Ron Paul speech from 2008, extremely appropriate right now

[cdc482]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hqOpeRnvvNo

[Mr. Perfidy]

that was literally the greatest speech that I have ever heard. Ron Paul is the fuckin' man

[Mr. Perfidy]

How do you get copies of it for your hard-drive? I don't want to rely on it being online.

[dancjm]

Amazing speech.

And the most important part:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g1TaYYGv8Q

Spread for truth.

[thatpeculiarcat]

+fuckingrep
That was absolutely fantastic

And to Mr. Perfidy, there are numerous ways to do it. I use Real Player Downloader and just download the video. When you hover over a YouTube video with your mouse a little popup comes up that says "Download This Video to Real Player"

There are numerous other downloaders that will do the job, however I like Real Player.

[Karsten]

How did we go from this in 2008... to the constant, anti-3rd party rhetoric we heard this year coupled with the Romney thing.

[IDefendThePlatform]

That was a freaking awesome speech. Do we have the technology to clone Ron Paul yet? We need about 10 more exactly like him and the statists would be screwed.

[Mr. Perfidy]

He has fifty million psychic children, fuck clones.

[cdc482]

How do you get copies of it for your hard-drive? I don't want to rely on it being online.

http://keep-tube.com/?url=http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hqOpeRnvvNo
(http://keep-tube.com/?url=http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hqOpeRnvvNo)
Just take the original URL and replace the "you" in youtube with "keep-"

[Mr. Perfidy]

awesome, thank you

[cdc482]

If you guys like the speech, I encourage you to start working with third parties: especially the green party and the independent party to work together and make real change.

I kind of beat the topic to death all day in this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380226-Progressives-Libertarians-Social-Programs

Also, go on http://www.isidewith.com/
I think you'll find that you agree with all of the third party candidates on all the important issues (minus one or two) and disagree with the major candidates on nearly all of the important issues.

It's time for us to come together. We can't keep letting the republicans and democrats screw us every single time.

[coffeewithchess]

How did we go from this in 2008... to the constant, anti-3rd party rhetoric we heard this year coupled with the Romney thing.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

...other than that, I'm not even sure.

[paulbot24]

Thanks for sharing this video. Yes. Each one of us has a choice, but if a third party is eventually the only answer, we must unify our collective vote into one overall powerful vote. A successful third party must combine all the votes that have differing views outside the Repub/Dem box into a unified vote. There is a comment at youtube which is very good which explains what happens in the current third party system if the independent vote is not unified. The comment says this:

Bob Barr actually boycotted this event by Ron Paul to unify all the parties outside of the Republican and Democrat parties. It was an attempt by RP to create a major 3rd Party to go up against the Reps and Dems. Bob Barr was a jerk for not attending who burned his bridges. RP endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party instead of Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. Fast forward to today, Bob Barr endorses Newt Gingrinch instead of Libertarian's Gary Johnson or Ron Paul to get back at him.

The above scenario which played out in 2008, and is rearing its ugly head again, is exactly what we do not need and will continue to make the independent vote powerless against the R/D controlling voter mindset. Again, if a third party becomes a necessity only, we must unify our vote. A viable third party would require the independent vote coming together to shatter the R/D paradigm. The question is whether we want to abandon the GOP when we finally are making our voices heard within it. I can't speak for Ron Paul, to be sure, but I think that answer would be no, or at least, not right now.

[paulbot24]

bump for clarification

[nobody's_hero]

Barr actually endorsed Romney via his twitter account a while back. I think I posted a thread in the 'opposing candidates' forum. Not really important. I know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to see Ron Paul do the 3rd party conference again. I remain firmly convinced that the future is not with the Democrats or Republicans. The sun is setting on that era. Third parties have been around a long time, trying to gain traction; In terms of potential, they have no where to go but up, while the GOP/Democratic parties have no where to go but down.

Tsunamis are actually waves that travel along the ocean floor, and do not actually crest until they are pushed up as they approach the shoreline. Hell of a time to try and build a beach house to shack up with the GOP. They are not going to know what hit them, even though it was they who discredited themselves.

