View Full Version : It's amazing to me that people don't see what Ron Paul is doing.
Rocco
03-17-2012, 07:45 AM
In the 1980's, there was a renegade group of republicans who via organization and activity within the party managed to take the party over despite an establishment element who certainly did not want that. These people were the social conservatives, the "values voters", and they were disliked by the republican establishment for a long period before they became the republican establishment. But, eventually, they too became the establishment and now we enjoy guys like Santorum and Huckabee because of it.
As you all know, the republican base is aging and the Ron Paul movement is the most popular choice for the 18-29 vote. We have all wondered why Ron Paul is spending all of his time campaigning on college campuses when that age group doesnt tend to vote as much? And finally, how does this all tie into the delegate strategy? The simple fact is, Dr Paul knew electoral victory was a long shot. That being said, Dr Paul also wanted to lay the groundwork for the future. So he has amassed a ton of young people to his campaign, and his main message to them has been to become delegates. Suddenly, it dawned on me what Ron Paul has been doing. The republican base is far closer to RP's age then mine (19), and Paul has aggressively courted voters of my age to become active and involved in the GOP. He is using the same tactic the social conservatives used in the 1980's; organize to create the new establishment. The difference is that Ron Paul's plan is more based on time I believe, and it may take a while to fully sink in. But we will see incremental improvement up to that point. The whole lesson behind that plan is that this is a MARATHON, not a sprint! RP 2012 is only the first mile of our journey, and Ron Paul's strategy to create a new establishment in the GOP proves it!
angelatc
03-17-2012, 07:51 AM
The whole lesson behind that plan is that this is a MARATHON, not a sprint! RP 2012 is only the first mile of our journey, and Ron Paul's strategy to create a new establishment in the GOP proves it!
Well that's just peachy keen. But when you tell people you're trying to win the nomination, if instead you're actually not much interested in that at all, some would say you're deceiving your donors.
Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.
RonPaulRules
03-17-2012, 07:52 AM
I agree. Ron knows this is not for him to win in 2012. But it is laying the groundwork for the future.
sailingaway
03-17-2012, 07:54 AM
Well that's just peachy keen. But when you tell people you're trying to win the nomination, if instead you're actually not much interested in that at all, some would say you're deceiving your donors.
Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.
I think he is trying to do both, but at some point may not be able to win the nomination -- should he then throw the work and money his donors donated away? He has ALWAYS said he is running for both. There is no deception at all.
sailingaway
03-17-2012, 07:55 AM
I agree. Ron knows this is not for him to win in 2012. But it is laying the groundwork for the future.
I wouldn't write him off yet, as of THIS point his delegate count is quite good, from the convention reports we are getting. It is the lack of media coverage and momentum which is necessary for the upcoming primary states that is problematic, and, while hard to foresee how that would change right now, stranger things have happened in this campaign.
playboymommy
03-17-2012, 07:57 AM
It's not like I'm just trying to win and get elected, I'm trying to change the course of history.
Speaking of running, Ron Paul is running for President, he's a runner as well, my mom sang this in church. It makes me think of Ron Paul and all that he's doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgtMzBUFL84
Courier valiant, bearing the flame
Messenger noble, sent in His name
Faster and harder, run through the night
Desperate relay, carry the light
Carry the light
Runner when the road is long
Feel like giving in but you're hanging on
Oh runner, when the race is won
You will run into His arms
Obstacle ancient, chilling the way
Enemy wakened, stoking the fray
Still be determined, fearless and true
Lift high the standard, carry it through
Carry it through
Mindful of many waiting to run
Destined to finish what you've begun
Millions before you cheering you on
Godspeed dear runner, carry it home
Carry it home
airborne373
03-17-2012, 08:04 AM
The Ron Paul Movement is bigger than the presidency in my opinion. This is about a culture shift as the thread originator identified. Changing the culture takes time and is done from within.
And I am in for the rest of my life.
WilliamC
03-17-2012, 08:27 AM
He talked about this in his latest speech in Illinois, that revolutions are carried out by the young and energetic who have the most to win or lose since it is their future at stake.
I'm waiting for him to start doing stadiums myself...
slamhead
03-17-2012, 08:38 AM
Well that's just peachy keen. But when you tell people you're trying to win the nomination, if instead you're actually not much interested in that at all, some would say you're deceiving your donors.
Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.
I agree. I am 47 years old. I have fought long and hard for RP. If he is not the nominee this time around I see myself becoming very disenfranchised with the whole process. I am of the opinion where it would be more beneficial for us to be able to say "I told you so" when this house of cards collapses. I see that as the only way for people to wake up at this point.
OrbitzXT
03-17-2012, 08:47 AM
Regardless of what happens, Ron Paul is a true hero to me. I honestly never thought I would think so highly of a politician ever in my life (I'm 27 for what that's worth).
wgadget
03-17-2012, 08:47 AM
When the house of cards collapses, which it will, we will be in place with both the solutions and the vigor to rebuild.
Ron Paul is a prophet who has been proven right on so many issues.
Stick with the one who speaks the truth, because, as Carol Paul has told us, THE TRUTH WILL WIN, eventually.
AlexAmore
03-17-2012, 08:56 AM
I've always thought this was a long term strategy. Courting young people coupled with the explosion of the internet/social media explosively gaining more market share as a news/information/politics source not even a decade ago. Look at this from the big picture, I'm talking a time line of a 200 years. With technology and networking never before seen in the political arena all being dominated by Ron Paul republicans and......young liberals. See, that's the problem and where Ron Paul is attacking at it's root.
Young, loud, energetic liberals. He wants to convert them before they're set in their ways, before they gain power. There was an industrial revolution and then a second industrial revolution each time people rose to enormous profound power that is still with us today. Now we're in the information age and poised to DOMINATE it! If we dominated the information age imagine the implications for decades to come.
http://cdn3.hark.com/images/000/033/720/33720/original.0
justatrey
03-17-2012, 09:01 AM
I think he is trying to do both, but at some point may not be able to win the nomination -- should he then throw the work and money his donors donated away? He has ALWAYS said he is running for both. There is no deception at all.
