romanticizing ...

...This little factoid of yours...

...You missed my point because your supposed disagreement didn't actually address the point, it addressed some straw man...

...That is immaterial to our conversation...






...I'm starting to wonder if replying to your messages is worth it...

...Don't be afraid. I'm here to help you...

...You must be a teenager, right?

...you will never amount to anything...

...Immaterial to the conversation...

...Then you might want to work on your espionage abilities...




For my part, I will ALSO speed this along by not responding point-for-point.

You are a Politician. I am not. I advise my country and my countrymen AGAINST continued politics as usual within an unmistakably corrupted system. Your contention that your people or ANY people are above the corruption that has bedeviled society FOREVER would be laughable if ANY of this were funny.



...That dramatic change was brought on initially by the oft-quoted "tireless minority". Voices help. But the War itself succeeded because that tireless minority had managed to spread their message through the population until a critical mass was reached. This was my original point - it's too soon to walk away from the system because we have yet to reach that sociodynamic critical mass.

Voices help? Ya think?

So does courage.

Either y'all SUCK at sending messages or the people who still can't/won't get it will NOT get it in a meaningful time frame. That's MY point.




You're welcome to just live your life however you want, but we are here today because Ron Paul and those like him consider it unacceptable that we might one day, while living our lives free, happen across a government agent who thinks we should be living our lives the way the mob wants us to. So we're working to change that arrangement.

I remind you that Ron Paul has been in Congress for OVER THIRTY YEARS.




I don't contend that it is a sure way to do the trick. I contend that it has the best chance of success.

I am in STRIDENT disagreement.




There is no easy road.

No, there isn't. Your approach, the political equivalent of Business As Usual, is hardest and costliest for the Many and safest and perkiest for the Few. Doesn't work for me.




Many good things happened as a result of Paul's run.


"Many good things happened" is enough to call a picnic a success but not, I think, a revolution.




If you're looking to make this point, then link to your numbers.


My point is made. You decline to do that research at your own peril.




I'm surprised you actually wonder that, because people solve problems each and every day by working within existing systems. Even if their goal is to change the system in question to a new system, they still accomplish that most effectively by working within the existing system.

It's a good read . . . but IT'S NOT WORKING. We are worse off even than under GEORGE BUSH.




But American politics and justice are here. And they're here to stay in their present form, unless we can do something about it.


Exactly so.




...Because we don't have any other choice...

EXACTLY what Germans said while Hitler was doin' his deal.




There's that strategic myopia again.

The pot calls the kettle wrought iron.




It's clear to me because I AM an expert in management and operations, and your answers have betrayed a base lack of understanding in the field.


EZPZ. You do the campaigning thing in a business model at which you are expert, and I'll bring my background, education and aptitudes to dragon-slaying. You MUST concede that a multiplicity of problems beget a multiplicity of solutions. Posterity will not regret it if we leave them with more than one set of notes.





Lobbying and politics aren't evil.

Yes, they are.




Lobbying and politics in their current incarnations are evil.

Because whereas power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This gives me no pleasure, y'know. Truth is not always pretty. Reality is reality.




Your personal biases aside, it's necessary to raise money in order to run a campaign. Would that it were different, but that's the way it is. So we can either a) accept defeat, or b) work with that set of rules in an attempt to win the game.


Governance of a great and independent nation is not meant to be a fundraising game, YOUR biases notwithstanding.




Do I have a financial or inside interest in the movement? No. Do I benefit? ABSOLUTELY. We all do. But this remains immaterial because this is an internet debate board on which I am anonymous, so everything about my background is taken on faith, if at all. In other words, it makes no sense delving into my background because I can make my background whatever I want it to be.

Whether you have a financial or other interest, whether your personal circumstances improve by involvement in the Movement is ABSOLUTELY material. Period.

The arbitrariness and changeability of anonymous characters is PRECISELY why Americans facing bleaker and bleaker prospects shouldn't be sending more and more money to game-playing-even-winning politicians.

A little credit card industry regulation to go with your relaxation of gun regulation in national parks?





Pro-liberty candidates have not yet begun the work.


What, then, became of all the money that has thus far been funneled toward pro-liberty candidates, campaigns and organizations?




You assume that all politicians are the same, and reality says otherwise.


Reality says that many more politicians are inept, ineffectual and/or corruptible than otherwise, OR WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS CLUSTERFUCK.




Lovely bumper sticker logic, but it's just not true. Power CAN corrupt. But corruption is nothing to assume. People are capable of handling power, so long as they take on a degree of responsibility for the execution of that power. People wield power responsibly all the time.


That is neither my experience nor the wisdom of the ages. Anyone else care to weigh in? I am wide-screen and windex-clear that the honor system is inadequate safeguard against the vagaries of human nature.




Congresspeople aren't cut from a different cloth than the rest of us.