We are getting involved in a party that is about to go down in flames when the war bankrupts us. We cannot join the Democrats, because they too will be burning when welfare bankrupts us. I do not think the system can sustain itself until 2016, and I do not want to be standing anywhere near the bloody axe when America's body is found.

[freedomordeath]

why can't we do both, stick with the GOP and carry on with the work there, but pick a 3rd party with a name that is cool. I think the constitution party is a good name simply because 100years from now the name might be the only thing that will remind poeple of the actual constitution. It matters not where they stand because we simply take it over lol. Once we take it over then we can build the infrastructure year on year, slowly but surely. Get the party on the ballot in each state. The nice thing is we can use both parties to play off each other even telling the one to stand down if we have to.

We can start infiltrating the Democrats with the blue Republicans and mind "£$ these poeple. This has to be decentralised control, like minded poeple that watch what others do and through intellegence and like mindedness will implement the logical plan without needing centralized instructions.

It is imperative that we have our own media too.

[Gravik]

I think this one is very relevant too:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

[Peace&Freedom]

Thanks for sharing this video. Yes. Each one of us has a choice, but if a third party is eventually the only answer, we must unify our collective vote into one overall powerful vote. A successful third party must combine all the votes that have differing views outside the Repub/Dem box into a unified vote. There is a comment at youtube which is very good which explains what happens in the current third party system if the independent vote is not unified. The comment says this:

Bob Barr actually boycotted this event by Ron Paul to unify all the parties outside of the Republican and Democrat parties. It was an attempt by RP to create a major 3rd Party to go up against the Reps and Dems. Bob Barr was a jerk for not attending who burned his bridges. RP endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party instead of Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. Fast forward to today, Bob Barr endorses Newt Gingrinch instead of Libertarian's Gary Johnson or Ron Paul to get back at him.

The above scenario which played out in 2008, and is rearing its ugly head again, is exactly what we do not need and will continue to make the independent vote powerless against the R/D controlling voter mindset. Again, if a third party becomes a necessity only, we must unify our vote. A viable third party would require the independent vote coming together to shatter the R/D paradigm. The question is whether we want to abandon the GOP when we finally are making our voices heard within it. I can't speak for Ron Paul, to be sure, but I think that answer would be no, or at least, not right now.

But the answer of the supporters of doing things through the Republican party is always no to the 3d party route, not just 'right now'---no matter what happens. The "go third party only as a Plan B" would be an acceptable position to take, if the advocates of it had not continually sabotaged it, by discouraging 3rd party advocates from talking about it, preparing for it as a contingency, or suggesting it as a way to complement the GOP nomination strategy. When push comes to shove, the third party option is never respected or integrated into the planning.

Despite all the history of compromise or betrayal associated with the "reform the GOP" concept, and that party's history of either co-opting or marginalizing grassroots movements, the entire rEVOLution has been relentlessly told to focus ONLY on this route to power, and deride as 'losers' or 'irrelevant' any one who supported anything else. Then we always get to the end of an election cycle, when it's about too late to pursue a contingency plan, and the GOP advocates go back to saying "we have to plan better to get the Republican nomination next time, so we have to stay focused..." And around and around we go.

[Mini-Me]

But the answer of the supporters of doing things through the Republican party is always no to the 3d party route, not just 'right now'---no matter what happens.
The post you just replied to contradicts your reply. ;)

I fully believe in voting third party in general elections to build third party credibility and protest the two-party system, but this is not only a long term effort but a longshot effort as well. Ron Paul's speech was indeed epic and heartfelt, but it was followed by a totally dismal combined third party showing. That speech was Ron Paul's last-ditch hail Mary effort at creating a sudden third party upset...but actually winning, as opposed to just making a statement, requires consolidating under a single ticket. I hate the two-party system as much as anyone, but we cannot devise a winning strategy based on our outrage and similar emotions. Actually putting the brunt of our efforts into third party politics is futile, because there are far too many parties to split the impact and the vote (we'd never consolidate). We'd also have to consolidate with the far left to really make a splash in a three-way general election, but they would never vote for a libertarian without a change of heart, and libertarians would never vote for a socialist (especially if we thought they might actually win), which puts us at an impasse.

