Fish in a barrel (A Beck Story)

[MsDoodahs]

Glenn Beck has put a bunch of fish in a barrel.

Easy targets for the freedom message.

Yet, for whatever reason, some here wish to:

* debate the proper distance from said barrel before firing.

* debate what ammo is best utilized for quick kills.

* debate whether or not said fish should be fired upon.

* debate whether or not said fish are the appropriate breed.


WHO CARES!

They're fish and we're hungry.

Move in and take 'em.

[Conza88]

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day." [Watch Glen Beck] "Teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever." [Get them to stop watching TV] "Protect his private property rights to fish and he'll feed the world." [Get them interested in Ron Paul & Austrian Economics]

For those that are under Becks spell; point out to them that Glen Beck is right (if he is) on this occasion, and then instruct them as to who he now agrees with - Ron Paul & Austrian Economists. Tell them that they've been saying the same things all along and if they want to be cool and ahead of the curve, they should go read and learn their stuff. Goal: stop them from watching the MSM. Get them to think for themselves.

For those that are against Beck and accuse you of being one of them: point out that Glen Beck is a neo conservative scum, who was for the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, Bailouts etc. Point out that Bush is a war monger, but then so is Obama.

You gain credibility and the appearance of sanity by first attacking the false (other side - be it left / right).

[LibertyEagle]

Instead of attacking, which typically serves to run people away, we could leverage what Beck is doing to spread our message. He is talking much of our talk and people are listening; not to mention opening up a variety of opportunities to easily reach these same people at tea parties and rallies. But, they're only hearing part of the message and the rest is up to us. As MsD said, they are fish in a barrel. Kudos to everyone who is capitalizing on this wonderful opportunity to spread the message.

[MsDoodahs]

:)

[ShowMeLiberty]

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day." [Watch Glen Beck] "Teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever." [Get them to stop watching TV] "Protect his private property rights to fish and he'll feed the world." [Get them interested in Ron Paul & Austrian Economics]

For those that are under Becks spell; point out to them that Glen Beck is right (if he is) on this occasion, and then instruct them as to who he now agrees with - Ron Paul & Austrian Economists. Tell them that they've been saying the same things all along and if they want to be cool and ahead of the curve, they should go read and learn their stuff. Goal: stop them from watching the MSM. Get them to think for themselves.

For those that are against Beck and accuse you of being one of them: point out that Glen Beck is a neo conservative scum, who was for the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, Bailouts etc. Point out that Bush is a war monger, but then so is Obama.

You gain credibility and the appearance of sanity by first attacking the false (other side - be it left / right).

MsDoodahs is absolutely right and these are excellent "shooting" tips from Conza! :)

[LittleLightShining]

MsDoodahs is absolutely right and these are excellent "shooting" tips from Conza! :)

Yes!

[angelatc]

Ron Paul's message is more important than Ron Paul. Sadly, invoking his name elicits a negative response.

Glenn Beck is doing us a favor by getting them interested in Austrian economics and the principles of freedom, constitutional law, and foreign policy.

Our message is much more palatable if we refer to Ron Paul's sources, and there are far too many to list here, than actually referring to Ron Paul.

That's exactly what Beck is doing, and it's hard to argue with the level of success he's achieved.

[Join The Paul Side]

Instead of attacking, which typically serves to run people away, we could leverage what Beck is doing to spread our message.


About 8 months ago I was hammered on this board for mentioning the same thing. :rolleyes:

Funny how things change in such short time. :cool:

[MsDoodahs]

About 8 months ago I was hammered on this board for mentioning the same thing. :rolleyes:

Funny how things change in such short time. :cool:

Then you should be WAY ahead of the rest of us on how many fish you've got on your stringer. :D

[Conza88]

About 8 months ago I was hammered on this board for mentioning the same thing. :rolleyes:

Funny how things change in such short time. :cool:

It's actually funny how things don't change, and how little people learn.

What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

Repost:

http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf


The individualists and laissez-faire liberals were stunned and embittered, not just by the mass desertion of their former allies, but also by the abuse these allies now heaped upon them as “reactionaries” “fascists,” and “Neanderthals.” For decades Men of the Left, the individualists, without changing their position or perspectives one iota, now found themselves bitterly attacked by their erstwhile allies as benighted “extreme right-wingers.” Thus, in December 1933, Nock wrote angrily to Canon Bernard Iddings Bell: “I see I am now rated as a Tory. So are you—ain’t it? What an ignorant blatherskite FDR must be! We have been called many bad names, you and I, but that one takes the prize.” Nock’s biographer adds that “Nock thought it odd that an announced radical, anarchist, individualist, single-taxer and apostle of Spencer should be called conservative.”2

...

But the intriguing point is that, as the far larger and more respectable conservative groups took up the cudgels against the New Deal, the only rhetoric, the only ideas available for them to use were precisely the libertarian and individualist views which they had previously scorned or ignored. Hence the sudden if highly superficial accession of these conservative Republicans and Democrats to the libertarian ranks.

Thus, there were Herbert Hoover and the conservative Republicans, they who had done so much in the twenties and earlier to pave the way for New Deal corporatism, but who now balked strongly at going the whole way. Herbert Hoover himself suddenly jumped into the libertarian ranks with his anti-New Deal book of 1934, Challenge to Liberty, which moved the bemused and wondering Nock to exclaim: “Think of a book on such a subject, by such a man!”

A prescient Nock wrote: Anyone who mentions liberty for the next two years will be supposed to be somehow beholden to the Republican party, just as anyone who mentioned it since 1917 was supposed to be a mouthpiece of the distillers and brewers.3

...

In fact, the individualists were in a bind at this sudden accession of old enemies as allies. On the positive side, it meant a rapid acceleration of libertarian rhetoric on the part of numerous influential politicians. And, furthermore, there were no other conceivable political allies available. But, on the negative side, the acceptance of libertarian ideas by Hoover, the Liberty League, et al., was clearly superficial and in the realm of general rhetoric only; given their true preferences, not one of them would have accepted the Spencerian laissez-faire model for America. This meant that libertarianism, as spread throughout the land, would remain on a superficial and rhetorical level, and, furthermore, would tar all libertarians, in the eyes of intellectuals, with the charge of duplicity and special pleading.


Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Depends what you define "success" as. If it's just getting people to use the rhetoric and talking points as us. Well, whoop di doo... now there is no differentiation between us and "them". Congratulations you now feel the same way the anti war supporters did during the Bush era. The whole mass movement against the status quo thing. Didn't change anything. Now if you want to actually change something, you'll call it out for what it is... alternatively, you can follow the crowd and feel good, whilst achieving nothing.

Again, get them away from the idiot box. Turn them into thinkers. Because come Presidential Debates in 2012, don't expect any kind of coverage for Ron Paul or any kind of sympathy or new found passion for his message. Ron Paul saying the same things since 1988. Ron Paul saying the same things as of 2 years ago. Only thing that's changed is the overt agenda for each channel.

So flipped script.. so what are we to expect? The Kucinich treatment. Since the memory hole of most voters is what, 6 months... do you not expect a totally different platform come 6 months out of the general election? :rolleyes: And any bets on whether this new socio-political environment will or will NOT favor a Ron Paul?

So yet again, primary goal is to get them away from the MSM, Fox News before it changes again. How long that is... and when.. who knows.

[MsDoodahs]

It's actually funny how things don't change, and how little people learn.



Yeah, we have a LOT of work to do!