PDA

View Full Version : I have to wonder, why we are the minority??




Romulus
02-03-2010, 03:25 PM
Why is it that freedom loving people, who hold the Constitution in high regard are in reality the minority??

You would think that these candidates like Medina and so on, would be be pulling 30% at least!

And I'm not talking just about her.. I'm talking about in general.. Ron Paul supporters are what, 10% of the population at the most?

I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

ForLiberty-RonPaul
02-03-2010, 03:27 PM
over a century of snake oil politics and propaganda. in a word....

fear.

fisharmor
02-03-2010, 03:29 PM
Public education.
If we could eliminate just the laws dealing with public schools - not even the schools themselves, just the laws - we could have our country back in 20 years.
If we got rid of the schools too, it would be more like 10.

Gaius1981
02-03-2010, 03:31 PM
Because anyone who don't conform to at least 99% of your political positions is branded as a neocon or a mindless slave of the state. Also, the majority of you are so paranoid that they don't trust that anyone can reform themselves. ;)

Southron
02-03-2010, 04:19 PM
Public education.
If we could eliminate just the laws dealing with public schools - not even the schools themselves, just the laws - we could have our country back in 20 years.
If we got rid of the schools too, it would be more like 10.

Yes but I prefer to call them the gubmint indoctrination camps.

Seriously folks, please homeschool your children.

Dreamofunity
02-03-2010, 04:29 PM
Cheap credit.

pacelli
02-03-2010, 04:30 PM
Why is it that freedom loving people, who hold the Constitution in high regard are in reality the minority??

You would think that these candidates like Medina and so on, would be be pulling 30% at least!

And I'm not talking just about her.. I'm talking about in general.. Ron Paul supporters are what, 10% of the population at the most?

I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

You're looking at a statistic that was sampled by a polling corporation such as Rasmussen reports. They get paid to SAMPLE. So they give a sample. Look at how many total people were actually SAMPLED in that poll. It isn't like they went out and personally asked every single resident of Texas who they were voting for-- so don't let their statistics pull you into a feeling of political hopelessness.

Lots of people are on the internet now, and you know how Ron Paul won all of those online polls during the campaign with 70% or more? How about the FauxNews text poll, the one where each phone number was only permitted 1 vote? They slipped up on that one.

10% my ass.

Original_Intent
02-03-2010, 04:31 PM
quite simply the people perfer security to liberty.

The average person would much rather be a slave (so long as they are kept comfortable and have some "guarantees" of a safety net) than to take personal responsibility and live freely.

And as has been stated above - much of that mindset has been pounded into them via publik edjukashun.

SelfTaught
02-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Most people think that what politicians do IS constitutional.

So most people do respect the constitution........they just have no idea what it means.

Reason
02-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Education fail.

&

Knowledge doesn't acquire itself, you have to work for it.

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2010, 05:09 PM
Why is it that freedom loving people, who hold the Constitution in high regard are in reality the minority??

You would think that these candidates like Medina and so on, would be be pulling 30% at least!

And I'm not talking just about her.. I'm talking about in general.. Ron Paul supporters are what, 10% of the population at the most?

I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

I'm not a Constitutionalist, but I can tell you why RP supporters, libertarians, etc, are in the minority IMO-those of our political/philosophical persuasion tend to use a rational ethos and logos, which flies in the face of the prevailing understanding of how the world "should" work. Indeed, generations of welfarism/warfarism have made the majority of people morally and intellectually weak. Inferior intellects will always use insults against enlightened types-they believe they are protecting "their" status quo.

Freedom is indeed scary to people who are unprepared for it. From my conversations with left libs and mainstream conservatives, I gather that they have a codependent relationship with the State. This is a very emotional, irrational position, and this causes them to lash out at the liberty movement. They are quite emotionally and intellectually under-developed. :(

torchbearer
02-03-2010, 05:18 PM
we eat our own. its hard to grow when you do that.

Mach
02-03-2010, 05:26 PM
It just seems like people ride on emotions, especially the emotions they are fed by politicians, than real fact.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-03-2010, 05:28 PM
Why is it that freedom loving people, who hold the Constitution in high regard are in reality the minority??

You would think that these candidates like Medina and so on, would be be pulling 30% at least!

And I'm not talking just about her.. I'm talking about in general.. Ron Paul supporters are what, 10% of the population at the most?

I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

Our Founding Fathers didn't establish our nation on a political ideology, but on a natural law. That natural law declared a self-evident and unalienable Truth as in we don't need experts explaining it to us and as in it is unalienable to the extent that it reduces down beyond the human mind to be perceived by the soul (the human conscience or many might say the heart).
As I've often said in this room, liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery. Liberty, equality and the like, are just prerequisites necessary for our contentment.
Civil Purpose was the goal of our Founding Fathers and not the legal precedents of tyranny as they didn't design a government for the sake of a government; rather, they designed a "more perfect government" (a necessary tyranny) to serve the people.

marc1888
02-03-2010, 05:33 PM
I think its very simple. To be a lover of liberty you have to be willing to actually think for yourself a little. We live in a society where everything is prepackaged how we like it from our cereal to our news to our political parties. Everything is kept simple and quick so folks can identify, put themselves in the appropriate box and then regurgitate verbatim what is fed to them.

