Lefties Call Out Bydlak and Ron Paul Staffers

[Renter45]

Just read some of the comments, particularly on Daily Kos...

They still don't get it. Because Obama is assured the nomination, he has better online presence than Ron Paul? Please. Did it ever occur to them that maybe there are other reasons for Obama's success, starting with the MSM's love affair?

GW Blog Spot:
http://gwblogspot.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-happens-in-mpa-308.html

Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/17/20342/8189/929/458749

Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Let_go_Joe_Rospars.html

[LEK]

sheeple don't reason.

[Renter45]

bump

[literatim]

Reddit and Digg have been flooded with Obama supporters. It almost seems as if they are paid.

[IRO-bot]

Whew. Those people are so nasty to Ron Paul. I don't understand why. All they do is use vile language to make fun of him and say his policies are bad but don't explain how.

[literatim]

Whew. Those people are so nasty to Ron Paul. I don't understand why. All they do is use vile language to make fun of him and say his policies are bad but don't explain how.

He threatens their socialist "paradise".

[IRO-bot]

So do they not understand that they are following the Manifesto for Communism or do they just not care? How did socialism get so popular?

[libertythor]

Reddit and Digg have been flooded with Obama supporters. It almost seems as if they are paid.

And they seem to also be paid to troll Ron Paul submissions. Obama's 1 million a day could pay for that I suppose... More than likely its just that Obama is a current fad, but if you look at the Digg candidates, Ron Paul still has more friends than Obama.

Its just that Ron Paul supporters tend not to just bury things that they don't agree with, so the Obama submissions hit the front page 5 times a day. Whereas a group of dedicated buriers kill every Ron Paul submission they can get their hands on.

[Renter45]

Now TechPresident's joining in the fun: http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/21859/daily_digest_is_obama_too_top_down

Ron Paul Internet Director Justine Lam and Finance Director Jonathan Bydlak spoke to a class on Internet and Politics at George Washington University last week, explaining their open approach to online campaigning. It’s a good debriefing about how Paul used the web to get much farther than he would have without it. The video of the event (there are more clips here) has pretty shaky audio, and there aren’t many surprises for those who’ve been following the Paul phenomenon closely. But one mention of Barack Obama’s operation being too “top down” raised the ire of some DailyKos readers, most of whom rightly point out that that it’s, uh, Obama who’s leading the the Dems for the nomination and Paul who’s, well, not winning anything. As Ben Smith fairly points out, “In principle, [Paul’s team has] a point about the power of relinquishing control; in practice, it’s hard to fault Obama’s online team.”

[JMann]

These people are not Socialist they are Marxist.

[Banana]

These people are not Socialist they are Marxist.

Are there really marxists?

I mean, nobody has even come close to living up to Marxism....

[liberteebell]

Whew. Those people are so nasty to Ron Paul. I don't understand why. All they do is use vile language to make fun of him and say his policies are bad but don't explain how.

Wait, what? Why all the vitriol about Ron Paul? I thought he was no longer a threat. :rolleyes:

[literatim]

So do they not understand that they are following the Manifesto for Communism or do they just not care? How did socialism get so popular?

I am sure the socialists know full well the doctrine they support.


These people are not Socialist they are Marxist.

Marxism is one division of socialism. All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists.

[affa]

the left/right paradigm really isn't the best way to look at this. dismissing people as 'lefties' is little different than them dismissing you as a 'rightie', or them dismissing Ron Paul as a Republican.

I mean, seriously, many of the comments here are little different than the comments you're complaining about.

We need to win everyone over. This is how we were succeeding. Now Obama has a fake grassroots thing going, mimicing Ron Paul's campaign as best possible, and is attracting many people. Once people choose a team it's much harder to get them to switch.

It's important to realize many of you speak a completely different language than people on the left. The very words mean different things. That only hinders communication. Calling a Democrat a socialist/communist, for example, only shuts them off. Who wants to listen to someone that's obviously trying to insult them?

Understand the root of peoples opinions and desires, and you'll have a much better chance at communication.

For example, let's take universal health care. People 'on the left' aren't trying to be socialists, they aren't trying to steal your money... their base desire is quite simple: they do not believe anyone should be turned away from health care they need if they can't afford it.

