Tom Woods: the pledge of allegiance is un-'Merican

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upBgi_G4_7Y#t=1421

I spoke at a very nice event on nullification (http://www.statenullification.com/) last month in Raleigh, North Carolina. At the beginning of the event, someone led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance. At 21:45, I gently correct them on this

[69360]

Oh whatever. I'm not watching that. This is so old and overdone. Yes I know all about the origins of the pledge and no I don't give a crap. It's turned into something good now.

Try and run a candidate for any office and see how being against the pledge or being associated with anyone who is works out for you.

[Contumacious]

Oh whatever. I'm not watching that. This is so old and overdone. Yes I know all about the origins of the pledge and no I don't give a crap. It's turned into something good now.

Yes, indeed it has: I pledge allegiance to the behemoth welfare/warfare state and to the banana republic for which it stands......

.

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh whatever. I'm not watching that. This is so old and overdone. Yes I know all about the origins of the pledge and no I don't give a crap. It's turned into something good now.

Try and run a candidate for any office and see how being against the pledge or being associated with anyone who is works out for you.
No it hasn't.

[Ronin Truth]

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History

by Dr. John W. Baer




Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

Bibliography:
Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/pdgech0.htm), Annapolis, Md. Free State Press, Inc., 2007. Available on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Pledge-Allegiance-Revised-Analysis-1892-2007/dp/0965062023).
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.


For more information about the history of the Pledge, be sure to also read the other online chapters of The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/pdgech0.htm) by Dr. Baer:





The Youth's Companion's Pledge (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/pdgech2.htm)
American Socialists and Reformers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/pdgech3.htm)








http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/

[Christian Liberty]

[/B]

Yes, indeed it has: I pledge allegiance to the behemoth welfare/warfare state and to the banana republic for which it stands......

.

Yes, as you showed in the latest cop thread, you do indeed.

Regarding 69360's comment, I could perhaps tolerate such a response from a politician, after all, its a superficial show of loyalty, but from outside of politics, why should we be pledging our allegiance to a country?

[69360]

Tell us why should you not pledge allegiance to your country?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Try and run a candidate for any office and see how being against the pledge or being associated with anyone who is works out for you.

The political neophytes don't understand this.

[69360]

The political neophytes don't understand this.

I'm trying to pound it into their heads. They can either have their liberterian utopia circle jerk or actually do something positive.

[torchbearer]

Tell us why should you not pledge allegiance to your country?

what is your country? how did it become that?
this union was done at gun point. we are a conquered people.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm trying to pound it into their heads. They can either have their liberterian utopia circle jerk or actually do something positive.

Truthfully some of them prefer their circle jerk.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Oh whatever. I'm not watching that. This is so old and overdone. Yes I know all about the origins of the pledge and no I don't give a crap. It's turned into something good now.

Try and run a candidate for any office and see how being against the pledge or being associated with anyone who is works out for you.

And George Bush was a decent president.

[FrankRep]

The pledge of allegience keeps reminding us that the United States is a Republic ... Not a democracy.

:-)

[torchbearer]

Truthfully some of them prefer their circle jerk.

and I thought the circle jerk was a bunch of mindless fucks standing around pledging allegiance to people who are using them as tax slaves.
the biggest circle jerk of the all, and you get to see it in full effect every 4 years. state worship.

[CaptLouAlbano]

and I thought the circle jerk was a bunch of mindless fucks standing around pledging allegiance to people who are using them as tax slaves.
the biggest circle jerk of the all, and you get to see it in full effect every 4 years. state worship.

You should use that for your campaign slogan. You'll go far.

[torchbearer]

The pledge of allegience keeps reminding is that the United States is a Republic ... Not a democracy.

:-)

and the nullification/seccession is not allow.
indivisible.

[torchbearer]

You should use that for your campaign slogan. You'll go far.

why would i want to make you my tax slave?
why would you want to be a tax slave?

[CaptLouAlbano]

why would i want to make you my tax slave?
why would you want to be a tax slave?

No you missed my point. Tell the voters how they are "a bunch of mindless fucks standing around pledging allegiance to people who are using them as tax slaves"

I think you have a winner there.

[torchbearer]

No you missed my point. Tell the voters how they are "a bunch of mindless fucks standing around pledging allegiance to people who are using them as tax slaves"

I think you have a winner there.

Work it like a comedy bit like Doug Stanhope, and see what happens.
It could work.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Work it like a comedy bit like Doug Stanhope, and see what happens.
It could work.

You keep thinking that.

[torchbearer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg-X8HWAB1M

[torchbearer]

You keep thinking that.

with both comedy and scifi, topics of self-reflecting truth can be transmitted with people's defenses down.
George Carlin had a great impact making us laugh at our own stupidity, but at the same time, it made you realize your own stupidity.

[FrankRep]

and the nullification/seccession is not allow.
indivisible.

The cornerstone of the American Republic is the Constitution. When the federal government creates a law that violates the Constituion, it's the duty of the states to nullify that law.

Nullification is very much different than Secession.

I think Tom Woods is doing more harm than good by attacking the Pledge.

[Cutlerzzz]

Oh whatever. I'm not watching that. This is so old and overdone. Yes I know all about the origins of the pledge and no I don't give a crap. It's turned into something good now.

Try and run a candidate for any office and see how being against the pledge or being associated with anyone who is works out for you.

Pledging allegiance to an indivisible government is good how?

[Contumacious]

Yes, as you showed in the latest cop thread, you do indeed.


I was just joshing.

Next time you are detained by an officer(s) get in their face, resist arrest , and get your family to join in.


Regarding 69360's comment, I could perhaps tolerate such a response from a politician, after all, its a superficial show of loyalty, but from outside of politics, why should we be pledging our allegiance to a country?

Parasitism.

.

[FrankRep]

Pledging allegiance to an indivisible government is good how?

A government with constitutional limitations, yes.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think Tom Woods is doing more harm than good by attacking the Pledge.

