PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul captures Osama!




davidhperry
10-09-2007, 09:55 PM
Now that I have your attention, I wanted to provide some info that I received from the campaign staff last weekend while they were here in Nashville for the fundraiser and rally.

When we see instances of negative (or silent) coverage in the media, we must not get angry and go into react mode by sending emails and calls to every media person with their contact info posted on the web. I swear that just emboldens the them to keep doing what they're doing and it gives them even more ammunition to say that the Ron Paul supporters are kooks. Every time we send an email, it makes the problem worse, not better. The people at the other end of the emails/calls view them as attacks and I can tell you that they don't become endeared to the RP camp because of it.

There is a way to fix this though and it is hard because it requires a lot of patience and maturity. The way to fix it is to not be bothered by it - let's stop taking it so personally. If people say that he's irrelevant, an isolationist, crazy, ugly, smelly, etc. - so what! That's not true and it doesn't affect what I know and believe about Ron Paul. That kind of garbage is their opinion and we will not get them to change it by force, period. It's just like how Dr. Paul mentions that you can't spread democracy with force - you also can't force people to think the way that you do. We must lead by example with this, just like Ron Paul has done.

When Ron was forced out of the presidential forum in Iowa, he didn't get angry and boycott the event - they didn't fire off angry emails to the event organizers either. They quietly went about their own business and held there own event next door with twice as many people. :) Because they handled themselves well a lot of people took notice and started to give the campaign the respect it deserved.

So I propose a reverse media blackout - one where we don't contact the media about negative or nonexistent coverage. No matter what they say, we don't say a peep because we've got better things to do - like getting Ron elected. It's a different story if the coverage is positive though - we should definitely let them know how much we agree with them and appreciate their opinions.

This post is not meant as a condemnation towards anyone. I've sent my fair share of angry letters and email to correct people who I felt weren't being fair to Dr. Paul or to us. I just recently realized that those weren't effective and that they were doing more harm than good. The whole effort really cleared a major hurdle in the last week with the fundraising numbers coming out and I think it's time for us to rethink our tactics a bit. This is a winning campaign and reacting to negative media makes us look like we're on the defensive all the time (which suggests we're losers).

No matter what, the Ron Paul supporters must not be seen as an angry mob - I can't stress that enough. If you see bad press our there, please resist the urge to post the contact information on the board. I know that's how we all feel (including me), but that is just so detrimental to the effort right now.

Thanks for listening.

BW4Paul
10-09-2007, 09:57 PM
Bumping for importance and overall good sense.

Phase I of the campaign is over. They know we're here. Phase II is to bring them over to our side. :)

NewEnd
10-09-2007, 09:57 PM
Never another angry email

pledged


~~New End

NoxTwilight
10-09-2007, 09:59 PM
Thanks for posting this. I agree completely.

Hope
10-09-2007, 10:03 PM
First, you just lost a lot of respect for lying in your subject line. I don't have time for people who feel the need to trick and scam others into hearing what they have to say.

Secondly, I agree that angry emails don't help our cause. If the letters aren't civil and polite, it will reflect badly on Ron Paul and the campaign as a whole. So let's vent to our spouses and the RP forums, but keep a cool head when dealing with the media.

Finally, it is our loyal support of RP in the face of a media blackout that has helped move this campaign along. Not praising those journalists who write editorials about Ron Paul and not contesting those journalists who smear his name is a foolish thing to pledge. Apathy does not win elections, and willful apathy is even worse than willful ignorance. We don't write the media because of the media; we write the media because of the man we so admire and have so much hope for: RON PAUL. Holding our breath like children in the face of the media as some sort of spite treatment will not help our campaign.

progrock
10-09-2007, 10:05 PM
instead donate some money to the campaign each time you see bad news or incorrect news that makes you upset (might want to make it small donations or you'll end up broke)

theseus51
10-09-2007, 10:05 PM
Ok, I'll pledge to never write an angry email to reporters or bloggers anymore.

hard@work
10-09-2007, 10:06 PM
Ron Paul needs to start sending these messages directly to us. He has access to youtube.

runderwo
10-09-2007, 10:08 PM
On the other hand, it is a good thing when they mention the swarms of (non-angry) emails they receive. Raising the question: why not any of the other candidates?

davidhperry
10-09-2007, 10:10 PM
First, you just lost a lot of respect for lying in your subject line. I don't have time for people who feel the need to trick and scam others into hearing what they have to say.

Sorry to be misleading. That was a lighthearted attempt at a joke - did you actually think that Ron had found Osama when you clicked the link?


