All Right, People, 'RINO' Is Officially Banned - Don't Be a ROIYD

[JBusch8899]

I guess that clears it all up then. Thanks.

Just like Clearisil.

Or Penicillin.

 

[hornadylnl]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...usted_at_utah_gop_convention.html#post1028531

Libertarians are afraid that the people may end up turning the GOP into the Conservative party this country desperately needs.

The repubes have moved nothing but left for decades. I won't hold my breath on it becoming conservative any time soon.

 

[PatriotPride]

This thread reminds me of an itch that I once had in my nether regions. As I was in public, I didn't want to scratch myself, but I did anyway. Sort of like posting in this thread. D'oh! I posted.

 

[HICKMAN]

What I don't understand is if Libertarians are such great people and are so Constitutionally sound, why don't they pick a Party and take it over? Or infiltrate both parties. If it's going to be impossible to get name recognition running as a 3rd party, why not massively infiltrate both parties, and then either change those party's from the inside out, or renounce the D or R party and declare themselves an L once they're elected and HAVE that name recognition?

Surely that can't be so hard.

what? and get off the fence?

 

[mrjarrell]

What I don't understand is if Libertarians are such great people and are so Constitutionally sound, why don't they pick a Party and take it over? Or infiltrate both parties. If it's going to be impossible to get name recognition running as a 3rd party, why not massively infiltrate both parties, and then either change those party's from the inside out, or renounce the D or R party and declare themselves an L once they're elected and HAVE that name recognition?

Surely that can't be so hard.

How's that strategy working out for Ron Paul and his supporters? That's been their goal for some time now and it's an abysmal failure. Not worth the hassle or dilution to even try it.

 

[dburkhead]

How's that strategy working out for Ron Paul and his supporters? That's been their goal for some time now and it's an abysmal failure. Not worth the hassle or dilution to even try it.

Like running for President as a Libertarian was so very much more successful.

Who has more influence on US policy: Republican Ron Paul who actually wins a seat in the House of Representatives of Libertarian Ron Paul who ran a distant third in the US Presidential race behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis?

 

[Fletch]

 

[SavageEagle]

How's that strategy working out for Ron Paul and his supporters? That's been their goal for some time now and it's an abysmal failure. Not worth the hassle or dilution to even try it.

Like running for President as a Libertarian was so very much more successful.

Who has more influence on US policy: Republican Ron Paul who actually wins a seat in the House of Representatives of Libertarian Ron Paul who ran a distant third in the US Presidential race behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis?

Well, if both points are true, I guess that leaves us with only one choice left. Too bad no one would have the ballz to do it.

 

[dburkhead]

Well, if both points are true, I guess that leaves us with only one choice left. Too bad no one would have the ballz to do it.

Well, no, because historically the other alternative has generally led to worse problems they they were kicked off to "fix" (the very few exceptions, are just that--exceptions--and expecting any future trips down that path to lead to the same exceptional ends is yet more wishful thinking).

And before you ask, what makes you think that there has to be a "good solution"?

 

[SavageEagle]

Well, no, because historically the other alternative has generally led to worse problems they they were kicked off to "fix" (the very few exceptions, are just that--exceptions--and expecting any future trips down that path to lead to the same exceptional ends is yet more wishful thinking).

And before you ask, what makes you think that there has to be a "good solution"?

So... Are you saying we're doomed to slavery, oppression, and tyranny no matter which road we choose?

 

[dburkhead]

So... Are you saying we're doomed to slavery, oppression, and tyranny no matter which road we choose?

Nope. Simply pointing out that if you condemn one approach because it hasn't been as successful as you would like one must condemn all approaches.

Voting R or D hasn't been working? Well, folk have been encouraging others to vote third party and that hasn't been working either. And that other "approach"? Historically that hasn't been very successful either.

Third parties? Look at nations with multiple viable parties: nations like Great Britain. Has having multiple parties made them any freer than the two major parties of the US has made us?

And that's really only by way of an intellectual exercise. When was the last time a third party put a President into office? When was the last time a third party took control of either house of Congress? Since the end or Reconstruction there haven't been enough third party Senators to prevent a cloture vote (let alone take control) if all of them were in office now--not without the cooperation of one or both of the major parties. There have been enough representatives to almost, almost, take control of the house if all of them were in office now.

