Strategy Session! Bait and Switch

[american.swan]

Beck and others are going to push people at Sarah "neocon" Palin, so what is your strategy to keep the foolish masses from voting Palin 2012? What? You hadn't thought of this?

NYTimes should run an article just for the online Ron Paul crowd, "Revolution unprepared for bait and switch"

Where's your lawn sign? "Palin is a neocon."

Where's your bumper sticker? "No way in hell neocon Palin is getting my vote"

Where's the money bomb? "Palin is a neocon Money bomb for Peter Schiff."

Haven't you been telling all your friend that Palin was a neocon? Who will go on air and explain they won't vote for a neocon or anyone who won't bring our troops home?

What's the plan? Who's going to challenge Palin in the 2012 primaries?

Revolution doesn't support Rino Palin.

Strategy Session anyone?

[dannno]

Some people here like her. They are the kind of people who don't comprehend that we are sending all of our money overseas to murder people. Meanwhile they complain about domestic programs that don't cost anything near what our foreign empire costs. It doesn't make any sense. Stop fucking supporting Sarah Palin.

If you want to have a small government, start with our foreign empire. I can't even count how many times Ron Paul has told us this, and yet there are those here who continue to ignore it.

On the other hand, I'm going to leave Rand's campaigning to Rand, continue to support him, and watch what he does when he makes it to the senate.

[purplechoe]

If you a fan of Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin you're no friend to liberty. And that includes some of our mods. :o :( :mad: :rolleyes: :p

[Deborah K]

You fools. Go ahead and make enemies out of Beck and Palin supporters. You are cutting off your noses to spite your faces.

[heavenlyboy34]

Negative campaigns turn off swing voters/moderates. Running a negative campaign has a twofold effect-1) it makes the campaigner look aggressive and ignorant 2) it provides free advertising for the person being campaigned against-and often inclines people to consider that person in a better light.

No smear campaigns. Just promote liberty. :cool:


Beck and others are going to push people at Sarah "neocon" Palin, so what is your strategy to keep the foolish masses from voting Palin 2012? What? You hadn't thought of this?

NYTimes should run an article just for the online Ron Paul crowd, "Revolution unprepared for bait and switch"

Where's your lawn sign? "Palin is a neocon."

Where's your bumper sticker? "No way in hell neocon Palin is getting my vote"

Where's the money bomb? "Palin is a neocon Money bomb for Peter Schiff."

Haven't you been telling all your friend that Palin was a neocon? Who will go on air and explain they won't vote for a neocon or anyone who won't bring our troops home?

What's the plan? Who's going to challenge Palin in the 2012 primaries?

Revolution doesn't support Rino Palin.

Strategy Session anyone?

[dannno]

You fools. Go ahead and make enemies out of Beck and Palin supporters. You are cutting off your noses to spite your faces.

It's not about making enemies, it's about not supporting Republicans who want to get rid of welfare just so they can take the money and go massacre people over seas. Can't you see how immoral that is? Stealing money that was initially stolen to give to poor people just to make more bombs to kill people with?

I'm not saying I can support Democrats either, because they don't want to end the wars AND I don't support socialism.

All we're saying is that there are those of us who refuse to support our immoral foreign empire, period. Period. It is the most disgusting thing that our country does, I refuse to support it one bit.

[dannno]

Ron Paul endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney because he too realized what an atrocity our foreign empire is. I don't understand why that didn't make more people here sit up and think.

Our foreign policy is a double edged sword because it costs us money AND it makes us less safe. This is an issue I will not compromise on. I would rather the money stay here to fund socialist programs than go overseas to murder people. If the government has already stolen the money from us, then there is nothing in the ten commandments against giving it to poor people. There is something about not murdering people, though. This is a simple concept.

[Deborah K]

It's not about making enemies, it's about not supporting Republicans who want to get rid of welfare just so they can take the money and go massacre people over seas. Can't you see how immoral that is? Stealing money that was initially stolen to give to poor people just to make more bombs to kill people with?

I'm not saying I can support Democrats either, because they don't want to end the wars AND I don't support socialism.

All we're saying is that there are those of us who refuse to support our immoral foreign empire, period. Period. It is the most disgusting thing that our country does, I refuse to support it one bit.

The OP suggests a strategy that will alienate rather than help Palin/Beck people transcend to true libertarian values. Like it or not, these two are getting a lot of attention and it's easier to convert supporters of theirs than it is Obamabots - for me anyway. Beck/Palin people are hawkish - yes - but they are NOT marxists by any stretch and it hasn't been that hard to convince people who I've met and know that like them(B &P), that war and intervention are not the answer. Mike Scheuer's work has been invaluable to me in that regard.

[parocks]

You fools. Go ahead and make enemies out of Beck and Palin supporters. You are cutting off your noses to spite your faces.

Agreed.

Some here also have no ability to understand that if Ron Paul tries to get the Republican nomination in 2012, he's going to need Republican votes, not Democrat votes.

If I was just going by what I see on this board, and knew nothing of Ron Paul, I would conclude that Ron Paul's supporters were Democrats, and Ron Paul should probably try to run for the Democratic nomination. His supporters, apparently, are Democrats, and Obama will likely not have any other opposition. Ron Paul could spend the primary season talking exclusively about antiwar against Obama. Obama, you said that you were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet there are still troops in both places. Etc etc. That would make Ron Pauls supporters happy (the supporters on this message board at least).

The danger of recruiting antiwar Democrats to your cause when you're a conservative Republican is that the antiwar Democrats don't stop being antiwar Democrats. Antiwar Democrats still don't like Republicans. Palin is the most popular Republican currently (to Republicans), and it's no surprise that she's unpopular to Democrats, including Antiwar Democrats.

[american.swan]

Negative campaigns turn off swing voters/moderates. Running a negative campaign has a twofold effect-1) it makes the campaigner look aggressive and ignorant 2) it provides free advertising for the person being campaigned against-and often inclines people to consider that person in a better light.

No smear campaigns. Just promote liberty. :cool:

I like your thinking, so how do we distinguish between a Schiff and Ron and the image Palin and Neocons will give themselves? All we can do is point out kindly flip flops?

[american.swan]

The OP suggests a strategy that will alienate rather than help Palin/Beck people transcend to true libertarian values. Like it or not, these two are getting a lot of attention and it's easier to convert supporters of theirs than it is Obamabots - for me anyway. Beck/Palin people are hawkish - yes - but they are NOT marxists by any stretch and it hasn't been that hard to convince people who I've met and know that like them(B &P), that war and intervention are not the answer. Mike Scheuer's work has been invaluable to me in that regard.

