What strategy are you planning to use this time around?

[BigCole]

I ask this because I really hope to hear that you guys have refined your technique for the 2010/2012 Liberty Campaign that will hopefully include RP. I don't think it would be in the best interest to throw snowballs at Sean Hannity, spam meaningless internet polls, flood columnists with letters and things of that nature. Being a former neocon convert myself I would hope that you guys would use a better strategy this time around. I used to be on these boards a long time ago before I was banned for being a "troll" and "MSM disinformation agent." I really do hope this time around you'll be more tolerant of people who were critical of RP in the past, especially when it comes to people like me. Not everyone who supports the war on terror or drugs is a fascist, bloodthirsty, statist neocon. Some of us are just a little misguided and need to be lured in the right way - over time.

Also, Go Medina!

[speciallyblend]

my strategy,vote out neo-con establishment gop candidates. I will vote for Liberty-minded Candidates ,no matter the party!!

[payme_rick]

snowballs with stones inside?...

Dunno, wasn't around for the last one... gunna be my first go 'round...

[dannno]

Nothing wrong with winning polls.. It's something we can easily organize and do in our spare time, and it helps contradict the disinformation given through the polling data companies.

Plus I still have a snow ball in my freezer with Hannity's name on it ;)

I guarantee those things are not what lost the election. What lost the election was the media ignoring Ron Paul and telling everybody that he wasn't going to win. Not enough people were interested enough to consider him because they were told he couldn't win. It's really that simple.

[BigCole]

Nothing wrong with winning polls.. It's something we can easily organize and do in our spare time, and it helps contradict the disinformation given through the polling data companies.

Plus I still have a snow ball in my freezer with Hannity's name on it ;)

I guarantee those things are not what lost the election. What lost the election was the media ignoring Ron Paul and telling everybody that he wasn't going to win. Not enough people were interested enough to consider him because they were told he couldn't win. It's really that simple.

That's not true at all. I was really open to RP in the beginning until I saw some of the people that were supporting him. I said if these loons must be for him then I can't support him at all. I was wrong at the time because it's not his fault who associates with him, but I do think that time spent heckling talking figureheads and spamming internet polls could be better spent campaigning and going door to door.

[Baptist]

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g285/catholiclouisiana/ostrich_head_in_ground_Full.jpg

[payme_rick]

Paul needs to put on a campaign event and broadcast it live in theatres...

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Many people missed the most important part of our strategy.
Without your help, we have already gained control over a fair portion of the GOP. Many of the party stalwarts are even coming our way.
Sorry you missed that.
We still need people to get involved with their local GOP as soon as possible so we can get them moved forward as delegates in 2012.

[BigCole]

Sorry you missed that.


Yeah I missed the 6th place RP got in the Iowa caucus :rolleyes:

Maybe your problem isn't misplaced effort at all, maybe it's arrogance. The liberty movement had some good momentum with the Tea Party deal until Fox News hijacked it.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Actually, I was remarking that many of us have been drafted into positions of leadership since then. What shut us out in '08 was the fact that we had nobody in the leadership roles and the party stalwarts did not take kindly to a hostile takeover.

Instead of pouting after our four or five months of enthusiastic campaigning failed, some of us stuck with it and have become the leadership that will stand up for you the next time a "hostile" takeover is planned.

[jmdrake]

That's not true at all. I was really open to RP in the beginning until I saw some of the people that were supporting him. I said if these loons must be for him then I can't support him at all. I was wrong at the time because it's not his fault who associates with him, but I do think that time spent heckling talking figureheads and spamming internet polls could be better spent campaigning and going door to door.

Well I'll take you at your word and assume you're sincere. Last go round I didn't go to NH so I could throw any snowballs. I did campaign door to door in my neighborhood, attended mega rallies that got slighted on their coverage by the MSM. (Other candidates with a 1/3 of the attendance got more coverage). I made phone calls, someone in our group made a big newspaper ad buy as well as bought a billboard. I also participated in "moneybombs" (a technique that has now been coopted by everyone.) Oh and we put up thousands of signs. What's going on different this round? Well we've got one candidate winning all of the polls this go round in KY. We also one the CPAC straw poll. (Human "spam" I guess). I'm still trying to figure out how we supposedly spammed text message polls. (Do people really think Ron Paul folks ran out and bought extra cell phones just to vote in a poll? :confused: ) If you're serious about wanting to actually help with the effort I can help get you signed up to go door to door or to start making phone calls tomorrow.

[speciallyblend]

Many people missed the most important part of our strategy.
Without your help, we have already gained control over a fair portion of the GOP. Many of the party stalwarts are even coming our way.
Sorry you missed that.
We still need people to get involved with their local GOP as soon as possible so we can get them moved forward as delegates in 2012.

if only lp and cp members would attend the gop meetings and become republicans! if things go right for our local republican primary. we could become a ron paul local gop! depends on who the gop elects for our republican to run for county seat!! if they want to win, they will nominate a ron paul republican. if they want to lose they can elect a gop establishment neo-con. it will be in the interest of the gop in lake county to nominate the ron paul republican!

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Yeah I missed the 6th place RP got in the Iowa caucus :rolleyes:

Maybe your problem isn't misplaced effort at all, maybe it's arrogance. The liberty movement had some good momentum with the Tea Party deal until Fox News hijacked it.

Not sure if you really mean it this way, but your remarks still look like they are meant to derail momentum.

[BigCole]

Without trying to sound like too much of a downer, I don't think the CPAC thing is a huge win, a lot of big name "Conservatives" avoided it because they thought it wasn't very "conservative" anymore, but I digress.

I would love to help out. I live in Alabama now but I will most likely be settled permanently in Texas pretty soon, I am absolutely planning on helping out with Debra Medina's campaign once I get out there. I am also really bummed out by how Glenn Beck treated her on his radio show. I used to like that guy and even went to his "We surround them" event in Melbourne, FL but whatever, a political opportunist is a political opportunist.


Not sure if you really mean it this way, but your remarks still look like they are meant to derail momentum.

And you sound like you're paranoid. It's accusations like yours that got me banned here the last time. I used to be opposed to RP and his platform, that was because I used to be a neocon. I realize now that the most important thing in life is to live it freely and let people live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else. Ending the war on terror, the war on drugs, enforcing property rights and enforcing contracts and really deregulating most of the economy is the way to do that. I want to help, but I'm not going to be a cheerleader, and if there's an area that I think can be improved on I'm going to say something about it, because this time around, I think if we don't get something done our country will collapse in ruin.

[jmdrake]

Without trying to sound like too much of a downer, I don't think the CPAC thing is a huge win, a lot of big name "Conservatives" avoided it because they thought it wasn't very "conservative" anymore, but I digress.

I would love to help out. I live in Alabama now but I will most likely be settled permanently in Texas pretty soon, I am absolutely planning on helping out with Debra Medina's campaign once I get out there. I am also really bummed out by how Glenn Beck treated her on his radio show. I used to like that guy and even went to his "We surround them" event in Melbourne, FL but whatever, a political opportunist is a political opportunist.

