-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Ron Paul in 1997 on Armed BLM - Video
- Thread starter onus
- Start date
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Wow, can we get a round of applause, please?
Thank you for digging this up and posting it, onus. I find it very interesting.
Thank you for digging this up and posting it, onus. I find it very interesting.
Last edited:
Resto Guy
Regular Member
Yes, thank you. I've shared it on another site. Every American should be required to watch this video.
MurrayRothbard
Regular Member
SO glad this nutjob didn't win in 2008 or 2012....can you imagine someone with such a lack of wisdom and foresight being in office????
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I continue to disagree with you on this point.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
"Yes we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that much, let them seek work with the NRA."
Win.
Win.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I will agree that this is an easy trap to fall into. "Liberals" and "conservatives" and "libertarians" are all equally at risk.
Of course, it could be that "constitutionalists" are as well.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I personally don't give a **** whether or not your class is represented well enough in government. Can you express what it is that you want in plain English? Do you want liberty or no? A society will never have liberty as a result of representation in government. Do you disagree? It would certainly seem so.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
I can well imagine what would happen if he had been elected. The constitution would be respected and many of the battles we face today would never have needed to be fought.
Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
How so? He could not possibly stem the tidal wave of tyranny from the other members of the gang by himself, and he most certainly would have stood alone. The only thing he could have effectively done was to stonewall their efforts as much as possible, but we've clearly seen that government will still do whatever the fcuk it wants.
After all, who is capable of ACTUALLY stopping them?
davidmcbeth
Banned
I predicted 9-11 on 7-29 ... gov't does not care
georg jetson
Regular Member
georg jetson
Regular Member
I read the Constitution Party's platform prior to the 2012 election and based on that, I agree with your continued disagreement.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I find it amusing that you'd use 151 words to answer my three yes or no questions negatively, implying that it would take too much to explain your position. I would probably - no, most certainly - benefit from reading the book.
The reason I ask is because I often find myself reading your posts and asking how it's relevant... At first I may have thought you were "missing" the mark, missing the point, or missing the "bullseye" if you will... More recently I think that perhaps you aren't missing the bullseye, but you're shooting at a different target entirely. Perhaps you're hitting the bullseye of your target, I just don't guess I know what that target is.
I don't think that asking whether or not your goal is liberty is asking for a "concept in neat, one paragraph or webpage bundle." I don't think that asking whether or not you think that liberty can be achieved by acquiring more representation in government is asking for it, either.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I think the libertarian party should stop referring themselves as the large L. The true libertarians are the small l.
I work with them and sad to say that many do fight Nightmares assessment of lying and compromising. I do not.
I work with them and sad to say that many do fight Nightmares assessment of lying and compromising. I do not.
MurrayRothbard
Regular Member
Fify
exactly
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Hitting the reset button won't help. This is why I have a hard time "believing in" the Constitution Party. Get back to basics, get government to abide by the Constitution. Then what? We still don't truly have liberty, and we'll probably have to hit reset again in another few generations. If not, then the Constitution probably wasn't necessary in the first place, because it won't have been the Constitution that kept society in a state which needs not a reset.
I would have to disagree that "progressivism" is inherently bad. Progressivism in politics is bad because politics is bad. It doesn't matter what is mandated if mandate is unjustified. "Making things better" isn't bad. If it was, it wouldn't be making things better, it'd be making things worse. How can you make things worse by making them better? Making things worse under the guise of making things better is certainly bad. Is such progressivism?
I would have to disagree that "progressivism" is inherently bad. Progressivism in politics is bad because politics is bad. It doesn't matter what is mandated if mandate is unjustified. "Making things better" isn't bad. If it was, it wouldn't be making things better, it'd be making things worse. How can you make things worse by making them better? Making things worse under the guise of making things better is certainly bad. Is such progressivism?
Last edited: