PDA

View Full Version : Michael Nystrom speaks with Ron Paul himself about the Ken Buck Advertisement....




MRoCkEd
02-01-2010, 10:10 PM
http://dailypaul.com/node/123735


Here's how the phone call began:

Me: Hi Ron.
Dr. Paul: Michael! How are you?
Me: Fine, how are you?
Dr. Paul: Not good! he said with his ironic laugh.

We both had a laugh at that one, and the ice was quickly broken. He was calling, of course, about the firestorm that had erupted over the C4L Ken Buck ad. He was not at all happy about it and in fact was personally quite hurt by it. "Don't people trust me?" he asked.

"Of course we trust you. There is no question about that," I told him. "I don't know how many times people have told me that they would take a bullet for you." The problem, I told him, was some of us were less certain about the Campaign for Liberty itself, and the motivations behind the ad.

This is when he gently handed me the grenade, to blow myself up with:

Dr. Paul: Michael, how much do you know about that race in Colorado?
Me: Um....gulp.

Truth be told, I didn't know much, except what I read ... on the Internet. But in my mind, I had already spun some fantastic stories and jumped to some rash conclusions without any evidence at all, as many of us did. Rather than waiting for an explanation, we let these spill & fester in public, on the Internet.

At this point, let me reiterate that I am a political neophyte, and my real political education began only three years ago, when I started this website basically on a whim. I am inexperienced both in politics, and in handling a website of this size. This is in no way an excuse, just some objective background information. From my perch behind the screen, I can't say that I understand everything I have seen over the last three years. And this is where Dr. Paul helped me out.

I wanted to take detailed notes of our conversation, but in the end, there were only two items on my notepad, and some doodles. Unfortunately, I cannot reconstruct the entire conversation from memory. For one thing, I was nervous - I was talking to Ron Paul after all, and about this very charged subject. For another, there was a lot of information. Imagine listening to Ron Paul talk on a YouTube for 20 minutes, then try to recall exactly what he said, in the order he said it. I'm just not able to do it. He's smart, he talks fast, and made connections that I only caught up to later. So what I will give you is my interpretation of the conversation. Any errors, or misrepresentations of Dr. Paul's words or ideas are mine, and completely unintentional.

One of the two items on my pad are the scrawled words, "The Campaign for Liberty is a political organization."

This seems like an obvious statement, but I've never considered what it means. Many of us here, myself included, were concerned that the C4L was 'selling out' its principles. In one of my very critical posts, I was quite vocal in stating that "noninterventionism is something that we do not compromise on."

But politics is about getting things done, and you can get things done without selling out principles. "Take for example," Dr. Paul said, "something that you're very interested in - the audit of the Federal Reserve. We have been effective on this issue because I work with people across the political spectrum, people like Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson."

I doubt anyone could be ideologically further from Ron Paul than Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-described socialist. Alan Grayson is a Democrat who believes in big government, and government sponsored health care. And yet Grayson was one of the first Democrats to cosponsor HR1207 and is responsible for getting over 100 more Democrats to cosponsor the bill. Sanders is the sponsor of the Senate version of Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed (S604).

I doubt anyone here would think that Ron Paul 'sold out' his principles by working together with either Sanders or Grayson. They don't agree on other issues. Fine. On this issue, they're getting big things done by working together. The Fed has been around since 1913, and no one has made the kind of progress that Ron Paul has made on this issue. Members of Congress have wanted an audit of the Fed for decades, and nothing has ever come of it until now. In December of last year, the House passed a financial services regulatory bill with the full language of Ron Paul's HR1207 as an amendment, called the Paul-Grayson Amendment. Does anyone think Ron compromised his principles because the amendment has Grayson's name on it, and Paul and Grayson are now associated? I don't think so.

(The irony is that as hard as Paul fought for this, the language of his lean bill was rolled into a monstrosity of federal regulation called the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (HR 4173) that he simply couldn't vote for. On principle. But it passed.)

The same conventions - of working together on mutual interests - apply to the C4L. This is what it means that the C4L is a political organization. In Washington DC, the name of the game is politics, like it or not. Which brings me to the second word scrawled on my notepad, which is "tactics." Tactics, if you look it up in the dictionary, means 'the art or science of deploying and maneuvering forces for battle.' With Audit the Fed, Dr. Paul got his bill through the House with skillful tactical maneuvering. One of the forces at his disposal was the Campaign for Liberty, which according to Ronnie Paul's statement, played a major role. Tactical maneuvering does not imply sacrificing principles.

Requiring a 100% agreement litmus test on all issues would make it impossible to get anything done. For Buck's part, he is on record as giving 19 good answers on the survey. This is where the tactics come in. Ron Paul is proud of the C4L, and the gains it has made, as we all should be. Sometimes we forget that, but look at the organization, not from your own perspective, but from that of the status quo political establishment: The C4L is huge grassroots army, over 250,000 members strong and growing with great media exposure, big fund raising ability, and a vocal and activist membership with chapters in every state. To any outsider, it is a formidable competitor. The more it grows, the more it is feared. The more it is feared, the more it is respected. The more it is respected, the more influence we have in pushing our own agenda. It becomes a major force in our tactical battles.

This is where the Buck ad comes it. It was a tactic to put pressure on the other candidates, as well as a show of force to the mainstream political establishment. Listen to the interview of Jesse Benton with Kurt Wallace, where he talks about what they're trying to accomplish. Buck is with us on the issue of auditing the Fed. Benton admits the C4L made mistakes in the wording of the ad, and in the lack of communication with the membership. It was also a mistake for the grassroots, myself included, to jump to such harsh conclusions and make unfounded attacks.

This explanation of political tactics might sound trite - I don't know. For me, coming directly from Ron Paul, it was educational, if only because I heard it directly from him. Additionally, what he reminded me of, not with words, but actions, is the importance of kindness and patience. As important as what we accomplish is how we comport ourselves as messengers of Liberty. Dr. Paul sets a high standard, and it is one that I did not live up to.

What was most heartbreaking for me about my conversation with Dr. Paul was how he characterized his feelings over the whole thing. He said it was very depressing to him. This has special significance for me because I once had a conversation with him about this. It was the day before the Revolution March in 2008, and I had gone to DC a day early to meet him. I was riding in the back seat of his car - we were on the way to dinner. Tom Woods was riding shotgun, and Dr. Paul was driving. I told him that I knew people in our movement who were almost crippled with depression over what was going on in the world. I asked him if he ever got depressed about it all. His answer came quick: "Nope. Not at all." I was intrigued. "Why? What is your secret?" I asked. His reply: "Low expectations!"

At the time I thought it was funny, but he was serious about it. He followed up by saying that all the times he was on stage during the debates, when people laughing at him, ridiculing him and jeering him, it never affected him. "I was a little worried that it didn't affect me," he said.

I've had a year and a half to think about his words, and I've thought about them often. How would it feel to be on that stage and not be affected? It made me imagine him as some kind of a zen master, doing what he does not for any expectation of gain or reward, but simply for the doing of it, because it is the right thing to do, unswayed by the criticism of the world around him.

This is why it was particularly crushing for me to hear him say how depressing it was for him.

Imagine working diligently towards something for 30 years, being in striking range, with all the accumulated tactical wisdom under your belt of how to achieve it, having a huge organization that you built up at your disposal, being completely focused on your goal, and then suddenly, some of your most ardent supports turn on you, start second guessing you, rabidly attacking you, and threatening to tear down everything you've built.

I imagine it would be depressing.

I certainly don't want that for Dr. Paul, and I don't think any of us here want it either. I hope we have all learned something valuable from this whole experience, and are ready to move forward, stronger in our understanding and our focus.

coyote_sprit
02-01-2010, 10:15 PM
This is why I stayed out of, I don't look any smarter or dumber cause of it.

dr. hfn
02-01-2010, 10:16 PM
still want a new c4l website.....

tpreitzel
02-01-2010, 10:44 PM
still want a new c4l website.....

And I still want a reorganization of the C4L from the bottom-up. I'll guarantee you that insistence will still remain after tomorrow until that goal is accomplished. I still think John Tate should resign, but I'll wait at least until tomorrow for a final decision on that point. ;)

libertybrewcity
02-01-2010, 11:52 PM
would definitely like to find out what Ron told Michael.

phazespace
02-02-2010, 12:24 AM
@MRoCkEd - thanks for posting that... can't wait to hear about the full conversation.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 12:37 AM
there are some pricks and cunts on this site who will be eating crow for their behavior.
It will not be forgotten. Some people will flake out on you in a second.

http://www.dantynan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1240605367-eating-crow.jpg

Bman
02-02-2010, 12:49 AM
This is why I stayed out of, I don't look any smarter or dumber cause of it.

Probably the better thing to do, but the whole thing, if indeed explainable (I have yet to read this article), could have been handled much better.

In case some haven't noticed we're not the types who take kindly to people working in secrecy.

qwerty
02-02-2010, 02:05 AM
there are some pricks and cunts on this site who will be eating crow for their behavior.
It will not be forgotten. Some people will flake out on you in a second.

http://www.dantynan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1240605367-eating-crow.jpg

AMEN!



:cool:

Jeros
02-02-2010, 02:51 AM
there are some pricks and cunts on this site who will be eating crow for their behavior.
It will not be forgotten. Some people will flake out on you in a second.

http://www.dantynan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1240605367-eating-crow.jpg

What wont be forgotten? That people got pissed off over a very relevant and fundamental issue? If they hadn't gotten pissed off, do you think Nystrom would be apologizing? I doubt it. Do you think Ron Paul would have heard about it if people didn't flake out? Maybe in the middle of the election season. Flaking out early saved C4L a huge controversy. A healthy skepticism is a virtue in the realm of institutionalized force.

Nystrom admitted it was a huge problem. C4L was acting like it wasn't a huge problem. Flaking out was a reasonable response. I'm glad people at C4L are starting to understand the gravity of the situation. I am glad the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters recognized the danger that accepting such a precedent would have been. It gives me faith the the movement wont go the direction of the Goldwater revolution.

and there is no need to insult people you obviously don't understand by calling them the derogatory terms for genitalia.....

dr. hfn
02-02-2010, 03:07 AM
What wont be forgotten? That people got pissed off over a very relevant and fundamental issue? If they hadn't gotten pissed off, do you think Nystrom would be apologizing? I doubt it. Do you think Ron Paul would have heard about it if people didn't flake out? Maybe in the middle of the election season. Flaking out early saved C4L a huge controversy. A healthy skepticism is a virtue in the realm of institutionalized force.

Nystrom admitted it was a huge problem. C4L was acting like it wasn't a huge problem. Flaking out was a reasonable response. I'm glad people at C4L are starting to understand the gravity of the situation. I am glad the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters recognized the danger that accepting such a precedent would have been. It gives me faith the the movement wont go the direction of the Goldwater revolution.

and there is no need to insult people you obviously don't understand by calling them the derogatory terms for genitalia.....

absolutely agreed 100%. we don't need C4L flag waving idiots in the movement, we must remain vigilant and principled

goldenequity
02-02-2010, 06:24 AM
When the gov't fears the people.... etc,
(that goes for .orgs and candidates) is a good thing.

In the long run..... and on balance
I'll take over-reacting, skepticism and vigilence
over compliance and acquiescence.

Far, far too much of that achieves the mess we find ourselves in.
Look at it this way..... there is NOTHING that gets by the awakened rottweiler.
and they know it.

To all: LOVE revolution... forgive. forget and don't pick at scabs... lettum heal.

Attention Cunts and Pricks:
Good boy, Good boy.... atta girl, atta girl.... here's a bone....
git in yer cage, git in yer cage!
Keep a sharp eye.... and bark if you see something!

Cheers,
G.

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 07:40 AM
I'll update this thread tomorrow when Michael posts the full details of his conversation with Ron Paul.

Perfect - thanks

Anti Federalist
02-02-2010, 07:41 AM
Perfect - thanks

Ron will tell us all to calm down and HOLD. ;)

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 08:11 AM
Ron will tell us all to calm down and HOLD. ;)

I stayed pretty silent on all of this, preferring to HOLD until we knew what was going on.

I can't blame Ron for being angry. At the first sign of a fuck-up, I sat back and watched member after member bust out their flamethrowers and try to take down the C4L -- think it and its leadership were engaged in some vast conspiracy to splinter/destroy the freedom movement. Hate and spite were unleashed on individuals, calls for boycotting dismantling the whole apparatus, wiping its existence from the forum.

So his reaction to what I am sure are his personal friends getting cyber-lynched makes sense to me.

For the forum, when these things happen, my preferred course of action is to wait and see before jumping to the worst possible conclusion and then launching an attack. The C4L admitted they made a mistake. There are activists who already hated the organization, they smelled blood and let it have it.

What boils down to me is everyone will have their preferred method of activism. I support many various supporters ways of getting the job done. What burns me is when those who may not agree with one particular course, rage in fury and anger and attack when other activists make a mistake. Not productive - serves to fracture the movement and leads to relationship issues. I still like some of those people because we share core principles, but I really want nothing to do with them in the activism sense.

angelatc
02-02-2010, 08:14 AM
I love Ron Paul's philosophy, but to deny that his history contains some major blunders in staff oversight is ridiculous, and to insist that we should blindly trust the judgment of the CFL is absurd.

dr. hfn
02-02-2010, 08:18 AM
My morning thoughts: First of all, I'm on Team Tom. But seriously, they did fuck up royally and I think they will probably fuck up again. I trusted them before, but I do not now, they lost my trust. There were things promised at the beginning and never delivered too. I don't like how Ron installs his family into things, like a political dynasty either. I would like to see things change at the C4L, but I don't think anything will change. There will be no new website, no transparency, no grassroots elected board, no communication with the grassroots. nothing new. They just got caught and weaseled their way out of it. The world isn't black and white and neither is the C4L. I'm glad the C4L got burned on this, they need to be kept in line. I realize that the C4L is going to "play politics" because that is the game they're in.

That said, I still support the C4L and believe it is successful and effective and our most powerful weapon at the moment.

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 08:21 AM
I love Ron Paul's philosophy, but to deny that his history contains some major blunders in staff oversight is ridiculous, and to insist that we should blindly trust the judgment of the CFL is absurd.

Absolutely.

Benton stated outright that Ron is NOT INVOLVED in DAY TO DAY stuff.

nateerb
02-02-2010, 08:22 AM
I love Ron Paul's philosophy, but to deny that his history contains some major blunders in staff oversight is ridiculous, and to insist that we should blindly trust the judgment of the CFL is absurd.

^ this

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-02-2010, 08:28 AM
If C4L was run like the LvMI we would all be better off. They should take a play out of their book.

dr. hfn
02-02-2010, 08:35 AM
If C4L was run like the LvMI we would all be better off. They should take a play out of their book.

explain.

klamath
02-02-2010, 08:36 AM
I stayed pretty silent on all of this, preferring to HOLD until we knew what was going on.

I can't blame Ron for being angry. At the first sign of a fuck-up, I sat back and watched member after member bust out their flamethrowers and try to take down the C4L -- think it and its leadership were engaged in some vast conspiracy to splinter/destroy the freedom movement. Hate and spite were unleashed on individuals, calls for boycotting dismantling the whole apparatus, wiping its existence from the forum.

So his reaction to what I am sure are his personal friends getting cyber-lynched makes sense to me.

For the forum, when these things happen, my preferred course of action is to wait and see before jumping to the worst possible conclusion and then launching an attack. The C4L admitted they made a mistake. There are activists who already hated the organization, they smelled blood and let it have it.

What boils down to me is everyone will have their preferred method of activism. I support many various supporters ways of getting the job done. What burns me is when those who may not agree with one particular course, rage in fury and anger and attack when other activists make a mistake. Not productive - serves to fracture the movement and leads to relationship issues. I still like some of those people because we share core principles, but I really want nothing to do with them in the activism sense.

