56 votes

"What's wrong with y'all? We got to get behind whoever the winner is!"

I was reading a post tonight about a girl who was sitting next to a man who saw she was a Ron Paul supporter and this man sitting next to her said this: "Whether it is Newt or Romney, we got to get behind whoever the winner is."

I thought about that for a moment and I tried to ponder what you could say to someone who would tell you something like this. It is then that I came up with a question that I would ask anyone who would suggest that to me.

If you were standing in a line for bread with your child, and all the other children and their parents were in front of you and they were being felt up in order to get some bread, would you continue to stand in that line and allow your child to be felt up for the bread that you and he could eat or would you get out of line and get in line with a group of people who would not allow that to happen to their child.

So many times we are lulled into believing that we have no choice but to conform and get in line so we can eat. Thank God for the few men and women throughout history who refused to be another slave in a crowd and chose to fight rather than submit to tyranny. We are at a crossroads in our history and if we don't stand for liberty, our children and their children will curse us for our lack of courage.

This is not the time to give quarter to those who mean to destroy our way of life and even our Country itself, but instead we must stand like men of old who realized there are far worse things than hunger. We are free men and women and by God we will not except anything less than freedom.

It is Dr. Paul or none. We will continue to grow and our voices will get louder and louder over time, but if we give in, we will be no better off than the animals in a Zoo. We will be fed, but at what cost to our children?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



I actually think

I would tell someone to worry about that after the convention, and to do everything they can to make sure we don't have that problem. My motto in this, is "one thing at a time." It takes serious devotion to the cause of liberty to understand the "No one but Paul" stance. New converts think that even if the other guys are bad, their brand of trouble is slow enough, that maybe we can have time to keep fighting. The new or potential Paul voters I know are scared to death that an Obama re-election will be the end of America as we know it within six months and there will be no more elections in his lifetime.
So, just work hard for Paul and worry about the lesser of two evils after August.


I like that idea: Let's make sure that doesn't happen let's just all vote for Ron Paul because he is the only one we can trust and we have been looking for someone we can trust. It's now or never! Let's do it now! Change the course of history! Vote for Ron Paul and never, never, never go back!

If the election is between a

If the election is between a pair of clones who CARES if it's held?

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

"The new or potential Paul

"The new or potential Paul voters I know are scared to death that an Obama re-election will be the end of America as we know it within six months and there will be no more elections in his lifetime."

Santorum and Newt freak me out with regards to this, Romney too, to a lesser degree...


Isn't Freedom beautiful? I love the fact that I don't GOT to get behind anyone. :-)

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

I have school-age children

I have always tought my children it is better to befriend other kids in school who have morals they agree with, are trustworthy and honest, regardless of their popularity. What the "get behind the leader" people are espousing is equivalent to encouraging your kids to get in with the popular/good looking crowd, even though they are shallow and self-centered, they cheat on tests and spread rumors and lies, and to do it without questioning who the heck declared those kids the most popular in the first place.

A dear

friend of mine called me yesterday to ask a question about Ron Paul - she thinks he is the best candidate but wondered about something he said in the last debate.

Anyhow, she said to me that she is thoroughly disgusted with the other GOP candidates and can't imagine Obama being elected again but if Ron Paul does not get the nomination who should she vote for.

Don't vote for any of them was my advice - they are all the same. If you can write Ron Paul's name in then do it, otherwise honor your conscience and stay home.

The mentality that we have to support whoever is the nominee is absurd. THAT'S exactly what THEY want you to think - there is no way I would support any of them except Ron Paul. Don't play their stupid game.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Pick the minor that SAYS the right thing.

When the major party candidates for an office are both asses, pick the minor party candidate pushing a stated position close to yours on your most important issue(s).

By voting rather than staying home you say "Here's a vote you COULD have had if your political agenda had been better." By voting for a candidate with a stated position similar to yours you tell them which way to change. By voting for a candidate who makes that position a big deal you tell them which issues are important.

If your candidates don't have a chance it's fine, because you don't have to worry whether they'd keep their promises if elected. Your "message" is "sent". Enough people sending the message - like enough to make the difference in an election - and it might be received.

