eric1
Contributor
Posts: 14
|
Post by eric1 on Aug 2, 2009 17:36:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Aug 2, 2009 18:35:11 GMT -6
The Revolutionary Coalition has just 1 goal, to get all third parties to join as 1. hard, yes...but probably easier than getting a third party in control. groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition/ www.stanley2002.org TheRevolutionaryCoalition@yahoogroups.com ALL of America's problems would be solved with a return to the Constitution, the nation's heritage and birthright restored. The agenda of the Revolutionary Coalition is "To defend our God given (natural), unalienable, Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights" by calling for the existing ineffective third parties that "will" defend the constitution, to merge, consolidate, and unite into one NEW SUPER THIRD PARTY. The proposed platform is "only" the constitution, making it easier to unite, without divisive issues complicating the problems of uniting 3rd parties, to end tyranny in America. Individual candidates will expound on the platform. We will boycott voting for all third parties, as well as voting for any third party candidates, UNTIL they agree to unite and form the NEW SUPER THIRD PARTY. The existing third parties are ineffective and cannot elect candidates. We will join the NEW SUPER THIRD PARTY, at the uniting. Americans will vote for this NEW SUPER THIRD PARTY in droves, when it is formed. We won't support the status quo of all the 3rd party ongoing failure. We supported Congressmen Ron Paul for his Republican Presidential campaign, quite simply because if nominated he would win, and we would then have constitutional leadership in the white house, something we have not had for over 150 years. The NEW SUPER THIRD PARTY can happen & now we support his choice, Chuck Baldwin for president. We recognize that rights do not come from government. They are "natural" or they are from our "creator", hence the term God given, (natural), unalienable rights, in the description of this Coalition. If "your" rights come from government, this forum is not for you. By joining this forum, you are signifying that you agree with our agenda. This forum "counts" the people who agree with us, to keep the 3RD parties informed of the uniting effort.
|
|
eric1
Contributor
Posts: 14
|
Post by eric1 on Aug 3, 2009 17:40:00 GMT -6
Unfortunately, the choice of Chuck Baldwin as Presidential candidate is not a good one. Even though he is a constitutionalist, his religious background will alienate many in the secular crowd. Plus there are divisions even in the religious community. Getting ALL the third parties under one banner, though admirable, will NOT be possible. Some will want no part of it for a variety of reasons. Still this is the right way to proceed. As previously mentioned, a progressive-independent/populist coalition is what should be strived for. Many states now have 20+% registered Independent voters.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Aug 3, 2009 18:11:39 GMT -6
Unfortunately, the choice of Chuck Baldwin as Presidential candidate is not a good one. and obama or McCain is? lol
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 3, 2009 19:09:28 GMT -6
The New American Independent Party has a great platform. Unfortunately, their California chapter is going under the name "Self Reliance Party of California." Their platform is clearly Independent & Populist, but the name of the California section sounds like the Libertarian Party with a different name. Below is a link to the national party site's platform. (I agree with over 95% of it.) www.newamericanindependent.com/Issues.html
|
|
dan1
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 3, 2009 21:27:52 GMT -6
This string is off to a good start. Looks like "coalition" versus "merge", "consolidate" and "unite"...and then the selection of one third party over another. All these positions have merit and weakenesses. Only time will tell which one will prevail.
Coalition involves a cooperative spirit. Using Consensus and "Win Win", with occasional unavoidable use of majority rule, it could be the hardest for Americans to achieve in their present state.
To merge, consolidate and unite requires sacrificing ones own pet position for the greater good of the whole. Also hard to do. Something could happen in Our Society to help this happen. Boycotting all the Third Parties to encourage them to join the "New Super Third Party" is coercive, but might work in this country. This is closest to how the American political scene has operated so far. Of course a lot of People will have to be convinced of the superiority of this super third party and its platform will have to include a wide range of political and social beliefs...something for everybody. Are Constitutionalist Patriots capable of the spirit for the satisfaction of this need? I hope so.
