Comment: You Guys Never...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Then by your very own (see in situ)

You Guys Never...

...cease to amaze me.

When all else fails, you dredge up Ron Paul and throw him and what he has done or what he 'would do' up as some sort of unassailable shield or fundamental truth that shuts down opposition or other assessments.

This is one of the 'cultish' behaviors and tactics that I frequently see here.

Get this straight....I don't care what Ron Paul does, did, will do, or 'would do'. He is merely a man who seems to hold to and advocate a liberty message as he sees it and as he believes and chooses.

He is not 'my leader'. He is not my exemplar. He is not 'the movement'. He is not liberty-incarnate. He did not invent what he advocates. He is not God. He is not the holy font of liberty.

The fight for Liberty was going on long before he was born and will continue long after his passing.

What utter blasphemy, eh?

Anytime he "formed many alliances with politicians who grossly oppose certain fundamental freedoms", then as I see it, he was wrong.

What did doing so get him, you, me, or liberty?

Are we a free-nation because of it? Is he POTUS or in a position to implement his ideas on a broad scale? Did he drive back the globalist-collectivist cabal that has the Republic all but dead and its people verging on living under totalitarianism? Did he make any substantive inroads into the establishment-lock?

Well, did he?

That aside, if you had read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think that I wrote, or what you want people to believe that I wrote, I clearly addressed the usefulness of such divergent people crossing paths on certain issues and the usefulness of that to be used to advantage.

What I addressed, primarily, was the calls for a 'joining' or a melding or the adopting such people as spokesmen for 'liberty'.

You know, the whole overused 'big tent' dogma.....

Your mileage obviously varies from mine, so you had your say just as I had mine.

As to my 'gold standard' of inclusion, it is not overly analytical at all, despite your framing it as such. It is quite simple, as previously laid out, your lack of agreement notwithstanding.

I merely view things at their most fundamental, boiling away all the psychobabble, 'feelings', peacenik & lovenik crapola and the cacophony of calls for 'inclusiveness and acceptance'.

All one need do is look around to see the long-term results of those old tactics....dilution, co-option and failure.

Look, rest easy, you have reason to rejoice, because you and your ideas reign supreme.

You have a whole 'movement' of non/weak-principled, a-little-bit-of-this/a-little-bit-of-that, 'pick and choose', purported liberty dudes and dudettes, to do things your way.

I will just keep doing what it is that I do and keep on using you guys as a chalkboard to illustrate some much needed compare & contrast of ethic, principle and approach, against your 'commonly accepted', 'conventional wisdom'.

When all is said and done, we will all see how it works out.

My principled path is never adopted or traveled by any significant numbers, whilst your ethic, philosophy and 'principle', along with its continuously advocated methods, are well used.

We live the results.