PDA

View Full Version : The Benton Interview Breakdown




MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 01:46 PM
I have listened to the interview Benton gave regarding the CFL ad fiasco.

Following are my comments/questions.

I do not claim to have used exact quotes but have attempted to get close to the exact wording used.

Any emphasis (bolding, italics, etc) is my addition.

1. 'had to align yourselves with socialists, democrats, and neocons to push 1207 through'

Those individuals moved TO Ron's position - Ron did NOT move to theirs.

No compromise of his principles occurred.

2. "hold them accountable" after they get into office based on their survey responses. We can then "beat them up."

Why can't a candidate who gets into office be held accountable based on their own stated positions from their campaign websites and printed material?

"Beat them up" - please define exactly what you mean by this.

Is there not a more professional, less politics as usual way to say it?

3. 'people who had never worked with us before or given us any money, they saw the survey and they took it to Ken Buck.'

What people saw the survey that had never worked with CFL before, never donated to CFL before?

How did CFL locate these people in order to get the survey to them?

Are these people prior political contacts of the top tier staff?

4. 'so these Colorado activists who had never given us any money before came together and raised a big chunk of money and they gave it to us and they said we would like for you to run an aggressive tv and radio about the fact that Ken Buck scored very well on your survey.'

To summarize thus far: the survey was provided to the activists rather than the candidate - the activists took the survey to Buck - the activists brought the completed survey to CFL - along with a VERY VERY LARGE sum of money - gave CFL the money and said to CFL - we want you to run aggressive tv/radio ads stating that Buck scored well on your survey.

5. 'we want the democrats to fill out the survey.'

Were all candidates for Federal office in Colorado sent the survey at the same time as the survey was provided to...Buck...or the activists...or whomever?

6. 'we made two mistakes. One is we didn't properly communicate to our members about the survey program.'

Is there any communication to members about the survey program available as yet?

If not, what is your estimated timeline for providing the communication about the program to the members?

7. 'Two is that the commercial wasn't proper...if we're going to run a commercial like this in the future....'

Which CFL staff reviewed the commercial prior to its release?

Which CFL staff signed off on its release?

Which CFL staff first questioned whether or not the ad was in fact 'proper?'

When did that staffer make the remaining staff aware that the ad might not be considered 'proper?'

Will commercials be made for any other candidate, or is CFL only running commercials when 'activists' raise a 'big chunk' of money for CFL?

Please clarify what is meant by a 'big chunk' of money in dollar terms.

8. 'We're still a young organization'

Young organization - with experienced staff at the top. Tate has 26 years of experience according to his bio on the CFL website. Rothfeld (consultant, trainer and fundraiser, owner of Saber Communications) has 20 years of experience. And yet with a combined 46 years of experience, this fiasco occurred.

Again, which CFL staffer failed to recognize that the commercial was not 'proper?'

9. 'he's not where we'd like him to be on foreign policy.'

Did CFL recognize that Buck is 'not where we'd like him to be on forein policy' before or after the activists brought the chunk of money to CFL and asked that an ad be produced?

10. 'CFL is not about supporting specific candidates.'

Is CFL about 'beating up' specific candidates when they don't keep campaign promises?

11. 'We did not take any money out of the general fund at CFL'

That isn't an issue for me (though it may be for others).

My concern lies in the fact that non-interventionism is a, if not the, critical foundation for all else - limited government, ending the federal reserve, erosion of civil liberties, all of it. It is only through strict adherence to the principle of non interventionism, boldly championed by Dr. Paul, that we as a country can end the care and feeding of the military industrial complex, and the perpetual war foisted upon us as a people.

Support for candidates that do not agree on this foundational tenet is the issue.

12. 'This was money that a handful of special Colorado donors gave us specifically for this project.'

Do top tier staff at CFL understand and adhere to the foundational tenet of non interventionism?

If not, was money the final determination of the decision to create this ad?

13. 'We're not supporting any candidate here.'

To use your own words, the ad was not proper. Because the ad was not proper, the ad was taken as support for the candidate. Because the candidate does not appear to agree with the tenet of non interventionism, those supporters who recognize it as foundational are incensed.

Do top tier staff at CFL understand and adhere to the foundational tenet of non interventionism?

14. 'We do raise money, and in some very very important states, we're going to use general revenue for it.'

Please delineate the criteria used to determine 'very very important states.'

Please outline the exact procedure for distribution of the candidate survey.

15. 'Raise money or find donors in your own state.'

Please clarify how much money must be raised by the grassroots in order to obtain CFL assistance for candidates in their states.

16. 'the people in Colorado seem to know best.'

Is Colorado considered a 'very very important state?' Why, or why not?

17. 'Since this ad has been run, seven candidates have contacted local coordinators to ask for surveys.

In Colorado where the ad ran?

18. 'We'll beat them up if they don't (keep the promises made on the survey).'

What is meant by 'beat them up?'

Please explain how CFL will accomplish said beatings. And please, find a more professional way to relay this.

19. 'the problem on the internet is that CFL didn't communicate with its members to let them know this.'

Again, this is NOT the problem. The problem is CFL backing a candidate whose own website plainly states: "We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission. As Colorado's Senator I will always look first to the advice of the generals, and I will strongly support the mission of our troops who are in harm's way."

Ron Paul's non interventionist philosophy is what drew many, if not most, of the activitsts to his campaign in the first place. This foundational tenet cannot be compromised. By producing an ad that gives the appearance of CFL support to such a candidate, that foundational tenet was compromised.

Thus the outrage.

20. 'when a politician sees that campaign for liberty dropped this kind of money onto a candidate to go on the record with us, that's pretty powerful.'

How 'powerful' is it in light of your previous statement that, 'This was money that a handful of special Colorado donors gave us specifically for this project.'

Appears that CFL works as a funnel for money from donors that want to skirt the rules and avoid transparency. While legal - perhaps 'unseemly' at best, 'unethical' at worst.

21. 'We need to flex our muscle and show that we have money.'

How is that happening when you have said, 'This was money that a handful of special Colorado donors gave us specifically for this project.' ??

22. 'Candidates are going to have to go on the record and let us know where they stand on the issues.'

What is the total cost of providing the survey to a single candidate?

Will the staff at CFL complete a survey so that we, the grassroots, may know their individual stands on the issues?

23. 'Our 2009 Form 990 is available on request or at the IRS website.'

I couldn't find it on the IRS website, but I'm calling that as a screw up by the IRS, not by CFL. :)

24. RPH's suggestion for a grassroots elected board.

Shot down - in favor of 'that's why we're setting up autonomous chapters around the country.'

I'm disappointed, as this decision does not reassure the grassroots that national is on top of things in the same way as, say, a Michael Maresco on the board could.

25. 'We try to be the most bottom up, most transparent organization of its type out there.'

I want some of what he's smoking. lol...

26. 'Ron Paul...stays out of the day to day decision making and management.

Exactly as I expected. Dr. Paul is not at fault in this matter. CFL top tier staff is.

27. 'Ron Paul...has implored us to set up some checks and balances to make sure this mistake does not happen again.'

Yet grassroots involvement has already been ruled out.

Please outline the checks and balances under consideration.

28. 'when he sees people threatening to call the FEC for an investigation on us, he just wonders what these people are thinking.'

I've not seen anyone make such a threat here at RPFs - granted, I've not read every post. I don't read other RP sites so this may have been discussed at one or more of the other sites.

However - is calling for an investigation a 'vicious personal attack?'

I believe this is a gross mischaracterization and a coordinated attempt to silence those who are righteously angry and opposed to the prostitution of CFL in this manner.

29. 'we didn't need that 5 - 7 percent of energy going to attack each other. I hope we can learn from this.'

Admonishing the grassroots for their outrage at this fiasco is outrageous.

A rational and detailed response is required.

30. 'we have a big enough fight without attacking each other and self inflicted wounds.'

Again, admonishing the grassroots when the grassroots had nothing whatsoever to do with this fiasco is both appalling and disgusting., and further demonstrates the complete disconnect between CFL and the grassroots.

31. "43 people have asked to have their information removed from our records, so that's about .001 percent."

So in response to the loss of only .001 percent of CFL's membership, CFL has presented a letter from John Tate, a letter from Ronnie Paul, this interview with Jesse Benton, published Buck's survey response, had Ron Paul call Nystrom, and had RJ Harris post his apology, and whatever else comes down the pike.

Yet still there is no rational and detailed explanation of what occurred.

