The mainstream Right and Left will never be our allies.

[Vessol]

They may play lip service to their support for Ron Paul, some may even wistfully say they'd vote for Ron if he ran. But knowing many of these mainstreamers myself on both sides, they just follow the party line when it comes to push and shove.

The mainstream right will never be our allies because they do not agree with our stance on fiscal conservatism. Their support for the wars abroad are a complete anti-thesis of our calling for fiscal conservatism. THESE ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE ISSUES like many here seem to want to think, they are one and the same. The two go hand in hand.

Likewise the mainstream left will never be our allies. They are against the foreign wars of aggression, but have no problem when aggression is used in order to obtain money to fund their social programs. Just like the issue with the mainstream right, these two issues go hand in hand. They do not support foreign wars of aggression, but they do support aggression and force used in order to take property from citizens. This is the anti-thesis of what we teach.

What we need to focus on is converting stragglers and those generally dissatisfied. And education.
It is my firm belief that we will not win by the method of toning down our beliefs and trying to pass as a cow in sheep's clothing within the parties. When we diverge or make exceptions for such big issues, we are only undermining ourselves and our message.

The three main issues of fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy are NOT separate issues that we can say "Well so and so is this, so it's fine if they are not this" like I see all the apologetic here all the time saying.
These three issues are INTERLOCKED and are ONE AND THE SAME. They can not be separated and divided up. If that is done, then they are completely undermined.
What fiscal conservatism would exist when at the same time that an interventionalist foreign policy exists?
Likewise, how can individual rights be respected when someone does not support economic freedoms?

These issues cannot exist apart.

This is not an argument for isolation and separatism as many seem to and will accuse me of no doubt later in this thread. By keeping to these three important issues and not diverging from them we are not making ourselves inclusive, rather we are sticking by our mission and our beliefs instead of every other political group who caters to whatever, then we will win.

We will NOT win by becoming political whores. How would we live with ourselves if we knew that we only won through political trickery and giving up on what makes our movement different. We will win by maintaining our simple and liberty filled message.
If our message of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and individual rights is RIGHT, then the American people will see this and will vote for it. They already are as is being shown constantly.
We are not winning because we are whoring ourselves out to the mainstream right, we are winning because our message is right and is one for liberty.

Edit: I know I'll get ripped on for using the word "movement". I don't mean to make this a collective, I just couldn't think of any better words.

[YumYum]

Good post! I think that when people think too much of themselves they are headed for a fall.

Right now, we are like a yapping Chihuahua at a Pit bull fight. What people don't know, is that the Chihuahua has rabies.

So, why should I be supporting warmongers like Palin and Beck and other "pseudo Libertarians", when I need to exert all my energy into supporting Ron Paul 2012?

[heavenlyboy34]

Vessol, that post is full of win!

[ClayTrainor]

Best thread of the day!!! Very well said, Vessol!

[Stary Hickory]

Good post! I think that when people think too much of themselves they are headed for a fall.

Right now, we are like a yapping Chihuahua at a Pit bull fight. What people don't know, is that the Chihuahua has rabbis.

So, why should I be supporting warmongers like Palin and Beck and other "pseudo Libertarians", when I need to exert all my energy into supporting Ron Paul 2012?

You don't have to support them. I don't support Palin or Beck. They have their uses at times...Palin less and lesss...and Beck is a loose cannon, he still has serious inconsistencies with his views. So bash where they suck and praise them where they are right.

And I do support Ron Paul, although I am more enthusiastic about his son Rand Paul just because he can get elected and maybe do some of the things his dad could only talk about. That being said without Ron Paul doing what he has done and what he is doing his son could do absolutely nothing.

[Stary Hickory]

We will NOT win by becoming political whores. How would we live with ourselves if we knew that we only won through political trickery and giving up on what makes our movement different. We will win by maintaining our simple and liberty filled message.
If our message of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and individual rights is RIGHT, then the American people will see this and will vote for it. They already are as is being shown constantly.
We are not winning because we are whoring ourselves out to the mainstream right, we are winning because our message is right and is one for liberty.

Edit: I know I'll get ripped on for using the word "movement". I don't mean to make this a collective, I just couldn't think of any better words.

