Are we a controlled opposition?

[RATM99]

Between the Tea Party getting hijacked. CFL giving money to a neo-Con candidate. And now queen Neo-Con Palin endorsing Rand Paul. Have we officially been infiltrated by the Neo-Cons? And our movement taken over?

[MRoCkEd]

:rolleyes:

[Paulitical Correctness]

No, we're just over 9,000 now.

[__27__]

Controlled opposition is controlled opposition.

[__27__]

I wish I didn't have to write a letter like this one, but recent events leave me no choice. Before I begin, let me point out that like a verbal magician, Controlled Opposition knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. I unmistakably insist that Controlled Opposition should know better than to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that if history follows its course, it should be evident that I have begged its disciples to step forth and expose some of Controlled Opposition's frowzy, warped deeds. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Controlled Opposition might retaliate? I confess that I don't know the answer to that question. I do know, however, that Controlled Opposition never stops boasting about its generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, its claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical, and, furthermore, there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I maintain, there's a time to do something good for others. Or, to put it less poetically, Controlled Opposition hates it when you say that its vituperations turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. It really hates it when you say that. Try saying that to it sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having it shriek insults at you.

Do you really think Controlled Opposition will ever learn from its mistakes? I hope I don't need to remind you that the word "anatomicophysiologic" is so compromised that I retain it only as a pejorative, but it's still true, and we must do something about it. Controlled Opposition has the nerve to call those of us who proscribe it and its admirers as the most dangerous enemies of the people "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that it's possible that Controlled Opposition's view that everyone and everything discriminates against it—including the writing on the bathroom stalls—is sheer make-believe. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.

I don't like to repeat myself, but it has been said that the ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country. I, in turn, contend that Controlled Opposition wants nothing less than to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Its cult followers then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with phlegmatic hypochondriacs who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Controlled Opposition's pea-brained attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Controlled Opposition, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's unquestionably a tragedy that its goal in life is apparently to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of separatism. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Controlled Opposition holds a universal license that allows it to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Controlled Opposition's from the get-go.

I challenge all of the yellow-bellied simpletons out there to consider this: Controlled Opposition's idea of bloodthirsty Dadaism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a barbaric blood-lust. It is, in every sense, an annoying and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to an impractical frenzy and then prompts them to propitiate amateurish, discourteous savages for later eventualities. Controlled Opposition is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to mollycoddle the most power-hungry curmudgeons you'll ever see.

It's not necessary to go into too long of a description about how Controlled Opposition plans to distract people from making a serious analysis of the situation by next weekend. Suffice it to say that I and Controlled Opposition part company when it comes to the issue of fanaticism. It feels that it is omnipotent while I believe that it may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider Controlled Opposition to be a weapon of mass destruction itself.

If I could ask Controlled Opposition one thing, I'd ask it why it thinks society is supposed to be lenient towards what I call rancorous toughies. The problem is that Controlled Opposition shrinks from such questions like a vampire shrinks from a crucifix. You'd be more likely to get Controlled Opposition to admit that I am not suggesting government censorship of Controlled Opposition's impetuous, postmodernist tracts. Still, I recommend you check out some of Controlled Opposition's epigrams and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Whenever someone tells Controlled Opposition not to replace our timeless traditions with its cocky ones, Controlled Opposition gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for it; it really does.

To make a long story short, the whole of Controlled Opposition's headstrong worldview may perhaps be expressed in one simple word. That word is "statism". Let me explain: We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must oppose our human vices wherever they may be found—arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Controlled Opposition's apothegms, one is promptly condemned as confused, passive-aggressive, corrupt, or whatever epithet Controlled Opposition deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. Many people are incredulous when I tell them that Controlled Opposition intends to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to its canards. "How could Controlled Opposition be so meddlesome?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is decidedly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Controlled Opposition plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that I plan to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, if there's an untold story here, it's that Controlled Opposition's provocateurs are frequently in the vanguard of the factionalism movement. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if it didn't, you might come to realize that it has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. Controlled Opposition supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that it is immature and stupid of Controlled Opposition to coordinate a revolution. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to catalogue its swindles and perversions, and that's why I say that I oppose its shenanigans because they are effrontive. I oppose them because they are directionless. And I oppose them because they will mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass some day.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that if Controlled Opposition had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" it wouldn't be so keen to pit the haves against the have-nots. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to keep our courage up.