Absolutely he is. Instead of sticking to major issues, he points this out and puts himself on the fringe of political thought. Very typical of ideological libertarians.

[heavenlyboy34]

The cornerstone of the American Republic is the Constitution. When the federal government creates a law that violates the Constituion, it's the duty of the states to nullify that law.

Nullification is very much different than Secession.

I think Tom Woods is doing more harm than good by attacking the Pledge.
The FF's would attack the Pledge too. It's not a republican (small r) meme-it's fascist.

[heavenlyboy34]

The cornerstone of the American Republic is the Constitution. When the federal government creates a law that violates the Constituion, it's the duty of the states to nullify that law.

Nullification is very much different than Secession.

I think Tom Woods is doing more harm than good by attacking the Pledge.
I think conservatives are doing more harm than good by not attacking the Pledge. If you really do believe in the theory of "limited government", you can't believe in the text of the pledge-as the two are contradictory.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul gets it.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul205.html


Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments' authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts' jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states' republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states' republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.

While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.

Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders' constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.

Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy's vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers' vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers' system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[WM_in_MO]

Why in the hell would any free man pledge allegiance to a flag or a system of government?

[Cutlerzzz]

A government with constitutional limitations, yes.

The Pledge refers to the government as indivisible, refering to the Civil War. The pledge is vowing that the nation will never be divided again and the union will last forever, leaving the Federal Government effectively dominating the States forever.

Putting that aside, no government has constitutional limits. Pledging your eternal, undivided loyalty to the government is wrong for too many reasons to count.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Pledge refers to the government as indivisible, refering to the Civil War. The pledge is vowing that the nation will never be divided again and the union will last forever, leaving the Federal Government effectively dominating the States forever.

Putting that aside, no government has constitutional limits. Pledging your eternal, undivided loyalty to the government is wrong for too many reasons to count.
This^^

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron Paul gets it.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul205.html


Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments' authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts' jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states' republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states' republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.

While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.

Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders' constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.

Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy's vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers' vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers' system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Makes no sense. Sounds more like a guesture to impress right-wingers than reasoned Constitutionalist thought (or reasoned thought generally). One of those unfortunate things about being a politician is having to do these silly things to appease the masses of Boobus Americanus. :/

[FrankRep]

The Pledge refers to the government as indivisible, refering to the Civil War. The pledge is vowing that the nation will never be divided again and the union will last forever, leaving the Federal Government effectively dominating the States forever.

Putting that aside, no government has constitutional limits. Pledging your eternal, undivided loyalty to the government is wrong for too many reasons to count.


What you're describing is not a Constitutional Republic. I pledge myself to the Republic, not to the dictatorship of a government we have today.

[Christian Liberty]

Makes no sense. Sounds more like a guesture to impress right-wingers than reasoned Constitutionalist thought (or reasoned thought generally). One of those unfortunate things about being a politician is having to do these silly things to appease the masses of Boobus Americanus. :/

I'm not defending the pledge, but what's wrong with what he said? Of course the Feds shouldn't be making that decision.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Work it like a comedy bit like Doug Stanhope, and see what happens.
It could work.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=618U-_8o31k

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not defending the pledge, but what's wrong with what he said? Of course the Feds shouldn't be making that decision.

Here:

Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy's vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers' vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers' system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
This is not "wrong" per se, as it's just about opinion. My point was that it's an empty guesture, not reasoned thought-Constitutionalist or otherwise. I prefer the RP that argues from reason. Frank presented it to us as RP's supposed defense of the pledge, which it isn't.

[Christian Liberty]

Tell us why should you not pledge allegiance to your country?

I am a Christian, I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ alone. And our country is growing increasingly fascistic. I don't see in what way I should be loyal to "my country" anymore. Not to mention the country should not be "indivisible."

Now, as I said, I don't expect any politician to say that. But you're not a politician, I'm not a politician, and Tom Woods is not a politician.


You should use that for your campaign slogan. You'll go far.

Winning isn't everything.

I was just joshing.


Here? Or there?


Next time you are detained by an officer(s) get in their face, resist arrest , and get your family to join in.




Maybe if everyone did that no officer would want to do the job;)

Seriously though, I haven't done that, and I've never advocated anyone do something like that. This is a strawman.


Absolutely he is. Instead of sticking to major issues, he points this out and puts himself on the fringe of political thought. Very typical of ideological libertarians.

I'm proudly on the fringe. Being "moderate" just shows a lack of principle.

[FrankRep]

Makes no sense. Sounds more like a guesture to impress right-wingers than reasoned Constitutionalist thought (or reasoned thought generally). One of those unfortunate things about being a politician is having to do these silly things to appease the masses of Boobus Americanus. :/

Oh, so Ron Paul is lying again. Dude, whatever.

[Christian Liberty]

Here:

This is not "wrong" per se, as it's just about opinion. My point was that it's an empty guesture, not reasoned thought-Constitutionalist or otherwise. I prefer the RP that argues from reason. Frank presented it to us as RP's supposed defense of the pledge, which it isn't.

What "most Americans" think is imossible to know for sure, obviously. But I think keeping the Feds out of it is the right thing regardless.

[heavenlyboy34]

What "most Americans" think is imossible to know for sure, obviously. But I think keeping the Feds out of it is the right thing regardless.
We can agree on that. :)

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm proudly on the fringe. Being "moderate" just shows a lack of principle.

First off, I am hardly moderate. In fact, if you look on this thread I gave no opinion one way or another about the pledge, and I do not plan to.

The point I am making is that Woods (and people on this thread) place themselves on the fringe by bringing up issues like this. There are far bigger fish to fry than the pledge of allegiance. When one makes a statement about the pledge like we see here (or a whole host of tertiary issues), they relegate themselves to the fringe and therefore shut themselves out of being effective at reaching average Americans on the important issues. It's a problem that is common with ideological libertarians, which is why most people don't bother listening to them.