Finally, it is our loyal support of RP in the face of a media blackout that has helped move this campaign along. Not praising those journalists who write editorials about Ron Paul and not writing those journalists who smear his name is a foolish thing to pledge. Apathy does not win elections, and willful apathy is even worse than willful ignorance. We don't write the media because of the media; we write the media because of the man we so admire and have so much hope for: RON PAUL. Holding our breath like children in the face of the media as some sort of spite treatment will not help our campaign. And if it doesn't help our campaign, we shouldn't be doing it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that we cut off all contact with the media entirely. I'm essentially saying that we should not react to negative or nonexistent press coverage - because doing do doesn't work. On the other hand, I would love to see people posting the contact info of people who write positive things about Ron Paul. That way, we can all thank them! :)

davidhperry
10-09-2007, 10:12 PM
instead donate some money to the campaign each time you see bad news or incorrect news that makes you upset (might want to make it small donations or you'll end up broke)

I like that idea! Yeah, I'll keep is to a 5-10 minimum on these donations. :)

Hope
10-09-2007, 10:12 PM
Sorry to be misleading. That was a lighthearted attempt at a joke - did you actually think that Ron had found Osama when you clicked the link?


Sorry, I was joking too! Should have added a smiley face or something to that.

Matt Collins
10-09-2007, 10:12 PM
Dave,

I respectfully disagree. We should never send rude, hateful, or angry e-mails, but saying that we should never contact the media at all is a fallacy in my opinion.

Remember I work at a major talk radio station in Nashville, and all of the hosts read their own e-mail. While sending massive amounts of of e-mails to the media might not change their minds, it will awaken them to the fact that support for Ron Paul is adamant, real, and determined.

It's partly in these grassroots actions that have carried us this far with the MSM.

For example, the editor of the Tennessean will absolutely handle the next Ron Paul story with care because he knows that he will have to deal with a bunch of callers and e-mailers if they botch another story on Ron.

Contacting the media DOES have an effect and is worth our while so long as it isn't rude, hateful, or angry....

Just my .02.


-PS will you be at Chery's house Sunday for the "what now" meeting?

Hope
10-09-2007, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that we cut off all contact with the media entirely. I'm essentially saying that we should not react to negative or nonexistent press coverage - because doing do doesn't work. On the other hand, I would love to see people posting the contact info of people who write positive things about Ron Paul. That way, we can all thank them! :)

Oh okay, I completely missed that. I think there is something to be said for calling people out on their antics, but you're right that most of the time the amount of angry letters is going to far outweigh the civil ones and it's best just to leave it alone.

davidhperry
10-09-2007, 10:14 PM
Sorry, I was joking too! Should have added a smiley face or something to that.


No worries - I should have figured it out. :)

work2win
10-09-2007, 10:17 PM
I don't think there's any harm in strictly positive emails: "Thanks for covering Ron Paul. I can't get enough of him!"

I agree that the negative emails hurt us greatly. There is a reason Paul has been slowly getting more respect, and that is because he doesn't complain and whine, he just pushes on twice as hard when he gets shafted. We should do the same.

davidhperry
10-09-2007, 10:31 PM
Oh okay, I completely missed that. I think there is something to be said for calling people out on their antics, but you're right that most of the time the amount of angry letters is going to far outweigh the civil ones and it's best just to leave it alone.

Yeah, totally. What I see going on is the following:

1. Someone sees a negative article and gets ticked off - rightfully so, I might add
2. They send a thoughtful note to the reporter letting them know that they respectfully disagree
3. They then make a post on the forum and strongly suggest that others should contact the reporter as well
4. The forum readers, many of whom didn't even read the article, then send all types of things to the reporter - some of them thoughtful, many of them not
5. Reporter gets ticked at all the hate mail and is turned off to Ron Paul and his supporters
6. The next article the reporter writes is even more negative than the last one
7. The cycle continues in perpetuity...

My suggestion would be to not contact anyone who writes negative stuff about Ron Paul. Personally, I think it's a waste of my time. If you must contact them (and sometimes it is justified), then I definitely wouldn't post their contact info on the board because you don't know who is going to contact them and what they are going to say. Even though you may have good intentions, the person clicking on the email link you provided might be saying something that would damage this community. I think we have a personal responsibility to keep stuff like this from happening.

Let's not validate these people any more than we have to. We play right into their hands when we do.

yaz
10-09-2007, 10:37 PM
We have to contact all media politely.

davidhperry
10-09-2007, 10:40 PM
I respectfully disagree. We should never send rude, hateful, or angry e-mails, but saying that we should never contact the media at all is a fallacy in my opinion.