Even Controlled Opposition's chums couldn't deal with the full impact of Controlled Opposition's revenge fantasies. That's why they created "Controlled Opposition-ism," which is just an unruly excuse to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. Controlled Opposition keeps stating over and over again that it values our perspectives. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that I have a plan to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most contumacious manifestations. I call this plan "Operation champion the force of goodness against the greed of ostentatious lamebrains". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that the police should lock Controlled Opposition up and throw away the key. That said, let me continue.

You're a sucker and a fool if you believe that Controlled Opposition's confidants will one day turn around and exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Let me explain. In any decent society, Controlled Opposition would be just another pathetic blusterer standing on a streetcorner braying its nonsensical diatribes from atop a soapbox. Nevertheless, it has managed to gain some credibility among bad-tempered, lascivious deviants because they relate to her message that pudibund leeches are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Let us be witness to the horrifying effects of Controlled Opposition's neurotic, cruel ethics. Let us examine how it seeks to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. Let us exhibit the moral values, empathy, and wisdom needed to tell the world that if I may be so bold, jujuism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Controlled Opposition's favorite; it makes it easy for it to extirpate the things that I undeniably cherish. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Controlled Opposition makes up for its lack of wit by shouting like a Vogon, and 2) the mere mention of Controlled Opposition's loathsome name jacks my blood pressure up into dangerous territory.

[TheTyke]

No. We're doing exactly what Mike Rothfeld talked about. A vocal, insistent minority is moving the "box" of political ideas to the "right" (less government).

Did you think that without us, the Republicans and neocons would never win another election? Their political power and organization persist... but we have moved the debate. The Fed is under public scrutiny. Now the tides will sweep some of our people into office. People like we haven't seen in the halls of congress in 50 years. And at the same time, we can gain actual power to fight back - votes. Not just forum posts and sign bombs.

Always insist on your principles. Back who you believe in... and good things will happen.

Edit: ROFL at 27 :)

[RATM99]

No. We're doing exactly what Mike Rothfeld talked about. A vocal, insistent minority is moving the "box" of political ideas to the "right" (less government).

Did you think that without us, the Republicans and neocons would never win another election? Their political power and organization persist... but we have moved the debate. The Fed is under public scrutiny. Now the tides will sweep some of our people into office. People like we haven't seen in the halls of congress in 50 years. And at the same time, we can gain actual power to fight back - votes. Not just forum posts and sign bombs.

Always insist on your principles. Back who you believe in... and good things will happen.

Edit: ROFL at 27 :)

We're moving the boxes. Except for the most important one. Foreign Policy. And having the Neo-Cons on our side will ensure that the Foreign Policy box stays cemented to the ground.

[Andrew-Austin]

I've consulted my scouter over the matter, and it tells me that 'we' are now just over 9000.

YouTube - 9000!! NINE THOUSAAAAANDD! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI)

[TheTyke]

We're moving the boxes. Except for the most important one. Foreign Policy. And having the Neo-Cons on our side will ensure that the Foreign Policy box stands cemented to the ground.

I disagree that we're not moving that one. Rand & Ron both spoke frankly to the news on foreign policy in a way that would shock a lot in KY. I was frankly terrified of the voters it would turn off, living here. And yet, today we get a Sarah Palin and Dan Seum endorsement.

Don't think that a few setbacks are losing. We are winning this battle too, but the Fed got exposure faster because of the economy.

[SelfTaught]

I firmly believe that the people on this board that go on and on about others being controlled opposition are the controlled opposition.

Honestly, on this forum, NOBODY is safe from being accused of being controlled opposition. Isn't that a nice strategy? Discredit anybody that might agree with our little liberty movement by labeling them as the enemy with some sort of devious plot to undermine our efforts.

[Paulitical Correctness]

I firmly believe that the people on this board that go on and on about others being controlled opposition are the controlled opposition.

Honestly, on this forum, NOBODY is safe from being accused of being controlled opposition.

I'm onto you, you shapeshifting reptilian overlord...:eek:

[Original_Intent]

I firmly believe that the people on this board that go on and on about others being controlled opposition are the controlled opposition.

Honestly, on this forum, NOBODY is safe from being accused of being controlled opposition. Isn't that a nice strategy? Discredit anybody that might agree with our little liberty movement by labeling them as the enemy with some sort of devious plot to undermine our efforts.