What needs to be moderated is one's speech. Ideological libertarians do not have that filter in their brain that tells them, "this is an opinion best kept to myself". Those of us that have that filter are not lacking principle at all, they are just exercising some common sense judgement.

[heavenlyboy34]

First off, I am hardly moderate. In fact, if you look on this thread I gave no opinion one way or another about the pledge, and I do not plan to.

The point I am making is that Woods (and people on this thread) place themselves on the fringe by bringing up issues like this. There are far bigger fish to fry than the pledge of allegiance. When one makes a statement about the pledge like we see here (or a whole host of tertiary issues), they relegate themselves to the fringe and therefore shut themselves out of being effective at reaching average Americans on the important issues. It's a problem that is common with ideological libertarians, which is why most people don't bother listening to them.

What needs to be moderated is one's speech. Ideological libertarians do not have that filter in their brain that tells them, "this is an opinion best kept to myself". Those of us that have that filter are not lacking principle at all, they are just exercising some common sense judgement.
I don't think discussing this amongst ourselves on the interwebz is even an attempt to "reach Average Americans on the important issues".

[Christian Liberty]

First off, I am hardly moderate. In fact, if you look on this thread I gave no opinion one way or another about the pledge, and I do not plan to.

The point I am making is that Woods (and people on this thread) place themselves on the fringe by bringing up issues like this. There are far bigger fish to fry than the pledge of allegiance. When one makes a statement about the pledge like we see here (or a whole host of tertiary issues), they relegate themselves to the fringe and therefore shut themselves out of being effective at reaching average Americans on the important issues. It's a problem that is common with ideological libertarians, which is why most people don't bother listening to them.

What needs to be moderated is one's speech. Ideological libertarians do not have that filter in their brain that tells them, "this is an opinion best kept to myself". Those of us that have that filter are not lacking principle at all, they are just exercising some common sense judgement.

Honestly, I think getting to people consciousness, and trying to show them that the system is immoral, is going to be more effective than trying to win elections. Not saying you can't try to do both, but I don't see how keeping the "radical" parts of ideological libertarianism to ourselves is really helping anything.

[69360]

And George Bush was a decent president.

I said passable, with the caveat that the Iraq war was a mistake of epic proportions.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I don't think discussing this amongst ourselves on the interwebz is even an attempt to "reach Average Americans on the important issues".

Ahh but there you are incorrect. When you search for Ron Paul or Rand Paul on Google, this site pops up pretty high on Google (more so when you search for specific topics with Ron or Rand in the search term). A casual observer browsing these forums can easily see people commenting on the pledge, cops, punching congresswomen, etc.

Secondly, this is an activist forum. Many on here are political novices, and may not understand the importance of having that filter I mentioned earlier. An issue like this is a good demonstration of why people need to have that filter in place, because one can be easily shut off without it.

Example: I knew a guy a dozen or so years ago that would come out to GOP meetings. Politically he was solid, BUT, he was a member of the Flat Earth Society, and trust me within 10 minutes of talking to him, he'd make sure you knew it. People avoided him, and any opinion he might of had on an issue was invalidated because it came from "that nutjob who thinks the earth is flat"

[CaptLouAlbano]

Honestly, I think getting to people consciousness, and trying to show them that the system is immoral, is going to be more effective than trying to win elections. Not saying you can't try to do both, but I don't see how keeping the "radical" parts of ideological libertarianism to ourselves is really helping anything.

You can't influence people when they think you are a nutcase who hates the pledge. You'll never get to first base with them on the important stuff. Go knock on a couple thousand doors and meet the people in your community. Then get back to me and see how you think then.

[69360]

First off, I am hardly moderate.

You are moderate on RPF and very conservative in real life I'm sure. There is a faction here that is way out in right field. I'd hope they are good intentioned, but they have no idea at all how politics works.

[Christian Liberty]

Ahh but there you are incorrect. When you search for Ron Paul or Rand Paul on Google, this site pops up pretty high on Google (more so when you search for specific topics with Ron or Rand in the search term). A casual observer browsing these forums can easily see people commenting on the pledge, cops, punching congresswomen, etc.

Secondly, this is an activist forum. Many on here are political novices, and may not understand the importance of having that filter I mentioned earlier. An issue like this is a good demonstration of why people need to have that filter in place, because one can be easily shut off without it.

Example: I knew a guy a dozen or so years ago that would come out to GOP meetings. Politically he was solid, BUT, he was a member of the Flat Earth Society, and trust me within 10 minutes of talking to him, he'd make sure you knew it. People avoided him, and any opinion he might of had on an issue was invalidated because it came from "that nutjob who thinks the earth is flat"

Was that also your reaction? Just curious.

And I don't see how that's the same thing at all.



You can't influence people when they think you are a nutcase who hates the pledge. You'll never get to first base with them on the important stuff. Go knock on a couple thousand doors and meet the people in your community. Then get back to me and see how you think then.

Oh I have no doubt I'd be attacked. I've dealt with some of these sheep in my very own family. I just don't think those people are actually reachable, at least without a complete change in perception. I can't imagine how you'd even get the average sheep to vote for Rand Paul, but good luck.

[FrankRep]

Here:

This is not "wrong" per se, as it's just about opinion. My point was that it's an empty guesture, not reasoned thought-Constitutionalist or otherwise. I prefer the RP that argues from reason. Frank presented it to us as RP's supposed defense of the pledge, which it isn't.

I said that attacking the Pledge will do more harm than good. Ron Paul has the same basic idea.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Was that also your reaction? Just curious.

And I don't see how that's the same thing at all.

I don't believe the earth is flat. And when someone finds a way to bring that up in every conversation, I avoid them as well. And it's not the same thing, but it's an example of how a fringe position can get you shut out of the conversation.



Oh I have no doubt I'd be attacked. I've dealt with some of these sheep in my very own family. I just don't think those people are actually reachable, at least without a complete change in perception. I can't imagine how you'd even get the average sheep to vote for Rand Paul, but good luck.