As to voting D or R being a failure, I ask failure compared to what? Can you name any country, any country at all, that has remained as free as the US for as long as the US has? Even one? I can't.

Now, I don't council despair. Taking back the country, if we do it (and I make no guarantees), will be difficult and will require both idealistic dreams and hard-headed pragmatism and grounding in reality. What won't happen is thinking that if we just vote for Ron Paul things will somehow magically get better.

It took 200 years go get where we are, most of it over the last 70-80 years. Expecting any kind of "quick fix" from things like voting for a third party is naive in the extreme.

And when you realize you're in the campaign for the long haul, it comes as a fairly logical conclusion that you only need two things for eventual victory: a candidate who is better than whoever is currently in office--even if only a little bit better--and a candidate who can win. Then you need to repeat that with every single election. Sometimes the best you can do is get "not worse" instead of better. That slows things down. You don't have to like it (I certainly don't) but you have to deal with it because it's going to happen. And sometimes, you'll lose despite your best efforts (case in point the recent Republican Senate primary). Well, wars rarely turn on single battles except in the very end game (you can rarely win a war with a single battle, but you can lose one).

So you keep on. You take the gains where you can. You don't spurn small games because you wish they were larger and you don't throw them away for "could have beens" (where instead of a small gain you gamble against the odds on a large one and end up with a large loss instead). Take your gains however small. Try to keep your losses smaller. And gradually push things back.

I am not without hope or a restoration of liberty but it won't be quick and it won't be painless and it won't be without losses along the way. If I do despair, it's not looking at the depredations of the Left but rather in looking at the "I want everything now!" attitude of so many on the pro-liberty side. By being unwilling to accept anything less than complete victory now, they almost ensure that the end result is complete defeat.

And that is probably more than long enough by too much as it is.

I do get passionate about the subject.

 

[96firephoenix]

how about RIEYO - Republicans In Election Years Only?

 

[SavageEagle]

Nope. Simply pointing out that if you condemn one approach because it hasn't been as successful as you would like one must condemn all approaches.

Voting R or D hasn't been working? Well, folk have been encouraging others to vote third party and that hasn't been working either. And that other "approach"? Historically that hasn't been very successful either.

Third parties? Look at nations with multiple viable parties: nations like Great Britain. Has having multiple parties made them any freer than the two major parties of the US has made us?

And that's really only by way of an intellectual exercise. When was the last time a third party put a President into office? When was the last time a third party took control of either house of Congress? Since the end or Reconstruction there haven't been enough third party Senators to prevent a cloture vote (let alone take control) if all of them were in office now--not without the cooperation of one or both of the major parties. There have been enough representatives to almost, almost, take control of the house if all of them were in office now.

As to voting D or R being a failure, I ask failure compared to what? Can you name any country, any country at all, that has remained as free as the US for as long as the US has? Even one? I can't.

Now, I don't council despair. Taking back the country, if we do it (and I make no guarantees), will be difficult and will require both idealistic dreams and hard-headed pragmatism and grounding in reality. What won't happen is thinking that if we just vote for Ron Paul things will somehow magically get better.

It took 200 years go get where we are, most of it over the last 70-80 years. Expecting any kind of "quick fix" from things like voting for a third party is naive in the extreme.

And when you realize you're in the campaign for the long haul, it comes as a fairly logical conclusion that you only need two things for eventual victory: a candidate who is better than whoever is currently in office--even if only a little bit better--and a candidate who can win. Then you need to repeat that with every single election. Sometimes the best you can do is get "not worse" instead of better. That slows things down. You don't have to like it (I certainly don't) but you have to deal with it because it's going to happen. And sometimes, you'll lose despite your best efforts (case in point the recent Republican Senate primary). Well, wars rarely turn on single battles except in the very end game (you can rarely win a war with a single battle, but you can lose one).

So you keep on. You take the gains where you can. You don't spurn small games because you wish they were larger and you don't throw them away for "could have beens" (where instead of a small gain you gamble against the odds on a large one and end up with a large loss instead). Take your gains however small. Try to keep your losses smaller. And gradually push things back.