No thought and very little effort is required and that is how our dumbed down populace like it. When i first started working in politics people told me in an election year you dont want to do to much until after labor day as most folks attention span is very short. I scoffed and thought that was nonsense. Turns out it is mostly true :)

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 05:35 PM
quite simply the people perfer security to liberty.

The average person would much rather be a slave (so long as they are kept comfortable and have some "guarantees" of a safety net) than to take personal responsibility and live freely.

And as has been stated above - much of that mindset has been pounded into them via publik edjukashun.

This.

The question's been asked and answered more times than I can remember, and the answer that rings truest to me is simply that it's far easier to have Government do a lot on your behalf. Human beings need to delegate, or we'll go crazy, but some people delegate their most basic responsibilities to others. Who watches most children for the majority of their waking hours? Who teaches them? Whose morality is really being instilled? Who decides whether you're going to get chemotherapy, or be allowed to just die on your own terms? Who owns most of the homes? Who owns the cars? Who knocks on the boundaries of our privacy and demands to be let in, all in the name of safety?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-03-2010, 05:41 PM
I think its very simple. To be a lover of liberty you have to be willing to actually think for yourself a little. We live in a society where everything is prepackaged how we like it from our cereal to our news to our political parties. Everything is kept simple and quick so folks can identify, put themselves in the appropriate box and then regurgitate verbatim what is fed to them.

No thought and very little effort is required and that is how our dumbed down populace like it. When i first started working in politics people told me in an election year you dont want to do to much until after labor day as most folks attention span is very short. I scoffed and thought that was nonsense. Turns out it is mostly true :)

The subserviant have always been this way. Still, as we are born natural tyrants, we have to learn how to be subserviant.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-03-2010, 05:47 PM
It just seems like people ride on emotions, especially the emotions they are fed by politicians, than real fact.

But liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery; and, equality for the sake of equality is no better than inequality. The goal of our Founding Fathers was to establish the Civil Purpose of the people above the legal precedence of tyranny. Our Civil Purpose established grounds for our divorce from tyranny in The Declaration of Independence just as it established grounds for our new marriage to a "more perfect government" (necessary tyranny) in The U.S. Constitution.

Working Poor
02-03-2010, 05:53 PM
I wrote at newsvine about "give me liberty or give me death" and one of the people thought I was threatening to commit suicide. It really blew me away. She tried to have me banned for saying it. People's minds have been thoroughly twisted. A lot of people don't understand what they read so they have to let the MSM tell them what to think.

Conservatives are called stupid at newsvine. I keep writing there anyway because a few people are starting to understand what I am saying the ones who understand what they read.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-03-2010, 05:56 PM
This.

The question's been asked and answered more times than I can remember, and the answer that rings truest to me is simply that it's far easier to have Government do a lot on your behalf. Human beings need to delegate, or we'll go crazy, but some people delegate their most basic responsibilities to others. Who watches most children for the majority of their waking hours? Who teaches them? Whose morality is really being instilled? Who decides whether you're going to get chemotherapy, or be allowed to just die on your own terms? Who owns most of the homes? Who owns the cars? Who knocks on the boundaries of our privacy and demands to be let in, all in the name of safety?

Christ just left the distraught people rest where they stood before He fed them. As His disciples ordered the multitudes to go home and be responsible, doing whatever tasks that were necessary to care for themselves, Jesus understood that if they left Him to do so they would never be back. So, Christ had them recline restfully (like the rich) where they stood.
This is the solution! If the people are living under a bridge, then let them live there. They own the thing for cripes sake! When the king owned the bridge, as well as all property both public and private, he could sleep under it if he deemed to do so. So, the people should be tolerated if they deem to do so.

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2010, 06:01 PM
But liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery; and, equality for the sake of equality is no better than inequality. The goal of our Founding Fathers was to establish the Civil Purpose of the people above the legal precedence of tyranny. Our Civil Purpose established grounds for our divorce from tyranny in The Declaration of Independence just as it established grounds for our new marriage to a "more perfect government" (necessary tyranny) in The U.S. Constitution.

Liberty is necessary for a healthy individual and for society to develop. Thus, seeking liberty for its own sake is a virtue in that it benefits the human condition. I also haven't seen sufficient evidence to be convinced there is such thing as "necessary tyranny". Sorry for the short post, but I gotta run. ttyl. :cool:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-03-2010, 06:11 PM
Liberty is necessary for a healthy individual and for society to develop. Thus, seeking liberty for its own sake is a virtue in that it benefits the human condition. I also haven't seen sufficient evidence to be convinced there is such thing as "necessary tyranny". Sorry for the short post, but I gotta run. ttyl. :cool:

Having liberty as a prerequisite is far more certain than having it as a goal. Same as with having equality as a prerequisite. But the focus is on the people's Civil Purpose. A more perfect government implies that the best it can be is corrupt while it does have the potential to forever improve. So, this establishes a necessary tyranny to serve the people.

nayjevin
02-03-2010, 06:30 PM
Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

A few theories I have come up with:

- Television and newspapers do not promote logical debate. The intelligent and aware libertyfolk can open any newspaper or magazine, or turn on about any show on TV, and see that whatever is being debated is not focusing on the real issue at hand. Society is permeated with moved goalposts.

