Please, be professional

[samsmom]

I read posts that make me cringe in the attitudes and behavior of some people on this Board.

Guys, we need to be PROFESSIONAL! Do you want to be taken seriously? Do you want to help Ron Paul?

We are having trouble with those "older" folks, right? How do you think they feel when you act like fools? I'm not saying everyone does this, and I think the vast majority does act professional, but be courteous.

At 49, I see the first Presidential candidate that I actually like and support, both with my time and my money. I would like to become a National Delegate and have turned in my form to our state GOP. That makes me eligible.

Ya gotta play it smart and not be a smart ass.

[FreeTraveler]

Look out, here come the flamers now. Apparently, some people here confuse freedom of speech (a restriction on the goverment) for freedom to be a jerk.

What they fail to understand is that with freedom comes responsibility. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to speak seriously. They're so used to seeing politicians and celebrities lie and curse and be celebrated for it in the MSM they think that's how a free society is supposed to work.

We have a tremendous education effort ahead of us, not only for the sheeple, but for supporters who recently escaped from the FedGov-controlled indoctrination camps.

[LibertyEagle]

bump

[thoughtbombing]

I wear a suit and tie to canvass... I wear a pair of boxers and a blunt to post in this forum. I dress for the crowd I'm dealing with.

[liberteebell]

I read posts that make me cringe in the attitudes and behavior of some people on this Board.

Guys, we need to be PROFESSIONAL! Do you want to be taken seriously? Do you want to help Ron Paul?

We are having trouble with those "older" folks, right? How do you think they feel when you act like fools? I'm not saying everyone does this, and I think the vast majority does act professional, but be courteous.

At 49, I see the first Presidential candidate that I actually like and support, both with my time and my money. I would like to become a National Delegate and have turned in my form to our state GOP. That makes me eligible.

Ya gotta play it smart and not be a smart ass.


+1

I'd like to add that when we write, especially in public forums, we need to stick to facts, logic and the Truth. I am horribly dismayed to see people make threats and curse other people for having an opinion. No matter how wrong, everyone is entitled to his opinion.

The best way for us to spread the message is to be clear, logical and as concise as possible and to ask questions that make people think.

[thoughtbombing]

I am horribly dismayed to see people make threats and curse other people for having an opinion.

Dennis Kucinich for VP.

and your response?

[Peregrin]

bump

[WilliamC]

Well I certainly hope that how some people speak on this forum is not indicative of how they speak and act in the real world.

I started doing online debates on usenet years ago and from my very first post decided to use my real name and to never say anything online that I wouldn't say in a letter to the editor of my local newspaper.

My primary motivation was always to use people with divergent points of view to make me critically examine what I believe and why I believe it.

The fact that I usually win the debates I engage in is secondary to this desire to learn what makes me tick.

[jawrightbiz]

WilliamC,

I am genuinely curious about this question. In debating people, do you ever get anyone who, after you make a valid point about a candidate or political position, actually agree with you?

I read tons of posts from tons of forums and I never see people say, "hey, you know what, I never thought of it like that, maybe you are correct. Maybe there is more research I could do on this subject".....or "that is a valid point, I will incorporate that into my argument the next time I debate someone"...or "well, that certainly is another way to look at it. I guess a solution would be somewhere in the middle of where we both stand"....

I do particularly like the Ron Paul Forums as opposed to other candidates websites becasue the people here really seem to take the time to research, and lay out well thought out arguments for debate. I see people post huge replies that obviously take a while to write and then usually what I see after that is some sort of candidate bashing (usually with quotes taken directly from the MSM) or outright denial of any point the person may have made without providing an alternative solution or research.

It seems to me that most people are simply concerned with being right, and not necessarily presenting a valid argument.

Anyones thoughts?

Just to let you know I was a Democrat before I found Ron Paul. My thinking and ideology have completely shifted because of my ability to say "hey, maybe your right about that". I have learned a LOT in the past year and I attribute that to keeping an open mind and saying that I am wrong sometimes. Now tell me..? Who comes out ahead? Someone who is right ALL of the time....or someone who greatly expands their mind because they know they are not right all of the time????

[liberteebell]

Dennis Kucinich for VP.

and your response?


????? I don't understand what you're asking here or why and I don't want to hijack the thread but if you're asking what I think of Dennis K for VP? Heh, I think it would be funny as hell to see a Paul/Kucinich Independent ticket just to stick it in the faces of The Establishment. I totally do NOT agree with DKs socialist policies, however, if we're going to "nation build", I'd rather it be right here in the USofA. I do like his civil liberty positions, that he seems to have honesty and integrity, and that he and Paul are friends. Further, all of the Kucinich supporters I actually know in person are intelligent and informed, just like us Ron Paul peeps. :cool:

Have I answered your question?

