Ron paul status update regarding Rand & Romney..

[lukep]

When have they ever done anything about their lack of freedom?

You just haven't been paying attention at all this cycle, have you?

We're IN THE MAJORITY now G. The only people who don't think so here are still being brainwashed by the media, and that goes for a lot of Paul supporters, too.

The votes have literally been Flipped across the nation. There is strong mathematical evidence of this. Paul people turn out and consistently vote 50% to 70%+ in every state!

...And all of the people that worked hard to organize this are PISSED that it was stolen from them. Not just marginally miffed, but devastated... Dr. Paul gave each and every one of them a taste of freedom.

This is making things like AnarchoCapitalism an everyday word amongst the movement. You have to watch this video from one of our louder voices:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKZTUDrPzqs]Anarchists for Ron Paul?!? - YouTube[/ame]

(This, by the way, represents my opinion on Anarchism and Politics in the USA perfectly.)

That's Adam Kokesh, who is an AnCap & is basically the "general" of the r3VOLution's "Army." He led hundreds of battle-dress soldiers up to the white house gate a couple of months ago shouting things like "End the Fed" and "Ron Paul r3VOLution," and he called Obomba out as a traitor to the country publically declaring he is no longer president to the retired troops of this country. -Next up he's leading the protection squad for our delegates in Tampa... They're renting a huge barge to get close to the action... Huge group of soldiers going to that, and of course one of the TWO Paul Fests we have now planned for the days before the RNC. (Because one state fairgrounds just isn't big enough.)

Maybe you have been spending too much time on the DailyPaul. The masses don't share your values or concerns.

The drooling masses that are glued to TV and aren't voting at all? Sure, but I care as much for them as I do a dog turd on my porch... They're marginally in my way.

The Voting masses are LIBERTARIANS now... I don't think there are many R$ fools left, we've converted mostly all of them lately, and only the die-hard liberals will be siding with Obomba this fall.

Guess who owns the courts?

Even a court can't stop an army.

You gotta stop being so naive. The system isn't something you're a stakeholder in. You're a slave, and you in particular are playing the exact part they want you to.

Do you really believe they want people, nay, the majority of voters, to speak out angrily about their policies?

Like Adam said, the establishment is not giving us a ballot that allows us to vote for more freedom. It just isn't an option. And that's where they dun fucked up... To quote JFK:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Of course they shot him soon after saying those words, but those were in the days of total Media control over the masses. They believed the establishment's story about a lone gunman.

The 3VOLution is 100% Impervious to that trick. If something happens to Paul, I have no doubt at all there will be several buildings on fire in DC within hours.

 

[Adevictus]

Ron Paul probably would have died before ever making it into office, the man is a fossil. He knows he won't be around for much longer so probably sold out to secure his son's future.

 

[lukep]

Ron Paul probably would have died before ever making it into office, the man is a fossil. He knows he won't be around for much longer so probably sold out to secure his son's future.

Jesus H Christ you're a lowlife troll.

 

[teguh123]

You can't fix government. To quote Bastiat;

Believing in government is worse than believing in God. We can't disprove the existence of God, but we can prove that government is logically inconsistent and morally corrupt.

We can't proof God doesn't exist. We can proof that girls are whores. We can proof that free market work.
We can't proof that religions are wrong. We can proof that feminazis are wrong. We can proof that socialism doesn't work.

 

[makethatgreen]

We can't proof God doesn't exist. We can proof that girls are whores. We can proof that free market work.
We can't proof that religions are wrong. We can proof that feminazis are wrong. We can proof that socialism doesn't work.

We can also PROVE that you're an idiot.

 

[pfgannon]

I can't tell if you're a troll or just a total fucking moron, which leads me to believe you're a troll... Congrats on a job well done.