Rand's lead in KY is a big deal. So is the Sarah Palin endorsement. Not so much the endorsement itself as the fact that major players realize this movement is a force to be reckoned with. If you live in AL you could head north to KY to help in that race before heading west to Texas. If you want to be part of a "liberty win" your best bet is to help Rand. If you prefer to work for the underdog then buck up and prepare for a long fight. I seriously doubt Medina can be more than a spoiler at this point though. And I liked her to and donated after the Beck incident.

[Inkblots]

That's not true at all. I was really open to RP in the beginning until I saw some of the people that were supporting him. I said if these loons must be for him then I can't support him at all. I was wrong at the time because it's not his fault who associates with him, but I do think that time spent heckling talking figureheads and spamming internet polls could be better spent campaigning and going door to door.

Yeah, this has been a huge problem from the beginning. I was all in for Ron Paul in '07/'08, but as a recovering neocon myself, I was constantly being made uncomfortable by certain segments of the rEVOLution. I know it's all hands to the pumps to save the Republic, but we really, really need to convince the Truthers in the movement to put a lid on it. No amount of reasoned argument seems to change their minds, so we just need to get them to understand that they hurt their own goal of fighting back against the "NWO puppetmasters" by constantly yammering on about, well, the NWO puppetmasters. We've reached a point where they can be "right", or they can be free. I suggest that they take one for the team and give up their hobby for the nonce, in the interest of advancing the cause of freedom.

As to the Stormfront smears, those are easy to counter. Everywhere you see the newsletters brought up, anywhere a GOP establishment type or socialist intimates that Ron Paul is a racist, anytime you see a comment on a blog or article winkingly conflate Dr. Paul with Stormfront, drop this quote on them:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. . .

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."
-Congressman Ron Paul

We quite frankly need to fill the internet with this quote, because it is self-evident that there is no way the author of that quote has a racist bone in his body. Indeed, anyone with even the most casual knowledge of Ron Paul's philosophy will immediately recognize that if he holds collectivism in general to be abhorrent and anti-human, has much more so "ugly" collectivism!

[jmdrake]

And you sound like you're paranoid. It's accusations like yours that got me banned here the last time. I used to be opposed to RP and his platform, that was because I used to be a neocon. I realize now that the most important thing in life is to live it freely and let people live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else. Ending the war on terror, the war on drugs, enforcing property rights and enforcing contracts and really deregulating most of the economy is the way to do that. I want to help, but I'm not going to be a cheerleader, and if there's an area that I think can be improved on I'm going to say something about it, because this time around, I think if we don't get something done our country will collapse in ruin.

Ummmm....Ok. Like I said I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far you haven't really given me much. You've ignored important successes (such as Rand's lead in KY) or even poo-pooed them (the CPAC win) and instead you want to latch on to a campaign that's already pretty much dead this election season (Debra Medina)? Really, I'm not feeling you at the moment.

[pcosmar]

Without trying to sound like too much of a downer,
.
.
.



And you sound like you're paranoid. It's accusations like yours that got me banned here the last time

And it seems you learned little.

For myself I will be promoting those that have positions based on the Constitution and not on political expediency.

I have little hope of winning.
But I will be able to look at myself in the mirror.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, this has been a huge problem from the beginning. I was all in for Ron Paul in '07/'08, but as a recovering neocon myself, I was constantly being made uncomfortable by certain segments of the rEVOLution. I know it's all hands to the pumps to save the Republic, but we really, really need to convince the Truthers in the movement to put a lid on it. No amount of reasoned argument seems to change their minds, so we just need to get them to understand that they hurt their own goal of fighting back against the "NWO puppetmasters" by constantly yammering on about, well, the NWO puppetmasters. We've reached a point where they can be "right", or they can be free. I suggest that they take one for the team and give up their hobby for the nonce, in the interest of advancing the cause of freedom.


We need people like you to quit picking fights with the "truthers". If a thread offends you the click the little triangle symbol that allows you to report the thread and type in "hot topics". Mods will see that and decide to move the thread if it indeed warrants it. But nonsense posts like this one only start back of forth arguments that start flamewars that are the real problem. And for the record, Ron Paul is on the record talking about the "New World Order". Plus the term is now all over mainstream media. Talking about that is no longer a "conspiracy theory".

[dannno]

That's not true at all. I was really open to RP in the beginning until I saw some of the people that were supporting him. I said if these loons must be for him then I can't support him at all. I was wrong at the time because it's not his fault who associates with him, but I do think that time spent heckling talking figureheads and spamming internet polls could be better spent campaigning and going door to door.

Great, but even after you were turned off from him most people still had never heard of him or had any idea what his policies were. You just happened to be in a position to see his supporters acting out to get name recognition and YOU PERSONALLY saw it as a negative thing.

For me, personally, anybody who would have that attitude that because their supporters are trying hard to get people's attention the candidate must be bad, well, that is a ridiculous attitude to have and I blame it on you, not the supporters. You can talk about how much more effective those supporters would have been had they done activity B instead of activity A, but you have no proof of that... You can't reach as many people that way. Plus I'll bet if a supporter came to your door you would have complained about that too and still not been a supporter. So instead of blaming the fact that you didn't support RP on his supporters, you should instead blame it on yourself and work as hard as you can this time to make up for it. If you feel you have a better way of getting more people to support him, great, but don't foil or belittle other people's efforts.

[Inkblots]

you sound like you're paranoid. It's accusations like yours that got me banned here the last time.

Yeah, I've noticed a bit of paranoia here and there from some other users (no offense guys!;)) but it helps to take it with a grain of salt. You and I are both former neocons, but there are people from all over the spectrum here, trying to get along and advance freedom. For example, the Alex Jones types are actually dialing down their paranoia a huge amount when they post here. If you've ever seen the comment thread of an article at Infowars, it's really quite fascinating to note that the same thing happens almost every time: someone advocates the violent overthrow of the government, someone else accuses them of being an agent provocateur from the NWO trying to undermine the movement, someone ELSE accuses THAT person of being a NWO agent trying to keep the people docile and obedient, and on and on.

If the users themselves are to be believed, anywhere from 50-80% of the commenters at infowars are government agents! :rolleyes:

[BigCole]

Ummmm....Ok. Like I said I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far you haven't really given me much. You've ignored important successes (such as Rand's lead in KY) or even poo-pooed them (the CPAC win) and instead you want to latch on to a campaign that's already pretty much dead this election season (Debra Medina)? Really, I'm not feeling you at the moment.

I haven't ignored Rand Paul, I've been lurking these forums for years, I know about him, and I'm glad he's winning.

The CPAC win is not important. Sorry if that offends you, but it's not.