Well said Cowlesy. When are you going to run for something as you are a person I would love to vote for as a Real leader.

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 08:39 AM
Well said Cowlesy. When are you going to run for something as you are a person I would love to vote for as a Real leader.

Haha never. It's more fun to throw tomatoes than to be the target.

fisharmor
02-02-2010, 08:44 AM
Yeah...

I deny that education is "often unpleasant". I assert that when it is unpleasant, it is for one of two reasons: either the education is not wanted by the learner, or someone else is trying to prevent it.

I further assert that the understanding that Nystrom mentions is not readily available. As it is not readily available, few apologies are forthcoming.

C4L is acting like we can't handle the ideas they're operating under. Maybe, just maybe I'll take a break from debugging 100,000 lines of C code, reading about LLC tax law, studying operating principles of steam engines, and reading Theophylact long enough to try to understand what's going on.

Oh, except they're not telling us. Looks like it's not my fault after all.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-02-2010, 09:35 AM
nt

GunnyFreedom
02-02-2010, 09:42 AM
I stayed pretty silent on all of this, preferring to HOLD until we knew what was going on.

I can't blame Ron for being angry. At the first sign of a fuck-up, I sat back and watched member after member bust out their flamethrowers and try to take down the C4L -- think it and its leadership were engaged in some vast conspiracy to splinter/destroy the freedom movement. Hate and spite were unleashed on individuals, calls for boycotting dismantling the whole apparatus, wiping its existence from the forum.

So his reaction to what I am sure are his personal friends getting cyber-lynched makes sense to me.

For the forum, when these things happen, my preferred course of action is to wait and see before jumping to the worst possible conclusion and then launching an attack. The C4L admitted they made a mistake. There are activists who already hated the organization, they smelled blood and let it have it.

What boils down to me is everyone will have their preferred method of activism. I support many various supporters ways of getting the job done. What burns me is when those who may not agree with one particular course, rage in fury and anger and attack when other activists make a mistake. Not productive - serves to fracture the movement and leads to relationship issues. I still like some of those people because we share core principles, but I really want nothing to do with them in the activism sense.

I said from the beginning, and I still mean what I said, the initial event in question was not nearly as big of a muckup as was waiting until the 3rd day to respond in the form of spin-doctoring. The event itself was a marginal error in format. The real mistake was the fact that after a controversy blew up the C4L waited.... and waited.... and waited.... and when they finally responded it was nothing but spin.

The ad was a minor mistake. The waiting until the third day and then spinning it off was the real mistake. THAT's why people got howling mad. I, for one, was only ever minor perturbed about the ad itself, but I was outraged about waiting until the third day to get spun. That, to me, remains the most glaring problem coming out of this event.

The evidence is clear. They have stopped the spin doctoring, and most people's anger is now melting away. Like I said from the first moment of this controversy, the big issue wasn't the ad, it was the intolerable delay, and then the offense of getting 'spun' by our own organization.

Ron Paulers, unlike most everybody else in the US, cannot be readily spun. When people try to spin us, we get rather angry. I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it. And the lesson the C4L needs to take from this is less about ad formats, and more about 1) respond in a timely manner and 2) do not, ever, spin your own people.

Original_Intent
02-02-2010, 09:48 AM
there are some pricks and cunts on this site who will be eating crow for their behavior.
It will not be forgotten. Some people will flake out on you in a second.

http://www.dantynan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1240605367-eating-crow.jpg

I'll be the first to admit, I got way too upset and spouted off prematurely. I still think C4L screwed up BIG TIME, it sounds like they have finally acknowledged that.

I also woudl have sworn, TB, that you yourself had some pretty vocal and angry postings as the story unfolded. Am I getting senile?

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 09:49 AM
What wont be forgotten?

those people who will flake out on you in a second.
those people who took delight in bashing the C4L- which were the same people who hated the C4L from the beginning.
for those people who got swept up by the group think, let it be a lesson.

I kept all my words in general because the person reading this knows in their heart where they fall.
the person who flagged my original post on this thread must have a guilty heart because i wasn't even talking about her- but maybe i was without knowing it.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 09:50 AM
I'll be the first to admit, I got way too upset and spouted off prematurely. I still think C4L screwed up BIG TIME, it sounds like they have finally acknowledged that.

I also woudl have sworn, TB, that you yourself had some pretty vocal and angry postings as the story unfolded. Am I getting senile?

I sure was angry- at the people trying to destroy the C4L. I even made a case as to the good they have done for my state. People didn't care to hear about that.

catdd
02-02-2010, 09:52 AM
I said from the beginning, and I still mean what I said, the initial event in question was not nearly as big of a muckup as was waiting until the 3rd day to respond in the form of spin-doctoring. The event itself was a marginal error in format. The real mistake was the fact that after a controversy blew up the C4L waited.... and waited.... and waited.... and when they finally responded it was nothing but spin.

The ad was a minor mistake. The waiting until the third day and then spinning it off was the real mistake. THAT's why people got howling mad. I, for one, was only ever minor perturbed about the ad itself, but I was outraged about waiting until the third day to get spun. That, to me, remains the most glaring problem coming out of this event.

The evidence is clear. They have stopped the spin doctoring, and most people's anger is now melting away. Like I said from the first moment of this controversy, the big issue wasn't the ad, it was the intolerable delay, and then the offense of getting 'spun' by our own organization.



Ron Paulers, unlike most everybody else in the US, cannot be readily spun. When people try to spin us, we get rather angry. I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it. And the lesson the C4L needs to take from this is less about ad formats, and more about 1) respond in a timely manner and 2) do not, ever, spin your own people.

That is a very accurate account of what happened.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 10:00 AM
I said from the beginning, and I still mean what I said, the initial event in question was not nearly as big of a muckup as was waiting until the 3rd day to respond in the form of spin-doctoring. The event itself was a marginal error in format. The real mistake was the fact that after a controversy blew up the C4L waited.... and waited.... and waited.... and when they finally responded it was nothing but spin.

The ad was a minor mistake. The waiting until the third day and then spinning it off was the real mistake. THAT's why people got howling mad. I, for one, was only ever minor perturbed about the ad itself, but I was outraged about waiting until the third day to get spun. That, to me, remains the most glaring problem coming out of this event.

The evidence is clear. They have stopped the spin doctoring, and most people's anger is now melting away. Like I said from the first moment of this controversy, the big issue wasn't the ad, it was the intolerable delay, and then the offense of getting 'spun' by our own organization.

Ron Paulers, unlike most everybody else in the US, cannot be readily spun. When people try to spin us, we get rather angry. I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it. And the lesson the C4L needs to take from this is less about ad formats, and more about 1) respond in a timely manner and 2) do not, ever, spin your own people.

With all due respect, Gunny, there was a small minority (of which you were not a part) who went to cut C4L's throat before Tate's statement. And this same vocal minority, did everything in their power to foment a lynch mob. I do not anticipate they will back down now, either.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-02-2010, 10:03 AM
nt

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:09 AM
And today's lesson is...

If your entrusted leaders fail you blame the critics.

Words of wisdom that should be heeded by all.

there are critics, there are people who are easily influenced by group think, and there are those with other agendas.
I'm talking first about the people with other agendas.
I feel sorry for those who are easily influenced by these people, but have empathy because it can happen to anyone.
as for the critics- everyone who isn't actually doing the work is a critic.


When we judge or criticize another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical.

reduen
02-02-2010, 10:24 AM
"Ron Paulers, unlike most everybody else in the US, cannot be readily spun. When people try to spin us, we get rather angry. I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it. And the lesson the C4L needs to take from this is less about ad formats, and more about 1) respond in a timely manner and 2) do not, ever, spin your own people."

I did not jump to conclusions myself but I agree wholeheartedly with gunny here. It reminds me that there still really is hope for our movement....:)

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:28 AM
I said from the beginning, and I still mean what I said, the initial event in question was not nearly as big of a muckup as was waiting until the 3rd day to respond in the form of spin-doctoring. The event itself was a marginal error in format. The real mistake was the fact that after a controversy blew up the C4L waited.... and waited.... and waited.... and when they finally responded it was nothing but spin.

The ad was a minor mistake. The waiting until the third day and then spinning it off was the real mistake. THAT's why people got howling mad. I, for one, was only ever minor perturbed about the ad itself, but I was outraged about waiting until the third day to get spun. That, to me, remains the most glaring problem coming out of this event.

The evidence is clear. They have stopped the spin doctoring, and most people's anger is now melting away. Like I said from the first moment of this controversy, the big issue wasn't the ad, it was the intolerable delay, and then the offense of getting 'spun' by our own organization.

Ron Paulers, unlike most everybody else in the US, cannot be readily spun. When people try to spin us, we get rather angry. I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it. And the lesson the C4L needs to take from this is less about ad formats, and more about 1) respond in a timely manner and 2) do not, ever, spin your own people.

What Glen says, BUT I want to add this: I don't think the ad was a minor mistake.

I was upset about the misuse of the C4L logo. Not the "apparent" misuse.

Guys, until two weeks ago, I was a state coordinator from the ground up with the C4L. The "dire consequences" the organization would face if we used the logo in conjuction of even APPEARING to support a candidate were explained to us over and over again. (It's ok LE, I've got a plan... :) )

Local politics in CO have nothing to do with my basic point. If we, here in NC, had produced such an ad, I have every confidence that those who made the ad would have felt a similar degree of ire out of national.

I still think that the Tate/Hopper/Rothfeld influence is less than positive for the C4L. I still wish they could be replaced. I still think that they are all basically nice people, this is not about personalities, it's about actions.

Things were brought up during this dust up that I have learned from.

I know now that we will not have transparency from the C4L or a change in the organization (Jesse Benton.) What we have is what we have. I have every confidence that several on this forum will be keeping us up to date on their filings. Thanks in advance guys for doing that.

I hadn't realized how threatening the donation letters were and that the "war" front had been taken off the list of objectives. (I had just tossed them.) Thanks for the heads up on that. (Rothfeld writes..and Tate approves by putting his name on them) A Non-interventionalist foreign policy is a basic cornerstone of why I support Ron Paul.

I know now, without a doubt, that the "ideal" of the C4L needs care and feeding, just as any large political group that you care about. As far as I know, no one in NC left the C4L, we're not going anywhere. That's what we told the GOP and that's what I can tell the C4L with complete confidence. If we need to be the conscience, so be it.

I know better now how things work, and we'll handle things differently in NC, thanks to several folks for that. (OK LE??)

RCA
02-02-2010, 10:44 AM
and today's lesson is...

If your entrusted leaders fail you blame the critics.

Words of wisdom that should be heeded by all.

+1776

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Rancher,

LOL.

You don't have to ask my permission. What you feel is what you feel.

:)

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 10:48 AM
And today's lesson is...

If your entrusted leaders fail you blame the critics.

Words of wisdom that should be heeded by all.

Maybe the lesson is...

Get the facts before spouting half-truths and innuendos and calling for people's heads; not to mention advocating for the complete destruction of an organization.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:51 AM
Rancher,

LOL.

You don't have to ask my permission. What you feel is what you feel.

:)


I know kiddo, just letting you know!

GunnyFreedom
02-02-2010, 10:52 AM
With all due respect, Gunny, there was a small minority (of which you were not a part) who went to cut C4L's throat before Tate's statement. And this same vocal minority, did everything in their power to foment a lynch mob. I do not anticipate they will back down now, either.

I appreciate that, but I would argue that had the C4L answered immediately and without spin-doctoring, then that vocal minority you mention would never have had the ammunition to try and foment anything. It would have clearly cut off whatever issues there were before they had a chance to actually become issues. And, well, that's kinda of the point when I said that the waiting and the spinning were worse than the ad. If the C4L takes nothing else out of this, they need to take this, don't wait, and don't spin. That will clearly minimize the impact of any errors they may commit in the future if they simply do that.

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 10:54 AM
Criticism of any organization that makes a goof is healthy.

But when attacks turn personal and vicious and allegations of deceit are made, that's when things go downhill. That issue is compounded when charges are made before the facts are even presented.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:56 AM
I appreciate that, but I would argue that had the C4L answered immediately and without spin-doctoring, then that vocal minority you mention would never have had the ammunition to try and foment anything. It would have clearly cut off whatever issues there were before they had a chance to actually become issues. And, well, that's kinda of the point when I said that the waiting and the spinning were worse than the ad. If the C4L takes nothing else out of this, they need to take this, don't wait, and don't spin. That will clearly minimize the impact of any errors they may commit in the future if they simply do that.

+1776

management 101

MRoCkEd
02-02-2010, 10:57 AM
Criticism of any organization that makes a goof is healthy.

But when attacks turn personal and vicious and allegations of deceit are made, that's when things go downhill. That issue is compounded when charges are made before the facts are even presented.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/rating/rating_5.gif

But, it is worth noting that C4L should have come forward with the facts sooner.

We can all learn lessons from this incident and hopefully we improve because of it instead of tearing each other apart.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 11:00 AM
I know kiddo, just letting you know!

:)

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 11:02 AM
criticism of any organization that makes a goof is healthy.

but when attacks turn personal and vicious and allegations of deceit are made, that's when things go downhill. That issue is compounded when charges are made before the facts are even presented.

Winner.

UtahApocalypse
02-02-2010, 11:02 AM
I said from the beginning, and I still mean what I said, the initial event in question was not nearly as big of a muckup as was waiting until the 3rd day to respond in the form of spin-doctoring. The event itself was a marginal error in format. The real mistake was the fact that after a controversy blew up the C4L waited.... and waited.... and waited.... and when they finally responded it was nothing but spin.

The ad was a minor mistake. The waiting until the third day and then spinning it off was the real mistake. THAT's why people got howling mad. I, for one, was only ever minor perturbed about the ad itself, but I was outraged about waiting until the third day to get spun. That, to me, remains the most glaring problem coming out of this event.

The evidence is clear. They have stopped the spin doctoring, and most people's anger is now melting away. Like I said from the first moment of this controversy, the big issue wasn't the ad, it was the intolerable delay, and then the offense of getting 'spun' by our own organization.

Ron Paulers, unlike most everybody else in the US, cannot be readily spun. When people try to spin us, we get rather angry. I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it. And the lesson the C4L needs to take from this is less about ad formats, and more about 1) respond in a timely manner and 2) do not, ever, spin your own people.

Learning that the money was raised independently was the first thing that somewhat helped. The bigger issue as stated by Gunny was that it took three days to get that information, and then it was still just spin and boilerplate. there was no sincerity.

The fact that the Ad was very much in support of someone with views completely against our principles in foreign policy though hurt. The fact though that it showed a lack of leadership, and even competence to take five mins to look at the guys website to verify his answers was a bigger sting though.


Maybe the lesson is...

Get the facts before spouting half-truths and innuendos and calling for people's heads; not to mention advocating for the complete destruction of an organization.

Waiting three days is unexceptionable. I don't remember anyone calling for the Destruction of Campaign for Liberty. There were many though that have called for leadership change. While they have finally started to address the issue honestly and admit to errors they still have not fixed things.

They have not held anyone accountable and instead are taking a mulligan. They have not come forward to announce HOW they will not let this happen again. Just like Obama can say he will fix the economy, and health care.... you never hear details of how.

I still hold to my final thoughts of Campaign for Liberty and will not join again until leadership changes and a solid plan is announced.

jkr
02-02-2010, 11:06 AM
spinach doesnt go w/ crow...try YAMS

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 11:07 AM
I don't remember anyone calling for the Destruction of Campaign for Liberty.

That doesn't change the fact that they happened.

I encourage you to review this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228847&highlight=burn*it

rancher89
02-02-2010, 11:11 AM
Criticism of any organization that makes a goof is healthy..

I agree


But when attacks turn personal and vicious and allegations of deceit are made, that's when things go downhill. That issue is compounded when charges are made before the facts are even presented.


