PDA

View Full Version : Ron still hasn't learned a thing about marketing




sofia
04-10-2010, 06:57 PM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!

Slutter McGee
04-10-2010, 06:59 PM
Holy fucking shit. Sofia said something I actually agree with. I don't think corporatism is that bad of a buzz words. But you are right. I might think you are nuts, but on this you are right on.

Sincerely,

SLutter McGee

jabf2006
04-10-2010, 07:00 PM
Ron isn't playing politics. Lovin' it.

Agorism
04-10-2010, 07:00 PM
Ya, but Paul's frankness is what sets him apart from the rest of the field.

I don't think it's so bad. Even if he loses, he won't hold back any punches.

Also notice that Ron Paul's first congressional campaign was fairly modest. We'll have to see what Rand does once he gets in the senate if he wins that is.

If he continues down this path of appeasement, then I think a lot of people will regret electing him. However, he may go in the right direction once he gets there.

Anti Federalist
04-10-2010, 07:00 PM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!

Ron's his own man and at his age, he's not about to let anybody tell him what he should and should not say.

Sink or swim, he's gonna say it.

That's why I stand right beside him.

FreeTraveler
04-10-2010, 07:01 PM
Well, it's kind of hard to address America's problems without using the words "military-industrial complex," "our empire," and "corporatism." Is that like ignoring the elephant in the living room, or like trying not to think of a pink elephant?

wgadget
04-10-2010, 07:02 PM
Ron is SO un-PC.

Love it.

Anti Federalist
04-10-2010, 07:04 PM
Holy fucking shit. Sofia said something I actually agree with. I don't think corporatism is that bad of a buzz words. But you are right. I might think you are nuts, but on this you are right on.

Sincerely,

SLutter McGee

Hogwash.

There are thousand and one slut politicians with speeches full of nonsensical prattlings and meaningless "lite" words that you could put your support behind.

RP means what says and says what he means.

That alone is enough to set him apart, and that will have to be good enough.

sofia
04-10-2010, 07:04 PM
one can stay true to his principles and say things in a different way...

for example...instead of saying "our empire"......say something like, 'We are broke because have become the world's policeman and nation builder."

Instead of "corporatism"...say "Big government and Wall Street Fat cats are in bed together"


see what i'm sayin?....ya gotta know your audience.

HOLLYWOOD
04-10-2010, 07:04 PM
Okay... now where's that thread on "What went wrong with the Campaign 2008"?

We've covered it... multiple times. Sales & Marketing biggest point in this Political Circuses... Ron's Staff has always lacked it.

Austin
04-10-2010, 07:04 PM
Ron needs to keep doing what he's doing. He will not win in 2012, and as such, he should run a no holds barred educational campaign. Let Ron recruit more folks and double or triple our numbers in 2012. Then over the next 4 years, we will expand our base even more and support Rand Paul for President in 2016. Then, we will have a real shot at the presidency.

brandon
04-10-2010, 07:06 PM
The only reason I'm here, the only reason RPF exists, the only reason the freedom movement had a resurgence is BECAUSE Ron Paul doesn't censor his speeches. If he spoke like a normal politician using typical buzzwords and pandering to the audience, none of this would exist.

The man speaks truth, all the time, and that's why we love him.

jabf2006
04-10-2010, 07:06 PM
one can stay true to his principles and say things in a different way...

for example...instead of saying "our empire"......say something like, 'We are broke because have become the world's policeman and nation builder."

Instead of "corporatism"...say "Big government and Wall Street Fat cats are in bed together"


see what i'm sayin?....ya gotta know your audience.

The language Paul uses is part of the education he provides.

brandon
04-10-2010, 07:10 PM
He will not win in 2012, and as such, he should run a no holds barred educational campaign.

The only reason Ron did so well in 2008 is that most of us firmly held on to the "delusion" that he could win. Without that, he's just another 3rd party nobody, a dennis kucinich.

There's no reason to go around saying he can't win.

jabf2006
04-10-2010, 07:13 PM
The only reason Ron did so well in 2008 is that most of us firmly held on to the "delusion" that he could win. Without that, he's just another 3rd party nobody, a dennis kucinich.

There's no reason to go around saying he can't win.

Don't compare Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich couldn't inspire the following Paul could because Kucinich isn't principled.

Even after hope was lost in 08, Paul's inspired movement continues on. He likely will not become president (Romney will likely not become president either) but if he runs, this campaign will place a mark in the history of America's political landscape that will far out weigh 2008.

sofia
04-10-2010, 07:14 PM
The only reason Ron did so well in 2008 is that most of us firmly held on to the "delusion" that he could win. Without that, he's just another 3rd party nobody, a dennis kucinich.

There's no reason to go around saying he can't win.

Ron = Rand


But Rand is kicking ass while Ron remains a long shot.

The difference?


Rand sounds like "one of them"...he says the same thing that his dad does but in a more "conservative sounding" manner.

I want to win...not just "send a message".....but if Ron keeps using these terms, the ignorant GOP yahoos will reflexively dismiss him as a liberal.

Original_Intent
04-10-2010, 07:15 PM
one can stay true to his principles and say things in a different way...

for example...instead of saying "our empire"......say something like, 'We are broke because have become the world's policeman and nation builder."

Instead of "corporatism"...say "Big government and Wall Street Fat cats are in bed together"


see what i'm sayin?....ya gotta know your audience.

Yep, I do love Paul's bluntness, and honestly it is probably what gets him as much attention as he gets, but the rewordings you have suggested would make a ton of difference.

Maybe he says empire because he feels we are an empire and are not being just "world policemen". There's a difference, and if he is sticking with empire maybe it's because he feels that is more accurate.

Austin
04-10-2010, 07:16 PM
Ron = Rand


But Rand is kicking ass while Ron remains a long shot.

The difference?


Rand sounds like "one of them"...he says the same thing that his dad does but in a more "conservative sounding" manner.

I want to win...not just "send a message".....but if Ron keeps using these terms, the ignorant GOP yahoos will reflexively dismiss him as a liberal.

inb4 Rand != Ron

phill4paul
04-10-2010, 07:16 PM
Ron isn't playing politics. Lovin' it.

As am I. Ron says what he means.

Military industrial complex? What? Like it doesn't exist and pervade American politics?

No I learned from Dr. Paul. Others will come around or they won't.

You don't change people perceptions by acting like them. You, eventually, just become one of them.

sofia
04-10-2010, 07:17 PM
Yep, I do love Paul's bluntness, and honestly it is probably what gets him as much attention as he gets, but the rewordings you have suggested would make a ton of difference.

Maybe he says empire because he feels we are an empire and are not being just "world policemen". There's a difference, and if he is sticking with empire maybe it's because he feels that is more accurate.

oooo i got a good one for ya


How about "Nanny to the world"

jabf2006
04-10-2010, 07:17 PM
Its the difference between waking someone up with a scream or whispering in their ear. A whisper would probably win you some points, but a scream can be more affective.

RM918
04-10-2010, 07:24 PM
This from the same guy who, after the Medina debacle, got so angry he wanted to start running things ON 9/11 truth instead of explaining it away so as to not dilute the message?

Squabbling over 'military-industral complex'?

It's more than a little silly.

Pauls' Revere
04-10-2010, 07:29 PM
oooo i got a good one for ya


How about "Nanny to the world"

Nanny State??

Global Policing??

Pauls' Revere
04-10-2010, 07:31 PM
Okay... now where's that thread on "What went wrong with the Campaign 2008"?

We've covered it... multiple times. Sales & Marketing biggest point in this Political Circuses... Ron's Staff has always lacked it.

I hope this gets fixed...and in a hurry.

:)

MRoCkEd
04-10-2010, 07:35 PM
Ron needs to keep doing what he's doing. He will not win in 2012, and as such, he should run a no holds barred educational campaign. Let Ron recruit more folks and double or triple our numbers in 2012. Then over the next 4 years, we will expand our base even more and support Rand Paul for President in 2016. Then, we will have a real shot at the presidency.


The only reason Ron did so well in 2008 is that most of us firmly held on to the "delusion" that he could win. Without that, he's just another 3rd party nobody, a dennis kucinich.

There's no reason to go around saying he can't win.

double truth

Anti Federalist
04-10-2010, 07:35 PM
As am I. Ron says what he means.

Military industrial complex? What? Like it doesn't exist and pervade American politics?

No I learned from Dr. Paul. Others will come around or they won't.

You don't change people perceptions by acting like them. You, eventually, just become one of them.

That ^^^

LibertyEagle
04-10-2010, 07:37 PM
one can stay true to his principles and say things in a different way...

for example...instead of saying "our empire"......say something like, 'We are broke because have become the world's policeman and nation builder."

Instead of "corporatism"...say "Big government and Wall Street Fat cats are in bed together"


see what i'm sayin?....ya gotta know your audience.

Actually, I agree with you. If people do not understand what he is talking about, any educational campaign is going to be for naught.

Anti Federalist
04-10-2010, 07:37 PM
The only reason Ron did so well in 2008 is that most of us firmly held on to the "delusion" that he could win. Without that, he's just another 3rd party nobody, a dennis kucinich.

There's no reason to go around saying he can't win.

And that too.

Agorism
04-10-2010, 07:37 PM
Sophia's got it all wrong.

Rand's campaign would not exist without the house that Ron Paul built. Rand's rhetoric is stale compared to Ron's.

Rand is doing fine for running a statewide race, but if you didn't know he was Ron Paul's son, you might mistake him for a Mike Pence or a Trey Grayson or some other average republican.

kahless
04-10-2010, 07:41 PM
......Ron Paul doesn't censor his speeches. If he spoke like a normal politician using typical buzzwords and pandering to the audience, none of this would exist.

The man speaks truth, all the time, and that's why we love him.

+1

Sandman33
04-10-2010, 07:44 PM
"Ron still hasn't learned a thing about marketing"

Good.

YouTube - Bill Hicks on Marketing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo)

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-10-2010, 07:57 PM
Ron's his own man and at his age, he's not about to let anybody tell him what he should and should not say.

Sink or swim, he's gonna say it.

That's why I stand right beside him.

^


"Ron still hasn't learned a thing about marketing"

Good.

YouTube - Bill Hicks on Marketing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo)

Seen that one before but it is hilarious ;)

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-10-2010, 08:00 PM
The words you pointed out is what attracted me to the liberty movement.

QueenB4Liberty
04-10-2010, 08:33 PM
The only reason I'm here, the only reason RPF exists, the only reason the freedom movement had a resurgence is BECAUSE Ron Paul doesn't censor his speeches. If he spoke like a normal politician using typical buzzwords and pandering to the audience, none of this would exist.

The man speaks truth, all the time, and that's why we love him.

Most definitely. This whole, not call a spade a spade thing is nonsense.

Stary Hickory
04-10-2010, 08:35 PM
I have to agree Ron Paul needs to learn finesse. I hear him say things that I agree with but it makes me cringe how he says it.

AuH20
04-10-2010, 08:37 PM
Obama is a fascist. Why didn't Ron have the stones to throw down that card? No more invites to the Bill Maher show if he did?

sofia
04-10-2010, 08:41 PM
Most definitely. This whole, not call a spade a spade thing is nonsense.

you can still call a spade a spade without using language that your audience doesnt understand.

RP is using terms that are owned by the left and confusing to the knee-jerk republican primary voters that we need to win.

He can say the exact same thing but with better slogans.

sofia
04-10-2010, 08:43 PM
Obama is a fascist. Why didn't Ron have the stones to throw down that card? No more invites to the Bill Maher show if he did?

and thats another thing....Ron needs to start throwing out some red meat. Thats how you win Tea partiers AND get media coverage.

Look at all the free press that bitch Palin gets with her provocotive Facebook blurbs

QueenB4Liberty
04-10-2010, 08:46 PM
you can still call a spade a spade without using language that your audience doesnt understand.

RP is using terms that are owned by the left and confusing to the knee-jerk republican primary voters that we need to win.

He can say the exact same thing but with better slogans.

I don't think those terms are "owned" by the left. People get so angry when you use these terms because people are afraid to come out and speak the truth so you rarely hear people brave enough to tell it exactly like it is. Is it Dr. Paul's fault so many people choose to remain ignorant on important issues?

QueenB4Liberty
04-10-2010, 08:47 PM
Obama is a fascist. Why didn't Ron have the stones to throw down that card? No more invites to the Bill Maher show if he did?

Corporatism is almost the same thing, Fascism Italian style. He probably doesn't outright call him a Fascist because people will go into the Hitler comparison hysterics. Give them a few years, Obama will ensure these people will change their minds.

ElCount
04-10-2010, 08:48 PM
I have to disagree...

I would hate to see him dumb down his message just to pander to America's sheep so he can win in 2012, I would rather him expose the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve than hear him chant "Hope" and "Change" 1000 times over. America needs to wake up and Ron is the messiah.

We need to remember what separates Ron Paul from the rest of the politicians. As far as Rand goes, he is sounding more and more like the average Republican. I only hope dearly that he is dumbing down his message and intends to vote and legislate the way his father does once he is elected.

I also do believe that Ron Paul can win in 2012. Let's stop bashing his marketing and start promoting his movement.

sofia
04-10-2010, 08:53 PM
I have to disagree...

I would hate to see him dumb down his message just to pander to America's sheep so he can win in 2012, I would rather him expose the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve than hear him chant "Hope" and "Change" 1000 times over. America needs to wake up and Ron is the messiah.

We need to remember what separates Ron Paul from the rest of the politicians. As far as Rand goes, he is sounding more and more like the average Republican. I only hope dearly that he is dumbing down his message and intends to vote and legislate the way his father does once he is elected.

I also do believe that Ron Paul can win in 2012. Let's stop bashing his marketing and start promoting his movement.

marketing is everything my friend.

scrap "military industrial complex"....use "foreign policy Establishment"

scrap "empire"....use "Nanny of the World"


scrap "corporatism"...use "socialism, croniesm"



nothing is dumbed down....just better terminology that doesnt confuse or alienate the dumb ass Republicans we need to win.

AuH20
04-10-2010, 08:53 PM
and thats another thing....Ron needs to start throwing out some red meat. Thats how you win Tea partiers AND get media coverage.

Look at all the free press that bitch Palin gets with her provocotive Facebook blurbs

You notice that Ron tones it down when talking about progressives? He should unleash the same fury he does on the neocons.

phill4paul
04-10-2010, 08:55 PM
"Ron still hasn't learned a thing about marketing"

Good.

YouTube - Bill Hicks on Marketing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo)


Better than good. Fuckin' accurate. Been there done it.

sofia
04-10-2010, 08:56 PM
You notice that Ron tones it down when talking about progressives? He should unleash the same fury he does on the neocons.

yes! I HATE it when he refers to them as "progressives"


Why does he pander to them? They would NEVER support him. If you want to win over Repubs, start calling the progressives what they are ,,,,,,, neo-Marxists!



Save the conciliatory language for the general election......GOP primary voters want you to bash the commies like Obama

phill4paul
04-10-2010, 09:04 PM
marketing is everything my friend.

scrap "military industrial complex"....use "foreign policy Establishment"

scrap "empire"....use "Nanny of the World"


scrap "corporatism"...use "socialism, croniesm"



nothing is dumbed down....just better terminology that doesnt confuse or alienate the dumb ass Republicans we need to win.