Let me try to put this to you another way. The GOP is made up of many types of people: religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, etc. There are other Republicans besides Ron Paul Republicans, and a good number of them don't pay attention to CPAC anymore. A big reason is because of the inclusion of the gay conservative block. If you read FreeRepublic, you'd see that's a huge reason why they boycotted it. I know a lot of people here are fine with homosexuality, but I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Republicans are not. These are people we're going to have to work on winning over, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

If Rand Paul has a comfortable lead then it only makes sense to focus on Medina's campaign. I'd do everything I can to help her to ensure Rick "Gardasil" Perry and KB Hutchinson don't get elected again. Maybe that's not important to you. It's a huge deal to me.




If the users themselves are to be believed, anywhere from 50-80% of the commenters at infowars are government agents! :rolleyes:

hahahahaha! That's exactly what I'm talking about, I'm glad someone here can relate :p

[speciallyblend]

new world order is something the bushies also coined as well. i do remember a bush saying in his presidential speech. they were going to usher in the new world order!!!

YouTube - New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo)

[Inkblots]

We need people like you to quit picking fights with the "truthers". If a thread offends you the click the little triangle symbol that allows you to report the thread and type in "hot topics". Mods will see that and decide to move the thread if it indeed warrants it. But nonsense posts like this one only start back of forth arguments that start flamewars that are the real problem. And for the record, Ron Paul is on the record talking about the "New World Order". Plus the term is now all over mainstream media. Talking about that is no longer a "conspiracy theory".

Hey, I'm not just kicking anthills for fun here. This is supposed to be a strategy thread, and this is an important strategic point. I've given up on showing the "9/11 Truth Movement" (see? I can be polite) the error of their ways. I'm now simply trying to persuade them to keep quiet about it for 2 years, to help out the Liberty movement. Heck, if by some chance it ends up that they're RIGHT, it will never come out except through the transparent government only a Paul or Johnson administration could deliver.

[BigCole]

Great, but even after you were turned off from him most people still had never heard of him or had any idea what his policies were. You just happened to be in a position to see his supporters acting out to get name recognition and YOU PERSONALLY saw it as a negative thing.

For me, personally, anybody who would have that attitude that because their supporters are trying hard to get people's attention the candidate must be bad, well, that is a ridiculous attitude to have and I blame it on you, not the supporters. You can talk about how much more effective those supporters would have been had they done activity B instead of activity A, but you have no proof of that... You can't reach as many people that way. Plus I'll bet if a supporter came to your door you would have complained about that too and still not been a supporter. So instead of blaming the fact that you didn't support RP on his supporters, you should instead blame it on yourself and work as hard as you can this time to make up for it. If you feel you have a better way of getting more people to support him, great, but don't foil or belittle other people's efforts.

Let's see. I'm a neocon. I'm not a statist, I honestly believe that the War on Terror is a good thing and helps keep me safe. I honestly believe that the War on Drugs doesn't erode my civil liberties because I haven't been exposed to the statistics or figures showing prison spending per capita or unjust prison sentences.

I watch Fox News. I vote Republican. I like Sean Hannity. All of a sudden I see a news report that shows a bunch of people who believe the government knocked the twin towers over and that America caused 9/11 throwing things at Sean Hannity.

Am I ever going to listen to a damn word you people have to say? You lost a potential convert by being jerks, when I might have been inclined to believe you earlier.

[Inkblots]

Am I ever going to listen to a damn word you people have to say? You lost a potential convert by being jerks, when I might have been inclined to believe you earlier.

Friends, I agree with BigCole on this point. What he's saying can be summed up as follows: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

We need to hit hard on the fiscally conservative points that mainline GOP supporters like about us, and then gently, oh so gently, introduce the idea that war is, in fact, also a big government program to them.

[John Taylor]

I haven't ignored Rand Paul, I've been lurking these forums for years, I know about him, and I'm glad he's winning.

The CPAC win is not important. Sorry if that offends you, but it's not.

Let me try to put this to you another way. The GOP is made up of many types of people: religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, etc. There are other Republicans besides Ron Paul Republicans, and a good number of them don't pay attention to CPAC anymore. A big reason is because of the inclusion of the gay conservative block. If you read FreeRepublic, you'd see that's a huge reason why they boycotted it. I know a lot of people here are fine with homosexuality, but I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Republicans are not. These are people we're going to have to work on winning over, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

If Rand Paul has a comfortable lead then it only makes sense to focus on Medina's campaign. I'd do everything I can to help her to ensure Rick "Gardasil" Perry and KB Hutchinson don't get elected again. Maybe that's not important to you. It's a huge deal to me.



hahahahaha! That's exactly what I'm talking about, I'm glad someone here can relate :p

Dude, Medina LOST.

[speciallyblend]

i can handle a truther over a right-winger anyday. any republican that is for the failed war of drugs is NO SMALL GOV REPUBLICAN. you would of thought they would of learned thru alcohol prohibition. i find right-wingers have damaged the gop brandname and image more then any truther ever could!!! the gop should be very thankful for Ron Paul or i wouldn't be registered republican or thinking of voting for any republican.

beck folks are even worse then some truthers!!!

[pcosmar]

Am I ever going to listen to a damn word you people have to say? You lost a potential convert by being jerks, when I might have been inclined to believe you earlier.

Back Off
You came here looking to stir shit and start a fight .
Success.
If you want to learn, read, educate yourself. Then come back and discuss.
And lose the freakin' attitude.
:cool:

[BigCole]

Dude, Medina LOST.

Is she not planning an independent party run?

[pcosmar]

Friends, I agree with BigCole on this point. What he's saying can be summed up as follows: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

We need to hit hard on the fiscally conservative points that mainline GOP supporters like about us, and then gently, oh so gently, introduce the idea that war is, in fact, also a big government program to them.

I catch flies with flypaper. :p

[Inkblots]

Back Off
You came here looking to stir shit and start a fight .
Success.
If you want to learn, read, educate yourself. Then come back and discuss.
And lose the freakin' attitude.
:cool:

Uh, pcosmar, I think he was speaking in persona neocon there. He was acting out the reaction the tactics he was criticizing elicit from a mainline Republican for illustrative purposes, he's not actually trying to pick a fight. :D

[BigCole]

Back Off
You came here looking to stir shit and start a fight .
Success.
If you want to learn, read, educate yourself. Then come back and discuss.
And lose the freakin' attitude.
:cool:

I rest my case.

[John Taylor]

Is she not planning an independent party run?

No, she's not.

[speciallyblend]

Is she not planning an independent party run?

she should:) the gop establishment blew it on purpose!! the texas gop deserves exactly what they get big gov gop!!! they voted for it!!

[BigCole]

No, she's not.

Well that's a shame then. We're never going to fix any problems as long as this two-party monopoly continues to exist.

[speciallyblend]

Well that's a shame then. We're never going to fix any problems as long as this two-party monopoly continues to exist.

well we have a chance to elect a ron paul republican and beat the dems for the first time for a county seat in lake county,but if the gop doesn't nominate this guy. then the gop will lose!!! things are changing at local levels:) 2010 is gonna be very interesting!!!

[pcosmar]

I rest my case.