There should have never been any personal attacks against anyone vicious or otherwise.

But, it happens everyday on this forum, so why is anyone surprised it happened to the upper management of the C4L? :(

Did those vicious attacks on members of the C4L board happen in a thread? I didn't see any. Only when the arguement between LLS and LE got heated did anyone step in. IF the vicious attacks were on the chat, I expect that MsDoodahs has let Bryan know by now and that will be addressed properly.

The "facts," which arguably have NOT been presented yet, took days to even start surfacing and began with spin.

I don't blame RP for being unhappy with the situation, hopefully he's just as unhappy at the spin Tate issued and the mistakes the C4L management made as well.

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 11:12 AM
I wonder when I'll get an apology for days of clogged communications while I had much better things to be doing.

I wonder when the people complaining about "viciousness" are going to realize that that is the nature of the internet and trying to deflect attention away from the real issue due to the postings of trolls and a few overly emotional people is not the way to rebuild trust.

As Gunny said, the biggest problem was the delay, followed by spin.

The spin continues. And I'll never get those five days back...

:mad:

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 11:13 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/rating/rating_5.gif

But, it is worth noting that C4L should have come forward with the facts sooner.

We can all learn lessons from this incident and hopefully we improve because of it instead of tearing each other apart.

And I hope C4L learned that very valuable lesson.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 11:16 AM
We're watching......:D:D:):):eek::eek:;);)

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 11:22 AM
We're watching......:D:D:):):eek::eek:;);)

lol...

qwerty
02-02-2010, 11:23 AM
I sure was angry- at the people trying to destroy the C4L. I even made a case as to the good they have done for my state. People didn't care to hear about that.

AGREE!

People, you must start seeing that some people here have their own agendas against C4L!

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 11:27 AM
I agree




There should have never been any personal attacks against anyone vicious or otherwise.

But, it happens everyday on this forum, so why is anyone surprised it happened to the upper management of the C4L? :(

Did those vicious attacks on members of the C4L board happen in a thread? I didn't see any. Only when the arguement between LLS and LE got heated did anyone step in. IF the vicious attacks were on the chat, I expect that MsDoodahs has let Bryan know by now and that will be addressed properly.

The "facts," which arguably have NOT been presented yet, took days to even start surfacing and began with spin.

I don't blame RP for being unhappy with the situation, hopefully he's just as unhappy at the spin Tate issued and the mistakes the C4L management made as well.

What became heated was when anyone had the balls to stand up against the half-truths and innuendos that were being thrown about. Said people were either ignored, or additional innuendos were made that they were either paid by the C4L or that they were some kind of traitor.

So while C4L deserved being called out, the level of some of the discourse went way beyond the pale. People's names (in the C4L) were drug through the mud, all level of innuendos were made, someone even suggested that others turn the C4L into the FEC!!

I was mad too. I know I went too far too. I have to own that and my own behavior in this matter. If I can't do that, then I have no right to expect the same out of anyone else; including C4L.

That's my 2 cents. Everyone else has to choose for themselves.

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 11:28 AM
AGREE!

People, you must start seeing that some people here have their own agendas against C4L!

The more I see attempts to shift the discussion away from the boneheaded mistake of CfL towards the reaction to the boneheaded mistake of CfL, the less trust I have that these people understand personal responsibility

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
The more I see attempts to shift the discussion away from the boneheaded mistake of CfL towards the reaction to the boneheaded mistake of CfL, the less trust I have that these people understand personal responsibility

Do we have none of our own?

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 11:32 AM
The more I see attempts to shift the discussion away from the boneheaded mistake of CfL towards the reaction to the boneheaded mistake of CfL, the less trust I have that these people understand personal responsibility

I agree.

Benton's statement at the end of his interview - that CFL is only "partially responsible" for the ad that they've finally acknowledged as "not proper" - with his implication that the grassroots is partially responsible is appalling.

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 11:36 AM
Do we have none of our own?

When talking of personal responsibility, there is no "we"

AuH2O
02-02-2010, 11:38 AM
I wonder when I'll get an apology for days of clogged communications while I had much better things to be doing.


Kinda like the clogged lines at C4L when they had much better things to be doing (i.e. stopping the Bernanke confirmation)?

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 11:44 AM
Kinda like the clogged lines at C4L when they had much better things to be doing (i.e. stopping the Bernanke confirmation)?

Well, then they should not have made the boneheaded mistake, delayed the response, and tried to spin their own base away from their boneheaded mistake.

CfL made a boneheaded mistake that clogged their own phone lines, and because of that they hurt me, who had NOTHING to do with it.

:mad:

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 11:44 AM
I agree.

Benton's statement at the end of his interview - that CFL is only "partially responsible" for the ad that they've finally acknowledged as "not proper" - with his implication that the grassroots is partially responsible is appalling.

He did not say that, nor imply it. It is you who is making the implication.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 11:46 AM
And I still want a reorganization of the C4L from the bottom-up. I'll guarantee you that insistence will still remain after tomorrow until that goal is accomplished. I still think John Tate should resign, but I'll wait at least until tomorrow for a final decision on that point. ;)It's more than obvious that nothing will change at national.


would definitely like to find out what Ron told Michael.Wouldn't we all. That said, I have always maintained that Ron should stay as far away from this as possible because I don't doubt for a second that the man had nothing to do with it.


there are some pricks and cunts on this site who will be eating crow for their behavior.
It will not be forgotten. Some people will flake out on you in a second.

Vicious.


What wont be forgotten? That people got pissed off over a very relevant and fundamental issue? If they hadn't gotten pissed off, do you think Nystrom would be apologizing? I doubt it. Do you think Ron Paul would have heard about it if people didn't flake out? Maybe in the middle of the election season. Flaking out early saved C4L a huge controversy. A healthy skepticism is a virtue in the realm of institutionalized force. Exactly. People who like to keep things in the shadows usually have a reason for doing so and generally are afraid of the light.


Nystrom admitted it was a huge problem. C4L was acting like it wasn't a huge problem. Flaking out was a reasonable response. I'm glad people at C4L are starting to understand the gravity of the situation. I am glad the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters recognized the danger that accepting such a precedent would have been. It gives me faith the the movement wont go the direction of the Goldwater revolution.Well, according to Benton the people who care are in the minority. Or at least that's a way to manipulate a statistic.



those people who will flake out on you in a second.
those people who took delight in bashing the C4L- which were the same people who hated the C4L from the beginning.
for those people who got swept up by the group think, let it be a lesson.

I kept all my words in general because the person reading this knows in their heart where they fall.
the person who flagged my original post on this thread must have a guilty heart because i wasn't even talking about her- but maybe i was without knowing it.

What I know is that I have been repeatedly attacked here by you and LE. I have one angle on all of this. It's been my angle since I started asking questions. Truth.

I put my ALL into putting VT C4L on the map here. The GOP slanted strategy has made my activity in the GOP (which I began because Ron Paul asked us to) has made people suspicious of my motivations. Look, I have a reputation for holding a lantern on dark places. I'm proud of that reputation. I am doing other things here that are REALLY putting the fear of God into sitting legislators. That particular work is separate from my work in VT C4L but will ultimately end up helping us in continuing our goal of getting people off of the couch and back into their roles as citizens. Show me a dark spot and some rat turds and I'll be there with my lantern looking for the nest.


I sure was angry- at the people trying to destroy the C4L. I even made a case as to the good they have done for my state. People didn't care to hear about that.I hope you don't mean me. I'm not in any way trying to destroy anything. The house needs renovation, not a bulldozing. There's a problem with a corner of the foundation and it needs to be repoured.


With all due respect, Gunny, there was a small minority (of which you were not a part) who went to cut C4L's throat before Tate's statement. And this same vocal minority, did everything in their power to foment a lynch mob. I do not anticipate they will back down now, either. You have such good talking points, LE. And you stick with them. "Lynch mob" is one such talking point. Had people been able to discuss some of these fundamental concerns 8, 4, 2 months ago without your interference it wouldn't have taken a debacle like this for people to be able to discuss underlying concens.


And today's lesson is...

If your entrusted leaders fail you blame the critics.

Words of wisdom that should be heeded by all.Yeah :(


Criticism of any organization that makes a goof is healthy.

But when attacks turn personal and vicious and allegations of deceit are made, that's when things go downhill. That issue is compounded when charges are made before the facts are even presented.You with the vicious, too. I've been the recipient of quite a few vicious attacks but somehow I don't think this is what you're talking about here.


Learning that the money was raised independently was the first thing that somewhat helped. The bigger issue as stated by Gunny was that it took three days to get that information, and then it was still just spin and boilerplate. there was no sincerity. The money coming in independently still concerns me. The money came from "new, special donors" who were well aware of the survey. They were planning this ad with the cooperation of national. CO state coordinators didn't hear about the ad until the morning it was scheduled to debut.

Spin and boilerplate was right. And now the response is something along the lines of "We're so disappointed that people are making vicious personal attacks and want to destroy the C4L." More, "yes it was a mistake, we're taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen again" and less responsibility for improper vetting due to dollar sign eyes.


The fact that the Ad was very much in support of someone with views completely against our principles in foreign policy though hurt. The fact though that it showed a lack of leadership, and even competence to take five mins to look at the guys website to verify his answers was a bigger sting though. EXACTLY.




Waiting three days is unexceptionable. I don't remember anyone calling for the Destruction of Campaign for Liberty. There were many though that have called for leadership change. While they have finally started to address the issue honestly and admit to errors they still have not fixed things. Not at all, in fact I see more obfuscation.


They have not held anyone accountable and instead are taking a mulligan. They have not come forward to announce HOW they will not let this happen again. Just like Obama can say he will fix the economy, and health care.... you never hear details of how. No one needs to be held accountable. All they need to do is turn it around and play victim.


I still hold to my final thoughts of Campaign for Liberty and will not join again until leadership changes and a solid plan is announced.Me, neither. But I am every bit as committed to the work VT C4L is doing and will continue doing what I'm doing here.


That doesn't change the fact that they happened.Wait... what?


I wonder when I'll get an apology for days of clogged communications while I had much better things to be doing.

I wonder when the people complaining about "viciousness" are going to realize that that is the nature of the internet and trying to deflect attention away from the real issue due to the postings of trolls and a few overly emotional people is not the way to rebuild trust.

As Gunny said, the biggest problem was the delay, followed by spin.

The spin continues. And I'll never get those five days back...

:mad:Amen.

Epic
02-02-2010, 11:48 AM
CFL needs a new Terra Eclipse website.

Terra Eclipse did the Ron Paul campaign site, Freedomworks, YAL, LibertarianParty, Campus Reform, Leadership Institute, Kokesh, Lawson, Hunt, etc.

Peace&Freedom
02-02-2010, 11:50 AM
A concern I have is whether the plan all along was for CFL to function like a second Republican Liberty Caucus, just one under more top-down control. RLC-NY people have told us LP activists that they would support LP candidates only in campaigns where there was no Republican in the race. That is, directly furthering liberty candidates and causes was to be subordinated to strategically advancing the GOP to greater power, from which position it could presumably do more for liberty.

Like night follows day, that means many people get promoted not based on ending the Fed, opposing 'preventive' war, abolishing the IRS, etc., but on how vaguely 'friendly' or useful they are on 1-2 issues. This is the generally unproductive path RLC has taken for decades, and it's certainly not what most of the Revolution supports to advance the movement. If CFL national is following suit, it becomes another 'radical' org whose de-facto end game turns out to be pushing mainstream hack politicians (in Buck's case, a pro-war neo-con). Yet another reason why people were wise to have concerns about the long-term implications of CFL's structure and way of doing business.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 11:50 AM
Kinda like the clogged lines at C4L when they had much better things to be doing (i.e. stopping the Bernanke confirmation)?I would argue that they took their eyes off the ball with the Buck $ in the week or so leading to the vote..


He did not say that, nor imply it. It is you who is making the implication.But you seem to know when anyone implies anything. What exactly do YOU think Benton meant when he said C4L was "only partially responsible". Who's responsible for the rest?

angelatc
02-02-2010, 11:52 AM
I wonder when I'll get an apology for days of clogged communications while I had much better things to be doing.

I wonder when the people complaining about "viciousness" are going to realize that that is the nature of the internet and trying to deflect attention away from the real issue due to the postings of trolls and a few overly emotional people is not the way to rebuild trust.

As Gunny said, the biggest problem was the delay, followed by spin.

The spin continues. And I'll never get those five days back...

:mad:

You should get a board seat over it.

fedup100
02-02-2010, 11:54 AM
Originally Posted by UtahApocalypse View Post
I don't remember anyone calling for the Destruction of Campaign for Liberty.


That doesn't change the fact that they happened.

C4L destroyed themselves. In the mean time we are told there was a phone call conversation with Paul but no details. Now, based on absolutely no further info, those of us who believe heads should role and C4L reworked from the ground up are suppose to ask forgiveness for our sins!

I suggest we wait for the full disclosure of Paul's statements before we start nailing the C4L "dumpers" on the fence.

I personally hope C4L is saved, meaning the heads role today from the top down and a board is set to be elected by people we can trust within the week. Anything else is the usual hand job and speaking for myself, unacceptable.


Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
With all due respect, Gunny, there was a small minority (of which you were not a part) who went to cut C4L's throat before Tate's statement. And this same vocal minority, did everything in their power to foment a lynch mob. I do not anticipate they will back down now, either.

Damn straight! Small minority, there were few supporters of this outfit on any post regarding this matter.

I know there are those who want to save C4L at any cost, please consider the cost.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 12:01 PM
Wait... what?
Are you asking for me to provide you with an example? Because I can do that, if you want.

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 12:04 PM
You with the vicious, too. I've been the recipient of quite a few vicious attacks but somehow I don't think this is what you're talking about here.




CFL are sons of bitches!!!!!!..."another 10 years in Afghanistan"....fuck him!

why dont CFL spend that money in AZ and CT praising Kokesh and Schiff for "returning their surveys"!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul is too trusting...just like in the campaign...he is surrounded by double agents who are wasting our money!

That's what I meant (for clarification). Post was same-day, calling them sons of bitches and double agents.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 12:04 PM
CFL needs a new Terra Eclipse website.

Terra Eclipse did the Ron Paul campaign site, Freedomworks, YAL, LP, Kokesh, Lawson, etc.

I thought Netboots did Kokesh's? Is Netboots owned by Terra Eclipse?

MRoCkEd
02-02-2010, 12:06 PM
Agreed about the website. We can put together a petition requesting a new one.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 12:14 PM
Agreed about the website. We can put together a petition requesting a new one.

+1

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 12:42 PM
That's what I meant (for clarification). Post was same-day, calling them sons of bitches and double agents.Ohhh... ok.


Are you asking for me to provide you with an example? Because I can do that, if you want.Got it.


Agreed about the website. We can put together a petition requesting a new one.Good luck with that. The guy that put together that website is on the C4L staff and is also a state coordinator.

Way back when I mentioned that C4L was trying to put the kibosh on ancillary C4L websites and meetups. They excuse was that the logo was being used in conjunction with positions not endorsed by C4L-- which is kinda funny now.

The larger reason, and one acknowledged but played down, is that they have a website with a forum that they want members to use. They want all state activity on the national site so they can monitor it. They do not want new recruits going to a site like the one in my signature for a number of reasons. One being that we will attract new local members to our group bypassing the national data-mining.

At any rate, asking for a new website will get you about as far as asking for a shakeup in national personal. Nowhere.

Epic
02-02-2010, 12:45 PM
I thought Netboots did Kokesh's? Is Netboots owned by Terra Eclipse?

"NetBoots is a trademark of Terra Eclipse, Inc © 2010 Terra Eclipse, Inc."

RCA
02-02-2010, 12:46 PM
CFL needs a new Terra Eclipse website.

Terra Eclipse did the Ron Paul campaign site, Freedomworks, YAL, LP, Kokesh, Lawson, etc.