But you shouldn't be attacked. A skilled activist knows how to present issues to people without being attacked. Sure you will get some rude people that will slam the door in your face, but that's just part of any sort of canvassing work. But if you know how to talk to people, and more importantly how to listen to people, then you can be effective. C4L has some activist training classes, and I imagine some videos or stuff you can educate yourself with. It should be helpful for you.

[heavenlyboy34]

I said that attacking the Pledge will do more harm than good. Ron Paul has the same basic idea.
To each his own. It can also be argued that seriously dealing with social security reform will do more harm than good (being the "third rail" of politics), but it has to be addressed at some point in this quest for real liberty. /end rant

[Ender]

You can't influence people when they think you are a nutcase who hates the pledge. You'll never get to first base with them on the important stuff. Go knock on a couple thousand doors and meet the people in your community. Then get back to me and see how you think then.

Good thing the FFs didn't think that way or we'd all be worshipping the Queen.

If your way is to be moderate- go for it; that may be your calling- but remember, it only takes 3% of the populace to change the destiny of a nation.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Oh whatever. I'm not watching that. This is so old and overdone. Yes I know all about the origins of the pledge and no I don't give a crap. It's turned into something good now.

Try and run a candidate for any office and see how being against the pledge or being associated with anyone who is works out for you.

Go have a drink with George W. Bush.

*For those of you who are confused with my response, check out 69360's posts in the "Bush on Tonight Show" thread.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Good thing the FFs didn't think that way or we'd all be worshipping the Queen.

If your way is to be moderate- go for it; that may be your calling- but remember, it only takes 3% of the populace to change the destiny of a nation.

In all honesty, I think there are some folks here that would have trouble convincing .03%, let alone 3%. The ability to communicate libertarian principles to average voters is a skill that is lacking here.

[green73]

You keep thinking that.

You keep thinking that voting for politicians will undo leviathan.:rolleyes:

[Tod]

Tell us why should you not pledge allegiance to your country?

Even if our country had an impeccable, spotless, virginal past, countries have a way of going bad, not a concept worthy of pledging allegiance.

[Tod]

I said passable, with the caveat that the Iraq war was a mistake of epic proportions.


??????? You've got to be kidding me! GW was a horrible president!

[CaptLouAlbano]

You keep thinking that voting for politicians will undo leviathan.:rolleyes:

Well, elections are held every year. We can do nothing and let progressives continue to be elected to office, or we can donate our time and money to assist libertarians and traditional conservatives win elective office. I choose the course of action rather than inaction.

[green73]

The cornerstone of the American Republic is the Constitution. When the federal government creates a law that violates the Constituion, it's the duty of the states to nullify that law.

Nullification is very much different than Secession.

I think Tom Woods is doing more harm than good by attacking the Pledge.

How has the CONstitution worked out? It has either given us this monster of a state or completely failed in preventing it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, elections are held every year. We can do nothing and let progressives continue to be elected to office, or we can donate our time and money to assist libertarians and traditional conservatives win elective office. I choose the course of action rather than inaction.
Why TCs? They're as likely as anyone to side with the fascists and various big government types.

[A Son of Liberty]

To each his own. It can also be argued that seriously dealing with social security reform will do more harm than good (being the "third rail" of politics), but it has to be addressed at some point in this quest for real liberty. /end rant

And that's precisely how the people in this country have found themselves in their present circumstance. According to these folks' approach, one can only attack the problem from one of two angles: 1. say/do nothing which might upset the electorate and stealth a candidate into office who will then unmask himself and govern from his true, "conservative" position; 2. "snipe from the periphery", which is to say, truly do nothing to actually roll back the mega-state, but achieve political success (also known as "the Reagan Approach"). Angle one, of course, has never been attempted... and for good reason - the push-back would naturally be epic, and/or once the 'scoundrel' is thrown/voted out of office, all of his work will be undone in due course. Angle two is obviously ineffectual.

And so, AGAIN, these folks will have us continue to spiral down the same damned toilet, perhaps at a slightly slower speed... perhaps not.

Votes don't matter. Minds do. And Tom Woods has changed a helluva lot more minds than any of these "political activists" here, parroting this bullshit.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Why TCs? They're as likely as anyone to side with the fascists and various big government types.

You don't know what a traditional conservative is then. Think paleocon without the nationalistic, protectionist vibe.

[heavenlyboy34]

Even if our country had an impeccable, spotless, virginal past, countries have a way of going bad, not a concept worthy of pledging allegiance.
Indeed! :D

[A Son of Liberty]

In all honesty, I think there are some folks here that would have trouble convincing .03%, let alone 3%. The ability to communicate libertarian principles to average voters is a skill that is lacking here.

One on one, it's rather easy to get people to see basic, fundamental truths. They're self-evident, afterall.

Unbinding folks from the political merry-go-round, however, is another thing altogether. And it's something folks like you tend to keep them tethered to with your false message of political hope, by the way.

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, elections are held every year. We can do nothing and let progressives continue to be elected to office, or we can donate our time and money to assist libertarians and traditional conservatives win elective office. I choose the course of action rather than inaction.

Your chosen course is not the only viable course of action.

This is an activist forum, but as far as I can tell, it is not limited to political activism.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You don't know what a traditional conservative is then. Think paleocon without the nationalistic, protectionist vibe.

No thanks.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good thing the FFs didn't think that way or we'd all be worshipping the Queen.

If your way is to be moderate- go for it; that may be your calling- but remember, it only takes 3% of the populace to change the destiny of a nation.
IDK about that. Perhaps a violent revolution could have been avoided in favor of a peaceful secession and we wouldn't have a leviathan State.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Well, elections are held every year. We can do nothing and let progressives continue to be elected to office, or we can donate our time and money to assist libertarians and traditional conservatives win elective office. I choose the course of action rather than inaction.

