Young Republicans fight to join city committee. Is there a Ron Paul revolution afoot in Jersey City?

reply to post by RealSpoke


I fail to see the reason for your love infatuation with the fascist corporatocracy we have brewing now. As it is GMO's are not required to be labelled - that has been regulated in to be that way. Common law would demand honest disclosure to the people. Libertarianism has an ethic involved and is not about a stone-age might-is-right doctrine.

Personally I am having problems figuring your fixation with corporate entities. At the moment they seem to have all the rights as individuals, as accorded by government, but without the liabilities and responsibilities. Some re-structuring on that concept seems in order, something that provides us with a butt to kick and a soul to damn if there are improprieties of ethics involved.

In this age of a Left vs. Right illusion you likely realize there are no pure left or right ideologies for rational and practical matters - those that may exist are way out on some an extreme. Your fallacy is in trying to view libetarianism in that same light, though that sort of extremism is not at all the objective. Still, I have to wonder if you actually favor authoritarian positions and consider man can only behave decently under bondage and oppression. Surely you are more enlightened than that??

You must have some interest in all this, how would you go about doing it? Liberty-minded people are seeking more self-determined solutions of government with emphasis on privacy and responsibility. Time for airing good ideas is now. Negativity regarding bad ideas is OK if you can offer constructive solutions as well.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

You must have some interest in all this, how would you go about doing it? Liberty-minded people are seeking more self-determined solutions of government with emphasis on privacy and responsibility. Time for airing good ideas is now. Negativity regarding bad ideas is OK if you can offer constructive solutions as well.

edit on 23-9-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Well some people don't want personal responsibility, they want a big brother looking after them, they believe in a complete social blanket. Personally I think they feel the individual isn't responsible enough to face the consequences of their actions.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


It;s not my fault people do not understand what libertarianism is, which is anarchy. And there is a huge difference between right and left wing libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism and Anarcho-socialism is two extremely different ideologies. There is no such thing as a little bit anarchist, you either are or you aren't.

Personally I am having problems figuring your fixation with corporate entities.

Umm, I dissed corporate entities in my post, so I have no clue what you are even talking about. And what do you think would an anarchist capitalist state would be like? Social Darwinism and corporate/banking tyranny.

Still, I have to wonder if you actually favor authoritarian positions and consider man can only behave decently under bondage and oppression. Surely you are more enlightened than that??

Surely your enlightened to see that a anarcho-capitalist society would result in bondage and oppression.. The people with the most money win, they have all the power. It is nothing but a different system with an even worse outcome than what we have now. Monsanto could dump waste into the river near you and pollute the whole water supply. There would be no regulation in your dream society.

reply to post by MidnightTide

Well some people don't want personal responsibility,

No, I don't want corporate or banking tyranny to continue. It would in a right wing libertarian world.

This is a perfect example of what RP supporters were saying when we claimed that the Liberty Movement was bigger than Ron Paul.

What some people have not understood yet is that Ron Paul planted a seed. An idea. The idea of Liberty. It is bigger than Ron Paul and it is bigger than all of us, and an idea who's time has come can not be stopped.

I expect to see more of this as time goes on. Weather it brings the rise of a new Party or a complete takeover of an existing Party remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure... the idea of Liberty will not simply vanish with the retirement of Ron Paul.

Originally posted by MrWendal
This is a perfect example of what RP supporters were saying when we claimed that the Liberty Movement was bigger than Ron Paul.

What some people have not understood yet is that Ron Paul planted a seed. An idea. The idea of Liberty. It is bigger than Ron Paul and it is bigger than all of us, and an idea who's time has come can not be stopped.

I expect to see more of this as time goes on. Weather it brings the rise of a new Party or a complete takeover of an existing Party remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure... the idea of Liberty will not simply vanish with the retirement of Ron Paul.

No, you're absolutely wrong.

Ron Paul supporters are cultists who only care about their messiah, they don't care about any message or desire any real change, they just want to follow their great leader.

*DISCLAIMER* due to ATS' ability to not detect obvious sarcasm, I will now forced to state the following:

/end sarcasm.

reply to post by RealSpoke


My god you have no clue what your talking about... Monsanto? Did you know that if government did not have its hand in the free market, then monsanto would not exist? Did you know that libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are one in the same, and they believe in a free market without government intervention?
There's a clue...

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

It;s not my fault people do not understand what libertarianism is, which is anarchy. ... There is no such thing as a little bit anarchist, you either are or you aren't.

Um.., no. Wrong. Liberty and personal responsibility can and should exist apart from a completely lawless society. Your encapsulation of the premise is flawed from its conception, is assuming an extremist ideology, and deliberately misrepresents the objectives of a liberty movement.