Bullshit.

To thine own self be true.

If the other fuckers don't get it so be it.

I'm sorry sofia. Ron does quite well speaking for what he believes. I took note. Lay off the "I'd be a good campaign manager for Paul" fantasy.

He is what he is. And that, there, is what he is.

And that,there, is why we love him.

KramerDSP
04-10-2010, 09:06 PM
I have to disagree...

I would hate to see him dumb down his message just to pander to America's sheep so he can win in 2012, I would rather him expose the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve than hear him chant "Hope" and "Change" 1000 times over. America needs to wake up and Ron is the messiah.

We need to remember what separates Ron Paul from the rest of the politicians. As far as Rand goes, he is sounding more and more like the average Republican. I only hope dearly that he is dumbing down his message and intends to vote and legislate the way his father does once he is elected.

I also do believe that Ron Paul can win in 2012. Let's stop bashing his marketing and start promoting his movement.


welcome to the forum!

Depressed Liberator
04-10-2010, 09:06 PM
Sofia is dead wrong. The MIC, corporatism, and our empire are important issues. Addressing them is what sets Paul apart from the others.

sofia
04-10-2010, 09:12 PM
Bullshit.

To thine own self be true.

If the other fuckers don't get it so be it.

I'm sorry sofia. Ron does quite well speaking for what he believes. I took note. Lay off the "I'd be a good campaign manager for Paul" fantasy.

He is what he is. And that, there, is what he is.

And that,there, is why we love him.

ok...

just as long as you know that he will have zero shot of winning in 2012 primary if he continues using leftist-associated terminology.....

intellectuals dont decide the outcome of elections.....the rabble does!

sofia
04-10-2010, 09:14 PM
Sofia is dead wrong. The MIC, corporatism, and our empire are important issues. Addressing them is what sets Paul apart from the others.

jesus c...

do u people even read my fucking suggestions?..or do u just react like dogs?

i didnt say he should avoid these issues....I am simply saying that he can use much more effective words that dont confuse GOP primary voters....

Light
04-10-2010, 09:26 PM
jesus c...

do u people even read my fucking suggestions?..or do u just react like dogs?

i didnt say he should avoid these issues....I am simply saying that he can use much more effective words that dont confuse GOP primary voters....

You are right. I would say the worst enemy of the "ron paul movement" is the people here. Let's attach all sorts of radiactive words and issues to Ron Paul, that will sure get him popular/sarcasm.

justinc.1089
04-10-2010, 09:36 PM
The only reason Ron did so well in 2008 is that most of us firmly held on to the "delusion" that he could win. Without that, he's just another 3rd party nobody, a dennis kucinich.

There's no reason to go around saying he can't win.

I wouldn't call it a delusion. After Paul lost New Hampshire AND then also had a terrible result in South Carolina, I knew in reality hope was extremely small of winning somehow. So at that point in my mind back then it was clearly over, but i pushed on and kept trying regardless, not because I was deluded, but because I knew we all had to keep our resolve stronger than ever to do as much damage as possible to this corrupt system we have.

He is certainly not a third party nobody either and never was because well he wasn't running in a third party and had a chance to be elected, and has a chance this next presidential election too, however slim it is again.

TruthisTreason
04-10-2010, 09:36 PM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!



Ron isn't going to build the coalition needed unless he takes your advice! ;)

sofia
04-10-2010, 09:39 PM
Ron isn't going to build the coalition needed unless he takes your advice! ;)

can u get Rand to talk to his dad about this? :)

TruthisTreason
04-10-2010, 09:46 PM
Rand's campaign would not exist without the house that Ron Paul built.



One problem I notice constantly on this board is how some of the louder supporters naively think Ron's base comes solely from them.

Having worked on Rand's campaign and seen where the money comes from... I think many here would be surprised at the amount of older retired donors/supporters. And Ron Paul picked many of them up long before his recent popularity.

I think we on this forum and many on Ron Paul's staff misgauge where his support comes from. I think his popularity comes more from sound money/economic issues than foreign policy. I know many here like his foreign policy views but more agree with his economic views across the nation than his foreign policy views, I think.

My point is a big part of Ron's house was already built before 2007, before many of us. True that house is now a mansion, but the foundation was built on economics -- not opposition to the military industrial complex.

TruthisTreason
04-10-2010, 09:48 PM
can u get Rand to talk to his dad about this? :)

I think the word is Ron listens to Ron. ;)

sofia
04-10-2010, 09:49 PM
One problem I notice constantly on this board is how some of the louder supporters naively think Ron's base comes solely from them.

Having worked on Rand's campaign and seen where the money comes from... I think many here would be surprised at the amount of older retired donors/supporters. And Ron Paul picked many of them up long before his recent popularity.

I think we on this forum and many on Ron Paul's staff misgauge where his support comes from. I think his popularity comes more from sound money/economic issues than foreign policy. I know many here like his foreign policy views but more agree with his economic views across the nation than his foreign policy views, I think.

My point is a big part of Ron's house was already built before 2007, before many of us. True that house is now a mansion, but the foundation was built on economics -- not opposition to the military industrial complex.



yep...

Birchers and Libertarians and Consitition Party folks knew about RP many years ago...

the Alex Jones people and the college kids came aboard in recent years

Light
04-10-2010, 09:53 PM
yep...

Birchers and Libertarians and Consitition Party folks knew about RP many years ago...

the Alex Jones people and the college kids came aboard in recent years

I find it especially funny how most of these new followers are open-borders advocates and religion-haters despite Ron Paul advocating tougher border security and him writing extensively about the establishment's attempts to push secular humanism down our youth's throats.

phill4paul
04-10-2010, 09:54 PM
ok...

just as long as you know that he will have zero shot of winning in 2012 primary if he continues using leftist-associated terminology.....

intellectuals dont decide the outcome of elections.....the rabble does!

Fine. I believe he did quite well losing in 2008 spreading his message.

Truthfully I don't want half-assed supporters.

If we are gonna do it HIS way then we'll do it HIS way.

It's up to YOU to bridge the gap. Dr. Paul only gives it straight up.

Honestly, WTF?

justinc.1089
04-10-2010, 09:55 PM
Yeah he does need to try to find a few different words.

He needs to avoid "empire."

I would say we try to dominate other countries and push them around and tell them what to do.

I think thats the only word I can think of that really makes conservatives shudder and cringe when they hear it. I don't think that military industrial complex does, but maybe I'm wrong.

It still would be better to simply say there are a lot of people that make a lot of money off of war.

Saying that is much easier to understand than military industrial complex for most people.


Now people saying "NO Ron can't do that because he says it like it is! We can't compromise our principles and dumb down whatever bla bla bla..." TRY to understand there are DIFFERENT WAYS TO SAY THE SAME EXACT THING.

Liberals and conservatives speak two completely different languages when talking about often the exact same thing. And if you speak liberal to a conservative, they automatically stop listening to you, and the same goes for speaking conservative to a liberal.

Now yes I know you shouldn't speak in terms of either one because thats trying to pander to get votes. That is absolutely true.

What we are saying is not to do that, but just to AVOID terms that piss off conservatives. And empire when speaking about America really pisses them off, even though thats what neo-cons truly want in their hearts as we all know.

sofia
04-10-2010, 09:57 PM
I find it especially funny how most of these new followers are open-borders advocates and religion-haters despite Ron Paul advocating tougher border security and him writing extensively about the establishment's attempts to push secular humanism down our youth's throats.

they are too young to understand that " religion and morality are the indispensable supports of liberty" ....(I think Washington said that...maybe Adams)

Austrian economics alone will not save our civilization

Light
04-10-2010, 09:59 PM
they are too young to understand what...."that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of liberty" ....(I think Washington said that...maybe Adams)

Austrian economics alone will not save our civilization

I am their age and understand that. The problem is that they still have a lot of the liberal programming left in them from their days in re-education camp, aka public schooling. Heck, many people here are just as PC as the liberals and neocons.

Brian4Liberty
04-10-2010, 09:59 PM
jesus c...

do u people even read my fucking suggestions?..or do u just react like dogs?

i didnt say he should avoid these issues....I am simply saying that he can use much more effective words that dont confuse GOP primary voters....

Yes, Jesus H!

It should be noted that the term (and warning) about the Military-industrial-Congressional Complex came from 5-Star General, War Hero, and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower! Any Republican, neo-conservative or ignorant pundit that takes offense at that term needs a swift kick in tha ass, a waterboarding, and a remedial history class for dummies!

justinc.1089
04-10-2010, 10:04 PM
I find it especially funny how most of these new followers are open-borders advocates and religion-haters despite Ron Paul advocating tougher border security and him writing extensively about the establishment's attempts to push secular humanism down our youth's throats.

Well you need to try to keep people from immigrating illegally, but other than that I don't see the need for too much border security myself personally.

I also dislike established organized religion, not like a Bible-burning atheist nut person like we have all seen at some point or another, but I just think organized religion is even more corrupt than the government is. And I think that applies to thousands of years ago as well, so I think a little of organized religion's core teachings may be a bit off too. I do go to church though. I'm just saying I'm not that religious really, as far as organized religion goes.

But Paul being religious or supporting organized religion or feeling the gov has promoted a secular society doesn't bother me that much. I would agree the gov has promoted secular humanism more than likely in fact.

I think that failed too because I think that was based on a belief that for a person to be religious they must believe in some organization's teachings, so if you get enough people to stop believing that organization, and destroy it, then those people will no longer believe anything defiant to the state. And I don't think that works because people find their own beliefs without any organization around.

sofia
04-10-2010, 10:05 PM
Yes, Jesus H!

It should be noted that the term (and warning) about the Military-industrial-Congressional Complex came from 5-Star General, War Hero, and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower! Any Republican, neo-conservative or ignorant pundit that takes offense at that term needs a swift kick in tha ass, a waterboarding, and a remedial history class for dummies!

personally, I never liked that term cuz there really is no such thing as a "military-industrial complex"

Defense contractors do make money off of weapons and war.....but they dont have the power to actually start a war.

Military leaders fight the wars, but Generals and Admirals don't have authority to start a war.


Soooo...what the F is a "military-industrial complex" anyway?

It really does reek of Marxist propaganda.

It is the foreign policy establishment that starts ALL wars...elites at the CFR, AIPAC, and TriLat Commissions..

Those people do not serve in the military and do not work for Boeing.

It's a stupid term....and Ike was an asshole who murdered 1-2 million German POW's in cold blood by starving them.

justinc.1089
04-10-2010, 10:09 PM
Yes, Jesus H!

It should be noted that the term (and warning) about the Military-industrial-Congressional Complex came from 5-Star General, War Hero, and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower! Any Republican, neo-conservative or ignorant pundit that takes offense at that term needs a swift kick in tha ass, a waterboarding, and a remedial history class for dummies!

Paul needs to mention him before saying military industrial complex then. He could start his sentence by saying something like "Republican President Eisenhower first warned us about the military industrial complex..."

QueenB4Liberty
04-10-2010, 10:15 PM
personally, I never liked that term cuz there really is no such thing as a "military-industrial complex"

Defense contractors do make money off of weapons and war.....but they dont have the power to actually start a war.

Military leaders fight the wars, but Generals and Admirals don't have authority to start a war.


Soooo...what the F is a "military-industrial complex" anyway?

It really does reek of Marxist propaganda.

It is the foreign policy establishment that starts ALL wars...elites at the CFR, AIPAC, and TriLat Commissions..

Those people do not serve in the military and do not work for Boeing.

It's a stupid term....and Ike was an asshole who murdered 1-2 million German POW's in cold blood by starving them.

The military industrial complex is a network of private companies and contractors who profit from the US war machine, in particular, no bid or highly monopolistic contracts with the Pentagon, like Haliburton had or Blackwater during Katrina used as a mercenary security force.

heavenlyboy34
04-10-2010, 10:15 PM
Since the typical American won't remember this year by the time RP runs in 2012 (if he does), I don't see it as an issue. Besides, it's nice having someone in a very public position tell it like it is. :cool:

Light
04-10-2010, 10:17 PM
The problem with most people on this site is that they are still contaminated with marxist thoughts and propaganda. Anything they don't like to hear is immediatley labeled as "collectivist" or "racist" or "neocon" (basically one-coin words meant to shut down any debate). If that is the attitude we have then this movement consists of nothing more than a bunch of liberals who hate paying taxes.

justinc.1089
04-10-2010, 10:19 PM
personally, I never liked that term cuz there really is no such thing as a "military-industrial complex"

Defense contractors do make money off of weapons and war.....but they dont have the power to actually start a war.

Military leaders fight the wars, but Generals and Admirals don't have authority to start a war.


Soooo...what the F is a "military-industrial complex" anyway?

It really does reek of Marxist propaganda.

It is the foreign policy establishment that starts ALL wars...elites at the CFR, AIPAC, and TriLat Commissions..

Those people do not serve in the military and do not work for Boeing.

It's a stupid term....and Ike was an asshole who murdered 1-2 million German POW's in cold blood by starving them.

You bring up very good points about the term, but it is talking about the people whose actions encourage an interventionist foreign policy.

Example, our defense secretary said sometime he doesnt want more F-22's, the pentagon said the same thing, yet the corporation making them (Lockheed right? Or is it Boeing? Pretty sure its lockheed...) is lobbying for us to buy more F-22's with John McCain being a central figure to their lobbying efforts.

So our defense budgets get bigger and bigger because of junk like that. Once we buy those F-22's we spend money to maintain them, and since we have them more than likely they aren't going to be allowed to sit around even though we don't need them, so then we have to expand the budget again... and so on.

Stuff like that is what Paul is talking about when he says military industrial complex, as well as the groups you mentioned, to my understanding of the term.

Anti Federalist
04-10-2010, 10:26 PM
Since the typical American won't remember this year by the time RP runs in 2012 (if he does), I don't see it as an issue. Besides, it's nice having someone in a very public position tell it like it is. :cool:

Yeah that too.

Boobus has a hard time remembering what he had for breakfast, let alone the results of an straw poll years before.

silentshout
04-10-2010, 10:28 PM
Actually, this fact makes me like him more. He tells the truth, and people need to hear that right now. Then again, I've come here from the left, not the right, so those words don't bug me as much.

Suzu
04-10-2010, 10:28 PM
ok...

just as long as you know that he will have zero shot of winning in 2012 primary if he continues using leftist-associated terminology.....


Ike was a leftist??

silentshout
04-10-2010, 10:32 PM
Ike was a leftist??

Exactly! But also the fact that Ron Paul could bring in votes disaffected anti-war liberals should be considered a good thing. Sadly, I guess it isn't...

silentshout
04-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Also, there's nothing wrong with non-religious people supporting Ron Paul. I don't go to church and it's not because I need "de-programming." I just don't think the government should endorse a religion. Doesn't mean I need to the government to force "secularism" (whatever that means), either.

virgil47
04-10-2010, 10:37 PM
Bullshit.