I don't get it instead of bitching like little mountain faggots about lack of freedom and how it's all RP/Rand Pauls fault and threatening to leave the US because Thailand is 10x more free-er, be a reall fucking man and really stick to your principles and get your ass on a fucking plane to Burma with a couple of you freedom fighter faggot friends arm your selves with pistols and have all the freedom you want. . . . Shit is so free that you are free to take other peoples freedoms, shit now that is freedom. Now get to it.

Luke, you need to take a step back, bro.

I think Guerrilla pretty much hit the nail on the head, as usual, but I'm going to attempt to address a few of your points. I don't mean to be harsh, but god damn, man.

I really do hope you're right about the election, at the very least, it will be exciting. Even though I don't think it will have any lasting [positive] impact. However, from an outside perspective, you come off as borderline delusional.

Exhibit A:

We're IN THE MAJORITY now G. The only people who don't think so here are still being brainwashed by the media, and that goes for a lot of Paul supporters, too.

So essentially, you know something (that relies on billions of variables) is true with 100% certainty, and everyone else must be brainwashed. Guerrilla, you should really stop watching all that Fox News. :faceplam.jpg:

The votes have literally been Flipped across the nation. There is strong mathematical evidence of this. Paul people turn out and consistently vote 50% to 70%+ in every state!

People involved in the liberty movement do not make up the the majority of voters in the country. Not by a fucking long shot. Informed voters, probably, but certainly not the majority of ALL voters. You've said it yourself, most people don't even know what the fuck a delegate is, so how does 50-70% of HIGHLY-informed voters translate into an election win? I don't have any numbers to back this up because, frankly, I don't give a shit.

As for worthless anecdotal evidence, I've got boatloads.

I can't remember the last time I had a political conversation with someone in real life that wasn't a total propagandized moron. Sure, most people are spoon-fed bullshit by the MSM, but that doesn't change the fact that they make up the voting majority. No matter who gets the nomination, you can bet that MTV and the like will be campaigning to get people out to the polls on election day, and the sheep of this country will heed the call en masse to ensure "that old white dude" doesn't make it into office. The sheperds are quite experienced at herding their flock to the slaughterhouse.

Even a court can't stop an army.

True, but the most advanced army can. And I already know what you're going to say...

But the majority of the military are RP supporters too.

This is also false. After all, the military is probably the most brainwashed segment of the entire population. RP gets more military donations, but that's because the rest just take orders without any independent thoughts of their own.

Do you really believe they want people, nay, the majority of voters, to speak out angrily about their policies?

They couldn't care less because there ain't shit anyone can do about it.

Like Adam said, the establishment is not giving us a ballot that allows us to vote for more freedom. It just isn't an option. And that's where they dun fucked up...

Unfortunately, most people don't define freedom in the same way that we do. Obama and Romney both give people the option to steal from their countrymen, and that's more than enough "freedom" for most people.

The 3VOLution is 100% Impervious to that trick. If something happens to Paul, I have no doubt at all there will be several buildings on fire in DC within hours.

Not having Ron Paul around will be a devastating loss for the movement. However, playing the State's game [of aggression] would hurt the movement even more. In fact, violent revolution is a sure-fire way to guarantee we have a government ready to be put up in it's place.

You should check out the podcasts at FreedomainRadio.com if you haven't already. Stefan doesn't always hit the mark 100%, but I do believe his analysis and theory on how to achieve statelessness to be pretty spot on.

You and I should also chat some time.

 

[guerilla]

You should check out the podcasts at FreedomainRadio.com if you haven't already. Stefan doesn't always hit the mark 100%, but I do believe his analysis and theory on how to achieve statelessness to be pretty spot on.

Luke doesn't deal in philosophy, economics or principle.

You and I should also chat some time.

Luke is a nice enough guy, but he has increasingly become nuttier and more deluded with every post. On the one hand, I like having anarchist buddies, but if that guy thinks state political action is somehow going to lead to freedom, he's not only not an anarchist, he's a flaming statist.

You're not ready for this level of cognitive dissonance.