32. 'Probably going to kill it for now' (commercials for candidates based on their survey responses.)

Yet you said previously, 'when a politician sees that campaign for liberty dropped this kind of money onto a candidate to go on the record with us, that's pretty powerful' and requested that the grassroots, 'raise money or find donors in your own state' in order to secure CFL support for the candidates in their respective states.

33. 'which we were partially responsible for'

Partially responsible? PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE?

JAW DROPPING INSULT - the implication that the grassroots is in any way responsible for CFL's top tier staff's 'mistake' in deciding to run an ad that was 'not proper' is ... simply unbelievable.

Hamer
02-02-2010, 01:52 PM
All great questions.

Here is my problem, how do they expect to beat up candidates for waivering from the survey when we can't get active members of congress to abide by their sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution? Is somehow a CFL survey going to hold more weight that the constitution of the United States?

angelatc
02-02-2010, 02:23 PM
2. "hold them accountable" after they get into office based on their survey responses. We can then "beat them up."

That's right! Beating up on Bush after he broke all his campaign promises worked out really well. We really showed him.

disorderlyvision
02-02-2010, 02:38 PM
I was one of the "43" who voted with their feet. I stand by my decision. I will continue to work with MOC4L, though not as a member. If the C4L wants to change leadershp, let the grassroots be more involved on the national level, and be fully transparent to the membership I may reconsider my decision, but until then...

Matt Collins
02-02-2010, 02:46 PM
While I agree this is an important issue, and we definitely need to do our best to hold everyone accountable, I do believe there are more critical issues we should be focusing on at this time. Getting Rand and others elected should be where all of our focus, energy, and resources should be spent. I am not attempting to negate the significance of the direction of the CFL but we are in an election cycle and winning seats is paramount to anything else in my opinion.




Let me tell you how serious I am about this:
Jesse Benton and I have decided to set aside our differences and work together to these ends. We've shaken hands multiple times and have had some very productive conversations. For those that know the history that has not come easy for either of us. But Jesse and I realize there are higher and more immediate purposes that need to be addressed trumping the less significant ones. It doesn't do us any good to be at each other's throats, it's counter productive, and the country doesn't need us distracted and losing the current window of opportunities to restrain our government. I hope many others here begin to seriously consider this line of thinking too.


Just my $.02




.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 02:47 PM
I was one of the "43" who voted with their feet. I stand by my decision. I will continue to work with MOC4L, though not as a member. If the C4L wants to change leadershp, let the grassroots be more involved on the national level, and be fully transparent to the membership I may reconsider my decision, but until then...

Me, too.

dean.engelhardt
02-02-2010, 02:50 PM
all great questions.

Here is my problem, how do they expect to beat up candidates for waivering from the survey when we can't get active members of congress to abide by their sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution? Is somehow a cfl survey going to hold more weight that the constitution of the united states?

bingo:d

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 02:52 PM
I couldn't have asked more pointed questions if I tried. I hope whoever is lurking these forums from C4L sees this. Every single question needs answering.

brandon
02-02-2010, 02:53 PM
I was one of the 43 as well.

And I did see a post here where a member suggested reporting them to the FEC. I told him it was silly.

dannno
02-02-2010, 02:59 PM
That's right! Beating up on Bush after he broke all his campaign promises worked out really well. We really showed him.

Bush took a candidates survey before he was elected President?

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Jesse repeatedly used the term Undeclared War, instead of the term Unjust War. This is a major and significant departure from the statements made during RP's presidential campaign. This issues is being discussed in the following thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229442

RCA
02-02-2010, 03:18 PM
A proud .001%'er!

RCA
02-02-2010, 03:21 PM
Jesse repeatedly used the term Undeclared War, instead of the term Unjust War. This is a major and significant departure from the statements made during RP's presidential campaign. This issues is being discussed in the following thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229442

While I agree that a war must be just, considering that we've only declared 5 wars in our history, sticking by this rule would elimate most of the intervention we rail against.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 03:42 PM
While I agree that a war must be just, considering that we've only declared 5 wars in our history, sticking by this rule would elimate most of the intervention we rail against.
Watch the following for a refresher on the importance of this topic of Unjust war.


YouTube - Ron Paul : The Just War Theory & Peace Correlation! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgb_Fnde9G4)

It was this kind of campaigning that brought so many to support RP. Have we all forgotten this already?

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 03:44 PM
I actually have more of a problem with the survey question itself and the characterization of it. The question asked whether the candidate supports "undeclared occupations" not "undeclared wars" or "pre-emptive attacks". I'm not sure where in the Constitution there is authorization for any occupation, declared or otherwise.

tpreitzel
02-02-2010, 03:58 PM
This interview is simply gobbledygook. No, Jesse, you screwed up in much more than TWO instances. Your INCOMPLETE survey is a simply a starter. Your alleged ability to coerce a potential incumbent with a flawed survey is almost laughable. Instead of using coercion to "convert" borderline candidates, try supporting candidates who actually BELIEVE the message of constitutional liberty in the first place. Surely, as a 501c(4) you'll still have money to spend on advertisements, err surveys, from "small groups" of anonymous donors anyway! ;) Again, is the C4L willing to reorganize and allow vetting your initiatives with the grassroots who MUST approve them BEFORE wasting time and resources whether those resources come from a "small group of donors" or the membership at large? ;)

No, Jesse, hiding behind a 501c(4) is NOT good if we can't see precisely WHO donated this money! Again, reorganize for transparency! You'll save EVERYBODY time and frustration.

No, Jesse, this issue REALLY is important because this "group of donors" has supported a candidate who's a "hate crimes" warrior! Maybe, you need to add some questions to your survey! ;) In fact, the more gobbledygook I hear, the more furious I become!

Last, I will add: IF Ron is unwilling to disassociate himself with some of his closest confidants, e.g. Jesse Benton, I do NOT want Ron Paul to run in 2012. This movement simply does NOT need a repeat of 2008. If Ron is willing to add new, competent staff to his bid for 2012, I'll support him 100%!

As I've said previously, the grassroots really need an independent, bottom-up organization which will help prevent a fiasco like this one.

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 04:32 PM
cut up and commented upon


I have listened to the interview Benton gave regarding the CFL ad fiasco.

Following are my comments/questions.

I do not claim to have used exact quotes but have attempted to get close to the exact wording used.

Any emphasis (bolding, italics, etc) is my addition.

1. 'had to align yourselves with socialists, democrats, and neocons to push 1207 through'

Those individuals moved TO Ron's position - Ron did NOT move to theirs.

No compromise of his principles occurred.

...worth repeating



7. 'Two is that the commercial wasn't proper...if we're going to run a commercial like this in the future....'

Which CFL staff reviewed the commercial prior to its release?

Which CFL staff signed off on its release?

Which CFL staff first questioned whether or not the ad was in fact 'proper?'

When did that staffer make the remaining staff aware that the ad might not be considered 'proper?'

...

I can just imagine the conference calls... :eek:


19. 'the problem on the internet is that CFL didn't communicate with its members to let them know this.'

Again, this is NOT the problem. The problem is CFL backing a candidate whose own website plainly states: "We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission. As Colorado's Senator I will always look first to the advice of the generals, and I will strongly support the mission of our troops who are in harm's way."

Ron Paul's non interventionist philosophy is what drew many, if not most, of the activitsts to his campaign in the first place. This foundational tenet cannot be compromised. By producing an ad that gives the appearance of CFL support to such a candidate, that foundational tenet was compromised.

Thus the outrage.


and that is only half of it.


20. 'when a politician sees that campaign for liberty dropped this kind of money onto a candidate to go on the record with us, that's pretty powerful.'

How 'powerful' is it in light of your previous statement that, 'This was money that a handful of special Colorado donors gave us specifically for this project.'

Appears that CFL works as a funnel for money from donors that want to skirt the rules and avoid transparency. While legal - perhaps 'unseemly' at best, 'unethical' at worst.

No small part of the outrage felt by those who have given so much to build the brand. The angst was near universal...


24. RPH's suggestion for a grassroots elected board.

Shot down - in favor of 'that's why we're setting up autonomous chapters around the country.'

I'm disappointed, as this decision does not reassure the grassroots that national is on top of things in the same way as, say, a Michael Maresco on the board could.


You are being kind calling it a suggestion... I could have been a bit less forceful in that bit, but at least we finally have buried that lingering hope. :(


25. 'We try to be the most bottom up, most transparent organization of its type out there.'

I want some of what he's smoking. lol...