When should we bomb Iran? instead of, What are the moral and practical implications of pre-emptive war?

How much and what kind of welfare? instead of, Does welfare help?

- By and large, smarter people talk less (the wisdom of conservatism). It has been said that the quietest in the room is often the smartest. Morons like to hear their own voice, and often use brute force volume to be heard. This is the personality type that becomes a news anchor, politician, editorial writer, or paid 'expert' on TV. As a result, we hear more of the idiots than we do the wise.

- Resources. When a few smart people learned to fool the masses and take over governments for personal gain, and some other smart people learned to manipulate the language with names like 'the patriot act', much power became centralized, and those in power have the means to access unlimited resources to stay in power (federal reserve, for instance.) Like in chess, you can play perfect, but if pawns are all you have left, the other guy can make all manner of mistakes and still pull out a victory. The Internet is the potential gamechanger here.

- Education. 'Get em while their young.' Curriculum mandates and false-history textbooks have controlled the flow of education. Thank you, Wikipedia.

- Branding. I don't think people are stupid in general (look at Korea's children), but I do think we are extremely uneducated in America. As a result, many think in bite-sized chunks. Neo-con-artists have become experts at speaking in these terms. 'Get em over there before they get us over here,' 'You're with us or you're against us,' and 'Right-Wing extremists' are a few examples.

- Illusion of choice / false dilemma / false dichotomy / two party system - it is long bred into folks that there are but two options, like colors on a flag, or a favorite football team, to root for.

- Idiots are more likely to vote. Many intelligent people realize they don't have enough information to make an informed decision, and choose not to vote. At the same time, idiots everywhere are voting because it is their 'duty', even when they don't know anything about the candidates or what they represent.

- Smarter people are less likely to take a solicitation call from a pollster. People who need friends badly or don't know what caller ID is are more likely to answer the phone when Frank Luntz comes calling.

Brian4Liberty
02-03-2010, 06:32 PM
Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

Do a search on this forum about Myers-Briggs.

muzzled dogg
02-03-2010, 06:40 PM
some people prefer to pursue the coercive and exploitative organized “political means" to wealth

sofia
02-03-2010, 06:41 PM
its very simple.

in the sheep mind, the "authority" behind an idea or personality makes more of an impression than the logic or merit of an idea or individual.

If I were to build a car tomorrow that is superior to a Benz in both price and cost, no one would buy it because no one has even heard of me. Only when Car and Driver review my car will the sheep start to beleive me.

its human nature. He who controls the hype machine (media) owns the sheep. The sheep will eat media approved crap sandwiches instead of the "extremist" steak we offer.

BlackTerrel
02-03-2010, 06:48 PM
Public education.
If we could eliminate just the laws dealing with public schools - not even the schools themselves, just the laws - we could have our country back in 20 years.
If we got rid of the schools too, it would be more like 10.

Are private school kids supporting Ron Paul in large numbers?

BlackTerrel
02-03-2010, 06:51 PM
its very simple.

in the sheep mind, the "authority" behind an idea or personality makes more of an impression than the logic or merit of an idea or individual.

If I were to build a car tomorrow that is superior to a Benz in both price and cost, no one would buy it because no one has even heard of me. Only when Car and Driver review my car will the sheep start to beleive me.

its human nature. He who controls the hype machine (media) owns the sheep. The sheep will eat media approved crap sandwiches instead of the "extremist" steak we offer.

Well we could stop calling them sheep for one. But it also isn't true. Many movies that are given glowing reviews make very little money, while many movies that are panned make tons of money.

jack555
02-03-2010, 06:54 PM
People today want to be taken care of...not care for themselves. And the rest can be tricked into giving up their freedoms without even knowing it. Others were brought up believing forced charity is a good thing.

anaconda
02-03-2010, 06:56 PM
over a century of snake oil politics and propaganda. in a word....

fear.


That about sums it up.

anaconda
02-03-2010, 06:57 PM
Why is it that freedom loving people, who hold the Constitution in high regard are in reality the minority??

You would think that these candidates like Medina and so on, would be be pulling 30% at least!

And I'm not talking just about her.. I'm talking about in general.. Ron Paul supporters are what, 10% of the population at the most?

I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

I really think we are beginning to turn a corner on this. A wild ride ahead.

BlackTerrel
02-03-2010, 07:00 PM
We may be the minority in voters but I think if you look at the big issues the majority of Americans would agree with us. Chris Rock once said that there are really only two issues that matter: 1. National security and 2. The economy. He was using it to praise Bill Clinton but that's irrelevant, I agree that those are the issues the people care about it when it comes to government. Ron Paul is very strong on those two issues as long as we keep it simple.

1. National Security - keep a strong military but also keep us out of foreign entanglements. We're not anti-war and we'll protect ourselves if/when we are attacked. But we don't want to but into every conflict around the globe and we are not out looking for enemies. Mind our business and we get involved only if they threaten us.

2. Economy - aside from saving money from all these dumb wars, we limit government, support free markets and lower taxes.

