PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul was Most Upset about the "Viciousness of the Internet"




bobbyw24
02-02-2010, 05:58 AM
Ron Paul is talking about several people here who had knee jerk reactions without without waiting to get the facts on the CFL Colorado ad.

The Internet is great for grassroots but it can be an impediment to our movement as well.




http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k-c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/

dean.engelhardt
02-02-2010, 06:54 AM
Be good mushrooms. Stay in the dark and eat the crap.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 06:57 AM
Crap?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229350

brandon
02-02-2010, 07:16 AM
Ron Paul should have endorsed McCain. It would have helped us be taken seriously and be accepted by the Republican party.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 07:20 AM
Ron Paul should have endorsed McCain. It would have helped us be taken seriously and be accepted by the Republican party.

:eek:

No way.

roho76
02-02-2010, 07:54 AM
CFL is no more important in my eyes than Tea Party Nation. This is grass roots. Act like it. Getting mad at a centralized organization is for Democrats and Republicans. While I am a member I do not donate. If you are against redistribution of wealth by the government then you should be leery of a centralized liberty organization giving your money to candidates that you don't agree with. Donate to your local candidates not to a centralized organization.

johnrocks
02-02-2010, 07:56 AM
Listening now, so far so good.

pacelli
02-02-2010, 08:03 AM
I'm sorry to hear that Ron assumed that .01% of 250,000 people would not start asking questions, and, after being told that C4L would be back after the thanksgiving holiday, react in the way that they did. A mistake wasn't even admitted until after nearly 2 days of people receiving no answers. Despite the obvious guilt campaign that is being initiated, I'm happy that Ron & the rest of the C4L leadership were basically forced to respond. This indicates that the grassroots can effectively serve as a rudimentary form of checks & balances that cannot be written into a corporate charter. At least that will have to suffice until C4L members can figure out how to make RPH the president.

romacox
02-02-2010, 08:04 AM
Bobby regularly posts great information, and this is the best ever. I hope everyone listens to the whole thing before commenting. There is excellent info throughout, and especially toward the end.

I hope this whole experience makes Ron Paul supporters even better as a team, because there will always be moles or plants that will try to undermined our objectives by jumping on any possible division like this one. They deliberately use forums to get members arguing about details like if one should be a Christian or an atheist. Let us keep focused on what it means to be a libertarian like the radio interview above talks about.

Also please allow me to compliment you for what you have accomplished. Ron Paul, and Liberty was so misunderstood by the mainstream. Today many of your ideas are becoming mainstream. But you still have your work cut out for you because they don't get the whole message yet.

MRoCkEd
02-02-2010, 08:04 AM
Good information. I can imagine Ron Paul scrolling through one of the threads and thinking, "My supporters are nuts!" :o Some people did overreact because they did not understand the facts, but at the same time C4L should have come out with the facts earlier. Hopefully we can resolve this and move on.

fisharmor
02-02-2010, 08:15 AM
Some people did overreact because they did not understand the facts, but at the same time C4L should have come out with the facts earlier.

The central problem here is that there is no place to go for facts.
C4L has shown no interest in disseminating facts.
So we're stuck getting them from each other online.
I'm balancing this with 50 other things, including trying to start a business.
I can't sift through every fricking page to find out what I'm looking for, and C4L doesn't seem to be interested in telling me.

There's nothing on the front page of C4L's website trying to control the situation.
I haven't heard what it was that cost $350k. That's a pretty big number and I'd want to know why a couple TV ads cost that much before I donate again.

If they can't be bothered tending to the needs of their donors, guess what... there won't be as many donors. If there was one political group that I can expect to have even that much understanding of markets, it was C4L.

klamath
02-02-2010, 08:31 AM
Once again I agree with RP. People had a right to be upset, People were right in demanding transparency. People are right to try and get changes in the CFL but what some people are trying to ignore was the violence involved that made me cringe in shame that I am part of this movement. I was in the Chat room when the lady put out the statement. I was there when people were advocating Phyical violence and death to John Tate. I believe without a doubt people were sending violent letters to Tate and others in the CFL. This movement will be far better off if those specific people take their violent purity and leave.

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 08:41 AM
Klamath, I will make sure Bryan is alerted to this so that he can review chat logs and take appropriate action with respect to whichever members called for violence.

LibertyPulse.com
02-02-2010, 08:46 AM
Once again I agree with RP. People had a right to be upset, People were right in demanding transparency. People are right to try and get changes in the CFL but what some people are trying to ignore was the violence involved that made me cringe in shame that I am part of this movement. I was in the Chat room when the lady put out the statement. I was there when people were advocating Phyical violence and death to John Tate. I believe without a doubt people were sending violent letters to Tate and others in the CFL. This movement will be far better off if those specific people take their violent purity and leave.

sad

FrankRep
02-02-2010, 08:50 AM
Jesse Benton Addresses $350k C4L Colorado Commercial Campaign

http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k-c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/


Thoughts?