The Libertarian Party has been trying the third party route for forty years already, along with other parties, and they've only managed isolated wins in minor seats in all this time...nowhere near enough of a foothold to change the electoral system for good. Electing Ross Perot in 1992 would have shocked public opinion enough to give third parties a temporary window of opportunity to get elected and change the law before the two-party system reasserted itself in the form of the same parties or different ones (it's the inevitable result of winner-take-all plurality voting...perhaps the worst possible voting system). The opportunity passed though, and the establishment media has made sure to polarize partisans more since then, to ensure people vote for the "person most likely to beat the one they hate the most." Many of the conservative-leaning people who voted for Perot swore never again to vote third party after it ensured Clinton's victory. Ron Paul has changed that once again, so there is hope that with gradually increasing third party showings in general elections every cycle, we will earn another window of opportunity down the road. I am one of those people that will consistently vote for acceptable third party candidates in the absence of a major party liberty candidate...but it's not realistic to actually expect sudden victory after 1% showings the previous cycle. That's magical thinking. Only a Presidential victory would be enough to quickly break the two party system for a time in the realm of public opinion, and that is not realistically within our reach even this year. I mean, here we have the entire conservative base scrambling to vote for Romney to beat Obama (futile), and even Ron Paul has only enjoyed modest support from the left in the primaries, where they had nothing to lose (so just imagine a three-way election between Ron Paul, Blue, and Red, their nemesis).

Barring a Presidential victory, the only way we can really make third parties relevant is to get rid of plurality voting, but we need majority control over Congress to make that happen, if not state governments or public opinion too, since it might require a Constitutional Amendment to stick. To do that, we need another approach, and leveraging the resources of a major party can give us the ability to efficiently field huge numbers of liberty candidates...after we take over. Only a small minority of us have been attempting to take over the Republican Party for four years. That's a VERY short time, and with a small fraction of us actually going and doing it, yet we've already won local and state chair positions. The establishment's control over the GOP is an order of magnitude weaker than the two-party grip over the electoral process, because their control of the GOP depends entirely on whether more neocons or libertarians will have the motivation to get involved locally. That makes it their weak spot, because our ground game is second to none. Taking over the GOP entirely is eminently achievable in the span of a decade or less IF we work together, but the more we split our efforts, the longer it will take, and the more difficult it will be.

This has nothing to do with "party loyalty" or any such intellectually dishonest straw man arguments like that...at the time when I first heard Ron Paul, I was a social democrat registered as an independent, and I was dreaming up and revising universal healthcare and education systems in my free time, and now I'm nearly an-cap. I have no love for the GOP. It's just a strategy that's working, slowly but surely. I'm also not here to take away from the Gary Johnson effort, and I think people who crap all over him are being just as destructive as people who use straw man arguments to discredit the winning strategy of taking over the GOP. We NEED Gary to channel our protest votes in the general election (we are pissed, hear us roar!), because we'd need a miracle in Tampa to pit Ron against Obama, and a miracle by definition is unlikely.

I'm writing this post as a plea to the rest of you not to SCATTER by abandoning the most promising strategy we have out of spite. We have made an impact with Ron Paul 2008 and Ron Paul 2012 because we united behind a common strategy...and if we scatter in a hundred directions - inevitable with a third party focus - we'll revert from a formidable force into small pockets of admirable but voiceless malcontents once more. We should vote third party in general elections, and we should convince others to vote third party in general elections, but we should put the brunt of our more hands-on political activism into a strategy that's actually showing the promise to snowball, and where we can hold the ground we've gained. That just so happens to be the only strategy we have a hope of uniting behind, because it's the one Ron Paul has laid out for us.

As a final note, I should stress that third parties will always be around, but this is our only chance to take over the GOP: Our window of opportunity is short, because the establishment is already recognizing their mistake...just like they recognized their mistake after 1992 and further polarized the public. If we back down now and scatter, we will give them the opportunity they need to lock down the GOP rules and potentially keep us out forever.