That's it. It makes a lot of sense. It's easy to understand and hard to argue with. If we could keep it simple and stay on message I think we'd have a really good shot.

georgiaboy
02-03-2010, 07:05 PM
apathy. People vote for one or the other party based on nebulous associations, and figure anything else is a wasted vote or a vote in effect for the other side (amazing how many times we've argued that here). They also for the most part don't understand the impact the govt has on their daily lives. Nothing much in their immediate surroundings change from one election to the next, so why be bothered about it too much.

fear of being the first to stand alone or separate from one's own normative social milieu. Inertia to stay within the status quo, be a team player, and not be a boat-rocker is high. Imagine after decades of surrounding oneself with a network of like-minded folk, to jump out of that.

Fear of what a change in the status quo might mean to their individual comfort.

Cynicism. People were idealists, then, after one or two defeats, gave up and got back in line, not believing the Leviathan could ever be stopped.

Education's been said already, but bears repeating. Not understanding how the principles and philosophies play themselves out in society is huge.

low preference guy
02-03-2010, 07:05 PM
Unfortunately Americans are going to understand the issues the hard way.

Consider the issue of military combatants. Nobody talks about the fact that the president can declare an AMERICAN CITIZEN enemy combatant and he can be assassinated without a trial. No politician talks about it, except Ron Paul. He mentions that if we have an economic breakdown, those of us who talk about what the government is going to do to us might be declared enemy combatants. But Americans don't care about Habeas Corpus. I bet most don't even know what that is.

Guys, people are going to wake up. Bernanke has no exit strategy. Expect the dollar and the economy to tank, and expert hyperinflation. After that expect a police state, and then expect terror. Unfortunately that's what it will take for people to wake up, but they are going to wake up.

dannno
02-03-2010, 07:21 PM
If we are the minority then we must be at Eric Cartman's waterpark.

Romulus
02-03-2010, 08:50 PM
Lots of great responses... all very valid. Especially the public education problem. BUT, I have to ask, how many are products of public education? I am.. granted I woke up in 08 due to RP, but still. I think the problem is parents as well.. parents need to take part in educating their kids.


I think its very simple. To be a lover of liberty you have to be willing to actually think for yourself a little. We live in a society where everything is prepackaged how we like it from our cereal to our news to our political parties. Everything is kept simple and quick so folks can identify, put themselves in the appropriate box and then regurgitate verbatim what is fed to them.

No thought and very little effort is required and that is how our dumbed down populace like it. When i first started working in politics people told me in an election year you dont want to do to much until after labor day as most folks attention span is very short. I scoffed and thought that was nonsense. Turns out it is mostly true :)

100% correct... Fast Food politics and information, made to order. That is America.

andrewh817
02-03-2010, 09:04 PM
I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

I don't know that anyone doesn't embrace the idea of personal liberty (for themselves) but there's plenty of people who embrace the idea of profiting from taking away others' liberty.

paulitics
02-03-2010, 09:19 PM
I think the stats are probably about 75% want freedom, vs 25% want prefer tyrrany. The parameters for discourse are set by the establishment, through the media and educational institutions. The establishment is selling tyrrany, but they disguise it as security.

Without their control of information, they would be overthrown in a heartbeat. The schools teach at a young age, how NOT to think critically and to accept statism.

Just look at how well we are represented on the internet. It is much better than the "real world". Why? It is because they don't have full control of the information on the interent yet.

People are generally gullible, and will continue to be swooned by repackaged propaganda that has been selling for thousands of years. Man's weakness is as predictable as the sun rising, so it takes very little to manipulate the masses.

cindy25
02-03-2010, 09:34 PM
because people now are so dependent on government handouts.

my grandfather banked his social security, and lived only on his company pension. no one does that today.
until the 70s/early 80s parents expected to pay for college.

now people are dependent on student loans, medicare, and soon obamacare.

lx43
02-03-2010, 10:51 PM
Its simple: when you have 40 plus million geratrics on SS/medicare, with another 30 million parasites on welfare its no wonder we are a minority. Why work when you get something for nothing?

cjm
02-03-2010, 11:25 PM
- Smarter people are less likely to take a solicitation call from a pollster. People who need friends badly or don't know what caller ID is are more likely to answer the phone when Frank Luntz comes calling.

heh... I just declined a polling call last week. Most of the polls don't include third party candidates or "liberty" candidates in the rep/dem primaries anyway.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-03-2010, 11:50 PM
Ha! You guys aren't a minority. Us Voluntaryists are the true minority! :p (That said my local liberty group is about 60% Voluntaryists roughly about 8 to 10 people :p)

fj45lvr
02-03-2010, 11:57 PM
the age of state controlled television owned by Corporatists (framing the public opinion to be what they would like it to be).

The internet is a real threat to these a-holes (you can count on them to "shut it down" by some new means of ownership and control

RJT
02-04-2010, 01:52 AM
"The truth is that the common man's love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice and truth, is almost wholly imaginary. As I have argued, he is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it. Liberty is not a thing for such as he. He cannot enjoy it rationally himself, and he can think of it in others only as something to be taken away from them. It is, when it becomes a reality, the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority of men, like knowledge, courage and honor. A special sort of man is needed to understand it, nay, to stand it - and he is inevitably an outlaw in democratic societies. The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

H.L. Mencken, 1926.