I get it, and agree with you. I think there is a difference in how we do it though that is important. The problem I see is that someone posts something and then others take it to the extreme by jumping to conclusions and not investigating the matter further. I'm not suggesting that we cut off all contact, but to be conscientious with how we go about it. To put it in Ron Paul's words, sometime there are "unintended consequences."


-PS will you be at Chery's house Sunday for the "what now" meeting?


Heck yes! Can we drink beer there? :)

wbbgjr
10-09-2007, 10:42 PM
Point taken to not send them any angry emails or ones where I am correcting them on their bias.

However, I am still going to send emails just thank you emails for covering Ron Paul. I think it's still good to show them there are Ron Paul supporters out there.

You're right though. We can only win their support through kindness and a positive attitude.

davidhperry
10-09-2007, 10:45 PM
However, I am still going to send emails just thank you emails for covering Ron Paul. I think it's still good to show them there are Ron Paul supporters out there.

Yes, we all need to continue to send out the "thank you" emails for the positive coverage.

ACJohn
10-09-2007, 10:46 PM
A hearts' and minds' campaign. Seems I heard that before, hmmm

BTW I agree with keep your cool

Bradley in DC
10-09-2007, 10:49 PM
Not a fan of the bait and switch titling, but nice. Confirms my rant. :cool:

xcalybur
10-09-2007, 10:51 PM
Are you saying not to contact MSM at all? I've only ever sent emails thanking good interviews or asking to have Ron Paul on their show. I've never sent a bad email. Well maybe one to BillO, but it wasn't about Ron Paul. That guy is just evil incarnate.

quickmike
10-09-2007, 10:53 PM
Everytime you get pissed at any media blockage by the MSM, donate 20 bucks to the campaign.

I agree with the original post completely. If we constantly send emails, it looks like we care about what they say and gives them ammo to think that what they say even matters in the slightest.

Lets show them that they are becoming irrelevant by not saying s--t to them.

michaelwise
10-09-2007, 11:01 PM
First they ignore you. Now we ignore them. And keep on ignoring them.

mavtek
10-09-2007, 11:03 PM
I don't know, why not pledge to not buy anything from their sponsors?

fightfortruth
10-09-2007, 11:05 PM
First, you just lost a lot of respect for lying in your subject line. I don't have time for people who feel the need to trick and scam others into hearing what they have to say.

Secondly, I agree that angry emails don't help our cause. If the letters aren't civil and polite, it will reflect badly on Ron Paul and the campaign as a whole. So let's vent to our spouses and the RP forums, but keep a cool head when dealing with the media.

Finally, it is our loyal support of RP in the face of a media blackout that has helped move this campaign along. Not praising those journalists who write editorials about Ron Paul and not contesting those journalists who smear his name is a foolish thing to pledge. Apathy does not win elections, and willful apathy is even worse than willful ignorance. We don't write the media because of the media; we write the media because of the man we so admire and have so much hope for: RON PAUL. Holding our breath like children in the face of the media as some sort of spite treatment will not help our campaign.

I completely and udderly agree with you.

ronpaulhawaii
10-09-2007, 11:05 PM
Great post, and the 5-10 donation vent is even better, thanks.

Busy busy

http://www.pledgebank.com/RonPaulRiders1ct
http://www.pledgebank.com/RonPaulRiders5ct
http://www.pledgebank.com/RonPaulRiders10c
http://www.pledgebank.com/RonPaulRiders25c
http://www.pledgebank.com/RPRiders-AUL-PAC
http://www.pledgebank.com/RPRiders-Grannys
http://www.pledgebank.com/RPRiders-RPRadio

http://ronpaulriderspublic.chipin.com/ron-paul-riders-aul-pac

Matt Collins
10-09-2007, 11:12 PM
4. The forum readers, many of whom didn't even read the article, then send all types of things to the reporter - some of them thoughtful, many of them not...

...I definitely wouldn't post their contact info on the board because you don't know who is going to contact them and what they are going to say. Even though you may have good intentions, the person clicking on the email link you provided might be saying something that would damage this community. I think we have a personal responsibility to keep stuff like this from happening. The "personal responsibility" is on the part of those who send the e-mails. You are right, no one can control what others do (nor should we), so it is up to each individual to act responsibly in a way that is appropriate to the situation. I don't see a problem with doing what you are describing. The problem lies with those who act irresponsibly and give RP a bad name by acting rude etc.





I get it, and agree with you. I think there is a difference in how we do it though that is important. The problem I see is that someone posts something and then others take it to the extreme by jumping to conclusions and not investigating the matter further. Again, the problem is with individuals who misuse information to act in a manner non-becoming to RP supporters.