[twomp]

But the answer of the supporters of doing things through the Republican party is always no to the 3d party route, not just 'right now'---no matter what happens. The "go third party only as a Plan B" would be an acceptable position to take, if the advocates of it had not continually sabotaged it, by discouraging 3rd party advocates from talking about it, preparing for it as a contingency, or suggesting it as a way to complement the GOP nomination strategy. When push comes to shove, the third party option is never respected or integrated into the planning.

Despite all the history of compromise or betrayal associated with the "reform the GOP" concept, and that party's history of either co-opting or marginalizing grassroots movements, the entire rEVOLution has been relentlessly told to focus ONLY on this route to power, and deride as 'losers' or 'irrelevant' any one who supported anything else. Then we always get to the end of an election cycle, when it's about too late to pursue a contingency plan, and the GOP advocates go back to saying "we have to plan better to get the Republican nomination next time, so we have to stay focused..." And around and around we go.

I totally agree with this. Like it or not, as of now, we are attached to the GOP. The "libertarian wing" of the GOP, right next to the "Tea Party wing" and the "evangelical wing". A collection of some of their greatest co-opts.

There is no way for liberty to be delivered to us by the GOP or DNC. It will always come with a "compromise" and promise that it will happen or that "these things take time." I've said it other threads but I honestly believe that the GOP as a tool for liberty has served its purpose. It's time Dr. Paul go 3rd party and sever us from the GOP.

[nobody's_hero]

I totally agree with this. Like it or not, as of now, we are attached to the GOP. The "libertarian wing" of the GOP, right next to the "Tea Party wing" and the "evangelical wing". A collection of some of their greatest co-opts.



Sometimes I do feel like a trophy in someone else's case, when it comes to the GOP. I never felt that way as an independent voter. I certainly never felt that way when I didn't vote at all.

When this political adventure is all over, I want my soul back.

[Peace&Freedom]

As a final note, I should stress that third parties will always be around, but this is our only chance to take over the GOP: Our window of opportunity is short, because the establishment is already recognizing their mistake...just like they recognized their mistake after 1992 and further polarized the public. If we back down now and scatter, we will give them the opportunity they need to lock down the GOP rules and potentially keep us out forever.

Who said anything about scattering? The suggestion was we look to incorporate 3rd party planning into advancing the liberty movement, instead of putting it into false opposition with the Republican plan. So I see the point was missed, because the mentality of "keep efforts GOP centered" dominates the conception as to what defines "scattering." You clearly think any activity for liberty outside the Republican universe "at this critical point" means "back down and scatter." In my conversations with Republicans over 20 years, this is ALWAYS the mentality---we are always "on the cusp of break through," but ONLY if we stick to the GOP path can we succeed, yada, yada.

The party establishment does NOT like the independent power base the Pauls have created within their universe, and are already doing everything in their power to co-opt it or disintegrate it. The CFL mailing list is increasingly being used to promote mainstream (pro-war, pro-Fed, neo con) Republicans, perhaps as part of the Rand compromise, or because of infiltrators. GOP leaders are certainly going to change the primary schedule and state GOP convention rules in 2016, to prevent the extended race that gave Paul a chance to secure victories in the first place. IAW, the system will be even MORE rigged in the next cycle than it is now, to shut down the delegate strategy. The window has already closed, or as Lew Rockwell has said, "you can't reform the Mafia from within." More likely, you will get rubbed out.

You do realize that in the unlikely case that Romney wins in November, he will then seek to purge the Paul supporters from the power positions they have won in the state Republican parties this year? The old guard might even try to do that even if Romney loses the election, and often succeed (ask Max Collins). Proceeding both inside and outside the GOP does not "scatter" the movement, it augments it. Pursuing a dual track this year would have given Paul leverage to prevent the GOP machine from election rigging him out of primary and caucus victories. Because he did not use it, he had no leverage to stop the fraud, or to counter the perception that Romney was the 'electable' candidate. That's just one example of how coordinating the strength of the movement both outside and inside the main parties could help on both fronts.