I appreciate your answer here. I believe your right. So what should we do when Beck supports Palin or another warmonger during the debates or in the run up to the primaries?

[Deborah K]

Inundate him like we did when he attacked RP. Shortly after, he gave RP a full hour interview that I believe changed Beck's paradigm.

YouTube - Pt 1 RON PAUL on Glenn Beck Show for a FULL HOUR Dec 18, '07 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0oa0k4us8U)

[eOs]

You have been defeated already and you don't even know it. I will accept nothing less than a Ron Paul 2012 victory.

[Deborah K]

You have been defeated already and you don't even know it. I will accept nothing less than a Ron Paul 2012 victory.

Please, by all means, enlighten us with your strategies to that end.

[eOs]

Please, by all means, enlighten us with your strategies to that end.

I'd rather hear your strategy on settling for someone else. All the activities on these forums for the past few years have been directed toward electing liberty candidates, why choose less than the best? Because you won't win? Then it looks like we're back at square one. And your signature is extremely ironic.

[KAYA]

If you a fan of Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin you're no friend to liberty. And that includes some of our mods. :o :( :mad: :rolleyes: :p

Riiight... I guess you are the self-appointed judge and jury? Interesting...

[Romulus]

Hold on.. there are those who have Palin/Beck heads in our family.

How do we going about talking to them in a POLITE way?

You say, you cant have a small gov and big foreign empire. I think we need to play up the foreign policy angle and how it leads to deficits and big government which is what Obama is all about. Show them how Obama and Palin are both neocons and let then promote liberty.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why all the Beck/Palin bashing?

Between all the R candidates last time, Palin or Huck were my second choices. Ended up throwing away my vote so I didn't have to vote for McCain or Obama. Was tempted to Vote Palin and pretend I wasn't voting for McCain too - but couldn't stomach it...

-t

[Deborah K]

I'd rather hear your strategy on settling for someone else. All the activities on these forums for the past few years have been directed toward electing liberty candidates, why choose less than the best? Because you won't win? Then it looks like we're back at square one. And your signature is extremely ironic.

My strategy on settling for someone else??? Care to show me any where on this message board where I have stated we should settle on someone else? You are pulling a bait and switch to get out of answering my question. Nice try though.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My strategy on settling for someone else??? Care to show me any where on this message board where I have stated we should settle on someone else? You are pulling a bait and switch to get out of answering my question. Nice try though.

Some here would say you seem pretty gung-ho and refuse to acknowledge the anti-liberty messages that have recently come from Rand like placing an electric fence under the border....and of course his endorsement of "cracking down on our enemies" and "disallowing them the protections of our Constitution" even though the Constitution does not grant rights, they enumerate them, therefore you cannot deny anyone rights derived from humanity.

[Deborah K]

Some here would say you seem pretty gung-ho and refuse to acknowledge the anti-liberty messages that have recently come from Rand like placing an electric fence under the border....and of course his endorsement of "cracking down on our enemies" and "disallowing them the protections of our Constitution" even though the Constitution does not grant rights, they enumerate them, therefore you cannot deny anyone rights derived from humanity.

Gung-ho about what exactly? Are we required to agree 100% with everything a candidate supports? I don't know about you but I don't think so. And disregarding them when they don't fall in lock-step with your value system is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Good luck finding your perfect candidate.

How is wanting the accused to be tried by a military tribunal vs. the circus in New York, disallowing them their right to due process and a fair trial? Can you prove they won't be treated fairly by a tribunal?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Gung-ho about what exactly? Are we required to agree 100% with everything a candidate supports? I don't know about you but I don't think so. And disregarding them when they don't fall in lock-step with your value system is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Good luck finding your perfect candidate.

How is wanting the accused to be tried by a military tribunal vs. the circus in New York, disallowing them their right to due process and a fair trial? Can you prove they won't be treated fairly by a tribunal?

Again, you refuse to critique specific policy projections by Rand and deflect by saying, there of course will never be a perfect candidate, because the only perfect candidate would be ones-self. The candidates who I do support, also logically, and by extension conclusively support NAP and Natural Law to it's end, and diagnose problems not merely try to put bandaids on an agape wound.

I do not know how militarizing our borders is:

#1 For limited-Government (For an apt response for limited Government read Nozick's Anarchy, State, Utopia)
#2 Fiscally "conservative"
#3 Feasible at all - and if you advocate the dismantling of the Welfare/Warfare State then the issue of immigration solves itself like Schiff so brilliantly demonstrated at his Woodbury venue (Perfect by the way). A politician seeks to apply bandaids, Statesman seek to root the cause out and fix it so bandaids are moot.
#4 Is a wise choice to grow Government power especially in light of it's inherent overreach and destruction of liberty and because Posse Comitatus explicity repugns the Military in any matters of domestic police, and why when they did get involved: See Katrina - They violated Natural Law and NAP by pillaging and confiscatory policy (Guns were taken from individuals)
#5 Won't work in the first place precisely because of cost, and precisely for the reasons why any other Government intervention never works.

If Rand was like Schiff I would whole-heartidly support him. Schiff gets it (Probably because the man understands Austrian Economics).

There are two issues that are deal-busters. Natural Law and NAP.

In regards to the trial. I believe even though it may/will be a kubuki trial in NY, that I take the Constitutional position on this matter. For one, there is no war. No declaration of War has been delivered. What we are doing you could only call a police matter and a criminal one at that. So, to give legitimacy to an illegal war goes against my Christian Just War Theory to which I espouse.

I don't know how one can say Government intervention doesn't work in the Economy, but yet, the Government will be able to police and stop immigration when there are 1000's of miles of borders. Secondly, what are they going to do? Eminent domain private property on the border? How is that for liberty whatsoever? How are they going to erect these defenses? Are we going to isolate ourselves? What about free-trade? What about free-travel? What about liberty? It's like it's a sound bite and treating people like they can't understand the actual problem. This isn't being a Statesman or a liberty-defender.

(PS: Your sig line really is so ironic, I'm sorry, but had to bring that up)

[sofia]

Negative campaigns turn off swing voters/moderates. Running a negative campaign has a twofold effect-1) it makes the campaigner look aggressive and ignorant 2) it provides free advertising for the person being campaigned against-and often inclines people to consider that person in a better light.

No smear campaigns. Just promote liberty. :cool:

Ron Paul took that nice-guy approach in 2008.

How did that work out for him?

[sofia]

How is wanting the accused to be tried by a military tribunal vs. the circus in New York, disallowing them their right to due process and a fair trial? Can you prove they won't be treated fairly by a tribunal?