Exactly what I would expect controlled opposition to say!

[TheTyke]

Exactly what I would expect controlled opposition to say!

Haha! At least we're taking Ron's advice, and having some fun with our serious mission. :)

[SelfTaught]

I'm onto you, you shapeshifting reptilian overlord...:eek:


Exactly what I would expect controlled opposition to say!

Okay guys, you got me. I am controlled opposition in a way. I am the controlled opposition of the controlled opposition. So while they're trying to steer us off a cliff, I'm secretly steering THEM off another cliff. But I have a feeling that there is controlled opposition trying to undermine my controlled opposition of the controlled opposition.

[MRoCkEd]

Exactly what I would expect controlled opposition to say!
^ That's something a reptilian NWO globalist illuminati freemason would say! :mad:

[ronpaulhawaii]

Okay guys, you got me. I am controlled opposition in a way. I am the controlled opposition of the controlled opposition. So while they're trying to steer us off a cliff, I'm secretly steering THEM off another cliff. But I have a feeling that there is controlled opposition trying to undermine my controlled opposition of the controlled opposition.

lulz

[Stary Hickory]

We're moving the boxes. Except for the most important one. Foreign Policy. And having the Neo-Cons on our side will ensure that the Foreign Policy box stays cemented to the ground.

Oh common really? We have socialists in the white house for crying out loud. Conservatives have been beat over the head over their foreign policy decisions. In hind sight they would never have gone into Iraq and would have been more wary about how they conducted affairs. They don't publicly say it, but they are feeling the pressure.

Most just want a graceful exit to the war, and most have serious regrets about entering into Iraq, and the patriot act. The Neocon holdouts are losing influence as I type this message.

[RATM99]

I firmly believe that the people on this board that go on and on about others being controlled opposition are the controlled opposition.

Honestly, on this forum, NOBODY is safe from being accused of being controlled opposition. Isn't that a nice strategy? Discredit anybody that might agree with our little liberty movement by labeling them as the enemy with some sort of devious plot to undermine our efforts.

You don't think Neo-Cons promoting and supporting our movement won't have blowback? I just don't see how having pro-war, pro-pre-emptive war, pro-torture,
pro-military expansion, pro-patriot act people in our movement will not undermine our efforts. People like Palin represent the opposite of everything we stand for. Sure they talk about small government and the constitution. But ignore it when in power. Palin people seem to forget that continuing our foreign policy will ensure the government stays big. Creates tons of debt. And will continue to undermind our liberties. I don't see this as a good thing at all. When I think about our movement. I don't think Palin at all.

[SelfTaught]

You don't think Neo-Cons promoting and supporting our movement won't have blowback? I just don't see how having pro-war, pro-pre-emptive war, pro-torture,
pro-military expansion, pro-patriot act people in our movement will not undermine our efforts. People like Palin represent the opposite of everything we stand for. Sure they talk about small government and the constitution. But ignore it when in power. Palin people seem to forget that continuing our foreign policy will ensure the government stays big. Creates tons of debt. And will continue to undermind our liberties. I don't see this as a good thing at all. When I think about our movement. I don't think Palin at all.

An endorsement does not mean Rand will have to compromise his principles. He's going to accept the endorsements and do his own thing. I think there would be much more blowback if he refused Palin's endorsement. Dontcha think? :rolleyes:

[purplechoe]

:rolleyes:

yourself...

[RATM99]

An endorsement does not mean Rand will have to compromise his principles. He's going to accept the endorsements and do his own thing. I think there would be much more blowback if he refused Palin's endorsement. Dontcha think? :rolleyes:

Maybe some. But I think most in here would have a lot more respect for him if he did. I know I would.

[TheTyke]

Maybe some. But I think most in here would have a lot more respect for him if he did. I know I would.

You respect people for losing elections to spite someone?

I'm sure it's cool but... Ron Paul, his son and many others actually want to save this country. You can't do that merely by being ornery, you need votes also.

[Son of Detroit]

Maybe some. But I think most in here would have a lot more respect for him if he did. I know I would.

Yes. Because we all know that keeping the respect of a select few on an anonymous internet forum is WAY more important than winning elections and getting liberty minded candidates in office.