One of the present dis-united Third Parties, (a third party that has not joined forces or cooperates with another third party), must have, (in my opinion), a really good platform. But I find pretty good platforms in more than one third party. But all of them have areas that i cannot embrace or agree with. Most voters will experience this and I don't see any way around it. There is always going to be something that is "out of tune" with one's individual sense of morality and ethics...which in itself is an unsteady and shifting state.
A Third Party victory over the Monopoy Capitalist Duopoly will depend on many factors...all of which are not easily apparent at any given time. But, I, (for one), feel that an increase in the spirit of co-operation over coersion will serve The People better in the long run. But it could happen, if enough True Citizens develope enough strength, that they may achieve a majority vote for one Third Party. We pays Our quarters and takes Our chances.
This is going to be interesting. DAN 1
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Aug 4, 2009 7:15:16 GMT -6
We are doomed unless the virtual monopolies are broken up. Healthcare leeches are spending $1.4 Million a day to defeat reform. We don't have a chance.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Aug 8, 2009 18:09:20 GMT -6
Unfortunately, the choice of Chuck Baldwin as Presidential candidate is not a good one. Even though he is a constitutionalist, his religious background will alienate many in the secular crowd. Plus there are divisions even in the religious community. Getting ALL the third parties under one banner, though admirable, will NOT be possible. Some will want no part of it for a variety of reasons. Still this is the right way to proceed. As previously mentioned, a progressive-independent/populist coalition is what should be strived for. Many states now have 20+% registered Independent voters. Unfortunately, the choice of Ron Paul as Presidential candidate is not a good one. He believes in zero trade barriers "regardless of what other nations do." He is a hardcore free trader.
|
|
dan1
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 11, 2009 15:01:34 GMT -6
If enough folks could make a few sacrifices on a few of the issues in platforms, a Third Party Coalition could happen.
This is called compromise, or "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine". The "duopoly" has practiced this for years and years. If they can succeed through this, so can We.
A "party" is a groupmind, but within that group no two individuals will completely agree. If Individuals can do this, then third parties can too.
Hmmm. What if individuals joined as many third parties as they could mostly agree with? Would this not build strands of communication and co-operation between the parties? What if these same individuals attended party meetings, (of all the third parties they belong to) and caused these parties to also cross join each other? Would this not be the base for a "Super Third Party"?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 11, 2009 17:35:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by judes on Aug 11, 2009 21:12:33 GMT -6
Wow, I like what I read on your link! I kind of skimmed the bullet points, but looks like I am in complete agreement on most. Did they have anyone running for president on that platform?
|
|
dan1
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 15, 2009 15:28:52 GMT -6
I find myself in about 90% agreement with the platform of the New American Independent Party. Would they allow my support and membership if I belonged to other Third Parties?
I'm not sure I agree with their stance on Our involvement in Afghanistan. I dont understand why We are there; the way We are. Can't We just make surgical hits to get Ben Laden and the Taliban? Get in - get out? Then again, I realize that these jihadist terrorists are doing a lot of harm to other peoples there...especially the Women. But the Afghans have to take responsibility and bear the brunt of eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaida extremists.
And I do believe America should be "isolationist", at least until We can get Our diverse society "stabilized". We have to slow down the inflation of the Population Bubble too. Sealing Our Borders while We attend to this will help.
And I do believe We should deport ALL illegal aliens. They make it harder for Us to stabilize Our Society. They make it harder for American Workers to achieve a higher standard of living. Of course, I do realize that immigrant workers do many of the jobs that American Workers do not want to do. Harvesting crops is hard hot work and it may be more trouble than its worth to make convicts do it. Legal Immigrant Workers are a help because of this situation.
Just some of my personal opinions. But basically, yes, I am in much accord with the New American Independent Party.