Communicate to that, and you can convince them Ron Paul's message is solid. Make common sense points they already agree with - for example, if our gov't is corrupt and already in bed with Big Pharm and the medical industrial complex, how exactly can we trust our federal gov't to put together a system that actually works? Point out that Dr. Paul seeks to make health care affordable to all by removing gov't (which has only raised prices) and breaking Big Pharm's monopoly. And that once health care becomes more affordable, different states can try different plans and successful ones will be copied. Etc. etc.

The same sort of thinking needs to be applied to all topics. Because trust me, they think you're being as close minded as you think they're being. You hear universal health care, and you think 'damn socialists'. They hear you and think 'selfish lout'. You're talking at each other, not with each other.

[NoMoreApathy]

How did socialism get so popular?

People realized they didn't have to provide for themselves anymore.

[Banana]

People realized they didn't have to provide for themselves anymore.

Too bad there's no free lunch to be had.

[NoMoreApathy]

Understand the root of peoples opinions and desires, and you'll have a much better chance at communication.

For example, let's take universal health care. People 'on the left' aren't trying to be socialists, they aren't trying to steal your money... their base desire is quite simple: they do not believe anyone should be turned away from health care they need if they can't afford it.
That sounds great in theory, but a lot of universal health care supporters think the biggest reason we should have it is because "every other industrialized nation has it"

It's not even that they personally think it would be best, or maybe they THINK they think that, but really, they probably haven't put nearly enough critical thought into it to even come to a rational conclusion.


for example, if our gov't is corrupt and already in bed with Big Pharm and the medical industrial complex, how exactly can we trust our federal gov't to put together a system that actually works?
This is a conspiracy theory to many people. Even if they realize that there's some cronyism going on between the two, they aren't able to go all the way and realize that the two are so closely in bed, that things will not actually CHANGE.

Point out that Dr. Paul seeks to make health care affordable to all by removing gov't (which has only raised prices) and breaking Big Pharm's monopoly.
It's hard to convince a liberal that's caught up in the left/right paradigm, to agree with "removing govt". To them, that's a nasty conservative idea, which automatically reminds them of Bush, regardless of whether or not Bush has even removed any government anyway. That's how programmed some people are.

[liberteebell]

the left/right paradigm really isn't the best way to look at this. dismissing people as 'lefties' is little different than them dismissing you as a 'rightie', or them dismissing Ron Paul as a Republican.

I mean, seriously, many of the comments here are little different than the comments you're complaining about.

We need to win everyone over. This is how we were succeeding. Now Obama has a fake grassroots thing going, mimicing Ron Paul's campaign as best possible, and is attracting many people. Once people choose a team it's much harder to get them to switch.

It's important to realize many of you speak a completely different language than people on the left. The very words mean different things. That only hinders communication. Calling a Democrat a socialist/communist, for example, only shuts them off. Who wants to listen to someone that's obviously trying to insult them?

Understand the root of peoples opinions and desires, and you'll have a much better chance at communication.

For example, let's take universal health care. People 'on the left' aren't trying to be socialists, they aren't trying to steal your money... their base desire is quite simple: they do not believe anyone should be turned away from health care they need if they can't afford it.

Communicate to that, and you can convince them Ron Paul's message is solid. Make common sense points they already agree with - for example, if our gov't is corrupt and already in bed with Big Pharm and the medical industrial complex, how exactly can we trust our federal gov't to put together a system that actually works? Point out that Dr. Paul seeks to make health care affordable to all by removing gov't (which has only raised prices) and breaking Big Pharm's monopoly. And that once health care becomes more affordable, different states can try different plans and successful ones will be copied. Etc. etc.

The same sort of thinking needs to be applied to all topics. Because trust me, they think you're being as close minded as you think they're being. You hear universal health care, and you think 'damn socialists'. They hear you and think 'selfish lout'. You're talking at each other, not with each other.

+2008

Here's a great article that I've given to some friends who believe the federal government should take care of everyone and everything:

The Socialist Case for Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html

[Misesian]

The big difference is that the vast majority of us support the message 1st and the man 2nd. For the vast majority of the Obama supporters it's the other way around.

I might be inclined to like Obama even though he's a socialist if he was a Gravel/Kucinich type socialist. I do not trust Obama that he would bring the troops home, nor that he would start further undeclared/unnecessary wars. I don't think he'd really fight against the big brother Patriot Act type laws either.

Just keep hammering the Obama people on this issue, and eventually they will have to agree and minimize war and civil liberties. You might not think so, but at this point you win, and stop the debate.