Won't happen. They hired an "insider" for the website.

Epic
02-02-2010, 12:53 PM
Won't happen. They hired an "insider" for the website.

time to fire that "insider", cause the site sucks. YAL has a better site, and YAL is a much smaller organization compared to CFL.

newbitech
02-02-2010, 12:57 PM
any update on this? We have heard from the rest (at C4L) now lets hear from the best.

erowe1
02-02-2010, 01:00 PM
I haven't listened to that Jesse Benton interview yet, which supposedly has some important details in it.

But as far as I can tell, we still haven't been given a full detailed explanation of what really happened. That's a big part of the problem. And I don't see why any of the people demanding an explanation, and who don't consider the official statements put out by CFL leaders sufficient, should feel any need to apologize for that.

newbitech
02-02-2010, 01:03 PM
I haven't listened to that Jesse Benton interview yet, which supposedly has some important details in it.

But as far as I can tell, we still haven't been given a full detailed explanation of what really happened. That's a big part of the problem. And I don't see why any of the people demanding an explanation, and who don't consider the official statements put out by CFL leaders sufficient, should feel any need to apologize for that.


yeah, I mean why is it so important to deflect criticism from the conspiracy/irrational/schizophrenic wing of the liberty movement? Surely these are the folks making the harsh comments.

I just hope that once we deal will the nut case, moon bat, kooks that like to call names, that we can actually get down to the meat of this issue.

angelatc
02-02-2010, 01:19 PM
Won't happen. They hired an "insider" for the website.

There is more than one person getting paid for maintaining their website.

RCA
02-02-2010, 01:41 PM
There is more than one person getting paid for maintaining their website.

I was fooled.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 01:53 PM
Jesse Benton tells us that the C4L survey being sent to candidates asks their position on "Undeclared" war. It seems like it was only yesterday that Ron Paul stood up on the debate staged and fiercely argued against the move to Unjust war. Did Ron have anything to say about this issue in his telephone conversation with Michael? (perhaps someone can forward this question to Michael or Ron).

Here is the Jesse Benton piece I am referring to:
http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k-c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 02:00 PM
Jesse Benton tells us that the C4L survey being sent to candidates asks their position on "Undeclared" war. It seems like it was only yesterday that Ron Paul stood up on the debate staged and fiercely argued against the move to Unjust war. Did Ron have anything to say about this issue in his telephone conversation with Michael? (perhaps someone can forward this question to Michael or Ron).

Here is the Jesse Benton piece I am referring to:
http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k-c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/

...mmm because who is going to check the box for supporting anything that is "Unjust?"

I support Unjust traffic laws?
I support Undeclared traffic laws?

I feel like a switcheroo there would amount to an...epic fail?

angelatc
02-02-2010, 02:06 PM
I was fooled.

It's an easy mistake to make.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 02:17 PM
...mmm because who is going to check the box for supporting anything that is "Unjust?"

I support Unjust traffic laws?
I support Undeclared traffic laws?

I feel like a switcheroo there would amount to an...epic fail?
It's the doctrine that this country was founded on, at least theoretically. And it is also the doctrine that Ron campaigned on, and which brought may to support him.

So, are you saying that we change the word for the sake of semantics? for the sake of convenience? in order to accommodate a survey format? Do you see the fallacy here, and the significance?

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 02:20 PM
I haven't listened to that Jesse Benton interview yet, which supposedly has some important details in it.

But as far as I can tell, we still haven't been given a full detailed explanation of what really happened. That's a big part of the problem. And I don't see why any of the people demanding an explanation, and who don't consider the official statements put out by CFL leaders sufficient, should feel any need to apologize for that.

After you listen to it go ahead and check this out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229449

constituent
02-02-2010, 02:21 PM
yeah, I mean why is it so important to deflect criticism from the conspiracy/irrational/schizophrenic wing of the liberty movement? Surely these are the folks making the harsh comments.

I just hope that once we deal will the nut case, moon bat, kooks that like to call names, that we can actually get down to the meat of this issue.

exactly what i was thinking.

Cowlesy
02-02-2010, 03:07 PM
It's the doctrine that this country was founded on, at least theoretically. And it is also the doctrine that Ron campaigned on, and which brought may to support him.

So, are you saying that we change the word for the sake of semantics? for the sake of convenience? in order to accommodate a survey format? Do you see the fallacy here, and the significance?

You're trying way too hard.

What I am saying is making a survey that asks Do you support X, Y, or Z that are Unjust is making a survey a cakewalk. Justification is subjective in the eye of the justifier.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 03:09 PM
You're trying way too hard.

What I am saying is making a survey that asks Do you support X, Y, or Z that are Unjust is making a survey a cakewalk. Justification is subjective in the eye of the justifier.
Then the survey is utterly useless.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 03:28 PM
You're trying way too hard.

What I am saying is making a survey that asks Do you support X, Y, or Z that are Unjust is making a survey a cakewalk. Justification is subjective in the eye of the justifier.

true. i have some training in survey creation. a good way to get good data is to ask non-loaded questions that are open ended. this forces the surveyed to give a complete answer on the topic.
i've done a lot of political surveys myself. the best ones are those that ask for you to explain your position.
closed ended questions are easier to "grade" but usually are not useful when it comes to policy agreement. closed ended questions are best used for things like "sex", gender, age, etc. things that are usually are black and white.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 03:37 PM
YouTube - Ron Paul : The Just War Theory & Peace Correlation! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgb_Fnde9G4)

Peace&Freedom
02-02-2010, 03:50 PM
How about a poll that words the war question the simple way Paul campaigned on it in 2008:

Do you support an effort to bring our troops home from no-win "police actions?" or

Will you bring our troops home, now?

jmdrake
02-02-2010, 03:52 PM
YouTube - Ron Paul : The Just War Theory & Peace Correlation! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgb_Fnde9G4)

True. But Ron Paul also talked about undeclared wars.

YouTube - (2007) Ron Paul: Undeclared War Supported by Increasing Tax. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhQC-RkLO6E)

Now how do you prevent an unjust war? Well if we stick to our constitutional principles it's by getting enough votes against declaring it. The "unjust war" theory is good to bring up during such debates. But voting against a declaration of war is the mechanism to stop it. By avoiding declarations of war presidents have created an end run around the constitution and nullified a check to stop unjust war. Votes for "authorizations for a use of force" have been pushed as "bargaining chips". Nobody is held accountable.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 03:57 PM
How about a poll that words the war question the simple way Paul campaigned on it in 2008:

Do you support an effort to bring our troops home from no-win "police actions?" or

Will you bring our troops home, now?

question is- do you want a survey that is filled with loaded questions. as in the question itself tells you what answer it wants.
the "no-win" part pushes the person to answer the question the way you want them to- of course i'd be against a "no-win" police action but i'm for the ones i think we can win. would be the logic.
a simpler question would be-
should U.S. troops be used in police actions in other countries?
or
should the president be able to deploy U.S. troops to other countries without a declaration of war? if so, under what conditions.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:00 PM
question is- do you want a survey that is filled with loaded questions. as in the question itself tells you what answer it wants.
the "no-win" part pushes the person to answer the question the way you want them to- of course i'd be against a "no-win" police action but i'm for the ones i think we can win. would be the logic.
a simpler question would be-
should U.S. troops be used in police actions in other countries?
or
should the president be able to deploy U.S. troops to other countries without a declaration of war? if so, under what conditions.Both are MUCH better questions. Questions they would have gotten had they taken the time to present the survey to membership before sending it out. How hard would it be to put up a series of polls and allowing the membership to vote?

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-02-2010, 04:03 PM
nt

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:06 PM
Both are MUCH better questions. Questions they would have gotten had they taken the time to present the survey to membership before sending it out. How hard would it be to put up a series of polls and allowing the membership to vote?

it would have been better to hire a sociologist to create the survey. i'd done it cheaply- if not for free.
most people don't understand there is a science behind surveying- even our most sincere members could come up with poorly worded questions.

i haven't seen the survey. does anyone have a copy of it?
i'll create a thread to critique it and possibly send it to C4L so they can see the difference it makes to ask the questions the right way and have the answers come in appropriate format.
if they want SPSS setup it may cost them a little because it is time consuming, but once it is set up they could use it for years to come.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-02-2010, 04:11 PM
nt

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:15 PM
it would have been better to hire a sociologist to create the survey. i'd done it cheaply- if not for free.
most people don't understand there is a science behind surveying- even our most sincere members could come up with poorly worded questions.

i haven't seen the survey. does anyone have a copy of it?
i'll create a thread to critique it and possibly send it to C4L so they can see the difference it makes to ask the questions the right way and have the answers come in appropriate format.
if they want SPSS setup it may cost them a little because it is time consuming, but once it is set up they could use it for years to come.
You haven't seen it yet? WOW! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:15 PM
You haven't seen it yet? WOW! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

ok, let me analyze it.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:18 PM
here is the question:

Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

the question is not loaded. it is created simple and does not push an answer or allow misinterpretation.
so the question is fine.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 04:19 PM
Posted the Candidate Survey here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229500

I don't see any reason why they can't do sit down interviews, like any newspaper would do.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:22 PM
The survey format is made for quick grading.
if you are surveying hundreds of people- i guess that is ok, but take the risk of not getting complete information.

i'd favor fewer open ended questions centered around policy opinion and not around voting preference.
but this does give a "roll-call" vote of sorts.

people who did not respond usually do not respond because they know they will not answer the way the surveyor wants. can't avoid that since all organization's policies positions are usually known.

all people who responded to the survey were at least being forth coming with their positions.

Meatwasp
02-02-2010, 04:26 PM
Sadly I got caught up in the gestalt for a tiny while until I realized the best thing is to wait and let the C4l explain. I am glad I did.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:26 PM
here is the question:


the question is not loaded. it is created simple and does not push an answer or allow misinterpretation.
so the question is fine.

No it's not. Where is there allowance for a declared occupation in the Constitution? Or any occupation for that matter? The point should be whether the candidate is for undeclared wars-- or even better does the candidate support pre-emptive attacks on other nations?

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:29 PM
No it's not. Where is there allowance for a declared occupation in the Constitution? Or any occupation for that matter? The point should be whether the candidate is for undeclared wars-- or even better does the candidate support pre-emptive attacks on other nations?

that wasn't the information they were looking for- the question was simple.
that is why i stated that it would have given a clearer picture of where a candidate stands to ask them a few open ended questions that would force them to articulate their position instead of checking yes or no.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 04:32 PM
No it's not. Where is there allowance for a declared occupation in the Constitution? Or any occupation for that matter? The point should be whether the candidate is for undeclared wars-- or even better does the candidate support pre-emptive attacks on other nations?
The entire survey format simply does not provide a thorough understanding of a candidate's position.

Survey's are designed to gain limited insight into large populations of people at little cost. But that is NOT what we are attempting to do here. We have a very small population of candidates and we seek a thorough understanding of them. This is very similar to a job interview for an executive position within a company, were a significant time investment is made with a small number of candidates.

We can argue about the wording of these questions, for there is lots to argue about. But even with a better designed survey, how much can we really learn that we cannot gain from a cursory read of a candidate's website?

Hence, my question is this.... what added value is C4L delivering here?

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:34 PM
that wasn't the information they were looking for- the question was simple.
that is why i stated that it would have given a clearer picture of where a candidate stands to ask them a few open ended questions that would force them to articulate their position instead of checking yes or no.
Then the information they were looking for was flawed. I would have preferred open ended questions, too.

I also think that the survey program ought to be multi-faceted. Send survey, review answers. If answers are acceptable then further vetting should happen. If answers are unacceptable that should be the end.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:36 PM
Survey's are designed to gain limited insight into large populations of people

some surveys are used to do what you stated.
the purpose of this survey was not to use a small subset to understand the general consensus. it was to determine where each person stood on certain legislation.
it is a specific survey to determine a specific individuals response.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 04:42 PM
some surveys are used to do what you stated.
the purpose of this survey was not to use a small subset to understand the general consensus. it was to determine where each person stood on certain legislation.
it is a specific survey to determine a specific individuals response.
I realize how the survey was used in this instance. What I am saying is that it is not a very good tool for reaching ones objectives, which I assume are a thorough understanding of a candidate's positions and rationale for those positions.

Again, what added value is C4L delivering here?

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:47 PM
some surveys are used to do what you stated.
the purpose of this survey was not to use a small subset to understand the general consensus. it was to determine where each person stood on certain legislation.
it is a specific survey to determine a specific individuals response.

Based on his answers he looks fine. Huge error to do no further vetting on him. 4th amendment violation, hate crime prosecution, send our troops to Afghanistan for another 10 years, involvement with Cheney and the Iran-Contra affair... I mean, come on. For people who are supposed to be experts these guys either are ridiculously incompetent or looked the other way on purpose. I can't help but think it was both.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 04:47 PM
I realize how the survey was used in this instance. What I am saying is that it is not a very good tool for reaching ones objectives, which I assume are a thorough understanding of a candidate's positions and rationale for those positions.

The BEST way to find out is to have a face to face, week long interview of each candidate. problem is- time.
also time is a problem if you wanted to sit down with each person and interview them personally with a long battery of open ended questions.
a survey can be declined if it requires too much time. that may be their reasoning for the closed-ended questions.

that is why a few open-ended questions would work. it would take about the same amount of time from the person surveyed and give you a bit more insight into their position.

I actually conducting one on one interviews for the Forum for Equality in Louisiana. it was very time consuming and only about 5% of the candidates showed up for the interviews.
in this case- the candidates are all over, so logistics can be a problem. plus- you have to hire qualified people to interview candidates with open-ended questions or you will also risk getting bad info.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:53 PM
The BEST way to find out is to have a face to face, week long interview of each candidate. problem is- time.
also time is a problem if you wanted to sit down with each person and interview them personally with a long battery of open ended questions.
a survey can be declined if it requires too much time. that may be their reasoning for the closed-ended questions. This is where the grassroots members come in! I would LOVE to have an opportunity to sit down with candidates and ask them questions with the weight of an organization behind me.


that is why a few open-ended questions would work. it would take about the same amount of time from the person surveyed and give you a bit more incite into their position.Why not simply focus on 5 questions related specifically to each of the principles in the mission statement? Constitution, monetary policy, foreign policy and smaller, decntralized government.


I actually conducting one on one interviews for the Forum for Equality in Louisiana. it was very time consuming and only about 5% of the candidates showed up for the interviews.
in this case- the candidates are all over, so logistics can be a problem. plus- you have to hire qualified people to interview candidates with open-ended questions are you will also risk getting bad info.Again, this is a perfect opportunity for the boots on the ground. Have a training session for interviewers, either online or via the state coordinators.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 06:04 PM
The BEST way to find out is to have a face to face, week long interview of each candidate. problem is- time.
also time is a problem if you wanted to sit down with each person and interview them personally with a long battery of open ended questions.
a survey can be declined if it requires too much time. that may be their reasoning for the closed-ended questions.

that is why a few open-ended questions would work. it would take about the same amount of time from the person surveyed and give you a bit more insight into their position.

I actually conducting one on one interviews for the Forum for Equality in Louisiana. it was very time consuming and only about 5% of the candidates showed up for the interviews.
in this case- the candidates are all over, so logistics can be a problem. plus- you have to hire qualified people to interview candidates with open-ended questions or you will also risk getting bad info.
What about telephone interviews? Or, perhaps video calls that can be recorded?

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 06:08 PM
What about telephone interviews? Or, perhaps video calls that can be recorded?


i've done survey by phone. its ok. the problem is getting the person on the phone at a time when you can both connect.
you still need a qualified person to ask the questions. but one person can do several people a day.

pacelli
02-02-2010, 06:51 PM
Kinda like the clogged lines at C4L when they had much better things to be doing (i.e. stopping the Bernanke confirmation)?