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 08:55 AM
Extremely offensive to the grassroots.

I'll post my review a bit later.

angelatc
02-02-2010, 08:56 AM
Jesse Benton Addresses $350k C4L Colorado Commercial Campaign

http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k-c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/


Thoughts?

We have heard more out of National in the past week than we have in the past 2 years, fundraising letters aside. They're on the road doing damage control.

jmdrake
02-02-2010, 09:07 AM
Jesse Benton Addresses $350k C4L Colorado Commercial Campaign

http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k-c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/


Thoughts?

This was posted earlier. I still have the same question. How is question 10 on the survey squared with Ken Buck's stated position? Benton admitted making 2 mistakes. He admitted not getting information on the survey out to members as being a mistake. He also admitted that making the commercial look too much like an endorsement was a mistake. The mistake he has not admitted is that Ken Buck's website does not match up to the survey answers and/or their interpretation. Supposedly this survey is so that we can hold politicians accountable later right? Say if Ken Buck gets elected to senate and then goes on to vote to continue funding the war in Afghanistan and supporting even bigger "surges" as he has promised to do on his website? Does the CFL then come out with a statement that says "This doesn't square with Ken Buck's promise not to support using American troops to occupy a country without a declaration of war"? Say if Ken Buck votes to blockade Iran, something Ron Paul called an "act of war"? What will the CFL say then, since that's not even on their survey? Say if Ken Buck votes for authorization of a total air war against Iran similar to the air war Clinton did against Serbia? Since that doesn't involve "occupation" is the CFL without recourse?

I've heard "answers" from Tate, Ronnie Jr, Benton, and now even "chastisement" from Ron Paul himself (though I never called for violence or dismantling the CFL). But nobody has yet explained the apparent disconnect between the survey and Ken Buck's stated position on Afghanistan. We just keep hearing that the survey will keep politicians accountable. Accountable to what exactly? :confused:

FrankRep
02-02-2010, 09:14 AM
How is question 10 on the survey squared with Ken Buck's stated position?

C4L can now hold Ken Buck accountable if he violates his pledge.

C4L is a young organization will make mistakes like it did with the Television ad.

Original_Intent
02-02-2010, 09:28 AM
I am listening now. I will say I got caught up in a lot of the emotion at the time. Every time that I felt like I was "OK" with CFL, I would read forum posts and get pissed off and I kind of joined the mob mentality.

I still think CFL was out of line. I still highly doubt I will donate to CFL ever again. However, on the other hand, I definitely feel that a lot of my anger was knee-jerk reaction without waiting for the lame explanation that we eventually got. I still think that it was a TERRIBLE decision on the part of CFL. I am listening the Benton say that the commercial was very inappropriate right now. It sounds to me like lesson learned.

At any rate, I am back to the point where I am willing to use CFL as a tool. I believe that CFL is a useful vehicle. But personally, I am not going to worry too much about their financial situation, no matter how much John Tate tells me they are in desperate need of funds. What little I do have to donate i will give directly to candidates of MY choosing.

pcosmar
02-02-2010, 10:21 AM
:confused:
:(

need an icon for extreme disapointment

jmdrake
02-02-2010, 10:36 AM
C4L can now hold Ken Buck accountable if he violates his pledge.

But what counts as a violation of the pledge? Sure, voting to give the president a blank check to invade Iran if he ever deems necessary counts. Does voting to continue the war in Afghanistan for 10 years count? If the C4L criticized him for that, he could just shoot back "That was public information available on my website when they made the ad. Clearly they didn't think that was a violation of the pledge". If he voted for an air war against Iran he could say "An air war is not an occupation. I haven't violated any pledge". Same if he voted for a total blockade. There are so many ways he could screw the C4L over on this.



C4L is a young organization will make mistakes like it did with the Television ad.

Agreed. We all know they made mistakes. They have acknowledged two of their mistakes. But, for some odd reason, they can't or won't acknowledge the disconnect between the survey, Buck's website and a major chunk of the core principles Ron Paul espoused in 2008 as a mistake. That's what concerns me. I think the survey needs more foreign policy on it. And there should be follow up to see how the survey squares with a candidate's stated position now as opposed to just having in reserve to use at some unspecified future time.