To thine own self be true.

If the other fuckers don't get it so be it.

I'm sorry sofia. Ron does quite well speaking for what he believes. I took note. Lay off the "I'd be a good campaign manager for Paul" fantasy.

He is what he is. And that, there, is what he is.

And that,there, is why we love him.

And that there is why he'll never win!

.Tom
04-10-2010, 10:47 PM
ron isn't playing politics. Lovin' it.

+1000

tremendoustie
04-10-2010, 10:49 PM
The only reason I'm here, the only reason RPF exists, the only reason the freedom movement had a resurgence is BECAUSE Ron Paul doesn't censor his speeches. If he spoke like a normal politician using typical buzzwords and pandering to the audience, none of this would exist.

The man speaks truth, all the time, and that's why we love him.

Exactly right.

A win is worthless if it is not on the basis of principle.

If he speaks the truth he has won, no matter the election results.

If he compromises himself, our enemies have won already.

ladyjade3
04-10-2010, 10:49 PM
spade = spade.

Brian4Liberty
04-10-2010, 10:51 PM
personally, I never liked that term cuz there really is no such thing as a "military-industrial complex"

Defense contractors do make money off of weapons and war.....but they dont have the power to actually start a war.

Military leaders fight the wars, but Generals and Admirals don't have authority to start a war.


Soooo...what the F is a "military-industrial complex" anyway?

It really does reek of Marxist propaganda.

It is the foreign policy establishment that starts ALL wars...elites at the CFR, AIPAC, and TriLat Commissions..

Those people do not serve in the military and do not work for Boeing.


Ike was keeping it simple. He was fully aware of how foriegn policy and the corporatist system were entwined. Multiple interests and agendas often converge. He had to leave "Congressional" out of the speech to avoid offending Congress; he couldn't speak plainly.

It would be difficult for Ike to speak out against the neo-conservatives, as they didn't exist yet. But he knew what was coming. Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton are all part of the MIC, as well as the less visible Oligarchs behind the scenes.

Does abolishing the Fed sound like Marxist propaganda?

tremendoustie
04-10-2010, 10:51 PM
And that there is why he'll never win!

All we hear from politicians are lies, because they want to win.

It's time we stand on the truth, win or lose -- and in the long run, with the truth on our side, we cannot lose.

phill4paul
04-10-2010, 11:00 PM
And that there is why he'll never win!

It ain't about winning. Maybe one day you'll grow old enough to realize that compromising "the person that you are" to gain greater control only compromises yourself.;)

Edit: And then again maybe you know EXACTLY what you said is truth. SRY if I misconstrued. The internets, without voice inflection can be damn confusing,

sofia
04-10-2010, 11:04 PM
Ike was a leftist??

Ike was a Democrat FDR boot-licker. Graduated in bottom third of his class at West Point, yet was leap froggged over scores of senior officers to become head of Allied command.

Ike couldnt shine McArthur's or Patton's shoes.

The GOP Globalist wing was scared shitless that Robert Taft was gonna be the nominess in 1952. Taft was a Ron Paul Republican whose dad was screwd by Teddy Roosevelt's third party spolier run in 1912 (thats how we got Woodrow Wilson with just 40% of the vote.

Eisenhower was the "stop Taft" candidate....8 years of Ike transformed the GOP into a Democrat twin.

cindy25
04-10-2010, 11:19 PM
Ron needs to keep doing what he's doing. He will not win in 2012, and as such, he should run a no holds barred educational campaign. Let Ron recruit more folks and double or triple our numbers in 2012. Then over the next 4 years, we will expand our base even more and support Rand Paul for President in 2016. Then, we will have a real shot at the presidency.

time is running out. 76 is still considered viable but 80?

and the nomination will be easier in 2012 than 2016. you are assuming Obama will win a 2nd term.

Ireland4Liberty
04-10-2010, 11:25 PM
I find it especially funny how most of these new followers are open-borders advocates and religion-haters despite Ron Paul advocating tougher border security and him writing extensively about the establishment's attempts to push secular humanism down our youth's throats.

I just believe in science and history of man. Both tend to lean towards there is no god.

Brian4Liberty
04-10-2010, 11:38 PM
Eisenhower was the "stop Taft" candidate...

That's true. But at least he fessed up about what was starting to happen in his final speech. This makes any neo-cons or Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans even bigger hypocrites if they disavow the existence of the military-industrial complex. It came from one of their own ancestors in the GOP...

Light
04-10-2010, 11:41 PM
I just believe in science and history of man. Both tend to lean towards there is no god.

Yep, this same kind of animosity toward Christians is why this group will continue be marginalized.

virgil47
04-10-2010, 11:41 PM
It ain't about winning. Maybe one day you'll grow old enough to realize that compromising "the person that you are" to gain greater control only compromises yourself.;)

Edit: And then again maybe you know EXACTLY what you said is truth. SRY if I misconstrued. The internets, without voice inflection can be damn confusing,

I said exactly what I meant. Unless he learns to communicate effectively with the masses he will never be able to convince them that he can fix the problems of our country. If he can not do that he will never be elected to the office of President. I'll be celebrating my 63rd year of life in a few days and I have learned a few things over the years.

RideTheDirt
04-10-2010, 11:42 PM
f#$^ that don't water it down

I think you're wrong on this max

jabf2006
04-10-2010, 11:46 PM
can u get Rand to talk to his dad about this? :)

I'd rather Ron give Rand a stern talking to in regard to Gitmo.

Golding
04-10-2010, 11:47 PM
Ron Paul's appeal is his honesty. He can't maintain that appeal if he censors himself to so-called "political correctness" lopsided towards the typical lies being told. He sprung leaks with the same words in 2008. Over time, the dam will break, and no amount of spin will stop it.

tpreitzel
04-10-2010, 11:47 PM
Yep, this same kind of animosity toward Christians is why this group will continue be marginalized.

The amusing part is that neither science nor history "lean" towards no God. Actually, the converse is true and becoming increasingly so daily in the case of science... but we're moving off-topic even more.

micahnelson
04-10-2010, 11:50 PM
I don't want Ron to change the way he talks, Its clear to me now that he SEEMS honest because he IS HONEST.

The people speaking for him, however, need to be good communicators, including careful selection of words.

silus
04-10-2010, 11:53 PM
Ron = Rand


But Rand is kicking ass while Ron remains a long shot.

The difference?


Rand sounds like "one of them"...he says the same thing that his dad does but in a more "conservative sounding" manner.

I want to win...not just "send a message".....but if Ron keeps using these terms, the ignorant GOP yahoos will reflexively dismiss him as a liberal.

And that there is why he'll never win!
Ron Paul, unlike you, does not define winning in such narrow terms. He is influencing the outcome, influencing the people, waking up and educating the apathetic, politically unengaged youth of America. Its not all about winning elections, and you should acknowledge that.

People like Sofia are the reason politicians have evolved the way they have... The goal now being to completely manipulate public perception, packaging everything, every word every action in an easy to swallow format. Filtering every interaction they have with strategists, handlers, assistants... And little by little, good idea by good idea, you find little significant difference between popular politicians, the distinctions being being in who has better funding and media control in arguing over superficial, irrelevant differences.

This is a road that should be left alone.

jabf2006
04-10-2010, 11:57 PM
He is influencing the outcome, influencing the people, waking up and educating the apathetic, politically unengaged youth of America.

Indeed.

Who is Rand waking up?

SimpleName
04-11-2010, 01:46 AM
I still get the chills when he says those things. I seize up when I hear "American empire." Good lord, I can imagine what that sounds like to these tea party "patriots." The military-industrial complex does have an anti-soldier ring too it as well.

I would certainly hate for Paul to start pandering for votes, but maybe he could try some softer wording. At very least he could mention the military-industrial complex was discussed by Ike, a name tea partiers would connect with pretty quick, especially since he was a General. He could also scrap "empire" altogether. Maybe just "bring our troops home," which he already uses often. It sounds compassionate and soldiers' parents probably love hearing it.

I don't know anymore. These media puppets will find someway to make him look bad no matter what, so I figure he might as well just keep going with it.

Akus
04-11-2010, 02:02 AM
Okay... now where's that thread on "What went wrong with the Campaign 2008"?

We've covered it... multiple times. Sales & Marketing biggest point in this Political Circuses... Ron's Staff has always lacked it.

Good question, where is that thread because I do not mind myself rereading it.

0zzy
04-11-2010, 02:26 AM
Holy fucking shit. Sofia said something I actually agree with. I don't think corporatism is that bad of a buzz words. But you are right. I might think you are nuts, but on this you are right on.

Sincerely,

SLutter McGee

thirded. corporatism isn't bad though. he went off topic when talking about foreign policy.

"we need to cut spending on the left and right! on the right.....[insert big foreign policy discussion here]" and never talk about "on the left..." cause he was too focused on trying to educate people who didn't want educating.

phill4paul
04-11-2010, 02:51 AM
I said exactly what I meant. Unless he learns to communicate effectively with the masses he will never be able to convince them that he can fix the problems of our country. If he can not do that he will never be elected to the office of President. I'll be celebrating my 63rd year of life in a few days and I have learned a few things over the years.

He communicates just fine. His message is clear. Those that want a cuddly blanket wrapped around their ears are people I could care less about. They are the one that would elect him and then throw him to the fire 2 yrs into a presidency.
This is no time to coddle. The government has been doing that long enough.

itshappening
04-11-2010, 04:32 AM
"World's policeman" should be used instead of empire (i.e 'being the world's policeman costs us billions and needs looking at..')

Military industrial complex, i'm not against him using it but I know it can be confusing to GOP voters so maybe he should just say "companies who benefit from the Federal government"

.Tom
04-11-2010, 04:48 AM
What separates Ron from other politicians is that he doesn't sacrifice his principles.

If a politician sacrifices principles in order to get elected, what makes you think they're going to suddenly feel all altruistic once in office?

We need to stick to our principles and be crystal clear in our message. The GOP wants the message to be diluted so they can infiltrate it with lies.

nayjevin
04-11-2010, 05:24 AM
"World's policeman" should be used instead of empire (i.e 'being the world's policeman costs us billions and needs looking at..')

Military industrial complex, i'm not against him using it but I know it can be confusing to GOP voters so maybe he should just say "companies who benefit from the Federal government"

both empire and military industrial complex are phrasings that have deep historical significance to a great many people - and they describe accurately what occurs in a welfare-warfare-corporatist state.

Juan McCain
04-11-2010, 07:40 AM
Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.




The term military industrial complex shows no disrespect whatsoever to the Department of Defense and it's multiple contractors and sub-contractors throughout industry. The term is a shining example to Republicans of how a Republican President who understood war invented a term to accurately describe what the government was up to and how the disastrous use of misplaced power has the potential to destroy this nation.

I'd actually be more likely to recommend that Ron Paul could start to use Eisenhower's preferred terminology and characterization of the "military industrial congressional complex"
(but Eisenhower was dissuaded after pleading by some Congressional leaders to leave them out of the term introduced in his farewell address in January 1961)

I would recommend to the GOP that they start to listen to Ron Paul closely . . .
and if they choose to ignore him they do so at their own peril.

I personally also remind the GOP at the Iowa caucuses and local GOP meetings of these quotes from Eisenhower whenever I can as well.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can,
only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

YouTube - Eisenhower on the Military Industrial Complex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU&feature=related)

marc1888
04-11-2010, 07:56 AM
You would be right if Ron Paul was disappearing into oblivion. However in the last few years RP has become more mainstream despite his rhetoric.

Personally i am happy to have American educated in these terms rather than dumbing down the rhetoric.




Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!

moostraks
04-11-2010, 08:17 AM
Want to see RP lose his core base? Then watch him talk using newspeak the way you propose. *Newsflash* the neocon base you want him to cater to is not going to get it in this lifetime or the heralded second coming for which they think they are killing Muslims right now.

Corporatists have their administration in place so by speaking against corporatism he is appealing to the majority of the public that is incensed right now.

"Conservatives" think he's a liberal because they watch too much FOX news. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink...

speciallyblend
04-11-2010, 08:30 AM
sofia bs, your post is not true. we are not waiting for 2012. we have ron paul type candidates running in 2010. do not blame ron paul blame the ron paul supporters who didn't register in time!!!!! we tied in the straw poll, blame the economy or i would of been there from colorado but I HAD NO MONEY .DO NOT BLAME RON PAUL BLAME ME IF YOU WANT!!

Flash
04-11-2010, 08:35 AM
Indeed.

Who is Rand waking up?

How about the entire state of Kentucky? Once 2011 comes around, of course.

AlexMerced
04-11-2010, 08:42 AM
Ron Paul never cared about marketing, that's our job

specsaregood
04-11-2010, 09:03 AM
People have no problem with what Dr. Paul says. They have a problem with what the media tells them he says/said. That ain't gonna change even if he uses your alternate phrasing and teminology.

Rylick
04-11-2010, 09:23 AM
Want to see RP lose his core base? Then watch him talk using newspeak the way you propose. *Newsflash* the neocon base you want him to cater to is not going to get it in this lifetime or the heralded second coming for which they think they are killing Muslims right now.

Corporatists have their administration in place so by speaking against corporatism he is appealing to the majority of the public that is incensed right now.

"Conservatives" think he's a liberal because they watch too much FOX news. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink...

Yes, you are absolutely right. Taking terms that would please the neoconservative base in the republican party would destroy Ron's position as the uncomfortable truth-speaker.
Ron Paul would lose what makes him unique in Washington D.C. Making substitutes would mean to give up and hopefully this will never happen.

pacelli
04-11-2010, 10:30 AM
I'm seeing the exact same arguments, points, and opinions that existed in 2007.

The fact is that you either support RP, or you don't support RP anymore. If you don't support him, then admit it to yourself. Don't try to get everyone to share your belief about RP just to justify your own belief change.

You're not going to change him. If he runs for president, then you will be in an ideal position to either get with the program or get on someone else's bandwagon. Or none at all.

The only thing that we have control over is our own behavior. A thread has already been created to guide the grassroots for the 2012 campaign, to help us avoid making the same mistakes as we did in 2007/8. Specific solutions rather than belly-aching and self-flagellation.

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

speciallyblend
04-11-2010, 10:43 AM
I'm seeing the exact same arguments, points, and opinions that existed in 2007.

The fact is that you either support RP, or you don't support RP anymore. If you don't support him, then admit it to yourself. Don't try to get everyone to share your belief about RP just to justify your own belief change.

You're not going to change him. If he runs for president, then you will be in an ideal position to either get with the program or get on someone else's bandwagon. Or none at all.

The only thing that we have control over is our own behavior. A thread has already been created to guide the grassroots for the 2012 campaign, to help us avoid making the same mistakes as we did in 2007/8. Specific solutions rather than belly-aching and self-flagellation.

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

Yep ,Liberty 2010,2011 and 2012 forever and RON PAUL 2012;)

virgil47
04-11-2010, 12:16 PM
He communicates just fine. His message is clear. Those that want a cuddly blanket wrapped around their ears are people I could care less about. They are the one that would elect him and then throw him to the fire 2 yrs into a presidency.
This is no time to coddle. The government has been doing that long enough.

