-8 votes

Did Ron Paul's Excellence Turn Supporters Into Spoiled Brats?

I've noticed a disturbing trend lately. People are using Ron Paul's political candidacy now as a minimum acceptable benchmark as opposed to a guiding light.

Purists now are rejecting everyone else as not good enough because they're not as good as Ron. Well, who is other than Ron himself?

It's not a healthy or good thing to be a spoiled brat.

One can either be a strict purist or live in reality.

Purism wouldn't work in building a business and hiring people. In that scenario one must hire the best person they can find for each opening. To be purist is to not ever be satisfied with any hiring candidate and missing all the business opportunities.




Comment viewing options

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

oops

oops

Well this is why I could

Well this is why I could never have supported anyone after my man Jesus Christ died for our sins. Once he set the bar I have just waited for someone better. Ron Paul, psh.

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

It's called principle.

Some people have the intellect and the guts to stick to it.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com

The Purists Post 24/7

Other folks only post once the horse races (election season) start.

"One can either be a strict

"One can either be a strict purist or live in reality."

Since reality sucks, some just try to make it more pure.

Ron Paul, IMHO

was the messanger, and would have made a reluctant leader.

What are you?

Some kind of a political Luddite? There is no room for progress? We got the best we ever could and nothing better will come along?

"Purism wouldn't work in building a business and hiring people. In that scenario one must hire the best person they can find for each opening."

So I guess if I get 10 applicants and they all have a history of stealing, I need to hire one of them or else? How'bout I hire nobody in such a case?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Then your boss will go around

Then your boss will go around you and hire the worst one and force you to deal with them so that next time you'll pick one.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

My boss would ask me

to develop a better source for hiring if the entire candidate pool was thieves. You work for tough boss.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

I'm sorry, I guess the

I'm sorry, I guess the analogy went over your head.

I'm saying that fascists will take over and we'll all be fucked.

Even after a record low turnout and no one giving a shit you guys seriously still think the powers that be give a flying fuck whether or not you vote? SERIOUSLY? REALLY?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

no it didnt

I took at face value and responded. Your analogy was just a bad analogy.

Will take over? The fascist HAVE taken over, it happened quite some time ago.

While you think you are holding the pass the revolution passed you by in the night signing songs of freedom.

Liberty = Responsibility

Your defeatist attitude will

Your defeatist attitude will get us nowhere, as will this conversation.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Ron Paul was/ is politically quite excellent...

...but we need the Ron Paul model to become the norm and see men arise more excellent than he, men who can speak to what Lee Atwater upon finding himself facing a terminal illness called the "spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society", the "tumor of the soul."

I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war. Ps 120:7
--
Better to be divided by truth than united in error.
--
The local church(not a building -a people) is the missing link. The time to build is now.

This is the kind of thinking that got us where we are now

I would see the spoiled brat as the one that is mad that we will not give into their compromises anymore. You have had it well the past 200 years and we are not giving you anymore.

Every year we are told to compromise away a little more of our liberty. Then the next year they ask for a little more.

The only thing I have to say to the Republican and Rand apologists is NO MORE! This game has been played for too long and I am not going to give in any more because all you do is ask for more. NO MORE!

No compromising principles !

1. If your party blatantly cheats my candidate : never again in 1,000 years will I support it
2. If your party is choosing obvious losers such as Romney they are not telling you the whole story
3. As long as they can convince fools like yourself to compromise ... nothing of substance will ever change

Ventura 2016

Q. Have you thrown out of office your worst judge today?

You're making this "us vs

You're making this "us vs them"?! Really? Ok, well let's go there. Every year YOU DID compromise a little more for liberty. I wasn't alive, but YOU kept giving in and offering up more of your safety for liberty. So now YOU don't get to have everything instantly be good again. YOU have to take baby steps, or you won't get your way AT ALL and you can FUCK ME OVER EVEN MORE AND MAKE EVERYTHING KEEP GOING THE DIRECTION IT IS HEADED. Is that what you want?

I never "discovered" libertarianism. It was what made sense to me before anyone told me anything about politics. I was NEVER ok with them taking away my liberty in exchange for safety. I NEVER wanted to regulate peoples' morals. So don't point a finger at me, just because I want to take steps in the right direction, and say it was ME that wanted to give up our freedoms. That was most likely YOU and the rest of the current 'no-compromise' crowd.