Here's another scenario, for 2016, showing the superiority of the dual approach. Rand Paul inherits and retains the entire Ron Paul/CFL infrastructure and grassroots network, and mounts his run for the Republican nomination. The national GOP establishment (despite being salted by Paul supporters here and there) wraps around Jeb Bush or whichever "next anointed" warmonger/Fed bankster TPTB want next. The establishment does exactly the same crap to Rand as it did to Ron in the early primaries and caucuses, such that by early spring, as always, the nomination looks wrapped up for the more-war/more-Fed candidate, who is coronated the winner by the media. In mid-April 2016, having been defrauded three straight times waiting for the GOP Godot, how will 'do it through the GOP-only' crowd look then?

But there is a silver lining in this '16 scenario---since he will be retired from Congress, and because the Rand candidacy will have been tried and failed, Ron Paul will be free to run third party for the LP nomination! It won't hurt Rand, because he'll elect to stay in the GOP and Senate. No sour grapes law problems, as a different Paul will be running. But it will give the entire movement (the grassroots, and the Paulians in the GOP infrastructure) a place to go to finally elect a viable national liberty candidate. That's how working on both tracks could accomplish something other than another heartache.

[Kurt Evans]

--

[freedomordeath]

In my dream world, non-Christian libertarians would all recognize Thomas Jefferson's generic "Creator" and government's role in protecting the right to life He endows, and Christians would all recognize that what Muslims and homosexuals and marijuana users do is generally between them and that Creator and no one else. In the real world, I'm still struggling to see where we go from here, but the idea of falling into line behind a petulant, arrogant chameleon like Multiple-Choice Mitt definitely doesn't inspire me.

Thats why I would avoid a party like the Libertarian party simply because you have various levels of libertarianism even anarchists. eg some believe that there should be open borders and everyone roam around as they see fit as long as they dont hurt anyone. This is flawed because the border protects a free society from brainwashed poor streaming over the border ready to get their expected handout as conditioned, a free country is a new/rare concept in historical terms. In a party like this there will be huge arguments becuase poeple will question HOW LIBERTARIAN THEY ARE, LOW LEVEL OR HIGH LEVEL, also some folk esp on the border will simply not support you.

The constitution party is cool because it embraces freedom and liberty, but allows a system where states can become authortarian, socialist, libertarian hell even facisit if they want. It is a system that regonises states rights and poeple can move to a state of their choice. The name suggests a compromise between strict libertarians and anyone else not libertarian.

Also everyone KNOWS the name constitution, it would be a brand easly adopted and poeple will quickly learn of this name. The question is what are their current politics... THIS DOES NOT MATTER, if you have a 5 or 10 year plan then current politics does not matter becuase YOU SIMPLY TAKE IT OVER and elect poeple within the party and build it up. Throw the poeple out you don't want and you have yourself a party that STICKS TO THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE PARTY IS CALLED THE CONSTITION PARTY!!!

Yes Chrisitians in America can't see the future they headed for, in Europe and the UK the NWO agenda is at a more advanced stage, pastors are actually declining to get marriage liscenses because new laws are coming making it a hate crime to refuse to marry two gay dudes, so they get around this by getting a government official to legally marry you then the pastors will do the ceromony part in a church. Also if a church hires out their hall during the week, it will become a hate crime to refuse to hire it out to a gay function, so some churches no longer hire out their halls. For me 2 poeple have every right to be as gay as they want, hang from the chandeleier get a fake christian pastor to marry them , but any other individual should have the right to refuse to marry gay poeple, or let them on their property, sounds harsh but liberty works both ways baby.

[noneedtoaggress]

Thats why I would avoid a party group like the Libertarian party Ron Paul supporters simply because you have various levels of libertarianism even anarchists.

lol, I'm pretty sure there's more anarchists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tEeO-qTYo) that are Ron Paul supporters than there are in the Libertarian party :p

Why is that... I wonder? :D