Edit: It just occurred to me that you think I threatened and cursed someone for suggesting Dennis K for VP. It wasn't me, I promise! You must be mistaking me for someone else. I've always thought what I wrote above, especially because of the anti-war positions of both.

[LibertyEagle]

bump

[Goldwater Conservative]

The great irony is that the older voters who are turned off by rudeness and vulgarity tend to be voting for the rudest and most vulgar candidates (McCain, Romney, Giuliani) while all the foul-mouthed youngsters are flocking to the extremely well-mannered Paul.

[LukeNM]

+1 Yes, Sir! (to OP)

[Liberty_is_NORML]

I wear a suit and tie to canvass... I wear a pair of boxers and a blunt to post in this forum. I dress for the crowd I'm dealing with.

Ha ha...that post made my day.

It is true, though...you have to dress the part sometimes.

RP supporters have to play the game so they can change the rules later.

[Enano1983]

WilliamC,

I am genuinely curious about this question. In debating people, do you ever get anyone who, after you make a valid point about a candidate or political position, actually agree with you?

I read tons of posts from tons of forums and I never see people say, "hey, you know what, I never thought of it like that, maybe you are correct. Maybe there is more research I could do on this subject".....or "that is a valid point, I will incorporate that into my argument the next time I debate someone"...or "well, that certainly is another way to look at it. I guess a solution would be somewhere in the middle of where we both stand"....

I do particularly like the Ron Paul Forums as opposed to other candidates websites becasue the people here really seem to take the time to research, and lay out well thought out arguments for debate. I see people post huge replies that obviously take a while to write and then usually what I see after that is some sort of candidate bashing (usually with quotes taken directly from the MSM) or outright denial of any point the person may have made without providing an alternative solution or research.

It seems to me that most people are simply concerned with being right, and not necessarily presenting a valid argument.

Anyones thoughts?

Just to let you know I was a Democrat before I found Ron Paul. My thinking and ideology have completely shifted because of my ability to say "hey, maybe your right about that". I have learned a LOT in the past year and I attribute that to keeping an open mind and saying that I am wrong sometimes. Now tell me..? Who comes out ahead? Someone who is right ALL of the time....or someone who greatly expands their mind because they know they are not right all of the time????


Well said. I too am a democrat and support Ron Paul because I have the ability to realize when someone makes a valid point and then go research it to see if maybe I was in error. Unfortunately we are far and few between.

People would rather be "consistent" than actually "right". But then again, we're taught by the MSM (a la O'Reilly) that all you have to do is shout louder and if the other person finally stops talking that means that you've won and so are obviously "right", right?

I think if our leaders were more concerned with doing the correct thing than the "right" thing we wouldn't be in the messes we are today. They indoctrinate us to believe that changing your mind is seen as weakness. But the reality is that when someone changes their ideas upon realizing they were wrong it is a sign of INTELLIGENCE.

We need more intelligent people in office and less of these gung-ho let's-stay-the-course-even-though-people-MUCH-smarter-than-me-have-told-me-time-and-time-again-that-I'm-wrong types.

[liberteebell]

Focus group of one here but I found it MUCH easier to "convert" people who described themselves as democrats to Ron Paul than I did republicans. If a democrat was open minded enough to get past the "R" label, they found Ron Paul to be exceedingly appealing. It's also worth noting that some of the more fierce Ron Paul supporters in my circle of friends used to consider themselves "leftys"; one told me the other day that Ron Paul turned his entire political philosophy upside down.

I just think it's fascinating Ron Paul's appeal to people from such a variety of backgrounds.

[affa]

I read tons of posts from tons of forums and I never see people say, "hey, you know what, I never thought of it like that, maybe you are correct. Maybe there is more research I could do on this subject".....or "that is a valid point, I will incorporate that into my argument the next time I debate someone"...or "well, that certainly is another way to look at it. I guess a solution would be somewhere in the middle of where we both stand"....


Generally speaking, it's never that fast. People not only have egos but have a few decades of thought (for better or worse) backing up their opinions.

Most are not quick to change them - either through simply stubbornness or to an intelligence that requires them to think through all the ramifications and do a little more research on the side.

But ideas are powerful. And you'll find that over time, they do have an affect, and that people will slowly be swayed by powerful arguments or powerful propaganda, depending on their mental makeup.