What might be the New American Independent Party's policy regarding Third Parties Coalition?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 16, 2009 17:08:40 GMT -6
I find myself in about 90% agreement with the platform of the New American Independent Party.... I'm not sure I agree with their stance on Our involvement in Afghanistan. I dont understand why We are there; the way We are. After a brief search, I couldn't find their position on Afghanistan. Did you actually find one? I'm of the opinion we need to get out of Afghanistan. I can't see where we're accomplishing anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Aug 21, 2009 19:31:54 GMT -6
If enough folks could make a few sacrifices on a few of the issues in platforms, a Third Party Coalition could happen. This is called compromise, or "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine". The "duopoly" has practiced this for years and years. If they can succeed through this, so can We. A "party" is a groupmind, but within that group no two individuals will completely agree. If Individuals can do this, then third parties can too. Hmmm. What if individuals joined as many third parties as they could mostly agree with? Would this not build strands of communication and co-operation between the parties? What if these same individuals attended party meetings, (of all the third parties they belong to) and caused these parties to also cross join each other? Would this not be the base for a "Super Third Party"? The silent majority agree with Pat Buchanan on almost anything, even if they would recoil in horror and claim Pat Buchanan is a racist. The silent majority are paleo-Republican, America First Trade policy (fair trade), low immigration, no guest workers, low taxes, no nation building. The only reason the Republican Party is still under control of neocons is because they have successfully propagandized; the words isolationist, nativist, and protectionist are like "N" words. As long as the words isolationism, nativism, and protectionist are feared they neocons will control the Republican Party. As long as neocons control the Republican Party, the socialists will continue to rule the country.
|
|
|
Post by beatle on Aug 23, 2009 13:14:58 GMT -6
Well, the primary concept of socialism is direct worker ownership of their workplace...socialists differ on their means of accomplishing that.
I don't see the socialist goal being spouted by either party. Elements of a social democracy or catering to special interests may be many things...and they aren't socialism.
A self-employed individual is living the prime socialist principle. An exchange of one employer with another through government ownership isn't socialism. It's an element of some social democracies.
Elements of social democracies may or may not be included in socialism...that's democratically determined by socities individually.
Socialism is nothing more than the economy itself being owned socially...with individual private claims upon it by everyone. Example: the self-employed individual, through his labor, obtains a private claim on the economy...using money he/she earned privately to do that. He "owns" a portion of the economy...his own workplace.
It's nothing more than direct workers ownership of the workplace. The economy being owned socially...through private individual claims by everyone. Everyone from janitor to management is a "worker". We tend to separate the two.
A CEO is a worker with a different title than janitor. A lousy janitor should be canned just as a lousy CEO should. A worker-owned work place would probably see that happen. Their own incomes/interests relying upon it.
Workplaces can be bought or started from scratch. It's done everyday. Employee Share Ownership Plans are a step in that direction, aren't they? A difference being, employee owned shares under these plans have no individual voting rights in the operation of the co. as other shares do.
The primary concept of socialism is direct ownership of the workplace. Period. The means are often confused with the goal. The means are varied and are often in direct opposition to it.
When the nation was founded, most of the non-slave population owned their own workplace. Independent farmers, craftsmen, shop keepers. A pretty close resemblance to a "socialist" state before the term/goals were even formulated by Europeans who never had that structure. I somehow find that ironic and amusing at the same time...and often wonder why we denounce our own heritage with strawmen.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 6, 2009 8:45:18 GMT -6
Well, the primary concept of socialism is direct worker ownership of their workplace...socialists differ on their means of accomplishing that. I don't see the socialist goal being spouted by either party. Elements of a social democracy or catering to special interests may be many things...and they aren't socialism. A self-employed individual is living the prime socialist principle. An exchange of one employer with another through government ownership isn't socialism. It's an element of some social democracies. Elements of social democracies may or may not be included in socialism...that's democratically determined by socities individually. Socialism is nothing more than the economy itself being owned socially...with individual private claims upon it by everyone. Example: the self-employed individual, through his labor, obtains a private claim on the economy...using money he/she earned privately to do that. He "owns" a portion of the economy...his own workplace. It's nothing more than direct workers ownership of the workplace. The economy being owned socially...through private individual claims by everyone. Everyone from janitor to management is a "worker". We tend to separate the two. A CEO is a worker with a different title than janitor. A lousy janitor should be canned just as a lousy CEO should. A worker-owned work place would probably see that happen. Their own incomes/interests relying upon it. Workplaces can be bought or started from scratch. It's done everyday. Employee Share Ownership Plans are a step in that direction, aren't they? A difference being, employee owned shares under these plans have no individual voting rights in the operation of the co. as other shares do. The primary concept of socialism is direct ownership of the workplace. Period. The means are often confused with the goal. The means are varied and are often in direct opposition to it. When the nation was founded, most of the non-slave population owned their own workplace. Independent farmers, craftsmen, shop keepers. A pretty close resemblance to a "socialist" state before the term/goals were even formulated by Europeans who never had that structure. I somehow find that ironic and amusing at the same time...and often wonder why we denounce our own heritage with strawmen. Restructuring the entire economy into a socialist one, tossing the Constitution out the window, because a bunch of free-traitors run the country is not what I had in mind as a solution. But don't worry, once Americans see the Libertarian Free Trade Utopia fully bloom (slavery), they will prefer socialism. You'll get your Socialist Utopia soon.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Sept 6, 2009 15:50:19 GMT -6
I'd say at the rate Wall Street and the Banks are looting our country, it won't be too long before capitalism will be totally discredited just like it was during the Great Depression.