I still haven't calmed down after that bullshit yesterday. I doubt I ever will.
As far as I am concerned the country I love is dead and gone.It is as much the R's Fault as the D's.
I have equal disgust.
I am done trying to convince the terminally stupid of anything.

I will try to educate the ignorant.
The arrogant ignorant, can go wallow in it.

[Number19]

Is she not planning an independent party run?

No, she's not.JT is correct so far as this year's election. But word has been sent out to save all her campaign signs.If she runs again, it will be as a Republican.

[speciallyblend]

I still haven't calmed down after that bullshit yesterday. I doubt I ever will.
As far as I am concerned the country I love is dead and gone.It is as much the R's Fault as the D's.
I have equal disgust.
I am done trying to convince the terminally stupid of anything.

I will try to educate the ignorant.
The arrogant ignorant, can go wallow in it.

i hear you. i kinda feel the sameway. i feel like joining the gop was like climbing into the septic tank. alot of crap to clean up in the failed gop!!

[Southron]

I plan on setting up an altar and worshiping the State.

Seriously, don't worry about who else supports Ron Paul. Consider the candidates based on their beliefs,

Eventually you will realize that "they" are the problem and not us.

[pcosmar]

Yeah I missed the 6th place RP got in the Iowa caucus :rolleyes:

Maybe your problem isn't misplaced effort at all, maybe it's arrogance. .



Yeah, I've noticed a bit of paranoia here and there from some other users (no offense guys!;)

:confused:

Ok now I am confused. new members, Old member that was banned (care to give the banned name?) And both playing off each other, while being generally insulting.
I can;'t figure out which is the sock and which is the puppet.

Guess I'll have to keep watching. ;)

[jmdrake]

Hey, I'm not just kicking anthills for fun here. This is supposed to be a strategy thread, and this is an important strategic point. I've given up on showing the "9/11 Truth Movement" (see? I can be polite) the error of their ways. I'm now simply trying to persuade them to keep quiet about it for 2 years, to help out the Liberty movement. Heck, if by some chance it ends up that they're RIGHT, it will never come out except through the transparent government only a Paul or Johnson administration could deliver.

Dude, don't be an idiot. Take a look at the top all of the threads on the front page of general politics. This is the ONLY one mentioning 9/11 truth! Truthers are not the problem. People like you are the problem! You stir stuff up and then try to blame the people you attack. You're a troll. Simple as that. And I could care less if you were paid by the Pentagon (probably not), just sitting in your mom's garage having fun, or if you are sincere in your efforts but just misguided. I gave you the proper procedure for handling truther threads. Use it and get off your high horse. Ron Paul had a truther speak at the rally for the republic (Jesse Ventura) and a non truther MC the event (Tucker Carlson). That should have settled the issue for good! Everybody is welcome! Deal with it!

[Inkblots]

I can;'t figure out which is the sock and which is the puppet.

That's not a very nice thing to say, pcosmar. And I thought we were having such a nice talk about the distinction between coercive and non-coercive insurance requirements in that other thread earlier today :(

Hey, and where have I been insulting? Would you deny that there are some members here who act a bit paranoid from time to time? I'm not trying to slander anyone, just giving my honest opinion.



I am done trying to convince the terminally stupid of anything.
I will try to educate the ignorant.
The arrogant ignorant, can go wallow in it.

And in my honest opinion, that's not the way to grow the Liberty movement. Most people who aren't moderates must by definition have some confidence in their convictions. They may be wrong, but they think that they're right. An aggressive, full-frontal assault on their core beliefs, whether in a blog comment thread or in person at your local township meeting, is not the way to go. That won't change any minds, rather, it will make them dig in deeper. Like I said upthread, the key to the hearts of mainstream Repubs is to gently and persuasively help them to see overseas military spending as just another Big Government boondoggle.

You can even play to their prejudices and frame it as a national security issue. Ask them which is a greater threat to America's long-term security: a Pashtun tribesman with an IED or owing nuclear-armed China $600 billion and counting.

[jmdrake]

I haven't ignored Rand Paul, I've been lurking these forums for years, I know about him, and I'm glad he's winning.

The CPAC win is not important. Sorry if that offends you, but it's not.


Offended? Not hardly. I'm just curious as to why you think a win which got us immediate national press is "not important" but some mythical 3rd party challenge in the Texas gubernatorial race which wouldn't stand a prayer if Medina is even willing to do it (and I haven't seen any indication that she is) should be the focus. As for ignoring Rand you did in this thread until I brought him up multiple times. And last point, if you really want to make a difference in 2010 are you interested in going to KY? Like I said, I can get you signed up. In fact you don't have to go through me. Just go to the Rand subforum here and ask how you can help. It's easy to sit back and snipe about what you didn't like in 2008 and what you don't think is "important" in 2010. It's much harder to put your money where your mouth is and actually do something that has a shot at making a difference.



Let me try to put this to you another way. The GOP is made up of many types of people: religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, etc. There are other Republicans besides Ron Paul Republicans, and a good number of them don't pay attention to CPAC anymore. A big reason is because of the inclusion of the gay conservative block. If you read FreeRepublic, you'd see that's a huge reason why they boycotted it. I know a lot of people here are fine with homosexuality, but I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Republicans are not. These are people we're going to have to work on winning over, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.


Who said anything about dismissing "them"? There were a lot of conservative republicans that went to CPAC anyway. The John Birch society ain't exactly liberal. But if you want to dismiss those who went to CPAC just because some FreeRepublic members boycotted why don't you help with the SRLC effort? That is if you really care about helping.



If Rand Paul has a comfortable lead then it only makes sense to focus on Medina's campaign. I'd do everything I can to help her to ensure Rick "Gardasil" Perry and KB Hutchinson don't get elected again. Maybe that's not important to you. It's a huge deal to me.


Cause a third governor race in Texas has about as much chance as frosty the snowman in July in Alabama. And if you want to work for candidates who are behind but have somewhat of a shot you Chuck DeVore, John Dennis, Adam Kokesh, BJ Lawson, RJ Harris, Glenn Bradley and a host of other candidates who still have (winnable in my opinion) primary races. Seeing Nancy Pelosi defeated is as important to me as seeing Rick Perry defeated. The only difference is that there's a (slim) shot at beating Pelosi. And Rand isn't totally out of the woods yet.

[Inkblots]

Dude, don't be an idiot. Take a look at the top all of the threads on the front page of general politics. This is the ONLY one mentioning 9/11 truth! Truthers are not the problem. People like you are the problem! You stir stuff up and then try to blame the people you attack. You're a troll. Simple as that. And I could care less if you were paid by the Pentagon (probably not), just sitting in your mom's garage having fun, or if you are sincere in your efforts but just misguided. I gave you the proper procedure for handling truther threads. Use it and get off your high horse. Ron Paul had a truther speak at the rally for the republic (Jesse Ventura) and a non truther MC the event (Tucker Carlson). That should have settled the issue for good! Everybody is welcome! Deal with it!

No need to be a grump, sir. The only one getting upset here is you.