[NoMoreApathy]

The big difference is that the vast majority of us support the message 1st and the man 2nd. For the vast majority of the Obama supporters it's the other way around.

I agree, but don't limit it to just Obama supporters. It's every other candidate's supporters as well, because what's really that different about what ANY of the other candidates have said?

[LibertyEagle]

Are there really marxists?

I mean, nobody has even come close to living up to Marxism....

Well, it might be pretty telling that in Obama's Houston campaign office, they have a couple of Cuban flags on the wall, with Che's picture on the front.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpg

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg

[Banana]

Well, it might be pretty telling that in Obama's Houston campaign office, they have a couple of Cuban flags on the wall, with Che's picture on the front.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that no state ever in history has actually carried out the principles of Marxism. Sure, there were lot of chest thumping and hot air about how class struggle would eventually cease and proletarian dictatorship, but ultimately, it took backseat to other more pressing things such as power and money.

[constituent]

you mean che®

right?

[ronpaulhawaii]

hehe

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/9b71fd14.jpg

[kirkblitz]

does obama hate cuba

[affa]

That sounds great in theory, but a lot of universal health care supporters think the biggest reason we should have it is because "every other industrialized nation has it"

Not to sound snarky, but it's pretty much always a mistake to try to sum up the opposition. First off, since you're not the opposition it's difficult to know exactly what they are thinking. Secondly, you're biased. In your specific case, ""every other industrialized nation has it" is most definitely NOT the reason most people on the 'left' want it. It's a piece of evidence they may use in it's defense, but not a reason for it. The reason is far more emotional, and far closer to the idea I put forth - that they don't want people in need turned away from health care for financial reasons.


It's not even that they personally think it would be best, or maybe they THINK they think that, but really, they probably haven't put nearly enough critical thought into it to even come to a rational conclusion.

And this is a perfect example of why people bump heads and can't communicate. Because guess what? Someone on the left is just going to say that YOU "probably haven't put nearly enough critical thought into it to even come to a rational conclusion."

People can legitimately disagree on topics. The other side isn't always stupid.

For example, I know the definition of 'freedom' many use here, in the libertarian sense of the word, in the free-trade sense of the word. But the word means something different to many people - for example, how 'free' is someone born into poverty compared to someone born into luxury?

I'm not here to debate the above point - I'm trying to simply illuminate it. To show that it's a philosophical difference and that most people attacking each other aren't fully understanding the other side's point. The right dismisses the left as lazy socialists. The left dismisses the right as greedy bastards.

And on it goes.

What we need to do is realize we're all on the same page - we all want this to be a better world. Everyone has slightly different opinions on how to get there, and thats what needs to be discussed. Dismissing the opponent's opinion as intellectual laziness will never get you anywhere because you're underestimating the opponent, and likely misunderstanding their position.



This is a conspiracy theory to many people. Even if they realize that there's some cronyism going on between the two, they aren't able to go all the way and realize that the two are so closely in bed, that things will not actually CHANGE.

While you're correct, it's been my experience that radicals of both sides are quite sick of the corruption. IMHO, we aren't at war with the left, we're at war with the middle. The left (and I do hate left/right terminology) - that is, the real left (Kucinich, etc) will be on our side if we simply reach out to them. It's the mainstream, both left and right, that we're having trouble with.



It's hard to convince a liberal that's caught up in the left/right paradigm, to agree with "removing govt".

It's hard to convince a conservative that's caught up in the left/right paradigm, to agree with "removing govt".




To them, that's a nasty conservative idea, which automatically reminds them of Bush, regardless of whether or not Bush has even removed any government anyway. That's how programmed some people are.

Again, it's still just miscommunication.

To oversimplify:
The Right hears 'deregulation' and thinks free market - freedom, prices drop, better quality products, etc.
The Left hears 'deregulation' and thinks corporate mergers, oligopoly, sweat shop and/or child labor, price jacking.

Both think they are right. The Left will argue that it's taken decades to stop corporations from abusing their labor. The Right will argue that we've never had a truly free market.

And on and on and on, because few want to expend the energy to not just learn the other side's position in an academic sense, but also to allow themselves to understand it.

We need to communicate with everyone. Reach out to everyone.

We have been divided - this movement started eating its own quite some time ago thanks to media attacks (a simple and easy example, truthers, though that's not the only group that has been ostracized).

When this movement was inclusive, we were far, far more powerful.