As a point of fact, I'm still searching for the user that used to have this fantastic sig at the bottom of his posts - it was about a paragraph long, and put forth welfare programs as an example of a way to quell rebellion - that is, the very people that should be up in arms become dependent on the system. If you know of who I speak, please pass that along via PM to me because it was a well written meme.

Part of the issue will always be that people have different definitions of words. For example, most here view any sort of income equality as 'theft' - so, for example, taxation is theft. This is a very understandable position to have - taking money from someone through implied force (via IRS) certainly does seem like theft. But when communicating with the left, the communication tends to break down. For example, for the very far left, one semi-famous statement is that 'property is theft' - that is, claiming ownership of what could be shared by all is theft from the public. This is a simplification, of course, in the same way that 'taxation is theft' is a simplification. Or, that some believe in order to truly have 'freedom' there must be some level of income equality - on an island nation of 100 where 1 man is rich and 99 work for him, 'freedom' is somewhat illusionary. So here we all are, arguing ideas and our words mean different things. Hilarity (aka flamewars) ensues.

But I'm not here to hijack the thread and get philosophical. My point is more to point out that understanding different philosophies is extremely important - you can't even begin to discuss an issue with someone, let alone win them over, if you're not talking about the same thing. Case in point, the posters on this board that curse Kucinich, etc, as 'socialists' and rail against them.

[Revolution9]

Dennis Kucinich for VP.

and your response?

hehehe.. Good example of why some people get obnoxious replies.. No..everything is not up for being discussed here..and those pushing agendas contrary to the campaigns benefit get smacked.. Too tough to figure out why just ask and I will write and exposition on troublemakwers and how to deal with them. Cointelpro and how to spot and out them and shills and why they do what they do and how to kneecap them.


Best Regards
randy

[affa]

Ron Paul supporters in my circle of friends used to consider themselves "leftys"; one told me the other day that Ron Paul turned his entire political philosophy upside down.


It's also important to remember that it isn't really 'left/right'... it's a circle. The far left and far right generally agree on almost all freedom related issues (often including, believe it or not, the right to bear arms). Where the two generally differ is in economic theory and the ramifications of that economic theory, and how best to ensure freedom and liberty for all. This is why you will find a backlash against the free market, for example - it's an economic disagreement but, deep down, everybody is aiming for the same end goal - peace, freedom, prosperity for all.

The point being, shifting from far left to Ron Paul isn't some huge leap, it's a tiny little step. And many are willing to support Ron Paul even if they don't take that step - one doesn't need to agree with Ron Paul 100% to know he's the real deal and a legitimate first step towards a better world.

This is why I think we need to continue reaching out to the left. I know some here will yell out 'we're trying to win the Republican nomination...' and that's true - but winning over hearts and minds is vital to the continued growth and strength of this movement.

[TheHand]

Simply keep it civil and on topic. If trolls post then ignore. Posting to their threads/responses just helps bury well intentioned posts. If we don't feed trolls, they die. It might take awhile but it will happen if we stick together!

I agree that all the crap posts/posters hurt this forum. I visit a lot less now because of these types of posts and unfortunately miss important posts as a result. I simply don't have the time to wade through all the irrelevant posts.

+1 to the OP.

[WilliamC]

WilliamC,

I am genuinely curious about this question. In debating people, do you ever get anyone who, after you make a valid point about a candidate or political position, actually agree with you?

I read tons of posts from tons of forums and I never see people say, "hey, you know what, I never thought of it like that, maybe you are correct. Maybe there is more research I could do on this subject".....or "that is a valid point, I will incorporate that into my argument the next time I debate someone"...or "well, that certainly is another way to look at it. I guess a solution would be somewhere in the middle of where we both stand"....

I do particularly like the Ron Paul Forums as opposed to other candidates websites becasue the people here really seem to take the time to research, and lay out well thought out arguments for debate. I see people post huge replies that obviously take a while to write and then usually what I see after that is some sort of candidate bashing (usually with quotes taken directly from the MSM) or outright denial of any point the person may have made without providing an alternative solution or research.

It seems to me that most people are simply concerned with being right, and not necessarily presenting a valid argument.

Anyones thoughts?

Just to let you know I was a Democrat before I found Ron Paul. My thinking and ideology have completely shifted because of my ability to say "hey, maybe your right about that". I have learned a LOT in the past year and I attribute that to keeping an open mind and saying that I am wrong sometimes. Now tell me..? Who comes out ahead? Someone who is right ALL of the time....or someone who greatly expands their mind because they know they are not right all of the time????