I guess it depends on how you define, "type" :p


26. 'Ron Paul...stays out of the day to day decision making and management.

Exactly as I expected. Dr. Paul is not at fault in this matter. CFL top tier staff is.

Agreed, and having his name embroiled in the controversy is another component of the collective angst.


27. 'Ron Paul...has implored us to set up some checks and balances to make sure this mistake does not happen again.'

Yet grassroots involvement has already been ruled out.

Please outline the checks and balances under consideration.


I look forward to seeing what they propose...


28. 'when he sees people threatening to call the FEC for an investigation on us, he just wonders what these people are thinking.'

I've not seen anyone make such a threat here at RPFs - granted, I've not read every post. I don't read other RP sites so this may have been discussed at one or more of the other sites.

However - is calling for an investigation a 'vicious personal attack?'

I believe this is a gross mischaracterization and a coordinated attempt to silence those who are righteously angry and opposed to the prostitution of CFL in this manner.

The FEC/IRS thing was some crazed commenter on the CfL blog. Cherrypicking a couple posts [of trolls and other undiplomatic types] and using them to attempt to diminish culpability in this debacle is not cool. I did not note any vicious personal attacks, I did see a lot of moral outrage being directed up the pyramid into Tate. It goes with the territory on two fronts; it is the nature of a top down org. & it's. the. internet. :rolleyes: Sheesh... This perhaps highlights part of the disconnect between CfL and the grassroots, in that the r3VOLution understands the internet on a much deeper level. I still am a bit dumbfounded that whoever responsible did not see this coming...


29. 'we didn't need that 5 - 7 percent of energy going to attack each other. I hope we can learn from this.'

Admonishing the grassroots for their outrage at this fiasco is outrageous.

...

Yep.


30. 'we have a big enough fight without attacking each other and self inflicted wounds.'

Again, admonishing the grassroots when the grassroots had nothing whatsoever to do with this fiasco is both appalling and disgusting., and further demonstrates the complete disconnect between CFL and the grassroots.

...even the campaign phone was ringing with calls for me about this. This mistake threw people off their game at some critical times and rather than an apology, we get a lecture... :mad:


31. "43 people have asked to have their information removed from our records, so that's about .001 percent."

So in response to the loss of only .001 percent of CFL's membership, CFL has presented a letter from John Tate, a letter from Ronnie Paul, this interview with Jesse Benton, published Buck's survey response, had Ron Paul call Nystrom, and had RJ Harris post his apology, and whatever else comes down the pike.

Yet still there is no rational and detailed explanation of what occurred.

What has happened is that the mistake has driven most members further to the periphery, and a few right off the edge. I hope they understand that.


]33. 'which we were partially responsible for'

Partially responsible? PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE?

JAW DROPPING INSULT - the implication that the grassroots is in any way responsible for CFL's top tier staff's 'mistake' in deciding to run an ad that was 'not proper' is ... simply unbelievable.

Fully responsible for!

it's. the. internet! :eek: ;)

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 04:35 PM
I actually have more of a problem with the survey question itself and the characterization of it. The question asked whether the candidate supports "undeclared occupations" not "undeclared wars" or "pre-emptive attacks". I'm not sure where in the Constitution there is authorization for any occupation, declared or otherwise.
Very good point!

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 04:39 PM
30. 'we have a big enough fight without attacking each other and self inflicted wounds.'
The sheeple should Shut up and get behind us. We are the experts! Now be quiet so we can work in your best interest. You may go back to your dull stupids jobs now.




31. "43 people have asked to have their information removed from our records, so that's about .001 percent."
It's not about who is correct, it is about the majority. This is not a Constitutional Republic, this is a Democracy, dammit! Those .001 percent don't matter.

Promontorium
02-02-2010, 06:20 PM
He bases his .001% number from people who called. This archaic form of communication is not formally understood by most of us in this movement. Almost 100% of my contact with this movement has been online, and that's where I dropped my name from C4L lists. He ignores that flush of people, and it distorts the statistics. That is dishonesty or laziness, because electronic tallys are even easier to keep than phone records.

This interview exposes something I didn't consider before. C4L is willing to advertise for anyone. They call it "promoting the survey" but if even the name of a specific candidate is mentioned, there's some manipulation going on. Think about this for a moment they will advertise more for those who put up more money. So it isn't about the political positions for C4L, it's the money. There's no measure for equality, no measure for promoting liberty candidates. C4L is announcing it is going to act as an ad firm, for anyone who wants exposure. And it is C4L's money. They just admit they're letting small groups lobby a specific candidate. They admit a national organization under the name of Ron Paul will whore itself to anyone with a buck and 20 questions. That's their plan. That's what they're proud of.

They have apologized for not telling you sooner that they are for sale.

tpreitzel
02-02-2010, 06:23 PM
A proud .001%'er!

Can you imagine the pomposity of Benton to make such a remark?

For example, I've recommend that members retain their membership in the C4L until an alternative is created by the grassroots from the bottom-up. I still do. * However, I'm personally pleased that this event has forced the hand of Ron's staff. Why? Because the grassroots require absolute honesty and transparency from staff for ensuring the organization remains viable for OUR purposes, i.e. restoration of constitutional liberty. Mere promises are NOT enough as experience has REPEATEDLY shown. The C4L continues to expose itself and the dirty, little picture will probably be rated R eventually if not XXX.

* From Benton's remark, the C4L needs some serious competition. ;)

angelatc
02-02-2010, 06:24 PM
Bush took a candidates survey before he was elected President?

I said campaign promises, not candidate survey.

FrankRep
02-02-2010, 06:29 PM
While I agree this is an important issue, and we definitely need to do our best to hold everyone accountable,...

Yes, keep them accountable. That's the key.

Just quitting the organization is silly unless they continue to make mistakes.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 06:30 PM
He bases his .001% number from people who called. This archaic form of communication is not formally understood by most of us in this movement. Almost 100% of my contact with this movement has been online, and that's where I dropped my name from C4L lists. He ignores that flush of people, and it distorts the statistics. That is dishonesty or laziness, because electronic tallys are even easier to keep than phone records.

This interview exposes something I didn't consider before. C4L is willing to advertise for anyone. They call it "promoting the survey" but if even the name of a specific candidate is mentioned, there's some manipulation going on. Think about this for a moment they will advertise more for those who put up more money. So it isn't about the political positions for C4L, it's the money. There's no measure for equality, no measure for promoting liberty candidates. C4L is announcing it is going to act as an ad firm, for anyone who wants exposure. And it is C4L's money. They just admit they're letting small groups lobby a specific candidate. They admit a national organization under the name of Ron Paul will whore itself to anyone with a buck and 20 questions. That's their plan. That's what they're proud of.

They have apologized for not telling you sooner that they are for sale.
Post of the month!

Promontorium
02-02-2010, 06:36 PM
Is anybody else getting this feeling?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/promontorium/C4L.jpg

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 06:37 PM
He bases his .001% number from people who called. This archaic form of communication is not formally understood by most of us in this movement. Almost 100% of my contact with this movement has been online, and that's where I dropped my name from C4L lists. He ignores that flush of people, and it distorts the statistics. That is dishonesty or laziness, because electronic tallys are even easier to keep than phone records.

This interview exposes something I didn't consider before. C4L is willing to advertise for anyone. They call it "promoting the survey" but if even the name of a specific candidate is mentioned, there's some manipulation going on. Think about this for a moment they will advertise more for those who put up more money. So it isn't about the political positions for C4L, it's the money. There's no measure for equality, no measure for promoting liberty candidates. C4L is announcing it is going to act as an ad firm, for anyone who wants exposure. And it is C4L's money. They just admit they're letting small groups lobby a specific candidate. They admit a national organization under the name of Ron Paul will whore itself to anyone with a buck and 20 questions. That's their plan. That's what they're proud of.

They have apologized for not telling you sooner that they are for sale.Exactly. But it's not hard to see that this is where it would go. Both Rothfeld and Tate are experienced fundraisers. If you haven't already go look at Tate's C4L bio and the Saber Communications website.

newbitech
02-02-2010, 06:38 PM
Is anybody else getting this feeling?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/promontorium/C4L.jpg


you know I started to post some words about that feeling, but just couldn't get the right ones.

I think in this case, this image is exactly what I was missing the words for.