Romulus
02-04-2010, 06:45 AM
"The truth is that the common man's love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice and truth, is almost wholly imaginary. As I have argued, he is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it. Liberty is not a thing for such as he. He cannot enjoy it rationally himself, and he can think of it in others only as something to be taken away from them. It is, when it becomes a reality, the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority of men, like knowledge, courage and honor. A special sort of man is needed to understand it, nay, to stand it - and he is inevitably an outlaw in democratic societies. The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

H.L. Mencken, 1926.

And that is the definitive answer to my question.

jmdrake
02-04-2010, 09:13 AM
Why is it that freedom loving people, who hold the Constitution in high regard are in reality the minority??

You would think that these candidates like Medina and so on, would be be pulling 30% at least!

And I'm not talking just about her.. I'm talking about in general.. Ron Paul supporters are what, 10% of the population at the most?

I just dont get it... why dont people embrace the idea of personal liberty and endorse those who do? I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of people dont support the ideology of freedom.

Anyone shed some light on the reasons why?

Because we wasted 2009 "going along to get along" with the Tea Party movement instead of busting our butts to get our own message out. And I include myself in the collective "we". We've allowed our enemies to frame the debate on the most important question of our time which is how to respond to terrorism. R.J. Harris is the one of the few candidates to actually address this besides Ron Paul. And IMO he does better job of it.

http://www.rjharris2010.com/blogs/thewayforwardinthewaronterror.asp

It's too easy for rhino's to co-opt certain parts of our message. Rick Perry co-opted the 10th amendment message even though he pushed for the NAFTA superhighway and to force little girls to take a dangerous vaccine for an STD. Medina is gaining ground, despite the fact that our "allies" (Beck and Palin) are backing Rick Perry. We need to call Beck and Perry on the carpet over this, but people are too busy sucking up to them. So we've been effectively silenced. I have a bad feeling about 2010. We may gain a bigger share of the world but lose parts of our soul in the process.

klamath
02-04-2010, 09:37 AM
deleted

fisharmor
02-04-2010, 09:43 AM
Are private school kids supporting Ron Paul in large numbers?

Private schools are simply trying to outcompete public schools at their own game.
At least in the case of Christian schools (which I think are the majority of private schools) too many of them have chosen to abandon the original purpose of their existence - religious instruction - in order to enter a business... the business of education.

All you need to do is dupe parents with more money than sense (of which we have ample supply) into believing that for the money they spend in private school, their children will receive a better "education" and therefore will have a better chance at success in life.

Which is true, in the sense that those children will be much better suited after 16 years of indoctrination to entering the system, finding some government crony job that guarantees an upper-middle-class life, and never thinking about how much actually productive effort is wasted paying for that life.

If I could find a private school that did something - ANYTHING - that public schools don't do, or refuse to do something - ANYTHING - that public schools do, then I would actually consider paying twice for my childrens' schooling.

It's the same format, the same curriculum, the same standardized tests, the same wage slaves who have had their souls crushed under the weight of their own unfulfilled dreams.

And also THE SAME GOVERNMENT INDOCTRINATION. If anything, Christian schools are worse about it, since a lot of them go so far as to say it's God's wish for them to be obedient.

theclip
02-04-2010, 10:45 AM
You're NOT reaching out to your neighbor, that's why.

Pericles
02-04-2010, 10:47 AM
Because we wasted 2009 "going along to get along" with the Tea Party movement instead of busting our butts to get our own message out. And I include myself in the collective "we". We've allowed our enemies to frame the debate on the most important question of our time which is how to respond to terrorism. R.J. Harris is the one of the few candidates to actually address this besides Ron Paul. And IMO he does better job of it.

http://www.rjharris2010.com/blogs/thewayforwardinthewaronterror.asp (http://www.rjharris2010.com/blogs/thewayforwardinthewaronterror.asp)

It's too easy for rhino's to co-opt certain parts of our message. Rick Perry co-opted the 10th amendment message even though he pushed for the NAFTA superhighway and to force little girls to take a dangerous vaccine for an STD. Medina is gaining ground, despite the fact that our "allies" (Beck and Palin) are backing Rick Perry. We need to call Beck and Perry on the carpet over this, but people are too busy sucking up to them. So we've been effectively silenced. I have a bad feeling about 2010. We may gain a bigger share of the world but lose parts of our soul in the process.

Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!

Romulus
02-04-2010, 11:06 AM
I dont think we allowed our "friends" to frame the debate. They effectively co-opted it, since they 'Palin-Beck' control it, they can do that.

What little voice we have is distorted and muffled. That's the problem. We are not heard through all the dis-info noise.

catdd
02-04-2010, 11:20 AM
We are the only ones serious about limited gov. The rest are just paying lip service so long as they can continue to police the world and spread democracy.
I believe we are the minority because we oppose all of this waring. I mean, Ron Paul has been preaching the same message of 30 some years and he was always a loner.
People are just rejecting the peace message and I don't see how that is our fault.

jmdrake
02-04-2010, 12:55 PM
I dont think we allowed our "friends" to frame the debate. They effectively co-opted it, since they 'Palin-Beck' control it, they can do that.

What little voice we have is distorted and muffled. That's the problem. We are not heard through all the dis-info noise.