Not participating in politics /= "inaction"

From another debate on politics:

Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt
Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.
Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon
Buy some Gold/Silver/Shire Silver
Take the time to research and support agorist owned businesses
Support private institutions that fill the roles currently usurped by government such as private schools, private security and private mass-transit.
Take government money every chance you get (The more money you take from the government the better libertarian you are-Walter Block via FeedingTheAbscess)
Start a business: http://www.policymic.com/articles/44...eaking-awesome
Email an accountant
Hold fewer FRNs

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421471-5-Reasons-to-Abandon-Politics&p=5128820&viewfull=1#post5128820

[CaptLouAlbano]

One on one, it's rather easy to get people to see basic, fundamental truths. They're self-evident, afterall.

Unbinding folks from the political merry-go-round, however, is another thing altogether. And it's something folks like you tend to keep them tethered to with your false message of political hope, by the way.

So enlighten me on your work and your success then.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Your chosen course is not the only viable course of action.

This is an activist forum, but as far as I can tell, it is not limited to political activism.

And I am not involved solely in political action. I am involved with mentoring a college group, I am also part of a group that brings in speakers to the area for issue oriented education sessions, I also spend time during the time of year when campaigns are not in full swing doing tabling at community events for various issues. For example we had a booth at a town fair with brochures and info on the Fed Audit bill last year, wev'e done similar things for GOA.

[FrankRep]

How has the CONstitution worked out? It has either given us this monster of a state or completely failed in preventing it.

Should we have stayed a colony ruled by Great Britain?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Should we have stayed a colony ruled by Great Britain?

Better question:

Should he have stayed under the AoC or created a centralized, all-powerful state?

[Anti Federalist]

You should use that for your campaign slogan. You'll go far.

Yah, and kissing Boobus' ass and whispering sweet nothings in his ear has worked sooo well.

Fuck 'em, the truth is the truth.

Pledge allegiance to the Evil Empire all you want, I ain't.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Should we have stayed a colony ruled by Great Britain?

The Constitution went into effect 6 years after the war ended.

[green73]

Should we have stayed a colony ruled by Great Britain?

No, but taxes did triple after the revolution...

They could have at least stuck to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was coup for the centralists.

[FrankRep]

Better question:

Should he have stayed under the AoC or created a centralized, all-powerful state?

The Civil War broke the balance between state and federal power. The federal government became the dominate after and it went down hill from there.

[Christian Liberty]

No, but taxes did triple after the revolution...

They could have at least stuck to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was coup for the centralists.

I suspect if the revolution hadn't happened they would have just kept jacking the taxes up. A lose-lose, I guess.

The modern US government is clearly way worse than what we were under in 1775.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yah, and kissing Boobus' ass and whispering sweet nothings in his ear has worked sooo well.

Fuck 'em, the truth is the truth.

I've had nice success in my area with effective communication. We managed to send Sanford back to the House, and we have Tom Davis as a State Senator. Our polling here in my county shows that Graham is way under the 50% threshold which is the goal of the first primary contest. So yes, listening to the voters and not hitting them over the head with "the truth" is effective. Trust me, I am as radical as they come, but I know how to temper my speech when speaking to someone who is not already on the same side as I am ideologically. Effective communication results in influencing people, ineffective communication results in being shut out.

[green73]

Should we have stayed a colony ruled by Great Britain?

Oh, and that little revolution: it was SECESSION.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yah, and kissing Boobus' ass and whispering sweet nothings in his ear has worked sooo well.

Fuck 'em, the truth is the truth.

Pledge allegiance to the Evil Empire all you want, I ain't.
God bless ye, brother. :) ~hugs~

[A Son of Liberty]

So enlighten me on your work and your success then.


And I am not involved solely in political action. I am involved with mentoring a college group, I am also part of a group that brings in speakers to the area for issue oriented education sessions, I also spend time during the time of year when campaigns are not in full swing doing tabling at community events for various issues. For example we had a booth at a town fair with brochures and info on the Fed Audit bill last year, wev'e done similar things for GOA.

You want to turn this discussion into a cock-measuring contest? That really isn't the point, is it?

I've tabled for Ron at community events, phone banked, organized a college group, acted as a county coordinator for C4L, dropped fliers, etc. At the completion of the 2012 campaign, I've sworn off "political" activism. Since then, I've become convinced that the only real option left to principled people is in turning minds. Again, on a one-to-one basis, I've engaged numerous people, and continue to work with some folks from my former political affiliations who share my views on ways to expand and build a local base of like-minded folks. Recognizing that our own, local efforts are all we can feasibly achieve in a meaningful way, and leaving the rest to you folks and God, is now my approach.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

The Civil War broke the balance between state and federal power. The federal government became the dominate after and it went down hill from there.

That was already happening well before the Nullification Crisis as John Adams implemented federal censorship with the Alien & Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson violated Cherokee treaties through the Indian Removal Act/Trail of Tears, and the fact that Fugitive Slave Act existed.

The Constitution was NEVER an innocent check on government tyranny. It created that tyranny which has only increased in size and scope since the Constitution's passage.

[CaptLouAlbano]

You want to turn this discussion into a cock-measuring contest? That really isn't the point, is it?

I've tabled for Ron at community events, phone banked, organized a college group, acted as a county coordinator for C4L, dropped fliers, etc. At the completion of the 2012 campaign, I've sworn off "political" activism. Since then, I've become convinced that the only real option left to principled people is in turning minds. Again, on a one-to-one basis, I've engaged numerous people, and continue to work with some folks from my former political affiliations who share my views on ways to expand and build a local base of like-minded folks. Recognizing that our own, local efforts are all we can feasibly achieve in a meaningful way, and leaving the rest to you folks and God, is now my approach.

While I am quite sure that my cock is much larger than yours, I won't post a pic for you.

Nonetheless, what you are doing is admirable. My point was that your inference was that folks like myself are only involved in political action which is not the case. It is a multi-pronged approach. Education raises up activists, and activists both educate others AND influence voters.

[green73]

Should we have stayed a colony ruled by Great Britain?