Yes, this is the feeling I had since day 1 of this thing when I started looking for names of who was responsible.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 07:00 PM
guys I'm having issues reading this thread, (it's a visual thing-I'm slowly going blind) but I can say that I'm with MsDoodahs, RPH, LLS and IP 100% (if I missed somebody, I'm sorry, consider yourself included. :) )


I promised I wasn't going to further participate in this discussion, but the point is well made and deserves the appropriate kudos

pacelli
02-02-2010, 07:10 PM
20. 'when a politician sees that campaign for liberty dropped this kind of money onto a candidate to go on the record with us, that's pretty powerful.'

How 'powerful' is it in light of your previous statement that, 'This was money that a handful of special Colorado donors gave us specifically for this project.'

Appears that CFL works as a funnel for money from donors that want to skirt the rules and avoid transparency. While legal - perhaps 'unseemly' at best, 'unethical' at worst.

21. 'We need to flex our muscle and show that we have money.'

How is that happening when you have said, 'This was money that a handful of special Colorado donors gave us specifically for this project.' ??

I'm glad you covered these points, because he was giving conflicting messages about the source of the money during the interview. First, it was the grassroots. Then it was the CFL. Then it wasn't the CFL, it was actually a handful of new donors. Then it was the CFL.

pacelli
02-02-2010, 07:22 PM
Think about this for a moment they will advertise more for those who put up more money. So it isn't about the political positions for C4L, it's the money. There's no measure for equality, no measure for promoting liberty candidates. C4L is announcing it is going to act as an ad firm, for anyone who wants exposure. And it is C4L's money. They just admit they're letting small groups lobby a specific candidate. They admit a national organization under the name of Ron Paul will whore itself to anyone with a buck and 20 questions. That's their plan. That's what they're proud of.

They have apologized for not telling you sooner that they are for sale.

Hey, if you want clarification about C4L's stance on foreign policy, you can buy their first published book all about non-interventionist foreign policy. I thought it was a laughable coincidence that the "buy our book" email came from John Tate just a day ago.

pacelli
02-02-2010, 07:25 PM
Can you imagine the pomposity of Benton to make such a remark?

For example, I've recommend that members retain their membership in the C4L until an alternative is created by the grassroots from the bottom-up. I still do. * However, I'm personally pleased that this event has forced the hand of Ron's staff. Why? Because the grassroots require absolute honesty and transparency from staff for ensuring the organization remains viable for OUR purposes, i.e. restoration of constitutional liberty. Mere promises are NOT enough as experience has REPEATEDLY shown. The C4L continues to expose itself and the dirty, little picture will probably be rated R eventually if not XXX.

* From Benton's remark, the C4L needs some serious competition. ;)

Sounds like that competition is simply called, ".001%".

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 07:38 PM
Hey, if you want clarification about C4L's stance on foreign policy, you can buy their first published book all about non-interventionist foreign policy. I thought it was a laughable coincidence that the "buy our book" email came from John Tate just a day ago.
You're joking?

pacelli
02-02-2010, 09:21 PM
You're joking?

My comment was designed as a joke, but I am not joking about the email from Tate hawking their first book (written by Bruce Fein) on non-interventionist foreign policy.

Promontorium
02-02-2010, 10:18 PM
But just to reiterate, I still love you guys. The Liberty Movement is the best thing going for this nation. I'm not trying to tear down any of its institutions, and I know, statistically, I'm safe from such an event.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 10:20 PM
all one has to do is look at the latest mailing from the C4L to see where the/any war issue falls on their "to do" list.

crickets ---- and apparently for months.

Not listed, folks and that's telling. My #1 issue and it's no longer on the "we need more money or we'll have to stop our efforts on: "

My bad, I didn't realize this, I had just trashed the mailers until this dustup started. Now I know and I'm truly disheartened at what the future of the C4L will be.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:22 PM
My comment was designed as a joke, but I am not joking about the email from Tate hawking their first book (written by Bruce Fein) on non-interventionist foreign policy.
Wow, this is political amateur hour.

InterestedParticipant
02-02-2010, 10:25 PM
all one has to do is look at the latest mailing from the C4L to see where the/any war issue falls on their "to do" list.

crickets ---- and apparently for months.

Not listed, folks and that's telling. My #1 issue and it's no longer on the "we need more money or we'll have to stop our efforts on: "

My bad, I didn't realize this, I had just trashed the mailers until this dustup started. Now I know and I'm truly disheartened at what the future of the C4L will be.
And yet during the Presidential campaign Ron said it was the "Most Pressing Moral Issue in the USA Today". Just watch:


YouTube - Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=847J99MkUdk)

pacelli
02-03-2010, 06:50 AM
Wow, this is political amateur hour.

Indeed. If I were writing a political comedy, I don't think I could have manifested this all by myself:



February 1, 2010


Dear C4L Member,

I am proud to report that Campaign for Liberty will soon be publishing its first book!

Last year, C4L commissioned Bruce Fein, one of our Rally for the Republic speakers and president of the American Freedom Agenda, to write a book directly confronting the warfare state and defending a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Bruce is more than just a speaker and author. Hes also a former associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration with extensive experience in the foreign policy field who is frequently quoted in The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, and many more. He has also assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision.

Titled The American Empire: Before the Fall, the book is now in its final editing process.

We are already gearing up for a major media campaign to get the message out, and we are committed to publishing, printing, and promoting this book through our contacts and social networks.

Heres an excerpt:

The Founding Fathers would be shocked. They had constructed an American Republic that vehemently opposed crusades, constant warfare and virtual deification of the President. They had pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defeat the British Empire, and to renounce entangling alliances as the bane of peace, checks and balances, limited government, and individual liberty. President Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address proclaimed: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none....

Read more from Chapter 1 in our blog announcement about the book here.

Im looking forward to wrapping up publication on this important new tool, and I am excited about its potential to help us restore the noninterventionist foreign policy envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Stay tuned to CampaignForLiberty.com for more details!


In Liberty,



John Tate

President


P.S. The American Empire: Before the Fall author Bruce Fein will be joining us for a C4L-sponsored panel at CPAC 2010 on our unconstitutional foreign policy. Click here for more details on our CPAC 2010 activities!

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 06:55 AM
Hey, if you want clarification about C4L's stance on foreign policy, you can buy their first published book all about non-interventionist foreign policy. I thought it was a laughable coincidence that the "buy our book" email came from John Tate just a day ago.

Why?

I would imagine they were holding off the announcement until it was closer to release. And given the ensuing meltdown over the ad, and the concerns that they had somehow given up their non-interventionism principle, that they decided to go on and release the information.

Makes perfect sense to me.

pacelli
02-03-2010, 07:11 AM
Why?

I would imagine they were holding off the announcement until it was closer to release. And given the ensuing meltdown over the ad, and the concerns that they had somehow given up their non-interventionism principle, that they decided to go on and release the information.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Makes perfect sense to me as well. They're still in advertisement mode. It would be nice if they spent some time working on the details of the checks & balances system, but evidently for Tate (or his ghostwriter), keeping members informed about the book is more important. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but 'playing politics' (Go read a book!) with the grassroots isn't going to win Tate any assertiveness rewards.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 07:29 AM
Makes perfect sense to me as well. They're still in advertisement mode. It would be nice if they spent some time working on the details of the checks & balances system, but evidently for Tate (or his ghostwriter), keeping members informed about the book is more important. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but 'playing politics' (Go read a book!) with the grassroots isn't going to win Tate any assertiveness rewards.

Why does one preclude the other, pacelli? And what makes you think the book is just for the grassroots?

pacelli
02-03-2010, 07:39 AM
Why does one preclude the other, pacelli? And what makes you think the book is just for the grassroots?

I don't know why one precludes the other. I'm still waiting on the details of the checks & balances system. I can, however, already read the some of the first chapter of Fein's book on the C4L site. I can only assume that the book precedes the checks & balances system because at the moment it is more important to those marketing the book. My assumption might be incorrect.

I think the book is for whomever is willing to buy it. The announcement of the book was for all C4L members, since it was announced via email.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 07:41 AM
My view....

The saddest thing of all is that those top tier staff at CFL have been willing to sacrifice Dr. Paul in order to play their political games.

It appears as though the desire to either skewer long time political enemies in Colorado, or help long time political friends in Colorado, took precedence over foundational tenets of this movement.

No longer will anyone be able to claim that Dr. Paul doesn't compromise principle for political gain.

No longer can anyone state that Ron Paul is a different kind of politician - one who doesn't play the political games.

And this most precious record was shattered not because of something Ron did - but because of what political game players did in his name.

That has been taken away from him by the top tier CFL staff's desire to play their political games.