Clogged lines? The message at the time said that they would be back after the thanksgiving holiday!

pacelli
02-02-2010, 06:55 PM
Again, what added value is C4L delivering here?

No added value at all. They've demonstrated that a politician lied, and, even though it wasn't intended, they've delivered the guilt-laden grassroots a nice bone to focus on.

tpreitzel
02-02-2010, 06:57 PM
No added value at all.

Right, unless one considers confusion as value. ;)

Chester Copperpot
02-02-2010, 06:58 PM
do we have an update yet?

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 07:20 PM
Doesn't appear to have been one as of yet.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 07:26 PM
i've done survey by phone. its ok. the problem is getting the person on the phone at a time when you can both connect.
you still need a qualified person to ask the questions. but one person can do several people a day.
I would think that if they can afford $350K in support of a candidate, then they can assy a team of highly qualified individuals to interview candidates over the phone or in person or via video conference.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 07:41 PM
I would think that if they can afford $350K in support of a candidate, then they can assy a team of highly qualified individuals to interview candidates over the phone or in person or via video conference.

i'm sure the haters would find something to bitch about if they were using a large amount of funds on surveys.
you could pick apart any person or organization.
it is real easy to be a monday morning quarterback.

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 07:54 PM
i'm sure the haters would find something to bitch about if they were using a large amount of funds on surveys.
you could pick apart any person or organization.
it is real easy to be a monday morning quarterback.

It's not like we're criticizing reasonable decisions that just happened to work out wrong.

It was a horrible decision in the first place.

'Monday morning quarterbacking' has the connotation that we aren't in the game.

We're not Monday morning quarterbacking.

We're ALL on the playing field...and we're asking WTF did CFL just do?

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 07:57 PM
i'm sure the haters would find something to bitch about if they were using a large amount of funds on surveys.
you could pick apart any person or organization.
it is real easy to be a monday morning quarterback.
Is that like the Global Warming denialists?

Look, if this organization want people's money, their support, their time and energy, and their trust, then they should at least hire good people, employ good practices that add real value, and communicate honestly with that base of support. If people questioning the above are going to be labeled "haters," then the larger goals have already been thwarted and the entire infrastructure should be disbanded so that a new framework can be established that works to everyone's benefit.

Sending out a 20-question poorly designed survey is an embarrassment. Period.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 08:07 PM
It is called monday morning quarterbacking because you weren't there to make the decisions, and now you have the luxury of looking back and picking everything apart. It is a matter of fact.

The survey was actually written correctly. I didn't see any errors in it.
I would have suggested the open-ended approach. But i wasn't there- so there may have been good reason to use this format that I wasn't privvy too.

I do not consider myself superior because i can see now that they did it wrong.
Surveys go out like this all the time- only occassionaly do you have bad data return.

tpreitzel
02-02-2010, 08:24 PM
It is called monday morning quarterbacking because you weren't there to make the decisions, and now you have the luxury of looking back and picking everything apart. It is a matter of fact.

Obviously. Thanks for continually making the case for a more open process. ;)



The survey was actually written correctly. I didn't see any errors in it.
I would have suggested the open-ended approach. But i wasn't there- so there may have been good reason to use this format that I wasn't privvy too.

I do not consider myself superior because i can see now that they did it wrong.
Surveys go out like this all the time- only occassionaly do you have bad data return.

Of course, you don't see any errors in it, but your failure to see the omissions don't preclude them from existing. BTW, these omissions have ALREADY been well-documented by numerous members including myself. Do a search if you doubt it. Unfortunately, torchbearer, you're one of members who's eating crow by the plateful. Next year, you'll be eating even more. Keep it up. ;)

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Obviously. Thanks for continually making the case for a more open process. ;)



Of course, you don't see any errors in it, but your failure to see the omissions don't preclude them from existing. BTW, these omissions have ALREADY been well-documented by numerous members including myself. Do a search if you doubt it. Unfortunately, torchbearer, you're one of members who's eating crow by the plateful. Next year, you'll be eating even more. Keep it up. ;)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a background in survey creation.
Please share with me you critique of the survey and where it was done incorrectly.
I'm ready for this education.

tpreitzel
02-02-2010, 08:38 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a background in survey creation.
Please share with me you critique of the survey and where it was done incorrectly.
I'm ready for this education.

Apparently you do. Don't you feel slighted by looking ridiculous having to vouch for a flawed process when your "expertise" might have prevented this fiasco? ;)

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Apparently you do. Don't you feel slighted by looking ridiculous having to vouch for a flawed process when your "expertise" might have prevented this fiasco? ;)

not really. i'm not the only one who knows how to do it.
they obviously had someone who knew something about making surveys because they did it by the book.

the only question would be, what would be the best approach?
to answer that- you'd have to know what their limits were-
time limit, money limit, scope of interest limit, survey response limits, etc.

that is why its tough to say it was a huge failure for them to choose this method. their limits may have dictated that an easily gradable survey was the best choice.

a lot of organizations use this method when surveying candidates. this wasn't unusual in practice.

AuH2O
02-02-2010, 08:48 PM
Making the survey strict Yes or No probably has more to do with turning results into "binding commitments" that can be used next go-round if the candidates violate them, rather than simply ease of tabulation. If you allow candidates to write answers in, they can leave themselves wiggle-room and explain away bad votes to reconcile with their broad answers after the fact.

MRoCkEd
02-02-2010, 08:50 PM
http://dailypaul.com/node/123735


Here's how the phone call began:

Me: Hi Ron.
Dr. Paul: Michael! How are you?
Me: Fine, how are you?
Dr. Paul: Not good! he said with his ironic laugh.

We both had a laugh at that one, and the ice was quickly broken. He was calling, of course, about the firestorm that had erupted over the C4L Ken Buck ad. He was not at all happy about it and in fact was personally quite hurt by it. "Don't people trust me?" he asked.

"Of course we trust you. There is no question about that," I told him. "I don't know how many times people have told me that they would take a bullet for you." The problem, I told him, was some of us were less certain about the Campaign for Liberty itself, and the motivations behind the ad.

This is when he gently handed me the grenade, to blow myself up with:

Dr. Paul: Michael, how much do you know about that race in Colorado?
Me: Um....gulp.

Truth be told, I didn't know much, except what I read ... on the Internet. But in my mind, I had already spun some fantastic stories and jumped to some rash conclusions without any evidence at all, as many of us did. Rather than waiting for an explanation, we let these spill & fester in public, on the Internet.

At this point, let me reiterate that I am a political neophyte, and my real political education began only three years ago, when I started this website basically on a whim. I am inexperienced both in politics, and in handling a website of this size. This is in no way an excuse, just some objective background information. From my perch behind the screen, I can't say that I understand everything I have seen over the last three years. And this is where Dr. Paul helped me out.

I wanted to take detailed notes of our conversation, but in the end, there were only two items on my notepad, and some doodles. Unfortunately, I cannot reconstruct the entire conversation from memory. For one thing, I was nervous - I was talking to Ron Paul after all, and about this very charged subject. For another, there was a lot of information. Imagine listening to Ron Paul talk on a YouTube for 20 minutes, then try to recall exactly what he said, in the order he said it. I'm just not able to do it. He's smart, he talks fast, and made connections that I only caught up to later. So what I will give you is my interpretation of the conversation. Any errors, or misrepresentations of Dr. Paul's words or ideas are mine, and completely unintentional.

One of the two items on my pad are the scrawled words, "The Campaign for Liberty is a political organization."

This seems like an obvious statement, but I've never considered what it means. Many of us here, myself included, were concerned that the C4L was 'selling out' its principles. In one of my very critical posts, I was quite vocal in stating that "noninterventionism is something that we do not compromise on."

But politics is about getting things done, and you can get things done without selling out principles. "Take for example," Dr. Paul said, "something that you're very interested in - the audit of the Federal Reserve. We have been effective on this issue because I work with people across the political spectrum, people like Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson."

I doubt anyone could be ideologically further from Ron Paul than Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-described socialist. Alan Grayson is a Democrat who believes in big government, and government sponsored health care. And yet Grayson was one of the first Democrats to cosponsor HR1207 and is responsible for getting over 100 more Democrats to cosponsor the bill. Sanders is the sponsor of the Senate version of Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed (S604).

I doubt anyone here would think that Ron Paul 'sold out' his principles by working together with either Sanders or Grayson. They don't agree on other issues. Fine. On this issue, they're getting big things done by working together. The Fed has been around since 1913, and no one has made the kind of progress that Ron Paul has made on this issue. Members of Congress have wanted an audit of the Fed for decades, and nothing has ever come of it until now. In December of last year, the House passed a financial services regulatory bill with the full language of Ron Paul's HR1207 as an amendment, called the Paul-Grayson Amendment. Does anyone think Ron compromised his principles because the amendment has Grayson's name on it, and Paul and Grayson are now associated? I don't think so.

(The irony is that as hard as Paul fought for this, the language of his lean bill was rolled into a monstrosity of federal regulation called the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (HR 4173) that he simply couldn't vote for. On principle. But it passed.)

The same conventions - of working together on mutual interests - apply to the C4L. This is what it means that the C4L is a political organization. In Washington DC, the name of the game is politics, like it or not. Which brings me to the second word scrawled on my notepad, which is "tactics." Tactics, if you look it up in the dictionary, means 'the art or science of deploying and maneuvering forces for battle.' With Audit the Fed, Dr. Paul got his bill through the House with skillful tactical maneuvering. One of the forces at his disposal was the Campaign for Liberty, which according to Ronnie Paul's statement, played a major role. Tactical maneuvering does not imply sacrificing principles.

Requiring a 100% agreement litmus test on all issues would make it impossible to get anything done. For Buck's part, he is on record as giving 19 good answers on the survey. This is where the tactics come in. Ron Paul is proud of the C4L, and the gains it has made, as we all should be. Sometimes we forget that, but look at the organization, not from your own perspective, but from that of the status quo political establishment: The C4L is huge grassroots army, over 250,000 members strong and growing with great media exposure, big fund raising ability, and a vocal and activist membership with chapters in every state. To any outsider, it is a formidable competitor. The more it grows, the more it is feared. The more it is feared, the more it is respected. The more it is respected, the more influence we have in pushing our own agenda. It becomes a major force in our tactical battles.

This is where the Buck ad comes it. It was a tactic to put pressure on the other candidates, as well as a show of force to the mainstream political establishment. Listen to the interview of Jesse Benton with Kurt Wallace, where he talks about what they're trying to accomplish. Buck is with us on the issue of auditing the Fed. Benton admits the C4L made mistakes in the wording of the ad, and in the lack of communication with the membership. It was also a mistake for the grassroots, myself included, to jump to such harsh conclusions and make unfounded attacks.

This explanation of political tactics might sound trite - I don't know. For me, coming directly from Ron Paul, it was educational, if only because I heard it directly from him. Additionally, what he reminded me of, not with words, but actions, is the importance of kindness and patience. As important as what we accomplish is how we comport ourselves as messengers of Liberty. Dr. Paul sets a high standard, and it is one that I did not live up to.

What was most heartbreaking for me about my conversation with Dr. Paul was how he characterized his feelings over the whole thing. He said it was very depressing to him. This has special significance for me because I once had a conversation with him about this. It was the day before the Revolution March in 2008, and I had gone to DC a day early to meet him. I was riding in the back seat of his car - we were on the way to dinner. Tom Woods was riding shotgun, and Dr. Paul was driving. I told him that I knew people in our movement who were almost crippled with depression over what was going on in the world. I asked him if he ever got depressed about it all. His answer came quick: "Nope. Not at all." I was intrigued. "Why? What is your secret?" I asked. His reply: "Low expectations!"

At the time I thought it was funny, but he was serious about it. He followed up by saying that all the times he was on stage during the debates, when people laughing at him, ridiculing him and jeering him, it never affected him. "I was a little worried that it didn't affect me," he said.

I've had a year and a half to think about his words, and I've thought about them often. How would it feel to be on that stage and not be affected? It made me imagine him as some kind of a zen master, doing what he does not for any expectation of gain or reward, but simply for the doing of it, because it is the right thing to do, unswayed by the criticism of the world around him.

This is why it was particularly crushing for me to hear him say how depressing it was for him.

Imagine working diligently towards something for 30 years, being in striking range, with all the accumulated tactical wisdom under your belt of how to achieve it, having a huge organization that you built up at your disposal, being completely focused on your goal, and then suddenly, some of your most ardent supports turn on you, start second guessing you, rabidly attacking you, and threatening to tear down everything you've built.

I imagine it would be depressing.

I certainly don't want that for Dr. Paul, and I don't think any of us here want it either. I hope we have all learned something valuable from this whole experience, and are ready to move forward, stronger in our understanding and our focus.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 08:51 PM
Making the survey strict Yes or No probably has more to do with turning results into "binding commitments" that can be used next go-round if the candidates violate them, rather than simply ease of tabulation. If you allow candidates to write answers in, they can leave themselves wiggle-room and explain away bad votes to reconcile with their broad answers after the fact.

true, but the contrary to that argument is- you only get the specific info asked in the question. so the only info you have is a voting tendancy.
with open ended questions, you can see a persons reasoning and understandings.
obviously, the best approach is a combination. but the more you add to a survey the less likely someone will take the time to take it.
someone drops a 100 page survey on your desk, you'll say no thanks.

so, i agree they wanted a roll-call vote and at the same time make the survey take a short time to complete increasing response.

MRoCkEd
02-02-2010, 08:56 PM
I updated the OP with Michael's conversation with Ron.

Apparently Ron Paul was very depressed about the reaction.


Imagine working diligently towards something for 30 years, being in striking range, with all the accumulated tactical wisdom under your belt of how to achieve it, having a huge organization that you built up at your disposal, being completely focused on your goal, and then suddenly, some of your most ardent supports turn on you, start second guessing you, rabidly attacking you, and threatening to tear down everything you've built.

I imagine it would be depressing.

I certainly don't want that for Dr. Paul, and I don't think any of us here want it either. I hope we have all learned something valuable from this whole experience, and are ready to move forward, stronger in our understanding and our focus.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 08:56 PM
I updated the OP with Michael's conversation with Ron.

Apparently Ron Paul was very depressed about the reaction.

he wasn't the only one.

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 08:57 PM
Thanks for posting the Nystrom comments.

Doesn't change my view.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 08:58 PM
nor mine

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 09:12 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3782489465_775c2b740f.jpg

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 09:51 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a background in survey creation.
Please share with me you critique of the survey and where it was done incorrectly.
I'm ready for this education.
Actually, I do happen to have a background in survey creation, and have worked with top people in the field. But I would have never brought that up had you not tried one-ups-manship on another poster.

I would have never ever sent out a survey like this. So, critiquing it is a moot point.

Further, I would have never asked the question about foreign occupation.

Look, this is as much about process as it is about the candidate's various positions on specific issues. If a candidate is unwilling to treat voters like adults and with respect, by sitting down with senior experienced people at C4L in order to answer some pertinent and important questions, then the candidate is not worthy of support. If all a candidate is going to do is answer a 20-question survey in exchange for votes, then what can the constituency expect when the candidate is elected? They won't be able to get a second of their time.

C4L was putting itself in an incredibly weak political position by setting expectations with a potential office-holder that all that was going to be expected from this political-faction is the completion of a simple yes-no questionnaire.

This entire fiasco smacks of disrespect and political immaturity on the part of C4L.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 09:57 PM
n/m

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 09:58 PM
Actually, I do happen to have a background in survey creation, and have worked with top people in the field. But I would have never brought that up had you not tried one-ups-manship on another poster.

I would have never ever sent out a survey like this. So, critiquing it is a moot point.

Further, I would have never asked the question about foreign occupation.

Look, this is as much about process as it is about the candidate's various positions on specific issues. If a candidate is unwilling to treat voters like adults and with respect, by sitting down with senior experienced people at C4L in order to answer some pertinent and important questions, then the candidate is not worthy of support. If all a candidate is going to do is answer a 20-question survey in exchange for votes, then what can the constituency expect when the candidate is elected? They won't be able to get a second of their time.

