12 votes

Nobody seems good enough

I just wanted to state something I've been noticing.

Everytime a video is shared with somebody agreeing with a particular piece of the libertarian platform, there is a rush of individuals who quickly dismiss the individual, then ignore the message. Let me point to some examples (there are many more for each person, these were just the first ones I could find)

Rand Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2945120
Judge Nap: http://www.dailypaul.com/265217/judge-nap-supports-regime-ch...
Dennis Kucinich: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2634958
Justin Amash: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2850671
Alex Jones: http://www.dailypaul.com/269009/alex-jones-traitor-or-imbecile
Jesse Ventura: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2470923
Marco Rubio: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2970362
Glenn Beck: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2971247
Louis Farrakhan: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2971285

I would like to urge everyone to resist doing the following things:

1) Reminding people that they don't trust the person
2) Accusing these people of working for 'TPTB,' being 'Party Shills', etc.

I am not saying that these people are our leaders, or even that they are a great ally to our movement. What I am saying is that each of these people have, at one point or another offered exposure to our message, and put it in a positive light. I urge this community to stear away from ignoring the message and discrediting the messanger. EXPOSURE IS EXPOSURE IS EXPOSURE, and for hundreds of years the sheeple have been exposed to boob-tube propoganda and the message of liberty was under a rock. Personally, I don't care WHO is talking about our message.

I just want people to hear it.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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



"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

I know nothing about Rubio--

but only one person on that 'list' has attacked Ron Paul regularly--

only one person on there is openly distrusted by Dr. Paul--

Glenn Beck.

I know there are many who say that Beck 'led' them to Ron Paul, but I know a lot of loyal Beck 'followers' who are almost afraid of anyone who listens to Ron Paul--

I'm afraid the bad he does has outweighed the good. He's too contradictory.

I have never criticized any of those other people; I have watched Rand Paul; I don't know why he has done everything he has done, but I watch him and give him a lot of leeway--

as for the others, I admire them all--

even Ventura, even Kucinich. I don't care if they are anti-Republican or are 'progressive' in other ways; if they have been civil to Dr. Paul and seem concerned about the constitution, I give them some credence.

But Glenn Beck? No; he's too confused. And confusing.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

"I know nothing about Rubio"

Look toward the bottom:


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Thank you--

I could not support him.

The intervention, the American exceptionalism--


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

There are always naysayers.

I find that the most vocal of the naysayers and messenger attackers really have little to say that is positive. While I have philosophical disagreements with many politicians, pundits, talking heads, and entertainers, I also understand that it will take more than what remains of my lifetime to turn this nation to a path of liberty.

I also know that my understanding of liberty is different from that of my neighbor. My idea of good potential representatives in all levels of government will differ from that of my friends.

Will I accept allies where I find them? Yes!

Will I agree with these allies very often? Unlikely!

Do I still ally myself with them where I agree with them? Damn straight!

Do I denigrate them because I disagree with them on other points or because I disliked one opinion or another in the past? No! I disagree with the point. I do not hate the person.

Sorry, Playing the Newbee card....

Some of us that have been here for more than 9 months are discerning to a fault. That is because we have seen turncoats, faux-libertarians, and outright cointelpro operations against us. For instance, I do not support Rand because he endorsed Romney. It doesn't matter what the political calculation was - by doing that he endorsed Romney's philosophy of world government, debt-slaves, and endless religious genocide against people that have done no wrong against me.

There are hundreds of examples going back to '07 of propaganda against Ron Paul and us in the media, from photo images to faulty data, etc... I agree that there are nuggets of truth and agreement between people here and there. I also agree that some people here are unreasonable. But, over many years a pattern of behavior will influence an opinion. When Glenn Beck says something "libertarianish" - I have learned from his patterns that he will twist it into something to support the status quo candidates and his global bankster/CIA handlers. Anyone that even entertains the idea of listening to Glenn Beck is already abandoning their principles, if indeed they had any. I have learned that Rubio is nothing but a pretty GOP puppet with some color in his skin with no original thoughts and no moral compass. So, it doesn't matter what they say, even if it sounds good, I'm not giving them the time of day.

As for some of the other people on your list, well, getting a consensus out of libertarians is less possible than finding the answer to clean nuclear fission.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Many people have stumbled upon saying great things, but

Judge Nap is by far the best on your list. The remainder, I have doubts about. Where is Ron Paul, John Stossel, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Gerald Celente, and many others. These are the people that inspire libertarians, not someone who occasionally says something that can be considered pro liberty.

And some may not be good enough


Michael Nystrom's picture

- (((bear!))) -

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.

And I am left speechless

imagine that! :)

There are lines to be drawn,

There are lines to be drawn, but I agree with your sentiment. At least 3 people on your list have a net negative value even if they were to quote Ron word for word.

Also, DPers in general are people-focused and black and white about it. It was a person (Ron) that brought forth their vigor and month after month and year after year here they hold court on the worthiness of public figures. It is what it is.

I think I once shouted on here that George Will's article saying we need to get out of Afghanistan and dial back military adventurism was a triumph. I was told something about him and CFR or something but still think that was an incredible missed opportunity.