Dr. Paul is not the sort of man who would throw the people he trusted under the bus. Even when he is faced with the fact that his trust was abused. This, too, was recognized - and played - by the top tier staff at CFL.

I'm sure this is a very sad time for Dr. Paul, as I don't believe that he ever expected that those he entrusted to do the right thing would stoop so low.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 07:45 AM
My view....

The saddest thing of all is that those top tier staff at CFL have been willing to sacrifice Dr. Paul in order to play their political games.

It appears as though the desire to either skewer long time political enemies in Colorado, or help long time political friends in Colorado, took precedence over foundational tenets of this movement.

No longer will anyone be able to claim that Dr. Paul doesn't compromise principle for political gain.

No longer can anyone state that Ron Paul is a different kind of politician - one who doesn't play the political games.

And this most precious record was shattered not because of something Ron did - but because of what political game players did in his name.

That has been taken away from him by the top tier CFL staff's desire to play their political games.

Dr. Paul is not the sort of man who would throw the people he trusted under the bus. Even when he is faced with the fact that his trust was abused. This, too, was recognized - and played - by the top tier staff at CFL.

I'm sure this is a very sad time for Dr. Paul, as I don't believe that he ever expected that those he entrusted to do the right thing would stoop so low.This is the saddest thing I've read in a while. Unfortunately I've been thinking the very same thing :(



I still love you, Ron Paul.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 08:28 AM
My view....

The saddest thing of all is that those top tier staff at CFL have been willing to sacrifice Dr. Paul in order to play their political games.

It appears as though the desire to either skewer long time political enemies in Colorado, or help long time political friends in Colorado, took precedence over foundational tenets of this movement.

No longer will anyone be able to claim that Dr. Paul doesn't compromise principle for political gain.

No longer can anyone state that Ron Paul is a different kind of politician - one who doesn't play the political games.

And this most precious record was shattered not because of something Ron did - but because of what political game players did in his name.

That has been taken away from him by the top tier CFL staff's desire to play their political games.

Dr. Paul is not the sort of man who would throw the people he trusted under the bus. Even when he is faced with the fact that his trust was abused. This, too, was recognized - and played - by the top tier staff at CFL.

I'm sure this is a very sad time for Dr. Paul, as I don't believe that he ever expected that those he entrusted to do the right thing would stoop so low.

No, you are the one who has such rage for C4L, and did BEFORE this ad incident ever happened, that you are even willing to throw Congressman Paul under the bus, in order to achieve your longstanding goal of destroying the C4L.

Your goal is clear:


Do you want to fix it or bury it?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2519397&postcount=103



Bury it.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2519434&postcount=108

constituent
02-03-2010, 08:39 AM
No, you are the one who has such rage for C4L, and did BEFORE this ad incident ever happened, that you are even willing to throw Congressman Paul under the bus, in order to achieve your longstanding goal of destroying the C4L.

I don't know, I remember MsD ripping me a new a*hole when I said all this was coming back in 8. Your comment hits me as a surprise, but so has MsD's seemingly sudden shift in sentiment.

:confused:

dean.engelhardt
02-03-2010, 09:10 AM
He bases his .001% number from people who called. This archaic form of communication is not formally understood by most of us in this movement. Almost 100% of my contact with this movement has been online, and that's where I dropped my name from C4L lists. He ignores that flush of people, and it distorts the statistics. That is dishonesty or laziness, because electronic tallys are even easier to keep than phone records.

This interview exposes something I didn't consider before. C4L is willing to advertise for anyone. They call it "promoting the survey" but if even the name of a specific candidate is mentioned, there's some manipulation going on. Think about this for a moment they will advertise more for those who put up more money. So it isn't about the political positions for C4L, it's the money. There's no measure for equality, no measure for promoting liberty candidates. C4L is announcing it is going to act as an ad firm, for anyone who wants exposure. And it is C4L's money. They just admit they're letting small groups lobby a specific candidate. They admit a national organization under the name of Ron Paul will whore itself to anyone with a buck and 20 questions. That's their plan. That's what they're proud of.

They have apologized for not telling you sooner that they are for sale.

The number 43 and .001% are pure spin. That's the number that specifically called to have all traces of their account deleted. I just deleted my account by hitting the delete button on the website. If he brought up the subject he should tell us the number of memberships discontinued.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:12 AM
If the Ad Issue had been resolved quickly, there would not have been the time for tempers to flair. Words might not have been spoken. Old wounds might not have scabbed open.

Now we are upset about the mailers not including support against a noninterventionalist war policy.

And transparency---the filings---what are the donations being used for.

and the clunky website no one wants to use, so there's talk of a separate national website...

Some still want to replace the board, but that's obviously not going to happen

Some left the C4L, unfortunately

The use of the C4L logo was a mistake, they've admitted that, after days of pressure.

This could have been largely prevented if we had gotten a reasonable response earlier.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 09:24 AM
Spilled milk.

The fact is that they HAVE responded now. Several times. John Tate, Ronnie Paul, Jesse Benton and even Ron Paul himself.

And yet the witch hunt continues...

If people want to do something different themselves, that's great. There have always been multiple avenues in this movement. But, that is not what is going on here. There is a clear and dedicated intention by a select few to take down the C4L.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 09:26 AM
I don't know, I remember MsD ripping me a new a*hole when I said all this was coming back in 8. Your comment hits me as a surprise, but so has MsD's seemingly sudden shift in sentiment.

:confused:

I admit it, Constituent - you had their number before I did. But after a while, I figured it out.

And I stopped supporting CFL as soon as I realized that something was very VERY wrong.

I think it is best if liberty activists avoid CFL, and I make no apologies for that view.

I came to this view after talking with multiple activists who were treated with zero respect - more like disdain - by CFL. The ad debacle is just cement.

constituent
02-03-2010, 09:30 AM
I admit it, Constituent - you had their number before I did. But after a while, I figured it out.

It's cool, everyday's a new day. :)

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 09:36 AM
Everyone knows what the problem is.

CFL has not been forthcoming with FACTS.

EVERYTHING they've done so far is nothing but SPIN.

While that will certainly work with a few people, most RP types are too smart for spin.

The more CFL attempts to avoid facts and instead dumps out spin, the less respect they are going to get by those within the movement who have an innate disdain for spinners.

We have a CFL top tier staffer ON THE FORUM THIS MORNING.

Has she answered any of the hard questions?

Nope.

She's participating in the effort to try and shift blame for CFL's ad debacle from CFL to the grassroots.

The inability of the top tier to SHOULDER RESPONSIBILTY is disgusting.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 09:37 AM
Spilled milk.

The fact is that they HAVE responded now. Several times. John Tate, Ronnie Paul, Jesse Benton and even Ron Paul himself.

And yet the witch hunt continues...

If people want to do something different themselves, that's great. There have always been multiple avenues in this movement. But, that is not what is going on here. There is a clear and dedicated intention by a select few to take down the C4L.

More talking point trash from you.

And yet the witch hunt continues...

There is a clear and dedicated intention by a select few to spin the issue and move past all the documented concerns about certain C4L staff and what THEY are doing to take down the C4L.

There's a reason C4L didn't want rpf to be the forum for the organization. In one way or another I suspect you had something to do with that decision.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 09:39 AM
And yet the witch hunt continues...

Stop trying to silence discussion on this forum. You will not succeed.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 09:42 AM
More talking point trash from you.

And yet the witch hunt continues...

There is a clear and dedicated intention by a select few to spin the issue and move past all the documented concerns about certain C4L staff and what THEY are doing to take down the C4L.

There's a reason C4L didn't want rpf to be the forum for the organization. In one way or another I suspect you had something to do with that decision.

What have you done besides gripe about it and libel specific individuals on an internet message board?

Have you sent your concerns and your suggestions to THEM in some form or fashion?

And for that matter, have you sent your "documented concerns about certain C4L staff and what THEY are doing to take down the C4L" to the likes of Ronnie Paul (C4L Chairman of the Board) or even Congressman Paul, himself?

As for me, I spoke to the CFL Communications Director the day this whole thing broke; then, I took a couple of days compiling my concerns and suggestions and submitted them to C4L a day or two ago.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:44 AM
Spilled milk.

The fact is that they HAVE responded now. Several times. John Tate, Ronnie Paul, Jesse Benton and even Ron Paul himself.

And yet the witch hunt continues...

If people want to do something different themselves, that's great. There have always been multiple avenues in this movement. But, that is not what is going on here. There is a clear and dedicated intention by a select few to take down the C4L.