 

[learningcurve]

As much as I would like to think that something better would prevail Luke, I tend to side with the others on this now. Not because I think his message is wrong or anything - I love the way he thinks, but it isn't going to happen. The masses don't want it regardless of what the die hard think. The masses want their social security, their free medical and any other benefits that come from the government - regardless of where it comes from.

The government has made the masses dependent on them and they know this will keep the way things run following the status quo. Feed them to make them malleable and compliant, with what isn't theirs to begin with.

Liberty and freedom cannot be won in the current system, not in any system if we are to be honest. I think liberty and freedom are exclusive from any system of governance in their true forms.

 

[lukep]

Fine, I'm going to step back.

I realize that the sad fact is I can't know. I'm speaking on Reasoning here, placing evidence I got from one place together with evidence I got from another and making a conclusion. I'd be too far gone if I couldn't see that there is still some room to be wrong.

Fact: There is a chance Paul could not have enough delegates, and there is a chance that most voters aren't flaming Paulbots. -I Doubt both, but only time and the passion of said flaming paulbots will tell.

Sorry for scaring you guys, but sometime Guerilla just disappoints me in the way he can't see that a little more freedom is a good thing worth working towards. (Not that he won't DO it, but that he can't SEE that it's a good thing.)

About freedomainradio, I have caught a few and I plan to catch some more. I will always work towards a state-LESS society, but personally I feel that its' not possible in my lifetime without something like a moonstead so I'm not going to work hard my whole life so some future generation achieves it... That's not unreasonable, is it?

I'm just settling for as much freedom as I can get for now... Just like Adam spelled out in his video above

He identifies himself as an AnarchoCapitalist/Voluntaryist... Is he wrong?

 

[lukep]

Luke doesn't deal in philosophy, economics or principle.

That hurts bro.

...if that guy thinks state political action is somehow going to lead to freedom, he's not only not an anarchist, he's a flaming statist.

There is one occasion in which I think political action can somehow lead to MORE freedom... Not the ultimate freedom of stateless society, of course, but more freedom for say, 25-100 years before this country falls back into the same old trap.

That occasion is very specific, very contrived, and it is apparent to me that Dr. Paul has been working for multiple Decades now to bring it about.

I'm I a statist for wanting him to succeed?

 

[guerilla]

That hurts bro.

It's true though. I don't doubt your heart, but you're really lazy about the details. I have seen many guys like you, you make really poor libertarians because your libertarianism isn't grounded in understanding. You don't have a conception of reality that reinforces your libertarianism as a practical system for living every day.

You're more interested in liberty rah rah rah without defining what liberty is.

I'm I a statist for wanting him to succeed?

Absolutely. How can you possibly be a libertarian, let alone an anarchist, if you endorse government solutions to problems?

This ^^^ is why principles, economics and philosophy matters. If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

 

[erifdekciw]

Oh now you guys are starting to realize lukep is a delusional?

 

[pfgannon]

Fine, I'm going to step back.

I realize that the sad fact is I can't know. I'm speaking on Reasoning here, placing evidence I got from one place together with evidence I got from another and making a conclusion. I'd be too far gone if I couldn't see that there is still some room to be wrong.

Fact: There is a chance Paul could not have enough delegates, and there is a chance that most voters aren't flaming Paulbots. -I Doubt both, but only time and the passion of said flaming paulbots will tell.

Sorry for scaring you guys, but sometime Guerilla just disappoints me in the way he can't see that a little more freedom is a good thing worth working towards. (Not that he won't DO it, but that he can't SEE that it's a good thing.)

It's not that a little more freedom wouldn't be nice, but (1)you won't change it from the inside, and (2)using a tool, that's immoral by nature, to achieve it is hypocritical at best.

About freedomainradio, I have caught a few and I plan to catch some more.

I was trying to avoid making this offer, but if you'd like me to hand select the really good episodes, I'll do that for ya.

I will always work towards a state-LESS society, but personally I feel that its' not possible in my lifetime without something like a moonstead so I'm not going to work hard my whole life so some future generation achieves it... That's not unreasonable, is it?