Khaleed is an innocent man. The military that tortured him into "confession" will find him guilty of false charges.

At least a jury of New York idiots might see it differently.

[Deborah K]

Again, you refuse to critique specific policy projections by Rand and deflect by saying, there of course will never be a perfect candidate, because the only perfect candidate would be ones-self. The candidates who I do support, also logically, and by extension conclusively support NAP and Natural Law to it's end, and diagnose problems not merely try to put bandaids on an agape wound.



What I refuse to do is defend an issue I don't agree with. I don't live in KY so I'm not closely following Rand's campaign or his platform. I simply put my opinion forth re: the NY trials and now I'm being insisted upon to defend the man and his principles. I will say this - Rand may not be perfect, but he's damned close, and if he doesn't pass muster with you, then so be it.


I do not know how militarizing our borders is:

#1 For limited-Government (For an apt response for limited Government read Nozick's Anarchy, State, Utopia)
#2 Fiscally "conservative"
#3 Feasible at all - and if you advocate the dismantling of the Welfare/Warfare State then the issue of immigration solves itself like Schiff so brilliantly demonstrated at his Woodbury venue (Perfect by the way). A politician seeks to apply bandaids, Statesman seek to root the cause out and fix it so bandaids are moot.
#4 Is a wise choice to grow Government power especially in light of it's inherent overreach and destruction of liberty and because Posse Comitatus explicity repugns the Military in any matters of domestic police, and why when they did get involved: See Katrina - They violated Natural Law and NAP by pillaging and confiscatory policy (Guns were taken from individuals)
#5 Won't work in the first place precisely because of cost, and precisely for the reasons why any other Government intervention never works.

I don't disagree with any of this philosophically speaking, but a strategy to secure our borders is necessary due to the dangerous times in which we find ourselves. Schiff's solution does not speak to the terrorist element.


If Rand was like Schiff I would whole-heartidly support him. Schiff gets it (Probably because the man understands Austrian Economics).

There are two issues that are deal-busters. Natural Law and NAP.

Big Schiff supporter here. If you go back through my posts a couple years, you'll find that I was one of the first people here to promotehim and his book: Crash Proof. I even had the pleasure of talking to him on the phone when I was organizing the Revolution March in '08.


In regards to the trial. I believe even though it may/will be a kubuki trial in NY, that I take the Constitutional position on this matter. For one, there is no war. No declaration of War has been delivered. What we are doing you could only call a police matter and a criminal one at that. So, to give legitimacy to an illegal war goes against my Christian Just War Theory to which I espouse.

I don't know how one can say Government intervention doesn't work in the Economy, but yet, the Government will be able to police and stop immigration when there are 1000's of miles of borders. Secondly, what are they going to do? Eminent domain private property on the border? How is that for liberty whatsoever? How are they going to erect these defenses? Are we going to isolate ourselves? What about free-trade? What about free-travel? What about liberty? It's like it's a sound bite and treating people like they can't understand the actual problem. This isn't being a Statesman or a liberty-defender.

The issue of illegal immigration and lax security at our borders is extremely complicated. You may be aware that I am a minuteman and have lived in a border state my entire life. My position has always been that INS is a mess and needs re-vamping. I see nothing wrong with foreigners working legally in the US. I also think the US gov't is enabling the Mexican gov't to remain corrupt. It is the Mexican gov't that is why Mexicans flee to the U.S. by the millions every year. And it is why they send 30 billion dollars of their illegal earnings a year back to Mexico, which hurts our economy. Bear in mind, you don't see Canadians flooding across the northern border.

As for security, do you have any conception of how easy it is for islamic terrorists to sneak into the US via the Mexican border? I can tell you some interesting stories about how they learn the spanish language, come across into the southern towns of Texas, go into court and change their names to mexican names and pass themselves off as mexicans. You may be aware that their terrorist tactics are now being used by the drug cartels in Mexico i.e. beheadings. A relatively new phenomena.

We are in for it if we don't get control of our southern border. Your philosophical views notwithstanding.



(PS: Your sig line really is so ironic, I'm sorry, but had to bring that up

You are insinuating that I am settling because I support Rand. I disagree with you.

[parocks]

Why all the Beck/Palin bashing?

Between all the R candidates last time, Palin or Huck were my second choices. Ended up throwing away my vote so I didn't have to vote for McCain or Obama. Was tempted to Vote Palin and pretend I wasn't voting for McCain too - but couldn't stomach it...

-t

Some I think are antiwar Democrats. They don't like most Republicans. That doesn't explain why they're attacking Beck and Palin and not Romney, Huck, etc. Beck and Palin are taking on Obama. Maybe they like Obama?

Another theory is that Ron Paul will have a much harder time of it if he decides to run in 2012, and Palin runs as well, because in 2008, all of the front runners had something that was unappealing to what are now called "Grass Roots Conservative Republicans". Grass Roots Conservative Republicans are a huge chunk of the Republican party, and Palin is targeting them directly, and is having success with that. Because Palin is having success with GRCRs, and some people recognize that GRCRs are necessary for Ron Paul to win, I think that some want to see Palin go away so that Paul and not Palin would get the votes from the GRCRs.

The description of grass roots conservative Republicans is not meant to debate whether or not they're true conservatives or actually neocons. I didn't invent the term grass roots conservative Republican. I am certain that there are people here that have the opinion that grass roots conservative Republicans aren't conservatives at all, they're neocons, and are bad. There's no need to have that argument here.

[parocks]

Ron Paul took that nice-guy approach in 2008.

How did that work out for him?

I think that wasn't the problem. I don't think he really had the $ to simultaneously run negative ads against McCain, Romney and Huckabee.

And I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul didn't take a "nice-guy" approach to Bush's Foreign Policy.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What I refuse to do is defend an issue I don't agree with. I don't live in KY so I'm not closely following Rand's campaign or his platform. I simply put my opinion forth re: the NY trials and now I'm being insisted upon to defend the man and his principles. I will say this - Rand may not be perfect, but he's damned close, and if he doesn't pass muster with you, then so be it.



I don't disagree with any of this philosophically speaking, but a strategy to secure our borders is necessary due to the dangerous times in which we find ourselves. Schiff's solution does not speak to the terrorist element.



Big Schiff supporter here. If you go back through my posts a couple years, you'll find that I was one of the first people here to promotehim and his book: Crash Proof. I even had the pleasure of talking to him on the phone when I was organizing the Revolution March in '08.