LE, I'm not on a witch hunt, and I know you didn't mean me ( :) ) The idea that we, or a few, or a couple of people are going to take down the C4L is rather a stretch, don't you think? The C4L is, and will remain, just as it is. They will tweek some stuff, fiddle with some fine tuning, etc, but it will be what it is. I accept that.

Doesn't mean that I won't be watching what they do. I would do this with any group I felt so strongly about. Hopefully we can get the couple of questions we have answered without any more shredding.

:cool:

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 09:46 AM
There were various folks who didn't like the C4L idea when it first came about. A lot of folks just had "a feeling" about it, though, and so couldn't exactly yell "No! Don't join!" because that'd be pretty silly. Instead, folks just took very distant roles, and didn't formally join themselves.

From what I have seen, the organization seems to:


Ask for money like a spoiled child.
Blame the people it accepted that money and support from when things get bad.
Do things that a grassroots organization would get stomped out of existance for, and expect to get a free pass.


If I'd started begging for funds on here to support liberty candidates, then sent out surveys (which membership didn't seem aware of) to people who know people who know people, then accepted a huge wad of money to do an ad about someone I admittedly don't know much about, other than how they filled out what looks like a survey someone put together one night at the last minute... and then I followed it up with "It's okay guys! Look! We've been working on this book, too! See? We're publishing books!"... I'd be out of here faster than you could say "Dr. Steve Parent."

Those scammy, scummy projects and their leaders have mostly evaporated by now. More opportunists will show up, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean the "bigger" groups should get a free pass.

MsD's questions are awesome and deserve answers.

RPH/MsD I did see a thread *on here* about FEC violations and the ad. You may want to do a search for it? It was distinctly something about that in the title.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 09:48 AM
Stop trying to silence discussion on this forum. You will not succeed.

"Discussion" is not what you are doing.

You and I both know that.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:51 AM
We have the RIGHT to ask questions, we do not have the right to persoanlly attack anyone.

If the questions are tough to answer, then more questions are needed.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 09:51 AM
What have you done besides gripe about it and libel specific individuals on an internet message board?

Have you sent your concerns and your suggestions to THEM in some form or fashion?

Have you written to President Obama and complained to him about

And for that matter, have you sent your "documented concerns about certain C4L staff and what THEY are doing to take down the C4L" to the likes of Ronnie Paul (C4L Chairman of the Board) or even Congressman Paul, himself?

As for me, I spoke to the CFL Communications Director the day this whole thing broke; then, I took a couple of days compiling my concerns and suggestions and submitted them to C4L a day or two ago.

Bwahahaha! I've already taken my concerns to C4L staff. I was asked to not speak "negatively" about my concerns in public if I was going to remain a county coordinator.

Let me ask you this, have you contacted President Obama with concerns you have about the country and the staff he hired to handle his day-to-days? :rolleyes:

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 09:52 AM
My view....

The saddest thing of all is that those top tier staff at CFL have been willing to sacrifice Dr. Paul in order to play their political games.
Here is where I will depart from LLS, who has been fighting a good and needed fight here. I request that people go back and read the telephone conversation between Michael & Ron. I was terribly disappointed with Ron's response. In fact, it didn't even sound like the guy that i've been paying attention to for almost 20 years.

It's not about trust Ron, and it is not about you or the C4L, you know that. It is about ethics, integrity, honesty and the message, and all of these things have been shown to have been discarded in this recent incident. Instead of crying out for sympathy, you should be cracking the whip and getting that organization and the people that "run" it back in line with the fundamental values that you were articulating during the Presidential campaign. Instead, the grassroots get the finger pointed at.... we don't understand politics, we gotta play along, we reacted to harshly. What's going on?


Spilled milk.

The fact is that they HAVE responded now. Several times. John Tate, Ronnie Paul, Jesse Benton and even Ron Paul himself.

And yet the witch hunt continues...

If people want to do something different themselves, that's great. There have always been multiple avenues in this movement. But, that is not what is going on here. There is a clear and dedicated intention by a select few to take down the C4L.
Should I supply you with a bigger broom and rug for you to sweep this under?

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 09:53 AM
LE, I'm not on a witch hunt, and I know you didn't mean me ( :) )
Good. Because I didn't.

The idea that we, or a few, or a couple of people are going to take down the C4L is rather a stretch, don't you think?

I do not think the select few will be able to succeed in their goal, no. But, make no mistake, it IS their goal.


The C4L is, and will remain, just as it is. They will tweek some stuff, fiddle with some fine tuning, etc, but it will be what it is. I accept that.
Maybe. Don't know.


Doesn't mean that I won't be watching what they do. I would do this with any group I felt so strongly about. Hopefully we can get the couple of questions we have answered without any more shredding.

:cool:
I'll be watching them too. You're not the only one who has had issues with them. But, I do think they have gotten better by leaps and bounds. Of course, the current flub-up notwithstanding. :p

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 09:56 AM
Good. Because I didn't.

I do not think the select few will be able to succeed in their goal, no. But, make no mistake, it IS their goal. Good GOD, woman. Find a post where i say I think anyone else should leave the C4L.






I'll be watching them too. You're not the only one who has had issues with them. But, I do think they have gotten better by leaps and bounds. Of course, the current flub-up not withstanding. :pHow have they gotten better by leaps and bounds? I distinctly remember a thread from over a year ago where some of these same issues were raised. And this was WELL before the ad "flub-up".

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 09:59 AM
We have the RIGHT to ask questions, we do not have the right to persoanlly attack anyone.

If the questions are tough to answer, then more questions are needed.

I agree with that.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:00 AM
I am discussing the problems that I see with CFL at RPFs (among other places :eek:).

I'm researching the CFL top staffers, as well as the candidates in the Colorado race, as well as Buck's prosecutorial record, trying to find answers to why this ad fiasco happened...since CFL is refusing to answer the questions being asked.

I realize some are desperate to silence these discussions.

I will not be silenced.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:02 AM
It is about ethics, integrity, honesty and the message, and all of these things have been shown to have been discarded in this recent incident.



Well said.

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 10:05 AM
I am discussing the problems that I see with CFL at RPFs (among other places :eek:).

I'm researching the CFL top staffers, as well as the candidates in the Colorado race, as well as Buck's prosecutorial record, trying to find answers to why this ad fiasco happened...since CFL is refusing to answer the questions being asked.

I realize some are desperate to silence these discussions.

I will not be silenced.


You should format your questions in "Survey" format and send them to everyone whose information you find :p

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:07 AM
You should format your questions in "Survey" format and send them to everyone whose information you find :p

should it be a 'yes or no' survey?

lol...

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 10:09 AM
Well, we can always award the person who answers the most questions correctly with a prize. I hear there's an awesome new book out.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:11 AM
Good GOD, woman. Find a post where i say I think anyone else should leave the C4L.
Interesting that you have self-labeled as one of the ones I was talking about.


How have they gotten better by leaps and bounds? I distinctly remember a thread from over a year ago where some of these same issues were raised. And this was WELL before the ad "flub-up".
There may well have been. There were also threads 2 years ago that Ron was going to fail in his presidential bid. Maybe we should've listened to them and thrown in the towel then and not wasted our time. There are also threads on here that say we stand no chance whatsoever in reclaiming our republic and a multitude of other similar things. Maybe we should heed that warning and just give up? What do you think?

You know, it's really easy to step up and say an organization is going to fail, or any effort for that matter -- presidential campaigns, or say, even things like marriages. Oftentimes, when one takes that position early on, they spend their time trying to get others to bail and if it does end up failing, they can sit back and say I told you so. What's hard is to step up and work to make something successful. Regardless of what that something is.

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 10:12 AM
I do not think the select few will be able to succeed in their goal, no. But, make no mistake, it IS their goal.
This is a technique of group control, where one segment of the group frame others within the group as "trouble makers", attempting to put the "trouble makers" on the defensive and turn the rest of the group against them.

You will find more information about this by searching on Delphi Technique, which was formalized by academics at the University of Michigan for the Department of Education in an effort to manipulate PTA's, teacher associations, school boards and community leaders.

This is similar to calling people "denialists" who question the facts and logic behind Global Warming.

So, now, people who are fighting for transparency, a continued and unchanged message, and a more responsive representative institution are going to be branded "trouble makers". They then will be isolated from the rest of the group, and ultimately ousted so that the group can continue with less critical self-analysis.

This is extremely troubling behavior, as people are typically trained in the Delphi Technique by experienced handlers.