This. I have no doubt that he always was and still is trying to win the nomination. Just look at the massive effort that went into Iowa, and how close he came to pulling it off.
Then when you account for the possibility that there may have been rampant voter fraud, it's very possible that he should be the current front runner had there been a level playing field. So I have no complaints with how the campaign has been managed so far.
ctiger2
03-17-2012, 09:19 AM
Don't kid yourself. Ron is trying to WIN this right NOW as well as laying groundwork for future generations. It's not either/or.
I *have* wondered why the campaign has focused its efforts towards consolidating the vote among the young crowd rather than appealing to other voting blocs. On the other hand, as Kony 2012 and virtually any other viral campaign has proven, getting the young crowd to not be apathetic is a great campaign regardless. He's definitely in it to win. The less he focuses on the politics of the game, the less likely the media will take him seriously, and the more likely people will start to question the MSM.
Jamesiv1
03-17-2012, 09:54 AM
Regardless of what happens, Ron Paul is a true hero to me. I honestly never thought I would think so highly of a politician ever in my life (I'm 27 for what that's worth).
^This
It takes time to change hearts and minds. The 'establishment' has been doing what they do in America since what, about 1791? (creation of the 1st Central Bank) That's a formidable opponent.
Gandhi started organizing peasants, farmers and laborers in 1915. He was assassinated 33 years later. With the internet, etc. the message gets out a lot faster, but it still takes time.
Mahatma Gandhi's life achievement stands unique in political history. He has invented a completely new and humane means for the liberation of an oppressed country, and practiced it with greatest energy and devotion. The moral influence he had on the consciously thinking human being of the entire civilized world will probably be much more lasting than it seems in our time.
- Albert Einstein
If Ron Paul wins the White House, I have serious doubts about how much he can actually accomplish given the state of the union today.
But we can hope.
NoOneButPaul
03-17-2012, 09:56 AM
In the 1980's, there was a renegade group of republicans who via organization and activity within the party managed to take the party over despite an establishment element who certainly did not want that. These people were the social conservatives, the "values voters", and they were disliked by the republican establishment for a long period before they became the republican establishment. But, eventually, they too became the establishment and now we enjoy guys like Santorum and Huckabee because of it.
As you all know, the republican base is aging and the Ron Paul movement is the most popular choice for the 18-29 vote. We have all wondered why Ron Paul is spending all of his time campaigning on college campuses when that age group doesnt tend to vote as much? And finally, how does this all tie into the delegate strategy? The simple fact is, Dr Paul knew electoral victory was a long shot. That being said, Dr Paul also wanted to lay the groundwork for the future. So he has amassed a ton of young people to his campaign, and his main message to them has been to become delegates. Suddenly, it dawned on me what Ron Paul has been doing. The republican base is far closer to RP's age then mine (19), and Paul has aggressively courted voters of my age to become active and involved in the GOP. He is using the same tactic the social conservatives used in the 1980's; organize to create the new establishment. The difference is that Ron Paul's plan is more based on time I believe, and it may take a while to fully sink in. But we will see incremental improvement up to that point. The whole lesson behind that plan is that this is a MARATHON, not a sprint! RP 2012 is only the first mile of our journey, and Ron Paul's strategy to create a new establishment in the GOP proves it!
YES.
And you know what the Social Conservatives didn't do? Run away from the fight via 3rd party and disappear forever.
Never forget the 3rd party is exactly where the GOP Establishment wants us- irrelevant and powerless.
thoughtomator
03-17-2012, 10:05 AM
We can take control of the GOP simply by showing up in numbers - participation is abysmally low and we're the only ones motivated to get anything done. Find out all the GOP functions in your area - local, state, federal - show up, and be heard. Take over - use our voting strength in these groups to anoint liberty people as candidates and as party functionaries.
Cleaner44
03-17-2012, 10:08 AM
The R3VOLUTION is much bigger than one man and one election. Just look at how much it has grown since 4 years ago.
It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
-Samuel Adams
We are winning and we are changing things regardless of how things turn out this Aug and Nov.
Yesterday my teenage daughter needed to cash some checks from babysitting. Normally I could cash them for her using my account. Then yesterday my credit union would not do it, they insisted she open her own account. I was annoyed so I went to the bank were my mortgage is and they did the same thing. In fact the bank was very aggressive in getting her signed up for her own account. I realized it was for one very simple reason... capturing her now is the ideal situation. Whoever can be the first to signup a child is likely to have a customer for a long long time. It is like she is a banking virgin and they all want to be the first and get locked in. It is always easier to keep a customer than find a new one. Getting a customer before 18 and then keeping them for life is the goal.
Ron Paul is right to capture the minds of young people. I wish I had learned that I was a libertarian 10 or 20 years eariler. We are creating a R3VOLUTION!
olsonly
03-17-2012, 10:09 AM
I'm 43 and he is a hero to me too. A very special man.
LibertyEagle
03-17-2012, 10:10 AM
Cleaner, it may have been that stupid Patriot Act. It put a lot of added requirements on banks.
angelatc
03-17-2012, 07:08 PM
I think he is trying to do both, but at some point may not be able to win the nomination -- should he then throw the work and money his donors donated away? He has ALWAYS said he is running for both. There is no deception at all.
Oh obviously. But the bottom line is....either he's running for President, or he isn't. If he's not, then he should stop telling people that he needs money to run for President.
angelatc
03-17-2012, 07:10 PM
Cleaner, it may have been that stupid Patriot Act. It put a lot of added requirements on banks.
It is. There's no technical ban on cashing 2 party checks, but the "know your customer" rule makes them pretty liable for anything bad that can happen as a result. It's a bunch of nonsense, really.
bluesc
03-17-2012, 07:11 PM
Oh obviously. But the bottom line is....either he's running for President, or he isn't. If he's not, then he should stop telling people that he needs money to run for President.
For once I don't disagree with her.
Although your claim that this campaign is drawing more LIBRULS than it should is laughable. Isn't that the idea? Must keep the GOP pure!