If by some fluke your candidate DOES stand a chance, you and enough others voting by this rule might actually WIN. (And the more people who vote this way, the more likely that is.)

The only thing that makes ANY candidate unelectable is voters who chose not to vote for him. If voters believe the media about electability the media operators get to create viscous circles and pick the losers.

Meanwhile, it's important to NOT vote for an EVEN WORSE major (or minor) party opponent as your protest. That obscures the message you're trying to send. The LAST thing you want is for the politicians to become EVEN WORSE next time around because they think that's what you WANT.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Whewee! Good Advice

Good strategy. I think I will do that.


Dang it! Haven't you people ever heard of the write-in vote? I've made a commitment to write in Dr. Paul if he doesn't get the nomination - at least I'll know I've done the right thing.

Of course, that's assuming that the neocon/RINO establishment or the Glorious Beloved Infallible Commissar hasn't banned the write-in vote by then, or suspended the elections entirely.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

You already need an official

You already need an official filing and elector slate for write-in votes to be counted and reported, at least here in Californication. But the named candidate does not need to do the filing.

If you're serious about your advice, check your state's rules and do what is needed (as some Libertarians did in CA last time around).

If the Republican Party nominates someone else and loses as a result of us Ronulans not voting Republican in droves, we want to rub their noses in it as hard as possible. It should help the Libertarian Wing displace the Neocons and might get us Rand or some other trustworthy freedom-movement type next time around.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Gary Johnson

If Paul doesn't make it, Gary Johnson is getting my vote. He's a good guy and would also make a good President. He's not Ron Paul but a long stretch, but he's my second option.

Eric Hoffer

Tell her to vote for Obama...

Tell her to vote for Obama... Force the damn Republican party to change its ways if they want a shot at winning. They have to understand that they cant keep ignoring us.

On a side note, wouldn't it be cool if we got a libertarian candidate running in the democratic primaries in the future :P

Not sure about that...

The way the republican party has been over the last 30-40 years they are almost the same as the democrats. I think the republican leadership is far more afraid that Ron Paul will change their agenda then Obama won't continue it for them. Sure, they say they don't like Obama, but he gets overwhelming support from conservative congressman with their votes. If Obama was as bad as they say he is, why wouldn't they be fighting him tooth and nail on everything? The thing is that Obama is as bad as they say he is for the american people, but the republican/democrat agenda keeps rolling on.

They want you to vote for Mitt/Newt/Rick/Obama over Ron Paul. To them it matters little which of the first four get elected. The best case scenario is one of the republicans diverts the course by 5%. Ron Paul will do a 180. It is Ron Paul or nothing.

Right but I'm targeting the

Right but I'm targeting the typical ignorant Republican who just wants to see his team (red) win against (blue). These guys are useless when it comes too thinking differently. If we can convince enough of them that the only way they can win against Obama is if they support Ron Paul then we will win the nomination and the general election. These types of people are unfortunately the majority in both parties, they don't care about big ideas, they just want their team to win. That's why I think it would be wise to say, we're all going over to the other team unless you change your ways...

wrong base assumption

Your assumption that "the typical ignorant Republican ...just wants to see his team (red) win against (blue)". Is wrong. The silent majority of Republicans don't want this at all. The silent majority of Republicans vote Republican because they don't see that they have any other choice. The Democratic platform is pro-death, pro-welfare, pro-socialism, pro-pervert, basically against everything the Republican platform professes to support. The silent majority are not represented by the Republican Party, they are fleeced by the Republican Party. They believe Ron Paul is dangerous and his ideas are insane because they believe the paid media messages give that illusion. They have no source of information to the contrary. They are not on the internet and even if they were it would be to check their e-mail and get off as quickly as possible. So, the only thing they know about Ron Paul right now is what they have learned by Ron Paulies waving signs, sitting in the debate audiences and demanding that Ron Paul be allowed to speak, working your butts off doing exactly what you have been doing!