Movement is fine to use, I do all the time, it doesn't mean that everyone here agrees with what you think or anything. I don't think one person here wants to compromise views nor do they see the GOP or the DEMS as allies. But they are avenues to improve our situation and move forward. Politics is a totally separate thing from an ideology as shown by the GOP saying they are for small government and doing quite the opposite.

I am for improving candidates and constantly being active in the political system. If you are not present and motivated nothing will happen, you cannot sit by and do nothing as not to become a "whore". Someone has to get out there and fight. You always fight for more freedom and liberty. Of course carrying the intellectual flag forward is key. Truth, rational thought, and determination are always paramount.

The makeup of the GOP has been changed to some extent thanks to libertarian ideas and people who got involved in the political campaigns. We have better candidates in the GOP as a whole....not perfect, but they can always be challenged again and again until it gets better and better.

And like I always say politics is ONE means to get liberty. Civil disobedience , states rights, and secession are other ways to put pressure on the empire. But I just hate when people give others an excuse to do nothing and sit back and watch. The people who have been getting their way for years were always very active politically. You cannot just give up the battleground there.

[heavenlyboy34]

P.S. Vessol, please clarify what you mean by "fiscal conservatism".

[One Last Battle!]

Good post! I think that when people think too much of themselves they are headed for a fall.

Right now, we are like a yapping Chihuahua at a Pit bull fight. What people don't know, is that the Chihuahua has rabbis.

So, why should I be supporting warmongers like Palin and Beck and other "pseudo Libertarians", when I need to exert all my energy into supporting Ron Paul 2012?

The Chihuahua is a Jew?

[Vessol]

P.S. Vessol, please clarify what you mean by "fiscal conservatism".

A fully encompassing term meaning economic freedoms, fiscal responsibility within the Federal government(I'm aware that many here, including myself are ancaps, but for the sake of trying to find 3 core issues I consider this a part of it), and generally lowering the size of the behemoth drastically. I would also include repealing the 16th Amendment here as well as it is against the idea of economic freedom.

[YumYum]

The Chihuahua is a Jew?

We may be small, but we go for the throat!.

[heavenlyboy34]

A fully encompassing term meaning economic freedoms, fiscal responsibility within the Federal government(I'm aware that many here, including myself are ancaps, but for the sake of trying to find 3 core issues I consider this a part of it), and generally lowering the size of the behemoth drastically. I would also include repealing the 16th Amendment here as well as it is against the idea of economic freedom.

Thanks. Didn't mean to nitpick, but there are Buckleyites and other neocons out there who define it entirely differently. It's kind of a strange word to be used that way-as "fiscal" only refers to "the public treasury and revenues"-this leaves out monetary issues, spending issues, etc.

[Catatonic]

I seem to remember the ron paulers view of the GOP was that we need to engage in a hostile take over.

Now there seems to be a lot of apologizing and explaining of why we need to team up with the ol' neocon bastards.

What happened?

[heavenlyboy34]

I seem to remember the ron paulers view of the GOP was that we need to engage in a hostile take over.

Now there seems to be a lot of apologizing and explaining of why we need to team up with the ol' neocon bastards.

What happened?

~shrugs~ I dunno. Maybe there's sedatives in some members' water supplies? :eek:

[Vessol]

I seem to remember the ron paulers view of the GOP was that we need to engage in a hostile take over.

Now there seems to be a lot of apologizing and explaining of why we need to team up with the ol' neocon bastards.

What happened?

Rand Paul. I don't mean that in a negative manner, but that was kind of the catalyst I noticed. It's had both a positive and negative results, it's brought many new people into "the fold", but also hasn't helped much as you'll still often here "I'll support Rand, but Ron is just wacky"

[YumYum]

I seem to remember the ron paulers view of the GOP was that we need to engage in a hostile take over.

Now there seems to be a lot of apologizing and explaining of why we need to team up with the ol' neocon bastards.

What happened?

A very severe shortage of nutsacks.

[Catatonic]

Rand Paul. I don't mean that in a negative manner, but that was kind of the catalyst I noticed. It's had both a positive and negative results, it's brought many new people into "the fold", but also hasn't helped much as you'll still often here "I'll support Rand, but Ron is just wacky"

Honestly thats why I don't come here that often anymore. Late '07/early '08 was awesome. All anyone talked about was how to take this or that spot in the GOP establishment, how to get incumbents booted, etc.