PierzStyx
03-17-2012, 07:14 PM
I think the Doctor is trying to be the Barry Goldwater of our generation. If he got nominated and didn't win, he'd still have a profound effect on the rebirth of true conservatism.
bluesc
03-17-2012, 07:15 PM
I think the Doctor is trying to be the Barry Goldwater of our generation. If he got nominated and didn't win, he'd still have a profound effect on the rebirth of true conservatism.
The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement doesn't get stuck with a Bush.
coffeewithchess
03-17-2012, 07:49 PM
For once I don't disagree with her.
Although your claim that this campaign is drawing more LIBRULS than it should is laughable. Isn't that the idea? Must keep the GOP pure!
While drawing new voters is good, the problem is that the campaign seems to have ignored key issues holding it back from the voters already identified as "Republican". There's nothing wrong with "LIBRULS" joining RP, because he has issues they can agree with him on, the problem is hoping to convert enough to win a REPUBLICAN nomination, instead of focusing on the BASE that is already there.
jolynna
03-17-2012, 08:04 PM
The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement doesn't get stuck with a Bush.
Which is why Ron Paul cannot give any nod of approval to the GOP candidate who has hired the "worst" of the "worst" of Bush's team, which includes Michael Chertoff (Bush's head of Homeland Security who wrote the Patriot Act & disposed of the remains of the Twin Towers & damaged Pentagon after 9/11) as well as Eliot Cohen, closely affiliated with the circle of hawks who surrounded former Vice President Dick Cheney, Cohen served as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and sat on the Defense Policy Board during Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure as defense secretary. In 2001 Cohen started his rampage to take out much of the middle east, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/fcf1cea48c5eaf0c.
In my opinion.
Johnny Appleseed
03-17-2012, 08:16 PM
yeah I think that is why his suits fit him like a shell because I think he is part tortoise.
jolynna
03-17-2012, 08:33 PM
While drawing new voters is good, the problem is that the campaign seems to have ignored key issues holding it back from the voters already identified as "Republican". There's nothing wrong with "LIBRULS" joining RP, because he has issues they can agree with him on, the problem is hoping to convert enough to win a REPUBLICAN nomination, instead of focusing on the BASE that is already there.
Some of the strongest voices for civil rights, human rights and liberty are liberal voices. Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Dennis Kucinich are progressives who have had the courage to speak out against war, the NDAA, the Patriot Act, secret prisons and torture...all of which Ron Paul has taken strong stands against.
I think a true freedom and liberty movement should be MORE ABOUT ISSUES & PRINCIPLE rather than party. Liberals and conservatives SHOULD unite to do what is right because of principles instead of wanting to be on the "winning team" when the "winning team" advocates the WORST of the Bush and Obama atrocities against liberty, the constitution and rationalizes unjustifiable killing.
Ending war and atrocity makes good economic sense as WELL as being moral and ethical. It would make the U.S.A. a safer place to live (no blowback, a stronger economy, no searching our homes without a warrant, no detention without probable cause or being indefinitely jailed without a trial).
War is the reason Nixon got rid of our gold standard. He needed money to fund Vietnam.
Ending foreign adventurism AND NOT EXPANDING our military (as Romney intends to do...going from building 9 ships a year to 15 ships a year and more submarines with more missiles), but INSTEAD cutting our big ticket aircraft carriers down to half would save us TRILLIONS. (Cost of aircraft carriers: http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2010/08/01/how-many-aircraft-carriers-do-you-need/)
The goal should be ending war & injustice, taking the moral high road (which can't include slaughtering innocents that are in the way or starving them for political advantage), not wasting trillions and trillions to be the guy with the biggest and most weapons. The moral high road is not only the decent thing to do it WOULD BENEFIT us ECONOMICALLY TOO.
What is the point of getting rid of ONE immoral warmonger, IF you are going to replace him with a FAR WORSE version.
Neither should be supported.
In my opinion.
In my opinion.
tbone717
03-17-2012, 08:41 PM
Some of the strongest voices for civil rights, human rights and liberty are liberal voices. Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Dennis Kucinich are progressives who have had the courage to speak out against war, the NDAA, the Patriot Act, secret prisons and torture...all of which Ron Paul has taken strong stands against.
But while they may have spoken out against some policies that restrict civil rights and liberty, they have supported Socialist policies that also take away civil rights and liberty (the income tax, entitlement programs, unrestricted spending, regulations, etc).
So Kucinich and the rest are enemies of liberty just like those that support NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc. Progressives are as bad or worse than neo-cons. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric.
anaconda
03-17-2012, 08:59 PM
this is a MARATHON, not a sprint! RP 2012 is only the first mile of our journey, and Ron Paul's strategy to create a new establishment in the GOP proves it!
Well said. However, my fear is that we will all be in FEMA camps long before we get to complete the marathon. The marathon will be terminated at about mile #3.
anaconda
03-17-2012, 09:02 PM
When the house of cards collapses, which it will, we will be in place with both the solutions and the vigor to rebuild.
But the elite clique will have complete control of the military and the police state grid. Unless the military defects.
anaconda
03-17-2012, 09:04 PM
We can take control of the GOP simply by showing up in numbers - participation is abysmally low and we're the only ones motivated to get anything done. Find out all the GOP functions in your area - local, state, federal - show up, and be heard. Take over - use our voting strength in these groups to anoint liberty people as candidates and as party functionaries.
Inspirational post. Thank you.
ClydeCoulter
03-17-2012, 09:14 PM
Don't give up. You don't give up a fight until it's lost. We haven't lost.
You can talk about the future fight after the current one is finished (yes, you can also consider the future). This one is not finished. Not in any since of the word.
Are we to take all the work of Athens or MO or many, many others and say, oh, well, in twelve tomorrows we fight again, the fight is now.
Johncjackson
03-17-2012, 09:36 PM
Well that's just peachy keen. But when you tell people you're trying to win the nomination, if instead you're actually not much interested in that at all, some would say you're deceiving your donors.
Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.
He is running to win. So do most candidates, but not everyone can win. It doesn't mean they didn't try. You can nitpick and find legit weakness in every campaign, including winners. What do you expect him to do? There are not enough voters with the proper knowledge and views on the issues to deliver widespread popular vote victories for Ron Paul in a major party primary.. AT THIS TIME. WOuld it have been better if he said " We probably don't have the votes to win states, but I'm gonna do my darndest to grow our movement and grow the party?"