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 10:14 AM
Interesting that you have self-labeled as one of the ones I was talking about.
It is even more interesting that your are attempting to separate the group.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:14 AM
I realize some are desperate to silence these discussions.

I will not be silenced.

You keep saying that, but no one is trying to silence you. I do question your professionalism, amongst other things, when you don't stop to verify your facts and the innuendos you make about them, before you post them on the open board.

But, sooner or later, I'm hoping that people with the eyes to see, will figure out the alternate agendas being played.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 10:15 AM
Here is where I will depart from LLS, who has been fighting a good and needed fight here. I request that people go back and read the telephone conversation between Michael & Ron. I was terribly disappointed with Ron's response. In fact, it didn't even sound like the guy that i've been paying attention to for almost 20 years.

It's not about trust Ron, and it is not about you or the C4L, you know that. It is about ethics, integrity, honesty and the message, and all of these things have been shown to have been discarded in this recent incident. Instead of crying out for sympathy, you should be cracking the whip and getting that organization and the people that "run" it back in line with the fundamental values that you were articulating during the Presidential campaign. Instead, the grassroots get the finger pointed at.... we don't understand politics, we gotta play along, we reacted to harshly. What's going on?

<<snip>>


Good point IP, move along folks, nothing going on here, go back to what you were doing......most everyone seems to have decided that the explainations given covered everything and there's nothing wrong with anything anymore, or at best, we'll just watch them--I'm one who has said repeatedly that I'll keep watching.

We don't run the C4L, the board runs the C4L (national) and it's obvious that only when we speak up loud enough, forcefully enough, do they pay attention to us. So, maybe we'll have to ramp up the pressure to get the questions answered that have been floating around the forum the last few days? I hope we don't have to do that.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:15 AM
It is even more interesting that your are attempting to separate the group.

Define "the group"?

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm quite sure that ample numbers see the alternate agenda being played here....at RONPAULFORUMS AKA LIBERTY FOREST.

CFL forum is >>>>> thataway.

:p

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:17 AM
So, maybe we'll have to ramp up the pressure to get the questions answered that have been floating around the forum the last few days? I hope we don't have to do that.

How about starting with sending them to them. :confused:

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:18 AM
Well, we can always award the person who answers the most questions correctly with a prize. I hear there's an awesome new book out.

you cracked me up!

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 10:18 AM
Has anyone else noticed that when a thread devolves to finger-pointing and such, the ads turn to Obama and "online education" ads?

Just an observation.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:19 AM
I'm quite sure that ample numbers see the alternate agenda being played here....at RONPAULFORUMS AKA LIBERTY FOREST.

CFL forum is >>>>> thataway.

:p

Talking about dividing. I find it quite interesting that you are trying to make it seem like C4L and any of its members are on a different side than the members at RPFs.

What if someone is a member of both, MsD. Are you going to permaban them?

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:20 AM
This is extremely troubling behavior, as people are typically trained in the Delphi Technique by experienced handlers.

Any idea if these techniques are part of the training by the Leadership Institute?

rancher89
02-03-2010, 10:21 AM
How about starting with sending them to them. :confused:

All of the questions we've posed here have been posted on the C4L forum which is read by someone at C4L. It is the interface between the grassroots and between the grassroots and the C4L. Good point though, I'll make sure I go there again today and repost the basic questions again.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 10:21 AM
Interesting that you have self-labeled as one of the ones I was talking about.


There may well have been. There were also threads 2 years ago that Ron was going to fail in his presidential bid. Maybe we should've listened to them and thrown in the towel then and not wasted our time. There are also threads on here that say we stand no chance whatsoever in reclaiming our republic and a multitude of other similar things. Maybe we should heed that warning and just give up? What do you think?

You know, it's really easy to step up and say an organization is going to fail, or any effort for that matter -- presidential campaigns, or say, even things like marriages. Oftentimes, when one takes that position early on, they spend their time trying to get others to bail and if it does end up failing, they can sit back and say I told you so. What's hard is to step up and work to make something successful. Regardless of what that something is.
You've been attacking me and my posts, chasing me around the forum for MONTHS.

If you recall, as others have, I was one of the biggest cheerleaders of C4L when we first got started. I looked past concerns that came up long ago, instead putting my nose to the ground here in VT and stepping up as a leader here. I challenge you to call ANYONE on the ground in VT, be it in the GOP, the VT C4L or the tea party movement and ask them if I have ever wavered in my passion for VT C4L.

In June I was worried about GOP/neo-con infiltration because I had evidence from an RLC-VT message board. Since that time my radar has been fine tuned to this sort of thing. It's not a matter of trying to make anything happen or rooting for C4L's demise. It's a recognition of a pattern.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:22 AM
What if someone is a member of both, MsD. Are you going to permaban them?

Only if they can't follow our guidelines. And as always, with a note to Josh and Bryan in the mod queue so they can determine the duration of the ban. :)

rancher89
02-03-2010, 10:24 AM
Any idea if these techniques are part of the training by the Leadership Institute?

It is a well known technique, the JBS has a lot of good material on it and how to use it to your advantage when being used against you.

I have no idea if the Leadership Institute "trains" people in how to use it. We did practice at it some in our meetup, since we had it used against us at a gop meeting. We were able to diffuse it the next time.

constituent
02-03-2010, 10:27 AM
You know, it's really easy to step up and say an organization is going to fail, or any effort for that matter -- presidential campaigns, or say, even things like marriages. Oftentimes, when one takes that position early on, they spend their time trying to get others to bail and if it does end up failing, they can sit back and say I told you so. What's hard is to step up and work to make something successful. Regardless of what that something is.

Seriously, that was deep. A very lucid comment, a life lesson. Enjoyed, thanks.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 10:29 AM
You keep saying that, but no one is trying to silence you. I do question your professionalism, amongst other things, when you don't stop to verify your facts and the innuendos you make about them, before you post them on the open board.

But, sooner or later, I'm hoping that people with the eyes to see, will figure out the alternate agendas being played.


Talking about dividing. I find it quite interesting that you are trying to make it seem like C4L and any of its members are on a different side than the members at RPFs.

What if someone is a member of both, MsD. Are you going to permaban them?

Enough already, LE. You have clearly shown where your allegiance is and it does not lie with the grassroots who feel betrayed and used by the national.


Don't you care about the financials? Why would Benton say the 990's were available yet when I called yesterday no one knew where to find it? Why is Debbie still stalling? Benton made it sound like the info was readily available and yet that does not seem to be the case. More waiting. And now they're not answering the phone at national.

I'm on hold with the IRS right now.

constituent
02-03-2010, 10:31 AM
What if someone is a member of both, MsD. Are you going to permaban them?

Oh c'mon now, let's not even play that card.

Everyone knows that the only sites people get perma-banned for being members of around here are somethingawful, stormfront and mises. ;) :) :D

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 10:32 AM
Interesting that you have self-labeled as one of the ones I was talking about.


There may well have been. There were also threads 2 years ago that Ron was going to fail in his presidential bid. Maybe we should've listened to them and thrown in the towel then and not wasted our time. There are also threads on here that say we stand no chance whatsoever in reclaiming our republic and a multitude of other similar things. Maybe we should heed that warning and just give up? What do you think?

You know, it's really easy to step up and say an organization is going to fail, or any effort for that matter -- presidential campaigns, or say, even things like marriages. Oftentimes, when one takes that position early on, they spend their time trying to get others to bail and if it does end up failing, they can sit back and say I told you so. What's hard is to step up and work to make something successful. Regardless of what that something is.

And sometimes people "try to make it work" long after they should have stopped. Is this the case here? It doesn't seem like it to me, but to some others, it might be. You can work your butt off at something, and life doesn't always reward you.

Mmph. Sorry. We all stepped off into philosophical areas all of a sudden. :p

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:33 AM
Oh c'mon now, let's not even play that card.

Everyone knows that the only sites people get perma-banned for being members of around here are somethingawful, stormfront and mises. ;) :) :D

bwa hahahahahaha!

rancher89
02-03-2010, 10:35 AM
Hmmmm, is it possible for me to get in trouble here for some of the facebook groups I belong to??? :D:p:)

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:47 AM
This is extremely troubling behavior, as people are typically trained in the Delphi Technique by experienced handlers.