The issue of illegal immigration and lax security at our borders is extremely complicated. You may be aware that I am a minuteman and have lived in a border state my entire life. My position has always been that INS is a mess and needs re-vamping. I see nothing wrong with foreigners working legally in the US. I also think the US gov't is enabling the Mexican gov't to remain corrupt. It is the Mexican gov't that is why Mexicans flee to the U.S. by the millions every year. And it is why they send 30 billion dollars of their illegal earnings a year back to Mexico, which hurts our economy. Bear in mind, you don't see Canadians flooding across the northern border.

As for security, do you have any conception of how easy it is for islamic terrorists to sneak into the US via the Mexican border? I can tell you some interesting stories about how they learn the spanish language, come across into the southern towns of Texas, go into court and change their names to mexican names and pass themselves off as mexicans. You may be aware that their terrorist tactics are now being used by the drug cartels in Mexico i.e. beheadings. A relatively new phenomena.

We are in for it if we don't get control of our southern border. Your philosophical views notwithstanding.




You are insinuating that I am settling because I support Rand. I disagree with you.

End the War on Terror, get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, stop all foreign aid, free-trade and travel with all, shut down our 750+ overseas bases, and end the NSA and CIA, and there will be no Terrorism. You are partially there, but you still cling to the Neo-Con lies. The Terrorists don't hate us because of our so-called liberty and freedom (What a hoot that one is....right?), they hate us because we are on their property, imposing our views by force, extorting and bribing and controlling the States in their area (Which goes back to imposing our views).

A Statesman identifies these problems, much like we would be Terrorists if China was doing these things to us. A two-line soundbite that shows no clue of the causes and uses Neo-Con talking points is intellectually disheartening. Like I said, Schiff gets it because of his background in Austrian Economics which is more like a total philosophy than merely an economic platform. You could say we understand human incentive and action, even more so than many pyschologists at least on macro-scales. :p

Again, you keep trying to patch a wound with a bandaid instead of hitting the cause of the wound itself. We're driving 95 MPH down the wrong path, it's time to do a U-Turn and drive 200MPH down the correct path.

[davesxj]

Some I think are antiwar Democrats. They don't like most Republicans. That doesn't explain why they're attacking Beck and Palin and not Romney, Huck, etc. Beck and Palin are taking on Obama. Maybe they like Obama?

Dude.. they all suck. Obama, Palin, Beck, Huck, Romney etc. suck.

I think you are very mistaken. The majority of this board are Constitutionalists. None of those people mentioned above fit that bill. You can carry on supporting them but any ignorance of the Constitution is just that.. ignorance.

If you really want to know. I'm less disgusted by socialism destroying the USA than I am by the USA destroying other nations. USA asked for the war. The valley-folk of Afghanistan and Pakistan did not.

[parocks]

Dude.. they all suck. Obama, Palin, Beck, Huck, Romney etc. suck.

I think you are very mistaken. The majority of this board are Constitutionalists. None of those people mentioned above fit that bill. You can carry on supporting them but any ignorance of the Constitution is just that.. ignorance.

If you really want to know. I'm less disgusted by socialism destroying the USA than I am by the USA destroying other nations. USA asked for the war. The valley-folk of Afghanistan and Pakistan did not.

There is a lot of Palin bashing on this board. There are dedicated Palin threads, and there aren't anywhere near as many dedicated Mitt or Huck threads. Someone asked why all the Palin bashing. I answered that question as I saw it.

The fact that you seem to dislike all current well-known Republicans not named Ron Paul and are more concerned about war than socialism seems to bring you closer to theory 1 than theory 2.

It still is curious why all the Palin bashing. Logically, it's gotta be theory 2.

[Deborah K]

End the War on Terror, get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, stop all foreign aid, free-trade and travel with all, shut down our 750+ overseas bases, and end the NSA and CIA, and there will be no Terrorism. You are partially there, but you still cling to the Neo-Con lies. The Terrorists don't hate us because of our so-called liberty and freedom (What a hoot that one is....right?), they hate us because we are on their property, imposing our views by force, extorting and bribing and controlling the States in their area (Which goes back to imposing our views).



I'd really appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (so to speak). I've never agreed with the premise that they hate us because we are free. I agree with everything you state here. The problem you seem to be having is that you are focused on the ideal and not on the reality of the here and now. We have enemies in the middle east and they can get into our country with ease through that sieve of a southern border. Your above proposal, even if it could be instituted immediately, will not solve the problem at hand.


A Statesman identifies these problems, much like we would be Terrorists if China was doing these things to us. A two-line soundbite that shows no clue of the causes and uses Neo-Con talking points is intellectually disheartening. Like I said, Schiff gets it because of his background in Austrian Economics which is more like a total philosophy than merely an economic platform. You could say we understand human incentive and action, even more so than many pyschologists at least on macro-scales. :p

Perhaps, but then when we are so stringent in our philosophies, we end up digging holes for ourselves by making any and all potential candidates for individual liberty, ineligible if they don't fit our exact molds for them. This thinking is unproductive and ineffective insofar as it will help promote the cause of liberty.


Again, you keep trying to patch a wound with a bandaid instead of hitting the cause of the wound itself. We're driving 95 MPH down the wrong path, it's time to do a U-Turn and drive 200MPH down the correct path

First you accuse me of settling, now I'm applying bandaids. How so? By trying to get liberty candidates elected? By vehemently disagreeing that enemies captured on the battlefield should be tried in federal court in a circus environment, rather than in a military tribunal? Don't you realize that this would set a precedent? This is an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy, and it is dangerous, and imo will embolden the enemy. As of yet, no one has been able to prove that their rights to a fair trial will be denied by a military tribunal.

And lastly, if we are to ever rid ourselves of this tyrannical, marxist gov't we have acquired, it will take strategy, compromise (with each other) and flexibility (changing tactics when we fail). Holding tightly to rigid views will accomplish nothing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd really appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (so to speak). I've never agreed with the premise that they hate us because we are free. I agree with everything you state here. The problem you seem to be having is that you are focused on the ideal and not on the reality of the here and now. We have enemies in the middle east and they can get into our country with ease through that sieve of a southern border. Your above proposal, even if it could be instituted immediately, will not solve the problem at hand.



Perhaps, but then when we are so stringent in our philosophies, we end up digging holes for ourselves by making any and all potential candidates for individual liberty, ineligible if they don't fit our exact molds for them. This thinking is unproductive and ineffective insofar as it will help promote the cause of liberty.



First you accuse me of settling, now I'm applying bandaids. How so? By trying to get liberty candidates elected? By vehemently disagreeing that enemies captured on the battlefield should be tried in federal court in a circus environment, rather than in a military tribunal? Don't you realize that this would set a precedent? This is an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy, and it is dangerous, and imo will embolden the enemy. As of yet, no one has been able to prove that their rights to a fair trial will be denied by a military tribunal.

