Lessons from the rEVOLution

T

Timshel

New member
Our appeal to the left made this thing go. And pandering to the right is wrecking Paul and the movement. That should serve as an illustration. Fuck the right! They're are the worst kind of warmongers and statists.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Our appeal to the left made this thing go. And pandering to the right is wrecking Paul and the movement. That should serve as an illustration. Fuck the right! They're are the worst kind of warmongers and statists.
Click to expand...

I'm drinkin too. Happy Friday!

The right abandon us years back. The left is full of idiots. Neither of these fools can see the forest for the trees anyway.
 
How did you know? I tried to type it sober.

But the left, the real ones, not these pretenders, care about peace and freedom.
 
RStringfield said:
How did you know? I tried to type it sober.

But the left, the real ones, not these pretenders, care about peace and freedom.
Click to expand...

You know the old school ground taunt "takes one to know one". That's how I knew.

Yes, I agree. The "left" is now all about bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes rather than more personal freedom, freedom FROM government. and liberty.

The "right", well, the war on terror sums it up. There is no more sane position within the spectrum.

Cheers Ron!
 
Paul proves the message appeals to the left better than the right. Most of his votes came from lefties. We need to take note of that.
 
I don't get liberal support for Dr. Paul. What the hell do they agree with him on? Even his opposition to the war is for different reasons than his. He is non-interventionist, but the left is very much interventionist, although the specific cause (Yugoslavia for example) as well as UN endorcement are the determining factors...

Dr. Paul is for lower taxes (X1), reforming the tax code (X2), smaller govt. (X3) and the list goes on. He is also pro-life (Major X).
 
RStringfield said:
Paul proves the message appeals to the left better than the right. Most of his votes came from lefties. We need to take note of that.
Click to expand...

That's why I put "left" in quotation marks. The establishment galvanizes people's identities as either left or right, thus liberal or conservative, thus Democrat or Republican. And the lemmings go for it.


If you're suggesting that we should appeal to the true left, I can agree, but do they even know who they are? The parties have hijacked identities save for the politically aware.

What I'm saying, is that most "liberals" will identify with the Democrats, and most "conservatives" will go for the Republitards, all the while, not knowing that there are other options. And activists like Cypress and the likes will use straw men, lies, and fundamentalist shit to sway the left back to the Dems, while Superfreaks and WRLs to the same for the Retardicans.
 
Threedee said:
I don't get liberal support for Dr. Paul. What the hell do they agree with him on? Even his opposition to the war is for different reasons than his. He is non-interventionist, but the left is very much interventionist, although the specific cause (Yugoslavia for example) as well as UN endorcement are the determining factors...

Dr. Paul is for lower taxes (X1), reforming the tax code (X2), smaller govt. (X3) and the list goes on. He is also pro-life (Major X).
Click to expand...

Anti war, anti gay marriage ban, anti drug war. 3 Biggies.
 
75% of Ron Paul's votes came from people who heard "He dislikes the war", "He wants to lower the drinking age (partially true)", and were vaguely enticed by his love of the constitution (who couldn't love the constitution?) Maybe a few kind of agreed with his lowering taxes. Most were ambivalent. The most ardent supporters of Paul were all true libertarians. But "true" libertarians don't make up 15% of the population.

Heck, if you twist it right, a majority of the population says they are economically conservative and socially liberal. But that's in a pragmatist way, and Libertarians aren't really pragmatists.
 
Watermark said:
75% of Ron Paul's votes came from people who heard "He dislikes the war", "He wants to lower the drinking age (partially true)", and were vaguely enticed by his love of the constitution (who couldn't love the constitution?) Maybe a few kind of agreed with his lowering taxes. Most were ambivalent. The most ardent supporters of Paul were all true libertarians. But "true" libertarians don't make up 15% of the population.

Heck, if you twist it right, a majority of the population says they are economically conservative and socially liberal. But that's in a pragmatist way, and Libertarians aren't really pragmatists.
Click to expand...

Capital "L" Libertarians are the farthest thing from pragmatistic imaginable.

But most people base their opinions on the good Doctor on big government propoganda.