And another thing! Secession from Great Britain could not have happened without first an ideological revolution. The Enlightenment was not brought about by politicians!

You statists want to put the cart before the horse.

[SilentBull]

Absolutely he is. Instead of sticking to major issues, he points this out and puts himself on the fringe of political thought. Very typical of ideological libertarians.

Very true. I like Woods, but stuff like this doesn't help in convincing people. It just drives them away.

[green73]

Very true. I like Woods, but stuff like this doesn't help in convincing people. It just drives them away.

Perhaps. Some people aren't ready for it. But some are, and it lights fires in their minds.

There more these ideas grow the less averse others become to them.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Very true. I like Woods, but stuff like this doesn't help in convincing people. It just drives them away.

Ideologues, or better stated "academic libertarians" tend to do that. They are great when speaking to their own crowd, but potentially dangerous when addressing the masses (or in this case, when someone videotapes them). The Progressives have them too in their camp.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Perhaps. Some people aren't ready for it. But some are, and it lights fires in their minds.

There more these ideas grow the less averse others become to them.

It's a one step forward two steps back thing though. Not this instance particularly, but generally speaking. If we want to expand the number of people that embrace libertarian principles, it needs to be sold to them without offence.

Take the Mormons for example, when they knock on people's doors, they don't lead with talking about Kolob or temple garments. They start with the stuff that they feel will appeal to most people.

[FrankRep]

And another thing! Secession from Great Britain could not have happened without first an ideological revolution. The Enlightenment was not brought about by politicians!

You statists want to put the cart before the horse.

Actually the Founding fathers were Politicians and many didn't really want to break away from Great Britain, but they felt they were put in a position where they must break away for the welfare of the people.

Ron Paul calls himself a Strict Constitutionalist as do I so watch out who you're calling a "statist." Read my signature, by the way.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ideologues, or better stated "academic libertarians" tend to do that. They are great when speaking to their own crowd, but potentially dangerous when addressing the masses (or in this case, when someone videotapes them). The Progressives have them too in their camp.
RP tends to do this. It got him booed at the POTUS debates. If people have trouble digesting liberty (which is normal), you just have to keep trying. Watering it down doesn't help much, IMO-especially in the long term.

[69360]

Go have a drink with George W. Bush.

*For those of you who are confused with my response, check out 69360's posts in the "Bush on Tonight Show" thread.


??????? You've got to be kidding me! GW was a horrible president!

You hate Bush, I get it, great.

I said he did a passable job with one major mistake. I'm not extolling the virtues of his time in office.

I thought Obama was going to be about the same as Bush, but he turned out much worse and Clinton was horrid, an embarrassment to the office.

So in retrospect Bush did a passable job with one screw up of epic proportions. I don't want to even think about what a president Obama or Clinton would have done post 9/11.

I'm not the only who thinks this, Bush has a current approval rating in the 40's better than Obama right now.

[CaptLouAlbano]

RP tends to do this. It got him booed at the POTUS debates. If people have trouble digesting liberty (which is normal), you just have to keep trying. Watering it down doesn't help much, IMO-especially in the long term.

Ron Paul was not the most effective communicator. And quite frankly, a lot of people dismissed him because of some of the comments he made (which were of course blown out of proportion, but that's how it goes). So because Ron didn't filter himself, he missed the opportunity to communicate his message to a larger group.

You do not have to water it down, you just have to pick and choose the issues you focus on. Again, the key to effective communication is knowing your audience, listening to their concerns and then presenting a solution to their concerns based upon libertarian principles.

[A Son of Liberty]

It's a one step forward two steps back thing though.

I trust you have studies backing this claim?

[CaptLouAlbano]

I trust you have studies backing this claim?

It's simple human nature. If you say something outside the norm, you will draw some people to you, but at the same time you will offend others. Depending on how outlandish the statement depends on the results.

[A Son of Liberty]

You hate Bush, I get it, great.

I said he did a passable job with one major mistake. I'm not extolling the virtues of his time in office.

I thought Obama was going to be about the same as Bush, but he turned out much worse and Clinton was horrid, an embarrassment to the office.

So in retrospect Bush did a passable job with one screw up of epic proportions. I don't want to even think about what a president Obama or Clinton would have done post 9/11.

One? You can't be this stupid. You just can't be.


I'm not the only who thinks this, Bush has a current approval rating in the 40's better than Obama right now.

LOL thank goodness less than half the people in this country, statistically speaking, approve of the job Bush did. It's a shame it's in the 40's, mind you.

[A Son of Liberty]

It's simple human nature. If you say something outside the norm, you will draw some people to you, but at the same time you will offend others. Depending on how outlandish the statement depends on the results.

So that's a 'no', then...

[green73]

It's a one step forward two steps back thing though. Not this instance particularly, but generally speaking. If we want to expand the number of people that embrace libertarian principles, it needs to be sold to them without offence.

Take the Mormons for example, when they knock on people's doors, they don't lead with talking about Kolob or temple garments. They start with the stuff that they feel will appeal to most people.

There's a time and a place, I agree, and obviously the political stage is not that place, not now, probably never in this climate. Education is needed. Thank God for the likes of Tom Woods to that end.

I don't think that most the radicals here are stupid, quite the contrary. When in public we don't clobber people with our ideas. You maybe have seen unsavvy people at political gatherings but that is hardly representative of the battleground in this idealogical struggle.

[green73]

Actually the Founding fathers were Politicians and many didn't really want to break away from Great Britain, but they felt they were put in a position where they must break away for the welfare of the people.

Ron Paul calls himself a Strict Constitutionalist as do I so watch out who you're calling a "statist." Read my signature, by the way.

It was the "radical" ideas of the Lockeans that laid the foundation for the revolution. It was their ideas that spread like wildfire in the colonies and inspired the likes of Paine and Jefferson.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You hate Bush, I get it, great.

I said he did a passable job with one major mistake. I'm not extolling the virtues of his time in office.