10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

the following people are good enough

Ron Paul
Lew Rockwell
Tom Woods
Hans-Herman Hoppe
Justin Raimondo
Robert Wenzel
Bob Murphy
Scott Horton

Guess what they have in common? With the unique, one-of-a-kind exception of the good doctor, none of them are politicians. What's the lesson here?

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran

It takes 55 million votes to

It takes 55 million votes to win the presidency, not to mention Congress. Good luck with 8 people. John Stossel piqued my interest in liberty 20 years ago. I must not be good enough either.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

I don't care who they are,

I don't care who they are, Ron Paul included should it happen,,, I for one will always hold the debate to the highest standard of liberty in hopes of educating more to the message not a compromised version of it. There may well be compromises coming politically, but as Gibson says in Braveheart, "don't you at least want to lead your men on to the field first to barter a better deal?"

Count me among Sam Adams and Patrick Henry. That is not to say that I do not hold great love and respect for Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin on the more diplomatic/political side of the movement. If you think we have arguments now imagine what it was like during the war for independence? The ardent must show the way for the rest, especially the politicians in and out of our movement.

Remember, even they at the end of the day are unsure of themselves and look to places like the DP to steel their resolve. That is why I am here at all.

Go DP! Sam and Patrick are watching

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

I want to see ALL of them in the Republican debates.

We need to flood the market with liberty minded people. Weed out the posers as we go.


Really? How did Rubio get included?Rubio offered exposure to our message. I wanna hear it. I'm not saying I don't believe it.. I'm just saying I would like to hear that myself.

Good points in your post!


I had exactly the same thought when I saw that too.

I would also like to see how Rubio's actions are connected in any way to "agreeing with a particular piece of the libertarian platform".

Did you notice that the comment was taken from a thread entitled:

Give me 5 good reasons why Marco Rubio should even be considered a presidential contender for 2016.

When ALL of the comments are negative, why pick that particular comment?

Tell me Lukapaka...

How do Rubio's actions agree with a particular piece of the libertarian platform?

Amen to that.

True Libertarians understand and implement the principle of Tolerance. In reality there are no 2 individuals with exactly similar "views". How do we function in harmony when everybody is different? By respecting EVERYBODY exactly as you want them to respect you. If this is not our common ground then discord prevails as the unending fight over who is "right" and "wrong" continues.

Good Thing That I Am...

...not a 'Libertarian' then, because I cannot and will not tolerate anyone who would restrict my liberty or violate their Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Nor do I limit myself to the term Libertarian, not important.

I don't believe you would tolerate rapist, murderers or any other who commits crime by harming and violating others. This is the same category for those that you described.

Please allow me an attempt to clarify. First and foremost is to do no harm. Do not violate any individual or their personal property. Any person or group that seeks to remove liberty (unalienable rights) or to violate an oath (contract) to support and defend the Constitution is committing a crime. Every individual possesses the unalienable right to defend life and property against harm by any criminal.

If we agree on principles of nonviolence, then perhaps we can build from there by adding the principles of tolerance. In order for diverse individuals to achieve sustainable harmony, within a society respectful of inalienable rights, I believe the solution is in the practice of increased tolerance. It is an option available to initiate and benefit from now.

some people just want to see america burn

what happens after, they just wash their hands off of all considerations. whether armed socialists groups win the civil war because they outnumber us and take over, or they win because mexican drug cartels form a coalition with them--none of their caring. they just want to see the system burn down regardless of the consequences, hence why the are against people who appear in leadership positions because they subconsciously fear these people could bring about enough reforms to steer the society toward peaceful resolution, where they might otherwise be able to take their stake during its collapse.

I suspect you're right as it

I suspect you're right as it concerns a portion of people. They feel spited by the system so much, through accumulation of govt debt, other injustices, or tyrannical restrictions imposed on them, that they want nothing else but to see the whole system of govt destroyed. They do not want to see incremental improvements.

So when it comes to a high profile person who promotes liberty, they don't want that person to appeal to anyone outside a small group of people who already agree with him. When it comes to passing good laws or repealing injust ones, they will say that it's useless or try, or it shouldn't be done because a constitutional amendment already addresses it, or any reason they can think of to not support it.

I like to be inclusive to everyone to has good things to say, but these people we talk about do not want to see a more limited, constitutional govt. They want the system to completely end so that THEY will have more power to create their own system of rules and governance. It's very much like people who want a Socialist system so that they can be the one with the power to decide who gets what, like that woman who ran the 20th Century Motor Company.

WHoever wrote this thread is

WHoever wrote this thread is a cointel pro.

lol just kidding.

god forbid jesus ever came

god forbid jesus ever came back, the dp forums would be the first to reveal him for a nwo shill.

No.7's picture

What Bill Said

funny but probably true here....

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

I doubt that but it was a funny comment.

Beck is no Jesus. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Not yet, but maybe we're not trying hard enough

I contemplate wearing a crucifix these days, NOT to indicate any mystical connection, but to advertise my law-and-order conservative credentials -- as in, "Hangin's too quick for 'im!"

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Cyril's picture



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

LOL! Dear OP, Two remarks:

LOL! Dear OP,

Two remarks:

1. blame it on libertarian thinking ;-)

2. Dr. Ron Paul is for sure "good enough" for me !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Actions have to match words.

If that is the case - I consider the person.

Not all of those in your list walk the talk.

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