Now its more like 'welp lets join this Palin rally! She's not THAT bad!' Makes me want to vomit.

[RedStripe]

Honestly thats why I don't come here that often anymore. Late '07/early '08 was awesome. All anyone talked about was how to take this or that spot in the GOP establishment, how to get incumbents booted, etc.

Now its more like 'welp lets join this Palin rally! She's not THAT bad!' Makes me want to vomit.

Haha, this is what happens when well-meaning activists get suckered into politics. They idolize political parties, political news, and, eventually, political power. Such is the path to accepting political expediency as one's preferred method of setting questions of ideological purity, integrity, etc.

An activist's time, in my biased estimation, is better spent in the pursuit of education and reading opposing points of view.

[klamath]

Once again to be accurate you should type it as "my" not "Our"

[Jace]

They may play lip service to their support for Ron Paul, some may even wistfully say they'd vote for Ron if he ran. But knowing many of these mainstreamers myself on both sides, they just follow the party line when it comes to push and shove.

The mainstream right will never be our allies because they do not agree with our stance on fiscal conservatism. Their support for the wars abroad are a complete anti-thesis of our calling for fiscal conservatism. THESE ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE ISSUES like many here seem to want to think, they are one and the same. The two go hand in hand.

Likewise the mainstream left will never be our allies. They are against the foreign wars of aggression, but have no problem when aggression is used in order to obtain money to fund their social programs. Just like the issue with the mainstream right, these two issues go hand in hand. They do not support foreign wars of aggression, but they do support aggression and force used in order to take property from citizens. This is the anti-thesis of what we teach.

What we need to focus on is converting stragglers and those generally dissatisfied. And education.
It is my firm belief that we will not win by the method of toning down our beliefs and trying to pass as a cow in sheep's clothing within the parties. When we diverge or make exceptions for such big issues, we are only undermining ourselves and our message.

The three main issues of fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy are NOT separate issues that we can say "Well so and so is this, so it's fine if they are not this" like I see all the apologetic here all the time saying.
These three issues are INTERLOCKED and are ONE AND THE SAME. They can not be separated and divided up. If that is done, then they are completely undermined.
What fiscal conservatism would exist when at the same time that an interventionalist foreign policy exists?
Likewise, how can individual rights be respected when someone does not support economic freedoms?

These issues cannot exist apart.

This is not an argument for isolation and separatism as many seem to and will accuse me of no doubt later in this thread. By keeping to these three important issues and not diverging from them we are not making ourselves inclusive, rather we are sticking by our mission and our beliefs instead of every other political group who caters to whatever, then we will win.

We will NOT win by becoming political whores. How would we live with ourselves if we knew that we only won through political trickery and giving up on what makes our movement different. We will win by maintaining our simple and liberty filled message.
If our message of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and individual rights is RIGHT, then the American people will see this and will vote for it. They already are as is being shown constantly.
We are not winning because we are whoring ourselves out to the mainstream right, we are winning because our message is right and is one for liberty.

Edit: I know I'll get ripped on for using the word "movement". I don't mean to make this a collective, I just couldn't think of any better words.

Excellent post.


The three main issues of are fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy...

These are traditional American values.

One point, though, I don't think the mainstream left is opposed to interventionist wars. Some of our biggest wars were championed by the left. WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War were all fought under Democratic presidents, who were strongly leftist. The Democrats went right along with the Iraq War, and they are going along with the war in Afghanistan now. Who is pushing for a war with Iran? It's not just neocons, who came from the left, anyway. The left will criticize wars when Republicans like Nixon and Bush lead them, but they had a hand in starting those wars. Where is there criticism now that Obama is raining death and destruction on women and children and the nationalistic goat herders of Afghanistan?

Another thing, the media is never going to give Ron Paul or any other liberty candidate a fair shake. The media will always work to undermine any candidate that is for fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. We need to recognize that and stop trying to win them over, and instead realize that they are morally bankrupt and we must work around them.

[Imaginos]

Both of them support status quo.
Therefore, both of them are afraid of Ron Paul.

[BuddyRey]

+2012

[LibertyEagle]

Haha, this is what happens when well-meaning activists get suckered into politics. They idolize political parties, political news, and, eventually, political power. Such is the path to accepting political expediency as one's preferred method of setting questions of ideological purity, integrity, etc.