In 2008, Ron Paul was a single digit competitor- down around 2-3% nationally throughout nearly the entire primary season. His competitors did not take him as a serious threat. Now they can't afford not to. Going from someone treated as a joke to being the leader of a very significant movement in 4 years is a big deal. Trust me, there were candidates genuinely "In it to Win it" and tried their best, who did nowhere near as well as Ron Paul, even with media/establishment support.
Whether you want to throw away your political interests because you choose to idealistically throw all your hope and dreams behind ONE man and one political office in a nation of thousands of elected offices with a very small % of friendly officials, because you didn't get the result you want- That's up to you.
Your point about after 2008 is invalid. C4L and a lot of activism grew out of that. A lot of the groundwork was laid in 2008-2012. The campaign NEEDS to draw "liberals" to succeed. A lot of liberals aren't Dems, just as a lot of conservatives aren't Rs. Certainly neither party is liberal or conservative now. They are center/center-right establishments, with no consistent values/philosophy. Obama and GW Bush did a good job at disappointing liberals and conservatives, respectively. A liberty/freedom movement would be consistently "liberal", if anything. Liberties and Markets.
Ivash
03-17-2012, 09:45 PM
...The other candidates don't take Dr. Paul very seriously, though. Neither do the elite. They see him as a 'passing fad'. People connected with Santorum and Gingrich are even glad Dr. Paul is in the race since they believe he 'takes votes/delegates from Romney'.
If a different libertarian candidate runs in 2016 and gets a significant percentage of the vote... well, then it would be a significant movement. Now? Eh.
coffeewithchess
03-17-2012, 09:49 PM
In 2008, Ron Paul was a single digit competitor- down around 2-3% nationally throughout nearly the entire primary season. His competitors did not take him as a serious threat. Now they can't afford not to. Going from someone treated as a joke to being the leader of a very significant movement in 4 years is a big deal. Trust me, there were candidates genuinely "In it to Win it" and tried their best, who did nowhere near as well as Ron Paul, even with media/establishment support.
Whether you want to throw away your political interests because you choose to idealistically throw all your hope and dreams behind ONE man and one political office in a nation of thousands of elected offices with a very small % of friendly officials, because you didn't get the result you want- That's up to you.
I don't think they're saying give up politically or throw away interests, but perhaps the campaign needs to address legitimate problems...that they have ignored for months/years now...to grow the conservative base/activism.
It happened last time, when the campaign/RP announced he was dropping out, then a few weeks later he released a book? The grassroots supporters give time, money, effort...and most are making $0 off of this. The campaign has people in it that do politics for a career...and we should expect results from them, if they want this to continue.
I personally don't see how $30 million raised/spent, this time and last...is a positive. $60 million dollars? There are very legitimate issues with this campaign (and yes others), but the fact is no other campaign has grassroots supporters like RP does...people that quit school, jobs, etc., for months to help out...only to see little/no result...and what then appears to be a "company" in C4L to keep people getting a paycheck.
It happened in 2008, and it will probably happen again...mass influx/mass exit of supporters. It's the way politics is...
PolicyReader
03-17-2012, 09:51 PM
I think he is trying to do both, but at some point may not be able to win the nomination -- should he then throw the work and money his donors donated away? He has ALWAYS said he is running for both. There is no deception at all.
^This
I agree. Ron knows this is not for him to win in 2012. But it is laying the groundwork for the future.
This would be one of the only things that might hold any chance of dampening my support for Paul. I think that without a Liberty White House this year we will suffer mightily both in elections and out, and feel the ramifications well beyond 2016 or even 2020 (I won't rehash all of why this is true here, but I've said it in detail in several other threads).
Happily I agree with the following, I honestly think Paul is more of a tactician than a 'fools errand' type of guy. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe all of the "this year is just a means to build the movement" stuff is really happening but that would be a waste and a shame and so far every 'hands dirty on the ground' activist from the grassroots this cycle knows it, I'm far from alone in seeing the writing on the wall here. Anyway on to the following quote which I agree with :)
I wouldn't write him off yet, as of THIS point his delegate count is quite good, from the convention reports we are getting. It is the lack of media coverage and momentum which is necessary for the upcoming primary states that is problematic, and, while hard to foresee how that would change right now, stranger things have happened in this campaign.
Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.
So you're saying this campaign shouldn't attract new blood that used to be liberal? Interesting perspective. I, however, think it's great we wake people up from both sides of that imaginary line.
PolicyReader
03-17-2012, 10:00 PM
But while they may have spoken out against some policies that restrict civil rights and liberty, they have supported Socialist policies that also take away civil rights and liberty (the income tax, entitlement programs, unrestricted spending, regulations, etc).
I agree.
So Kucinich and the rest are enemies of liberty just like those that support NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc. Progressives are as bad or worse than neo-cons. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric.
I strongly disagree. Supporting bad policy (yes even policy that leads to negative consequences, policy that I would like to see repealed) is not equal to supporting the NDAA, "Patriot" Act etc. As someone who has read the text involved in those bills I can confidently state that no one who has read them (who understand how law works on a basic level, which for the sake of argument I'll presume our Congressional reps do) can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do.
It's one thing (still not good) to vote for or support something with positive intent which has unforeseen (even tho they should be) consequences and it is quite another to support something that blatantly and directly trades fundamental liberty for some temporary sense of security.
I'm not saying this objection applies to all Dems is obviously does not, and yes there are many Dems and neo-cons that are interchangeable (just look at Obama and Romney), however credit where credit is due if someone fights against things like the so called "Patriot" Act but votes for bad fiscal policy they are not equal to someone who outright votes for the "Patriot" Act and it's ilk.
tbone717
03-17-2012, 10:14 PM
I agree.
I strongly disagree. Supporting bad policy (yes even policy that leads to negative consequences, policy that I would like to see repealed) is not equal to supporting the NDAA, "Patriot" Act etc. As someone who has read the text involved in those bills I can confidently state that no one who has read them (who understand how law works on a basic level, which for the sake of argument I'll presume our Congressional reps do) can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do.