Lets break it down.

He's one of only 2 candidates (Kucinich being the other) who wants to end the Iraq disaster right fucking now. Now. Not tomorrow, today.

He's the only candidate that wants to end the drug war now.

He's the only candidate that wants to use the Constitution as the rule of law.

He's the only Republican shitting all over the Bush Administration for the wire taps, guantanamo, torture and horrifying foreign policy.

He's the only candidate that doesn't want war with Iran.

He's the only guy that answers questions when asked without sticking his pecker in the wind.

He wants to dispose of the IRS.

He wants people to have rights such as freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom from propoganda and freedom from government intervention in every decision every American makes.

But the populace is generally pretty stupid, lemmings if you will, and they's simply rather have more of the same, but only worse. That's what peple are voting for. More of the same, but even moreso, even worse.
 
Threedee said:
I don't get liberal support for Dr. Paul. What the hell do they agree with him on? Even his opposition to the war is for different reasons than his. He is non-interventionist, but the left is very much interventionist, although the specific cause (Yugoslavia for example) as well as UN endorcement are the determining factors...

Dr. Paul is for lower taxes (X1), reforming the tax code (X2), smaller govt. (X3) and the list goes on. He is also pro-life (Major X).
Click to expand...


Liberal's flirtation with RP boils down essentially to one word: Iraq.
 
Cypress said:
Liberal's flirtation with RP boils down essentially to one word: Iraq.
Click to expand...

For many I agree. My personal take is that many of the 'liberals' drawn to Paul's 'anti-military' stance were younger voters, that hadn't any desire to dig deeper.

Now what I found personally disturbing as how many I'd consider 'politically interested', whether I usually agree with them or not, totally blocked any of the signs of serious problems regarding Paul and his longtime, close associations with less than enlightened folk.

These included so many that I would never considered 'one issue' voters but because they decided that his issues were taxes, cut government, immigration, reducing US foreign support with Israel-heck make that the world, they would go with him. Heck there were plenty who liked his 'gold standard' ideas. Then there was the bring jobs here, trade with those that wanted, seriously; too simple ideas for too complex of times.

He's sent Libertarianism back, how far we'll see.
 
Kathianne said:
For many I agree. My personal take is that many of the 'liberals' drawn to Paul's 'anti-military' stance were younger voters, that hadn't any desire to dig deeper.

Now what I found personally disturbing as how many I'd consider 'politically interested', whether I usually agree with them or not, totally blocked any of the signs of serious problems regarding Paul and his longtime, close associations with less than enlightened folk.

These included so many that I would never considered 'one issue' voters but because they decided that his issues were taxes, cut government, immigration, reducing US foreign support with Israel-heck make that the world, they would go with him. Heck there were plenty who liked his 'gold standard' ideas. Then there was the bring jobs here, trade with those that wanted, seriously; too simple ideas for too complex of times.

He's sent Libertarianism back, how far we'll see.
Click to expand...

Less than enlightened folk? you mean people who believe whites have the same civil rights? Or that other people besides jews have a right to create a nation with their interests in mind? I ask you again, zionist kathianne, why is jewish separatism more acceptable than any other form of "balkanization"?
 
The lesson should be to expose the racist that use your name rather than shelter them. I don't think Pauls racist, I don't think Paul wrote those, I do think he knows who did and as someone whos pushed Libertarianism and Free Markets for many years I'm disappointed it had to go down like it did.
 
Obfuscate said:
The lesson should be to expose the racist that use your name rather than shelter them. I don't think Pauls racist, I don't think Paul wrote those, I do think he knows who did and as someone whos pushed Libertarianism and Free Markets for many years I'm disappointed it had to go down like it did.
Click to expand...


What is racist? Is it racist to be against the racially disriminatory practices of Affirmative Action?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why are all the top sprinters and running backs black? Racism?
Click to expand...

Man, you just love to argue, fine claiming the riots were stopped when it was time to pick up welfare checks is enough for me. Too bad Paul doesn't come out and say who wrote them I'd respect him alot more. No way he doesn't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top