I am not without hope or a restoration of liberty but it won't be quick and it won't be painless and it won't be without losses along the way. If I do despair, it's not looking at the depredations of the Left but rather in looking at the "I want everything now!" attitude of so many on the pro-liberty side. By being unwilling to accept anything less than complete victory now, they almost ensure that the end result is complete defeat.

And that is probably more than long enough by too much as it is.

I do get passionate about the subject.

You know.... I think you just changed my mind about a lot of things with this post. You're right. You're absolutely right. However, I'm just not sure if the long haul is something I'm ready for at this point. With the way things are eroding, the liberties we have lost in the last 9 months, the impending collapse of our economy, the prospect that there very well could be a break down of civil society in the next 5-10 years if we stay on the track we are on....

I guess I'm just not so optimistic. I guess I'm ready to see the whole thing come crashing down. Not because I enjoy watching people suffer. Not because I want to see my Country destroyed. Not because I want to throw anything in anyone's faces. No, I'm ready to see it all come crashing down so that AMERICA can finally have the mass awakening that the Tea Parties failed to do. I'm ready to see those who just don't give a **** finally stand up and give a ****. I'm ready to see those who think it just can't happen here and there's nothing they could do about it anyway wake up and realize how wrong they are.

You're right. Our Founders could have NEVER fathomed we would make it this far. However, they HAVE to be rolling over in their graves seeing the mess we've allowed and how bad we have failed them.

You're also right that no other Country in the world, save for a couple, has ever seen the Freedoms and Rights that we have in our history. And no modern Country even comes close to touching the rights we currently enjoy.

However.

We have lost most of what we call freedoms and they have been replaced with privileges. We have very very few REAL freedoms anymore. Think about it.

You have the RIGHT to peaceably assemble... provided that you get a permit, pay the city for space to do so, abide by whatever stupid rules they come up with, etc.

You have the RIGHT to carry a gun... if you get a LTCH and can produce it upon request from any LE official that asks for it. Oh yea, and in most states, you must abide by any law no matter how asinine it may be.

You have the RIGHT to travel from place to place... provided that you have some form of ID, at least one dollar in your pocket (Or risk getting jailed for ?loitering? or is it ??? can't remember), and if you drive a car you MUST have insurance, license plates, DL, etc etc etc.

You have the RIGHT to own property... so long as you pay the property taxes. Cause if you don't, you lose your [strike]right[/strike] PRIVILEGE of being able to own an home and land.

I mean, I could go on and on about the "Rights" we THINK we have, but no longer have.

So it begs to ask the question... How free are we really? Are we more free than most every other Country? You betcha. Are we REALLY free? Absolutely not.

IMHO, we are still slaves with just a little more freedom than the rest of the world. Consider us in between slaves and indentured servants.

I do hope that we can change things in the long run. I'm just not as optimistic as you I guess.

 

[SavageEagle]

double tap. Stupid interwebs..

 

[homeless]

And Savage gets the head shot again.


There is always something to be said for pragmatism. *And when debating the realities of logistics and implementation of laws it certainly has its place. *However I would rather loose a battle while sticking to my principles than to compromise my self. *I see things like the fairtax as acceptable pragmatism, an in-between step between where we are and where w need to be. *But issues of freedom and voting should never be compromised. *


Candidates these days often seem to fail at one of the primary job requirements they have. *It is their duty to protect and preserve the constitution, and yet they can't even understand it. *


Over the last 200 years we have slowly had our freedoms eroded and encroached upon. *We cannot afford this much longer before we are brought to the same level as most of Europe. *In 100 years we still may be the freest nation on earth, but that does not mean that we will actually be free. * An indentured servant is certainly freer than a slave, but still cannot be considered a free man himself. *

 

[SavageEagle]

And Savage gets the head shot again.


There is always something to be said for pragmatism. *And when debating the realities of logistics and implementation of laws it certainly has its place. *However I would rather loose a battle while sticking to my principles than to compromise my self. *I see things like the fairtax as acceptable pragmatism, an in-between step between where we are and where w need to be. *But issues of freedom and voting should never be compromised. *


Candidates these days often seem to fail at one of the primary job requirements they have. *It is their duty to protect and preserve the constitution, and yet they can't even understand it. *


Over the last 200 years we have slowly had our freedoms eroded and encroached upon. *We cannot afford this much longer before we are brought to the same level as most of Europe. *In 100 years we still may be the freest nation on earth, but that does not mean that we will actually be free. * An indentured servant is certainly freer than a slave, but still cannot be considered a free man himself. *

While we both may be spot on, or we both may be wrong doesn't really matter at this point, really. What really matters is that neither one of us has presented a viable solution to the problem.

I can change that though.

I like this part of your post and intend to run with it....

Candidates these days often seem to fail at one of the primary job requirements they have. It is their duty to protect and preserve the constitution, and yet they can't even understand it.

One great way to solve this problem is to impose, and enforce, strict punishment for failure to abide by, and uphold, the Constitution of the United States of America. I would suggest, depending on the severity of the violation of Oath or Constitution, a minimum of 15-25 years Federal Prison without the possibility of early release and a maximum of death for treason and tyranny. No exceptions, no loopholes, and no one above the law no matter what office they hold.

Patriot Act? All those who passed, enacted, and upheld this treasonous law, 25 to life up to, and including, death.

Health Care Bill? 25 to life up to, and including, death.

Gun Control? Same.

Violation of Oath of Office? 15-20 years.

Lying to the American People? Death.

That's a good starting point. Debatable, sure. Effective? You bet your ass. How many politicians would violate their Oath, violate the Constitution, knowing they would face Federal Time or Death? What kind of politicians would risk running for office knowing that their lives were on the line if they screw up royally? Maybe we'd finally get honest politicians. I know they're out there. They just don't run NOW because they know to win the election, they have to play the game.

If there's no more game, there's more honesty. If there's more honesty, there's more liberty. If there's more liberty, there, my friends... There is true Freedom.

Discuss.

 

[dburkhead]

While we both may be spot on, or we both may be wrong doesn't really matter at this point, really. What really matters is that neither one of us has presented a viable solution to the problem.

I can change that though.

I like this part of your post and intend to run with it....



One great way to solve this problem is to impose, and enforce, strict punishment for failure to abide by, and uphold, the Constitution of the United States of America. I would suggest, depending on the severity of the violation of Oath or Constitution, a minimum of 15-25 years Federal Prison without the possibility of early release and a maximum of death for treason and tyranny. No exceptions, no loopholes, and no one above the law no matter what office they hold.

Patriot Act? All those who passed, enacted, and upheld this treasonous law, 25 to life up to, and including, death.

Health Care Bill? 25 to life up to, and including, death.

Gun Control? Same.

Violation of Oath of Office? 15-20 years.

Lying to the American People? Death.

That's a good starting point. Debatable, sure. Effective? You bet your ass. How many politicians would violate their Oath, violate the Constitution, knowing they would face Federal Time or Death? What kind of politicians would risk running for office knowing that their lives were on the line if they screw up royally? Maybe we'd finally get honest politicians. I know they're out there. They just don't run NOW because they know to win the election, they have to play the game.

If there's no more game, there's more honesty. If there's more honesty, there's more liberty. If there's more liberty, there, my friends... There is true Freedom.

Discuss.

Who's going to bell the cat?

Who's going to pass these laws?

Who's going to enforce them?

If you can put in a Congress that can pass such laws and either a President to sign them or enough Congressmen to override a veto, then you don't need them. If you can't, then you can't get them.

This kind of thing is exactly the kind of wishful thinking that people do instead of the hard work of making things better.

 

[dburkhead]

You know.... I think you just changed my mind about a lot of things with this post. You're right. You're absolutely right. However, I'm just not sure if the long haul is something I'm ready for at this point. With the way things are eroding, the liberties we have lost in the last 9 months, the impending collapse of our economy, the prospect that there very well could be a break down of civil society in the next 5-10 years if we stay on the track we are on....

I guess I'm just not so optimistic. I guess I'm ready to see the whole thing come crashing down. Not because I enjoy watching people suffer. Not because I want to see my Country destroyed. Not because I want to throw anything in anyone's faces. No, I'm ready to see it all come crashing down so that AMERICA can finally have the mass awakening that the Tea Parties failed to do. I'm ready to see those who just don't give a **** finally stand up and give a ****. I'm ready to see those who think it just can't happen here and there's nothing they could do about it anyway wake up and realize how wrong they are.