He communicates just fine with the intellectuals and the politically adept in our society. Unfortunately the vast majority of the voting public do not fit into either category.

As one who lived through the Vietnam era the terms military industrial complex, corporatism and our empire ring solidly of the leftist agenda put forth by the communist led hippies of the time. People in my age group tend to mistrust those that habitually use those terms.

As for throwing him in the fire you are truly ignorant of the realities of the political world if you think he would have any chance of not being thrown under the bus so to speak if he should get exceptionally lucky and win. Those that have been brought up by the leftists in our government and educational system have learned to be dependent on the hand outs the and have been lulled into the entitlement generation.

That brings us back to the way he communicates. Unless he can convince the entitlement generation that learning to be independent and standing on their own two feet is beneficial to both themselves and America he will not get their vote. He needs to learn to speak the language of those he is addressing. If he is unwilling to "adjust" himself to the audiences standards of communication he will continue to be seen as an elitist or as someone with senile dementia because of his rambling style of answering questions. It seems as though I spent most of my time as a deligate for Ron Paul at the Pierce county convention trying to convince the other delegates that he was not senile but that he just refused to pre think any questions that he might have been asked during the debates. Unfortunately most of the delgates tended to believe their own eyes and ears over my explanations.

silus
04-11-2010, 05:27 PM
I spent most of my time as a deligate for Ron Paul at the Pierce county convention trying to convince the other delegates that he was not senile but that he just refused to pre think any questions that he might have been asked during the debates. Unfortunately most of the delgates tended to believe their own eyes and ears over my explanations.
Why would you waste your time trying to make excuses for Ron Paul? And what does pre-thinking have to do with anything?? His message is pretty clear. Most people who disagree with Paul either dismiss him outright or just cannot challenge him on the issue. I don't see how his communication style has anything to do the positions he takes on issues. Which is kind of funny why you didn't once mention the issues in your description of trying to convince others. :shrug

Brian4Liberty
04-11-2010, 05:40 PM
The term military industrial complex shows no disrespect whatsoever to the Department of Defense and it's multiple contractors and sub-contractors throughout industry. The term is a shining example to Republicans of how a Republican President who understood war invented a term to accurately describe what the government was up to and how the disastrous use of misplaced power has the potential to destroy this nation.

I'd actually be more likely to recommend that Ron Paul could start to use Eisenhower's preferred terminology and characterization of the "military industrial congressional complex"
(but Eisenhower was dissuaded after pleading by some Congressional leaders to leave them out of the term introduced in his farewell address in January 1961)

I would recommend to the GOP that they start to listen to Ron Paul closely . . .
and if they choose to ignore him they do so at their own peril.

I personally also remind the GOP at the Iowa caucuses and local GOP meetings of these quotes from Eisenhower whenever I can as well.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can,
only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower


Great quotes from Eisenhower.

Romulus
04-11-2010, 06:05 PM
one can stay true to his principles and say things in a different way...

for example...instead of saying "our empire"......say something like, 'We are broke because have become the world's policeman and nation builder."

Instead of "corporatism"...say "Big government and Wall Street Fat cats are in bed together"


see what i'm sayin?....ya gotta know your audience.

But then you start sounding like Mitt Romney trying to appeal to the Tea Parties.

I say Ron is doing alright. I agree with his bold language.

Justinjj1
04-11-2010, 06:33 PM
If you want a watered down, generic version of Ron Paul that only speaks in platitudes and kowtows to the neoconservative base then you're in luck, his son Rand fits that description perfectly.

sofia
04-11-2010, 06:49 PM
If you want a watered down, generic version of Ron Paul that only speaks in platitudes and kowtows to the neoconservative base then you're in luck, his son Rand fits that description perfectly.

Thats precisely why Rand will win....and Ron will get about 10%...

ever think of that?

Justinjj1
04-11-2010, 07:16 PM
That's precisely why will get another stereotypical, military obsessed, chickenhawk, GOP senator who wants to "get tough as opposed to talking tough" on Iran.

Depressed Liberator
04-11-2010, 07:25 PM
I find it especially funny how most of these new followers are open-borders advocates and religion-haters despite Ron Paul advocating tougher border security and him writing extensively about the establishment's attempts to push secular humanism down our youth's throats.

New follower? You are hilarious. I campaigned hard for Ron Paul back in 2007. I went to several states and even went out of my native south to campaign for him. Do not say things about me you have no idea about. You are the new follower as far as I am concerned.

Depressed Liberator
04-11-2010, 07:26 PM
Thats precisely why Rand will win....and Ron will get about 10%...

ever think of that?

I don't want a god damn politician. Rand is alright, but I would not campaign for him on a national level like I did for Ron Paul and continue to do so.

sofia
04-11-2010, 07:27 PM
That's precisely why will get another stereotypical, military obsessed, chickenhawk, GOP senator who wants to "get tough as opposed to talking tough" on Iran.

i guarantee you that Rand's voting record will be the same as dad's.....

in the end, that's all that matters.

Juan McCain
04-11-2010, 08:07 PM
Thats precisely why Rand will win....and Ron will get about 10%...

ever think of that?

but I thought Ron gets about 80% in his Congressional District

silus
04-11-2010, 08:09 PM
Thats precisely why Rand will win....and Ron will get about 10%...

ever think of that?
Rand's political career would not exist had it not been for Ron Paul doing exactly what you are criticizing him over.

ctiger2
04-11-2010, 08:21 PM
Rand's political career would not exist had it not been for Ron Paul doing exactly what you are criticizing him over.

Yep, I just watched a replay of the SRLC speech and it's as if he's just talking at a family get together. Good Stuff! Ron's got the fire and Rand's hopefully go it too...

virgil47
04-11-2010, 08:46 PM
Why would you waste your time trying to make excuses for Ron Paul? And what does pre-thinking have to do with anything?? His message is pretty clear. Most people who disagree with Paul either dismiss him outright or just cannot challenge him on the issue. I don't see how his communication style has anything to do the positions he takes on issues. Which is kind of funny why you didn't once mention the issues in your description of trying to convince others. :shrug

It is pretty obvious that you did not watch the Presidential debates. If you had you would have realized that he seemed befuddled and not really sure of what he wished to say. By the time he got his wits about him the time limit for answering had almost expired and he had changed direction on his answer two or three times. By not pre-thinking his answer and trying to answer off the cuff he simply did not have time to reply in a cohesive manner.

His communication style is of utmost importance only if he wishes to communicate in a clear and concise manner. If he simply doesn't care if he is understood by the majority of the voters then he went about ensuring that.

I felt embarrassed and more than a little disconcerted that I kept being asked about his mental state. If the other delegates thought of him as senile no amount of convincing would make them understand what he stands for.

sofia
04-11-2010, 08:55 PM
It is pretty obvious that you did not watch the Presidential debates. If you had you would have realized that he seemed befuddled and not really sure of what he wished to say. By the time he got his wits about him the time limit for answering had almost expired and he had changed direction on his answer two or three times. By not pre-thinking his answer and trying to answer off the cuff he simply did not have time to reply in a cohesive manner.

His communication style is of utmost importance only if he wishes to communicate in a clear and concise manner. If he simply doesn't care if he is understood by the majority of the voters then he went about ensuring that.

I felt embarrassed and more than a little disconcerted that I kept being asked about his mental state. If the other delegates thought of him as senile no amount of convincing would make them understand what he stands for.

this is true...

I've worked in sales/marketing for many years....listened to seminars of many selling legends like Brian Tracy and Zig Ziglar....

they all emphasize 3 things (as I also know from experience)..

1. Play to your audience. If you are dealing with an analytical type, use facts and figures....but in most cases, you must play upon the heart...

2. Always keep it simple ...KISS...Keep it Simple Stupid

3. Repeat your main points


Ron is briliiant in many ways....but he and must learn the art of selling.

Some here can bitch and whine at me all u want....but thats the reality...I dont want RP to change the product....just to modify and simplify the sales pitch..

save complexities, reason, and logic for the intellectuals....

win the mass of voters with simplicity, repition, and emotion

reduen
04-11-2010, 09:09 PM
this is true...

I've worked in sales/marketing for many years....listened to seminars of many selling legends like Brian Tracy and Zig Ziglar....

they all emphasize 3 things (as I also know from experience)..

1. Play to your audience. If you are dealing with an analytical type, use facts and figures....but in most cases, you must play upon the heart...

2. Always keep it simple ...KISS...Keep it Simple Stupid

3. Repeat your main points


Ron is briliiant in many ways....but he and must learn the art of selling.

Some here can bitch and whine at me all u want....but thats the reality...I dont want RP to change the product....just to modify and simplify the sales pitch..

save complexities, reason, and logic for the intellectuals....

win the mass of voters with simplicity, repition, and emotion

When Ron starts selling himself to whatever audience that he is speaking to, I will stop supporting him...! I have been in sales for many years also and I can tell you that most of what they teach you in that industry is a bunch of bull...!

The fact that Ron Paul is who he is no matter who the audience is, that is the same reason why I support him...

Sell all you want my friend but let Dr. Paul continue to be Dr. Paul and just see what happens......!

Justinjj1
04-11-2010, 09:11 PM
I can't imagine anyone giving a shit about Ron Paul if he started speaking like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, etc. I think that he did an excellent job in the debates, and that is what drew a lot of people to him in the first place. He set himself apart from the rest of those typical politican clowns on stage. I seriously doubt that half of the people on here would be die-hard Ron Paul supporters if he softened/modified his message to appeal to a larger audience.

You see it all the time in the music industry, when a band "sells out" to try to reach a larger audience and sell more records and thus alienates the same base that made them popular to begin with. If Ron attempts to take the same strategy as Rand, then I will quit this movement in a heartbeat. I care a lot more about principals than winning elections.

sofia
04-11-2010, 09:22 PM
u people are really thick headed and closed minded....


you worship RP as though he is an infallible cult leader.

I love him too....but he has some serious flaws as a communicator and choice of words. It's really freaky how u guys worship him and wont accept ANY criticism.

I'm tellin ya that he is inadvertantly alienating potential conservative supporters by using confusing leftish terms.....and you refuse to even consider it...

JoshLowry
04-11-2010, 09:25 PM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!

You have good advice here. I wish you would apply this to your 9/11 message on RPF.

TruthisTreason
04-11-2010, 09:26 PM
u people are really thick headed and closed minded....


you worship RP as though he is an infallible cult leader.

I love him too....but he has some serious flaws as a communicator and choice of words. It's really freaky how u guys worship him and wont accept ANY criticism.

I'm tellin ya that he is alienating potential conservative supporters and you refuse to even consider it...

You are not alone! I see it just like you do! Assuming Ron runs in 2012, I think a lot more of us will see it. ;)

Juan McCain
04-11-2010, 09:26 PM
Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)


Eisenhower's words are simple and straightforward enough, but need to be repeated even more by RP to the GOP.

The term military industrial complex shows no disrespect whatsoever to the Department of Defense and it's multiple contractors and sub-contractors throughout industry. The term is a shining example to Republicans of how a Republican President who understood war invented a term to accurately describe what the government was up to and how the disastrous use of misplaced power has the potential to destroy this nation.

I'd actually be more likely to recommend that Ron Paul could start to use Eisenhower's preferred terminology and characterization of
the "military industrial congressional complex"
(but Eisenhower was dissuaded after pleading by some Congressional leaders to leave them out of the term introduced in his farewell address in January 1961)

I would recommend to the GOP that they start to listen to Ron Paul closely . . .
and if they choose to ignore him they do so at their own peril.

I personally also remind the GOP at events like the Iowa caucuses and local GOP meetings of these quotes from Eisenhower whenever I can as well.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can,
only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower's Farewell : Sees Threat to Liberties in Vast Defense Machine

YouTube - Eisenhower on the Military Industrial Complex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU&feature=related)

JoshLowry
04-11-2010, 09:27 PM
but he has some serious flaws as a communicator and choice of words.

Agreed. I wish he would work on the sound bites.

They do work quite well in the right context. The whole speech doesn't have to be sound bites. His speeches are totally off the cuff. His speeches were not any where near the huge amount of polish that went into some of the, what I'd call major presentations, from other speakers at the SRLC.

sofia
04-11-2010, 09:29 PM
You have good advice here. I wish you would apply this to your 9/11 message on RPF.

when have i advocated that RP take a stand on 9/11 truth?

im not running for office....so i dont have to package my speech or tailor it for an audience....Ron however does.

reduen
04-11-2010, 09:30 PM
u people are really thick headed and closed minded....


you worship RP as though he is an infallible cult leader.

I love him too....but he has some serious flaws as a communicator and choice of words. It's really freaky how u guys worship him and wont accept ANY criticism.

I'm tellin ya that he is alienating potential conservative supporters and you refuse to even consider it...

You just don't get it....! It is the neo-con's and rhino's that must come over to our side, not the other way around.....

I want a leader who is brave enough to inform me of and defend me from our enemies foreign of course but more importantly I want a leader that will also be brave enough to do the same regarding our enemies domestic. What is crazy about that?

TruthisTreason
04-11-2010, 09:30 PM
im not running for office....so i dont have to package my speech or tailor it for an audience.

I used to think that way... :o

P.S. Don't ever work for someone running for office. :p

JoshLowry
04-11-2010, 09:31 PM
when have i advocated that RP take a stand on 9/11 truth?

im not running for office....so i dont have to package my speech or tailor it for an audience....Ron however does.

No, but there is an audience here that reads General Politics that has not made up their mind on a group they have been warned about as being kooky.

sofia
04-11-2010, 09:39 PM
You just don't get it....! It is the neo-con's and rhino's that must come over to our side, not the other way around.....



good grief....

one more time...I'm not talkin about "sellin out" or watering down the message


I'm talkin about using better terminology that conservatives will agree with.

For example...you wouldnt want RP to start calling himself a "liberal" right?


well, RP is in fact a liberal! Yes...classical liberalism supports limited government and free markets...so...RP is a liberal!

But the left has adopted the word "liberal"....so it would be foolish for us to use it.

Get it?


Well, it's the same with "military industrial complex" and "corporatism" and "empire"

Chieppa1
04-11-2010, 09:42 PM
Exactly right.

A win is worthless if it is not on the basis of principle.

If he speaks the truth he has won, no matter the election results.

If he compromises himself, our enemies have won already.

This.


u people are really thick headed and closed minded....


you worship RP as though he is an infallible cult leader.

I love him too....but he has some serious flaws as a communicator and choice of words. It's really freaky how u guys worship him and wont accept ANY criticism.

I'm tellin ya that he is inadvertantly alienating potential conservative supporters by using confusing leftish terms.....and you refuse to even consider it...

Maybe because your a Nazi?

And because if Ron came out tomorrow and said "I AM NEVER RUNNING" we would still be here supporting him in whatever he does. Ron is not Rand. Rand is not Ron. Ron has done the Washington dance. If he wants to go try for the big job go for it. I'm all for it. But he will do it his way. Lose? Okay maybe. But the next time I tell someone about Ron Paul for the first time, I wouldn't have to tell them the OTHER part where he becomes a politician.