I thought Obama was going to be about the same as Bush, but he turned out much worse and Clinton was horrid, an embarrassment to the office.

So in retrospect Bush did a passable job with one screw up of epic proportions. I don't want to even think about what a president Obama or Clinton would have done post 9/11.

I'm not the only who thinks this, Bush has a current approval rating in the 40's better than Obama right now.

Where do I even start...

Bush did not have just one major mistake. Aside from Iraq, there was AUMF, NCLB, Patriot Act, Guantanimo, Katrina, and TARP.

And if we're using popularity as a consensus, you would agree that Romney was better than Ron Paul because he led national polls throughout the primaries.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Where do I even start...

Bush did not have just one major mistake. Aside from Iraq, there was AUMF, NCLB, Patriot Act, Guantanimo, Katrina, and TARP.

And if we're using popularity as a consensus, you would agree that Romney was better than Ron Paul because he led national polls during throughout the primaries.

Department of Homeland Security, TSA, airlines nationalization, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.

[Ender]

Department of Homeland Security, TSA, airlines nationalization, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.

And, as I mentioned several times, there is also PA I & II, plus Afghanistan.

The Taliban offered to give up OBL if Bush would hold hearings in a neutral country. Bush's answer was to bomb them. OBL also denied having anything to do with 9/11. Then there's all the phony vids of OBL after he died in 2001.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't want to even think about what a president Obama or Clinton would have done post 9/11.

Huh?

Is this...is this for real?

Obama has done nothing but expand and build on the policies already set in motion by Bush after 9/11.

[TruckinMike]

I tell the story of the pledge to the truckers all the time. And if you know truckers most of them are 'Murica lovin' flag wavin' patriots..right? However, you might think that their response would be violent after hearing the story --- but its not. Why? because I preface the story by asking if they respect the constitution, states rights, individual rights. I also include the nature of collectivism/Marxism and what type of government structure it must have to thrive. We discuss CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY --> they understand. At which point I begin the tale of the mass manipulation. In the end they feel enlightened but mad. But not mad at me. They are angry that they and the entire country has been duped by designing men. I tell them that I change the words in public and pledge to the ideas held in the D of I and Constitution --- They agree that that is a good idea. So far I haven't had ONE trucker get mad at me and think that I'm a traitor, etc..

At the end I show them the picture of the little kids with their arms held in the Bellamy salute position. I pass my phone around the trucker bar to let them take a good long look. Does the trick every time.:D

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLV4Pg9rD0_9rxehVFfkWbEILU-jop8Y37x_MP_eE9dbwsUc7M

[Christian Liberty]

Actually the Founding fathers were Politicians and many didn't really want to break away from Great Britain, but they felt they were put in a position where they must break away for the welfare of the people.

Ron Paul calls himself a Strict Constitutionalist as do I so watch out who you're calling a "statist." Read my signature, by the way.

I guess it depends what you mean by "statist." Technically that just means the opposite of anarchist, which would include you and Ron Paul. But by that definition, there are some mild "statists" that I'd ally with.

Other definitions are more along the lines of supporting big government, by that definition I don't think you'd be a statist, and Ron Paul I know wouldn't be (I don't know enough about where you stand on the issues, but I'm assuming you are not a big government kind of guy.)


It's a one step forward two steps back thing though. Not this instance particularly, but generally speaking. If we want to expand the number of people that embrace libertarian principles, it needs to be sold to them without offence.

Take the Mormons for example, when they knock on people's doors, they don't lead with talking about Kolob or temple garments. They start with the stuff that they feel will appeal to most people.

When I talk to people in real life I'm generally much "softer." When talking to Christians, the fact that I myself am a Christian, and so generally agree with their faith even while not necessarily agreeing with the way they relate it to politics gives us more of a common ground than an anti-religious libertarian would have. Some people you just can't get anywhere with, but I can usually have a rational conversation with most people face to face.

I actually agree with some of what you said. But I guess I view this place moreso as a place where libertarians and other small government people can build each other up and discuss issues from that perspective, in addition to quite frankly being a place where we can vent. With the exception of the Guest Forum (And when I do post there I usually tone things down a little) I don't really try to win converts here. I view this place as a place to hash things out with the mostly like-minded, so I'd talk here a little differently than I would in a face to face conversation.

[muzzled dogg]

need a palatable version of this sell

[Deborah K]

Absolutely he is. Instead of sticking to major issues, he points this out and puts himself on the fringe of political thought. Very typical of ideological libertarians.

He's always been on the fringe of political thought - if you want to put it that way. Read his book: Who killed the Constitution.

[green73]

He's always been on the fringe of political thought - if you want to put it that way. Read his book: Who killed the Constitution.

Of course the truth is on the fringe. I take it he spoke at Paul Fest? (can't remember)

[FrankRep]

It was the "radical" ideas of the Lockeans that laid the foundation for the revolution. It was their ideas that spread like wildfire in the colonies and inspired the likes of Paine and Jefferson.

Their "radical" ideas also led to the French Revolution that created so chaos and terror that it allowed the dictator Napoleon to take control and restore order.

Thankfully we had John Adams, George Washington, James Madison to mix rational thought and common sense into the "radical" ideas.

[Deborah K]

Of course the truth is on the fringe. I take it he spoke at Paul Fest? (can't remember)

He spoke at Paul Fest, yes. I met him when he agreed to speak at Revolution March in '08. We worked on Revolution Pac together as well. I consider him a friend.

[green73]

He spoke at Paul Fest, yes. I met him when he agreed to speak at Revolution March in '08. We worked on Revolution Pac together as well. I consider him a friend.

He's a gem. And so are you.

[Ender]

Huh?

Is this...is this for real?

Obama has done nothing but expand and build on the policies already set in motion by Bush after 9/11.

THANK YOU!

I keep saying this over and over again until I feel like I'm talking to myself!

[Christian Liberty]

One? You can't be this stupid. You just can't be.