I don't care how many books Hannity, Beck, Levin and all those other fat, rich parasites write about the virtues of crony capitalism and lets loot the country for fun and profit they write. In a few years folks will be using them for toilet paper.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 7, 2009 20:45:59 GMT -6
I prefer socialism to bending my knee and prostrating myself to the rich and morally evil. That's what we will all be in a Libertarian Free Trade Utopia, we will all be earning slave wages, and the wealthy (after destroying all our jobs, not creating them) will occasionally give their pocket change to the peasants who must take their hat off in their presence.
Most Americans prefer the socialist utopia to the Libertarian Free Trade Utopia (slavery). Unfortunately the Democrats and the lefties are totally incapable of building any socialist system that doesn't look like Communism or not have any anti-white or anti-christian bigotry built in. That's why I think there soon will be the same old 2 opposing socialist systems; fascism and communism, and it won't be pretty.
|
|
|
Post by pamelasmith on Sept 22, 2009 19:39:35 GMT -6
The Liberty Coalition is a future third party alliance made up of Americans who support Liberty and oppose Big Brother government. Join us today! We welcome all Americans who love Liberty and Constitutional Government, whether libertarians, independents, conservatives, liberals, progressives or third parties. We can agree to disagree on minor issues while we band together for Freedom! The Liberty Coalition will function as a major party and oppose the Democrats and the GOP in elections. These two parties have abandoned the Constitution and Liberty for crony capitalism, bank bailouts, empire and preemptive war. As Democrats and the GOP allow the erosion of civil liberties, Americans must unite and oppose Big Brother through the political process. The Coalition will not supplant existing third parties or independents. It will empower them by joining forces in a grand alliance. The Liberty Coalition will only come into existence when one (1) million U.S. Citizens pledge on the Coalition website to register as voters affiliated with the Coalition within one (1) month upon reaching the stated goal. In the event that such goal is not reached then the Liberty Coalition will not come into existence and pledgers are free of any promises. The coalition platform will focus on four main issues: 1) FEDERAL RESERVE: Stop the Wall Street-controlled Federal Reserve Bank and its fractional-reserve system which steals our prosperity through monopoly money laws, U.S. deficit-spending and inflation. 2) NATIONAL DEBT: Stop all U.S. Government bailouts of banks, corporations and foreign governments; pay down the national debt. 3) FOREIGN POLICY: Put the American Republic first by rejecting an overseas empire we can no longer afford; bring our soldiers home to defend our Liberty and our country. 4) CIVIL LIBERTIES & PRIVACY: Protect and uphold the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution as chains of limited powers upon the runaway branches of government that move us closer to Tyranny; stop mandatory vaccinations, spying on Americans and keep the internet free. The Liberty Coalition will work closely with all pro-Liberty organizations and ally with other organizations on a case-by-case basis to restore the Republic. According to Gerald Celente, the #1 trends forecaster in the World: "We are going to see a third party, we're forecasting. The name we are giving it at this time is Progressive-Libertarian". Join us on Myspace at: groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=107940553Or Facebook at: www.facebook.com/pamelasmith1984?ref=profile#/group.php?gid=275160165494&ref=ts
|
|
|
Post by nailbender on Sept 22, 2009 21:22:21 GMT -6
What's the Liberty Coalitions stance on Globalization, Free Trade, Tariffs, Outsourcing work to foreign nations, taxes for the top 5%, Financial Reform and Immigration?
I'm very interested in these issues, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 22, 2009 22:35:58 GMT -6
What's the Liberty Coalitions stance on Globalization, Free Trade, Tariffs, Outsourcing work to foreign nations, taxes for the top 5%, Financial Reform and Immigration? I'm very interested in these issues, thanks. Me too. If they're in any way advocates of "free" trade, I'm not on their side.
|
|
|
Post by pamelasmith on Sept 23, 2009 11:28:05 GMT -6
Hey Friends,
Thanks for the questions nailbender. I talked to a friend of mine who is also the creator of The Liberty Coalition regarding these subjects and he explained it the following way:
"Good questions. The best answer is to return to the Four Points of the Coalition:
1. Opposing the Federal Reserve 2. Opposing Bailouts & Debt 3. Supporting Non-interventionist and Peaceful Foreign Policy 4. Restoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution
Because the Coalition supports the Constitution it will uphold national sovereignty and must necessarily oppose globalization, i.e. centralized planning from Europe.
Because the Coalition upholds national sovereignty it will not engage in trade agreements that undermine national sovereignty of the Republic. The People are free to trade with all nations. The People are free to outsource work. The Republic has no Constitutional authority to force the People how to spend their money or invest their capital. If we free the People from the control of inflationary practices, America will be prosperous again and will become a producer nation instead of a debt-consumer nation.
Tariffs and taxes will necessarily become more reasonable once the Republic destroys the money-printing machine that is the Federal Reserve. If the politicians want more revenue they will have to directly explain it to the People why they are taxing more.
The Coalition will have people who disagree on the levels and structure of tariffs and taxes. Of course everyone wants lower and fairer taxes to pay -- but the Four Points are the most crucial issues at this time.
Stopping the Federal Reserve is the most important financial reform, period. It is the fountainhead of economic booms and busts just like the previous National Banks of the United States and the Central Banks of Europe.
The Coalition will unite both anti-immigrant and pro-immigrant factions. Both sides agree that illegal immigration today is a problem. Few agree on the solution. The root cause of illegal immigration are financial busts and depressions caused by the Central Banks. In our case the Central Bank of Mexico in sync with the U.S. Federal Reserve caused an Economic Depression to our southern neighbor, also causing massive inflation throughout Latin America. Eliminating our Central Bank is the first priority. Latin America will be forced to follow our lead and restore the prosperity of their own people as they can no longer rely on our Federal Reserve for credit swaps or other inflationary debt creation.
Hope this helps."
I DO hope this helps and that you find the answers sufficient. Feel free to ask more!
Thank you,
Pamela Smith
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 23, 2009 13:59:54 GMT -6
I cannot go along with such "policy." Congress was given the power to regulate international trade by our founding fathers--and for good reason. It protected American industries and allowed them to grow, and allowed us to become self-sufficient by producing our own goods. Without this ability, and without this self-sufficiency, we would never have been able to maintain our freedom. We would have become debt-slaves to the nations who sold us goods. We would have become dependent on them for our very survival. Such a degree of dependence would have destroyed any alleged freedom we thought we had. Historically we've used Tariffs to protect US production and workers. During those 1st nearly 200 years, our economy and wealth grew faster than that of any other country. If "People" use their "freedom" to destroy their own country, then government must intervene to stop them. When Corporate America uses its "freedom" to close down US production facilities--and transfers its production facilities overseas to utilize cheap, semi-slave labor, it damages this country. And it must be stopped. And the ability to stop such traitorous, destructive activity was given to the People by the Constitution, when it granted Congress the right to regulate commerce. In my opinion, as well as that of many others, the need to protect our own economy supersedes the need to protect the "freedom" of rich American Corporations to "spend their money and invest their capital as they see fit"--at least when it comes to overseas investment. Furthermore, how much "freedom" do American workers actually have, when Corporate America is "free" to replace them with the 49¢/hour slave labor of a totalitarian foreign country? (Or the 26¢/hour wages of an even more totalitarian country.) Additionally, the need to protect American workers from illegal labor supply expansion by illegal immigration--which suppresses wages & employment--should rightfully supersede protecting American business's "freedom" to hire whoever they want. The free flow of capital out of our country and the free flow of labor in to the country don't impart "freedom" to most Americans. They impart "freedom" only to the wealthiest few, while imparting "serfdom" to everyone else. To my mind, this distorted notion of "freedom" is where libertarians really drop the ball.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Sept 23, 2009 21:11:59 GMT -6
Amen to all that ULC!! Brilliantly stated.
|
|
|
Post by nailbender on Sept 24, 2009 1:42:34 GMT -6
I agree ULC. The Libertarians support a lot of the issues I am concerned about, especially the FED. Where I fall off their boat is when they fail to "support" the Union with protectionist policies claiming the "market" will "naturally" preserve our nations well being, never explaining how or even why we should be competing/trading with a Communistic Totalitarian country. I don't see the "obvious" advantages for the middle class of this country, the greatest benefit appears to be "cheap underwear" as claimed by some Libertarians. Pffft...
I have become convinced, the ultimate outcome of "un-regulated" capitalism is a complete concentration of wealth and power held in only a few hands. It is a "game" where human beings are used as game pieces until someone controls all the pieces and spots on the board. It all appears "fun" until someone gets mad and flips the game table onto the floor, then there are no "winners", only chaos and missing game pieces.
Pamela, thanks for the response. I cannot support "Free Trade", as there is nothing "Free" in this world.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Oct 17, 2009 11:56:45 GMT -6
Tariffs and taxes will necessarily become more reasonable once the Republic destroys the money-printing machine that is the Federal Reserve. So the Federal Reserve just prints money for the hell of it huh. So tell me, why does the Federal Reserve print more money then it should. Whoah whoah hold on there Kemosabe. Are you saying the Federal Reserve prints money then hands it to Congress to dispense? Libertarians claim tariffs are nothing but destructive taxes, "The Coalition" is starting to sound like another Lib org. How you going to manage that, kill off one half? lawl "And we're going to magically unite 2 mutually exclusive concepts with the wave of this wand."
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Oct 17, 2009 12:01:32 GMT -6
What's the Liberty Coalitions stance on Globalization, Free Trade, Tariffs, Outsourcing work to foreign nations, taxes for the top 5%, Financial Reform and Immigration? I'm very interested in these issues, thanks. It's probably another invention by Washington to distract and derail any real 3rd party movement. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Coalitionlawl
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Oct 17, 2009 19:53:01 GMT -6
I looked at the Liberty Coalition Website - they seem to specialize in a few things such as privacy, civil liberties and rights.
Nothing, buptkis about the economy or trade. Only DC Democrats and Republicans are so clueless to ignore the impact this has on the American people and the nation's well being.
Not a economic populist streak to be found. And the fact that Pamela never responded to either ULC or Fredorbob proves it.
And there's a fly in the ointment - they propose a national mental health screening system. How very Soviet of them. As that is how the Communists used to imprison people they didn't like, just label them nuts and lock them up in the Gulag.
And its not a political party.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 18, 2009 1:37:27 GMT -6
I looked at the Liberty Coalition Website - they seem to specialize in a few things such as privacy, civil liberties and rights.... Not a economic populist streak to be found.... And there's a fly in the ointment - they propose a national mental health screening system. How very Soviet of them. As that is how the Communists used to imprison people they didn't like, just label them nuts and lock them up in the Gulag. I hadn't noticed that. That's about as totalitarian and anti-populist as you can get.
|
|