C4L was putting itself in an incredibly weak political position by setting expectations with a potential office-holder that all that was going to be expected from this political-faction is the completion of a simple yes-no questionnaire.

This entire fiasco smacks of disrespect and political immaturity on the part of C4L.

i'd like to know why-

1. you would have never ever sent out a survey like this- when, as a candidate- i recieved surveys like this all the time. its standard.

2. you would have never asked the question about foreign occupation.- when that was obviously something C4L wanted to know. surveys are not created to steer policy of those elected but to measure where someone stands and to have a record incase they vote otherwise later

3. you obvious have no experience with this type of survey, you can't say how this survey is "technically" incorrect. because it isn't.
i've seen political surveys that were extremely leaning and/or loaded with leading questions. these questions gave no load or push for answer.

4. you can't offer any other alternative besides the ones i've mentioned because they are the only other alternative that could be feasible for any organization that isn't willing to drop tons of money on a brute force research team to do P.I. work on all the candidates running across the country.

5. i don't see any rebuttal to my facts, just your emotion. just a statement. don't think about it too hard.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:07 PM
i'd like to know why-

1. you would have never ever sent out a survey like this- when, as a candidate- i recieved surveys like this all the time. its standard.

2. you would have never asked the question about foreign occupation.- when that was obviously something C4L wanted to know. surveys are not created to steer policy of those elected but to measure where someone stands and to have a record incase they vote otherwise later

3. you obvious have no experience with this type of survey, you can't say how this survey is "technically" incorrect. because it isn't.
i've seen political surveys that were extremely leaning and/or loaded with leading questions. these questions gave no load or push for answer.

4. you can't offer any other alternative besides the ones i've mentioned because they are the only other alternative that could be feasible for any organization that isn't willing to drop tons of money on a brute force research team to do P.I. work on all the candidates running across the country.

5. i don't see any rebuttal to my facts, just your emotion. just a statement. don't think about it too hard.

Here's some of what I have already said, which addresses most of your comments.


The entire survey format simply does not provide a thorough understanding of a candidate's position.

Survey's are designed to gain limited insight into large populations of people at little cost. But that is NOT what we are attempting to do here. We have a very small population of candidates and we seek a thorough understanding of them. This is very similar to a job interview for an executive position within a company, were a significant time investment is made with a small number of candidates.

We can argue about the wording of these questions, for there is lots to argue about. But even with a better designed survey, how much can we really learn that we cannot gain from a cursory read of a candidate's website?

Hence, my question is this.... what added value is C4L delivering here?


I realize how the survey was used in this instance. What I am saying is that it is not a very good tool for reaching ones objectives, which I assume are a thorough understanding of a candidate's positions and rationale for those positions.

Again, what added value is C4L delivering here?


What about telephone interviews? Or, perhaps video calls that can be recorded?


I would think that if they can afford $350K in support of a candidate, then they can assy a team of highly qualified individuals to interview candidates over the phone or in person or via video conference.

In short, a survey does not provide indepth understanding, which is what I would think an adult audience would want.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:13 PM
i informed you earlier- as I gave facts to counter or agree with what you said- answer the questions I posed to you prior.

i followed all of those post with resonses. no need to rewrite what is already in this thread. you must read.


if i didn't answer your last post- think about this,
if someone is donating $350,000 to a candidate, how can they afford to spend $350,000 doing a survey? their money is better spent on the candidate, not the survey. do you know how much they spent on this research? if it is standard procedure, why recreate the wheel?
this method has a good success rate for most organizations, there was no flashing warning sign that it would be ineffective.
plus, we don't know their limits on the survey/research. those are suppositions.
what do other similar organization with similar resources spend doing this type of candidate research?

AuH2O
02-02-2010, 10:13 PM
Actually, I do happen to have a background in survey creation, and have worked with top people in the field. But I would have never brought that up had you not tried one-ups-manship on another poster.

I would have never ever sent out a survey like this. So, critiquing it is a moot point.

Further, I would have never asked the question about foreign occupation.

Look, this is as much about process as it is about the candidate's various positions on specific issues. If a candidate is unwilling to treat voters like adults and with respect, by sitting down with senior experienced people at C4L in order to answer some pertinent and important questions, then the candidate is not worthy of support. If all a candidate is going to do is answer a 20-question survey in exchange for votes, then what can the constituency expect when the candidate is elected? They won't be able to get a second of their time.

C4L was putting itself in an incredibly weak political position by setting expectations with a potential office-holder that all that was going to be expected from this political-faction is the completion of a simple yes-no questionnaire.

This entire fiasco smacks of disrespect and political immaturity on the part of C4L.

You have experience in running a survey program, yet you have been insistently asking why they cannot have sit-down interviews with every candidate?

Anyone with any experience in the field would know that for Congress ALONE that would require identifying all candidates, contacting each of them, scheduling a meeting, getting to that meeting, and analyzing the results of that meeting for some 2,000 candidates across the country mostly concentrated in a span of 2-3 months EVERY ELECTION (Throw in state legistatures, and we're talking maybe 50,000 meetings on top of that). Not exactly a logistical possibility. Sure, the grassroots could maybe get 75-80% of the interviews done, but the lack of uniformity would make creating a national program based on the results very difficult if not impossible.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:19 PM
You have experience in running a survey program, yet you have been regularly asking why they cannot have sit-down interviews with every candidate?

Anyone with any experience in the field would know that for Congress ALONE that would require identifying all candidates, contacting each of them, scheduling a meeting, getting to that meeting, and analyzing the results of that meeting for some 2,000 candidates across the country mostly concentrated in a span of 2-3 months EVERY ELECTION (Throw in state legistatures, and we're talking maybe 50,000 meetings on top of that). Not exactly a logistical possibility. Sure, the grassroots could maybe get 75-80% of the interviews done, but the lack of uniformity would make creating a national program based on the results very difficult if not impossible.
Operational technicalities that can easily be overcome. A survey would have to be the easiest and least informative tool available. If that is all that C4L is going to do, then let's just get a SurveyMonkey.com account, create our own survey by the grassroots, and ask the candidate to login and answer all the questions. Who needs some political organization to do this for us?

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:21 PM
Operational technicalities that can easily be overcome. A survey would have to be the easiest and least informative tool available. If that is all that C4L is going to do, then let's just get a SurveyMonkey.com account, create our own survey by the grassroots, and ask the candidate to login and answer all the questions. Who needs some political organization to do this for us?

Right freaking on dude!

'scuse me, "qft"

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:24 PM
Right freaking on dude!

'scuse me, "qft"

go for it, let me know your response rate.
i swear, its like i'm in a kindergarten with you guys.
these ideas are completely retarded.
you have the tools...right? then do it. let me know how that works out for you.

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 10:26 PM
http://www.limesurvey.org/ - I played with this, am pretty much an e-klutz though. Was easy and supposedly a lot like SurveyMonkey, plus open source and customizable by our more techy types

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:26 PM
And i'm starting to seriously doubt that InterestedParticipant has any experience with surveys beyond the ones that pop up on shopping sites.
his lack of knowledge of the subject is deep. his proposals would be laughed out of any serious research group.

there is really no more to say about that- its one of those wtf kinda moments.

inibo
02-02-2010, 10:28 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3782489465_775c2b740f.jpg

That is my favorite Ron Paul picture ever.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:29 PM
go for it, let me know your response rate.
i swear, its like i'm in a kindergarten with you guys.
these ideas are completely retarded.
you have the tools...right? then do it. let me know how that works out for you.
So, you would prefer that we defer our power to some unaccountable organization that treats is supporters like children by feeding us BS and giving money to candidates that wanna keep us in Afghanistan for 10 more years?

Sorry Ron, and everyone else, but you knew it was about the message and not the man. Well, we're holding to our end of the bargain and standing firm on the message. What happened to you?

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:29 PM
That is my favorite Ron Paul picture ever.

it says a lot about the man who has been fighting this battle for a long time- usually by himself... with just a few remnants by his side.
I can feel his pain when he heard about the crap going on online. It is a perspective you get from a lifetime of lonely work on the liberty front.

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:31 PM
So, you would prefer that we defer our power to some unaccountable organization that treats is supporters like children by feeding us BS and giving money to candidates that wanna keep us in Afghanistan for 10 more years?

Sorry Ron, and everyone else, but you knew it was about the message and not the man. Well, we're holding to our end of the bargain and standing firm on the message. What happened to you?

you are responsible for doing your part.
if you spend your time tearing down what Ron has built, you are the enemy.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:34 PM
And i'm starting to seriously doubt that InterestedParticipant has any experience with surveys beyond the ones that pop up on shopping sites.
his lack of knowledge of the subject is deep. his proposals would be laughed out of any serious research group.

there is really no more to say about that- its one of those wtf kinda moments.
Nice ad hominem. Won't fly.

Newspaper editorial teams regularly interview candidates. I have participated in these. It's no big deal if you have an experienced team asking the questions. Now, having a team conduct an indepth interview and writing it up - especially for those candidates that are of interest to the Libertarians and are ignored by the MSM - that, would be of real value.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:35 PM
you are responsible for doing your part.
if you spend your time tearing down what Ron has built, you are the enemy.
When Ron strays from his own message, it is us who are obligated to right the course.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence to gain perspective on the sovereign roles and responsibilities in a Constitutional Republic.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 10:36 PM
if you spend your time tearing down what Ron has built, you are the enemy.

That's how I see it.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 10:37 PM
I would think that if they can afford $350K in support of a candidate, then they can assy a team of highly qualified individuals to interview candidates over the phone or in person or via video conference.
That's not the point. It wasn't whether "they" could afford it or not. To the best of my understanding the $350k wasn't part of the survey creation or distribution at all. It sounds to me like someone who is extremely politically savvy and understands the way 501c4's work decided the C4L was ripe for a little "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". The surveys went out to all Republican candidates for Senate or House. For some reason, Buck was the only one who returned it. New and special donors approached C4L and said what I imagine went like this, "I see what you guys are trying to do. How about this-- here's some money, you use it to promote Buck your survey."



It's not like we're criticizing reasonable decisions that just happened to work out wrong.

It was a horrible decision in the first place.

'Monday morning quarterbacking' has the connotation that we aren't in the game.

We're not Monday morning quarterbacking.

We're ALL on the playing field...and we're asking WTF did CFL just do?Right on.


It is called monday morning quarterbacking because you weren't there to make the decisions, and now you have the luxury of looking back and picking everything apart. It is a matter of fact.
By your definition the only reason we weren't there is because the coaches think they can play the game better than the players.



Thanks for posting the Nystrom comments.

Doesn't change my view.
Mine, either. I wish he hadn't said anything at all :(

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3782489465_775c2b740f.jpgYou're something else. Post the most pitiful picture of Ron Paul you can find to make people feel guilty about taking issue with C4L's actions.

Political compromise only gets you so far. About as far as 1207 got. Alllllmost there and then in the blink of an eye it's gone.


Actually, I do happen to have a background in survey creation, and have worked with top people in the field. But I would have never brought that up had you not tried one-ups-manship on another poster.

I would have never ever sent out a survey like this. So, critiquing it is a moot point.

Further, I would have never asked the question about foreign occupation.

Look, this is as much about process as it is about the candidate's various positions on specific issues. If a candidate is unwilling to treat voters like adults and with respect, by sitting down with senior experienced people at C4L in order to answer some pertinent and important questions, then the candidate is not worthy of support. If all a candidate is going to do is answer a 20-question survey in exchange for votes, then what can the constituency expect when the candidate is elected? They won't be able to get a second of their time.

C4L was putting itself in an incredibly weak political position by setting expectations with a potential office-holder that all that was going to be expected from this political-faction is the completion of a simple yes-no questionnaire.

This entire fiasco smacks of disrespect and political immaturity on the part of C4L.It all boils down to the money with this thing. I have a hunch that there was never any plan to do ads based on the survey until someone flashed a big wad in front of the professional fundraisers leading C4L, at which time they saw it as a lucrative venture that could be passed off as political compromise to the more trusting people close to the operation. Then they realized that this thing had some serious financial potential so they suggested that further ads would be run. This way these special donors (who probably do not concentrate strictly on Colorado) and their money might be made available in other "very, very important districts". Whoever this money came from is very savvy. Savvier than the folks at C4L, I guarantee it.


You have experience in running a survey program, yet you have been regularly asking why they cannot have sit-down interviews with every candidate?

Anyone with any experience in the field would know that for Congress ALONE that would require identifying all candidates, contacting each of them, scheduling a meeting, getting to that meeting, and analyzing the results of that meeting for some 2,000 candidates across the country mostly concentrated in a span of 2-3 months EVERY ELECTION (Throw in state legistatures, and we're talking maybe 50,000 meetings on top of that). Not exactly a logistical possibility. Sure, the grassroots could maybe get 75-80% of the interviews done, but the lack of uniformity would make creating a national program based on the results very difficult if not impossible.
From what I understand these surveys were only sent to candidates for House or Senate and only to Republicans. You'll want to run your numbers again. The numbers could also be adjusted-- or the program, anyway-- so that the surveys are not sent to incumbents as their records speak for themselves (as others have noted in various threads on the subject).

torchbearer
02-02-2010, 10:39 PM
Nice ad hominem. Won't fly.

Newspaper editorial teams regularly interview candidates. I have participated in these. It's no big deal if you have an experienced team asking the questions. Now, having a team conduct an indepth interview and writing it up - especially for those candidates that are of interest to the Libertarians and are ignored by the MSM - that, would be of real value.

answer the questions in post 141.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 10:41 PM
It sounds to me like someone who is extremely politically savvy and understands the way 501c4's work decided the C4L was ripe for a little "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours".

Waitasec,
you and several others here keep implying that the law has been broken, now you are blaming it on someone who knows and understands the law? When has this become a crime??? Isn't this a virtue?? Where is Ayn Rand when ya need her? lol
oh, the irony!!

My questions regarding local donations to local chapters have still not been answered.

edit, LLS has stated that the law was indeed broken, no implication, stated it.

This is turning in to a witch hunt. It has all the signs.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:48 PM
It all boils down to the money with this thing. I have a hunch that there was never any plan to do ads based on the survey until someone flashed a big wad in front of the professional fundraisers leading C4L, at which time they saw it as a lucrative venture that could be passed off as political compromise to the more trusting people close to the operation. Then they realized that this thing had some serious financial potential so they suggested that further ads would be run. This way these special donors (who probably do not concentrate strictly on Colorado) and their money might be made available in other "very, very important districts". Whoever this money came from is very savvy. Savvier than the folks at C4L, I guarantee it.
Okay, so if for argument sake I take your point - that is all boils down to money - as the primary point, then my question continues to be what is the added value that the C4L constituency is receiving from C4L's effort? Someone tell me how they benefit the libertarian constituency in real meaningful terms.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:52 PM
answer the questions in post 141.
No. They are too myopic and miss the larger point.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 10:55 PM
Operational technicalities that can easily be overcome. A survey would have to be the easiest and least informative tool available. If that is all that C4L is going to do, then let's just get a SurveyMonkey.com account, create our own survey by the grassroots, and ask the candidate to login and answer all the questions. Who needs some political organization to do this for us?That is a good idea.