Since YOU screwed it up for ME by compromising over and over we now have to get the other side to compromise. "Not compromising" is simply not an option. They WILL just give us more bad politicians otherwise. FUCKING DUH. We are a ridiculously small minority who is making small gains every time we compromise and major losses every time we refuse. LOOK AT THE DAMN EVIDENCE, PLEASE.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

you actually think being a spoiled brat is a good thing? lol

Try thinking with your head for a change and not your emotion.

Massie and Amash are not as good as Ron but they are good. That's the point, the movement goes on.

Who disputed anything about liberty? You did and that's it. Moron

You need to do some research

You are apparently a relative newbee here, so I'll cut you some slack. It is obvious you were not part of the Ron Paul Revolution. Or, if you were, you didn't quite "get it".

*We do not want Ron Paul, we want the Constitution.
*We do not care about Rand's tiny "let's stop aid to Egypt for a year" - we want the government to stop killing little brown children and supplying weapons to evil men. We want to leave the Middle East!
*We do not want tax code reform, we want to End the FED.
*We don't want to argue about pot in Colorade, we want to legalize all drugs and end the violent war against the people.
*We want to shrink government, a lot.
I could go on, but you get the picture.

Those are our principles. I will not waiver from them or ever vote for anyone, or be part of any political party, that does not abide these basic principles. There are some people out there who give me hope, but not realistic.

This is not being a "brat". This is being part of the American Enlightenment of Paine and Jefferson.

"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

you're missing the point completely

I'm not disputing any of those things. Where did Massie and Amash waiver from them? They didn't. Then we should support them despite not being as good as Ron.

There's life beyond Ron. Get over it

Yes, you are disputing that

The whole point of your post was disputing what I said. We Ron Paul people are not purists, just principled.

And the point you are missing, is that if Massie and Amash are standing by those same principles, then they ARE as good as Ron.

Rand, does not. So he won't get my support.

Life goes on beyond Ron, but does not go beyond a fascist dictatorship.

"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

never again, not even for a Paul...

We never know WHEN the evil will fall


http://youtu.be/Xtl2ZuJpG9M

“Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a central bank, and he can rob a country and the world.”
www.dailypaul.com/donate

Being a "Purist" Has

nothing at all to do with being a spoiled brat. It's about being true to liberty and what is right. For example, could I vote for Cruz over Kerry? Kerry wants an immediate attack on Syria; Cruz wants the same for Iran. No, not after what Dr. Paul has taught me. Justin Amash could very well be Ron Paul's ideological and ethical successor. I hope so, but no voting for the lesser of two evils for me, or voting because of a party label. Never again.

Edgar Morgan

Does purist = being a spoiled brat?

Because if so, I'm not seeing it.

While I agree that using Dr. Paul as a constant 'benchmark' of sorts, and the cult of personality that often comes along with it (happens to all high-profile people) can be a detriment to one's efforts, shortsightedness and all that, I see nothing wrong with not accepting anything less than (perceived) perfection in a person you're pouring your time/money/faith/whatever else into.

A signature used to be here!

then it's counter productive

If all you will accept is Ron's level of excellence and that's it. Amash, Massie etc get ignored despite being great

Justin Amash is quite acceptable to me

and other "purists" here. Please read the comments.

Even if I were to disagree with him on a minor issue, he has what makes one a true liberty candidate (like Ron, unlike Rand), and that is, his entire being is effused with a profound belief in self restraint with regard to the use of violence. This principle is what liberty is all about.

Rand, even though attractive in some respects, simply doesn't "get it." He would murder tens of thousands of innocent Iranians in the "defense" of Israel, which, ironically would ultimately result in Israel's destruction itself. This is not the mark of a libertarian.

Voting for someone

who would support a decrease in even one honest person's liberty is immoral. That is what "purism" is all about. If you would support someone who would do this, you are, essentially, saying that some people's liberty is more important than that of other people. It is why the true libertarian could not support someone who would work against liberty on any significant issue. The problem is that unless one is "pure" in this regard (ie principled), you are actually, on at least one significant issue, working AGAINST liberty.

Think about it.

Great post

if you're out there holding out for another Ron Paul....you're gonna be waiting for a really really really long time.

Guy was one of a kind.

Then I'll keep waiting.

Thanks

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

No - completely false

He was not "one of a kind". There are two million of us! Several hundred here on the DP. That's why the OP is an idiot who didn't get the Revolution to begin with.

We are suppose to spread the Freedom Message to the people, not the politicians - they will follow if there are enough of us.

"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