It's one thing (still not good) to vote for or support something with positive intent which has unforeseen (even tho they should be) consequences and it is quite another to support something that blatantly and directly trades fundamental liberty for some temporary sense of security.
I'm not saying this objection applies to all Dems is obviously does not, and yes there are many Dems and neo-cons that are interchangeable (just look at Obama and Romney), however credit where credit is due if someone fights against things like the so called "Patriot" Act but votes for bad fiscal policy they are not equal to someone who outright votes for the "Patriot" Act and it's ilk.
Having read the legislation for welfare, gun control, socialized medicine, environmental regulations and every policy that Progressive support, I can confidently state that anyone who has read them can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do as well.
One only needs to visit the "inner city" section of any major metropolitan area to see the obvious effect that Progressives have had on this country. They don't get a pass on this because of their supposed "good intentions". NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps -- they are all equally bad.
As I said, Kucinich is as much of an enemy of liberty as Gingrich is.
PolicyReader
03-17-2012, 10:37 PM
Having read the legislation for welfare, gun control, socialized medicine, environmental regulations and every policy that Progressive support, I can confidently state that anyone who has read them can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do as well.
One only needs to visit the "inner city" section of any major metropolitan area to see the obvious effect that Progressives have had on this country. They don't get a pass on this because of their supposed "good intentions". NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps -- they are all equally bad.
As I said, Kucinich is as much of an enemy of liberty as Gingrich is.
I have been to such areas, in fact lived in/on the fringes of more than one (depends on where you draw "the line") and as my handle suggests I read the legislation's too
but I feel you don't read my posts or at least not the last one. Stating that there is a matter of degree is far from saying that anyone should be given "a pass" which I in no way advocated. However it remains that directly voting for authoritarian violations of individual rights is simply not equal to voting for bad economic policy. It's not even a question of consequences, I'm not trying to weigh net long term harm of one vs the other, but someone can have a flawed grasp of economics and think that certain social programs are a good idea without being as bad as someone who is directly (or directly catering to/carrying water for) a war-profiteering chickenhawk. Let me make this even more simple, advocating "helping the needy" or "not dumping toxins into water" simply isn't the same as advocating the doctrines of preemptive invasion through undeclared wars, warrantless police action, indefinite detention or assassination based on "secret evidence".
You can choose not to acknowledge that there's a matter of degree there, and ignore the concept of what someones intent or design may be if you'd like. You can also (as you demonstrated) ignore the level of immediacy in involved in the consequences rendered or that I'm not talking about "which bad thing is better". But "as I said" they are not equivalent.
jolynna
03-17-2012, 11:03 PM
But while they may have spoken out against some policies that restrict civil rights and liberty, they have supported Socialist policies that also take away civil rights and liberty (the income tax, entitlement programs, unrestricted spending, regulations, etc).
So Kucinich and the rest are enemies of liberty just like those that support NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc. Progressives are as bad or worse than neo-cons. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric.
Ask the Jews and Poles that got shipped off on Boxcars to "detention camps" about what the loss of liberty means. Or the those that ended up in the Obama administration’s maintenance and proxy operation of secret CIA-run prisons in Somalia. http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia Or those in the secret prisons acknowledged by U.S. President George W. Bush, (during Sept. 6, 2006 speech) operated by the United States (U.S.) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), generally outside of U.S. territory and legal jurisdiction. The facilities are controlled by the CIA used by the U.S. government in its "War on Terror" to detain alleged unlawful enemy combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site &
A balanced budget won't mean squat when government authorities have the power to kick in your door, unlawfully search your home without cause or a warrant, detain you without probable cause and hold you indefinitely without trial.
What America does to "them" might one day (maybe sooner than we think should the financial situation implode) be used against American citizens. The Germans didn't start their atrocities with acts against the Jews. They first went after the Bolsheviks and Communism which the world supported and applauded them for. When Hitler first came into power the world was so communist-phobic (like it is now Arab-phobic) that Hitler was seen as a good thing.
HOWEVER, if morality and ethics and being anti illegal killing isn't enough, let's talk money...
The projected tax revenues for 2011 are $1.6 trillion (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.pdf) . The amount spend on military in 2011 is $1.030–$1.415 trillion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States ALMOST EVERY DIME COLLECTED FROM TAXES IS GOING INTO THE MILITARY BUDGET. And you ask WHY we have a deficit?
Yet Romney wants to INCREASE military spending. While taking away our liberties.
NO.
Liberal voters are not our enemies. The governments that are eliminating our constitutional rights, illegally killing foreign AND American citizens, taxing us to the hilt to "grow their kingdoms" and be the "toughest guy on the block with the most and biggest guns", that taxes our citizens to pay for the bonuses and the security of the big banks that gambled away our money on purpose, that lines its pockets with insider trading profits and lobbyist "favors" and owns all of the media (both GOP & Democrats do) to filter the news we get to hear.
The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. ~Ron Paul
In my opinion. And no to Romney.
tbone717
03-17-2012, 11:19 PM
Policyreader,
Someone can have an equally bad grasp of domestic policy and vote for something where they feel the intentions are noble. I have no doubt that many who supported the Patriot Act thought they were doing so with good intentions. Just as Progressives feel they are doing things with good intentions. We can go around on this all day, but I give no excuse or praise to either.
jolynna,
Ask the mother and child living in a slum because the system makes it nearly impossible for them to escape. Restricting government's power to kick in our door, etc doesn't mean squat if we are buried in debt and unable to make ends meet. When we are slaves to the government we are not free. Thousands of Americans have died because of Progressive welfare policies long before any of the post 9/11 stuff came into being. The policies are equally bad, and as libertarian-conservatives we cannot let our focus be greater on one than another.
Good night
opinionatedfool
03-17-2012, 11:33 PM
I wouldn't write him off yet, as of THIS point his delegate count is quite good, from the convention reports we are getting. It is the lack of media coverage and momentum which is necessary for the upcoming primary states that is problematic, and, while hard to foresee how that would change right now, stranger things have happened in this campaign.