What you have to always keep in mind is that you are not just speaking to the person you are replying to.

Most people who actually post already have pretty firm ideas and seek to defend them.

However, there is a much larger audience who reads what you say but never responds.

That's why I try to stay focused on the honest truth of the message I am promoting, which is I support Ron Paul because Ron Paul has never once voted against the Constitution.

I have absolutely no doubts that I've made some impressions on the reading audience, but only rarely has one of them posted that this is so. I remember one time in a usenet debate where someone created a new account, posted one message saying how I had rocked their world with a particular argument, and that was the only post ever made from that account.

Here in this forum it is much common to see someone posting a "me to" post, commonly like "+1" or something.

So I don't mean to imply that I am right all the time, and I certainly have much more to learn about how to sell people on my ideas.

Just recently I over-reacted in a thread here where I thought someone was trying to get personal information about Ron Paul's family posted.

I was wrong and I apologized within the same thread.

So it is about expanding my mind, or learning more about myself.

"Winning" debates is just a side benefit :)

[liberteebell]

First this:



Dennis Kucinich for VP.

and your response?


Then this:



hehehe.. Good example of why some people get obnoxious replies.. No..everything is not up for being discussed here..and those pushing agendas contrary to the campaigns benefit get smacked.. Too tough to figure out why just ask and I will write and exposition on troublemakwers and how to deal with them. Cointelpro and how to spot and out them and shills and why they do what they do and how to kneecap them.


Best Regards
randy


Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I don't really know what either of you are getting at here except that Revolution9 seems to be implying that I'm some sort of shill/Cointelpro agent pushing an agenda contrary to the campaign's benefit which, I most assuredly am not. And I don't know where you got that idea or from what post I've made here that made anyone think anything other than that I support Ron Paul 110% and I've worked my a$$ off for him.

Back to my original post, I did not go into detail, but I was referring to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=120334 and the blog to which it referred where some people had made threats to the blogger. Despite what the guy did wrong (and I do think he's wrong and that the good citizens of Portsmouth should report him), he shouldn't be threatened.

This reflects poorly on Ron Paul and those of us who support him. And it's certainly not in the best interest of the campaign. Further, anyone who thinks that threats are a part of Ron Paul's philosophy needs to go back to Ron Paul 101.

I see a vast difference between discussing Dennis Kucinich for VP, which I guess is not allowed on this forum, even though I've seen at least 49,000 threads mentioning it, and outing someone's personal information and openly threatening them. That's all.

[jawrightbiz]

One doesn't need to agree with Ron Paul 100% to know he's the real deal and a legitimate first step towards a better world.



QFT

[Rhys]

I wear a suit and tie to canvass... I wear a pair of boxers and a blunt to post in this forum. I dress for the crowd I'm dealing with.

love it

[Revolution9]

First this:





Then this:





Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I don't really know what either of you are getting at here except that Revolution9 seems to be implying that I'm some sort of shill/Cointelpro agent pushing an agenda contrary to the campaign's benefit which, I most assuredly am not. And I don't know where you got that idea or from what post I've made here that made anyone think anything other than that I support Ron Paul 110% and I've worked my a$$ off for him.

Back to my original post, I did not go into detail, but I was referring to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=120334 and the blog to which it referred where some people had made threats to the blogger. Despite what the guy did wrong (and I do think he's wrong and that the good citizens of Portsmouth should report him), he shouldn't be threatened.

This reflects poorly on Ron Paul and those of us who support him. And it's certainly not in the best interest of the campaign. Further, anyone who thinks that threats are a part of Ron Paul's philosophy needs to go back to Ron Paul 101.

I see a vast difference between discussing Dennis Kucinich for VP, which I guess is not allowed on this forum, even though I've seen at least 49,000 threads mentioning it, and outing someone's personal information and openly threatening them. That's all.

Piss poor analysis and I never even thought of you till you replied. Why the self guilt trip?

There have been toooooo many posting that DK VP crap.. That is why I spoke to it., And yes.. as the official Sargeant At Arms on the forum I guarantee you there are shills, plants and paid provocateurs here, though we do our best to smack them and out them and outright ban them when patterns leave no doubt as to what their agenda is. We have even had a blackmail op run on us by the same clowns that blackmailed Perot.. Loudmouth here got the goods on them including American mafia articles and identifying their network and they could work their mischief no more..

HTH
Randy
Grassroots Whip
Sargeant At Arms

[Rhys]

Randy... in all fairness, if I cared more about moles, I'd guess you're one because you're always the most antagonistic, while supposedly supporting RP the most.