We criticize past generations on this all the time. For being unable to make the hard decisions and sacrifices, passing the buck, and fucking over future generations in the process.

For fucks sake, it's not about WHAT YOU CAN GET, it's about WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT.

I'm just settling for as much freedom as I can get for now... Just like Adam spelled out in his video above

He identifies himself as an AnarchoCapitalist/Voluntaryist... Is he wrong?

Wrong? In what sense?
OK, let's run with government being a tool, just like agorism and education. The difference is, agorism and education don't have violence as a prerequisite.

There is one occasion in which I think political action can somehow lead to MORE freedom... Not the ultimate freedom of stateless society, of course, but more freedom for say, 25-100 years before this country falls back into the same old trap.

That occasion is very specific, very contrived, and it is apparent to me that Dr. Paul has been working for multiple Decades now to bring it about.

I'm I a statist for wanting him to succeed?

You're not a Statist for wanting him to succeed. In fact, I'm sure many AnCaps would like to see RP win, regardless of their position on voting. What makes you a statist is believing that the system even works, and that you can affect change using it.

Keep supporting RP, by all means. Hell, I'm actually relieved it's over before election day, so I don't have to make that tough decision myself. It's hard to completely disavow government when you've been taught your whole life to think it's such an integral part of daily life. I get it.

Please, just get over this fantasy come November.

Hell, you were advocating socialism just a year or two ago, so I think there's still some hope for you.

 

[lukep]

It's true though. I don't doubt your heart, but you're really lazy about the details. I have seen many guys like you, you make really poor libertarians because your libertarianism isn't grounded in understanding. You don't have a conception of reality that reinforces your libertarianism as a practical system for living every day.

You're more interested in liberty rah rah rah without defining what liberty is.

Then why do I know, understand, and agree with things like the non-aggression principle at the root of it all? I've watched a dozen or so films you've posted over the last year or two and started reading Mises and Cato and many other libertarian sources since the 2008 election cycle.

Each time you tell me that I don't understand something like what money is it starts to make me wonder if you're getting senile because we've been through it before and I have looked at it from all angles. These guys at Mises aren't perfect... Their assumptions can be flawed. Of course I agree with them more than any other one source out there on economy and philosophy, but clearly they aren't perfect... Bitcoin is a perfect example of that.

Absolutely. How can you possibly be a libertarian, let alone an anarchist, if you endorse government solutions to problems?

So you're saying it's impossible, or at least unacceptable to support short-term goals and long-term goals at the same time?

That would make it pretty hard to do anything complex, even driving a car.

This ^^^ is why principles, economics and philosophy matters. If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

I'd RATHER stand for a Voluntary society... And I have no doubt that in the long run I'll contribute greatly to that cause. (Already have a movie script in mind that would do wonders if I could figure out how to distribute it well.)

Meanwhile, I'm Literally suffering because of shit like Taxes and the TSA. EVEN if I move to BKK, those two american agencies will plague my ass too often... Among many others.

So for now I'm with Paul and any true libertarian movement like the one Adam described above... The second it's co-opted like the tea party was, I'm outie.

...But I seriously doubt that will happen this time... The education for this group of patriots was done very differently than the first time.


Thought this was fitting:

 

[lukep]

It's not that a little more freedom wouldn't be nice, but (1)you won't change it from the inside, and (2)using a tool, that's immoral by nature, to achieve it is hypocritical at best.

1) I'll be cured of that delusion if Paul fails to win. More organization and sheep-shaking has gone into this campaign than any 10 others put together.

2) Using government against itself is immoral? Or do you mean violence? For the record I'm not advocating violence, I just see too many passionate ppl online to believe that it could Fail to go do violence if something happens like Paul getting assassinated.

I was trying to avoid making this offer, but if you'd like me to hand select the really good episodes, I'll do that for ya.

Thanks, I'd like that. No rush but if you pick the best ones I'll make time to see them eventually.