Hi. I mixed a few different concepts and perhaps muddled the issue. I didn't say we allowed our "friends" to frame the debate. We allowed our "enemies" to do it. Who are our enemies? Anybody who claims the government needs more power to do X. The X could be "fight terrorism" or "fight global warming" or "give people healthcare" or "save the economy". Our "enemies" in this regards includes people who say "The constitution is not a suicide pact". And they've framed the debate by falsely claiming that the reason 9/11 and other terrorist attacks weren't prevented was because the terrorists "used our freedoms against us". That's bull. The government had all of the information it needed to prevent 9/11 and to keep the underwear bomber of the plane. It didn't do so either because it was criminally incompetent, was not involved but wanted to allow the attacks to happen, or elements withing the government were involved themselves. During the campaign Ron Paul stuck with the "blowback" argument. The problem with that argument is that it's too far removed from the problem. Someone can say "Ok. I agree with you that me may need to shift foreign policy in the long run. But how do we stay safe in the short term"? Now before someone jumps on me, realize this. Ron Paul finally shifted gears on this issue when he was recently interviewed by Glenn Beck about disbanding the CIA. Instead of sticking to "blowback", he talked about the fact that the intelligence service had the identity of the underwear bomber before the attack and the FBI knew about suspects wanting to learn how to fly planes but not land them before 9/11. Now someone may jump in and say "But that doesn't mean Ron Paul supports controlled demolition". If anyone says that, he's missing the point. It doesn't matter so much if Americans ever realize what I believe is the truth about 9/11. It does matter that Americans realize that the attacks were 100% preventable without a homeland security state or reductions in our civil liberties just like it's important for Americans to realize that bailouts are not needed to save the economy, cap and trade is not needed to save the environment and government involvement isn't needed to protect Americans' health.

Until we are willing to publicly push this crucial part of our message, we're open to being co-opted. Worse the line between our own candidates and those who don't really share our values becomes increasingly blurry. If we don't stand up for the constitution in certain aspects because we "don't want to scare away neocon voters" then in their minds "standing up for the constitution" only means "standing up against Obamacare". Folks might hate me for saying this, but it's the truth.

SamuraisWisdom
02-04-2010, 01:13 PM
Why are we the minority? I've got a few ideas. I think for people who aren't familiar with our movement we come off as outside the mainstream, which to them means irrelevant or "insane" as so many journalists like to say. This can be remedied by toning down some of the rhetoric we use. Words like 'propaganda', 'sheeple' (really? that one's just childish), and others are thrown around very loosely and tend to turn people off to our ideas. I even get discouraged by them, and I've been around here for a couple years. Another reason we're in the minority is because people have just become so accustomed to government existing only to create laws and ban things. Think about it, how many laws does the government pass that makes something legal? It almost never happens. So I think part of our message should be to get people to understand that government should be there to protect our freedoms as much as it should be there to maintain order. Lastly, and most importantly, our movement has become extremely polarized. This one falls completely on us. I mentioned earlier that words like 'propaganda' and whatnot are tossed around loosely, well words like 'socialist' and 'communist' are just as bad and more damaging. When someone involved with this movement advocates for something that involves government being a part of the process that doesn't mean that they are socialist. If you want true socialism, look no further than Hugo Chavez or Adolf Hitler. That is real socialism. Someone who supports public education is not socialist (just an example). If we are going to get more people involved in this movement we have to be more open to others' opinions and less derogatory. Our worst enemy in the political world is ourselves and the only way we're going to win in the long run is to stick together.

jmdrake
02-04-2010, 01:27 PM
Hmmmm.....let's see. If throwing around words like "socialism" makes us a "minority" then the Beck/Palin movement should be smaller than ours. I don't think that's it.


Why are we the minority? I've got a few ideas. I think for people who aren't familiar with our movement we come off as outside the mainstream, which to them means irrelevant or "insane" as so many journalists like to say. This can be remedied by toning down some of the rhetoric we use. Words like 'propaganda', 'sheeple' (really? that one's just childish), and others are thrown around very loosely and tend to turn people off to our ideas. I even get discouraged by them, and I've been around here for a couple years. Another reason we're in the minority is because people have just become so accustomed to government existing only to create laws and ban things. Think about it, how many laws does the government pass that makes something legal? It almost never happens. So I think part of our message should be to get people to understand that government should be there to protect our freedoms as much as it should be there to maintain order. Lastly, and most importantly, our movement has become extremely polarized. This one falls completely on us. I mentioned earlier that words like 'propaganda' and whatnot are tossed around loosely, well words like 'socialist' and 'communist' are just as bad and more damaging. When someone involved with this movement advocates for something that involves government being a part of the process that doesn't mean that they are socialist. If you want true socialism, look no further than Hugo Chavez or Adolf Hitler. That is real socialism. Someone who supports public education is not socialist (just an example). If we are going to get more people involved in this movement we have to be more open to others' opinions and less derogatory. Our worst enemy in the political world is ourselves and the only way we're going to win in the long run is to stick together.

