When it's really important, there's a bipartisan effort.

[acptulsa]

Like bailouts, for example. When they really, really want to give billions to their biggest donors, party lines fall by the wayside. And when they really, really want to cover their asses in regards to Obama killing people Dubya has wined and dined, here again we get a bipartisan effort. And, boy, do they sail through.

The American People could stand to learn from their example.


"People talk peace, but men give their life's work to war. It won't stop 'til there is as much brains and scientific study put to aid peace as there is to promote war."--Will Rogers 1929

Now, 9/11/2001 happened and it was terrible. Fair enough. But now that we've spent a solid decade kicking the asses of the wrong countries and dumped bin Laden's body in the water, well, have we satiated our blood lust yet? Have we or have we not demonstrated to the world that if you do this thing to us, people will suffer?

When push comes to shove, most Americans can be made to admit that war is a bad thing. Likewise, most Americans will admit that corporatism is a bad thing. Yet we have both. How did we get here?

People criticize Washington for putting partisanship ahead of the needs of the American people. Hell, Obama was doing it just yesterday. Yet even here, people are more concerned with kissing the asses of the people they're trying to convert to Ron Paul than sticking like glue to the principles that brought us together. 'Why say that out loud, it turns so-and-so off?' 'Why say the other thing out loud, it turns such-and-such off?' And, you know, both sides are absolutely right. It's hard enough to do this sell without our allies setting off the land mines that the media has planted in the public's skulls.

But, you know, those land mines are carefully laid. There's no way to avoid them. Hell, Gingrich has a map--he laid half of them himself--yet even he can't avoid them all.

If someone thinks Washington should be able to set aside petty differences long enough to advance the interests of the American people, and you can get them to admit it, then how about this? How about you ask them if the American people should set aside petty differences long enough to advance the interests of the American people?

To the 'liberal mind', peace is desirable. Good enough. We're almost halfway there. Now, is it possible to get a 'conservative' to admit that war is not security, but rather peace is security? And is it not possible to get the same person to admit that there are enough bright people in America that we should be able to figure out how to get the security of peace?

Can we institute a populist bipartisan cooperative initiative to achieve peace in our time? Can we make peace so desirable that people will put aside their petty differences and work together to achieve it? Because, on top of everything else, peace and prosperity often go hand in hand...

[D.A.S.]

So in the end, are you saying that we SHOULD or should NOT be selective with our message depending on which people we're trying to bring over into our camp? In other words, should we pander, or shouldn't we?

[phill4paul]

This goes hand in hand with something I had seen on the 'Prohibition' series the other evening. Wheeler was able to bring about prohibition by controlling only the 10% 'margin'. He did not care whether or not the incumbent was a Dem or a Rep he would throw his 10% towards whichever candidate supported prohibition. Knowing that a two-party system rides on the margin I think there are more than enough in the Anti-Empire belief system to affect change. Something to consider.

[acptulsa]

So in the end, are you saying that we SHOULD or should NOT be selective with our message depending on which people we're trying to bring over into our camp? In other words, should we pander, or shouldn't we?

Pander? Doesn't seem to work for us, does it? Tailor? Sure!

You're a 'liberal' and you're worried about an end to the programs. Well, Ron Paul believes in states' rights, so you can rest assured that under President Paul your state can help them all it wants to.

You're a 'conservative' and you're worried about an end to the drug war? Well, Paul believes in states' rights so you can rest assured that under President Paul your state can make illegal and fight as many drugs as it wants to.

Now, given that, how does doing this thing you want done federally vs. on the state level rise in importance to the point where it overshadows the importance of peace and prosperity?

[acptulsa]

This goes hand in hand with something I had seen on the 'Prohibition' series the other evening. Wheeler was able to bring about prohibition by controlling only the 10% 'margin'. He did not care whether or not the incumbent was a Dem or a Rep he would throw his 10% towards whichever candidate supported prohibition.

I don't know if he had his priorities straight, but he had his priorities.

This isn't a question of philosophy, it's a question of priority. Sure, you want this or you want that. Now put that on the balance scales, and put peace and the attendant prosperity on the other side.

Shall we just talk peace, or shall we work at it--maybe even make sacrifices for it? Is war security or is peace? Can we come together as a nation for the stuff?

Our soldiers are overseas killing people who could never harm us directly while they know full well that Main St. is going broke back home, and it's breaking the hearts of one in three of them. Can we agree to stop disagreeing long enough to agree with them? Can we work together to end this silliness?

[phill4paul]

All good questions. Everyone has their wedge issue. "Peace and Prosperity" certainly narrow it down to the two that I hold most dear. In these times I think it is THE wedge issue because as you say it can be found on the left, right and in the middle. But how to capitalize?

[acptulsa]

All good questions. Everyone has their wedge issue. "Peace and Prosperity" certainly narrow it down to the two that I hold most dear. In these times I think it is THE wedge issue because as you say it can be found on the left, right and in the middle. But how to capitalize?

Exactly the question.

They have 'conservatives' so afraid of, well, everyone that they'll destroy the Constitution in the name of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution. They have 'liberals' so angry and distrustful that they'd rather sacrifice peace and fight than switch--even if they're switching parties only long enough to vote in a primary.