I'm not talking about this forum in particular (although, incidentally, thank you for pointing out the procedure for dealing with inappropriate threads; I was unaware of it). Neither did I propose a Buckleyite-style purge of Jesse Ventura and his fellow conspiracy theorists from the Liberty movement. What I said, in this, a thread about electoral strategy (really! look at the thread title), was that it would be to our electoral benefit this time around to convince those segments of the movement (I specifically cited 9/11 truthers, but there are others) that hold beliefs that are viewed as irrational or fringe by the mass media and wider population, and that are in no way core to the message of Freedom and truly limited government, to, for the good of the movement and nation, to stop noisily advertising their pet issues and USING Dr. Paul for the purpose of self-publicity.

When they associate their hobby horses with the message of Liberty, they give neocons, liberals, and others an easy smear to use against us. The MSM can quickly associate the ancillary beliefs of some groups of supporters with Dr. Paul, Debra Medina, or other Liberty candidates - if we let them. But by continuing to bang on about fringe issues and conspiracy theories (AGAIN: not necessarily here on RPF, but out in the world at large), truthers and others selfishly sacrifice our electoral success to snatch up media coverage. I am asking them, in the nicest possible way, to be considerate and quiet down through the next election cycle (as I put it upthread, birthers, truthers, and other conspiracy theorists need to ask themselves at this moment: would they rather be right, or would they rather be free).

Now, this is a strategy thread, my friend. You are free to disagree with this strategy; and if you do, I want to know your reasons why. But to resort to calling someone you disagree with a troll and an idiot is beneath what i would expect from you, a senior member of these forums.

[pcosmar]

That's not a very nice thing to say, pcosmar.

I'm not nice. ask anyone.
I'm angry.

Now, this is a strategy thread, my friend.
Strategy? Started by an admittedly banned member.

I too smell a troll.

I am also a hunter.
and not entirely dim. :p

[jmdrake]

No need to be a grump, sir. The only one getting upset here is you.


That's because I know where these things lead.



I'm not talking about this forum in particular (although, incidentally, thank you for pointing out the procedure for dealing with inappropriate threads; I was unaware of it). Neither did I propose a Buckleyite-style purge of Jesse Ventura and his fellow conspiracy theorists from the Liberty movement. What I said, in this, a thread about electoral strategy (really! look at the thread title), was that it would be to our electoral benefit this time around to convince those segments of the movement (I specifically cited 9/11 truthers, but there are others) that hold beliefs that are viewed as irrational of fringe by the mass media and wider population, and that in no way core to the message of Freedom and truly limited government, to, for the good of the movement and nation, to stop noisy advertising their pet issues and USING Dr. Paul for the purpose of self-publicity.


Except that never happened. Ron Paul went on truther radio shows to promote his message and not the other way around. And Ron Paul was attacked for being a truther because of statements Ron Paul made on such shows and statements he made on the floor of the house! Further you want put down people who talk about the NWO? Well Ron Paul is one of those people! No he hasn't endorsed any version of 9/11 (including the official version which he recently said lacked evidence), but he's certainly spoken against what he identified as the New World Order and against plans some have dismissed as "conspiracy theory" such as the North American Union and the Amero. I've watched myriads of Ron Paul rallies on youtube. I never see 9/11 truth signs. I've watched myriads of 9/11 truther rallies on youtube. I never see Ron Paul signs. But because truthers have the audacity to hope that a Ron Paul victory would be a good thing bullies like you want to stir stuff up when truthers by in large obey the "rules". Most truther threads here get started in hot topics. Those that don't quickly get moved and usually truthers don't even complain. But that's not good enough for you is it? And of course you aren't calling for a "purge" because you lack the power to do so. Instead you would just rather have it so that everyone, including truthers, pretend they don't exist. Well that's not the position Ron Paul took at the Rally for the Republic. He gave a prime speaking spot to a known truther.

Now if you want to talk strategy then bear this in mind. The best strategy to not have divisive arguments about 9/11 truth on the main page is not to start divisive arguments about 9/11 truth on the main page! If you don't get this then you've failed political strategy 101. You've also failed psychology 101. I tell you what. I want you to spend the next 30 seconds trying not to think about a pink elephant and see what happens. If you understand why that doesn't work then you'll understand why your strategy is a failure. (Unless your strategy is just to be a troll.)

The truth is that neither you nor the OP have actually discussed any "strategy". It's all been a steady stream of attacks on one group of Ron Paul supporters after the other coupled in with a few snide remarks of what we "should have done last time" without taking the time to find out if we actually had done that already. The best the OP can come up with is go campaign for someone who's already lost. I've given him suggestions of things he can actually do to help in this election cycle. If you need something positive to do I can point you in the right direction too. Picking fights with forum members is not a positive thing to do whether you believe it or not. Its actually a selfish thing to do on your part.

[jmdrake]

I'm not nice. ask anyone.
I'm angry.

Strategy? Started by an admittedly banned member.

I too smell a troll.

I am also a hunter.
and not entirely dim. :p

http://www.nailandhammer.net/Images/nailhammerlogo.jpg

[Inkblots]

I've watched myriads of Ron Paul rallies on youtube. I never see 9/11 truth signs. I've watched myriads of 9/11 truther rallies on youtube. I never see Ron Paul signs.

Well, I have obviously had a rather different experience from you. Listen, I was a delegate for Ron Paul to the Missouri State Republican convention in '08 (before I moved out to California). Dr. Paul kindly came to Branson to rally his delegates and supporters the night before the convention. It was a wonderful rally, full of passion for limited constitutional government. But you know what? There was a group of Truthers there, and yes, they had signs. And guess where the local TV news cameras were pointed? Yep, right at 'em. That line I like to use, about being right, or being free? I got that that evening from another delegate, a man I greatly respect who is prominent in the St. Louis-area C4L, and who has been a Ron Paul supporter since the 80s. Those people were being selfish. I'm merely asking that we all, if we see such a thing, or know anyone who might be inclined to do such a thing (apparently you haven't, so I guess you don't need to do anything) kindly discourage them from continuing such activities.

And I already said, I don't want to debate the proximate causes of 9/11 here, I merely want to appeal to anyone who suspects 9/11 was an inside job (or subscrbes to other fringe theories) to self-censor through the 2011/12 primary campaign, and anyone who encounters conspiracy theorists to polite pose them the right vs. free conundrum.

As to your insinuation that Dr. Paul is a conspiracy theorist, his opposition to the trans-Texas corridor is a straight-forward policy position, and there is nothing kooky about stating that an eventual move to make NAFTA into a North American Union has recent historical precedent, and must be resisted; after all, in our own lifetimes we have witnessed the EEC transform into the EU. Similarly, his recent suggestion of Fed malfeasance in dealing with Iraq in the 80s is well-supported, and is merely another among the myriad justifications for a full Fed audit. To conflate such serious concerns with the purely specious speculations of conspiracy hobbyists is plain silly.