Romulus
02-04-2010, 01:34 PM
no disagreement from me there jmdrake. It still goes back to our 'friends/enemies' w/e you want to call them, controlling our message. They can do this because they control the media machine. We dont have an outlet for our message.. in fact, we have the opposite.. we have our message being manipulated with no chance for correction. THAT is a big part of why we are the minority.

Samarais. I agree to a point. Folks need to hear us and that window is small... we do in a sense need to portray ourselves carefully to avoid any of the stereotype pitfalls that the 'co-opters' have ever so carefully setup. When we do have a chance to talk to someone who is uneducated on a subject, certain things will turn them off... shouting NWO is probably one of them. Even though NWO is their own term, its effectively used to marginalize us. But no matter what, they come up with more and more clever ways to smear people who want liberty.

davesxj
02-04-2010, 01:37 PM
I was watching the tube the other night about cannabis use. On there was a doctor making claims to why it should be illegal. Addiction, mental illness, emotional development problems, and so were on his evil list.

Now where is the show with a doctor talking about the various health effects of the millions of pounds of chemicals we encounter in our lives?

Here is an example of a bad education starting in our school system and through the duration of an adult's contact with MSM. Our federal gov't is riddled with industry lobbyists, CEOs, and campaign funds. Of course they're going to spread (dis)information that best suits their profits.

Look at any issue that a liberty lover is at odds with. Odds are theres a Federal agency for it.

Government regulation in any field will always stifle growth. Growth of humanity included. Most aren't even aware of our position much less why its right. They're stuck to the idea that gov't has a legitimate influence in every aspect of life. Some only have differences in what areas of life gov't belongs.

So in short, I reckon way to many people are miseducated and beleive the gov't to be legitimate. Our challenge is that they are receiving their information 24/7 while we have to actively seek it out. Plus the gov't black magic is strong and they are skilled at crafting worldviews. You think the RAND Corporation hasn't been perfecting mind control for years?

We've got to start utilizing free market solutions to replace gov't services. We've got to start using REAL wealth. We've got to shrink the size of gov't in any way possible. If you give tham an inch, they'll take a yard.

SamuraisWisdom
02-04-2010, 01:42 PM
Hmmmm.....let's see. If throwing around words like "socialism" makes us a "minority" then the Beck/Palin movement should be smaller than ours. I don't think that's it.

It's not just the word that's the problem it's in the manner that it's used. Obama has a lot of socialist tenancies yes, but nobody on this forum is socialist. NOBODY. If you want socialism on the internet go visit the Daily Kos website, but anyone who's here voicing their opinion is not going to be remotely socialist. It's tossed around too much around here, and should only be used when someone actually is socialist as opposed to just trying to make them look bad.

jmdrake
02-04-2010, 02:08 PM
It's not just the word that's the problem it's in the manner that it's used. Obama has a lot of socialist tenancies yes, but nobody on this forum is socialist. NOBODY. If you want socialism on the internet go visit the Daily Kos website, but anyone who's here voicing their opinion is not going to be remotely socialist. It's tossed around too much around here, and should only be used when someone actually is socialist as opposed to just trying to make them look bad.

Oh I agree that it gets tossed around too much. I've said that myself. However if we are trying to see why we are a minority that doesn't answer the question. At least not for me. Other forums are at least as uncivil as this one. Have you ever hung out at Sean Hannity forums? I'm not saying a "kinder gentler approach" wouldn't help.

jmdrake
02-04-2010, 02:17 PM
no disagreement from me there jmdrake. It still goes back to our 'friends/enemies' w/e you want to call them, controlling our message. They can do this because they control the media machine. We dont have an outlet for our message.. in fact, we have the opposite.. we have our message being manipulated with no chance for correction. THAT is a big part of why we are the minority.

Samarais. I agree to a point. Folks need to hear us and that window is small... we do in a sense need to portray ourselves carefully to avoid any of the stereotype pitfalls that the 'co-opters' have ever so carefully setup. When we do have a chance to talk to someone who is uneducated on a subject, certain things will turn them off... shouting NWO is probably one of them. Even though NWO is their own term, its effectively used to marginalize us. But no matter what, they come up with more and more clever ways to smear people who want liberty.

Yes, we have an uphill battle in getting out a message. But it's not insurmountable. I'm just not sure we're comfortable in getting it out. I've told this story before. During the campaign we did "sign waving". Our meetup nixed any message that might be controversial. "9/11 was an inside job" was obviously out. But so was "end the war" or "end the federal reserve" or "end the IRS" or anything. Everybody could think of some group of voters that might get offended by anything we said. So we were left with "Who is Ron Paul" and "Google Ron Paul". The theory was that people driving by would see the signs, decide to look up Ron Paul for themselves and be so "wowed" by what the saw that they would vote for him. In retrospect this was the dumbest possible approach! Long after the election people would come up to me and say "Just who is Ron Paul? I kept seeing these signs around town and never knew what that was about". At one point we started holding up "End the War" signs next to our "Google Ron Paul" signs and we started getting something of a positive reaction.

So what could we (I especially) have done differently? Say if we had shown up en masse with "Bush = Obama = War Criminal" signs at the Tea Parties? That might have made folks mad but it would have gotten a message out. I'm considering having more purely educational events that reach out to beyond our core audience. It's just in the planning stage now. I'll post what happens.