You do perhaps describe an element that could likely attempt to establish a foothold by undermining the framework of such a platform so your cautionary warning is not entirely invalid. Any system could be corrupted and adequate safeguards are necessarily in order, but your cautionary examples are pulled from our current paradigm which is in obvious need of overhaul.

Your posts seem to suggest things are fine as they are now, punctuated with vehemence against those seeking to instil a greater degree of public disclosure and personal responsibility into the currently soulless structure of politics and corporate accountability. These agencies cannot be permitted to drift further away and apart from public scrutiny.

My commendations to those who are taking active part in bringing government back into the hands of the governed.

OP- If you say that you're the "BNP" then why not just run as an independent? Why do you call yourself a Republican?

Are you for less government regulation? more state power? etc? What is your stance on the issues the US is facing? I'm not attcking you, but I just get the feeling you're calling yourself a "libertarian" when you really aren't one.

Originally posted by muse7
OP- If you say that you're the "BNP" then why not just run as an independent? Why do you call yourself a Republican?

I know. Isn't the Republican Party all about fundamentalist extremism, soulless plutocrats, and the common joe who aspires to such exalted grandeur? That does seem to leave little room for caring and self-sacrificing interlopers with libertarian views and self-determinism that have cockamamie notions of restoring government to the hands and hearts of the people. If that sort of thing continued to catch-on then America might never be the same again.

reply to post by muse7


Ill answer the first question, but not the second. i've already said what I had to say about that.


Answer: BPN was just a way of saying we're trying to transform the old party and use the new members to re-build it. we want to try and distance ourselves from the old party and start from scratch at a city/county level.

Fair enough?

Great!

Ugie youve done a Goodie*

Thank you Truly for Being the Change we all have the Power to Be~

It is obvious there are those experienced with getting elected to committee here and making change, so rather than do ambiguous online searches, will some please share the steps required to be the change as youve been?!?

∞LOVE∞

MayAllSoulsBeFree

reply to post by awake1234


rules are different from state to state.

in my case, I was a write-in candidate. Others had to collect 100 signatures a month before the primary in June to have their name printed on the ballot.

if I were you, Id go to your local city hall and ask for the results and vacant seats for committeeman (or other positions that might interest you.) figure out if you can be a write-in candidate or collect signatures.

after your on the ballot or decide to run as a write-in. go door to door in your ward/district and introduce yourself and ask for their vote. in my case I had to talk to local republicans because they're the only ones who can vote for me in my case. (at the primaries.)

same goes for the democrat party I think.

that should get you started.

reply to post by ugie1028


Way to go dude! You would think you were running for POTUS with some of the comments!

What people fail to realize, this is happening all across the country. And another fail is, they ask why don't we use the third party for our ideas...well we're also doing that! And even if we took over the GOP tomorrow, we would still believe in doing away with the present two-party system that adheres to the status quo and shuts out third-party ideas.

What about doing away with the parties all together and running on ideas? Maybe forcing people to really think who they're voting for?

If you have to tag us, I guess you can call us, #Republitarians!

As Gary Johnson says, "fiscally conservative and socially...COOL."

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

Well some people don't want personal responsibility,

No, I don't want corporate or banking tyranny to continue. It would in a right wing libertarian world.

realspoke...i agree with you... poitical movements need to be able to understand the consequences of their positions. the old axiom "for every action, there is a reaction"...if a libertarian party gains enough power to write and/or change laws, there needs to be foremost a strong restraint on "capitals" power. you need a strong government to establish rules and regulations that restrict "capital" from hurting the common man. this is why i have disagreed with ron paul. his brand of government rule, although well-intentioned, has serious problems in the DETAILS of actual governance.

I LOVE Ron Paul, and I fully support his vision for this country. I wish more people did, and weren't so obviously and completely brainwashed by left wing and right wing media.

BUT

I stopped reading as soon as I read "shouldn't of". I'm not listening to, supporting, or in any way going to take seriously, OP, someone who believes "of" is a suitable replacement for "have" in the english language. It's not a typo, it's not "internet speak"......it's stupidity and a lack of education....or at the very least, a lack of paying attention when you were being educated.

I'm sorry, but a person who says "shouldn't of" or "should of" or "could of" or in any way believe "of" is a suitable replacement for "have" in this very specific language (which is why it's the official language of business) we speak called english........that person has no business editing a video game website's reviews, nevermind being in charge of any piece of the U.S. of A.

Thank You

reply to post by Larry L




I stopped reading as soon as you started to judge me.

You're too funny. I was not trying to be perfect. I don't proof read or edit unless I need to. If you wanted something formal, you came to the wrong place. this is the internet (ATS.) I am here sharing my story of what i am doing and all you can do is complain about my grammar. if you think I am not qualified. move to my city and run in my place or run against me.