[jmdrake]

Well, I have obviously had a rather different experience from you. Listen, I was a delegate for Ron Paul to the Missouri State Republican convention in '08 (before I moved out to California). Dr. Paul kindly came to Branson to rally his delegates and supporters the night before the convention. It was a wonderful rally, full of passion for limited constitutional government. But you know what? There was a group of Truthers there, and yes, they had signs. And guess where the local TV cameras were pointed? Yep, right at 'em. That line I like to use, about being right, or being free? I got that that evening from another delegate, a man I greatly respect who is prominent in the St. Louis-area C4L, and who has been a Ron Paul supporter since the 80s. Those people were being selfish. I'm merely asking that we all, if we see such a thing, or know anyone who might be inclined to do such a thing (apparently you haven't, so I guess you don't need to do anything) to kindly discourage them from continuing such activities.


I heard early reports of that, but I've never seen it and especially not after Ron Paul's public denial of 9/11. Again, thousands of youtubes, no signs. With all of the media smear campaigns against Ron Paul there would have been more TV coverage of that if it was as prevalent as you think. I personally know truthers who don't even put anything about 9/11 on their bumpers so that they can only promote Ron Paul. Truthers on the whole have sacrificed much more than they've "gained" from the Ron Paul movement.



And I already said, I don't want to debate the proximate causes of 9/11 here, I merely want to appeal to anyone who suspects 9/11 was an inside job (or subscrbes to other fringe theories) to self-censor through the 2011/12 primary campaign, and anyone who encounters conspiracy theorists to polite pose them the right vs. free conundrum.


And I already told you the proper way to self censor. And if you keep this up this thread itself will need to be moved to hot topics.



As to your insinuation that Dr. Paul is a conspiracy theorist, his opposition to the trans-Texas corridor is a straight-forward policy position, and there is nothing kooky about stating that an eventual move to make NAFTA into a North American Union is a simple exercise in historical projectionism;


My insinuation? You are the one who insinuated that anyone talking about the New World Order was a conspiracy theorist!

Here's Ron Paul talking about the New World Order.

YouTube - Ron Paul Bashes the New World Order at Rally in Nashville TN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDXHbgpoI80)

And here's what the "mainstream" media and "mainstream" politicians have to say about the North American Union.

YouTube - Barack Obama Caught Lying About The CFR & North American Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViPMXcWTCf8)

One man's "proven fact" is another man's "wild conspiracy theory".



To conflate such serious concerns with the purely specious of conspiracy hobbyists is plain silly.

Again, you were the one being "plain silly", although I doubt you'll come back and admit it. For that matter the fact that the Pentagon pays people to spread propaganda on the internet is proven fact, yet in this thread you tried to dismiss that as "conspiracy theory".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/03/report-recruit/

And of course the only way to truly discuss whether anything else is "purely specious" is to put forward the evidence. But that would be to discuss what you think shouldn't actually be discussed. So why bring it up?

[Inkblots]

You know, all this being called "idiot" and "troll" and so on kind of feeds into another point. I know we're all passionate about liberty, and I know the water's rising up past our necks, so things feel pretty urgent, but like I said upthread, "you catch more flies with honey." There are a lot of very soft-spoken and persuasive orators in the Liberty movement, and a lot of kind-hearted activists. But there's also a fair measure of the 'get-in-your-face, throw snowballs at people we disagree with' sort, as well. Now, this is nowise unique to the Liberty movement, lots of socialists and neo-cons do that as well, but we all really need to focus on channeling our anger into passionate and persuasive words, not angry shouts.

Think of the great spokesman for liberty. Can you imagine Thomas Woods shouting and being angry, resorting to ad hominem attacks? Of course not, and that's part of why he's so effective. In the coming election cycle, we should try to meet each insult and affront with meaningful, substantive arguments. That will destroy the media narrative that we're somehow an immature movement (note: young != immature), and the continued sophomoric insults from the neocons and socialists will, in the light of our own reasonable and passionate argumentation, reveal the so-call "serious" thinkers of those movements for the childish charlatans they are.

[jmdrake]

For the record I said "don't be an idiot" as opposed to "you are an idiot". And do you think calling people "selfish" is a way to "catch flies with honey"? A troll is someone that does something seeking a response. Jumping into a thread that has nothing to do with 9/11 and throwing a grenade like "Truthers need to hush up" or "We must talk about 9/11 truth" is a troll whether it was intentional or not. You may not know the original of the internet term "troll" but it has nothing to do with the mythical beings and everything to do with fishing. Anyway the best "soft spoken" advocate for liberty I know is Ron Paul himself. He made everyone feel welcome. I can't imagine him saying something like "This group of my supporters is selfish" or "CPAC isn't important because gays came this year" (paraphrase of comment by OP). At the rally for the republic he made everyone feel welcome. That's the way to go.

[Inkblots]

Here's Ron Paul talking about the New World Order.

jmdrake, an important distinction needs to be made here, so I'm glad you brought this up. I should have been more clear upthread, and for that I apologize. The phrase "new world order" is used to mean widely different things in different contexts. When Ron Paul and George H. W. Bush use the words NWO, they mean entirely different things, and each of them is far removed from what Alex Jones means when he says it.

The meaning of NWO in each case can be easily adduced from the context. In George H. W. Bush's famous speech, he used "new world order" to refer to the new geopolitical order and systems of alliances (expanded NATO and EU membership, the end of Red influence in the Middle East, etc.) arising from the end of the Cold War, collapse of the Soviet Union, and advent of the "monopolar" world. It was indeed an apt phrase: who could possibly have predicted in the '70s that the world would become so reordered than Vietnam would be a major US trading partner. His NWO is a good thing.

In the clip from Dr. Paul, you can clearly tell that by "new world order", he is refering to the entire post-WW 2 international economic and political network of the WTO, the UN, the World Bank, the BIS, International Pharmacopoeia, and the whole panoply of other international quangos with their network of dual international quasi-legislation/comitology mechanisms for concordance and management of affairs between states, that greatly restricts the ability of the US to act as a free and sovereign Republic. His NWO is a bad thing.

To Alex Jones, of course, New World Order means the unspeakable plans of a small but exceedingly power cabal to institute totalitarian world government on us and to round all the free thinkers up and send them to re-education camps. His NWO is a cosmically evil thing.

Do you see the distinction here? Ron Paul may go on Alex Jones' radio show (media time is media time, after all - surely you don't think Ron Paul appearing on MSNBC is an endorsement by him of all Rachel Maddow stands for), but that doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist.

EDIT: well, fine, I don't want to stir up any more controversy. I've had my say, and this post will be my final word on it.

[ARealConservative]

InkBlots - welcome to RPF.

We need lots and lots more like you!

[Inkblots]

Thanks, ARealConservative. This is my first real debate here, but I can tell all the passionate folks here will yield up plenty of stimulating discussion in future, on both policy and strategy. There's a lot to do before 2012!