And i'm starting to seriously doubt that InterestedParticipant has any experience with surveys beyond the ones that pop up on shopping sites.
his lack of knowledge of the subject is deep. his proposals would be laughed out of any serious research group.

there is really no more to say about that- its one of those wtf kinda moments.Yeah, well, all the stunts that the grassroots came up with-- including the blimp-- would have been laughed at by any serious group, too. Oh... Wait... they were. and so what? We didn't care. We made Ron a household name. Not the PCC. Not C4L. Ron Paul doing his thing and the grassroots making sure he wasn't ignored.


it says a lot about the man who has been fighting this battle for a long time- usually by himself... with just a few remnants by his side.
I can feel his pain when he heard about the crap going on online. It is a perspective you get from a lifetime of lonely work on the liberty front.Spare us the DRAMA. My word, torch. Yes, everyone gets it. You're so good at everything you do and you've been fighting this fight since you were knee high to a grasshopper...



you are responsible for doing your part.
if you spend your time tearing down what Ron has built, you are the enemy.Keep up the party line crapola. What makes you think after over a year of people voicing concerns about transparency and cooperation between national and the grassroots, and the attitude taken by Tate in the pathetically tardy statement, and to add insult to injury the crap spewed by Benton in that interview...

Sometimes a situation calls for an intervention. The people who need the help never want to admit the problem is with themselves. Instead they turn it around with guilt trips and accusations. At some point the people being hurt by this behavior have to use a little tough love.

Jeros
02-03-2010, 04:07 AM
you are responsible for doing your part.
if you spend your time tearing down what Ron has built, you are the enemy.

I hope you haven't spent your 25,000 posts describing how you are more skilled politically, more dedicated institutionally, more loyal philosophically, and some how more qualified to attach labels and hurl insults than anybody you disagree with. I'm even surprised so many people are willing to have a serious intellectual conversation with you after being labeled "cunts and pricks." I hope you didn't use that language on the campaign trail.

You are playing to emotions. Your spin is as severe as the initial reaction by C4L to the controversy. You personally attack those you disagree with. Your attitude is not much different than those who were calling for Tate's head on a platter, the only difference being you have organizational allegiances while your opposition has philosophical allegiances.

No political organization or individual is beyond reproach. It is not the skeptics intent to destroy what he cannot trust, but to protect that which he values. People are generally skeptical of C4L because they value freedom as well as what Ron Paul has accomplished. To take it further, some people were devastated to learn that the only national political organization they could claim philosophical association to was apparently compromising arguable the most fundamental principle of the the philosophy. They are skeptical of C4L because of the value they place in what it represents.

Every candidate this movement has ever supported had a healthy skepticism toward institutionalism. Peter Schiff is probably the ultimate skeptic. He only believes what his intellect allows to be true. I would trust my money with no other type of personality. Lew Rockwell has pretty harsh words about politics in general. He says that Ron Paul is the ONLY person he has ever met that wasn't corrupted by the entire process and immune to the pressures of Washington. It would be naive to assume no member of C4L is beyond that corrupting influence. Justin Raimondo is probably the most philosophically unwavering character I have ever met, and he has had some pretty harsh things to say about the movement when it strayed from moral consistency.

I welcome and cherish the skeptics, the contrarians, the flakes, the eccentric, the unwavering, the stubborn, and especially the conspiracy theorists. They keep the rest of us honest. They are the only difference between a failure of the movement through Reason-like compromise or the success of the movement through Rothbard-like perseverance.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:19 AM
<snip>

No political organization or individual is beyond reproach. It is not the skeptics intent to destroy what he cannot trust, but to protect that which he values. People are generally skeptical of C4L because they value freedom as well as what Ron Paul has accomplished. To take it further, some people were devastated to learn that the only national political organization they could claim philosophical association to was apparently compromising arguable the most fundamental principle of the the philosophy. They are skeptical of C4L because of the value they place in what it represents.

Every candidate this movement has ever supported had a healthy skepticism toward institutionalism. Peter Schiff is probably the ultimate skeptic. He only believes what his intellect allows to be true. I would trust my money with no other type of personality. Lew Rockwell has pretty harsh words about politics in general. He says that Ron Paul is the ONLY person he has ever met that wasn't corrupted by the entire process and immune to the pressures of Washington. It would be naive to assume no member of C4L is beyond that corrupting influence. Justin Raimondo is probably the most philosophically unwavering character I have ever met, and he has had some pretty harsh things to say about the movement when it strayed from moral consistency.

I welcome and cherish the skeptics, the contrarians, the flakes, the eccentric, the unwavering, the stubborn, and especially the conspiracy theorists. They keep the rest of us honest. They are the only difference between a failure of the movement through Reason-like compromise or the success of the movement through Rothbard-like perseverance.

quoted for truthiness and I stand beside you sir!

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 10:07 AM
...

No political organization or individual is beyond reproach. It is not the skeptics intent to destroy what he cannot trust, but to protect that which he values. People are generally skeptical of C4L because they value freedom as well as what Ron Paul has accomplished. To take it further, some people were devastated to learn that the only national political organization they could claim philosophical association to was apparently compromising arguable the most fundamental principle of the the philosophy. They are skeptical of C4L because of the value they place in what it represents.

Every candidate this movement has ever supported had a healthy skepticism toward institutionalism. Peter Schiff is probably the ultimate skeptic. He only believes what his intellect allows to be true. I would trust my money with no other type of personality. Lew Rockwell has pretty harsh words about politics in general. He says that Ron Paul is the ONLY person he has ever met that wasn't corrupted by the entire process and immune to the pressures of Washington. It would be naive to assume no member of C4L is beyond that corrupting influence. Justin Raimondo is probably the most philosophically unwavering character I have ever met, and he has had some pretty harsh things to say about the movement when it strayed from moral consistency.

I welcome and cherish the skeptics, the contrarians, the flakes, the eccentric, the unwavering, the stubborn, and especially the conspiracy theorists. They keep the rest of us honest. They are the only difference between a failure of the movement through Reason-like compromise or the success of the movement through Rothbard-like perseverance.

Wow...

welcome to the forum. And thanks for speaking up.

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 10:42 AM
I hope you haven't spent your 25,000 posts describing how you are more skilled politically, more dedicated institutionally, more loyal philosophically, and some how more qualified to attach labels and hurl insults than anybody you disagree with. I'm even surprised so many people are willing to have a serious intellectual conversation with you after being labeled "cunts and pricks." I hope you didn't use that language on the campaign trail.

You are playing to emotions. Your spin is as severe as the initial reaction by C4L to the controversy. You personally attack those you disagree with. Your attitude is not much different than those who were calling for Tate's head on a platter, the only difference being you have organizational allegiances while your opposition has philosophical allegiances.

No political organization or individual is beyond reproach. It is not the skeptics intent to destroy what he cannot trust, but to protect that which he values. People are generally skeptical of C4L because they value freedom as well as what Ron Paul has accomplished. To take it further, some people were devastated to learn that the only national political organization they could claim philosophical association to was apparently compromising arguable the most fundamental principle of the the philosophy. They are skeptical of C4L because of the value they place in what it represents.

Every candidate this movement has ever supported had a healthy skepticism toward institutionalism. Peter Schiff is probably the ultimate skeptic. He only believes what his intellect allows to be true. I would trust my money with no other type of personality. Lew Rockwell has pretty harsh words about politics in general. He says that Ron Paul is the ONLY person he has ever met that wasn't corrupted by the entire process and immune to the pressures of Washington. It would be naive to assume no member of C4L is beyond that corrupting influence. Justin Raimondo is probably the most philosophically unwavering character I have ever met, and he has had some pretty harsh things to say about the movement when it strayed from moral consistency.

I welcome and cherish the skeptics, the contrarians, the flakes, the eccentric, the unwavering, the stubborn, and especially the conspiracy theorists. They keep the rest of us honest. They are the only difference between a failure of the movement through Reason-like compromise or the success of the movement through Rothbard-like perseverance.
Peter Schiff is the ultimate insider who hides his credentials from the public. But otherwise, very nice post.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 11:05 AM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3782489465_775c2b740f.jpg

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this...:)

This was taken at the Ron Paul Campaign Headquarters in Columbia, SC in '08.

IMHO, he was thinking, reflecting.

He may have looked tired, but I don't think that's the case. We all were impressed with his enthusiasm and his energy that day. I think that's the same day he got the black sweatshirt with "Carol Paul for President" on it, he was tickled. I'm not sure I still have that pic I'll see and post it again.

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 11:28 AM
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this...:)

This was taken at the Ron Paul Campaign Headquarters in Columbia, SC in '08.

IMHO, he was thinking, reflecting.

He may have looked tired, but I don't think that's the case. We all were impressed with his enthusiasm and his energy that day. I think that's the same day he got the black sweatshirt with "Carol Paul for President" on it, he was tickled. I'm not sure I still have that pic I'll see and post it again.


New Hampshire office. I phone banked there

idirtify
02-03-2010, 12:20 PM
In risk of being called “the enemy”, I would like to refocus on the OP (and its / Michael Nystrom’s follow-up in post # 132).



http://dailypaul.com/node/123735

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nystrom
Here's how the phone call began:

Me: Hi Ron.
Dr. Paul: Michael! How are you?
Me: Fine, how are you?
Dr. Paul: Not good! he said with his ironic laugh.

We both had a laugh at that one, and the ice was quickly broken. He was calling, of course, about the firestorm that had erupted over the C4L Ken Buck ad. He was not at all happy about it and in fact was personally quite hurt by it. "Don't people trust me?" he asked.

"Of course we trust you. There is no question about that," I told him. "I don't know how many times people have told me that they would take a bullet for you." The problem, I told him, was some of us were less certain about the Campaign for Liberty itself, and the motivations behind the ad.

This is when he gently handed me the grenade, to blow myself up with:

Dr. Paul: Michael, how much do you know about that race in Colorado?
Me: Um....gulp.

Truth be told, I didn't know much, except what I read ... on the Internet. But in my mind, I had already spun some fantastic stories and jumped to some rash conclusions without any evidence at all, as many of us did. Rather than waiting for an explanation, we let these spill & fester in public, on the Internet.

At this point, let me reiterate that I am a political neophyte, and my real political education began only three years ago, when I started this website basically on a whim. I am inexperienced both in politics, and in handling a website of this size. This is in no way an excuse, just some objective background information. From my perch behind the screen, I can't say that I understand everything I have seen over the last three years. And this is where Dr. Paul helped me out.

I wanted to take detailed notes of our conversation, but in the end, there were only two items on my notepad, and some doodles. Unfortunately, I cannot reconstruct the entire conversation from memory. For one thing, I was nervous - I was talking to Ron Paul after all, and about this very charged subject. For another, there was a lot of information. Imagine listening to Ron Paul talk on a YouTube for 20 minutes, then try to recall exactly what he said, in the order he said it. I'm just not able to do it. He's smart, he talks fast, and made connections that I only caught up to later. So what I will give you is my interpretation of the conversation. Any errors, or misrepresentations of Dr. Paul's words or ideas are mine, and completely unintentional.

One of the two items on my pad are the scrawled words, "The Campaign for Liberty is a political organization."

This seems like an obvious statement, but I've never considered what it means. Many of us here, myself included, were concerned that the C4L was 'selling out' its principles. In one of my very critical posts, I was quite vocal in stating that "noninterventionism is something that we do not compromise on."

But politics is about getting things done, and you can get things done without selling out principles. "Take for example," Dr. Paul said, "something that you're very interested in - the audit of the Federal Reserve. We have been effective on this issue because I work with people across the political spectrum, people like Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson."

I doubt anyone could be ideologically further from Ron Paul than Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-described socialist. Alan Grayson is a Democrat who believes in big government, and government sponsored health care. And yet Grayson was one of the first Democrats to cosponsor HR1207 and is responsible for getting over 100 more Democrats to cosponsor the bill. Sanders is the sponsor of the Senate version of Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed (S604).

I doubt anyone here would think that Ron Paul 'sold out' his principles by working together with either Sanders or Grayson. They don't agree on other issues. Fine. On this issue, they're getting big things done by working together. The Fed has been around since 1913, and no one has made the kind of progress that Ron Paul has made on this issue. Members of Congress have wanted an audit of the Fed for decades, and nothing has ever come of it until now. In December of last year, the House passed a financial services regulatory bill with the full language of Ron Paul's HR1207 as an amendment, called the Paul-Grayson Amendment. Does anyone think Ron compromised his principles because the amendment has Grayson's name on it, and Paul and Grayson are now associated? I don't think so.

(The irony is that as hard as Paul fought for this, the language of his lean bill was rolled into a monstrosity of federal regulation called the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (HR 4173) that he simply couldn't vote for. On principle. But it passed.)

The same conventions - of working together on mutual interests - apply to the C4L. This is what it means that the C4L is a political organization. In Washington DC, the name of the game is politics, like it or not. Which brings me to the second word scrawled on my notepad, which is "tactics." Tactics, if you look it up in the dictionary, means 'the art or science of deploying and maneuvering forces for battle.' With Audit the Fed, Dr. Paul got his bill through the House with skillful tactical maneuvering. One of the forces at his disposal was the Campaign for Liberty, which according to Ronnie Paul's statement, played a major role. Tactical maneuvering does not imply sacrificing principles.

Requiring a 100% agreement litmus test on all issues would make it impossible to get anything done. For Buck's part, he is on record as giving 19 good answers on the survey. This is where the tactics come in. Ron Paul is proud of the C4L, and the gains it has made, as we all should be. Sometimes we forget that, but look at the organization, not from your own perspective, but from that of the status quo political establishment: The C4L is huge grassroots army, over 250,000 members strong and growing with great media exposure, big fund raising ability, and a vocal and activist membership with chapters in every state. To any outsider, it is a formidable competitor. The more it grows, the more it is feared. The more it is feared, the more it is respected. The more it is respected, the more influence we have in pushing our own agenda. It becomes a major force in our tactical battles.

This is where the Buck ad comes it. It was a tactic to put pressure on the other candidates, as well as a show of force to the mainstream political establishment. Listen to the interview of Jesse Benton with Kurt Wallace, where he talks about what they're trying to accomplish. Buck is with us on the issue of auditing the Fed. Benton admits the C4L made mistakes in the wording of the ad, and in the lack of communication with the membership. It was also a mistake for the grassroots, myself included, to jump to such harsh conclusions and make unfounded attacks.

This explanation of political tactics might sound trite - I don't know. For me, coming directly from Ron Paul, it was educational, if only because I heard it directly from him. Additionally, what he reminded me of, not with words, but actions, is the importance of kindness and patience. As important as what we accomplish is how we comport ourselves as messengers of Liberty. Dr. Paul sets a high standard, and it is one that I did not live up to.

What was most heartbreaking for me about my conversation with Dr. Paul was how he characterized his feelings over the whole thing. He said it was very depressing to him. This has special significance for me because I once had a conversation with him about this. It was the day before the Revolution March in 2008, and I had gone to DC a day early to meet him. I was riding in the back seat of his car - we were on the way to dinner. Tom Woods was riding shotgun, and Dr. Paul was driving. I told him that I knew people in our movement who were almost crippled with depression over what was going on in the world. I asked him if he ever got depressed about it all. His answer came quick: "Nope. Not at all." I was intrigued. "Why? What is your secret?" I asked. His reply: "Low expectations!"

At the time I thought it was funny, but he was serious about it. He followed up by saying that all the times he was on stage during the debates, when people laughing at him, ridiculing him and jeering him, it never affected him. "I was a little worried that it didn't affect me," he said.

I've had a year and a half to think about his words, and I've thought about them often. How would it feel to be on that stage and not be affected? It made me imagine him as some kind of a zen master, doing what he does not for any expectation of gain or reward, but simply for the doing of it, because it is the right thing to do, unswayed by the criticism of the world around him.

This is why it was particularly crushing for me to hear him say how depressing it was for him.

Imagine working diligently towards something for 30 years, being in striking range, with all the accumulated tactical wisdom under your belt of how to achieve it, having a huge organization that you built up at your disposal, being completely focused on your goal, and then suddenly, some of your most ardent supports turn on you, start second guessing you, rabidly attacking you, and threatening to tear down everything you've built.

I imagine it would be depressing.

I certainly don't want that for Dr. Paul, and I don't think any of us here want it either. I hope we have all learned something valuable from this whole experience, and are ready to move forward, stronger in our understanding and our focus.