We criticize past generations on this all the time. For being unable to make the hard decisions and sacrifices, passing the buck, and fucking over future generations in the process.

I get slightly mad at the boomers for allowing this shitty situation to pop up, but at the same time I can't blame them for being in the same situation we are today; slaves to the state. They did what their leaders told them to do too. It's the same thing as me being mad at the sheeple here and now.

For fucks sake, it's not about WHAT YOU CAN GET, it's about WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT.

This is why I work towards a stateless society and try to live by the non-aggression principle... And 'preach' Voluntaryism to others.

To really make a difference for this cause though, we'd have to go against our principles and acquire a supreme power, one that could bring down not just one country, but all of them. No mere Nukes would suffice for this job!

Not in the same ballpark at all with being upset with the boomers, is it?

Wrong? In what sense?

His (and my) form of Libertarianism; it sounds like yours too. He says he works towards a Paul presidency because of his Libertarian beliefs.

What makes you a statist is believing that the system even works, and that you can affect change using it.

I see the system here as more than a couple levels deep, and what you're really seeing in me is my crediting Dr. Paul at being an excellent strategist, playing down to the bottom-most level.

This is why I believe that Paul still has a chance; I believe that all of the negative words from the Paul campaign lately, including Rand's big announcement, were all part of Paul's plan... He learned a couple of times before how not to win the nomination, and frankly, I don't think he's stupid enough to make all the same mistakes this year too, do you?

So it's not that I think votes count or any fairytale like that... I've seen the mathematical proof that they are being flipped in favor of R$ this cycle and last cycle for McCain... I know that voting is just allowing the little people to feel like they are part of the game.

...But Delegates' & electors' votes are a whole new level. Not to mention, this very liberty campaign keeps getting all kinds of new blood into offices across the country. So what happens when every politician in Washington minus the president is a Paulbot? -That is something we apparently DO have control over, as proven many times lately.

Hell, you were advocating socialism just a year or two ago, so I think there's still some hope for you.

Lol; Advocating socialism?? I think you mean I was advocating going to other countries to use their socialized medicine, right? A year ago I was already a Libertarian... I just really, really hated my medical options here in the states.

 

[pfgannon]

Oh boy, here we go....

1) I'll be cured of that delusion if Paul fails to win. More organization and sheep-shaking has gone into this campaign than any 10 others put together.

2) Using government against itself is immoral? Or do you mean violence? For the record I'm not advocating violence, I just see too many passionate ppl online to believe that it could Fail to go do violence if something happens like Paul getting assassinated.

1) Good to hear.

2) This is why you need to learn more about the philosophical side of things, as G stated. I mean "the violence inherent in the system." OK, so you're using government against itself, which means you must use government resources to achieve your goals. But wait, government doesn't have resources, they use violence to extract them from the people within their borders. In order to achieve your goals in this fashion you must use "gov't resources" and that requires putting a gun in somebody's back.

Thanks, I'd like that. No rush but if you pick the best ones I'll make time to see them eventually.

I'll try to get some primers over to you this weekend while I'm in NY, and we can take it from there I guess.

I get slightly mad at the boomers for allowing this shitty situation to pop up, but at the same time I can't blame them for being in the same situation we are today; slaves to the state. They did what their leaders told them to do too. It's the same thing as me being mad at the sheeple here and now.

Now you're doing what your masters tell you to do, they've just reframed it so you wouldn't notice. You can angrily voice your dissent all you want, as long as you keep believing in their system.

This is why I ... try to live by the non-aggression principle...

Understand it better first.

To really make a difference for this cause though, we'd have to go against our principles and acquire a supreme power, one that could bring down not just one country, but all of them. No mere Nukes would suffice for this job!

Not in the same ballpark at all with being upset with the boomers, is it?