+rep sailingaway. You always have good things to say.
helmuth_hubener
03-17-2012, 11:40 PM
The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement doesn't get stuck with a Bush. The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement isn't a Reagan! Reagan was a sell-out from day one. He never, ever, ever stood for anything. Zip. California state budget while he was governor? Look it up. He was not a small-government person. He was a big government person who lied about being for small government.
Let's avoid scum like that.
But anyway, yes, keep the long term in perspective, but keep trying to win this election, too. It could happen. The future is uncertain.
jolynna
03-17-2012, 11:45 PM
Policyreader,
Someone can have an equally bad grasp of domestic policy and vote for something where they feel the intentions are noble. I have no doubt that many who supported the Patriot Act thought they were doing so with good intentions. Just as Progressives feel they are doing things with good intentions. We can go around on this all day, but I give no excuse or praise to either.
jolynna,
Ask the mother and child living in a slum because the system makes it nearly impossible for them to escape. Restricting government's power to kick in our door, etc doesn't mean squat if we are buried in debt and unable to make ends meet. Thousands of Americans died because of Progressive welfare policies long before any of the post 9/11 stuff came into being. The policies are equally bad, and as libertarian-conservatives we cannot let our focus be greater on one than another.
Good night
Think I've never been poor?
But, I was free, so I didn't HAVE to stay poor.
It sure as heck did make a difference to me that I could come and go as I pleased and that no authority had the power to kick down my door or throw me in jail indefinitely unless I did something wrong. Freedom is everything because when you are free there is ALWAYS hope.
In my opinion.
jolynna
03-17-2012, 11:55 PM
Since it fits with the line this thread has taken, I brought this post from another thread over:
Our current administration is putting all the pieces in place for a war on its own people. This is starting to pile up at a rapid rate. If its Obama, Romney or Santorum we could lose what our founders fought so hard for. We have one shot to get Dr. Paul elected and we cannot fail. Put more effort into this campaign than you ever have for anything in your life. Do not fail into the trap of being lazy now. There have been so many posts about great people going above and beyond the cause and I urge you to do the same. If your in a state that hasn't started yet from my experience in Nevada you have to drag voters to the polls even if they agree with you. If your in a state where your involved in the delegate process, keep fighting and show up no matter what.
I was lucky in my county convention as we sent the most delegates to state from the largest county in Nevada. I have also seen all the posts from across the country including another county in Nevada where they are trying to cheat us. Tape Everything even if it means just turning on a microphone on a smart phone. Roberts Rules is very important so we do not make any mistakes. Let them continue to try and cheat us as we beat them at their own game. America is at stake and we are responsible to make sure our Republic is restored.
Cheers to everyone who has given so much!
Do not listen to anyone trying to derail the campaign!
The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
Ron Paul Thank you for your great post!
PolicyReader
03-18-2012, 12:00 AM
Policyreader,
Someone can have an equally bad grasp of domestic policy and vote for something where they feel the intentions are noble. I have no doubt that many who supported the Patriot Act thought they were doing so with good intentions. Just as Progressives feel they are doing things with good intentions. We can go around on this all day, but I give no excuse or praise to either.
jolynna,
Ask the mother and child living in a slum because the system makes it nearly impossible for them to escape. Restricting government's power to kick in our door, etc doesn't mean squat if we are buried in debt and unable to make ends meet. When we are slaves to the government we are not free. Thousands of Americans have died because of Progressive welfare policies long before any of the post 9/11 stuff came into being. The policies are equally bad, and as libertarian-conservatives we cannot let our focus be greater on one than another.
Good night
I haven't given excuse or praise to either. However the "Patriot" Act and many of it's contemporaries were mean to expire and despite that (and the various indications of impropriety and misconduct) they have been renewed more than once. It is logistically easier to repeal oppressive policing practices that are by wrote meant to expire than to end a system upon which people have become dependent. Taking the longer view it is notable that the bad economic polices have been digging their rut for longer to get to the point of harm they are doing so unless your advocacy is somehow that the bad economic policy is more damaging than the bad civil and foreign policies (which are in themselves bad for the economy) the folks voting for the NDAA, "Patriot" Act, ExPat bill, anti-protest bill, et al are clearly coming out on the short end of the stick due to the immediacy of the negative effects and their continued refusal to alter course, or rather their continued instance that the course which was undertaken as a temporary measure be continuously extended.
It is worth noting here that the policies under discussion aren't really partisan questions when it comes down to it, as Obama, Romney, Reid, Santorum and many others display for us consistently.
And let is be blunt here, understanding market trends and economic theory is more obtuse than understanding the nuances of warrantless police action, execution without trial or indefinite detention based on suspicion. Because we're not talking about all of the abstractions of domestic policy or a failure to see the long term implication of a new law we're talking about reading a proposal to codify military detention of suspects without limitation on time. Then when protest erupts revising it so such detentions are now just being codified as legal rather than codified as mandatory which was the original proposal. And then after much debate and the law being passed rejecting a proposed bill that would strip the most onerous clauses.
That's much more glaring and blunt, and requires far less specialized knowledge than does understanding of economics.
Stripping someones right to trial by jury is more straight forward than the process of a hidden tax via inflation.
twomp
03-18-2012, 12:10 AM
One only needs to visit the "inner city" section of any major metropolitan area to see the obvious effect that Progressives have had on this country. They don't get a pass on this because of their supposed "good intentions". NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps -- they are all equally bad.
As I said, Kucinich is as much of an enemy of liberty as Gingrich is.
My family immigrated here from Vietnam after the war (legally of course). When they first came here, my mom washed dishes and my dad cleaned toilets. It might be shocking to you but it was not enough for us to get by. We received government aid in the form of Medicare and Food stamps. Eventually they learned enough english, my dad got licensed to fix cars, my mom to cut hair. They started their own business and we got off Welfare the first chance we got. We will forever be greatful to the United States and their people for that. Litterally saved our lives.
I understand how those same programs are now sucking the life out of our economy but I definitely do not equate that to being the same as having the right to search a person's house without a warrant, indefinitely detaining a person without trial or bombing a country "pre-emptively". I understand your anger at us "liberals" but I don't think the examples you give are equivalent.