I've long ago started calling him Mr. 666. Also, he was one of the two "people" (I use this term very, very loosely here) who defended the pigs who shot at a woman and her kids because she "Evaded" a speeding ticket.

Bush's failures, just off the top of my head:

Iraq, Afghnanistan, creation of the TSA, creation of the DHS, passing the Patriot Act twice, saying he "needed to give up free market principles to save the free market system", banning non-flourescent lightbulbs, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (This is a problem because its a Federal Law, and because it makes abortion "look better", not because it was an anti-abortion law. Although, Ron Paul voted for this one as well, so I could forgive it if it was his only mistake)...

Honestly, I can only think of one GOOD thing he did, which was to cut taxes. There might have been a couple more, but there were also likely more bad ones. Off the top of my head I can't remember if it was Bush, Obama, or both that bailed out the car companies.

[heavenlyboy34]

Their "radical" ideas also led to the French Revolution that created so chaos and terror that it allowed the dictator Napoleon to take control and restore order.

Thankfully we had John Adams, George Washington, James Madison to mix rational thought and common sense into the "radical" ideas.
Do you seriously think this or are you trolling? :eek:

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course the truth is on the fringe. I take it he spoke at Paul Fest? (can't remember)
Truth is treason in an empire of lies. :(

[kcchiefs6465]

He's always been on the fringe of political thought - if you want to put it that way. Read his book: Who killed the Constitution.
One of the best books out there on the subject.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The Constitution fetishists and the Gollum fetishists are out in force in this thread. The reality is, the deity you prop up, either the Constitution, or the Vote (and the imbeciles to which you've pledged yourself to submit to), is quite frankly beyond any common decency. Neither a piece of a paper, or begging your neighbor is going to get you the liberty you seek. Until such time as we realize this, well...running in circles and all.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Constitution fetishists and the Gollum fetishists are out in force in this thread. The reality is, the deity you prop up, either the Constitution, or the Vote (and the imbeciles to which you've pledged yourself to submit to), is quite frankly beyond any common decency. Neither a piece of a paper, or begging your neighbor is going to get you the liberty you seek. Until such time as we realize this, well...running in circles and all.
For a number of them, sadly that is the "freedom" they seek-the easy route of light fascism. This is not to slander them, of course. They are simply acting in accordance with normal human behavior. Real liberty is radical, un-conservative, and dangerous as hell. It's somewhat like taking the training wheels of your bicycle. Extremely scary feeling.

[green73]

Do you seriously think this or are you trolling? :eek:

He's a troll. Hasn't that been obvious like foeva?

[heavenlyboy34]

He's a troll. Hasn't that been obvious like foeva?
I must admit, the Force has been giving me indications of that for a long time.

[fr33]

I read this topic up until this point.


It's turned into something good now.

What good is it? It is a form of indoctrination that has kept people from a young age until and after adulthood was reached from questioning both authority and the concepts of right and wrong. It is one of the most disgusting forms of brainwashing that has helped prop up a tyrannical government by discouraging opposition to that tyranny.

[fr33]

You hate Bush, I get it, great.

I said he did a passable job with one major mistake. I'm not extolling the virtues of his time in office.

So you support No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug handouts, the bailout of GM, the bank bailouts, and the Patriot Act. Iraq is your line in the sand. You sir have been wasting your time on this forum. You do not belong here.

[green73]

So you support No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug handouts, the bailout of GM, the bank bailouts, and the Patriot Act. Iraq is your line in the sand. You sir have been wasting your time on this forum. You do not belong here.


He's a troll. Hasn't that been obvious like foeva? ..

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah okay, I'm going to pledge allegiance to a country. lol.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I view these pledges as some of the highest forms of slavery and hero worship. No, I will not bow to a master; I am my own. No, I will not cede my sovereignty; I am a free man. No, I will not tow the servile, docile, impotent roles you want me to. Fuck you, your power, your arrogance, conceit, and tyranny. I pledge fealty to one thing only, and that is the idea and lineage of liberty. So...in times like these, we all need to hoist the black flag. Boy, what I wouldn't given for a Mencken acolyte who has a large pulpit.

[FrankRep]

Their "radical" ideas also led to the French Revolution that created so chaos and terror that it allowed the dictator Napoleon to take control and restore order.

Thankfully we had John Adams, George Washington, James Madison to mix rational thought and common sense into the "radical" ideas.

Do you seriously think this or are you trolling? :eek:

How am I trolling?


U.S. founders and the French Revolution
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/06/13/US-founders-and-the-French-Revolution/UPI-49661024008366/

Thomas Jefferson > French Revolution
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-revolution

Thomas Paine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Paine lived in France for most of the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French Revolution. He wrote the Rights of Man (1791), in part a defence of the French Revolution against its critics.

[JK/SEA]

well damn...you all realize that without the Pledge, the Anthem, the flag, red, white and blue bunting, marching bands blaring out your favorite propaganda tune, we wouldn't have the brain washed masses like a few posters in here have subscribed to, thus prolonging the idea for the 'people' in 'control' that the strategy of extreme Nationalism will guarantee the status quo of keeping those in control to remain in power....over us.

[TruckinMike]

To strengthen the point made in my previous post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?433885-Tom-Woods-the-pledge-of-allegiance-is-un-Merican&p=5317474&viewfull=1#post5317474):

This morning I was involved in another trucker round table discussion totaling five truckers including myself. Again, I followed the strategy in my previous post. Two of the Truckers were Vietnam vets. One was wearing a US Army cap sporting a big burly mustache. When the lesson was over there was not one bit of animosity towards me. However, the education went both ways -- the Vet in the cap told me that his entire company was given some type of flue vaccination, which made them all sick. Six weeks later he was forced to sign a waiver releasing liability for the experimental vaccine. He said that he never saw one-hundred and twenty or so of them ever again. He never found out if they died or what happened. It was all hush hush. He said his company had 374 men. (even though a company shouldn't have over 300(but maybe he did in the Vietnam era-- who knows)

Just backing up claims

TMike.