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here, other than dismantling the state. What this statement does show me is that you're looking for a quick fix. I have no fucking clue how we'll eventually transition to a stateless society. What I do know, is that when the market eventually demands it, and it will, humanity will produce the solution. I also know it won't happen anytime soon, which is why we need to make the tough decisions now, so our children's children's children's children even have the option to make their own decisions. Oh, and it won't be a Chromebook-powered superweapon.

His (and my) form of Libertarianism; it sounds like yours too. He says he works towards a Paul presidency because of his Libertarian beliefs.

You're a Libertarian in the political sense. My libertarian beliefs are much more rooted in philosophy. Kokesh seems to be somewhere in between. I think after this election cycle, Adam will likely fully embrace anarchy, having finished what he started.

I was hoping for an objective definition of wrong, but I didn't get that, so I'll answer using my definition of wrong in this instance. Yes, I do think he's wrong to believe a Paul presidency would change anything.

I see the system here as more than a couple levels deep, and what you're really seeing in me is my crediting Dr. Paul at being an excellent strategist, playing down to the bottom-most level.

This is why I believe that Paul still has a chance; I believe that all of the negative words from the Paul campaign lately, including Rand's big announcement, were all part of Paul's plan... He learned a couple of times before how not to win the nomination, and frankly, I don't think he's stupid enough to make all the same mistakes this year too, do you?

He's done a great job, no doubt. However, he could run the most perfect campaign imaginable, but he still won't get elected without State approval.

So it's not that I think votes count or any fairytale like that... I've seen the mathematical proof that they are being flipped in favor of R$ this cycle and last cycle for McCain... I know that voting is just allowing the little people to feel like they are part of the game.

...But Delegates' & electors' votes are a whole new level.

Yeah, total fairytale. However, an even more contrived process like that of the delegates nomination will totally work.

Forget about the voting process dude. It's not one component of gov't that doesn't produce a net positive, it's government as a whole.

Not to mention, this very liberty campaign keeps getting all kinds of new blood into offices across the country. So what happens when every politician in Washington minus the president is a Paulbot? -That is something we apparently DO have control over, as proven many times lately.

I take it the pun wasn't intended? I must have missed the thread on the DailyPaul where everyone volunteered to pay the salaries of these newly elected public servants.

Where's your Voluntaryism and NAP now?
:angrysoapbox_sml:

Lol; Advocating socialism?? I think you mean I was advocating going to other countries to use their socialized medicine, right? A year ago I was already a Libertarian... I just really, really hated my medical options here in the states.

If I remember correctly, you said something along the lines of "it can work for some countries". I was just fucking with you anyway.

 

[lukep]

2) This is why you need to learn more about the philosophical side of things, as G stated. I mean "the violence inherent in the system." OK, so you're using government against itself, which means you must use government resources to achieve your goals. But wait, government doesn't have resources, they use violence to extract them from the people within their borders. In order to achieve your goals in this fashion you must use "gov't resources" and that requires putting a gun in somebody's back.

I am not aware of any use by the Paul campaign of public funds. He won't even take on a secret service detail!

I'll try to get some primers over to you this weekend while I'm in NY, and we can take it from there I guess.

Thanks, looking forward to it. Just to give you a frame of reference, I've seen a couple or three of Molyneux's most-watched YT vids, but I haven't spent much time on his site yet.

Now you're doing what your masters tell you to do, they've just reframed it so you wouldn't notice. You can angrily voice your dissent all you want, as long as you keep believing in their system.

How does being angry at sheeple & boomers show that I believe in the state?

Understand it better first.

Alright. Since you and G both seem to feel I don't understand it well enough, I'll go into it with a clearer mind this time.

...you're looking for a quick fix. I have no fucking clue how we'll eventually transition to a stateless society. What I do know, is that when the market eventually demands it, and it will, humanity will produce the solution. I also know it won't happen anytime soon, which is why we need to make the tough decisions now, so our children's children's children's children even have the option to make their own decisions.