TruthisTreason
04-11-2010, 09:45 PM
You just don't get it....! It is the neo-con's and rhino's that must come over to our side, not the other way around.....



If Ron is going to stick with the GOP and run in closed primaries nationally and expect to win the nomination.......

Then, package up our message so it sells! Because it appears to me we piss off more GOPers than we attract with Ron's foreign policy (and a few other issues)... Since it is the exact opposite of the party mantra.

The GOP is basically the WAR party, so I fail to see how Ron's foreign policy will ever fit into that.



I'd support Ron more if he changed parties. :D Independent or Reform... Ditch all the major ones. If he did that it would make more sense to thumb the GOP in the eye.

sofia
04-11-2010, 09:46 PM
This.



Maybe because your a Nazi?

And because if Ron came out tomorrow and said "I AM NEVER RUNNING" we would still be here supporting him in whatever he does. Ron is not Rand. Rand is not Ron. Ron has done the Washington dance. If he wants to go try for the big job go for it. I'll all for it. But he will do it is way. Lose? Okay maybe. But the next time I tell someone about Ron Paul for the first time, I wouldn't have to tell them the OTHER part where he becomes a politician.

Ron is not a politician????

Really?

What about his public praise of the notorious big spender and tax raiser Ronald Reagan?

...RP even had Reagan on his slim-jims in 2008!!!

What's that all about?

He's playing to the Reagan lovers! (as he should)


So spare me the holier- than- thou purist crap ok.

RonPaulFanInGA
04-11-2010, 09:54 PM
Max/Sofia, as much as some of the stuff he says is "out there", is right here.

I don't think Ron Paul can win in 2012 (though I want him to run), but he can do a lot more damage, in terms of winning delegates and votes, if he tailors his message and doesn't use so many leftist terms.

He sounds like frickin' Dennis Kucinich when talking about foreign policy and that is NEVER going to appeal to the GOP base. Why can't he sound like a conservative when opposing the war? No nation building, costs too much, follow the Constitution and properly declare war....instead of this "empire" and "military industrial complex" stuff.


but I thought Ron gets about 80% in his Congressional District

In a small district as an incumbent. Ron Paul couldn't win a statewide race in Texas. In fact, I think Ron Paul got 17% in his GOP primary for Senate when he tried it.

reduen
04-11-2010, 09:57 PM
this is true...

I've worked in sales/marketing for many years....listened to seminars of many selling legends like Brian Tracy and Zig Ziglar....

they all emphasize 3 things (as I also know from experience)..

1. Play to your audience. If you are dealing with an analytical type, use facts and figures....but in most cases, you must play upon the heart...

2. Always keep it simple ...KISS...Keep it Simple Stupid

3. Repeat your main points


Ron is briliiant in many ways....but he and must learn the art of selling.

Some here can bitch and whine at me all u want....but thats the reality...I dont want RP to change the product....just to modify and simplify the sales pitch..

save complexities, reason, and logic for the intellectuals....

win the mass of voters with simplicity, repition, and emotion


To this point I would like to give you an example of how many of those "Sales Seminars" and leaders are a bunch of bull.

I can not tell you how many seminars that I have been to in the past where I heard the speaker try to drill in my head that to be a successful sales person, I had to follow his/her "? step formula." (the number and order of steps varies with each individual expert)

Inevitably, there was always one step called "close the sale." or something very similar which really meant for you to specifically ask your potential customer for his/her business.. ("Of course" you say, "everyone knows that you must do this...")

Well, one seminar an "expert" came in and boy did he go off on all of us outside sales guys/gals within the organization that I worked for at the time. He said that he had just received survey results from our current customer base in which 80% of our existing customers said that they were not specifically asked for their business...! "Do you folks realize how much money you are throwing away by not closing the sale properly?" the expert shouted... (or something very close to that anyway..)

I bet that you do not even get the irony in that statement do you? (Remember, those 80% were our customers and did actually buy from us.....) ;)

low preference guy
04-11-2010, 09:58 PM
Max/Sofia, as much as some of the stuff he says is "out there", is right here.

I don't think Ron Paul can win in 2012 (though I want him to run), but he can do a lot more damage, in terms of winning delegates and votes, if he tailors his message and doesn't use so many leftist terms.

He sounds like frickin' Dennis Kucinich when talking about foreign policy and that is NEVER going to appeal to the GOP base.

Hopefully Schiff and Rand win and their winning staffers form part of the official team for Ron Paul 2012. We need people to give him a few tips to consider. Never about changing the message, but about presenting it in more effective ways.

That team should also be able to deal with the smears we all know are going to come. Maybe even Rand himself should couch his Dad in this regard.

The grassroots are going to have many ideas. I think Josh or someone should write one page from RPF every now and then for Ron Paul to read so he knows what's going on in the movement, projects, what people are thinking. It's not about central planning, it's about a having some leader/grassroots communication.

Also...

A wild card people are forgetting

How unlikely is that Obama brings the troops home? If he does and foreign policy is no longer an issue, what would RP's chances will be then?

sofia
04-11-2010, 10:01 PM
To this point I would like to give you an example of how many of those "Sales Seminars" and leaders are a bunch of bull.

I can not tell you how many seminars that I have been to in the past where I heard the speaker try to drill in my head that to be a successful sales person, I had to follow his/her "? step formula." (the number and order of steps varies with each individual expert)

Inevitably, there was always one step called "close the sale." or something very similar which really meant for you to specifically ask your potential customer for his/her business.. ("Of course" you say, "everyone knows that you must do this...")

Well, one seminar an "expert" came in and boy did he go off on all of us outside sales guys/gals within the organization that I worked for at the time. He said that he had just received survey results from our current customer base in which 80% of our existing customers said that they were not specifically asked for their business...! "Do you folks realize how much money you are throwing away by not closing the sale properly?" the expert shouted... (or something very close to that anyway..)

I bet that you do not even get the irony in that statement do you? (Remember, those 80% were our customers and did actually buy from us.....) ;)

lots of phonies teaching seminars....but Ziglar and Tracy are true masters of psychology.

sofia
04-11-2010, 10:02 PM
Hopefully Schiff and Rand win and their winning staffers form part of the official team for Ron Paul 2012. We need people to give him a few tips to consider. Never about changing the message, but about presenting it in more effective ways.

That team should also be able to deal with the smears we all know are going to come. Maybe even Rand himself should couch his Dad in this regard.

i like Rand's style...

Grayson girlie-punches Rand

....Rand responds with a baseball bat.

reduen
04-11-2010, 10:02 PM
If Ron is going to stick with the GOP and run in closed primaries nationally and expect to win the nomination.......

Then, package up our message so it sells! Because it appears to me we piss off more GOPers than we attract with Ron's foreign policy (and a few other issues)... Since it is the exact opposite of the party mantra.

The GOP is basically the WAR party, so I fail to see how Ron's foreign policy will ever fit into that.



I'd support Ron more if he changed parties. :D Independent or Reform... Ditch all the major ones. If he did that it would make more sense to thumb the GOP in the eye.

One thing that you and many are forgetting in here... I am the frigging GOP now and there are many many many others just like me.... The establishment members were all cleaned out by a new breed of conservatives in my area and the same thing will continue to happen if the old guard GOP does not change it's ways!!!!

and

The GOP was not always "the war party" nor will they continue to be if me and Ron Paul have our way about it!!! Things do change and that is what is going on here right now....... :cool:

specsaregood
04-11-2010, 10:05 PM
The GOP is basically the WAR party, so I fail to see how Ron's foreign policy will ever fit into that.

Dunno about that. Not if he continues to tie it into the fiscal conservatism angle.
His best line in that SRLC speech was after the crowd started booing him. He smiled and it even looked like he chuckled a bit and declared, "All Empires End, Not because they are defeated militarily. All empires end for financial reasons. And that is what the markets are telling us today."

TruthisTreason
04-11-2010, 10:05 PM
One thing that you and many are forgetting in here... I am the frigging GOP now and there are many many many others just like me....

Yes, I'm the GOP too.


But, I also have my eyes open and realize 99% of the GOP voters in the state I live in would vote to bomb Iran in a second!

RonPaulFanInGA
04-11-2010, 10:07 PM
But, I also have my eyes open and realize 99% of the GOP voters in the state I live in would vote to bomb Iran in a second!

That actually doesn't sound too far off from my experiences as well.

reduen
04-11-2010, 10:10 PM
Yes, I'm the GOP too.


But, I also have my eyes open and realize 99% of the GOP voters in the state I live in would vote to bomb Iran in a second!

That may be true but as soon as they are lead to the understanding that bombing Iran is the very worst thing that we could do right now, they will follow.... The majority are sheep and will follow which ever Shepard that they are lead by.

Tax the Fed
04-11-2010, 10:10 PM
. . . if he continues to tie it into the fiscal conservatism angle.
His best line in that SRLC speech was after the crowd started booing him. He smiled and it even looked like he chuckled a bit and declared, "All Empires End, Not because they are defeated militarily. All empires end for financial reasons. And that is what the markets are telling us today."

Yes, this is the persuasive argument he needs to emphasize much more maybe to win the neo-cons over to an anti-Wilsonian non-interventionist stance . . .

Teach more history - so that history won't repeat itself.

TruthisTreason
04-11-2010, 10:10 PM
Dunno about that. Not if he continues to tie it into the fiscal conservatism angle.
His best line in that SRLC speech was after the crowd started booing him. He smiled and it even looked like he chuckled a bit and declared, "All Empires End, Not because they are defeated militarily. All empires end for financial reasons. And that is what the markets are telling us today."

Possibly, but when I hear him saying Empire this and Empire that.... I know what he is talking about...


BUT!!!!!!


I think the neocons hear him saying he hates America.


Which is exactly the point Sofia is making..... messaging...

RonPaulFanInGA
04-11-2010, 10:11 PM
The majority are sheep and will follow which ever Shepard that they are lead by.

Which right now consists of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin....

reduen
04-11-2010, 10:19 PM
Which right now consists of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin....


There appears to be no point in continuing here because it is clear that neither of us will budge on this...

All that I can say now is watch and see what happens... If you think that Dr. Paul is going to make the changes that you few are advocating, my advice to you is do not hold your breath. Dr. Paul is the same now as he has been even since before I was born. As a former neo-con Bush supporter, this fact is what drew me to Dr. Paul and his message and I know many others that are now coming over the same as I did.

Freedom is popular and the truth will always prosper in the end.... :)

TruthisTreason
04-11-2010, 10:24 PM
If you think that Dr. Paul is going to make the changes that you few are advocating, my advice to you is do not hold your breath.)


If you think he is going to win the 2012 Presidential GOP primary running like he did in 2007-2008, my advice to you is do not hold your breath.


So, is this about winning or shocking people?

reduen
04-11-2010, 10:30 PM
If you think he is going to win the 2012 Presidential GOP primary running like he did in 2007-2008, my advice to you is do not hold your breath.


So, is this about winning or shocking people?

All I can say to you is, look how much good he has done so far.... We are so much closer to real change today because Dr. Paul is who he is....

Philhelm
04-11-2010, 10:40 PM
Yes, I'm the GOP too.


But, I also have my eyes open and realize 99% of the GOP voters in the state I live in would vote to bomb Iran in a second!

And a further 99% of those people would never think of enlisting.

parocks
04-12-2010, 05:47 AM
marketing is everything my friend.

scrap "military industrial complex"....use "foreign policy Establishment"

scrap "empire"....use "Nanny of the World"


scrap "corporatism"...use "socialism, croniesm"



nothing is dumbed down....just better terminology that doesnt confuse or alienate the dumb ass Republicans we need to win.

I've argued with you before, but you're spot on here with all you are saying.

I'd say things like: Wars are Big Government. I am for Small Government.
Military Bases are very expensive. The Federal Goverment is spending way too much of your money. The War in Iraq cost every single American $????. I think you should keep your own money instead of us stealing it from you and using your money to chase Osama Bin Laden around the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan for 10 years. I've caught a lot of shit because some of you are too stupid to understand a couple of really simple concepts, shit that 4 year olds should understand. Some shit is dangerous and can get you killed.
Don't get all drunk and wander around the worst part of Detroit in the middle of the night. There are muggers there and you might get mugged. Only really stupid people don't know this. I'm not blaming you if you get mugged. It's the muggers fault. Don't touch a hot stove. Actions have consequences. Some things are risky and dangerous. If you do them, bad things can happen.

We all know that if he runs again, he'll be asked about the same stuff he was in 08. He really has to win that argument and he should be able to win that argument, and everyone else really wants him to lose that argument. He will be asked about it. I don't think that I have it right. I would enjoy Ron Paul saying in every debate "All of you are so fucking stupid." They're terrorists, it's what they do. Fire is hot. Don't put flesh eating bacteria on cuts. You can't stop a lawnmower blade with your tongue. The terrorists are wrong for being terrorists. We have to take all of your fucking money to stop them. Or we could just leave them alone and not piss them off and you can keep your money.

But that's not the point that you're making. The accurate point you're making is that RP uses language that appeals to Dems. He uses language that Dems use.
Corporatism sounds like something someone who doesn't like Corporations would say. Those people aren't Republicans for the most part. I'd drop the use of the word Neocon myself. It's a Democrat word. War is Big Goverment, and those who push for more war are Big Goverment Republicans.

Suzu
04-12-2010, 06:15 AM
Ziglar and Tracy are true masters of psychology.

I can attest to this, as I was a student of Ziglar's protegè Bernie Lofchick, who taught me to sell so well that I quit a job because I felt so guilty about putting people deep into debt when they couldn't say no to me.

parocks
04-12-2010, 06:18 AM
I knew who Ron Paul was when he announced he was running in 2008. I was pretty excited about it. I had no idea that antiwar was going to end up being such a large part of his campaign. Antiwar really isn't all that fresh. Democrats have been doing it for years. End the Fed is fresh, and that's what Ron Paul was all about, as well as a much smaller constitutional government.

But there were a lot of Dems who liked hearing a Republican bash Bush on the war. The debates mid 2007 featured Paul vs Giuliani on the war, terrorism, blowback. Ron Paul went from being the most conservative Republican to the antiwar Republican. In order to win, he needed money and to win votes from Republicans. Going antiwar, "blaming the US for 9/11" got him money, but it pissed off Republicans.

He really shouldn't mention foreign policy unless he has to. But when he does, he needs to really win decisively the "blowback" argument. It has to be a crushing victory. Only really stupid people will say that we can get involved in the Middle East without negative consequences to the US. I don't know what he should say to accomplish that.

Right now, too many Republicans think that Ron Paul is unpatriotic, does not want to defend the US, blames the US for 9/11, is in league with Al Queda, etc. Ron Paul needs to make those people embarrassed for thinking that about him. Embarrassed that they were so stupid to believe that. I don't know how to accomplish that exactly, but it's pretty much required.


One problem I notice constantly on this board is how some of the louder supporters naively think Ron's base comes solely from them.

Having worked on Rand's campaign and seen where the money comes from... I think many here would be surprised at the amount of older retired donors/supporters. And Ron Paul picked many of them up long before his recent popularity.