An activist's time, in my biased estimation, is better spent in the pursuit of education and reading opposing points of view.

That is exactly how we got in this mess. By the good people sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs.

This is a political activist board, by the way.

[ibaghdadi]

Vessol, good post.

However, you're looking at the situation from a static "freeze-frame" point of view. Things won't stay the same all the way into 2012. Obamanomics are going to fail miserably. It's still unclear whether it'll end up be an inflationary depression, a currency collapse, or a great recession - but the idea that government can borrow and spend indefinitely will be completely discredited sooner or later.

What's the real opportunity. No one has been saying this other than Ron Paul, and no one has the answer except Ron Paul.

[A Son of Liberty]

Great post, Vessol.

To me, it isn't about seats, or electors, or political maps. To me it's about convincing people about the right-ness of our view. Succeed in that, and all the filthy political plans take care of themselves. Besides, I don't want to impose my views on others through force, anyway. ;)

[TNforPaul45]

They may play lip service to their support for Ron Paul, some may even wistfully say they'd vote for Ron if he ran. But knowing many of these mainstreamers myself on both sides, they just follow the party line when it comes to push and shove.

The mainstream right will never be our allies because they do not agree with our stance on fiscal conservatism. Their support for the wars abroad are a complete anti-thesis of our calling for fiscal conservatism. THESE ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE ISSUES like many here seem to want to think, they are one and the same. The two go hand in hand.

Likewise the mainstream left will never be our allies. They are against the foreign wars of aggression, but have no problem when aggression is used in order to obtain money to fund their social programs. Just like the issue with the mainstream right, these two issues go hand in hand. They do not support foreign wars of aggression, but they do support aggression and force used in order to take property from citizens. This is the anti-thesis of what we teach.

What we need to focus on is converting stragglers and those generally dissatisfied. And education.
It is my firm belief that we will not win by the method of toning down our beliefs and trying to pass as a cow in sheep's clothing within the parties. When we diverge or make exceptions for such big issues, we are only undermining ourselves and our message.

The three main issues of fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy are NOT separate issues that we can say "Well so and so is this, so it's fine if they are not this" like I see all the apologetic here all the time saying.
These three issues are INTERLOCKED and are ONE AND THE SAME. They can not be separated and divided up. If that is done, then they are completely undermined.
What fiscal conservatism would exist when at the same time that an interventionalist foreign policy exists?
Likewise, how can individual rights be respected when someone does not support economic freedoms?

These issues cannot exist apart.

This is not an argument for isolation and separatism as many seem to and will accuse me of no doubt later in this thread. By keeping to these three important issues and not diverging from them we are not making ourselves inclusive, rather we are sticking by our mission and our beliefs instead of every other political group who caters to whatever, then we will win.

We will NOT win by becoming political whores. How would we live with ourselves if we knew that we only won through political trickery and giving up on what makes our movement different. We will win by maintaining our simple and liberty filled message.
If our message of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and individual rights is RIGHT, then the American people will see this and will vote for it. They already are as is being shown constantly.
We are not winning because we are whoring ourselves out to the mainstream right, we are winning because our message is right and is one for liberty.

Edit: I know I'll get ripped on for using the word "movement". I don't mean to make this a collective, I just couldn't think of any better words.

I own a chihuahua...do not underestimate a little bundle of mean when it is right.....and fluffy....and loves to snuggle....lol

The essence of your post is spot on. Remember that there is no longer any real differentiation between the two parties, even though lots of their members don't even know this yet. You said this above on your points about aggression. There is really only Federalists and Citizens now. The two parties will always link arms and fight like a mafioso group when they are externally threatened by an politically viable alternative, namely us.

Talk about collusion, you have it here big time.

Great post!

[Vessol]

Friendly bump for the election season.

[BuddyRey]

Still a great thread.

[anaconda]

What we are trying to do is "BECOME THE MAINSTREAM!"

My vision of future elections is where candidates only debate subtle nuances of precise constitutional arguments, and we have huge massive campaigns on precise constitutional arguments.

[Philhelm]

What we are trying to do is "BECOME THE MAINSTREAM!"

My vision of future elections is where candidates only debate subtle nuances of precise constitutional arguments, and we have huge massive campaigns on precise constitutional arguments.

Don't hold your breath. :( It seems the childishness and disingenuousness in politics is getting worse and worse.