The trick is, we need to hold a mirror up to these people without pissing them off. How to do it?

This al-Alwaki deal is a perfect example. Republicans could impeach Obama for it, but won't because he's covering Dubya's ass. Liberals won't impeach him for covering Dubya's ass because he's 'their guy'. Neither can see they're not only on the same side, but it's the wrong side.

It should be so easy to untangle this. But how?

If we made a video of a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' arguing, and after five minutes of it they twisted each other's arguments to the point where the one was arguing the points that the other started with, and vice versa, could we make it funny enough to go viral? It wouldn't be that hard to write such a script. You just start with the one defending Dubya, and wind up with the other defending Obama. Then they'd both get to say the exact same thing the other was saying a few minutes before, and it would be perfectly believable.

[phill4paul]

If we made a video of a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' arguing, and after five minutes of it they twisted each other's arguments to the point where the one was arguing the points that the other started with, and vice versa, could we make it funny enough to go viral? It wouldn't be that hard to write such a script. You just start with the one defending Dubya, and wind up with the other defending Obama. Then they'd both get to say the exact same thing the other was saying a few minutes before, and it would be perfectly believable.

Very nice thought. I think it could very well be something that could go viral.

[acptulsa]

This could probably use fattening up, but I think it's the right idea:

L: Dubya was the worst president ever.

C: What are you talking about? He kept us safe in our beds!

L: You're crazy! What about 9/11? And look at what has happened since--Americans tortured in Guantanimo with no lawyer and no trial. How can you say you love the Constitution and be in favor of that?

C: They're terrorists! If you're a terrorist, you give up your Constitutional rights!

L: What about the bank bailouts? You say you're against handouts to people who screw up, but the minute the head of Bank of America screws up so badly that there's not enough money in it to pay him a bonus you're right there with the welfare check.

C: That's not welfare. Our society needs banking services. Can't you see that America would be worse off if we didn't try to save it?

L: No! All I see is Dubya taking money from poor taxpayers and giving it to rich people!

C: Well, what about Obama?

L: What about him?

C: Didn't he take money from poor taxpayers and give it to Solyndra?

L: Our society needs clean energy! Can't you see how America would be worse off if we didn't try to go to solar energy?

C: All I see is you say you're against corporations, but as soon as some corrupt solar energy company pops up, you're right there with the welfare check!

L: That's not welfare!

C: And what about al-Alwaki? Obama just sent the drones out and killed him. When does he get his day in court?

L: The guy was a terrorist running around free! When you terrorize the people, you sacrifice your rights!

C: Well, just damn. Isn't there anything in the world we can agree on?

L: Nothing! Nothing at all! Well, maybe one thing. Ron Paul is crazy.

C: Gotta admit you're right about that! Hell, if you can't compromise on your principles once in a while, next thing you know you'll be broke and everyone in the world will hate you!

L: Truer words were never said, my friend.

[CaptainAmerica]

Its all about creating a Super Congress, or expansion of government power in other ways.

[acptulsa]

Its all about creating a Super Congress, or expansion of government power in other ways.

Well, sure. But I'm thinking we need to get 'em crawling before we make 'em run. If we can just help them see how hard they have to bend their beliefs to stand by their political party no matter what, then we can remove a major obstacle to us helping them see all sorts of things.

[phill4paul]

This could probably use fattening up, but I think it's the right idea:

L: Dubya was the worst president ever.

C: What are you talking about? He kept us safe in our beds!

L: You're crazy! What about 9/11? And look at what has happened since--Americans tortured in Guantanimo with no lawyer and no trial. How can you say you love the Constitution and be in favor of that?

C: They're terrorists! If you're a terrorist, you give up your Constitutional rights!

L: What about the bank bailouts? You say you're against handouts to people who screw up, but the minute the head of Bank of America screws up so badly that there's not enough money in it to pay him a bonus you're right there with the welfare check.

C: That's not welfare. Our society needs banking services. Can't you see that America would be worse off if we didn't try to save it?

L: No! All I see is Dubya taking money from poor taxpayers and giving it to rich people!

C: Well, what about Obama?

L: What about him?

C: Didn't he take money from poor taxpayers and give it to Solyndra?

L: Our society needs clean energy! Can't you see how America would be worse off if we didn't try to go to solar energy?

C: All I see is you say you're against corporations, but as soon as some corrupt solar energy company pops up, you're right there with the welfare check!

L: That's not welfare!

C: And what about al-Alwaki? Obama just sent the drones out and killed him. When does he get his day in court?

L: The guy was a terrorist running around free! When you terrorize the people, you sacrifice your rights!

C: Well, just damn. Isn't there anything in the world we can agree on?

L: Nothing! Nothing at all! Well, maybe one thing. Ron Paul is crazy.

C: Gotta admit you're right about that! Hell, if you can't compromise on your principles once in a while, next thing you know you'll be broke and everyone in the world will hate you!

L: Truer words were never said, my friend.

You are certainly on to something here! A little tweeking but I think it would be a powerful narrative in the cognitive dissonance of the two party system.

[acptulsa]

You are certainly on to something here! A little tweeking but I think it would be a powerful narrative in the cognitive dissonance of the two party system.

Thanks. It would be sweet if we could somehow also get the message across that no matter how different we think we are, Americans have more in common than not.