I think we on this forum and many on Ron Paul's staff misgauge where his support comes from. I think his popularity comes more from sound money/economic issues than foreign policy. I know many here like his foreign policy views but more agree with his economic views across the nation than his foreign policy views, I think.

My point is a big part of Ron's house was already built before 2007, before many of us. True that house is now a mansion, but the foundation was built on economics -- not opposition to the military industrial complex.

Suzu
04-12-2010, 06:29 AM
<snipped out vulgar language, which you will NEVER hear from Ron Paul>....RP uses language that appeals to Dems. He uses language that Dems use. Corporatism sounds like something someone who doesn't like Corporations would say. Those people aren't Republicans for the most part. I'd drop the use of the word Neocon myself. It's a Democrat word.

How many of US are former Democrats? I'm one, and I know a lot of others are. I say let RP keep winning them over to HIS side!!!!

virgil47
04-12-2010, 06:58 AM
I knew who Ron Paul was when he announced he was running in 2008. I was pretty excited about it. I had no idea that antiwar was going to end up being such a large part of his campaign. Antiwar really isn't all that fresh. Democrats have been doing it for years. End the Fed is fresh, and that's what Ron Paul was all about, as well as a much smaller constitutional government.

But there were a lot of Dems who liked hearing a Republican bash Bush on the war. The debates mid 2007 featured Paul vs Giuliani on the war, terrorism, blowback. Ron Paul went from being the most conservative Republican to the antiwar Republican. In order to win, he needed money and to win votes from Republicans. Going antiwar, "blaming the US for 9/11" got him money, but it pissed off Republicans.

He really shouldn't mention foreign policy unless he has to. But when he does, he needs to really win decisively the "blowback" argument. It has to be a crushing victory. Only really stupid people will say that we can get involved in the Middle East without negative consequences to the US. I don't know what he should say to accomplish that.

Right now, too many Republicans think that Ron Paul is unpatriotic, does not want to defend the US, blames the US for 9/11, is in league with Al Queda, etc. Ron Paul needs to make those people embarrassed for thinking that about him. Embarrassed that they were so stupid to believe that. I don't know how to accomplish that exactly, but it's pretty much required.

You are very correct. It's all a matter of terminology. Words have meaning. Use words people understand and identify with and you'll win hearts and minds (and votes). Use words people do not understand or identify with the opponents of freedom and you will be ridiculed and will not win over those that you NEED to win.

parocks
04-12-2010, 07:45 AM
There was no shortage of war under Clinton and theres no shortage of war under Obama. Both the Democrats and the Republicans don't mind war. The politicians that is. Regular Democrat voters get upset with war when Republicans do it, much in the same way that Republicans get upset with big government spending type stuff when Democrats do it.

Republicans don't like war all that much. Right now, all wars are Obama's wars, and anyone who supports those wars is supporting Obama. You don't want to be supporting Obama now, do you? Well, don't support the wars then.

War is Big Government. Personally, I only have $100 budgeted this year for war, and you know, times are tight, so, you big know, could you maybe stop the cruise missile attacks in maybe half the countries you're attacking right now, Obama, thanks.

If he has to talk about war, he should couch it in those terms.

What was that line he used at SRLC - something about how he'd rather close down military bases than take away some kids health care or welfare or whatever.

Who exactly is he trying to appeal to with that? Soccer moms? Fuck that.

If he's gonna run again, he might not generate the same excitement if he doesn't step up the heat. He's starting from a much larger base (Winning straw polls this time around), he'll get great $ right away when he announces - his big $ days won't be in November or December, when it's much later than ideal, but it'll be right when he needs it. But he was old in 2008, and he'll be older in 2012. And turning up the heat won't help Rand. "When will these expensive expensive wars ever end? When the last Muslim is dead? And how much of my money do you need to kill every last Muslim? All of it? Listen, there are terrorists in the Middle East. Most places in the world don't have too many people who strap explosives to their bodies, go into a public place, and blow themselves up. But there are quite a few that do that in the Middle East. Who knows why? Who cares? What's important is that we know that they are there. And we should stay away from them, and don't do anything to piss them off. It might seem unpatriotic to you, but you're a stupid fucking retard." That would be turning up the heat.

And "when I heard that Sarah Palin's chief advisor was Bill Kristol, I knew that the only thing certain about a Sarah Palin Presidency is that we would be at War in the Middle East. Whoever Israel wanted us to do battle with, we would do battle with. It would piss off terrorists, it would make Israel happy, and it would be a completely pointless, extremely expensive waste of money that doesn't make the US safer one bit. Hey Sarah, someone needs to tell you and your NeoChristian friends that Israel and the United States are 2 entirely different countries. You are running for President of the United States, not of Israel, and almost always what is good for Israel is not good for the United States." That would be turning up the heat.


If Ron is going to stick with the GOP and run in closed primaries nationally and expect to win the nomination.......

Then, package up our message so it sells! Because it appears to me we piss off more GOPers than we attract with Ron's foreign policy (and a few other issues)... Since it is the exact opposite of the party mantra.

The GOP is basically the WAR party, so I fail to see how Ron's foreign policy will ever fit into that.



I'd support Ron more if he changed parties. :D Independent or Reform... Ditch all the major ones. If he did that it would make more sense to thumb the GOP in the eye.

Romulus
04-12-2010, 08:16 AM
You are very correct. It's all a matter of terminology. Words have meaning. Use words people understand and identify with and you'll win hearts and minds (and votes). Use words people do not understand or identify with the opponents of freedom and you will be ridiculed and will not win over those that you NEED to win.

I've come around on this too. I agree.. Words are powerful and should be carefully choose. I'm not suggesting euphemisms, but accurate, educating. I think corporatism is just that, instead of socialism. He's on the right path.. just needs to refine that in regards to foreign policy.

parocks
04-12-2010, 08:21 AM
Agreed right back.

This race, although quite early, is shaping up very interesting. All good for Ron Paul.

Back in 2007, he really didn't have what would be called an "impact on the race" that anyone has really been able to determine. By "impact on the race", I mean, Ron Paul's presence in the race didn't really shape the final outcome of the race. McCain won, Huck stayed in a little bit longer than Romney did. I don't think that if Ron Paul wasn't in the race the race would've turned out differently.

This time around, if he runs, he'll have an impact on the race. I'm not sure exactly how. If there was one candidate that he didn't like, he could rip that candidate to shreds in the debates, and he could destroy that candidate. Not necessarily any candidate he chooses though. He isn't the front runner, but the media will have a difficult time choosing a front runner if Ron Paul wins all the things that front runners win. The media is going to have a tough time saying things like, Newt Gingrich, who came in 4th, is the front runner, and Ron Paul, who comes in 1st or 2nd, is a long shot who has no chance to win. The media has always used these straw polls. Internet polls are a different story. Also, this time around, Ron Paul should be prepared to be a real factor. Last time, the money wasn't there until late, and when it came, it wasn't expected. They didn't have a strategy for spending money way beyond what they expected. They also probably didn't understand the types of support they were getting. People collaborating on ads for the newspaper that they're paying for themselves, blimps, money bombs, Ron Paul Revolution, all things that the campaign had little or nothing to do with.
All of these things should be different this time around. There are also new pockets of Ron Paul support within the political establishment that weren't there before. All for the good for Ron Paul. It should be interesting.



You are very correct. It's all a matter of terminology. Words have meaning. Use words people understand and identify with and you'll win hearts and minds (and votes). Use words people do not understand or identify with the opponents of freedom and you will be ridiculed and will not win over those that you NEED to win.

parocks
04-12-2010, 08:25 AM
How many of US are former Democrats? I'm one, and I know a lot of others are. I say let RP keep winning them over to HIS side!!!!

The math doesn't work if he's going to be running in the Republican Primary. If you're running in the Republican Primary, appeal to Republicans.

dean.engelhardt
04-12-2010, 08:36 AM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!

I like the straight talk of serious problem in the federal government. All three items need to be corrected. The other candiates can't even identify the problem.

Stary Hickory
04-12-2010, 10:12 AM
Ron Paul can mention the wars all he wants to. He just needs to be tactful. If you get in your face about things people even who previously supported a bad position and do not any more they will become defensive and dislike you. I am sure Ron Paul does not mean to do this, but it's important to understand that Neocons think the wars are for their protection.

They have a moral sheen over the entire thing. Ron Paul's best angle is to prove how damaging these wars are to our national defense and how a more neutral and conservative foreign policy is a sign of a enlightened and propserpous nation. I have seen Ron Paul come out with some good arguments, but just taunting people about how empire is so stupid does not help.

Most folks don't want to build empires they want to be safe and they are told that the only way to be safe is to support wars of aggression. If you don't keep this mentality in mind when talking to people in order to convince them can be pointless.

klamath
04-12-2010, 10:21 AM
In order to win strong defence conservatives Ron Paul needs to show the difference between todays neocons and Reagan's "peace through strength/Weinburger doctrine".
I don't agree with Weinburger in all areas but for convincing strong defence conservatives he is a good bridge.

Below is an interview with Weinburger that you need to bare in mind was after 9/11 when a far majority of people wanted war. I have bolded the relevent points.








Caspar Weinberger was Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1987, during the U.S. military intervention in Beirut. He tells FRONTLINE that the lesson he took from the bombing of the Marine barracks was that the U.S. must only use combat forces in a clearly defined mission and only as a last resort. In a famous 1984 speech given to the National Press Club, Weinberger advocated restraint in what became known as the Weinberger Doctrine, which argued for limiting the use of combat forces to U.S. national interests. Much has been made over the years about the debate between Weinberger and Reagan's former Secretary of State George Shultz over the use of military force versus diplomacy when dealing with terrorism. In his interview, he calls the perceived conflict between himself and Shultz "largely mythological" and says he was arguing against the "blind use" of military force. Interview conducted late September 2001.





With the experience that you have of dealing with terrorists over the many years, what were your first thoughts Tuesday, Sept. 11, after the bombing?

Well, inevitably you think back upon incidents that remind you of it. Of course, the horror of it, the magnitude of that was such that there's really nothing to compare it to. People keep talking about having a measured response, which I think is one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard, because this was an immeasurable act. There's no measured response except complete destruction of the people that did it. But you think back about incidents that have some similarities to it, and inevitably I did that.


Did you ever think that something like this was a possibility?

Not on this scale. No. I don't think anyone ever did. The incident that I was reminded of was on a tiny scale compared to this, and that was when the Libyans sponsored the bombing of the Berlin discotheque and killed American servicemen, injuring many others in Berlin. There was immediate demand for retribution, for revenge, and we said that we would want to make sure as to who did it. When we had the proof, we would take care of the revenge. It took some time, but we finally established without any doubt that the Libyans had trained and paid for and sponsored and helped a group of terrorists who were, frankly, employed to do that kind of an act in Berlin.

When we found that out, then we put a 200-plane raid in the air and destroyed many Libyan targets connected with this terrorist act, and drove Qaddafi underground, so that nothing was heard from him effectively for two or three years. That's the kind of response that I think is essential -- a focused response, a response that hits the actual people who are connected with it and doesn't do just blind bombing out of anger, but goes directly to the targets that were associated with the terrorist act. That's essentially what I hope we can do this time.

I want to go back chronologically and start at the beginning: 1981, President Reagan is elected. You all come into office. Give me an understanding of what the thought of the terrorist threat was at that point. The hostages are just released [from the embassy in Tehran].

That was an act of extreme brutality and an act which, in effect, was an attempt to kind of spit in the eye of the United States and show that we couldn't do anything; they could do what they wanted. When those hostages, after some 400 days, were finally recovered the day President Reagan took office, it was a feeling of great relief and great delight that they were home.

I think there were obviously some people giving very careful thought to what we could do to prevent that happening again. There were all kinds of suggestions of strengthening security in the embassy, because these people had been seized at the embassy, as you know. ... We wanted to go right to the people who had caused it, and we felt that that was very clearly the Iranian fanatics who were running the government. ...


What was the opinion of President Reagan and yourself and others about what was learned from the mistakes of the Carter years?

One was that there was no use whatever in trusting any of the people on the terrorist side or on the side of the government that harbored terrorism. [They] would make certain promises; [we learned] that you shouldn't pay any attention to those promises.

Secondly, that you shouldn't give in to their demands. Later on, that was one of the more unhappy portions of the Iran-contra business, that there had been a willingness on the part of some in the administration to say you can trust some of these people and we could get a good bargain and everything could be all right in the future. ...


As far as the use of military force in dealing with the terrorist threat, what were your thoughts at that time?

Well, again, [it was] perfectly appropriate, but you had to be sure of your targets. That has always been the difficulty, because if you use military force blindly, if the response to the seizure of 400 people in Iran had been "All right. We're just going to bomb Tehran till we get them back or until we feel better," that isn't going to do any good. It does much more harm than good. Your collateral damage is very heavy. We were particularly careful, incidentally, on the air raid against Qaddafi when we knew that the Libyans had been responsible, had done it; we were very careful not to get any collateral damage if we could possibly avoid it. ...


Give me a feel for what was going on in meetings with Shultz and yourself and others with the president. There's a lot said about the debate that took place, that Secretary Shultz was very much for use of force, whether covert or overt. You were sort of the steadying hand, in some ways.

As true with most myths, that is largely mythical. The difference only was as to whether or not you're going to do blind attacks just in general because of some outrages that had been committed against the United States or some of our people; or whether you were going to have an attack that was focused on the people whom you could prove were responsible. And obviously, it's hard to prove responsibility in many of these cases. They hide their tracks pretty well.

We had a lack of proper intelligence. We did not have -- and do not have -- an adequate human intelligence capability to get inside these terrorist organizations and find out what they're doing. So the task of finding out who was responsible and where they were located is a difficult one. ...


Lack of [intelligence] on the ground ... that was a topic or a problem?

It was. We dismantled a lot of our human intelligence capability after the so-called Church commission hearings years before. Spying was considered to be a dirty business, and all of the hearings emphasized all of the things that they felt the CIA had done wrong, and this was not democracy and not American, and so forth and so on. The result was to cripple, in many ways, a very important part of our intelligence capability. We're very good on the technical data. We're very good on overhead surveillance and things of that kind. But a lot of that can't tell you what's happening inside a terrorist organization.

What we really need -- and it takes time and it's a difficult job, takes a lot of training and patience -- is to get people inserted into these organizations who can be accepted by them, obviously have the language and everything else that very few of us had, and are able to report what the organization's thinking, what they're planning. If you know ahead of time what kind of an attack is being planned, then you have a vastly easier time of stopping it. But it's very difficult to find and insert people into these organizations and enable them to report out to you. Yet it's a vital part of intelligence, and it's the part we most need, and we most need it today.


In 1982, Israel invades Lebanon. How did that change what we were to do?

When it changed from protecting the Israeli border to a full-scale invasion and an attempt to penetrate many, many miles beyond the borders, beyond the point where it could be called a border protection act, obviously many of us were not very pleased with that. Because again, it gave ammunition to Palestinian and other groups to the effect that now they were justified in retaliating against Israel, and that we were just supporting one side and not helping them, and all the rest.
It took quite a long time. In fact, it took the Gulf War to demonstrate that America did want more than one friend in the Mideast, and also was willing to take and make major risks to prevent a small Muslim country, Kuwait, from being overrun and in effect stolen by Iraq.