[Revolution9]

Randy... in all fairness, if I cared more about moles, I'd guess you're one because you're always the most antagonistic, while supposedly supporting RP the most.

Ma'am. If that were true the board moderators would not have named me Grassroots Whip and call for my intervention in threads where there is suspected activity. There are a great majority here who have never had an abrasive words directed at them by me. I admit to getting misfires within the purview of what I perceive that duty to be as this situation is very fluid. OTOH I am very quick with praise for those who are on the money and do not have questionable loyalties. I rarely target posters as a vendetta. I deal with ideas one by one and posts one by one. As for clowns like hemminger..well..f you have been around several months you would know why he is getting a hard time from me.

HTH
Randy

[Rhys]

Ma'am. If that were true the board moderators would not have named me Grassroots Whip and call for my intervention in threads where there is suspected activity. There are a great majority here who have never had an abrasive words directed at them by me. I admit to getting misfires within the purview of what I perceive that duty to be as this situation is very fluid. OTOH I am very quick with praise for those who are on the money and do not have questionable loyalties. I rarely target posters as a vendetta. I deal with ideas one by one and posts one by one. As for clowns like hemminger..well..f you have been around several months you would know why he is getting a hard time from me.

HTH
Randy

lol yeah, have at hemminger. just don't scare off the kiddies...

oh yeah... SIR! no ma'am! lol

[liberteebell]

Piss poor analysis and I never even thought of you till you replied. Why the self guilt trip?

There have been toooooo many posting that DK VP crap.. That is why I spoke to it., And yes.. as the official Sargeant At Arms on the forum I guarantee you there are shills, plants and paid provocateurs here, though we do our best to smack them and out them and outright ban them when patterns leave no doubt as to what their agenda is. We have even had a blackmail op run on us by the same clowns that blackmailed Perot.. Loudmouth here got the goods on them including American mafia articles and identifying their network and they could work their mischief no more..

HTH
Randy
Grassroots Whip
Sargeant At Arms

Thank you for the response. Really, no "self-guilt trip" here. I just didn't understand and I thought you were calling me a shill. It's been a rough week for me after Virginia's dismal primary, so forgive my inability to comprehend.

If you can ferret out the shills, liars, plants and agent provocateurs, more power to you, thank you and all that good stuff. I see it too and usually just ignore it. It has been a real eye-opener for me to see the lengths to which they will go to destroy someone who is "not a threat". I guess I was a little naive :o

[Revolution9]

lol yeah, have at hemminger. just don't scare off the kiddies...

oh yeah... SIR! no ma'am! lol

Ooops. Sorry sir.:D I thought about that after. I used to have an arch nemesis on usenet named Rhy who was female..but boy her mouth said ship boiler room every time she posted..

Bset Regards
Randy

[Revolution9]

Thank you for the response. Really, no "self-guilt trip" here. I just didn't understand and I thought you were calling me a shill. It's been a rough week for me after Virginia's dismal primary, so forgive my inability to comprehend.

If you can ferret out the shills, liars, plants and agent provocateurs, more power to you, thank you and all that good stuff. I see it too and usually just ignore it. It has been a real eye-opener for me to see the lengths to which they will go to destroy someone who is "not a threat". I guess I was a little naive :o

The benefit of these attacks are that it s opening peoples eyes to what many of us have been shoutng into the wind for years. An interesting post was put up last night with the Larry McDonald intervew. You can see with great clarity the conspiracy gambit being played by Braden who was with William Casey's propaganda unit in WW II (CIA Director under Reagan, probably a Bush inititate) which worked for Londinium. These two clowns later were involved in the tech transfers to the soviets giving them nuclear weapons capability and electronic surveillance data and circuitry.

HTH
Randy

[liberteebell]

The benefit of these attacks are that it s opening peoples eyes to what many of us have been shoutng into the wind for years. An interesting post was put up last night with the Larry McDonald intervew. You can see with great clarity the conspiracy gambit being played by Braden who was with William Casey's propaganda unit in WW II (CIA Director under Reagan, probably a Bush inititate) which worked for Londinium. These two clowns later were involved in the tech transfers to the soviets giving them nuclear weapons capability and electronic surveillance data and circuitry.

HTH
Randy

Heh, I've been shouting in the wind along with you for several years; I simply did not, before very recently, grasp the depth, breadth and scope of what was happening and the incestuous relationships the power elite have. Will look for the Larry McDonald interview. Thanks!