Your messaging is beginning to pay off and Ron Paul has become dangerous to the status quo Republican elite. Follow through on your messaging and you can win this election. I want to see Florida come around. Florida derives the bulk of their income from military bases and operations. Veterans have a big influence in Florida politics. Vietnam era neo-con veterans can be reached but you have to speak their language. They were deserted by their country while they went to fight for them. They were betrayed by Jane Fonda and killed and tortured under her betrayal. When you present a message to Vietnam era veterans that looks like betrayal to them, they feel betrayed all over again.

I tell you truly, I was stationed at Fort Myer when they were bringing the guys home from Vietnam. They were snuck in secretly without fanfare because the mobsters had stirred the nation up so much that their lives were endangered upon their return. I went down to meet my date in the lobby of the barracks one night and a soldier who was a stranger grabbed my arm and said, "Hey! I just got back from Vietnam! I fought for my country!" There was panic in his voice. I didn't understand it. I was in the military and I didn't understand what was going on in his heart and mind. I just said something like, "I know, a lot of men have been there." And went on to find my date. These men were betrayed. They will feel betrayed if care is not taken to keep the foreign policy message on target.

Many, many Vietnam veterans cried when we began "welcoming" them back 20 years after they returned. When the desert storm parades happened, the Vietnam Veterans marched in the parades and that was the first time many of them felt welcomed back home. Don't make the mistake of continuing to believe the lies you believe about conservatives. You don't know us any more than conservatives know Ron Paul.

My potential answers

"When my party starts being loyal enough to me to actually defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they'll get my loyalty back. I'm not voting for a criminal."

"And what would be the difference between an Obama presidency and a Gingrich/Romney presidency be, exactly? It'll just be 'our guy' taking away our liberties and destroying our money and attacking 3 countries instead of 'their guy,' all while still not saving the unborn."

"Sorry, but God would hold me accountable for supporting an evil man when there is a good man I can support, instead. I fear God more than man."

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Ron Paul or Obama

There's no way I would ever vote for the neocons. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination (or at the very least his ideas of sound money are not implemented by the Republican party) I'm voting for Obama. Obama espouses socialism, that's true, but at least he believes everyone should benefit. Romney and the rest of the establishment supports socialism for the rich (via bank bailouts and currency devaluation) and capitalism for the middle class and poor.

Ditto on not voting for a Neocon.

Ditto on the not voting for neocons part. I didn't vote for a Neocon last time and I won't vote for one this time either.

Ask 'em "Why do you think McCain lost?" Then tell them "Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result is insanity."

But I won't vote for O'Bummer. That sends the wrong message to the party functionaries. We'd get an even WORSE candidate next time around as they chase the illusion that people WANT what Obama is selling.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Here is what you say.

Voting for "Anybody but Obama" in 2012 is the ignorant equivalent of voting for "Hope & Change" in 2008.

I'm so thankful that McCain didn't win, and they can blame people like me that wrote in Ron Paul if they want to. He wouldn't have had a chance to run right now if McCain was the incumbent.
I'd rather bleed the corruption out of the Republican party dry than to vote for evil to win out of it.
It truly is Ron Paul or bust for me.

Ron Paul gets my vote, he earned it

Rally behind a candidate in order to beat the other team? How stupid are our old folks and when will they be gone so we can fix this place. I swear they are the only voting block really causing us issues especially on the foreign policy thing.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

Don't knock the "old folks".

Don't knock the "old folks". Some of us are here.

Who do you think founded the Libertarian movement?

When the old folks are gone you'll need to find a replacement for Ron Paul.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.



C_T_CZ's picture

--Or, go to the Libertarian party...

I wrote this in another thread, but am copying it here because it is the same topic.

In my opinion...Republicans have a Neocon wing and a Libertarian wing. For quite some time, the neocon wing has been dominant. There are quite a few libertarian-leaning Republicans who hold their nose and vote for the neocon candidate, simply because the belief that it is the lesser of two evils versus the Democrats.

I was a member of the Libertarian party my whole life. I switched to Republican just to vote Paul. I will switch back in a heartbeat if Paul is not the nominee.

I think most Americans are Libertarians at heart but just don't realize it. I'd love for Paul supporters to swing to Libertarian.

Imagine our country if we had three parties instead of two. Neocon Republicans, Constitutional Libertarians, and Progressive Democrats. We're getting close to the point where it would be a 33% split each way if all Paul supporters were to switch to Libertarian.