[jmdrake]

Inkblots, the point I was making about Ron's appearance on the Alex Jones show is the statements that he made. I'm particularly aware of this because syndicated talk show host who's based here locally took one of those statements and used them to attack Ron Paul as a "9/11 truther". It wouldn't have mattered if Ron Paul had made the statement on the Rachel Maddow Show or the Glenn Beck show or your show. It was the statement he later repeated on the House floor about there being danger of a "Gulf of Tonkin" type event to get us into war with Iran. That particular host later had Ron on his show and we all contacted the host ahead of time, truther and non truther alike, to demand he treat Ron fair. He gave Ron a chance to explain himself and Ron distanced himself from 9/11 truth and everyone was happy (for once).

As for what George H. W. Bush or Ron Paul secretly thinks about the New World Order, you can't know that unless you can read their minds. I do know that Bush's father Prescott Bush was a Nazi and helped fund Hitler's rise to power. That's not "conspiracy theory". That's documented fact. Also documented is the fact that a coup he was involved in against the government of the U.S. was covered up to keep the American people from losing faith in the banking sector.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not such actions were "evil". I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not George H.W. Bush is naive enough to think that the New World Order is "good" when his own dad almost helped usher in a New World Order that most would agree is "evil". I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not these plotter would have rounded Americans up into camps the same way dissenters were rounded up into camps western Europe under the control of the Nazis and Fascists which the American plotters supported. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not this same group that almost carried out this plot and managed to escape with their lives and much of their fortunes intact is still around and might try to do something like that again. I think that evil does exist in this world. And I believe the Bible is true when it says that it exists in "high places". I leave it to you to decide if the Bible is true or not.

[speciallyblend]

For the record I said "don't be an idiot" as opposed to "you are an idiot". And do you think calling people "selfish" is a way to "catch flies with honey"? A troll is someone that does something seeking a response. Jumping into a thread that has nothing to do with 9/11 and throwing a grenade like "Truthers need to hush up" or "We must talk about 9/11 truth" is a troll whether it was intentional or not. You may not know the original of the internet term "troll" but it has nothing to do with the mythical beings and everything to do with fishing. Anyway the best "soft spoken" advocate for liberty I know is Ron Paul himself. He made everyone feel welcome. I can't imagine him saying something like "This group of my supporters is selfish" or "CPAC isn't important because gays came this year" (paraphrase of comment by OP). At the rally for the republic he made everyone feel welcome. That's the way to go.

as a republican, the gop should be thanking Ron Paul. the only reason i am a republican. i hope the gop wakes up soon or they will be crashing into an iceberg;)

[speciallyblend]

YouTube - New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&feature=player_embedded)

[pcosmar]

YouTube - New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&feature=player_embedded)

I remember the first time I heard that.
Sent chills up my spine.
Still does.
Watching Obama continue to expand on the same goals is,,,

:mad:

[jmdrake]

Thanks, ARealConservative. This is my first real debate here, but I can tell all the passionate folks here will yield up plenty of stimulating discussion in future, on both policy and strategy. There's a lot to do before 2012!

I agree. And I read your PM. Sorry for being rough. And yes there's a lot to do, but we are gaining ground.

[Inkblots]

Look, I said I'd had my final word, and this latest phase of our discussion is taking the thread seriously off-topic. But let me quick respond to your two points, JM:
1.) No less than the Anti-Defamation League confirms that the rumors the Prescott Bush was a Nazi are nothing more than that - malicious rumors:

Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.

2.) Gerald MacGuire was most likely just a crank, and there's no evidence Bush was at all connected to the man. FDR wasn't the sort to let high treason slide, you know. And the idea of Al Smith as a fascist dictator just plain weird. The American people would never submit to a Catholic leader in those days, the plotters would have picked a Protestant is there were ever such a plot.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion via PM, but let's get this thread back on track, shall we?

Now, back to strategy!

[pcosmar]

Look, I said I'd had my final word, and this latest phase of our discussion is taking the thread seriously off-topic. But let me quick respond to your two points, JM:
1.) No less than the Anti-Defamation League confirms that the rumors the Prescott Bush was a Nazi are nothing more than that - malicious rumors:


2.) Gerald MacGuire was most likely just a crank, and there's no evidence Bush was at all connected to the man. FDR wasn't the sort to let high treason slide, you know. And the idea of Al Smith as a fascist dictator just plain weird. The American people would never submit to a Catholic leader in those days, the plotters would have picked a Protestant is there were ever such a plot.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion via PM, but let's get this thread back on track, shall we?

Now, back to strategy!
Quoting the ADL?
Oh this is good.
:rolleyes:

[Promontorium]

Well, the RP folk are quite tolerant of dissent for the time being.

I know what you mean though. For most of us, we hadn't seen any viable candidate like Ron Paul. We had given up hope for a candidate like Ron Paul. And being passionate human beings, we would not give one inch. Sure, everyone can't be absolutist. Everyone can't agree. These were failings for the 2008 campaign. It was too all or nothing on every issue, every potential voter.

I myself was fanatically pro Ron Paul, and yet on a money bomb night when I donated money, I was booted off the chat room for being a troll because I didn't agree with everyone on everything.

Even when you're donating to the campaign, you're a neocon troll in the wiley eyes of a Ron Paul nut if you aren't 100% in line. The problem? 100% in line is a fantasy.

The more you write, the more people realize they don't exactly agree. And I like to write, so everyone will eventually find something to disagree with.


Different for 2012? I got nothing left in me for a 2012 presidential campaign. But I think we can do very well on the smaller scale.

What hope to we have for a 2012 presidency, when America is loving this mandatory health insurance law? Bah, I got nothing. Ground up is all we have left to hope for.

[mstrmac1]

I got nothing left in me for a 2012 presidential campaign.


Come on!?

[Inkblots]

What hope to we have for a 2012 presidency, when America is loving this mandatory health insurance law? Bah, I got nothing. Ground up is all we have left to hope for.

Chin up, Promontorium. The fight's not over yet. After all, the recent PPP poll showed Ron Paul at 11% for the 2012 race. That's unprecedented!

And let's not forget, by late 2011 all of the costs and very few of the alleged 'benefits' of healthcare deform will be in effect. Unemployment will likely still be at 10% or higher. The national debt will still be skyrocketing at an unheard of rate. The need for root and branch structural reform of our entire governmental system will be more obvious than ever before. And there is only one candidate from either party who has consistently and can now credibly offer a plan for systemic reform: Dr. Ron Paul.

Though I predict two years hence will be a very dark time for the Republic, all that darkness augurs well for Dr. Paul (or Johnson, I suppose, if Paul chooses to endorse him rather than run again) and liberty candidates in general. We must be on the brink of collapse before most of the lumpen snap out of the miasma of mass media saturation and entitlement sensibility they have been thrust into. And then the work will really begin.

[fuzzybekool]

I love Ron Paul and back in 2007-2008, we did what we had to do to get his name out there. We forced the issue and made it impossible for the state run media networks to ignore him. In 2012, I truely believe we will need a Ronald Reagan figure to inspire and take the country back for the people. I like Paul Ryan for 2012. He knows his stuff, and Democrats tremble at debating him. Obama would stutter through any debate with Paul Ryan. I pray we will not have another rhino like Mitt Romney beng nominated in 2012. If we do, Obama will win a 2nd term.