:rolleyes:

[Danke]

^ That's something a reptilian NWO globalist illuminati freemason would say! :mad:

Are you suggesting something?

[SelfTaught]

Yes. Because we all know that keeping the respect of a select few on an anonymous internet forum is WAY more important than winning elections and getting liberty minded candidates in office.

:rolleyes:

You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.

Rand: "I cannot accept this endorsement because I would lose support from my dear friend RATM99 on ronpaulforums.com. Without his support, I could have never gotten to where I am today."

[RATM99]

I'm asking legitimate questions here. And to be honest. The response and tone from you guys doesn't give me faith at all. Divide and Conquer. It's a great way to beat the opposition.

[RATM99]

Yes. Because we all know that keeping the respect of a select few on an anonymous internet forum is WAY more important than winning elections and getting liberty minded candidates in office.

:rolleyes:

Liberty minded candidates with support from Palin? I don't see that happening.

[jmdrake]

Between 1)the Tea Party getting hijacked. 2)CFL giving money to a neo-Con candidate. 3)And now queen Neo-Con Palin endorsing Rand Paul. Have we officially been infiltrated by the Neo-Cons? And our movement taken over?

Note: I've added numbers to the OP for reference. Short answer, I sincerely doubt we've been co-opted.

Long answer.......

1) The hijacking of the "tea parties" was obvious. After all we "hijacked" the idea from the 9/11 truthers. Nobody wants to talk about that, but it's a fact. Truthers did a tea party before Ron Paul even announced he was running. Then the next year when someone thought of a tea party / "moneybomb" there was all kinds of consternation over it being linked to the "truthers" even though they had scheduled their event first. It's an idea that nobody has a patent on. Likewise we hijacked the "meetup" idea from Howard Dean. The "moneybomb" idea was original, but we don't have a patent on that and it's obvious that would be borrowed or "hijacked" by the right and the left. Mike Huckabee even hijacked the "Ron Paul airforce" (airplanes carrying campaign banners), but that was so ineffective for him and us that nobody's worried. (No one has hijacked the "blimp" idea.)

Back on the tea parties, we should have been had a concerted effort to be vocal against speakers towing a neocon line. I'm glad the tea party in Austin booed John Cornyn. In Nashville we should have booed the tape recording someone played of Newt Gingrich. We should have been carrying "Obama - Bush" joker posters at every event to drive the point home that this wasn't a "hate Obama" thing. But by in large we didn't. And I'm including myself in the criticism. We've been so intent on "infiltrating" the GOP that we became guilty of "going along to get along". In retrospect this could have been a good place to use the 9/11 truthers. They could have been a counterbalance to the neocon pro zionist bent. Instead we continued to treat them as the "crazy uncle in the attic" nobody wanted to acknowledge.

2) From all credible accounts it doesn't look like the CFL gave Buck any money. Yes the did give him an endorsement. There's no way to spin "He's a not a career politician but a tough prosecutor that will take on D.C. insiders" as anything but a promotional ad. (Legally it can be spun that way. But "legally" and "honestly" are too different things).

That said, there's an alternative (and in my opinion better) explanation as to why the CFL did this other than "we've become controlled opposition". People want to be relevant. And there's no quicker way to relevance in politics than becoming a "king maker". Find some candidates that would appreciate some backing, are close enough to winning that your backing might actually push them over the edge, and are close enough to your principles that you can put forward a "We weren't just backing the lesser of two evils" argument that passes the blush test and back them. I've pointed this out several times already, but nobody seems to pick up on it. So here it goes again. Locally we've been approached by less than perfect candidates. I can assure you that we have NOT been coopted by neocons. But we have serious discussions of whether a candidate is "good enough". Statements by certain candidates that are already by in large embraced by the Ron Paul movement blurs the line further between "less than perfect" and "unacceptable". (I'm not going into that because I'm not trying to derail the thread. But everybody knows what I'm talking about.) I think people looked at Buck's 180 degree turn on the federal reserve, his willingness to fill out the survey, and the fact that he answered the vaguely worded "foreign policy" question "correctly" and thought he might be in the "less than perfect but acceptable" category. Before anyone stones me, I do not put him in that category myself. I can just see how he got there.