And lastly, if we are to ever rid ourselves of this tyrannical, marxist gov't we have acquired, it will take strategy, compromise (with each other) and flexibility (changing tactics when we fail). Holding tightly to rigid views will accomplish nothing.

I have no intention of ever compromising my principles for political expediency. This is where I vehemently disagree with you. Why do you think Schiff has a shot? Because he stayed principled, stuck to his ideology (Austrian Econ / Libertarianism), and didn't budge one inch. We know the things being proposed by both GOP and Democrats won't work and it will implode. So, maybe we can't win everywhere right away. Who cares. When the collapse comes who are they going to be flocking to? The guys with the right answers who didn't budge, or the political expedients who placed politics above principle? There is no victory high enough to ever compromise our principles.

You are fixated on the here and now. I'm trying to show you that you need to take a step back. We're not going to achieve victory in five years, not in ten years, and maybe not even in 20 years, but by hell we will eventually achieve it, and the path to victory is not through concession. We know we are right, we know what is coming, we need to be yelling from the rooftops and having our voices heard even if they aren't the current political expedients view of how to win elections. So what if Rand doesn't win if he stays principled, the next go around he will! Why? Because SHTF and he would have stayed his guns.

Secondly, you understand the conditions that would solve the problem, yet here on the short-term you seem to be availed to trying to band-aid problems caused by the aforementioned. Now is not the time to be enacting increased Statist controls because the previous Statist measures resulted in the mess we are in. The precise antidote is the exact opposite. We have to cure our ails, not simply take medications to treat the symptoms.

Lastly, you actually have the where-with-all to actually believe that we can secure our borders. Do you know how much border sq. milage there is? It is impossible! If you actually believe the State can secure our borders well I have a nifty healthcare package to sell you that involves the Federal Government taking it over. Seriously, that would be easier to handle than trying to secure our border. Secondly, I for one moment would not dare to even believe for a second anyone wants militarized and walled borders. My god, if that is not Orwellian I don't know what is! And then you have Rand saying he wants underground electric fences and helo posts for quick interception, etc. How is any of that remotely going to reduce any Federal spending? If you thought Iraq and Afghanistan was expensive.....

[Deborah K]

I have no intention of ever compromising my principles for political expediency. This is where I vehemently disagree with you. Why do you think Schiff has a shot? Because he stayed principled, stuck to his ideology (Austrian Econ / Libertarianism), and didn't budge one inch. We know the things being proposed by both GOP and Democrats won't work and it will implode. So, maybe we can't win everywhere right away. Who cares. When the collapse comes who are they going to be flocking to? The guys with the right answers who didn't budge, or the political expedients who placed politics above principle? There is no victory high enough to ever compromise our principles.



So, your answer is to vote for his opponent or not vote at all and let the status quo continue on as if that gets us closer to our goals.

When the collapse comes, there will be chaos, and those in office will be the deciders. I trust Rand Paul even if you don't. I would rather he be in there than his opponents. It's called pragmatism.


You are fixated on the here and now. I'm trying to show you that you need to take a step back. We're not going to achieve victory in five years, not in ten years, and maybe not even in 20 years, but by hell we will eventually achieve it, and the path to victory is not through concession. We know we are right, we know what is coming, we need to be yelling from the rooftops and having our voices heard even if they aren't the current political expedients view of how to win elections. So what if Rand doesn't win if he stays principled, the next go around he will! Why? Because SHTF and he would have stayed his guns.

Secondly, you understand the conditions that would solve the problem, yet here on the short-term you seem to be availed to trying to band-aid problems caused by the aforementioned. Now is not the time to be enacting increased Statist controls because the previous Statist measures resulted in the mess we are in. The precise antidote is the exact opposite. We have to cure our ails, not simply take medications to treat the symptoms.


We won't achieve victory at all if we don't tackle the problems we have right now. Idealistic philosophies aren't going to cut it. Give me your strategy for keeping the enemy from invading through the southern border. And don't bother trying to deny that its happening. If you do, I will know for certain that you have done no research on the problem.


Lastly, you actually have the where-with-all to actually believe that we can secure our borders. Do you know how much border sq. milage there is? It is impossible! If you actually believe the State can secure our borders well I have a nifty healthcare package to sell you that involves the Federal Government taking it over. Seriously, that would be easier to handle than trying to secure our border. Secondly, I for one moment would not dare to even believe for a second anyone wants militarized and walled borders. My god, if that is not Orwellian I don't know what is! And then you have Rand saying he wants underground electric fences and helo posts for quick interception, etc. How is any of that remotely going to reduce any Federal spending? If you thought Iraq and Afghanistan was expensive....

I am for guarding every square inch of our borders if that is what it takes to protect Americans. Up until I had to take care of my 86 year old mother in law, I was out there one weekend a month doing just that as a minuteman. I love my country and I don't want to see it collapse economically or through any more terrorist attacks. And I know for a fact that illegal immigration, the WoD, criminals, and terrorists are flooding across our borders. I've seen things and been through things that I shouldn't have had to go through. The only answer you seem to have is rooted in your idealistic philosophy. I need results!! Not in 5or 10 or 20 years but NOW before its too late.

I don't disagree with your thinking on this, but I have lived enough life experience to know that we all have to decide what hill we're willing to die on. My guess is your hill is coming a lot sooner than mine. What good are you to anyone dead?

Tell ya what. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. And we'll leave it at that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So, your answer is to vote for his opponent or not vote at all and let the status quo continue on as if that gets us closer to our goals.

When the collapse comes, there will be chaos, and those in office will be the deciders. I trust Rand Paul even if you don't. I would rather he be in there than his opponents. It's called pragmatism.




We won't achieve victory at all if we don't tackle the problems we have right now. Idealistic philosophies aren't going to cut it. Give me your strategy for keeping the enemy from invading through the southern border. And don't bother trying to deny that its happening. If you do, I will know for certain that you have done no research on the problem.



I am for guarding every square inch of our borders if that is what it takes to protect Americans. Up until I had to take care of my 86 year old mother in law, I was out there one weekend a month doing just that as a minuteman. I love my country and I don't want to see it collapse economically or through any more terrorist attacks. And I know for a fact that illegal immigration, the WoD, criminals, and terrorists are flooding across our borders. I've seen things and been through things that I shouldn't have had to go through. The only answer you seem to have is rooted in your idealistic philosophy. I need results!! Not in 5or 10 or 20 years but NOW before its too late.