My $.02



Heck yes! Can we drink beer there? :)LOL, you missed your opportunity after the Nashville rally. There were something like 48 cans/bottles of beer left over. Most went home with Nimit.

I am sure though that if you bring your own (and some to share) Sunday night Cheryl won't mind a bit. ;)

scrosnoe
10-09-2007, 11:14 PM
wise words - points well taken

one of my mentors in the political arena taught me that most of the press actually believes they are fair and balanced (not that we see it that way) but our job is to give them more/better/different information (ie make their job easy by delivering the story with our spin and some great one liners)

well you all do that very well and it is fun working with all of you - so the point about being about our business and getting Ron Paul elected is also important!

we are just doing our job and handing them a wonderful story in the process - make 'em run to keep up with us and hand them the story when they do ;-)

blessings to all - a true delight to be a part of this effort!!!:) :) :)

austin356
10-10-2007, 12:16 AM
Ill give a big BOOOYAAAAAh to Perry for a good write up.

jjschless
10-10-2007, 12:19 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again.

A negative action on the part of a Positive Candidate/Campaign begets a negative result.

Pete
10-10-2007, 12:47 AM
one of my mentors in the political arena taught me that most of the press actually believes they are fair and balanced (not that we see it that way) but our job is to give them more/better/different information (ie make their job easy by delivering the story with our spin and some great one liners)

Journalists go into the field wanting to do good, to be an activist. It's helpful to keep this in mind.

I don't post on blatantly hostile columns and blogs, but when it's mixed I'll write about my points of disagreement and thank them for the article. For example, the 'isolationist' label is one that can be overcome very politely.

TheIndependent
10-10-2007, 01:03 AM
Now that I have your attention, I wanted to provide some info that I received from the campaign staff last weekend while they were here in Nashville for the fundraiser and rally.

When we see instances of negative (or silent) coverage in the media, we must not get angry and go into react mode by sending emails and calls to every media person with their contact info posted on the web. I swear that just emboldens the them to keep doing what they're doing and it gives them even more ammunition to say that the Ron Paul supporters are kooks. Every time we send an email, it makes the problem worse, not better. The people at the other end of the emails/calls view them as attacks and I can tell you that they don't become endeared to the RP camp because of it.

There is a way to fix this though and it is hard because it requires a lot of patience and maturity. The way to fix it is to not be bothered by it - let's stop taking it so personally. If people say that he's irrelevant, an isolationist, crazy, ugly, smelly, etc. - so what! That's not true and it doesn't affect what I know and believe about Ron Paul. That kind of garbage is their opinion and we will not get them to change it by force, period. It's just like how Dr. Paul mentions that you can't spread democracy with force - you also can't force people to think the way that you do. We must lead by example with this, just like Ron Paul has done.

When Ron was forced out of the presidential forum in Iowa, he didn't get angry and boycott the event - they didn't fire off angry emails to the event organizers either. They quietly went about their own business and held there own event next door with twice as many people. :) Because they handled themselves well a lot of people took notice and started to give the campaign the respect it deserved.

So I propose a reverse media blackout - one where we don't contact the media about negative or nonexistent coverage. No matter what they say, we don't say a peep because we've got better things to do - like getting Ron elected. It's a different story if the coverage is positive though - we should definitely let them know how much we agree with them and appreciate their opinions.

This post is not meant as a condemnation towards anyone. I've sent my fair share of angry letters and email to correct people who I felt weren't being fair to Dr. Paul or to us. I just recently realized that those weren't effective and that they were doing more harm than good. The whole effort really cleared a major hurdle in the last week with the fundraising numbers coming out and I think it's time for us to rethink our tactics a bit. This is a winning campaign and reacting to negative media makes us look like we're on the defensive all the time (which suggests we're losers).

No matter what, the Ron Paul supporters must not be seen as an angry mob - I can't stress that enough. If you see bad press our there, please resist the urge to post the contact information on the board. I know that's how we all feel (including me), but that is just so detrimental to the effort right now.

Thanks for listening.

Quoted for f*cking truth.

Pardon my sailor lingo. ;) SERIOSULY needs to be a sticky.

Nefertiti
10-10-2007, 03:32 AM
First, you just lost a lot of respect for lying in your subject line. I don't have time for people who feel the need to trick and scam others into hearing what they have to say.


Oh please, are you serious? Did you really believe that this thread was going to be about Ron Paul capturing Osama? Did you really believe that had happened? Don't pretend to be that gullible.

walt
10-10-2007, 03:57 AM
Now that I have your attention, I wanted to provide some info that I received from the campaign staff last weekend while they were here in Nashville for the fundraiser and rally.