[speciallyblend]

I love Ron Paul and back in 2007-2008, we did what we had to do to get his name out there. We forced the issue and made it impossible for the state run media networks to ignore him. In 2012, I truely believe we will need a Ronald Reagan figure to inspire and take the country back for the people. I like Paul Ryan for 2012. He knows his stuff, and Democrats tremble at debating him. Obama would stutter through any debate with Paul Ryan. I pray we will not have another rhino like Mitt Romney beng nominated in 2012. If we do, Obama will win a 2nd term.

if the gop nominates romney. i agree obama will win easily!!! sad part is almost 70% of republicans in Colorado actually preferred romney over mccain. so if the gop wants obama to win all they have to do is nominate romney. the best thing we can do now is remind republicans romney is obama and remind them of romneycare!!! nominating romney would be the easiest way to kill the gop and create a viable 3rd party before 2012;)

[pcosmar]

What strategy are you planning to use this time around?
I find this to be a very strange thread.
Started by a New member who admits to being a Banned account.
Championed by another New member that supports the ADL and AIPAC, and trying to steer the strategy of the grassroots. Like these cats can be herded anyway. :rolleyes:

I am not even sure of an election in 2012 or of who any possible candidate.
I would of course back Ron Paul if he chose to run, but am not sure that any other would inspire me in the same way.
I would have to take the same strategy as I use for chess.That is, no strategy.
I have to see the moves and how the board goes. The board is not even set up yet. ;)

[RM918]

I've made my opposition to mixing 'inside job' messages at liberty rallies several times on this forum, and I completely agree that people who do it simply aren't thinking things through and have a bit of an obsession with putting the cart before the horse.

But this is just some of them. Honestly, I believe most of the inside-jobbers ALREADY self-censor. I think the lot of them have enough sense to have already been doing it. Unfortunately, there are those that simply won't do it and people end up getting so mad about it they rile up the whole bunch by generalizing them. I bet we have truthers as some of our most passionate and effective supporters.

Although I raise my brows whenever I hear accusations of forum members as disinformation agents or figuring a fly Obama swatted was, in fact, created synthetically in order to project him as a 'strong' leader - one of the weirder ones I've heard - they have my respect for they work they do with the movement. I could care less if I worked with radical eco-communists, virulent white supremacists, militant black nationalists, people who think the moon landing was a hoax, even democrats - none of these would dissuade me, so long as we were on the side of liberty.

Anyone who sees a random Ron Paul supporter throw a snowball at Hannity and, because of this, lose the ability to think for themselves is someone we wouldn't win over even if we all started going to rallies in suits and donating to Sarah Palin. Someone that entrenched will need time, and if they see one Paul supporter do something and swear Paul off because of it what they have are terribly unfair and unreasonable standards they only put on him.

[Inkblots]

I have to see the moves and how the board goes. The board is not even set up yet. ;)

The Iowa caucuses are closer than you think, pcosmar!


Anyone who sees a random Ron Paul supporter throw a snowball at Hannity and, because of this, lose the ability to think for themselves is someone we wouldn't win over even if we all started going to rallies in suits and donating to Sarah Palin. Someone that entrenched will need time, and if they see one Paul supporter do something and swear Paul off because of it what they have are terribly unfair and unreasonable standards they only put on him.

That's a fair point, RM, but consider this: the general media narrative surrounding the '08 campaign was all about portraying the RP campaign and its supporters as somehow 'unserious' and kooky. Now just imagine you're Joe Average Republican
with your Fox News coffee mug and deep, burning fear of Muslims, and you've been hearing and reading about this "gadfly" campaign with "unserious" ideas, like that war is a Big Government program, and then you hear that that campaign's activists have been harassing your favorite "truth-telling" media host. I believe in '07/'08 things like that just cemented their own false conceptions adn kept them from ever giving Dr. Paul a second look.

Understand, I'm not talking about hardcore philosophical neocons, here. I'm talking about the great mass of "cultural Republicans" out there, who vote GOP more out a Red team vs. Blue team mentality than any sort of substantive policy analysis. We need at least a good minority of such voters to come around to the cause of Liberty if we're going to make real progress toward restoring the Republic, and unfortunately antics such as the above have the effect of putting us in the "Blue team" category in the minds of such uninformed voters. Just take a look at the comment thread on a RP post at some mainline Repub blog like Redstate or Hotair some time. People who I can tell, based on other comments, probably SHOULD support us on the issues, rant and rave and froth about that crazy Ronpaul and his Paultards, as bad as the Democrats. There has to be a way to undermine that, or at least make it harder for the media to advance such a narrative.

And, on a side note, it's probably not that wise to tick off popular media personalities, even hostile ones. They can always get even MORE unfair to RP, if they're motivated by personal dislike of his supporters :p

[pcosmar]

That's a fair point, RM, but consider this: the general media narrative surrounding the '08 campaign was all about portraying the RP campaign and its supporters as somehow 'unserious' and kooky.


YOU do also realize that the media is neither objective nor unbiased.
Their attacks on both Ron Paul and the supporters was deliberate and calculated.

Disinformation was blown out of proportion and actual facts were not reported or deliberately marginalized.

I would expect nothing different from them this time.
Propaganda is key to maintaining the false appearance of choice.

[jmdrake]

Look, I said I'd had my final word, and this latest phase of our discussion is taking the thread seriously off-topic. But let me quick respond to your two points, JM:
1.) No less than the Anti-Defamation League confirms that the rumors the Prescott Bush was a Nazi are nothing more than that - malicious rumors:


2.) Gerald MacGuire was most likely just a crank, and there's no evidence Bush was at all connected to the man. FDR wasn't the sort to let high treason slide, you know. And the idea of Al Smith as a fascist dictator just plain weird. The American people would never submit to a Catholic leader in those days, the plotters would have picked a Protestant is there were ever such a plot.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion via PM, but let's get this thread back on track, shall we?

Now, back to strategy!

Rumors? On the internet? Open your eyes! I gave you the actual links from the London Guardian NEWSPAPER and the BBC RADIO show! Yes these mainstream media outlets have a presence on the "internet" but so what? Sorry for shouting, but this is the kind of "head in the sand" nonsense that keeps people willfully ignorant. It's true that just because something is on the internet that doesn't mean it's accurate. But just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it's inaccurate either. The internet is simply another publishing media. Whether something is credible or not has nothing to do with the publishing media used and everything to do with the credibility of the source itself.

Oh, and the ADL is one of the least credible organizations on the planet. And the idea that the FBI wouldn't tolerate high treason in the light of Waco or the 1993 WTC bombing is just laughable.

[pacelli]

As far as strategies this time around, a particular thread started by Deborah K has new strategies listed and a great deal of discussion. It is located here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814

Instead of re-inventing the wheel every week, I think it might be helpful to keep strategies for 2012 focused in one location, for ease of reference and to save time.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814