Campaign For Liberty stands behind Buck score card
Anyone who has incurred the ire of Ron Paul supporters will tell you that they are a determined, educated and vocal group of activists. Any group which can raise $6 million within 24 hours as Ron Paul supporters did during the 2008 elections certainly knows how to get things done. Recently, however, one of its own organizations came under fire as a local community gave its political contributions to Campaign For Liberty in order to produce an advertising campaign for Ken Buck, a candidate for Senator in Colorado.
At the heart of the controversy are Buck's views on the war in Afghanistan. Although the Republican candidate has expressed disapproval over America's involvement in Iraq, he has supported the ongoing effort in Afghanistan. On his campaign website, Buck appears to accept the official military view regarding this conflict which includes a 10 year projected stay and a prolonged rebuilding effort. He also stated that he would look "first to the advice of the generals" rather than suggesting any sort of disengagement on his own. While these views are typical in a Republican platform, they diverge considerably from the Libertarian-leaning views of the Ron Paul camp. The Afghan conflict is seen as financially draining and as a means for the military industrial complex to perpetuate itself at the expense of the American citizens. It is viewed as a type of government expansion with numerous corporate and government entities profiting from the venture. In short, Buck's broad based support of the war earned him the label of "Neo-Conservative" by many within the Ron Paul community.
However, Campaign For Liberty, apparently with the support of Ron Paul himself, have stood their ground and stated that the labeling is a bit too harsh. More
I personally believe
our anti war stance is the only thing that has kept us out of the political mainstream. I believe in order to reject the Afghan War, one would have to believe 9/11 was an inside job, or at least infer that they believed that to be the case by not supporting the war in Afghanistan. I for one think there is compelling evidence to suggest that our own government had a helping hand in 9/11, but to expect a politician to openly express a similar view would be political suicide. That is my take on this whole Afghanistan thing and some politicians seemingly pro war stance on Afghanistan. If 9/11 was not an inside job and were we not intruding on other countries soil in the Middle East, I would say the Afghanistan War would be justified. My assumption is that even if these politicians believe 9/11 was an inside job, first off, they cannot admit to it, and secondly by oppossing the war in Afghanistan it would suggest that the former be the case. That is my take on the situation, and we need to learn to be flexible, because if we are too rigid, we will snap. We need to trust Ron Paul, and take care of other fronts in this battle.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
I don't that think that is necessary
A libertarian who doesn't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, could have opposed the war simply because it's a government program. That is, something that (a) will not achieve its intended objective, and (b) will furthermore actually exacerbate the problem.
As Harry Browne said:
"Government just simply does not work. It is never the answer to anything."
Public opinion still plays a role trickplay
they can spin the war anyway they want against you. It is perception based, regardless of facts. Our whole society is perception based, facts are meaningless. You know how they paint the picture, so you think 3000 innocent Americans being killed does not justify retaliation, that is how they will paint it. We are playing a game of perception in an illusion of reality. It is a hard game to play.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
OK
I get what you are saying. And I think that means those libertarians who don't think 9/11 was an inside job have to just do a much better job of stating we oppose it: government, including the sacred Department of Defense, doesn't work.
I find this charge easy to reply to...sure retaliation may be justified...but the 19 "alleged" men died! And if you want to go after the other people that may have been responsible in planning it, fine. But stealing from me (ie. taxation) is not justified to do that. Pay with it out of your own pockets.
Politics....
Politics (wielding of power) in a representative government is all about convincing a large enough block of voters to elect persons that share your views (or some of your views).
Building large enough blocks of voters, in almost all cases, involves coalition building. Coalition building requires compromise (yuck). Ugly but necessary fact of life.
Since the liberty movement is a smaller block than others, the only way to get our philosophies and objectives installed into active governance is for us to pick a small list that we think has the best chance of not offending prospective alliances and then choosing to support the candidates that mathematically support the most of our objectives.
This is what people are mad about. C4L came up with a plan to question candidates, give them a score, advertise the scores, and later hold them accountable if they variate from their answers (holding accountable by pointing out publically that the candidate broke their "promise").
Politically, is it better to elect 100 candidates that agree with us on three out of four of our top issues compared to electing four people who agree on all of our top issues? As much as I dislike America's wars and the harm they are doing not only to foreigners but also to our own nation, I think the former option is superior.
Rolling back the Patriot Act(s) and their attack on our privacies, restoring habeas corpus and pushing back declarations of war from the President back to Congress would be a major coup and foundation for future work even if the wars keep going for a little while longer until we can grow our movement to the next level.
The only other option to working within our current democratically-structured representative system is for us as a small group to force our philosophies onto government through violence and I'm personally hoping it doesn't come to that, just yet. :p
Right now we are stuck with coalition building... which means we have to deal with the ugly "comprommise" word to build large enough voting blocks to elect persons who share (at best) some of our philosophies.
.
"Wobbles but doesn't fall down" - weebles
this rings true
"pick a small list that we think has the best chance of not offending prospective alliances and then choosing to support the candidates that mathematically support the most of our objectives."
Look at people who are trying to do everything - 9/11, irs, the fed, fluoride, sales tax, ... Then look at what those people have accomplished. My observation of people trying to do everything is they often accomplish nothing while alienating potential allies.
The recent continental congress has a massive document of all the wrongs. Watch how much success that will have.
Let's focus, attract allies, and have success in restoring liberty.
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
.
.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
If you do not mind I will answer your question with a
question.
"Politically, is it better to elect 100 candidates that agree with us on three out of four of our top issues compared to electing four people who agree on all of our top issues?"
Is it better to gain 1 new fully understanding convert to why the US Constitution was written the way it was, full understanding about the FED, etc.; essentially the type of person that knew and supported Dr Paul before 2007 and/or is a typical DP member, OR gain 100 that have not really awoken but will pull the lever for RP on a single issue, ant-war, patriot act/civil rights, etc.?
No need to provide your answer just please consider the question.
As you consider the question there are many points I would recommend you factor but I will only offer two:
1. The typical voter is easily swayed over time by powerful messages designed to work on subconscious human drives-primarily libidinal drive(Freud/Bernays and beyond). The target of these messages does not realize what is occurring. The typical politico is easily swayed by political office over time-power corrupts.
2. A DP veteran level voter/citizen/activist can properly expose the asleep/unconverted to the reality of our situation and what must be done-creating another DP veteran convert at no monetary cost that will remain extremely resistant to being swayed by the powerful messages mentioned above-for the rest of their lives.
A politico that really gets what RP is talking about and why it is critical to our nations very existence will be far more resistant to the typical culture of corruption environment surrounding political power centers. That politico is far more likely to positively influence his lesser___political contemporaries for the good of the movement without any lobbying cash-for as long as he/she serves. We cannot win a money war, particularly with the recent SCOTUS ruling(the ANTI power of truth ruling?). Our one great strength is our message but the message must be fully understood and fully accepted before it has great power.
The Long March
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step"
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
Thanks
for posting this.
thanks
for responding...
My thanks...
... as well.
Plano TX
Thanks...
Dunno why.
It just looked good there.
:)
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
Thank You...
Hey, you're right, it does look good...