When we see instances of negative (or silent) coverage in the media, we must not get angry and go into react mode by sending emails and calls to every media person with their contact info posted on the web. I swear that just emboldens the them to keep doing what they're doing and it gives them even more ammunition to say that the Ron Paul supporters are kooks. Every time we send an email, it makes the problem worse, not better. The people at the other end of the emails/calls view them as attacks and I can tell you that they don't become endeared to the RP camp because of it.

There is a way to fix this though and it is hard because it requires a lot of patience and maturity. The way to fix it is to not be bothered by it - let's stop taking it so personally. If people say that he's irrelevant, an isolationist, crazy, ugly, smelly, etc. - so what! That's not true and it doesn't affect what I know and believe about Ron Paul. That kind of garbage is their opinion and we will not get them to change it by force, period. It's just like how Dr. Paul mentions that you can't spread democracy with force - you also can't force people to think the way that you do. We must lead by example with this, just like Ron Paul has done.

When Ron was forced out of the presidential forum in Iowa, he didn't get angry and boycott the event - they didn't fire off angry emails to the event organizers either. They quietly went about their own business and held there own event next door with twice as many people. :) Because they handled themselves well a lot of people took notice and started to give the campaign the respect it deserved.

So I propose a reverse media blackout - one where we don't contact the media about negative or nonexistent coverage. No matter what they say, we don't say a peep because we've got better things to do - like getting Ron elected. It's a different story if the coverage is positive though - we should definitely let them know how much we agree with them and appreciate their opinions.

This post is not meant as a condemnation towards anyone. I've sent my fair share of angry letters and email to correct people who I felt weren't being fair to Dr. Paul or to us. I just recently realized that those weren't effective and that they were doing more harm than good. The whole effort really cleared a major hurdle in the last week with the fundraising numbers coming out and I think it's time for us to rethink our tactics a bit. This is a winning campaign and reacting to negative media makes us look like we're on the defensive all the time (which suggests we're losers).

No matter what, the Ron Paul supporters must not be seen as an angry mob - I can't stress that enough. If you see bad press our there, please resist the urge to post the contact information on the board. I know that's how we all feel (including me), but that is just so detrimental to the effort right now.

Thanks for listening.

This is why we must have peaceful advertiser boycotts and cable bill cancelations, it's the only thing that will work.

TO SIT BACK AND TAKE IT IS A LOSING STRATEGY.

davidhperry
10-10-2007, 04:12 AM
Oh please, are you serious? Did you really believe that this thread was going to be about Ron Paul capturing Osama? Did you really believe that had happened? Don't pretend to be that gullible.


No, they took at as the joke it was intended to be.

evandi
10-10-2007, 04:21 AM
Jerk around RP supporters. Nice... Not

Few here really think that the media believes itself to be fair. The media are told what to say Perry, what are you smoking?

What the media did was deliberate and what you did was insulting.

Oooh positive energy. I'm sure they are getting so much pressure from a bunch of people who tell them absolutely nothing, as opposed to their bosses...

You are a troll.

davidhperry
10-10-2007, 04:27 AM
This is why we must have peaceful advertiser boycotts and cable bill cancelations, it's the only thing that will work.

TO SIT BACK AND TAKE IT IS A LOSING STRATEGY.

There is nothing wrong with boycotts in and of themselves. However, if we follow the lead from the Ron Paul campaign, we won't be effective in changing people's minds (something we must do) by waging boycott jihads again people we disagree with.

I'm not advocating that we "sit back and take it." Not at all. I'm saying that it doesn't do us any good to incite further scorn from these folks by reacting in such a way that they continue to do what we don't like. It's analogous to not paying attention to someone who's annoying you. If you don't pay attention to them anymore, then they stop bothering you and they move onto annoying someone else. If we continue to react to them, they they can tell that they're getting under our skin and will keep persisting.

The bottom line is that they are not going to stop what they're doing until we stop responding to them in a way that encourages them to continue. And we can't out-argue them because they don't/won't listen to reason. If their mind is made up that they don't like Ron Paul, we should not be banging our heads against the wall trying to convince them. It's best to take the wind out of their sails by not giving them any more attention - they feed off of that.

davidhperry
10-10-2007, 04:31 AM
You are a troll.

Nice, you join the board and start attacking people right off the bat. You don't know a thing about me.


What the media did was deliberate and what you did was insulting.