I don't disagree with your thinking on this, but I have lived enough life experience to know that we all have to decide what hill we're willing to die on. My guess is your hill is coming a lot sooner than mine. What good are you to anyone dead?

Tell ya what. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. And we'll leave it at that.

Well so much for open minds. We'll see where your compromise gets us. I for one will not subject my posterity to such ostensible defeatism, and abject wrong headed policy by focusing on the short-term like all politicians do. It is the exact formula that got us in this mess.

PS: Generally those people who are emotionally attached should not be involved. Precisely for the above reasons.

[Reason]

why hasn't anyone posted this video yet?

YouTube - SA@TAC - What is Sarah Palin? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RgW5tgDIxY)

[Deborah K]

Well so much for open minds. We'll see where your compromise gets us. I for one will not subject my posterity to such ostensible defeatism, and abject wrong headed policy by focusing on the short-term like all politicians do. It is the exact formula that got us in this mess.

PS: Generally those people who are emotionally attached should not be involved. Precisely for the above reasons.

I'm sure the Founders weren't emotionally attached either. :rolleyes: Just because I remain steadfast in my own ideas about how to fight for freedom doesn't mean I am closed minded.

May I remind you that the message of freedom doesn't belong solely to people who think exactly like you.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm sure the Founders weren't emotionally attached either. :rolleyes: Just because I remain steadfast in my own ideas about how to fight for freedom doesn't mean I am closed minded.

May I remind you that the message of freedom doesn't belong solely to people who think exactly like you.

I would like 100% Liberty, not 50%, not 75%, not 95%. That 95% can be taken away and will be taken away in less than 10 years. Unless we fight for 100% Liberty it will be futile on any meaningful time scale. Why would you want to pass on to our posterity the burden of having to continue our fight, and the next time hope a renaissance of thought happens? Let's make it happen now! I for one am not in this merely to have liberty for 20 years for it to only be taken away again as it will enivatably will be. That is not my idea of victory, sorry.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul and Rand Paul want the Constitution reinstated. Once we achieve that, we can see where we need to go from there. Can we please work together?

[Chieftain1776]

Hold on.. there are those who have Palin/Beck heads in our family.

How do we going about talking to them in a POLITE way?

You say, you cant have a small gov and big foreign empire. I think we need to play up the foreign policy angle and how it leads to deficits and big government which is what Obama is all about. Show them how Obama and Palin are both neocons and let then promote liberty.

You don't even need to play the foreign policy angle. The Becks/Palins of the world will ALWAYS talk about limited government but the good thing (for us) is that they will IGNORE IT when convenient. BOTH BECK AND PALIN SUPPORTED THE BAILOUTS!!!

So all we have to do is point out to their fans that they Beck/Palin have BETRAYED what we ALL agree on i.e. small domestic government by supporting the bailouts. After their heroes are shown for the frauds they are then we can say "Hey Ron Paul actually believes this small government stuff and sticks to it maybe...just maybe... you should take a look at his foreign policy if you're going to listen to proven liars like Beck/Palin".

If you're so inclined please DO ATTEND ALL THE BECK/PALIN events possible and inform them that all they have to do is remain consistent unlike Beck and Palin and refer them to books, websites, organizations etc.

Beck on the Bailout @ 1:00
YouTube - Glenn Beck is a Neocon (Not a Libertarian) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U)

Sarah Palin Talks Bailout Proposal
YouTube - Sarah Palin Talks Bailout Proposal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY)

[Deborah K]

I would like 100% Liberty, not 50%, not 75%, not 95%. That 95% can be taken away and will be taken away in less than 10 years. Unless we fight for 100% Liberty it will be futile on any meaningful time scale. Why would you want to pass on to our posterity the burden of having to continue our fight, and the next time hope a renaissance of thought happens? Let's make it happen now! I for one am not in this merely to have liberty for 20 years for it to only be taken away again as it will enivatably will be. That is not my idea of victory, sorry.

It's not my idea of victory either. But you yourself have stated that it is a gradual process - in this I agree - in order to change hearts and minds. But that never happens over night - it is a process. And moving away from and out of statism in one fell swoop will never happen either, you know that.

Even Dr. Paul agrees that ending entitlement programs, as an example, can't happen over night. Neither can abolishing the IRS, or the CIA, etc. Sometimes you have to tackle the problem using the tools which are available to you at the moment. That doesn't mean you have to abandon your values, or principles. It doesn't mean that at all. And this is where we disagree.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul and Rand Paul want the Constitution reinstated. Once we achieve that, we can see where we need to go from there. Can we please work together?

I think complancency would kick in far before that time. I think it's an all or nothing shot at this point to stop the cyclical nature of Governments. I am willing to work together, as you can see I support Schiff, Medina, Kokesh, and the like. I'm just vastly more principled in regards to those I'll support, and in some cases some causes are more important than others; for example Nullification/Interposition and returning to non-interventionist foreign policy. Sorry, but anyone who calls to militarize the border and erect walls is not someone I will support (And yes, I know Debra has a strong attitude towards the border and I think she is going about it the totally wrong way, but I think in this specific instance that Nullification/Interposition is more important than one states border policy, because it gives us the precedent so maybe NH can become the de-facto libertarian mecca and who knows, maybe if all An-Caps and staunch libertarian minarchists will someday flock there and seceede we may finally have our experiment. It's worth trying anyways).

[Deborah K]

Ron Paul and Rand Paul want the Constitution reinstated. Once we achieve that, we can see where we need to go from there. Can we please work together?

It's just a disagreement. I think we both want the same thing, we just have different ideas on how to go about it.

[LibertyEagle]

Beck and others are going to push people at Sarah "neocon" Palin, so what is your strategy to keep the foolish masses from voting Palin 2012? What? You hadn't thought of this?

NYTimes should run an article just for the online Ron Paul crowd, "Revolution unprepared for bait and switch"

Where's your lawn sign? "Palin is a neocon."

Where's your bumper sticker? "No way in hell neocon Palin is getting my vote"

Where's the money bomb? "Palin is a neocon Money bomb for Peter Schiff."

Haven't you been telling all your friend that Palin was a neocon? Who will go on air and explain they won't vote for a neocon or anyone who won't bring our troops home?

What's the plan? Who's going to challenge Palin in the 2012 primaries?

Revolution doesn't support Rino Palin.

Strategy Session anyone?

See, this is one of the things I think is wrong with our approach. We do way too much of.... DON'T DO THIS, instead of showing what it is that we think should happen and what it would like once it was achieved. Otherwise, we just come off as negative nellies, with no ideas of our own.