Electric Church
03-18-2012, 12:42 AM
So he has amassed a ton of young people to his campaign, and his main message to them has been to become delegates. Suddenly, it dawned on me what Ron Paul has been doing.
Ron Paul didn’t amass a ton of young people to his campaign the young people amassed to him because they are the single largest demographic to get their political information from alternative sources on the Internet. Many within the core of these young supporters were informed about liberty and the corrupt Fed system by many others before they even heard about Ron Paul.
The GOP establishment can not be changed from within and from the lower ranks up… it either has to be torn apart from the top down with RP as presidential nominee or severely weakened into insignificance by a viable 3rd party option. If Ron Paul tries to incrementally change the GOP from within from the bottom up it will fail because it will be quickly assimilated into the establishment fold just like the tea party and that will be the end of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Tinnuhana
03-18-2012, 01:11 AM
Here's another angle to look at: I wondered why Ron was so open about taking delegates at the conventions. After the past few days, it seems clear that because he has been very open about it, GOP machinations have been put in place. Now the whole country and world is getting to see first hand, the corruption. Republicans sincere in their beliefs cannot but look at what's really happening and question what the party is so afraid of. Now when Ron Paul talks about freedom and the Constitution/Bill of Rights, these events will replay in their minds. The true emperor, not a candidate, has been exposed as being naked.
I only ask that our freinds from the blue side look to their own party to see where corruption exists there. This is systemic.
I'd take a thousand Kuchinich's in government over neo-cons. At least you know he's not going to kill hundreds of thousands of people through bad foreign policy. He's got solidly good intentions, and while you may disagree with him in principle, and while that disagreement may be a chasm, it's important to recognize his intentions are good. He's not going to kill, torture, or imprison innocents. And while you may disagree with his fiscal beliefs, and even consider him an 'enemy of liberty' as a result, I'd much rather be working to solve that problem right now than trying to extricate ourselves from multiple endless pre-emptive wars (as well as massive fiscal problems). Perspective is key.
helmuth_hubener
03-18-2012, 03:01 AM
Everybody's intentions are good. Maybe. If you're sold on them. (And all these people are talented sociopaths, so if you're not already strongly prejudiced against them by your brand-loyalty, talk to them for a few minutes or listen to them on their terms, and you will be sold on them.)
But everybody's policies are monstrous.
And so I don't really care what their intentions may or may not be.
Impossible to tell anyway, because they're sociopaths. That's what it means to be a sociopath. They are horrifyingly good at making you, and everyone, like and trust them and be convinced they have good intentions.
Feeding the Abscess
03-18-2012, 03:10 AM
I'd take a thousand Kuchinich's in government over neo-cons. At least you know he's not going to kill hundreds of thousands of people through bad foreign policy. He's got solidly good intentions, and while you may disagree with him in principle, and while that disagreement may be a chasm, it's important to recognize his intentions are good. He's not going to kill, torture, or imprison innocents. And while you may disagree with his fiscal beliefs, and even consider him an 'enemy of liberty' as a result, I'd much rather be working to solve that problem right now than trying to extricate ourselves from multiple endless pre-emptive wars (as well as massive fiscal problems). Perspective is key.
This. War is the health of the state, and him opposing foreign wars and the war on drugs makes him a greater ally of liberty than the GOP, which by and large is also socialist.
Crotale
03-18-2012, 03:14 AM
Oh obviously. But the bottom line is....either he's running for President, or he isn't. If he's not, then he should stop telling people that he needs money to run for President.
Do you expect instant success? A liberty candidate to run for President and suddenly romp to victory? No, the foundation has been built. You think such a strong R3VOLUTION would have been possible if we had ran purely on an educational platform?
It takes time.
Lishy
03-18-2012, 04:03 AM
I think Ron is planting his seeds in the future generation, rather than the motivation-less, stubborn adults.
cheapseats
03-18-2012, 04:12 AM
Do you expect instant success? A liberty candidate to run for President and suddenly romp to victory? No, the foundation has been built. You think such a strong R3VOLUTION would have been possible if we had ran purely on an educational platform?
It takes time.
Ron Paul has been in office for the better part of THREE DECADES. This is his THIRD presidential run.
Some are saying WE'RE OUTTA TIME. Some are still saying MARATHON-NOT-SPRINT. They are ENTIRELY different mindsets.
S.Shorland
03-18-2012, 04:54 AM
I watched the full interview with RP,the latter part of which they quoted to Nassim Taleb.RP mentioned also that if you cut the spending,you crash the economy.If you continue as 'we're' going,you crash the economy.It could go either way.That's why Ron refers to the 1921 crash.Take the medicine and get it over with.
NoOneButPaul
03-18-2012, 05:10 AM
Ron Paul has been in office for the better part of THREE DECADES. This is his THIRD presidential run.
Some are saying WE'RE OUTTA TIME. Some are still saying MARATHON-NOT-SPRINT. They are ENTIRELY different mindsets.
Well the ones who say we're out of time are wrong.
How do I know this? Because i've listened to Ron Paul speak.
He talks about the future constantly, he talks about us taking back the government constantly, he says cause for liberty waaay more often than he does President, a lot of his plans would take decades to implement... he's all about the future and while he knows we're slipping into fascism he knows we still have a lot of time to stop it. We have enough time to take back the GOP and restore freedom to this country... (It took hundreds of years for Rome to fall after Cicero died, it even lasted decades after the split)
“Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle will be won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we are gone from this earth. But it will happen. Our job in this generation is to prepare the way.” - Ron Paul
This is one of his more famous quotes... and he's talking about a movement that could take generations, it certainly doesn't sound like a man who is screaming the end is near. He may know it's getting close, but "close" to a big pictured mind like Dr. Paul's is decades, not years.
If we take back the GOP, we win this in the long run...
cheapseats
03-18-2012, 05:38 AM
Well the ones who say we're out of time are wrong.
How do I know this? Because i've listened to Ron Paul speak.
He talks about the future constantly, he talks about us taking back the government constantly, he says cause for liberty waaay more often than he does President, a lot of his plans would take decades to implement... he's all about the future and while he knows we're slipping into fascism he knows we still have a lot of time to stop it.