What did I do that was insulting?

evandi
10-10-2007, 04:40 AM
The joke about Osama and the attempt to make a revolution silent and harmless to these writers is insulting to those who are passionate about this. And by harmless I mean economically harmless.

These media people have a job to oppose Ron Paul and his ideas in the economic realm. When they receive hate mail they know they deserve it because they aren't stupid. They only get paid to pretend they are stupid.

I've been reading this forum for a while. Don't say I don't have the right to post whatever I feel about your joke.

What you are proposing is ridiculous.

davidhperry
10-10-2007, 04:49 AM
What you are proposing is ridiculous.

If you're saying that you can convince every person in America to be sympathetic to Ron Paul then have at it. I'm suggesting to folks that we shouldn't be wasting our valuable time on people who are lost causes anyway - whether they are in the media or wherever.

Keith
10-10-2007, 05:00 AM
I did not really think that Ron Paul had captured Osama, but this thread is too important to be mislabeled and possibly mistaken for spam. I would recommend that it be properly labeled and stickied.

Count me in the no negative e-mails, but plenty of positive e-mails when they are fair camp. Unfortunately that means not many opportunities to send e-mails, but I guess it would mean we can focus our efforts more since there are so few fair articles.

davidhperry
10-10-2007, 05:10 AM
Count me in the no negative e-mails, but plenty of positive e-mails when they are fair camp. Unfortunately that means not many opportunities to send e-mails, but I guess it would mean we can focus our efforts more since there are so few fair articles.

Yeah, totally. We should pick the battles wisely - the ones we can win, basically. And not waste energy on people who are just going to dig in their heels anyway.

Thurston Howell III
10-10-2007, 05:48 AM
Angry emails don't accomplish anything for us. Why keep repeating something that doesn't work? That's how government operates, not the revolution.
Ron Paul always takes the high road. We should strive to emulate him. Try this...kill'em with kindness.

evandi
10-10-2007, 06:10 AM
Anger sends a message. If the person receiving that message thinks that it is unfounded then it will have a bad effect. If the person receiving that message knows that the anger is appropriate as CNBC does, then it will have a good effect for us.

Ron Paul got angry when a wannabe fascist talked about hiring lawyers to interpret the constitution so that the president can do whatever he wants. That had a good effect, not a bad one.

Saying, well gee um i don't recon that um, if you really care well um well i just don't agree but your opinion is fine when it obviously is not fine has a very bad effect.

Appropriate passion has a good effect.

Appropriate anger has a good effect.

Appropriate kindness has a good effect.

Letting cable channels know what you really think has a good effect.

Writing an email takes a minute and is something the vast majority of us will easily do without effort. It takes no time at all and helps a bunch even if you can't exactly connect each of the words that you write to those people whose future actions you're affecting slightly.

If the words you say come from an angry heart those words better convey what you feel: anger.

Bradley in DC
10-10-2007, 06:12 AM
Anger sends a message.

Anger sends the WRONG message. Period.:mad:

Matt Collins
10-10-2007, 10:06 AM
You are a troll.I don't agree with Dave on this issue, but Dave is DEFINITELY NOT A TROLL.

In fact he was one of the key people who put on the Nashville Rally last Saturday. To be even more fair, he was THE person who got the ball rolling to get Ron to come to Nashville.

So why don't you do a bit more research on someone before you trash them? If you want to disagree that's fine, but calling someone a troll before knowing who they are is a bit immature and uncalled for. :rolleyes:

Matt Collins
10-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Anger sends the WRONG message. Period.:mad:I disagree with that. Anger can be a tool if controlled and used properly in appropriate situations. Even Jesus got angry at times.

jj111
10-10-2007, 10:15 AM
I completely and udderly agree with you.

My pet cow has an udder and udderly agrees as well. :)

ConstitutionGal
10-10-2007, 10:16 AM
Dave,

I respectfully disagree. We should never send rude, hateful, or angry e-mails, but saying that we should never contact the media at all is a fallacy in my opinion.

Remember I work at a major talk radio station in Nashville, and all of the hosts read their own e-mail. While sending massive amounts of of e-mails to the media might not change their minds, it will awaken them to the fact that support for Ron Paul is adamant, real, and determined.

It's partly in these grassroots actions that have carried us this far with the MSM.

For example, the editor of the Tennessean will absolutely handle the next Ron Paul story with care because he knows that he will have to deal with a bunch of callers and e-mailers if they botch another story on Ron.

Contacting the media DOES have an effect and is worth our while so long as it isn't rude, hateful, or angry....

Just my .02.