Another point to make. If we don't all switch to Libertarian, in each future election cycle we will yet again be forced to try to convince Neocons the light of Liberty and Freedom. It's a tough sell for many neocons. Neocons love their overseas and drug wars.

Why not go to a party that actually upholds and promotes Liberty, rather than try to convince a whole party that they need to change their beliefs? We can take all the time and energy we spend trying to change neocon beliefs, and instead channel it into making the Libertarian party strong.

Many argue that a 3rd party can not make it in politics. To some degree I agree - but that is a historically correct point only because the percentage has never been significant compared to the two major parties. But at what percent does a 3rd party become significant? 20%? 25%? Certainly 30%

So what if we don't get the Republican nomination? We can switch to Libertarian, get our 20% of the vote, then work for 4 years to move Libertarian party from 20% to 30% and increase it's viability at the national stage.

It will be tough work. Certainly some liberty-minded Republicans (like Rand) would be in a bind - stick with Repbulicans, or go Libertarian?

I for one believe it would be easier to work within a party that already respects Liberty and grow it, rather than try to beat a square neocon peg into a round libertarian hole.

My 2 cents. I appreciate this thread and all the others that have posted. Gives us much to consider for the future of the Liberty / Ron Paul movement, which we all understand is much bigger than this election cycle or Ron Paul himself.

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

A third party DID replace a second one.

A third party DID replace a second one. The Republicans replaced the Whigs.

The Whigs had suffered a split on a major issue (slavery). Thy suffered major loss-of-interest by members and degenerated into apathy (as their younger generation found better things to do in business and law), effectively leaving the field open.

We're not there yet. The Republican Party has a similar split going (empire building) and is excluding its own potential young recruits. But though it's losing voters its internal machinery is still strong while the economy is weak and deteriorating. So we might be approaching an opportunity for "dynastic succession" but we're not there yet, at least for the Whig->Republican style.

As for the Libertarians, they also need a bunch of reforming. One problem the party has is the willingness to push for any piece of the agenda they can get, rather than going for them in an order that doesn't make thing worse at first and thus destroy the party's access to power before things can be made better. (Example: Open borders before welfare reform. Do welfare reform first and open borders is no longer an access-to-work issue for voters.) Another is the abandonment of "no entangling alliances" in favor of siding with Israel. If you have to reform your party in order to use it, why not use a party that has access to the two-party-machine advantages?

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Problem with your senario

There are three lines not two. The third line you forgot is the line that not only gropes your child but also rapes you and only gives you half a loaf of bread.

The second line doesn't really exist because those who would make it up are scattered and there is no one to head it up. And when people try to get into the second line they always end up dragging everyone into the third line.

There is a good chance we can end the groping for bread racket that has taken over the first line but even if we can't stop the groping at least we can stop the raping and bread shorting that the third line offers.

The choice is still yours. Stay in the First line. Go to the third line and get EFFed hard. Or try to form that second/middle line and get all of us EFFed hard by the third line anyway.


you are creating a hypothetical line to explain a hypothetical line which discredits another hypothetical line bringing to light,your hypothetical intelligence......

I would say the author of this article has valid points & intelligently thought out her writing(unlike you).Why would you post something like this?

I'm sorry I didn't know you were challenged.

The first line is the one we are in now. The REPUBLICAN line.
Got that? OK.

The third line is the DEMOCRAT line. Got that? OK.

The second line is anything else. Period. Got that? OK.

You are an idiot if you don't get it. And griping about a hypothetical scenario in response to a hypothetical scenario may just prove your idiocy right there.


The "idiots"...

are those who believe there is a real difference between the Republican & Democratic "lines".

What was once 2 parties has become two factions of a statist party supported by corporate big money that only gives an illusion of "choice".

Your foolish analogy fails because falling in line with one of the two factions is merely choosing by whom you will be raped.

I will vote for Dr Paul. If he is on the ballot, I will check the box. If he is not on the ballot, I will write in his name...whether it "counts" or not. If I am still alive and at least nominally free in '16 (and there is an election), I will do the same.