3) Since early 2009 (and possibly before) this movement has been split into 3 groups with regards to Palin. Group 1 is the "Sarah Palin sucks and we should avoid her at all costs" group. Group 2 is the "Sarah Palin is our greatest warrior against the evil Obama administration with her eloquence on 'death panels' and her folksy style. We must never say anything bad about Palin and pretend that she didn't actually back the Bush bailout or that the Bush bailout was somehow different than the Obama bailout". Group 3 is the "Yeah Palin sucks. But it'd be great if we got her endorsement for our candidates so her gullible voters who have no idea what we really think about Sarah Palin will support us." Well it looks like groups 2 and 3 won out. We have an endorsement. It sounds like there was a lot of behind the scenes negotiation to secure it. If there is any push by group 2 to endorse Palin then groups 1 and 3 will likely band together to block that.

[Meiun]

I'm asking legitimate questions here. And to be honest. The response and tone from you guys doesn't give me faith at all. Divide and Conquer. It's a great way to beat the opposition.

*SLAP*
RATM99, Wake up, man! Screw the small talk, go spread liberty dude. Your neighbor/friend/co-worker is anxiously awaiting your sound reasonable argument for liberty to save them. Who cares what controlled opposition may be doing or thinking. One to one, hand to hand, voice to voice is how we will win this. Hand out Red Pills!!!

(omg _27_... that hurt and had me ROFL Sk8ing)

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Liberty minded candidates with support from Palin? I don't see that happening.

She just realizes what we've known for a long time.

Republicans aren't going to be winning elections without our support. Not that it will gain her any, as she may think. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Between the Tea Party getting hijacked. CFL giving money to a neo-Con candidate. And now queen Neo-Con Palin endorsing Rand Paul. Have we officially been infiltrated by the Neo-Cons? And our movement taken over?

That could lead to one of those Captain Kirk logic loops that destroys the evil robot and gets him the hot green martian chick.

//facepalm//

[jmdrake]

An endorsement does not mean Rand will have to compromise his principles. He's going to accept the endorsements and do his own thing. I think there would be much more blowback if he refused Palin's endorsement. Dontcha think? :rolleyes:

I certainly wouldn't have turned down an endorsement. I wouldn't have solicited one either. I don't know if Rand did or not. If he did I hope he didn't promise her anything. Even if he's under no legal obligation to uphold such a hypothetical promise, it could look bad if he didn't. Lastly I personally know people somewhat open to our message that like Palin and people REALLY open to it that can't stand her. Like everything else, when you use this information, know your audience.

[MsDoodahs]

*slap*
ratm99, wake up, man! Screw the small talk, go spread liberty dude. Your neighbor/friend/co-worker is anxiously awaiting your sound reasonable argument for liberty to save them. Who cares what controlled opposition may be doing or thinking. One to one, hand to hand, voice to voice is how we will win this. Hand out red pills!!!



yes! Did some conversion work just this afternoon.

[SelfTaught]

I certainly wouldn't have turned down an endorsement. I wouldn't have solicited one either. I don't know if Rand did or not. If he did I hope he didn't promise her anything. Even if he's under no legal obligation to uphold such a hypothetical promise, it could look bad if he didn't. Lastly I personally know people somewhat open to our message that like Palin and people REALLY open to it that can't stand her. Like everything else, when you use this information, know your audience.

I don't think he would have to solicit an endorsement since he's leading in the polls. If he did solicit one, I would imagine that it happened long ago.

[RATM99]

Mod Note: insulting quote removed.

This is why we will never get anywhere. I'm a strong supporter of Ron Paul and his views. Especially his foreign policy. And I'm being attacked for not supporting a Palin endorsement!!!!! What the hell happened to our movement? It's a twisted and manipulated shell of what it once was. You guys are only pushing liberty minded people away.

[Matthew Zak]

Some people, it would seem, care less about achieving liberty, than claiming credit for the liberty movement, no matter how small and ineffectual it may be due to their ego. Wasn't the movement supposed to be about waking people up, spreading the message, and changing policies? Why does it scare those very people to the bone when these things actually start to happen? Being a relatively new member (2007), I am seeing this for the first time, and I can't help but wonder if this mood swing is why people like Ron Paul are called "crack pots" for leading such a movement. Maybe it's not Liberty the establishment scoffs at, but people's dedication to achieving it? I can tell you one thing, which should imply something else. This war within the movement is draining and discouraging.