Can you take us into the debate before the Marines are sent over to Beirut?

The debate on that was fairly clear-cut. We had been part of the original force that had lifted the Palestinian group out of the area so as to prevent a very bloody and very fierce house-to-house struggle for Beirut itself. And with several other nations, we formed a multinational force and lifted them out and eliminated them. The struggle and the debate was whether we should go back in again and do something more in support of some sort of an agreement that was supposed to have been reached May 17. The problem with that was that there hadn't been an agreement of that kind. ...

To send our forces back in as a buffer in that kind of a situation, where you had not had an agreement to pull back, seemed to me and to many of us to be wrong, and that we shouldn't do it.


A buffer force is fine if you insert it between two warring factions that have agreed there should be a buffer force in there. If you have it between two warring factions that have not agreed, and there had not been an agreement, no matter how much people talked about it, for the forces to pull back so that the buffer force would be in very grave peril. It's worse because the buffer force is always lightly armed, has very vague rules of engagement, and it is not able, really, to defend itself. And so unless you have full agreement of all sides, you shouldn't do it.

We did not have full agreement of all sides. There was something like 27 or 28 separate armed groups, all of which had only one thing in common: they opposed us and they opposed a multinational force coming in. So many of us opposed going back in after the first multinational force had lifted the Palestinians out and prevented a house-to-house conflict.


Why did your argument not win out?

Well, I don't know. I guess I wasn't persuasive enough. It's always been a source of unhappiness to me that I wasn't persuasive enough to persuade the president not to put in more American forces, particularly not to put them into the Beirut Airport. ... So you have a force that was almost a sitting duck in one of the most dangerous spots in the Mideast, and therefore one of the most dangerous spots in the world, unable to protect itself. It was a disaster waiting to happen. It didn't require any degree of prophecy on my part or others, but I felt very strongly that they should not be there and I felt even more strongly in blaming myself that I wasn't persuasive enough to persuade the president not to go.

Many arguments were raised by people who said, "Oh, Marines don't cut and run. Marines are always able to stay put." But Marines that are properly armed and have rules of engagement that allow them to defend themselves are quite a different thing than Marines who are forced to sit on a Beirut Airport and not do anything effectively. And that was proven, to the extreme unhappiness of everybody, to result in the kind of tragedy that did happen.


Can you tell me what your first thoughts were and the debate that ensued after the bombing of the Beirut embassy in 1983?

Well, again, find the people who did it and go after them with everything you've got. That's the basic lesson that I think and the basic tactic that is right. But it's that first part that slows things down -- finding who did it and where they were.


What were your thoughts when you heard that a terrorist act had hit the embassy and a lot of people were lost?

Same reaction as before -- that this is bound to happen if you put people in harm's way without adequate arms or rules of engagement to permit them to defend themselves. And secondly, that of course you must retaliate, but you have to retaliate against the people who did it. And that is the lesson that basically is applicable to all of these very unhappy, tragic actions.


When the Marine barracks was bombed, do you remember that event?

Very, very vividly. ... The loss of life [of] Marines was horrible to contemplate. The fact that I had been warning against this very thing didn't give me any slight satisfaction, I can assure of that. It was terrible to be proven right under such horrible circumstances. They should have been pulled out earlier. They were pulled out later.

I suggested many times that, to answer these people that were worried about Marines cutting and running and all that nonsense, to put them on ships, their normal environment. These Marine amphibious brigades were on their own ship, to bring them back and pull them out of this dangerous bulls-eye and put them on our ships where they could be protected until they were really needed for something useful, rather than just sitting on an airport.


What were the possibilities on how to react, and was it a successful response?

Oh, I think to some extent, it certainly showed there was going to be a response. There were the usual howls of outrage that we'd hit people who were not participating and all of that. But it was an immediate response, and it was at least in the general direction of the areas where these attacks have occurred. But we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then.

Again, they have this ability to move around and shift around, day to day, and we have no actual knowledge of where they're going to be, because we don't know what their plans are. It's the importance of finding out what they're planning ahead of time that is the task of intelligence, and you have to have a very special kind of intelligence to do that; and you have to understand that this is going to involve spying. And it's going to be attacked by some people as a dirty business. What it is actually [doing] is giving a democracy eyes. And without eyes, the democracy's not going to remain a democracy very long. ...


Did taking U.S. forces out of Beirut seem, at that point, like Beirut as a whole was a failure of diplomacy?

No. Beirut was an absolutely inevitable outcome of doing what we did, of putting troops in with no mission that could be carried out. There was no agreement on either side of the pullback. You didn't need a buffer force. There's nothing more dangerous than in the middle of a furious prize fight, inserting a referee in range of both the fighters, both the contestants. That's what we did. ...


Lessons learned?

Lessons learned is that if you're gong to do this, you're going to insert your troops, they have to have a mission. They have to have the arms and the equipment, and they have to have a goal that can be fulfilled. It led later to all the so-called Weinberger Doctrine, or whatever you want to call it, to the effect that: you have to have a mission; you have to know what you want to do; you have to use force as a last resort after everything else has failed; that when you use it, you have to use it at overwhelming strength, and win your objective and get out. ...

When you simply think the presence of American troops, no matter how wild the environment is or what's happening all around is going to have any effect, the only effect it's going to have is to risk the lives of the American troops. So I hope that was the lesson that was learned at Beirut. It was learned at terrible cost.


So, in other words, in some ways your policy, which eventually did become the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force -- it's all the same thing -- basically was the genesis of all that the offense in Beirut?

Well, no. My part in making that speech and imposing that as a proposed doctrine emerged out of Vietnam, where we went in with some 500,000-600,000 troops, not intending to win, never intending to win. The only war we'd ever gone into we did not intend to win, because we didn't have any particular mission.

I said in that talk that enunciated this Weinberger Doctrine that we must never again go commit and ask American forces to commit their lives to a cause that isn't important enough to us to have to win. That is what I think should be the rule, and I think to a considerable extent, now it is, because as I say, I think Colin believes that completely.


How did the shadow of Vietnam affect all these decisions?

I think people who participated in that war are people who had fought very bravely and very hard for a cause that was not being supported by the American government to the extent that we felt we had to win. We had all this nonsense about containment and all of these smaller, lesser goals. And you should not ask a man to commit his life to a cause that's not important enough so that you have to win it.

I hope that has been the lesson of Vietnam, and I hope that that is what we have learned since. Some people say, "Oh, it means that America never wants to take any risks. America's never going to get into a war that they can't finish in half an hour," and other absurdities like that. Of course you have to be mindful of the casualties at all times. And of course Americans are willing to risk their lives and their leaders are willing to enter wars. It's the cause and the outcome that is so important to us that we have to win it.


So did Vietnam tie the administration's hands in any way?

No, I don't think so at all. It made the administration, I hope, more careful, to make sure that before committing American forces, we had a mission. We knew what we wanted to accomplish and we gave the troops the means to accomplish it, and did not tie their hands by saying, "You can't do this and you can't use this as a target," and so on.

Later on, after I thought we'd learned that lesson, we found ourselves in the same situation in the former Yugoslavia, where we would go in and commit our forces, but say that they were under the direction of a committee -- 30 members or something -- and we couldn't attack any target unless the committee agreed to it in advance. There's nothing more absurd than trying to fight a war that way.


I want to talk a little bit more about Iran-contra, the Iran arms sales, which we've already talked about a little bit. I guess as of June 17, 1985, a directive came out that started us down that trail. What was your opinion from the very first?

Well, from the very first, it was that any attempt to work out a negotiation or an agreement with the people who were running Iran was doomed to failure. You simply have to understand that there's some people you cannot trust. Getting them to sign an agreement may provide a splendid photo opportunity and all kinds of jubilation that you've got a great negotiation now that has secured this agreement, but a complete ignoring of the fact that the other side isn't going to pay the slightest attention to it.

We had that time and again, most recently perhaps with Saddam Hussein, who made all kinds of promises to end the Gulf War, and systematically violated every single one of them. And so the idea that you could make an agreement that will have any effect or be of any use with people who aren't going to keep it is a useless exercise and a dangerous exercise.


[What were] your thoughts, at the time, of how [Iran-contra] would affect others' views, if it came out? Which, of course, it did.

Here we were, begging the world to stop sending any arms to Iran, and there was this horrible proposal that we try to buy the friendship of these fanatics by giving them arms and violating all of the things we were doing in trying to persuade the rest of the world that they shouldn't sell them arms.


Not a good idea.

Not a good idea. (Laughs.) Yes, that's a very nice, gentlemanly, understated way of phrasing it. I think I used an even stronger equation. I said it was like trying to invite Qaddafi over for a cozy lunch.


Operation El Dorado Canyon [was] the bombing of Libya after the Berlin discotheque. Some people point to this as a turning point after five years of internal debate. How important was the decision to go in this direction?

Well, the decision to do it had been made months ago. The question was when it was to be executed. And it was to be executed after we had identified with considerable certainty the targets and the country and the people who were responsible for the terrorist acts. People who had harbored them, people who had trained them, people who had paid for them, people who had supported them -- and that was all Libya. When that was established beyond any question, then we unleashed the attack.

There was no debate as to whether or not we should attack. It was a question of when and how, and what should be the target, and there wasn't any debate about that. The target should be the training camps, the leadership, and the other targets associated with the Libyan support of terrorists.


How successful?

Very successful. Two hundred planes. All of the targets that we went after were effectively destroyed, and Qaddafi was, in effect, driven underground. We never heard from him again. ...


A lot has been said -- and it is still being dealt with today -- that the states that sponsor terrorists ... this has always been a huge problem, very difficult to deal with. The Libyan situation we did deal militarily with.

Absolutely, yes. There's no problem about it whatever, because we had established without any doubt that they were responsible, that they had done it. ...


Looking back at it now, though, is it possible that we erred by not taking out Syria or Iran to send a message?

I don't think we erred, unless you wanted to do attack areas that you're not certain were involved. If you want to do blind bombing, yes, then you hit anybody you want; you don't have to do any investigation, and you get revenge and you feel a little better. But that doesn't accomplish anything, and does a lot of potential harm.


Bin Laden ... when did he come onto our radar screen?

I think his anti-Americanism has been known for some time. His strong hatred of America, his idea that his own country, Saudi Arabia, made mistakes by being too closely linked to us, was widely known. I don't know that his sponsorship of networks that were involved in terrorist acts was as well known. But his connection with this whole idea was certainly understood.


You have eight years [of experience]. Looking at those years, what was learned about the terrorists?

I think there was one serious mistake made by the Reagan administration, and that was the idea that you could deal and temporize with and negotiate successfully with terrorists who were running Iran. And that was a mistake, as President Reagan was courageous enough to admit and agree to later on. He was misled by some very wrong advice and it had very terrible consequences in the Airport.

But otherwise, I think the lessons learned was we need more human intelligence, and that we need a response capability, and that we should make sure that that response capability is used effectively. Some people are asking why deterrence failed. Why did these people feel that they could launch an attack on our Trade Center and on the Pentagon and all of that? Why did they feel they could get away with it? And I'm afraid it's because our responses in the past, during the Clinton administration, had been too weak, too feeble, too unconcentrated.

When Saddam Hussein kept violating his promises and all that, we would unleash a few ineffective small airstrikes. In Yugoslavia, we only went along as part of a group that was under the direction of the U.N. committee, or something of that kind, without a clear intention of carrying out an objective, which was to win. And I think they underestimated the American strength and the American willingness to respond strongly, just as had been done before World War II.

So I think the lessons learned is we should be strong enough and have a visible enough and effective enough response, and that we should be able to do the kind of response that would convince the people who did the World Trade Center and the Pentagon bombing that they could never again make such an attempt; that the consequences for them, the cost that they would have to pay, was far higher than they were willing to risk.


The Pan Am 103 situation, where the strategy seemed to be that, instead of war, you could use the law to deal with the issues ... is that foolish?

Sanctions and negotiations? It can be very ineffective, and indeed foolish, unless the people you are talking with and negotiating with and trying to reach agreements with are people who can be trusted to keep their word. ...

It doesn't say you shouldn't try. But negotiations have to be for more than a cease-fire, which can be broken within 15 minutes, or something more than sanctions, which other countries won't adhere to. And if the people who are capable of these outrages think that that's all you're going to do, they will continue to commit these outrages. But when they get a response such as we were able to give to Libya, they do go underground. They do stop their activity for quite a long time.


If you were going to advise, which you might be doing, to any of the members of the administration now, and you look at the mix of ways to deal with the threat -- diplomacy, military, legal -- what mix do you [recommend]?

I would give them the advice that they're doing exactly the right thing. They're doing exactly what should be done. They're trying to build coalitions, and are having some considerable success in building coalitions. We can't do all of this alone. We need help; we need friends. And the administration is doing that. They're pursuing the attempts to dry up their funds by freezing bank accounts here, which is a very effective thing. And we're preparing to use the military capability when the targets have been clearly identified and when we know what to attack.

[B]It's not going to be a conventional war, but it is a war against individual targets that are responsible for portions of this outrage.

(Bush misled Weinburger as well as Ron Paul on this.)


In the Washington Post today, there's a piece about the White House and how it's dealing with fighting terrorism, and there's one piece of the article which says, "Powell often finds himself fighting uphill with his calls for restraint." And I was wondering if that rings any bells.

Yes, it rings quite a few bells. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, his statement of so-called support for attempts to deal with this was to be restrained, to have a measured response. I can't imagine anything more useless or anything more dangerous, because that sort of thing would encourage more and more of these activities. ...

silentshout
04-12-2010, 10:51 AM
Max/Sofia, as much as some of the stuff he says is "out there", is right here.

I don't think Ron Paul can win in 2012 (though I want him to run), but he can do a lot more damage, in terms of winning delegates and votes, if he tailors his message and doesn't use so many leftist terms.

He sounds like frickin' Dennis Kucinich when talking about foreign policy and that is NEVER going to appeal to the GOP base. Why can't he sound like a conservative when opposing the war? No nation building, costs too much, follow the Constitution and properly declare war....instead of this "empire" and "military industrial complex" stuff.


In a small district as an incumbent. Ron Paul couldn't win a statewide race in Texas. In fact, I think Ron Paul got 17% in his GOP primary for Senate when he tried it.

Well, the GOP will continue to lose the Presidency, then. People outside of the, what, 28% of people who are neocons, do not want more wars or a continuation of these wars. This is why many independents voted for Obama. Now, they may not like Obama, because obviously, he is not and never planned to exit these wars, but they won't vote for someone who runs on beating the war drum. But I guess the GOP just wants to fail. I can see them picking up tons of seats in 2010, because this is a referendum on a failed Congress, but if they run some neocon or someone exactly like Obama (Romney) in 2012, forget it. I wouldn't vote for them either. Romney sounds even worse than Obama to me TBH.

silentshout
04-12-2010, 10:55 AM
How many of US are former Democrats? I'm one, and I know a lot of others are. I say let RP keep winning them over to HIS side!!!!