Going after Palin and Beck will get us nowhere. It's my belief that we shouldn't trust either of them at all, but leverage any opportunities they create to further our message.

[LibertyEagle]

I think complancency would kick in far before that time. I think it's an all or nothing shot at this point to stop the cyclical nature of Governments. I am willing to work together, as you can see I support Schiff, Medina, Kokesh, and the like. I'm just vastly more principled in regards to those I'll support, and in some cases some causes are more important than others; for example Nullification/Interposition and returning to non-interventionist foreign policy. Sorry, but anyone who calls to militarize the border and erect walls is not someone I will support.

Fine. I think we all understood somewhere between the 15th and 20th time that you made a post proclaiming your dissatisfaction with Rand. We got it! However, he is still a liberty candidate that is being showcased on this forum and supported by a number of our members. If you choose not to support him, that is certainly your decision. But, there is no reason for you to keep bashing him on these forums. Work to help the candidates that you do support and leave it at that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's just a disagreement. I think we both want the same thing, we just have different ideas on how to go about it.

This, though I want 100% Debra wants 90% :) We'll see if people get complacent when we get to 90% and would be willing to go the last 10%, but somehow I think people would fall back into their sheep mode at that time. Maybe, I'm wrong, but something tells me more than likely I'm not. Would love to get proven wrong however!

[Chieftain1776]

See, this is one of the things I think is wrong with our approach. We do way too much of.... DON'T DO THIS, instead of showing what it is that we think should happen and what it would like once it was achieved. Otherwise, we just come off as negative nellies, with no ideas of our own.

Going after Palin and Beck will get us nowhere. It's my belief that we shouldn't trust either of them at all, but leverage any opportunities they create to further our message.

Exactly, I'm thankful for Beck and Palin. They can bring in the crowds but THEY CAN'T CONTROL THEM. It's a great opportunity given to us to actually be able to talk with people interested in small government ON THE GROUND. Again the ideas just need to be applied consistently which Beck/Palin have proven they can't do.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney because he too realized what an atrocity our foreign empire is. I don't understand why that didn't make more people here sit up and think.

Danno, you keep saying that, but it is simply not true. He ENDORSED Chuck Baldwin.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Fine. I think we all understood somewhere between the 15th and 20th time that you made a post proclaiming your dissatisfaction with Rand. We got it! However, he is still a liberty candidate that is being showcased on this forum and supported by a number of our members. If you choose not to support him, that is certainly your decision. But, there is no reason for you to keep bashing him on these forums. Work to help the candidates that you do support and leave it at that.

There is a reason! I'm trying to get people to see what committing to another wrong policy that only increases spending, is not the solution. But, fine, I'll just keep that to myself until the I told you so enivatable moment arises.

[Deborah K]

This, though I want 100% Debra wants 90% :) We'll see if people get complacent when we get to 90% and would be willing to go the last 10%, but somehow I think people would fall back into their sheep mode at that time. Maybe, I'm wrong, but something tells me more than likely I'm not. Would love to get proven wrong however!

What you want isn't the point. What you can achieve is all that matters.

[LibertyEagle]

I appreciate your answer here. I believe your right. So what should we do when Beck supports Palin or another warmonger during the debates or in the run up to the primaries?

We use the opportunities that Beck and Palin are providing RIGHT NOW and attend their rallies and talk to their viewers (who by the way are more willing to listen NOW than EVER BEFORE, partly BECAUSE of what Beck has been telling them), pass out information, get them involved in your local liberty groups, or the Campaign for Liberty. Then, they will be a lot less likely to fall for a swan song when the election rolls around.

Going around bashing Palin and Beck will put us in the category of "liberals" to the people who like Palin and Beck and they will not listen to us further. So, it will do no good, and we will have wasted a wonderful opportunity. That would be truly sad.

[LibertyEagle]

what you want isn't the point. What you can achieve is all that matters.

bingo

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What you want isn't the point. What you can achieve is all that matters.

I've all ready answered how this happens, it doesn't come to fruition by compromise or concession. Anyways we are going around in circles. I can see it now though, when I'm 60 I don't want to be saying "I told you so", I want to be watching a brighter future for my posterity. :(

[LibertyEagle]

I've all ready answered how this happens, it doesn't come to fruition by compromise or concession. Anyways we are going around in circles. I can see it now though, when I'm 60 I don't want to be saying "I told you so", I want to be watching a brighter future for my posterity. :(

We do not have enough numbers to turn this thing around by ourselves. Therefore, we have to attract others into this movement. THAT is the issue. If we already had enough people, we could just go to it, BUT WE DO NOT. So, we have to attract others into this movement. Why on earth would we not take EVERY opportunity provided to us to reach people??? Beck and Palin have provided a number of such opportunities. If we do not use them, we only have ourselves to blame. No one said to kneel down before them and pay homage. I don't trust either of them, but I will use the heck out of them.

Where people are at today, we will be lucky if we can convince enough to work to put government back into its constitutional cage. If we do that, it will be a damn miracle. But, if we all continue to work like hell, we may just be able to do it. We have to try.

[Deborah K]

We use the opportunities that Beck and Palin are providing RIGHT NOW and attend their rallies and talk to their viewers (who by the way are more willing to listen NOW than EVER BEFORE, partly BECAUSE of what Beck has been telling them), pass out information, get them involved in your local liberty groups, or the Campaign for Liberty. Then, they will be a lot less likely to fall for a swan song when the election rolls around.

Going around bashing Palin and Beck will put us in the category of "liberals" to the people who like Palin and Beck and they will not listen to us further. So, it will do no good, and we will have wasted a wonderful opportunity. That would be truly sad.

Very well put. This helps makes my point to Austrian. We aren't compromising our principles by attempting to bring Palin/Beck followers into the light. So how can it be considered compromising our principles by supporting and voting for Rand when he is clearly a better choice for the Senate seat than the alternatives?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We do not have enough numbers to turn this thing around by ourselves. Therefore, we have to attract others into this movement. THAT is the issue. If we already had enough people, we could just go to it, BUT WE DO NOT. So, we have to attract others into this movement. Why on earth would we not take EVERY opportunity provided to us to reach people??? Beck and Palin have provided a number of such opportunities. If we do not use them, we only have ourselves to blame. No one said to kneel down before them and pay homage. I don't trust either of them, but I will use the heck out of them.

Where people are at today, we will be lucky if we can convince enough to work to put government back into its constitutional cage. If we do that, it will be a damn miracle. But, if we all continue to work like hell, we may just be able to do it. We have to try.