[BenIsForRon]

. And I'm being attacked for not supporting a Palin endorsement!!!!! What the hell happened to our movement?

Nothing happened to the movement, . People trying to hop on the liberty bandwagon /= subversion of the movement.

Mod note: INSULT REMOVED.

[dannno]

They are TRYING to contain us...

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This is why we will never get anywhere. I'm a strong supporter of Ron Paul and his views. Especially his foreign policy. And I'm being attacked for not supporting a Palin endorsement!!!!! What the hell happened to our movement? It's a twisted and manipulated shell of what it once was. You guys are only pushing liberty minded people away.

I am with you on the unsupport of Palin, but I think that Palin endorsing Rand is a great victory for us. Palin is a neo-con stooge, just like Newt. Neo-con stooges/controlled opposition will come over to our side just as far as they need to to gather public support.

It makes me sick to hear her championing auditing the FED, and a little off balance that she would endorse Rand, but it means that we are winning, the neo-con stooges/controlled opposition would not be coming this far over to our side if they did not need to in order to gain credibility. As a result of this pandering, some of the "social club Republicans" who worship Palin will become Rand supporters--not so much the other way around.

Palin will continue to parrot principles of liberty until the neo-con stooges/controlled opposition believe that they have us fooled into following them into inaction. All we have to do to use the neo-con stooges/controlled opposition against themselves is to make them unsure of their control over the party. This is happening. They will continue to spread our message for us until we embrace them. Which will never happen.

I would welcome Lindsey Graham's endorsement and, Damn! if I won't bite the fingers off the hand that feeds me.

[RATM99]

They are TRYING to contain us...

+1

[Nate]

I am with you on the unsupport of Palin, but I think that Palin endorsing Rand is a great victory for us. Palin is a neo-con stooge, just like Newt. Neo-con stooges/controlled opposition will come over to our side just as far as they need to to gather public support.

It makes me sick to hear her championing auditing the FED, and a little off balance that she would endorse Rand, but it means that we are winning, the neo-con stooges/controlled opposition would not be coming this far over to our side if they did not need to in order to gain credibility. As a result of this pandering, some of the "social club Republicans" who worship Palin will become Rand supporters--not so much the other way around.

Palin will continue to parrot principles of liberty until the neo-con stooges/controlled opposition believe that they have us fooled into following them into inaction. All we have to do to use the neo-con stooges/controlled opposition against themselves is to make them unsure of their control over the party. This is happening. They will continue to spread our message for us until we embrace them. Which will never happen.

I would welcome Lindsey Graham's endorsement and, Damn! if I won't bite the fingers off the hand that feeds me.

+1

We are moving the box. This is an attempt to make Liberty Movement people look more favorably upon Palin. They realize they NEED us to win. They will try and use the movement to further their agenda but instead we will use them to further ours. 90% of Ron Paul supporters can't stand Palin & this won't change a thing. It will however get the Palin supporters in KY to look into & maybe vote for Rand. Take the money & the votes. Just like Ron Paul said repeatedly when people asked him about some of his more controversial donors/supporters, "They support me, I don't support them."

[Nate]

They are TRYING to contain us...

They will try but they won't succeed.

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.

[Nate]

Also, Palin is trying to lay the groundwork for her Presidential campaign. She realizes that IF she is to have a chance at actually winning she needs to bring together the different groups that the Republican Party has fractured into back into the Reagan "Big Tent". That includes the libertarian wing of the party. This is her attempt at extending the olive branch. Unfortunately for her the libertarian wing of the party is not interested in backing a candidate from another wing. We've let the social-cons & the neo-cons lead long enough. It's our turn to lead the party.

[paulitics]

They are TRYING to contain us...

That is how I see it. Plus, their own self preservation is kicking in. They are trying to stay relevant, so that when the next attack hits America they can exploit it with whatever political capital they are buying right now. The Dems built up lots of political capital during the Bush years, and instead of using it undo the power grabs of Bush, they simply try and ram through unpopular legisaltion designed to take away even more liberty.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Freakin' dumb thread. Gimme a break

[InterestedParticipant]

Between the Tea Party getting hijacked. CFL giving money to a neo-Con candidate. And now queen Neo-Con Palin endorsing Rand Paul. Have we officially been infiltrated by the Neo-Cons? And our movement taken over?
It was taken over before either of us were born.