-PS will you be at Chery's house Sunday for the "what now" meeting?
Absolutely!! I think that as long as we are NICE and POLITE that we can have a positive impact. It's rude correspondence that can make us look bad and/or confrontational. Sending the MSM POLITE inquiries or statements can not harm Dr. Paul IMHO. We just have to take the high road and ALWAYS mind our manners.

jj111
10-10-2007, 10:16 AM
What would Ron do?

Ron Paul's opinion of Fox News, Fox interviewer Agrees!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPRzlejFx8M&NR=1

R32
10-10-2007, 10:41 AM
I agree we should be intelligent and polite with our correspondents to the MSM, however I cannot agree that we should simply “ignore” the negative and non-existent coverage from them. The MSM is extremely powerful and influential in regards to public opinion, we cannot afford to simply write them off and still expect to have any chance of winning.

Being rude and insulting to the MSM will not help our cause, but constant pressure from well reasoned individuals letting the MSM know we expect them to give Ron Paul a fair shake and provide accurate information can only help our cause.

klamath
10-10-2007, 10:48 AM
I totally agree. I quit going and commenting a long time ago because even when you have a guy that might be for RP except has disagreements and you try and have a honest debate with him he ends up being so angry at the people absolutely slamming him that he is not at all interested in a discussion any more.
When someone points out some action that us surporters do that without a doubt is harming RP you have people come on and say that it is some other candidate's people trying to make RP look bad yet surounding their post are posts claiming it is a great thing to do.

davidhperry
10-11-2007, 02:18 AM
I agree we should be intelligent and polite with our correspondents to the MSM, however I cannot agree that we should simply “ignore” the negative and non-existent coverage from them. The MSM is extremely powerful and influential in regards to public opinion, we cannot afford to simply write them off and still expect to have any chance of winning.

Being rude and insulting to the MSM will not help our cause, but constant pressure from well reasoned individuals letting the MSM know we expect them to give Ron Paul a fair shake and provide accurate information can only help our cause.

Yeah, I'm totally with you. When someone writes or says something negative about Ron Paul, I think it's cool to respond back to them - in a constructive way.

The problem here is that we have all different types of people on this board - many who are conscientious and courteous and some who are certainly not. When someone posts a link to an article or video that's critical to the campaign, it tends to draw out more of the folks who hurl insults rather than the kind of people who constructively and maturely provide feedback.

An argument can me made that we can't control the actions of others because "it's a free country" and we can't control how other people act. Obviously, I don't disagree with that principle. However, knowing how people will likely react, I believe that the poster also has the responsibility to try to ensure that they don't end up inciting others to act in ways that would reflect negatively on the campaign.

ValidusCustodiae
10-11-2007, 03:43 AM
When Ron was forced out of the presidential forum in Iowa, he didn't get angry and boycott the event - they didn't fire off angry emails to the event organizers either. They quietly went about their own business and held there own event next door with twice as many people. :) Because they handled themselves well a lot of people took notice and started to give the campaign the respect it deserved.



I guess you missed the throng of Ron Paul supporters marching through the other forum, essentially crashing it. It was one of the most satisfying moments of the campaign for me to watch over youtube, I can imagine it must have been a thrill for those there. But yeah. You must have missed that part, <grin>.

Not that I disagree with your assertion that over-aggressiveness hurts us.

ronpaulhawaii
10-11-2007, 11:12 AM
I simply don't have the time to go emailing corporate stooges, I spend my time figuring out ways to reach people, who deserve to know there is a great candidate in the race, and then putting my actual feet where my virtual mouth is. That is just me though. Some people are much more efficient and effective writing and emailing.

While anger can be an effective motivator and its expression can valuable. The talent neceassary to express it effectively is rare and elusive. So, while I imagine it is fine that the more elequent and wise among us email the corporate stooges to express the anger we all feel, I strongly feel the practice of broadcasting these requests, to mass email the neferious cretins, is counter-productive to the point of stupidity.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, Kill em wit Kindness.

And I find it interesting that a thread like this seems to bring out the "trolls"- a note to people considering posting on this board; if you are here to help, it would be best to build a rep as an activist and a helpful voice if you want to be taken seriously

my2˘

DrNoZone
10-11-2007, 11:17 AM
Dave,

I respectfully disagree. We should never send rude, hateful, or angry e-mails, but saying that we should never contact the media at all is a fallacy in my opinion.

Remember I work at a major talk radio station in Nashville, and all of the hosts read their own e-mail. While sending massive amounts of of e-mails to the media might not change their minds, it will awaken them to the fact that support for Ron Paul is adamant, real, and determined.

It's partly in these grassroots actions that have carried us this far with the MSM.

