For all you 3rd Party Zealots

[buffalobo]

Wasn't it Mr. Clemens that opined "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."

Sam was a smart man, and correct.

[Sharpienads]

We seem to have this arguement quite often. A lot of us like a lot of things about Ron Paul (and dislike a lot of things), we just don't believe he has a chance of winning. And why does he run as a Republican? I thought the two party system was what's wrong with America? Or is it possible to, instead of voting third party, retake the Republican party with people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jim Demint, et al. and restore the party to what it was originally stood for?

Regardless, voting for the right president isn't going to fix our problems. If you think it will, you're just as bad as the rest of the big government idiots. The states suck off the federal tit and don't want to give it up. Until we change that, nothing will get better.

[buffalobo]

If voting for the right president won't fix any problems. What will voting for the wrong president do?

[Sharpienads]

Maybe I should have said "won't fix our problems".

The point still stands that what we want (liberty) isn't going to come from the top down. The federal government *should* be so inconsequential that we hardly even notice it. Voting for a good president is definitely important, but it shouldn't be as important as who you vote for for governor or your state legislature. Unfortunately, we all seem to tend toward centralizing everything, including believing voting for the right president is somehow going to restore all constitutionality to our government. If we had strong independent states that held the federal government accountable, the difference between Paul, Romney, or Maobama wouldn't matter as much. But our states are dependent on the federal government. Until we can fix that, we will continue this cycle of bad president, slightly better but still bad pres, worst pres, who do I vote for now pres.

Just MHO.

[Whistler]

Maybe I should have said "won't fix our problems".

The point still stands that what we want (liberty) isn't going to come from the top down. The federal government *should* be so inconsequential that we hardly even notice it. Voting for a good president is definitely important, but it shouldn't be as important as who you vote for for governor or your state legislature. Unfortunately, we all seem to tend toward centralizing everything, including believing voting for the right president is somehow going to restore all constitutionality to our government. If we had strong independent states that held the federal government accountable, the difference between Paul, Romney, or Maobama wouldn't matter as much. But our states are dependent on the federal government. Until we can fix that, we will continue this cycle of bad president, slightly better but still bad pres, worst pres, who do I vote for now pres.

Just MHO.

Mostly I think you are correct, the Fed should not be running the show but I also think it is the reality at this time. I agree 100% what needs to be fixed is the States looking to the Fed to do their job for them and the Fed looking to usurp those powers from the States. Unfortunately the States voluntarily relinquish control to Big Brother and power accumulated is never relinquished. If our country still operated in the fashion intended the current or future President would be substantially less important though as you stated too many accept the centralization of power as "normal" and/or desirable.

[buffalobo]

Then voting for the right president would be just the thing.

The right president would step out and lead. He would follow the constitution, veto legislation that grows govt and wastes our money. Speak out about personal responsibility, states rights, limited govt and then take what actions he could to facilitate it.

As long as the lesser of two evils from one of the two socialist parties is elected, the path of limited gov and individual liberty will not be travelled.

[Sharpienads]

Then voting for the right president would be just the thing.

The right president would step out and lead. He would follow the constitution, veto legislation that grows govt and wastes our money. Speak out about personal responsibility, states rights, limited govt and then take what actions he could to facilitate it.

As long as the lesser of two evils from one of the two socialist parties is elected, the path of limited gov and individual liberty will not be travelled.

I can agree with you to a point. But what happens when the right president doesn't get re-elected or serves two terms? Then the next president and/or congress slowly or not so slowly reverses everything that was done? We'll be right back where we started. That's why it has to be a movement that starts with the individual and goes up.

Geez, everything would be so much simpler if everybody just followed the Constitution.

[HoneyBadger]

Geez, everything would be so much simpler if everybody just followed the Constitution.