Stary Hickory
02-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Well best thing is to try not to jump to conclusions too quickly I guess. But you do have to keep people honest.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:45 AM
C4L = tool

FrankRep
02-02-2010, 10:47 AM
C4L = tool

How so?

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:50 AM
it is a tool to be used as needed, no more no less

IMHO

which, sadly, wasn't my opinion just a few short weeks ago.

Danke
02-02-2010, 10:52 AM
Once again I agree with RP. People had a right to be upset, People were right in demanding transparency. People are right to try and get changes in the CFL but what some people are trying to ignore was the violence involved that made me cringe in shame that I am part of this movement. I was in the Chat room when the lady put out the statement. I was there when people were advocating Phyical violence and death to John Tate. I believe without a doubt people were sending violent letters to Tate and others in the CFL. This movement will be far better off if those specific people take their violent purity and leave.

Obviously whomever you are referring to didn't post that on the forum.

You are talking about the Chat Room, for Pete's sake! I suppose you take The Onion News seriously too.

RCA
02-02-2010, 10:54 AM
Did we honestly expect him to scorn his own family members publicly for this?

pacelli
02-02-2010, 12:07 PM
C4L can now hold Ken Buck accountable if he violates his pledge.


In what manner will C4L hold Ken Buck accountable if he violates his pledge? Do you advocate "beating him up" as Benton mentioned in the interview?

Matt Collins
02-02-2010, 12:16 PM
CFL is no more important in my eyes than Tea Party Nation. OUCH! That stings..... :(

Aratus
02-02-2010, 12:17 PM
C4L can now hold Ken Buck accountable if he violates his pledge.

C4L is a young organization will make mistakes like it did with the Television ad.


the ad is like a clever mini-blimp over a local statewide sporting event.
its 1/10th of a superbowl blimp and ad in mid-winter. Ron Paul truely
wants us to be forgiving, and to live and learn! flexible! yes... there
are rules! if we can talk down some of our more upset loyal members,
and maybe nicely in a positive way hint, HINT! to C4L how to have less
expensive ads for at least 5 to 10 solid rEVOLUTIOn candidates, if we
let C4L do what it is meant to DESPITE the upper court influx of newly
bold & legal corporate and union monies into this rather staid bi-election,
i feel a more mature behavior pattern & mindframe would be appropiate!!!!

Aratus
02-02-2010, 12:19 PM
-----if the NEXT five or ten candidates have to run an intense
-----political gauntlet and then some...some of the likely rEVOLUTIOn
-----people will go elsewhere as they quest about in order to be on our ballots...

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 12:47 PM
Be good mushrooms. Stay in the dark and eat the crap.
Precisely.

Is this a swipe at our inalienable right to speech? Sure seems like it could be interpreted that way.

Now, let's get back to what is really important, and stop with this nonsensical discussion. Do you support unjust (not "undeclared") war or not? That is what is relevant here. Jesse is using semantic manipulation to change the perception of what people support. This is outrageous and disgusting.

And OMG, who is Kurt Wallace of LibertyPulse.com. What an apologist. Right up front, he sets the tone by says that he is a supporter for C4L and applauds the vote of 30 Senators to remove Bernanke. What a joke. What a propaganda instrument. This interview was scripted and was designed to keep the Liberty-sheep in their pens.

Besides, do you really trust a candidate to complete a survey truthfully? Is that how you want your candidates chosen? by completing a survey?

Good people here are being chumped at the most basic level by people that they though they could trust. This is abhorrent!

Romulus
02-02-2010, 12:52 PM
Once again I agree with RP. People had a right to be upset, People were right in demanding transparency. People are right to try and get changes in the CFL but what some people are trying to ignore was the violence involved that made me cringe in shame that I am part of this movement. I was in the Chat room when the lady put out the statement. I was there when people were advocating Phyical violence and death to John Tate. I believe without a doubt people were sending violent letters to Tate and others in the CFL. This movement will be far better off if those specific people take their violent purity and leave.

I cant imagine any liberty minded individual here would be that ignorant.

That had to be someone or a group trying to provocateur and smear the RPF/liberty movement.

newbitech
02-02-2010, 12:56 PM
welcome to the internet... n00bs...

nobody's_hero
02-02-2010, 12:58 PM
Some people on these forums have such thin skin, it's a wonder they don't bleed to death when they put on their clothes.

Tangoland
02-02-2010, 01:03 PM
Precisely.

Is this a swipe at our inalienable right to speech? Sure seems like it could be interpreted that way.

Now, let's get back to what is really important, and stop with this nonsensical discussion. Do you support unjust (not "undeclared") war or not? That is what is relevant here. Jesse is using semantic manipulation to change the perception of what people support. This is outrageous and disgusting.

