Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman
What I would expect you to do is let your candidate stand or fall on his own merits, which, persecutions complexes aside, have found more than ample fora for expression in various outlets, the main one being, of course the internet.
|
Not everyone is on the internet. From the number of people who didn't even know who Ron Paul was a few months ago, when I was canvassing, I would say that much of the Republican base is not. The bottom line is that Faux News and CNN were not going to cover Ron Paul unless we did newsworthy things. The Ron Paul Blimp was newsworthy. Showing up and the functions of opposing candidates was newsworthy. Some people found out, through our attempts, that there was a candidate out there who wanted to return to the Constitution. I will cry no tears over this.
If it was rude, it was no ruder than the treatment Dr. Paul got at the last debate, where he wasted 2 hours of his time for <2minutes of air time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman
What I would not expect you to do is be thugs that attempt to shut down any other candidates expression of their ideas. Aside from being hopelessly rude, it doesn't help your cause, you know.
|
When you are at the stage of the game where people don't yet know you exist, any publicity is good publicity. Yes, we might have annoyed some people who future freedom candidates will have to win over. But we would be no worse off if nobody knew who we were.
Speaking your mind, even loudly and publicly, does not rise to the level of being "thugs". It is part of political discourse. It is what unpopular groups must do in order to be heard at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman
And please, comparing yourselves to Revolutionary War soldiers? Delusions of Grandeur much?
|
I would say that a return to Constitutional principals from our current distance would be as momentous a change as the change from English rule to self-government. That is why it is a concept that makes many nervous. Lets face it,
Fiat money is unconstitutional (see the decision made on greenbacks after the civil war, where one of the supreme court justices who voted to find the action unconstitutional had actually been the treasury secretary who took the action)
The New Deal is unconstitutional (and was found so, until FDR tried to pack the court, and sadly, the court backed down),
The average rate of taxation which inspired the Revolution was 10% of income. Our taxes, combining all levels of government, approach 50% of our income.
The War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Only congress has the power to go to war. This was specifically because the Founding Fathers feared an 'imperial president'. If you look that up in the dictionary, I suspect you'll find Dubya's picture.
There are 30,000 gun laws in America, of which I'm sure at least half (those that do not deal with felons) are at least partially unconstitutional. That's a conservative (not a neocon) estimate.
And on, and on, and on, and on. By some estimates, only 2% of what congress does is covered by it's 18 enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 9.
So yes, I do believe that a return to the constitution would be a revolutionary change. My guess is that it will not happen (if at all) until after an economic collapse that makes the Great Depression (caused by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve) look like a passing bad mood. But I, personally, want better for my country.