AuH20
02-04-2010, 02:42 PM
I see 2 main reasons:

(1) People enjoy the illusion of being in control when they're clearly not. Our movement embodies a realistic, no frills approach which scares the bejesus out of the coddled mainstream

(2) Infighting and ridiculous trivial squabbles in this movement. It almost appears like the Spanish Inquisition at times. You have libertarians calling their paleo brethren the overused & derisive 'Neocon' tag. And then you have some of the paleos reciprocating back with 'leftist', when it probably the farthest from the truth. We're not of the size to divide ourself into little camps over pettiness.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-04-2010, 04:20 PM
its very simple.

in the sheep mind, the "authority" behind an idea or personality makes more of an impression than the logic or merit of an idea or individual.

If I were to build a car tomorrow that is superior to a Benz in both price and cost, no one would buy it because no one has even heard of me. Only when Car and Driver review my car will the sheep start to beleive me.

its human nature. He who controls the hype machine (media) owns the sheep. The sheep will eat media approved crap sandwiches instead of the "extremist" steak we offer.

Point 1: The majority have always been too busy and weary to think logically.
Point 2: It is a buy or sell society. What is the best way for one to avoid selling everything they own? Buy their junk.
Point 3: All politics is propaganda when juxtaposed to the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers. We can't go wrong by revering our Civil Purpose as the self evident and unalienable Truth over all legal precedents, past traditions, and future happenings yet to occur.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-04-2010, 04:30 PM
I see 2 main reasons:

(1) People enjoy the illusion of being in control when they're clearly not. Our movement embodies a realistic, no frills approach which scares the bejesus out of the coddled mainstream

(2) Infighting and ridiculous trivial squabbles in this movement. It almost appears like the Spanish Inquisition at times. You have libertarians calling their paleo brethren the overused & derisive 'Neocon' tag. And then you have some of the paleos reciprocating back with 'leftist', when it probably the farthest from the truth. We're not of the size to divide ourself into little camps over pettiness.

(1) The control the people have is very limited. When people are led away into thinking their power can be greater than it needs to be, they are led away unto ruin.
The people own the property as in the national dinner table while the government's job is to sit at the head of the table as the necessary tyranny. When the king does not submit to the unalienable Truth in his or her conscience, he or she is deemed unfit to rule and thus divorced from the table as a tyrant. This is the limited power of the people.

(2) The only true American movement is the one that returns people to the self evident and unalienable Truth. A movement with any other purpose is a false one based on a lie that opposes the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers.
(Think how absurd it is to think our enriched economy exists for any other reason than our nation was based on a self evident and unalienable Truth!)

Romulus
02-04-2010, 05:00 PM
Yes, we have an uphill battle in getting out a message. But it's not insurmountable. I'm just not sure we're comfortable in getting it out. I've told this story before. During the campaign we did "sign waving". Our meetup nixed any message that might be controversial. "9/11 was an inside job" was obviously out. But so was "end the war" or "end the federal reserve" or "end the IRS" or anything. Everybody could think of some group of voters that might get offended by anything we said. So we were left with "Who is Ron Paul" and "Google Ron Paul". The theory was that people driving by would see the signs, decide to look up Ron Paul for themselves and be so "wowed" by what the saw that they would vote for him. In retrospect this was the dumbest possible approach! Long after the election people would come up to me and say "Just who is Ron Paul? I kept seeing these signs around town and never knew what that was about". At one point we started holding up "End the War" signs next to our "Google Ron Paul" signs and we started getting something of a positive reaction.

So what could we (I especially) have done differently? Say if we had shown up en masse with "Bush = Obama = War Criminal" signs at the Tea Parties? That might have made folks mad but it would have gotten a message out. I'm considering having more purely educational events that reach out to beyond our core audience. It's just in the planning stage now. I'll post what happens.

Going back to William Cooper.. some people need to be shocked into the truth..and they'll get angry about, but that is OK. They aren't going to like it all the time, but when you have 9/11 signs waiving, how does that support RP? It does not. I do like the idea of the other signs.. End the Fed/War. I think too..the best way is to lead them to listen to RP himself.. let them make up their own mind.. Google Ron Paul signs are good next to the others.. People may know him, but they need to know exactly what he's about.

Endgame
02-04-2010, 06:33 PM
I think people just love to suffer. They don't want prosperity. They also hate making decisions for themselves and like conformity. Its probably been bred into humanity over thousands of years of tyrannical civilization. You can breed a fox to be docile in a few decades. Why not people? If its not nature, its certainly nurture as well. From the moment you can understand language you're bombarded with bad ideas most of which are designed to enslave you.

shenlu54
02-04-2010, 08:33 PM
“Men in general judge more by their eyes than their hands: everyone can see, but few can feel. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few touch upon what you are.”—— Machiavelli

idirtify
02-04-2010, 08:51 PM
In my opinion, there are far more liberty-minded people than you might think. If you can get far enough into good discussion, you will find that most people are libertarians at heart. But most of those people don’t vote libertarian because they think they have no chance of winning. At least that’s what they will tell you. While I believe it, I suspect the bigger reasons typically go unsaid. Most people associate their identity with a big party (are brainwashed / treat party affiliation like religious belief, or sports-team loyalty).