For example, the editor of the Tennessean will absolutely handle the next Ron Paul story with care because he knows that he will have to deal with a bunch of callers and e-mailers if they botch another story on Ron.

Contacting the media DOES have an effect and is worth our while so long as it isn't rude, hateful, or angry....

Just my .02.


-PS will you be at Chery's house Sunday for the "what now" meeting?

Now THIS is wise advise. There's nothing wrong with speaking out to the media, just be respectful and on-point and don't accuse them of any conspiracy! Oh, and don't send multiple messages to the same people about the same thing...in other words, don't spam.

DrNoZone
10-11-2007, 11:18 AM
I guess you missed the throng of Ron Paul supporters marching through the other forum, essentially crashing it. It was one of the most satisfying moments of the campaign for me to watch over youtube, I can imagine it must have been a thrill for those there. But yeah. You must have missed that part, <grin>.

Not that I disagree with your assertion that over-aggressiveness hurts us.

Yeah, I think there's a time for stuff like that. I was REALLY moved, nearly to tears, when I saw that part of the clip.

koob
10-11-2007, 11:26 AM
I guess you missed the throng of Ron Paul supporters marching through the other forum, essentially crashing it. It was one of the most satisfying moments of the campaign for me to watch over youtube, I can imagine it must have been a thrill for those there. But yeah. You must have missed that part, <grin>.


got a link to that video? i've never seen it.

reduen
10-11-2007, 12:18 PM
I'm with Matt Collins on this one. (Except for maybe the sentiment behind his Jesus comment.)

I have never written a "dirty email" to anyone but I will also voice my opinion where I feel that it is required. (Positive or Negative in nature..)

I have seen many times when speaking out has done a tremendous amount of good, even when it was the unpopular thing to do..

davidhperry
10-12-2007, 01:53 AM
I'm with Matt Collins on this one. (Except for maybe the sentiment behind his Jesus comment.)

I have never written a "dirty email" to anyone but I will also voice my opinion where I feel that it is required. (Positive or Negative in nature..)

I have seen many times when speaking out has done a tremendous amount of good, even when it was the unpopular thing to do..

Matt brings up the fact that there is such as thing as righteous indignation. I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons to get angry and try to figure out ways to set things right. I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.

The issue that I raise is when people post links to articles and videos which are critical to the campaign with the expectation that people on the board will send negative feedback to the author of the article/video. As I mentioned previously, the chances are good that posting anti-Ron Paul stuff on this message board will incite all types of feedback and many, I would even say most, are not constructive in any way.

Case in point: a recent thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=24277&highlight=straighten) was posted with a link to a youtube video of someone making a mildly negative comment about Ron Paul's performance at the debate. Instead of letting this type of insignificant item fade off into obscurity, a link was posted along with the request for forum members to "straighten her out" on her views. So, people posted a bunch of wonderfully constructive comments, right? Nope. Over the next few hours, the youtube comments section lit up with loads of insightful thoughts for the video author. Some examples include:

"you are an idiot..."
"it is so sad how stupid you are!"
"I think your a little too old for Fred maybe you can be his Monica."
"That bitch is crazy!"
"Neocon shill"
"YOU are whats wrong with the media. Grow a brain!"

Come on people, do we really feel threatened enough by random stuff like this that we see the need to post anything in response, especially personal attacks? Why do we have to dignify it with any response at all? She might not have liked Ron Paul when she made this video but now she REALLY doesn't like Ron and probably think all of his supporters are jerks - and I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption given the youtube comments. I think our negative reaction to this garbage is more harmful to the campaign effort than the original negative piece.

What I'm saying is this: when you think about posting a "negative" article on this message board, first think about the ramifications. Even though you have good intentions, please be aware that others on this board will take the opportunity to personally attack people - which is a fantastic way for us to sink this whole thing.

I learned once that if you're satisfied with a product or service, then you'll tell eight other people. However, if you're dissatisfied, you'll tell twenty two people. I think this also applies to the campaign as well. Ron Paul is still unknown to so many people and we need to be doing all we can to not turn even more people off to him.

davidhperry
10-12-2007, 09:30 AM
got a link to that video? i've never seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ

Matt Collins
10-12-2007, 10:29 AM
The issue that I raise is when people post links to articles and videos which are critical to the campaign with the expectation that people on the board will send negative feedback to the author of the article/video. As I mentioned previously, the chances are good that posting anti-Ron Paul stuff on this message board will incite all types of feedback and many, I would even say most, are not constructive in any way. Dave, you are correct, but again I would say that the problem is with the individuals who are making these rude comments, not the people just passing along the initial message.


See ya Sunday night :-)