Well that is a completely different explanation than the one C4L issued. If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?

And another thing: Working with colleagues who have different opinions, but can come together on certain common grounds, is different from PROMOTING those colleagues for political office. Would RP ENDORSE Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson as a good candidate for office? I doubt it.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 12:22 PM
I don't think Nystrom got the real story, IMHO, he was misled.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 12:27 PM
Well that is a completely different explanation than the one C4L issued. If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?

When you tell the truth, you don't make that kind of glaring mistake. ^^

lol....

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 01:13 PM
In risk of being called “the enemy”, I would like to refocus on the OP (and its / Michael Nystrom’s follow-up in post # 132).

Well that is a completely different explanation than the one C4L issued. If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?
Now that's what I'm talking about! Someone using simple clear logic to expose the illogical.

I would only add one more small point to your excellent analysis, and that is that it is not necessary that we chose from one of these two explanations. In fact, both maybe false, and a third explanation, yet to be unveiled, is the truth.

We simply do not know at this time.


And another thing: Working with colleagues who have different opinions, but can come together on certain common grounds, is different from PROMOTING those colleagues for political office. Would RP ENDORSE Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson as a good candidate for office? I doubt it.
Where did this poster come from. Not only do they have an awesome username, but they point out the obvious so that all can understand it, without being offensive.

What's even more ironic here, is that Michael said, early in the post, something about Ron not having to compromise his principles, but then later talked about having to play politics in order to win.

There's just way to much double-talk going around, and what I find even more offensive is that a poster like this feels compelled to preface their post with a statement showing that they are fearful of being branded "the enemy" when all they are doing is exposing the hypocrisy. Why have we allowed such an environment of fear to develop when the stated goal is its antithesis, which is liberty?

It's a real pleasure to know you, Idirtify.

idirtify
02-03-2010, 04:14 PM
I don't think Nystrom got the real story, IMHO, he was misled.



I would only add one more small point to your excellent analysis, and that is that it is not necessary that we chose from one of these two explanations. In fact, both maybe false, and a third explanation, yet to be unveiled, is the truth.


Yes. Two different stories is one of the first signs that something is fishy, especially when both stories can NOT be true. That’s why detectives separate suspects in different rooms and keep repeating questions about details; just in case they are lying and don’t have their stories straight. Any parent knows something isn’t right when they hear little Johnny giving multiple excuses for his misbehavior.

idirtify
02-03-2010, 04:15 PM
When you tell the truth, you don't make that kind of glaring mistake. ^^

lol....

Yes. And an anti-war organization doesn’t just ACCIDENTALLY make a television advertisement supporting a pro-war candidate. (OK, let me qualify “war” with “interventionism”.) And then they don’t just ACCIDENTALLY place blame on the tidal wave of objection, implying that they did not expect such a thing.

idirtify
02-03-2010, 04:16 PM
Now that's what I'm talking about! Someone using simple clear logic to expose the illogical.

I would only add one more small point to your excellent analysis, and that is that it is not necessary that we chose from one of these two explanations. In fact, both maybe false, and a third explanation, yet to be unveiled, is the truth.

We simply do not know at this time.


Where did this poster come from. Not only do they have an awesome username, but they point out the obvious so that all can understand it, without being offensive.

What's even more ironic here, is that Michael said, early in the post, something about Ron not having to compromise his principles, but then later talked about having to play politics in order to win.

There's just way to much double-talk going around, and what I find even more offensive is that a poster like this feels compelled to preface their post with a statement showing that they are fearful of being branded "the enemy" when all they are doing is exposing the hypocrisy. Why have we allowed such an environment of fear to develop when the stated goal is its antithesis, which is liberty?

It's a real pleasure to know you, Idirtify.

Good points. Yeah, “doubletalk” is a very good description. Thanks for the comps. You're too kind. Glad to know you too.

pacelli
02-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Well that is a completely different explanation than the one C4L issued. If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?


I hadn't noticed that before. Thanks for highlighting it. Why is it that all of these C4L damage-control efforts continue to generate more scrutiny, rather than solve the mystery? I guess honesty is too much to ask from a group that is designed to play politics. Evidently C4L is also playing politics with its own members.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 04:27 PM
In risk of being called “the enemy”, I would like to refocus on the OP (and its / Michael Nystrom’s follow-up in post # 132).




Well that is a completely different explanation than the one C4L issued. If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?

And another thing: Working with colleagues who have different opinions, but can come together on certain common grounds, is different from PROMOTING those colleagues for political office. Would RP ENDORSE Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson as a good candidate for office? I doubt it.

posted to the questions we want the C4L thread... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229633

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 04:29 PM
I guess honesty is too much to ask from a group that is designed to play politics. Evidently C4L is also playing politics with its own members.

Maybe that works when your members are too dense to realize it?

Why would anyone at CFL think that such a thing would fly with this group?

Oh wait - maybe it's because CFL has no substantive contact with the grassroots....

lol....

revolutionary8
02-04-2010, 02:57 AM
Now that's what I'm talking about! Someone using simple clear logic to expose the illogical.

I would only add one more small point to your excellent analysis, and that is that it is not necessary that we chose from one of these two explanations. In fact, both maybe false, and a third explanation, yet to be unveiled, is the truth.

We simply do not know at this time.


Where did this poster come from. Not only do they have an awesome username, but they point out the obvious so that all can understand it, without being offensive.

What's even more ironic here, is that Michael said, early in the post, something about Ron not having to compromise his principles, but then later talked about having to play politics in order to win.

There's just way to much double-talk going around, and what I find even more offensive is that a poster like this feels compelled to preface their post with a statement showing that they are fearful of being branded "the enemy" when all they are doing is exposing the hypocrisy. Why have we allowed such an environment of fear to develop when the stated goal is its antithesis, which is liberty?

It's a real pleasure to know you, Idirtify.

Because of your apparent "respect" for transparancy, might I direct you to a Mailer YOU sent out yourself- re: your "pwn", SELF TAUGHT.
I am SICK of playing this game.
The link Le posted, was not "anything new", NOR A PLUG!!!! , BUT RATHER A TOTAL PHISH OUT of those members who might be "ripe" for PROPAGANDA.

Now, take me for my word, and YOU CAN CALL ME OUT ON THIS IP AND ANYONE ELSE WHO CARES TO CHALLENGE ME---NOT ONLY DO I HAVE THE PMS, I FORWARDED THEM TO MODERATORS MONTHS AGO- AND NO IT WASN'T FUCKING LE!!!

A few months ago, a SPAM EMAIL was sent out TO MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM (IE PHISHING) to "recruit" them to your "forum of RPF/CFL malcontent" and IMO, complete PARANOIA, and I AM A CTER!!!!!!

Now,
I FUCKING DARE YOU TO CALL ME A LIAR. I BELIVE IN PRIVACY, UNTIL THOSE WHO PRETEND TO PREACH "PRIVACY", USE OTHERS "PRIVACY", AND THEN TRY AND TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME!

YOU IP, ARE A F'IN' SIEVE.

oh, and one more thing, I might be one of your members. ;)
You never know, afterall, I am a sucker we play innocent reaalll nice... ;)

InterestedParticipant
02-04-2010, 02:06 PM
Because of your apparent "respect" for transparancy, might I direct you to a Mailer YOU sent out yourself- re: your "pwn", SELF TAUGHT.
I am SICK of playing this game.
The link Le posted, was not "anything new", NOR A PLUG!!!! , BUT RATHER A TOTAL PHISH OUT of those members who might be "ripe" for PROPAGANDA.

Now, take me for my word, and YOU CAN CALL ME OUT ON THIS IP AND ANYONE ELSE WHO CARES TO CHALLENGE ME---NOT ONLY DO I HAVE THE PMS, I FORWARDED THEM TO MODERATORS MONTHS AGO- AND NO IT WASN'T FUCKING LE!!!

A few months ago, a SPAM EMAIL was sent out TO MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM (IE PHISHING) to "recruit" them to your "forum of RPF/CFL malcontent" and IMO, complete PARANOIA, and I AM A CTER!!!!!!

Now,
I FUCKING DARE YOU TO CALL ME A LIAR. I BELIVE IN PRIVACY, UNTIL THOSE WHO PRETEND TO PREACH "PRIVACY", USE OTHERS "PRIVACY", AND THEN TRY AND TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME!

YOU IP, ARE A F'IN' SIEVE.

oh, and one more thing, I might be one of your members. ;)
You never know, afterall, I am a sucker we play innocent reaalll nice... ;)
Yes, I sent out PM's to some members here who I had been in contact with and who I thought would enjoy being part of another forum. So what?

I've also posted links here directing people to that forum and posts at that forum. Again, so what?

Post the PM's if you want. Let everyone see what you are talking about. Start a thread on it if you wish. That's ok with me.

If anyone wishes to visit the forum that this poster is referring to, the URL is:
http://wwws.forummotion.com/

Anyone is welcome to join, just please read the rules first.

Finally, I'm not really sure what a lot of your code means in your post. Honestly, I didn't understand all of your points. You're welcome to post again, and explain what the point is that you are trying to make, as I would appreciate that.

You are also free to post in the forum that I have referenced you to, especially if you are already a member. If there is something that we've said that you dispute, please go ahead and dispute it then. You will get a fair and adult hearing.

Anything else?

On Edit: I'll give you 24-hours to post the PM's that you are referring to. If you do not, then I will post them myself, as you have implied that there was some impropriety on my part, or that I was attempting to hide something, or that I have been disingenuous in some way. Hence, I want to make sure that everyone sees all of the PM's unedited, so that full transparency can be achieved. I am also available to answer questions, either via post, email or PM.

InterestedParticipant
02-05-2010, 04:12 PM
Yes, I sent out PM's to some members here who I had been in contact with and who I thought would enjoy being part of another forum. So what?

I've also posted links here directing people to that forum and posts at that forum. Again, so what?

Post the PM's if you want. Let everyone see what you are talking about. Start a thread on it if you wish. That's ok with me.

If anyone wishes to visit the forum that this poster is referring to, the URL is:
http://wwws.forummotion.com/

Anyone is welcome to join, just please read the rules first.

Finally, I'm not really sure what a lot of your code means in your post. Honestly, I didn't understand all of your points. You're welcome to post again, and explain what the point is that you are trying to make, as I would appreciate that.

You are also free to post in the forum that I have referenced you to, especially if you are already a member. If there is something that we've said that you dispute, please go ahead and dispute it then. You will get a fair and adult hearing.

Anything else?

On Edit: I'll give you 24-hours to post the PM's that you are referring to. If you do not, then I will post them myself, as you have implied that there was some impropriety on my part, or that I was attempting to hide something, or that I have been disingenuous in some way. Hence, I want to make sure that everyone sees all of the PM's unedited, so that full transparency can be achieved. I am also available to answer questions, either via post, email or PM.
Well, 24-hours are up and you did NOT produce the said PMs. So maybe you don't have them, maybe you do. But in any event, who cares.

As I said in my previous post, I will dig out my copies from my archives and post them in another thread (so I don't deviate any more than is absolutely necessary from the OP).

It's a pretty darn sad state of affairs when a thread about the C4L financially supporting pro-war candidates gets usurped by someone trying to make a big issues out a few PM's that were sent. Let's keep our eye on the ball and stay focused on what's important. And I don't see how another forum, or a few PM's inviting people here to that new forum can even be brought-up in the same breath as a conversation on breaching our most important moral platform, which is abiding by the Just War Theory that this nation was founded on and that Ron campaigned on.

But yea, people will try to obfuscate in any way they can. What I wonder is, why was this attempt made in the first place? Are there really people here who find the C4L's actions acceptable to such a degree that they would put their reputation on the line in order to attack another member over it? Some things are almost unbelievable.

LittleLightShining
02-05-2010, 04:16 PM
But yea, people will try to obfuscate in any way they can. What I wonder is, why was this attempt made in the first place? Are there really people here who find the C4L's actions acceptable to such a degree that they would put their reputation on the line in order to attack another member over it? Some things are almost unbelievable.

Wearing out the ones asking questions with relentless bickering seems to be the strategy. So the question askers go underground. Doesn't mean they're not still looking for the answers.

rancher89
02-05-2010, 04:30 PM
My question list willl go to the C4L forum, board members and my weblog by Sunday night.

I've been updating it, which doesn't bump it.

LittleLightShining
02-05-2010, 04:36 PM
My question list willl go to the C4L forum, board members and my weblog by Sunday night.

I've been updating it, which doesn't bump it.

Can you post a link, please?

rancher89
02-05-2010, 04:47 PM
TA DA:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229633

Just case anyone's wondering, all the C4L threads are now in the C4L subforum, way down at the bottom of the "liberty forest" page.

InterestedParticipant
02-05-2010, 08:23 PM
Wearing out the ones asking questions with relentless bickering seems to be the strategy. So the question askers go underground. Doesn't mean they're not still looking for the answers.
Their techniques are amateurish, naive, and will not work.

On the other hand, I have been consistently warning about the pitfalls of centrally controlled grassroots efforts, in part, for the reasons that we have now all witnessed. Collecting into groups facilitates the use of sophisticated manipulation techniques against the group, developed by institutions such as RAND Corporation and Tavistock Institute (look them up).

Unless each participant is keenly aware of these technique, group efforts will be continually squandered by sociopathic personalities within the group who are well versed in said techniques.

If people really cared about Liberty, and wanted to achieve said Liberty, they would not simply scoff at this comments, or worse, attack them. In stead, they would learn about the techniques, and collaborate with others to teach the techniques and ways to recognize them and thwart them.

The only way to succeed is to maintain an army of "Individuals" who are each capable of resisting this sort of scientifically rooted manipulation.

WaltM
02-08-2010, 10:51 PM
"working with" Frank & Grayson on supporting a common issue is no analogy to "funding a campaign" of a person who not only isn't well known, but is known to be pro-war.

He didn't get the answer, either
"It was a mistake, we're sorry"
or
"It wasn't a mistake, we made the choice, like it or leave it".

What excuses can possibly be made?

revolutionary8
03-04-2010, 01:09 AM
Well, 24-hours are up and you did NOT produce the said PMs. So maybe you don't have them, maybe you do. But in any event, who cares.

As I said in my previous post, I will dig out my copies from my archives and post them in another thread (so I don't deviate any more than is absolutely necessary from the OP).

It's a pretty darn sad state of affairs when a thread about the C4L financially supporting pro-war candidates gets usurped by someone trying to make a big issues out a few PM's that were sent. Let's keep our eye on the ball and stay focused on what's important. And I don't see how another forum, or a few PM's inviting people here to that new forum can even be brought-up in the same breath as a conversation on breaching our most important moral platform, which is abiding by the Just War Theory that this nation was founded on and that Ron campaigned on.

But yea, people will try to obfuscate in any way they can. What I wonder is, why was this attempt made in the first place? Are there really people here who find the C4L's actions acceptable to such a degree that they would put their reputation on the line in order to attack another member over it? Some things are almost unbelievable.


IP, I owe "you" ABSOF'NLUTELY NOTHING.

Just like I owe the rest of the peeps around here.
Yes, I like what certain people SAY around here. Yes I do.
I feel like I owe THEM something.
If any of my friends want to question what I have brought to the surface (plenty of which you have mentioned and stated in your own posts) then I will send them any information that I have that I HAVE WRITTEN AND GATHERED.

You need to get this straight-
NO COMMUNICATION THAT I HAVE HAD W/ ANY OF MY RESPECTED FRIENDS WILL EVER BE RELEASED W/O THIER CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE.

As you know, I was offered this "membership".
If YOU, mister "counter-intel afficionado" think I am gonna give you "the goods", well, it's obvious you are shopping the wrong outlet mall.

Most Recent evidence:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577531&postcount=14

^^^
The ecoheads need to sic his ass back to Hamberger Tuesdey.