They are after they're in office. Being above the fray financially PLUS having enhanced stature, healthcare, pension and personal security IS different and better cloth -- ask around.




Why, because the 3 Congresspeople I know can't direct the whole of the 435 person body?

I know I'M not voting for any more mamby-pamby politically correct sorts.




Really? Because cops blow whistles all the time. There are bad cops, and there are good cops. There are bad priests, and there are good priests. There are bad politicians, and there are good politicians. We see evidence of this every day.


I draw your attention to the concept and the reality of EVERY DAY. It goes on and on and on and on -- America has made Big Business out of the charade of giving a shit and pretending to fix things.




Good to hear. Where are you getting? What is your plan?


I have a backlog of letters to write, now that I'm not a sitting duck, and then I'll unveil it in Freedom Living. C'mon, it'll be fun.





While I'd like anybody and everybody to support the goal of changing America through social and political action, if you're intent not to help it's not going to ruin the movement, it'll just be a shame not to have you.

I should certainly hope that I cannot and would not derail a movement that is in the direction of smaller RIGHTEOUS government. That said, know that THIS voice is playin' to NINETY-THREE MILLION single people, with a particular fondness for FIFTY-THREE MILLION single women. A truly formidable number of whom are menopausal.

[Nathan Hale]

A-HEM. I'm all for gettin' back on the high road, but let us be clear who started the party in ditch.

If you're implying that I was the first one to get snarkey, you might want to re-read this thread.


You are a Politician. I am not.

I'm not a politician. I'm a strategist. I don't hate people just because they're politicians, if that's what you mean.


I advise my country and my countrymen AGAINST continued politics as usual within an unmistakably corrupted system.

I agree with this. I'm not supporting politics as usual. I am supporting using the system to change the system, not by doing "politics as usual" which is a perpetuation of the system, but by taking the rudder and bringing about political change.


Your contention that your people or ANY people are above the corruption that has bedeviled society FOREVER would be laughable if ANY of this were funny.

Really? Why?


So does courage.

Courage helps...when employed at the right time. Courage displayed at the wrong time just gets people dead or incarcerated.


Either y'all SUCK at sending messages or the people who still can't/won't get it will NOT get it in a meaningful time frame. That's MY point.

It's the former. Libertarians SUCK at sending messages, because they don't know how to sell a message.


I remind you that Ron Paul has been in Congress for OVER THIRTY YEARS.

Yes, alone. He has stood alone, as an outcast, for 30 years. But now, we see something brewing. Ron Paul Republicans and Ron Paul himself have measures of credibility. We have allies. We have dozens of credible candidates contesting seats. There is momentum where there wasn't momentum before.


I am in STRIDENT disagreement.

Okay. Why? What path offers a better chance of success?


No, there isn't. Your approach, the political equivalent of Business As Usual, is hardest and costliest for the Many and safest and perkiest for the Few. Doesn't work for me.

I disagree with what you have to say, but since you refuse to reveal your plan, we're not actually having much of a conversation.


"Many good things happened" is enough to call a picnic a success but not, I think, a revolution.

The revolution isn't over. I said that "many good things happened as a result of Paul's run", and went on to list good things that happened as a result of Paul's run that made it successful. That point stands, because Paul's run was a success for the reasons I mentioned. Sure it would have been a greater success had he won, or even won the nomination, but it went a lot better than it could have, and it created a lot more than many ever thought possible.


My point is made. You decline to do that research at your own peril.

I ask because the research I've done doesn't support your assertion. The onus is on the maker of the point to support their point with data.


It's a good read . . . but IT'S NOT WORKING. We are worse off even than under GEORGE BUSH.

That's true, but it doesn't contest my point that people work within the system to create change all the time.


EXACTLY what Germans said while Hitler was doin' his deal.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) Hitler liked art too. Does that make Van Gogh a Nazi?


EZPZ. You do the campaigning thing in a business model at which you are expert, and I'll bring my background, education and aptitudes to dragon-slaying. You MUST concede that a multiplicity of problems beget a multiplicity of solutions. Posterity will not regret it if we leave them with more than one set of notes.

There's just one problem....dragons don't exist.


Yes, they are.

Who am I to attack you for a moral statement? If you believe lobbying (i.e. petitioning for redress of grievances) and politics (i.e. governance) are evil, then so be it.


Because whereas power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This gives me no pleasure, y'know. Truth is not always pretty. Reality is reality.

But that is not reality. For starters there is no "absolute power" in play. And while power CAN corrupt, the idea that power corrupts as a matter of inevitability is an unfounded but witty quote. People wield power responsibly all the time.


Governance of a great and independent nation is not meant to be a fundraising game, YOUR biases notwithstanding.

I wish it wasn't a fundraising game. But it is what it is.


Whether you have a financial or other interest, whether your personal circumstances improve by involvement in the Movement is ABSOLUTELY material. Period.