And OMG, who is Kurt Wallace of LibertyPulse.com. What an apologist. Right up front, he sets the tone by says that he is a supporter for C4L and applauds the vote of 30 Senators to remove Bernanke. What a joke. What a propaganda instrument. This interview was scripted and was designed to keep the Liberty-sheep in their pens.

Besides, do you really trust a candidate to complete a survey truthfully? Is that how you want your candidates chosen? by completing a survey?

Good people here are being chumped at the most basic level by people that they though they could trust. This is abhorrent!

I'm Kurt Wallace you can find more of my "propaganda instruments" at KurtWallace.com (http://www.kurtwallace.com) where I shared my daily show Wake Up America with regular weekly contributors Adam Kokesh, Tom Woods, Tom Mullen. :rolleyes:

Brian4Liberty
02-02-2010, 01:04 PM
Is Campaign For Liberty putting out the word to the grassroots to contact candidates to get them to complete "the survey"? We are pretty good at e-mail activism... :D

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 01:06 PM
Is Campaign For Liberty putting out the word to the grassroots to contact candidates to get them to complete "the survey"? We are pretty good at e-mail activism... :D

No. See, they have a full time staffer working spreadsheets so they can determine when to send out the surveys directly to the candidates. No involvement whatsoever from the people on the ground, hence CO C4L not being notified of the ad til the morning it was run.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Im Kurt Wallace you can find more of my "propaganda instruments" at KurtWallace.com (http://www.kurtwallace.com) where I shared my daily show Wake Up America with regular weekly contributors Adam Kokesh, Tom Woods, Tom Mullen. :rolleyes:
Why did you not challenge Jesse on his comment regarding "undeclared" war versus the concept of "unjust" war. Red lights and sirens were flashing, but you obviously chose to ignore them. This is especially bizarre given the topic of the interview, which was the recent outrage over a pro-Afghan-war candidate.

Are all your interviews and discussions like this?

See the following thread for an important discussion on the Importance of Unjust war, as spoken by Ron himself.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229442

Meatwasp
02-02-2010, 03:55 PM
I cant imagine any liberty minded individual here would be that ignorant.

That had to be someone or a group trying to provocateur and smear the RPF/liberty movement.

So you think it is alright to advocate violence? I think it is pretty stupid and sad. I read someone wanted to pitch fork Tates head.

fedup100
02-02-2010, 04:36 PM
In what manner will C4L hold Ken Buck accountable if he violates his pledge? Do you advocate "beating him up" as Benton mentioned in the interview?

Exactly! This is nonsense. The talk continues as the words are ever so slightly bending this whole incident. I predict in a week, we the grassroots will be the whole reason for the survey and the commercial, how dare we. I wouldn't be surprised to find out WE raised that special little bit of dough for the commercial!

They don't need no stinkin survey, just take a look at the candidates voting record from the past and who they associate with. Only a newbie should fill out the survey. If these people think a candidate endorsed by Big Dick Cheney will do the right thing after they are in office is way beyond naive.

Danke
02-02-2010, 04:39 PM
I read someone wanted to pitch fork Tates head.

Who said that and where?

w2992
02-02-2010, 04:43 PM
RP would have endorsed mccain if mccain would have said we need to declare war in iraq.

Meatwasp
02-02-2010, 05:03 PM
Who said that and where?

In the chat room. I can't remember who as I don't like to go there usually

Danke
02-02-2010, 05:16 PM
In the chat room. I can't remember who as I don't like to go there usually

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2524300&postcount=27

Meatwasp
02-02-2010, 05:22 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2524300&postcount=27

Danke,
If t someone is saying that in the chat room it is still wrong. You are reactionary sometimes but I still like you.

tpreitzel
02-02-2010, 06:29 PM
CFL is no more important in my eyes than Tea Party Nation. This is grass roots. Act like it. Getting mad at a centralized organization is for Democrats and Republicans. While I am a member I do not donate. If you are against redistribution of wealth by the government then you should be leery of a centralized liberty organization giving your money to candidates that you don't agree with. Donate to your local candidates not to a centralized organization.

Absolutely!

Danke
02-02-2010, 06:46 PM
Danke,
If t someone is saying that in the chat room it is still wrong. You are reactionary sometimes but I still like you.

:confused:

reactionary

adjective
1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

Meatwasp
02-02-2010, 07:00 PM
:confused:

reactionary

adjective
1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

Not the way I learned it. Jump in with your reactive mind without thinking or thought.

Danke
02-02-2010, 07:35 PM
Not the way I learned it. Jump in with your reactive mind without thinking or thought.

Examples?