If it falls, it falls. But not because I haven't done my level best to stop it the best way I know how--and that's not through wishful thinking that just voting for Ron Paul will magically make things better.

You're right. Our Founders could have NEVER fathomed we would make it this far. However, they HAVE to be rolling over in their graves seeing the mess we've allowed and how bad we have failed them.

A lot of the Founders would be turning over in their graves about a lot of things. But some of the things that some of them would be turning over about are not maybe such great things: allowing blacks to vote? Making Indians citizens? Women's Suffrage?

They were great men but they weren't perfect.

You're also right that no other Country in the world, save for a couple, has ever seen the Freedoms and Rights that we have in our history. And no modern Country even comes close to touching the rights we currently enjoy.

However.

We have lost most of what we call freedoms and they have been replaced with privileges. We have very very few REAL freedoms anymore. Think about it.

The point wasn't that we were perfect, but that no other system has done even as well. This speaks to the remarkable confidence that some have that "if we just do this..." then things will be all better. The term for that kind of confidence is "hubris."

You have the RIGHT to peaceably assemble... provided that you get a permit, pay the city for space to do so, abide by whatever stupid rules they come up with, etc.

You have the right to peaceably assemble. You do not, however, have the right to use public property for same any more than you have the right to use my front yard for your assembly.

Last time I looked I didn't need any permits to hold a meeting at my own home or in a facility that I hire.

You have the RIGHT to carry a gun... if you get a LTCH and can produce it upon request from any LE official that asks for it. Oh yea, and in most states, you must abide by any law no matter how asinine it may be.

No argument there, but my previous post was about tactics. And where else in the world can you do even that much?

You have the RIGHT to travel from place to place... provided that you have some form of ID, at least one dollar in your pocket (Or risk getting jailed for ?loitering? or is it ??? can't remember), and if you drive a car you MUST have insurance, license plates, DL, etc etc etc.

You might want to check again on some of that. The requirements for insurance, licensing, car license and registration, etc. are for driving on the public streets. And you have to go a long way back to get away from traffic regulation. A lot of cities, very early on, for instance, banned the riding of horses in town so as to avoid being hip deep in horse .

You have the RIGHT to own property... so long as you pay the property taxes. Cause if you don't, you lose your [strike]right[/strike] PRIVILEGE of being able to own an home and land.

Please tell me when we didn't have taxes, at least in "developed" areas with penalties attached to failure to pay?

I mean, I could go on and on about the "Rights" we THINK we have, but no longer have.

And much of the talk about these kind of "Rights" is dreaming about a neverland that never was.

Not to say that things aren't bad, they are, just that most of the differences are in degree rather than in kind which is why the incremental approach has worked so well--and why the incremental approach is likely to be more successful than others.

So it begs to ask the question... How free are we really? Are we more free than most every other Country? You betcha. Are we REALLY free? Absolutely not.

However you are setting a standard which nobody, ever, has met.

IMHO, we are still slaves with just a little more freedom than the rest of the world. Consider us in between slaves and indentured servants.

I would really suggest you take a closer look at what slavery and indentured servitude was (is) like before making that kind of hyperbolic comparison.

I do hope that we can change things in the long run. I'm just not as optimistic as you I guess.[/quote]

And considering that as best I can say is "not without hope" that's pretty depressing right there.

 

[88GT]

I would really suggest you take a closer look at what slavery and indentured servitude was (is) like before making that kind of hyperbolic comparison.

Nope, he's right. The fruits of our labors are forcefully taken from us against our consent and used for the benefit of others in a manner that does NOT qualify as general welfare or even a public good. Slavery isn't just chains and bondage.

 

[dburkhead]

Nope, he's right. The fruits of our labors are forcefully taken from us against our consent and used for the benefit of others in a manner that does NOT qualify as general welfare or even a public good. Slavery isn't just chains and bondage.

Ah, the old "let's change the meaning of words so we can use the emotional content of the word from its original meaning to somehow strengthen our current position."

It's wrong when the Left pulls that ploy and it's just as wrong when the Right pulls it.

Words have meanings. The Humpty Dumpty approach is a fallacy.