And I'm saying we have to educate people without a watered down or compromised message. That if the people do not believe in our message then they will get what they deserve, and when the reckoning comes then and only then will they be ready for our message and from the ashes we can build a better tomorrow. This, is how I see it playing out. If in the event that you do achieve the Constitutional banner, the same path that was played out from 1900 to 2009 will happen again, and again, and again. Like I said, we are in a cyclical timeline. I want to end the Boom-Bust. So, Rand loses because the people of Kentucky aren't ready. So what! Anything the political crass does will always make things worse, so why would you expect them to go along with the same failed policies when the whole thing collapses? No, people will be looking for an alternative, and there will be a shining alternative. We have to be boisterous, incessent, and pounding our message away without compromise and without concession.

The only way to change things is by changing the minds and hearts of the people. Pandering to them won't help change a damn thing. It's like I'm reading 1984 in real life. How do you think the renaissance of thought came about? It took the liberals hundreds of years before we arrived to the point where the people finally said "Ah-hah!" and this only occured after failed States collapsed or people got sick of the tyranny.

Generally, I know our hearts and minds are going in the same direction and we both yearn for the same thing, but what you're proposing is not a fix. I choose to end Boom-Bust once and for all.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Very well put. This helps makes my point to Austrian. We aren't compromising our principles by attempting to bring Palin/Beck followers into the light. So how can it be considered compromising our principles by supporting and voting for Rand when he is clearly a better choice for the Senate seat than the alternatives?

Lesser of two evils? No, we've never been doing that before. While yes, he is a better choice than Greyson and Mongiardo he is not a great choice himself. Besides I thought this issue was over with?

Secondly, Palin fans are by no means in the mood to hear about Voluntaryism, and the Beck fans are at least a bit more palatible to the idea. I mean, it's not very complicated. You either think free-markets work, or you don't. Clearly, history has bore out which is the truth and which isn't.

[Deborah K]

Lesser of two evils? No, we've never been doing that before. While yes, he is a better choice than Greyson and Mongiardo he is not a great choice himself. Besides I thought this issue was over with?



Now you're calling him evil? You've gone off the deep end.

[heavenlyboy34]

all have made good points in this thread. However, the overriding factor to consider, IMO, is that we are selling the idea of freedom to individuals, not a single-minded collective or a king. Thus, the message will have to be tailored according to who the immediate audience is. Just my 2 cents.

[LibertyEagle]

And I'm saying we have to educate people without a watered down or compromised message. That if the people do not believe in our message then they will get what they deserve, and when the reckoning comes then and only then will they be ready for our message and from the ashes we can build a better tomorrow. This, is how I see it playing out. If in the event that you do achieve the Constitutional banner, the same path that was played out from 1900 to 2009 will happen again, and again, and again. Like I said, we are in a cyclical timeline. I want to end the Boom-Bust.



Generally, I know our hearts and minds are going in the same direction and we both yearn for the same thing, but what you're proposing is not a fix. I choose to end Boom-Bust once and for all.

Ok. Let's just lay it out, shall we? Are you advocating overthrowing the Constitution?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ok. Let's just lay it out, shall we? Are you advocating overthrowing the Constitution?

Well of course, I'm a Voluntaryist (Though I wouldn't put it in such terms, more like a transition from the Constitution to a Voluntaryist society). I'm like trem, that returning to the Constitution is all well and good and amicable, however, I'm of the mind to never take one foot forward and two steps backward, so as long as candidates keep those feet moving forward in a positive direction, then I support them, just like Schiff, Medina, and Kokesh as mentioned before. As the end goal however, should be a Voluntaryist society. Indeed, if one believes the free-markets produces superior goods and services at a cheaper price than the Government than why would you be predisposed to choosing the inferior product? Hopefully not out of nationalism, right?

[LibertyEagle]

Well of course, I'm a Voluntaryist (Though I wouldn't put it in such terms, more like a transition from the Constitution to a Voluntaryist society). I'm like trem, that returning to the Constitution is all well and good and amicable, however, I'm of the mind to never take one foot forward and two steps backward, so as long as candidates keep those feet moving forward in a positive direction, then I support them, just like Schiff, Medina, and Kokesh as mentioned before. As the end goal however, should be a Voluntaryist society. Indeed, if one believes the free-markets produces superior goods and services at a cheaper price than the Government than why would you be predisposed to choosing the inferior product? Hopefully not out of nationalism, right?

As Josh told you the other day, if we do not first get the Constitution reinstated, there is no hope of going further. And frankly, it seems like you spend a whole lot of time arguing against achieving the first step.

First things first.

[angelatc]

Negative campaigns turn off swing voters/moderates.

That must be why nobody ever uses them. :rolleyes:

[RevolutionSD]

Beck and others are going to push people at Sarah "neocon" Palin, so what is your strategy to keep the foolish masses from voting Palin 2012? What? You hadn't thought of this?

NYTimes should run an article just for the online Ron Paul crowd, "Revolution unprepared for bait and switch"

Where's your lawn sign? "Palin is a neocon."

Where's your bumper sticker? "No way in hell neocon Palin is getting my vote"

Where's the money bomb? "Palin is a neocon Money bomb for Peter Schiff."

Haven't you been telling all your friend that Palin was a neocon? Who will go on air and explain they won't vote for a neocon or anyone who won't bring our troops home?

What's the plan? Who's going to challenge Palin in the 2012 primaries?

Revolution doesn't support Rino Palin.

Strategy Session anyone?

You're right that Palin is a neocon, but calling people names will not help one bit. Lots of people don't even know what a neocon is.

[dgr]

Let's back up and remember, the president sets the adgenda the House and Senate write and pass the legislation. THE PROBLEM IS THE HOUSE AND SENATE, How these people were so stupid to elect pelosi and Reid are beyond me. Robet Byrd has been in the Senate like since WWII and his state keeps sending him back. Without a republician majority elected to the House in 2010 , it may be too late in 2012.
look at the battle in Fla. could it turn into NY 23
electing people to replace the idiots in 2010 should be the focus now. How many states have independent candidates to challenge the incumbents??

[LibertyEagle]

Let's back up and remember, the president sets the adgenda the House and Senate write and pass the legislation. THE PROBLEM IS THE HOUSE AND SENATE, How these people were so stupid to elect pelosi and Reid are beyond me. Robet Byrd has been in the Senate like since WWII and his state keeps sending him back. Without a republician majority elected to the House in 2010 , it may be too late in 2012.
look at the battle in Fla. could it turn into NY 23
electing people to replace the idiots in 2010 should be the focus now. How many states have independent candidates to challenge the incumbents??

Yeah, but just not any 'ol Republicans, or we won't be any better off.