You're making it seem like this is a formal setting and want perfection from the top down. what planet do you live on? seriously, which one? If i can remember correctly we live in an imperfect world. No one is perfect, but you just HAD to have your snide remarks included. you said you love the movement but immediately bash someone who is at least trying to do something.

Originally posted by Larry L
I LOVE Ron Paul, and I fully support his vision for this country. I wish more people did,..

I'm sorry, but a person who says "shouldn't of" or "should of" or "could of" or in any way believe "of" is a suitable replacement for "have" in this very specific language (which is why it's the official language of business) we speak called english....

Unless we are speaking of billiards, bowling, or the side-spin action given a ball in such a game we tend to want to capitalize English as when speaking of the language or the people. You see how sticky this can get? I wince or cringe if necessary and just go on reading when I know what the person is speaking about.

I agree language skills are very important in some arenas but there are more tactful ways of alerting someone. I might have dropped him a friendly U2U about it if he were mentioning a run at the White House. You recall the flack Dan Quayle caught for misspelling "potato" don't you? Mostly I thank the OP, wish him well, and give a big thumbs-up for his involvement in major-party politics at this level.

Congrats to you, not only for your dedication, but in doing it the right way. While I might not necessarily be on board with your political leanings, I do recognize that it's people like you, working to make changes on the local level, that will build the blocks to a legitimate third party candidate for President in the future. The Ron Paul movement (or anyone who wants a future third party option) needs more people like you, willing to start at the bottom to build the foundation rather than just shooting for the White House.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by newcovenant

 

if you're going to continue to belittle the movement using guilt by association then you;re doing a horrible job. you're more angry with the party than you are with its members, which is fine, I hold my own frustrations with the party, but I am also doing this to change things from within. you voicing your discontent with the 'GOP' is valid - however, were not the GRAND OLD PARTY. we are the BNP - Brand New Party. We're taking on the old core, and if you still think that we're going to follow the same old same old then you sir are just venting your frustrations in the wrong direction.

as I said before, you should go and make changes yourself if you're unhappy as I am. complaining and belittling what I'm doing isn't going to change a thing. get up and do something instead of taking your shots at the GOP for your own reasons. I am helping take on the old machine and if you cant see the goodness in that then... I don't know what else to say to you.

Ok, let me see if I understand this; Your group of inexperienced young republicans are going to bust onto the scene, show some assertiveness, win an election, and now you're all going to change the way the GOP operates? How much money do you have? I'm just wondering, because you're going to need a lot. Do you really think you can do battle with the likes of the Koch Brothers, and all of the old established corporate power wh*res that ply TPTB with cash....I hope you have good lawyers and sqeaky-clean personal histories.....

In spirit, I wish you luck. I'm not conservative, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter ( although I do agree with some of his ideas...but honestly, his stance on many social issues bothers me, and I could never support him based on those issues alone, but that's just me ).

Even though I disagree with you fundamentally on a political ideology level, I respect what you're doing. It takes guts to try this, and I applaud you.
Now what we really need are some Occupy folks who can pass the litmus test ( on multiple levels ) - for example- get organized, communicate well, conform enough to establish a cohesive message, etc....and oppose you.
I would have more faith in a system that was more of a compromise between what you represent, and what the Occupy movement represents. That at least intuitively seems fair to me.
Throughout all of this, for the long haul, the Tea Party people have revealed themselves to be the angry, pseudo-racist cramudgeons that they truly are, and they appear now as just an angry fringe element...this would nicely edge them into obsolesence.

Now what we REALLY need is a strong Independent third party that isn't beholden to any of the old power broker's interests, a third party that will be able to side-step the two-party BS way of solving problems.
The current two-party system is broken and impotent.

We don't need to spied upon, we don't need to be told who we can marry, wet should be free to fight against GMO foods, we should have the Right to decide what to put into our bodies without being criminalized, women DO have an inherent biological Right to control their own bodies and Reproductive Rights- no government should have power over any person's body...these issues should be dealt with by society at large, not the government.

On the surface, RP appears to be for individual freedom, and appears to philosophically support some of the above-mentioned issues on the surface, but when he says that each state should govern these issues independently, then he opens the Pandora's Box that would allow racist and homophobic laws to become valid state by state. He doesn't think women should have access to safe, confidential birth control such as abortion, yet he claims to be in favor of individual freedoms. Like many typical conservatives, he thinks individual freedoms are great, as long as they're conservative-valued freedoms. This is incongruous to me, and no amount of rhetoric will make me change my mind about the inconsistencies in his logic.

Most Civil Rights laws, some business/economic laws,environmental laws, and basic governance laws need to be Federally enforced and maintained. Beyond that, let each state individually legislate themselves into hell for all I care. Then they will only have themselves to blame. We've done a lot to move beyond institutionalized racism and discrimination in this country, and those are "the good old days" that I hope we never return to...as individual states, or as a Union.