Yes, you found me out, IP. I'm controlled opposition. :rolleyes: Just like you stated Collins was the other day on this forum. You are not alone, apparently, as you are joined by several others:

http://wwws.forummotion.com/chatter-f17/

rancher89
02-03-2010, 10:50 AM
Yes, you found me out, IP. I'm controlled opposition. :rolleyes: Just like you stated Collins was the other day on this forum. You are not alone, apparently, as you are joined by several others:

http://wwws.forummotion.com/chatter-f17/

Uh, that's a wild site......I'll pass it on to my husband, he'll be right at home....:eek:

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 10:50 AM
You keep saying that, but no one is trying to silence you. I do question your professionalism, amongst other things, when you don't stop to verify your facts and the innuendos you make about them, before you post them on the open board.

But, sooner or later, I'm hoping that people with the eyes to see, will figure out the alternate agendas being played.
This is such ugly behavior that is must be called out and addressed.

The message that is being sent is this. I am smarter than most others on the forum, and because I am smarter I can see that LLS is a trouble maker and has a hidden agenda that only I can see, alluding to the fact that this hidden agenda must be negative or detrimental to the group. But don't worry, as I am such a responsible person, I am not going to call you out in public, I'll let the sheeple here figure it out on their own. And in due course they will all come to the same conclusion that I have come to and LLS will be excommunicated from the group.

If you have something that you want to address about a poster, then either bring it out in the open in a responsible and respectful manner and let hear it out and debate it, or don't say anything as all. This is planting the seed of dissension here and it is an incredibly destructive action and again, it is something that is taught in the Delphi Technique: Signaling out individuals who don't comply with group action, or at least group action desired by the person who is doing the attacking.

I'm disgusted by these obvious manipulation techniques. Stop them now.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:57 AM
All of the questions we've posed here have been posted on the C4L forum which is read by someone at C4L. It is the interface between the grassroots and between the grassroots and the C4L. Good point though, I'll make sure I go there again today and repost the basic questions again.

From the looks of it, that forum is not moderated at all. Up to you, but if you want a person to actually see what you wrote, you might consider an email.

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 11:00 AM
Yes, you found me out, IP. I'm controlled opposition. :rolleyes: Just like you stated Collins was the other day on this forum. You are not alone, apparently, as you are joined by several others:

http://wwws.forummotion.com/chatter-f17/
Thanks for the plug! That really is an incredible web site. More people here ought to check it out.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:00 AM
I'm disgusted by these obvious manipulation techniques. Stop them now.

You, of all people, do not believe in hidden agendas. Or so you say. So, what's wrong with showing what you and a few others have said about these forums?

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:03 AM
Hmmmm, is it possible for me to get in trouble here for some of the facebook groups I belong to??? :D:p:)

No.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:08 AM
This is such ugly behavior that is must be called out and addressed.

The message that is being sent is this. I am smarter than most others on the forum, and because I am smarter I can see that LLS is a trouble maker and has a hidden agenda that only I can see, alluding to the fact that this hidden agenda must be negative or detrimental to the group. But don't worry, as I am such a responsible person, I am not going to call you out in public, I'll let the sheeple here figure it out on their own. And in due course they will all come to the same conclusion that I have come to and LLS will be excommunicated from the group.

If you have something that you want to address about a poster, then either bring it out in the open in a responsible and respectful manner and let hear it out and debate it, or don't say anything as all. This is planting the seed of dissension here and it is an incredibly destructive action and again, it is something that is taught in the Delphi Technique: Signaling out individuals who don't comply with group action, or at least group action desired by the person who is doing the attacking.

I'm disgusted by these obvious manipulation techniques. Stop them now.

Actually, IP, I was responding to MsDoodahs; not LLS.

:)

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:11 AM
And sometimes people "try to make it work" long after they should have stopped. Is this the case here? It doesn't seem like it to me, but to some others, it might be. You can work your butt off at something, and life doesn't always reward you.

Mmph. Sorry. We all stepped off into philosophical areas all of a sudden. :p

Sure. It may well be. Not a thing wrong with that, either. What I find rather disgusting is the effort to bring C4L completely down. And also the reality that some of the innuendos and half-truths that are being slung around, were not even fact-checked in any way, before they were posted here as facts and used to try to lead people to certain conclusions.

Last time I looked, Debbie Hopper from C4L was trying to get LLS to answer her on that in the $350K thread. At last check, she had asked twice with no response from LLS.

InterestedParticipant
02-03-2010, 11:15 AM
You, of all people, do not believe in hidden agendas. Or so you say. So, what's wrong with showing what you and a few others have said about these forums?
I welcome the opportunity to speak freely. However, I am under the constant fear of being banned, or of having the post relegated to a forum that no one will ever see or read. On the other hand, you do not have these fear as you are a moderator.

Hence, I am under real constraints here that you are not under. I cannot freely speak my mind, at least not here. You, on the other hand, should be able to freely speak your mind, unless there are constraints that I am unaware of.

But if you want to post what I have written, whether it be here or elsewhere, that is your prerogative. I am quite confident, that if given ample time, and the right environment (ie an environment where reasonable, rational and adult conversation can take place), then I can make an extremely strong case for any statement that I've made.

However, my concern here is that what I have said elsewhere will be used as a weapon against me, for I will not be given the appropriate time and environment to state my case. Further, my concern is that this is precisely your plan, namely. to combine what I have said elsewhere with a hostile environment here, such that proper explanation of my points is simply not possible, and therefore the only outcome is banning of me.

Actually, I think it would be far more productive for you to join the discussion at the link that you had posted. I can guarantee you that you will not be banned, that your posts will not be moved to a private area behind a login screen, and that you will always be treated with the utmost respect and be given every opportunity to explain yourself without attack. I am guaranteeing all of that publicly, and I can deliver on these guarantees.

So, whattya say?

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:25 AM
Enough already, LE. You have clearly shown where your allegiance is and it does not lie with the grassroots who feel betrayed and used by the national.
My allegiance is to liberty and my republic.

I don't like it when people slander others with half-truths and innuendos. It is simply WRONG. I don't like it when people have alternative agendas and go to town executing them when a prime opportunity arises.

Hold C4L accountable for what they deserve to be held accountable for. No more; no less.


Don't you care about the financials?
Sure, I'd like to see them. I REALLY wanted to see them at the beginning, but as this whole thing has unfurled, I personally am not very concerned about this aspect now. I certainly do understand if others want to see them though.


Why would Benton say the 990's were available yet when I called yesterday no one knew where to find it?

Have you ever worked in a business? People usually only know about their own areas. If someone would have called me and asked me for any of the corporate financial data, I would have had to refer them to another department.


Why is Debbie still stalling?
Debbie stalling? At last check, it was YOU who was stalling, LLS. She asked you twice if you fact-checked anything that you found on the internet before presenting it here on this board as fact. Have you answered her yet? re: the $350K thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2526357&postcount=118).


Benton made it sound like the info was readily available and yet that does not seem to be the case. More waiting. And now they're not answering the phone at national.
More likely, the people you talked to had no idea. But, they should have told you they'd find out and get back to you, or something similar. Did they do that?


I'm on hold with the IRS right now.
:rolleyes:

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 11:33 AM
The IRS only has two songs on their hold rotation, and they both play at insane volumes/distortions :( I've hated "Waltz of the Flowers" ever since the first time I experienced it twenty times over while waiting for a representative.

pacelli
02-03-2010, 02:04 PM
Only if they can't follow our guidelines. And as always, with a note to Josh and Bryan in the mod queue so they can determine the duration of the ban. :)

You mean this little forum actually has a checks & balances system!? :D No wonder we keep coming back !!

Matt Collins
02-03-2010, 02:14 PM
Yes, you found me out, IP. I'm controlled opposition. :rolleyes: Just like you stated Collins was the other day on this forum. You are not alone, apparently, as you are joined by several others:

http://wwws.forummotion.com/chatter-f17/ (http://wwws.forummotion.com/chatter-f17/)
Wow that site is full of ignorant irrelevant insecure imbeciles looking for a conspiracy under every rock :rolleyes:




.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 02:19 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229633

I started a thread for questions for the C4L. I intend to post these on the C4L forum and to send them to the C4L board's inboxes til we get some answers.

No witch hunts, no personal attacks, just questions that need asking.

MelissaWV
02-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Wow that site is full of ignorant irrelevant insecure imbeciles looking for a conspiracy under every rock :rolleyes:




.

Or is the rock itself a conspiracy!!!:eek:

disorderlyvision
02-03-2010, 02:42 PM
Wow that site is full of ignorant irrelevant insecure imbeciles looking for a conspiracy under every rock :rolleyes:




.


you wouldn't be saying that because the specifically called you out would you?