In some ways your paraphrase of Dabney makes sense. But the time to effectively make your case must coincide with the realities of our political system. Fight for your man with all your might before the major candidates are chosen. After that close ranks.

To refuse to unite with those of like mind in the general election is to fall on your sword for no purpose other than to demonstrate your own supposed moral superiority. That is just foolish pride and stubbornness, not something to proud of as Dabney seems to suggest.

Report comment to moderator

Outstanding points!

Report comment to moderator

I post and interact as I wish, just as you do -

Report comment to moderator

Frank: Once again you seem to be saying that constitutionalist conservatives and libertarians somehow owe their votes to whichever Republican is running against whichever Democrat!

Sorry, no sale!

Report comment to moderator

“We all FOUND OUT” nothing of the kind.

After the debates, the system only allowed one vote per phone number. The allegation that “the Paulians are stuffing the phone-poll ballot boxes” was unfounded.

Regardless, I still stand by my statement at (93).

Suppose you interact with that rather than regurgitating tired and bogus old allegations that have nothing to do with Paul’s constitutional positions!

Report comment to moderator

Your quotes from Washington and Adams demand some context for a proper evaluation. Being a Christian, a student of history and having also been in the military, I know that there are times when “duty” in a supposedly “lost cause” is the appropriate course of action. The Alamo or the principled stands of many Christian martyrs, being cases in point. Were Washington and Adams referring to circumstances like that? I don’t know.

However, I know that there are other times when a blind and unreasoning adherence to a mistaken sense of duty can lead one seriously astray. There have been some Christians, for example, who adhered so rigidly to their interpretation of the 9th Commandment that they have revealed information to predators that cost innocent people their lives. “Is there a Jew hiding upstairs?” asks the Gestapo agent. “Yes sir,” replies the dutiful Christian. Was that pleasing to God? You can answer that for yourself, but I don’t think so.

Consider this in regard to elections, our particular electoral system, and our support for political candidates: our Constitution and the electoral college system it mandates results in a two-party system. That is what we have to work with, like it or not. The time for wide ranging debate and absolutely rigid, “100% principled” stands is in the primaries before the major candidates are chosen. After that, sensible and practical people of like mind put their differences aside and unite behind the major candidates.

That is, of course, unless both major candidates are so bad that you can vote for neither. That is your contention, but I think you are wrong. I see major differences between the parties and their candidates. We are not being forced to choose between a Stalin and a Putin or a Hitler and a Goebbels. That is a ridiculous contention and it reveals, in my opinion, a political ignorance that is simply astounding.

John McCain was not ideal, but he certainly would not be leading us down the road that the Obama gang is following. McCain was someone that conservatives could work with. We would have been able to achieve some gains with him. Now, under Obama, we are virtually shut out from almost everything. His bipartisanship promises are now revealed as the deceitful lies they were from the very first day he uttered them. The Democrat programs and policies, founded on principles of atheism and Marxism, are being rammed down our throats with virtually no way to effectively oppose them.

Realistically, I doubt that Ron Paul supporters would have made the difference for Republicans in the last election. His defectors from the conservative ranks were not of the same magnitude as those of Perot in 1992. Nevertheless, the principle of “divide and conquer” is wielded by our enemy with your misguided assistance. If you can’t have everything exactly the way you want it, you take your ball and go home. This “my way or the highway” approach, in practical terms, amounts to desertion, not the “principled stand” you make it out to be.

We would do well to keep in mind the words of Patrick Henry, “United we stand, divided we fall.”

Report comment to moderator

When the debates took place Ron Paul was a disaster, however when the polls came in after the debate, Ron Paul had won – no one could understand how that happened since he did so poorly – then we all FOUND OUT that Ron Paul’s supporters had called in repeatedly to vote for him – it’s that sort of dishonesty which made his position, his running for President a bigger joke -

Report comment to moderator

Republican “conservatism” is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it gives in to each aggression of the Democratic party, then aims to save face by a respectable amount of growling, but always gives in to the progressive innovation.

What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of “conservatism”; it is now “conservative” only in pretending to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, also to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

Republican “conservatism” is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, never impedes it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt has utterly lost its saltiness; how then shall it be salted?

Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the “conservatism” of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. When about to enter a protest, it always very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it purposes to stop that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save face by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give progressivism enough exercise to keep it fit, and to prevent its becoming winded and lazy from having nothing to whip.

You can keep that kind of “conservatism,” sister. I’ll continue to vote for constitutionalists who may lose rather than statists who might win — every time.

Report comment to moderator

You and Michael and Joel have a different view of “victory” than I and other Ron Paul supporters.

You all think it is sufficient to merely elect a Republican statist in order to keep the Democratic statist from getting in. If you succeed, you still end up with statism, albeit perhaps at a slightly slower pace.

People like me are through with false alternatives. We would rather vote for the man who we believe most closely represents the vision our Founders had for this country.

By all means, keep voting for your McCains, Doles and Bushes. I think you’re wrong, but I don’t begrudge you your vote. I don’t blame McCain and Dole supporters for Howard Phillips, Michael Peroutka or Ron Paul losing.

Quit your sour-grapes whining how our support for constitutionalists is the reason your Republican statists lose!

News flash: WE DON’T CARE!

Report comment to moderator

Isolation doesn’t consider the facts – our enemies understand this only too well. If men don’t get off their islands, we might not have a country to worry about, victory will be lost to the likes of Ron Paul and those who follow –

Is it your duty to lose the victory and stand firm on an isolated island that has lost most of its strength?

Report comment to moderator