I wouldn't call what I'm looking for a "quick fix" as much as a "relevant solution." A quick fix would be to do something drastic like go kidnap all the establishments' children at the same time and force them to do your bidding. Or maybe even in this instance it would be a quick fix to build an army to take over the state and then rule that state to take over others until you have conquered all the planet, Palpatine-style.

No, clearly these approaches are way too flawed and against the NAP bigtime. Where I was going was a way to live WITH the NAP but still make my immediate world better because I'm miserable today. I do not plan to take any action at all that leads to an increased state presence, rather quite the opposite... The difference is that I'll "take what I can get" in the short-term above working hard for future generations to receive my spoils in the ultra-longterm... While still not enlarging the state at all. Paul is clearly going to shrink it drastically, and in the biggest way possible on day one of his presidency. (Calling the troops home.)

Any Voluntaryist that doesn't work towards this chance of installing a president that will bring the worldwide troops home on day one of his presidency is missing the most important thing they can do in their lifetime to bring about a stateless society one day.

Apparently, G's swollen sense of philosophy is in the way of his ability to bring about any meaningful change towards his goals.

You're a Libertarian in the political sense. My libertarian beliefs are much more rooted in philosophy. Kokesh seems to be somewhere in between. I think after this election cycle, Adam will likely fully embrace anarchy, having finished what he started.

I'll admit I could use more philosophic instruction, but so far everything I've read about the NAP I can agree with totally and it does help keep me glued to my political beliefs. Kokesh is obviously more of an action guy, who won't be happy bringing about change in the 28th century... I guess I'm right in between you both, but I feel like I've "fully embraced" anarchy in that I'm working to remove the state entirely and feel it is always immoral to have one. I think he has too.

Yes, I do think he's wrong to believe a Paul presidency would change anything.

So is it that you believe Paul would go and try to bring the troops home and be stopped, or do you think that suddenly he'd change his mind and decide that they're needed right where they are?

As the POTUS, the constitution says he has total control over the troops as commander in chief. Is this a total fabrication?

Lawyers and political pundits agree that the potus should be able to declare an end to all hostilities and bring home the vast majority of worldwide troops on Hour 1 of inauguration day. Is that all impossible?

Because even if it is only temporary, just the act of it happening for a minute would wake up more sheeple and get them thinking about the morality of the state than any amount of youtube vids we could ever make.

The same goes for overturning a great number of Executive orders like the NDAA. Those cancellations would have a HUGE effect on our society, which is all very in line with the NAP.

He's done a great job, no doubt. However, he could run the most perfect campaign imaginable, but he still won't get elected without State approval.

So is grassroots r3VOLution impossible if Paul supporters take over every post in the establishment up through congress? I just fail to see how the powers that be can micro-manage their resistance to our efforts if they no longer have control of the elected representatives.

Are you saying that there is a totally, completely hidden shadow government doing the real work behind the scenes made up of many thousands of NON-elected establishment employees doing all that work that our government is supposed to be doing?

If so, why have none of us never met one of them?

I must have missed the thread on the DailyPaul where everyone volunteered to pay the salaries of these newly elected public servants.

Aw c'mon, if all of these people accepting a standard salary from the state work towards minimizing the state, it's far better for us than letting those spots go to socialists, right?

I guess I can see how this is a tiny breach of the best practices of the NAP but honestly, following the best practices of the NAP to a T makes it impossible to fight at all. We'd have no tools left.

Taking it to that level, as Guerilla obviously does, has the same end effect as Obomba' "Hope and Change" platform.

Paul's mass-education platform is the way to go to bring out any actual change at all. Otherwise, for every single mind Voluntaryism grabs, ten thousand more drooling statists come in to the world to fight your vision. (Ok so I have no idea what that real number is but you get my point.)

 

[dreamache]

lol
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtO5INu-VY4]Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement - YouTube[/ame]

Let's hope rand is acting like a double agent lol
zombiesack 5 minutes ago

shit looks staged.

 

[theunicorn]

if romney is good enough for the paul family he is good enough for me.

ROMNEY 2012.

 

[mattseh]

What have we done?