The arbitrariness and changeability of anonymous characters is PRECISELY why Americans facing bleaker and bleaker prospects shouldn't be sending more and more money to game-playing-even-winning politicians.

Once again you're running with very specific statements and applying them as generalities. I said that it's pointless to get into our personal situations because this is an anonymous board. We're having an anonymous debate. If you're uncomfortable with that, kindly remove yourself from this situation.

Though I agree, it's perfectly proper to call into question a person's background and motive when examining their arguments, so long as you are in a situation where such analysis is practicable.


What, then, became of all the money that has thus far been funneled toward pro-liberty candidates, campaigns and organizations?

It goes toward pro-liberty candidates, campaigns, and organizations for their activities.


Reality says that many more politicians are inept, ineffectual and/or corruptible than otherwise, OR WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS CLUSTERFUCK.

That's just not true. We're in this clusterfuck because of an ideological gap between the mainstream of the two major parties and those of us who believe in smaller government. It's not that these people are all inept, ineffectual, or corrupt, it's that they believe a different thing than we do. Sure, there's widespread corruption, but to assume that we dare not field candidates because corruption is somehow inevitable is an assumption totally without merit.


That is neither my experience nor the wisdom of the ages.

This isn't true. You're citing a quote from Lord Acton (or William Pitt, depending on who you trust), granted, but it's far from being "the wisdom of the ages".


Anyone else care to weigh in? I am wide-screen and windex-clear that the honor system is inadequate safeguard against the vagaries of human nature.

The honor system IS an inadequate safeguard against the vagaries of human nature, that's why we vet candidates, and petition candidates, and work to keep candidates accountable. That's part of what the founders intended by the idea of being vigilant in order to retain our liberty.


They are after they're in office. Being above the fray financially PLUS having enhanced stature, healthcare, pension and personal security IS different and better cloth -- ask around.

I don't deny that politicians (in federal government, anyway) are people in different circumstances, but they're not cut from a different cloth. Many are just businesspeople, physicians, soldiers, entrepreneurs - hell, a few are even accountants.


I know I'M not voting for any more mamby-pamby politically correct sorts.

Neither am I. Not sure what this has to do with what I said.


I draw your attention to the concept and the reality of EVERY DAY. It goes on and on and on and on -- America has made Big Business out of the charade of giving a shit and pretending to fix things.

You're not speaking to my point, so I'll say it again: There are good cops and there are bad cops. There are good priests and there are bad priests. There are good politicians and there are bad politicians. I know people in all three walks of life, none of whom I consider "bad".


I have a backlog of letters to write, now that I'm not a sitting duck, and then I'll unveil it in Freedom Living. C'mon, it'll be fun.

So you are here to decry my plan as evil and ineffectual but duck the question when I counter and ask for your supposedly superior plan? For a guy who talks a lot about good and evil, your debate ethics are for shit.

[cheapseats]

So you are here to decry my plan as evil and ineffectual but duck the question when I counter and ask for your supposedly superior plan? For a guy who talks a lot about good and evil, your debate ethics are for shit.

MY "debate ethics"? Coupla things, Mr. Strategist-slash-Expert:

1. That's one pot-holey high road you got there. By the way, which candidates ARE you supporting?

2. Declaring that whether you will personally benefit from the next campaign/election cycle is immaterial to a debate on Retaking Congress does not rank with Hillary and sniper fire, but it's a whopper nonetheless.

I am not obliged to have MY plan, superior for ME, ready for unveiling at your command, nor am I obliged to have dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's before I can identify an inferior plan.

[Nathan Hale]

MY "debate ethics"? Coupla things, Mr. Strategist-slash-Expert:

Yes, your debate ethics. This conversation is not just about my ideas, it's about the interrelation of our ideas. That means your ideas are just as relevant to the conversation.


1. That's one pot-holey high road you got there. By the way, which candidates ARE you supporting?

Forget it. We're done talking about my plans and choices until you start bringing something to the table other than bullshit.


2. Declaring that whether you will personally benefit from the next campaign/election cycle is immaterial to a debate on Retaking Congress does not rank with Hillary and sniper fire, but it's a whopper nonetheless.

I said WE ALL personally benefit from retaking congress, because the act of retaking congress pushes things in our direction.


I am not obliged to have MY plan, superior for ME, ready for unveiling at your command, nor am I obliged to have dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's before I can identify an inferior plan.

You have yet to show any concrete reason why my plan is inferior, in no small part because in order for my plan to be inferior, it needs to be inferior to something else. So if you're going to talk about what's inferior, you have to (not as a matter of force but as a matter of logic) discuss what is superior. So where's the beef?

I'm done having baseless insults lobbed at me from the peanut gallery. If you want this conversation to continue, you're going to have to show me more than your charming personality.