We have "a lot of time" to stop our slide into Fascism? I think not.
We have enough time to take back the GOP and restore freedom to this country... (It took hundreds of years for Rome to fall after Cicero died, it even lasted decades after the split)
I reject the notion that "restoring the GOP" portion of a TWO-PARTY STRANGLEHOLD restores Freedom.
The Roman Empire having SEVERAL HUNDRED more years under its acquisitive belt could explain a longer, slower Fall. Moreover, importantly, Roman Decline was not turbo-charged by "high finance".
“Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle will be won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we are gone from this earth. But it will happen. Our job in this generation is to prepare the way.” - Ron Paul
This is one of his more famous quotes... and he's talking about a movement that could take generations, it certainly doesn't sound like a man who is screaming the end is near. He may know it's getting close, but "close" to a big pictured mind like Dr. Paul's is decades, not years.
Do 20-Somethings GET that Ron Paul's lifetime and THEIR lifetimes have rather different SELL BY dates?
If we take back the GOP, we win this in the long run...
Thus far, BIG 'if'.
QUESTION: Do you think America/Americans would be better served by TWO parties or MORE THAN TWO parties?
Crotale
03-18-2012, 06:11 AM
Ron Paul has been in office for the better part of THREE DECADES. This is his THIRD presidential run.
Some are saying WE'RE OUTTA TIME. Some are still saying MARATHON-NOT-SPRINT. They are ENTIRELY different mindsets.
What's your short term plan for quickly restoring liberty then?
NoOneButPaul
03-18-2012, 06:38 AM
We have "a lot of time" to stop our slide into Fascism? I think not.
Dr. Paul disagrees... i'll trust him.
I reject the notion that "restoring the GOP" portion of a TWO-PARTY STRANGLEHOLD restores Freedom.
The Roman Empire having SEVERAL HUNDRED more years under its acquisitive belt could explain a longer, slower Fall. Moreover, importantly, Roman Decline was not turbo-charged by "high finance".
Take back the GOP and we can eliminate all parties forever with a constitutional amendment, decentralize the world's financial system, we could do whatever we wanted if we owned half the government and stood for liberty and justice.
We'll never have that type of power with a 3rd party (in fact all we'd do is hand the government over to the democrats who are still worse when it comes to Big Government)
Do 20-Somethings GET that Ron Paul's lifetime and THEIR lifetimes have rather different SELL BY dates?
He says "our job" he's talking about the movement and he damn well knows the age of the movement, the entire reason he's targeting us is because he knows we have more time on our side than anyone else and the problem is still fixable in OUR lifetime.
Thus far, BIG 'if'.
QUESTION: Do you think America/Americans would be better served by TWO parties or MORE THAN TWO parties?
America would be better served with no parties, but if we're going to go past 2 parties we need 4 or 6 or 8 or 10. We can't have an odd number because it means that someone is going to dominate the scene.
But any kind of party reform only happens if we have the power to do something, right now the power to do something belongs with the 2 party system.
We take back the GOP and anything is possible, and we've got decades to do it...
and BIG IF? This is the bigger picture stuff I think is going over people's heads...
Ron Paul has nearly tripled his voting base in 4 years, the country is waking up to this idea of liberty and freedom. He might not win but the fact is the country is moving in his direction by leaps and bounds (just consider where he was 25 years ago in 87, or even 5 years ago in 2007, and then tell me it's a BIG IF). As time goes on and it becomes more obvious to the laymens that their freedom and wealth are in jeopardy they'll start waking up to what we've been talking about. It's already starting to happen, we're proof of that.
Because we have the most time on our side as long as we take Paul's place as a collective force for freedom and liberty we will not be stopped by any GOP elite.
Dr. Paul has spent 30 years building this up from nothing, and now it's now growing at such an uncontrollable pace that 15-20 years from now we will be in a position to take back the party completely, much in the same way the social conservatives did in the late 80s/early 90s.
...
tbone717
03-18-2012, 06:50 AM
What's your short term plan for quickly restoring liberty then?
I'll take a stab at that one. There are House, Senate and state races where libertarian Republicans are running for the office. The nomination contest was the big prize of 2012, but there are 468 congressional seats up for grabs this year & hundreds of state offices, many of them have a libertarian-conservative running for the nomination or in the general. So while we likely have lost the big one, we can and will win many elections this year. The larger our numbers are in Congress, the easier it is to have legislation that we support move through Congress (or block that which we oppose) and the closer we come to restoring liberty in this country.
american.swan
03-18-2012, 07:03 AM
I've always believed we have to get 2000 delegates to Tampa whether Paul is the nominee or NOT.
tbone717
03-18-2012, 07:33 AM
I've always believed we have to get 2000 delegates to Tampa whether Paul is the nominee or NOT.
1144 is the magic number, and even that might be mathematically impossible at this point. 1144 requires Paul supporters to be in 50% of all available delegate slots.
kathy88
03-18-2012, 08:07 AM
My family immigrated here from Vietnam after the war (legally of course). When they first came here, my mom washed dishes and my dad cleaned toilets. It might be shocking to you but it was not enough for us to get by. We received government aid in the form of Medicare and Food stamps. Eventually they learned enough english, my dad got licensed to fix cars, my mom to cut hair. They started their own business and we got off Welfare the first chance we got. We will forever be greatful to the United States and their people for that. Litterally saved our lives.
I understand how those same programs are now sucking the life out of our economy but I definitely do not equate that to being the same as having the right to search a person's house without a warrant, indefinitely detaining a person without trial or bombing a country "pre-emptively". I understand your anger at us "liberals" but I don't think the examples you give are equivalent.
Twomp, excellent post. And as you described above, that was the original intent of these entitlement programs. To help families until they could help themselves for a temporary amount of time. Unfortunately, there are millions who utilize these systems today who have no intention of ever taking personal responsibility and only want more and more entitlements. And when you put it into that perspective, it is just as dangerous. People who are DEPENDENT completely and totally on the government for their very existence are a huge danger to this movement and our politicians. They will vote for anyone who promises to continue the free ride, and those they elect are the ones enactinh the lousy policies.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.