Yep. I am. I do see that this would not help him in the primaries, but that's why I think he should run as an independent. A recent poll (don't have a link, sorry) showed that more Americans are registered as independents now anyway than either of the two parties.

Deborah K
04-12-2010, 11:05 AM
The only reason I'm here, the only reason RPF exists, the only reason the freedom movement had a resurgence is BECAUSE Ron Paul doesn't censor his speeches. If he spoke like a normal politician using typical buzzwords and pandering to the audience, none of this would exist.

The man speaks truth, all the time, and that's why we love him.

This isn't entirely true. I think most RPF members believe that he is an anarchist (or some form of) at heart. And we all know he'd get NOwhere if he espoused that stance publicly.

Good Post Sofia, I agree with you. In a very real sense, politics is a game, and you have to know how to play it by their rules in order to win. But once you're in, THAT'S where you make the real difference. The opposition knows this well and that is why they are winning. If we don't stop them in November and again in 2012, we will have a much much tougher row to hoe.

low preference guy
04-12-2010, 11:14 AM
This isn't entirely true. I think most RPF members believe that he is an anarchist (or some form of) at heart. And we all know he'd get NOwhere if he espoused that stance publicly.

Good Post Sofia, I agree with you. In a very real sense, politics is a game, and you have to know how to play it by their rules in order to win. But once you're in, THAT'S where you make the real difference. The opposition knows this well and that is why they are winning. If we don't stop them in November and again in 2012, we will have a much much tougher row to hoe.

WHAT????

Are you talking about Ron Paul?

I don't think most RPFers believe that. Did you take a poll sometime to back your assertion?

JoshLowry
04-12-2010, 11:16 AM
I think most RPF members believe that he is an anarchist (or some form of) at heart.

Nah, they just tend to be the loudest/biggest boat rockers.

Deborah K
04-12-2010, 11:27 AM
WHAT????

Are you talking about Ron Paul?

I don't think most RPFers believe that. Did you take a poll sometime to back your assertion?

No, but I remember watching an interview he did with a young person and it sounded to me and to a lot of other people on this forum that he was leaning that way. I'll try to find it.

payme_rick
04-12-2010, 11:38 AM
interesting opinion about most RPF'ers believing RP is an anarchist at heart...

it brings me to a question to the anarchists/anyone here:

does it make sense to you for an anarchist to continually run for congress and the presidency?

my gut tells me no, but I'm interested in hearing why one would say yes (outside of the obvious "he's fooling everyone until he becomes president" conspiracy talk)...

wrestlingwes_8
04-12-2010, 11:39 AM
No, but I remember watching an interview he did with a young person and it sounded to me and to a lot of other people on this forum that he was leaning that way. I'll try to find it.

There's a huge difference between wanting no government verus LIMITED government. I would say almost all the people on RPF would agree that they are for a limited government, not zero government. Anarchy isn't a stable form of government and has never lasted for an extended period of time throughout all of history (to my knowledge). It is more of a transition period between the collapsed government and usually some form of an oligarchy. Like the Greeks said "Without law, there can be no freedom". Government is necessary in a limited sense to protect people's life, liberty, and property and I'm sure most people here would agree with that.

low preference guy
04-12-2010, 11:40 AM
No, but I remember watching an interview he did with a young person and it sounded to me and to a lot of other people on this forum that he was leaning that way. I'll try to find it.

That video would say something about what RP believes, not that most members of the forum believe Ron Paul is an anarchist. I doubt the number of people who think RP is an anarchist is anywhere close to being most of RPF. After all, RPF has 25,000 members. I didn't know anyone believed RP to be an anarchist.

Deborah K
04-12-2010, 11:53 AM
That video would say something about what RP believes, not that most members of the forum believe Ron Paul is an anarchist. I doubt the number of people who think RP is an anarchist is anywhere close to being most of RPF. After all, RPF has 25,000 members. I didn't know anyone believed RP to be an anarchist.

I wish I knew how to retrieve that video but I can't think of the name of it and I didn't comment in it. Josh?

I didn't just write that most RPF members think he's an anarchist, I qualified it by stating "or some form of" - meaning, voluntaryist, an-cap, minarchist, etc. Based on what he said in that video it is logical to conclude that. I just wish I could find it and show you. I'll keep looking. I don't even know what sub-forum it was posted in.......darnie poo! :(

Mini-Me
04-12-2010, 11:59 AM
I understand the complaints about how Ron needs to try to "prepackage" his answers in advance more, because he spends a lot of speaking time fumbling around while trying to convert his mental model of an issue into a structured English-language argument in real-time. Sadly, most people aren't familiar-enough with people who think in this manner, and it comes across as confusion and/or senility, especially in contrast with highly polished charm machines playing rapid-fire sound bites.

Still, I truly believe that he should NOT temper his language or message for neocon ears. The fact is, no matter how he speaks, he will always have "longshot" chances of winning the Presidency, because the media, the debate officials, and his opponents will do everything they can to marginalize him. Because of that, it's much more important that he use his soapbox to spread the message. His correct usage of clear and unequivocating terminology, e.g. empire and military-industrial complex, helps to not only set him apart from the neocon pack but also to educate people about the actual state of America. Until more people are exposed to this message - not just once, but over and over until they internalize it - we will always be trying to catch up from behind.

It is only because of Ron's honesty that most of us are even here. It is only because of Ron's honesty that many of us even thought to take notice of him and listen carefully in the first place. It is certainly only because of Ron's honesty that his last Presidential run drew a big tent support base from all over the political spectrum. If Ron Paul of all people is going to compromise his educational effort for an unquantifiable better chance at winning, who WILL educate?

If America is still not yet ready for the liberty message as expressed in the last election, that only confirms that we need to educate people MUCH more than we need to immediately win any election.


interesting opinion about most RPF'ers believing RP is an anarchist at heart...

it brings me to a question to the anarchists/anyone here:

does it make sense to you for an anarchist to continually run for congress and the presidency?

my gut tells me no, but I'm interested in hearing why one would say yes (outside of the obvious "he's fooling everyone until he becomes president" conspiracy talk)...

Of course it makes sense. If you became President, how would you spend your time? You'd spend your time downsizing the government, correct? That's exactly what an-caps want too; they just want to downsize it further than you do, that's all. :p

low preference guy
04-12-2010, 12:14 PM
I wish I knew how to retrieve that video but I can't think of the name of it and I didn't comment in it. Josh?

I didn't just write that most RPF members think he's an anarchist, I qualified it by stating "or some form of" - meaning, voluntaryist, an-cap, minarchist, etc. Based on what he said in that video it is logical to conclude that. I just wish I could find it and show you. I'll keep looking. I don't even know what sub-forum it was posted in.......darnie poo! :(

I actually watched the video, but didn't make a big deal out of it. If you include "miniarchist" in the anarchist category, then about the whole forum is anarchist.

Deborah K
04-12-2010, 12:18 PM
I actually watched the video, but didn't make a big deal out of it. If you include "miniarchist" in the anarchist category, then about the whole forum is anarchist.

Well, they are similar in that they move away from big gov't - one more than the other- but let me clarify - my point is that if I am right, and Ron Paul falls into this category then naturally it would behoove him to be careful about discussing it lest he be pigeon-holed as an anarchist. Do you see my point?

sunghoko
04-12-2010, 12:42 PM
I agree with sofia and it looks like RP may be getting it


"It's been 60 years since we went to war in Korea," said Paul. "Why do we have to have troops there?"

"North Korea!" yelled a heckler.

But the boos were kept to a minimum by some clever phrasing. Paul hectored the crowd about how faith to the Constitution meant demanding wars be approved by Congress. Not so many cheers. Then: "Declare the war, go fight, win it, and get out of there." That finally united the halves of the room.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/after_the_boos_a_better_recept.html

nayjevin
04-12-2010, 01:59 PM
Well, they are similar in that they move away from big gov't - one more than the other- but let me clarify - my point is that if I am right, and Ron Paul falls into this category then naturally it would behoove him to be careful about discussing it lest he be pigeon-holed as an anarchist. Do you see my point?

Way I see it he's a consistent non-aggression principle libertarian / old style conservative which is almost a classical liberal. That means so much less government than people are used to these days it seems like no government. But he wants things to be voluntary and for government to be only as big as it needs to be to work and be fair.

And it's not like he wants to abolish the government the day he gets in office lol

Here's his plan as president:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html


Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

The thing he has most in common with an anarchist is not really trusting government (like me :) ) But the whole deal is he doesn't want to be president to take all the power of being president.


We need a strong president. Strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power the President shouldn't have. - Dr. Ron Paul

.Tom
04-14-2010, 08:10 AM
There's a huge difference between wanting no government verus LIMITED government. I would say almost all the people on RPF would agree that they are for a limited government, not zero government. Anarchy isn't a stable form of government and has never lasted for an extended period of time throughout all of history (to my knowledge). It is more of a transition period between the collapsed government and usually some form of an oligarchy. Like the Greeks said "Without law, there can be no freedom". Government is necessary in a limited sense to protect people's life, liberty, and property and I'm sure most people here would agree with that.

You'd be surprised at how many of us have come around to anarchism.

The whole idea that government cares about you is the biggest flaw of minarchism.

constituent
04-14-2010, 09:04 AM
People have no problem with what Dr. Paul says. They have a problem with what the media tells them he says/said. That ain't gonna change even if he uses your alternate phrasing and teminology.

sorry, no room for common sense...

constituent
04-14-2010, 09:07 AM
I wish I knew how to retrieve that video but I can't think of the name of it and I didn't comment in it. Josh?

I didn't just write that most RPF members think he's an anarchist, I qualified it by stating "or some form of" - meaning, voluntaryist, an-cap, minarchist, etc. Based on what he said in that video it is logical to conclude that. I just wish I could find it and show you. I'll keep looking. I don't even know what sub-forum it was posted in.......darnie poo! :(

Hey Deb,

I'd be interested in hearing how your thoughts have evolved concerning "anarchy" and Dr. Paul in recent months. I'm not going to negate or argue with you (even if I disagree), I'd just be interested in an update. :)

Many thanks. :)

osan
04-14-2010, 12:32 PM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex" ...
"our empire...
"corporatism"....

Everything he says in these regards is true. If the American people cannot tell the difference between "attacks" on them and those aspects of our fascist government that are screwing them into the ground, then I will suggest that we are beyond redemption as a nation and deserve the annihilation that will be forthcoming.

Seriously, if we're collectively too stupid/ignorant/lazy to be able to properly parse these terms as Ron uses them, we do not deserve to survive as free persons.

I will add also that everyone bitches, pisses, and moans about how disingenuous politicians are. Then a man like Ron steps up and calls it true and straight and what do people do? Bitching, pissing, and moaning how he's "too truthful" because he's using "bad" words. Give it a rest. I'd rather he come forward as he does than turn himself into yet another political whore just for the sake of winning. All principle has been wrung from too many people these days and it is disgusting and boring as all hell. I am glad Ron Paul is the way he is and I hope to hell that he does not change, come what may. For the third time: if we the people are not smart enough and good enough to see the real meanings of his statements, then to hell with us all.

Sheesh.

nbhadja
04-14-2010, 04:34 PM
u people are really thick headed and closed minded....


you worship RP as though he is an infallible cult leader.

I love him too....but he has some serious flaws as a communicator and choice of words. It's really freaky how u guys worship him and wont accept ANY criticism.

I'm tellin ya that he is inadvertantly alienating potential conservative supporters by using confusing leftish terms.....and you refuse to even consider it...

+1

Ron Paul is not perfect. He does need work on selling the idea of freedom. That is essentially what he is trying to do.

No one is saying he should stop talking about the topics he talks about. He should just rephrase some of them and NO THE MEANING WILL NOT CHANGE.

It's just that some words have a negative stigma to them and can be damaging.

Liberals have been brainwashed to believe that corporatism is capitalism (even though its the complete opposite) and neocons have been brainwashed to believe that corporatism is capitalism. So when RP says corporatism is bad, the neocons we are trying to convert will think he is against corporations and in favor of government.

When Ron Paul bashes corporatism, he should explain what corporatism is exactly and mention of many people confuse it with capitalism.

nbhadja
04-14-2010, 04:37 PM
You just don't get it....! It is the neo-con's and rhino's that must come over to our side, not the other way around.....

I want a leader who is brave enough to inform me of and defend me from our enemies foreign of course but more importantly I want a leader that will also be brave enough to do the same regarding our enemies domestic. What is crazy about that?

No you are the one who just doesn't get it.

No one wants Ron Paul to stop talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve, how business is in bed with the government etc, but he should just PHRASE it differently than he currently does.

RP joining the rhinos would only happen if he changed his voting which NO ONE WANTS HIM TO DO.

Deborah K
04-14-2010, 05:57 PM
Hey Deb,

I'd be interested in hearing how your thoughts have evolved concerning "anarchy" and Dr. Paul in recent months. I'm not going to negate or argue with you (even if I disagree), I'd just be interested in an update. :)

Many thanks. :)

Clear out your private messages box and I'll discuss it in private with you. :)

tangent4ronpaul
04-14-2010, 06:20 PM
Who the hell is counseling Ron Paul? He's making the same DEADLY mistakes he did in 08...

Buzz words to avoid in a GOP contest...

"military-industrial complex"
(he's disrespecting the military and US industry)

"our empire"
(he's bashing America and siding with our enemies)

"corporatism"
(he's against corporations...sounds like a commie)

thank goodness Rand knows better than to use these terms.

"Conservatives" don't know what he is talking about and think he's a liberal!

He's both changing and controlling the conversation when he says things like this. He's also setting himself apart from other politicians, making himself newsworthy and making people think when he does this

-t

Ricky201
04-14-2010, 07:56 PM
Give Ron Paul the campaign manager for Rand Paul and let Ron speak the way he always has. No one of my generation has been able to sell the ideas of liberty better than Ron Paul.

AlexMerced
04-14-2010, 08:19 PM
Honestly, 90% of the time Ron Paul phrases it fairly well in the sense of putting it in a way anyone along the spectrum can appreciate although sometimes he doesn't hit it out of the park.

Although I wish he brought up more history, history is sooo on his side.

silus
04-14-2010, 11:17 PM
This argument is based on what Ron Paul can modify to make his message more appealing.

Ron Paul is 74. He's been repeating the same message for over 35 years. He's not changing. Yet we have 20 pages of arguments from people who somehow believe that their recommendations to Dr. Paul matter. They don't. If you disagree find a candidate who better represents you, or try running yourself... But make no mistake, your advice does not matter. Nor does your pitiful threats of what will happen if he does not listen to you.

peacepotpaul
04-15-2010, 01:41 AM
Ron's his own man and at his age, he's not about to let anybody tell him what he should and should not say.

Sink or swim, he's gonna say it.

That's why I stand right beside him.

:cool:

raiha
04-15-2010, 02:17 AM
He's not doing too badly, neck and necking with Obama.:D

TCE
04-16-2010, 12:58 PM
I'm late to the party, but the gist of it is Ron needs to do what Rand is doing, play to the GOP's talking points he agrees with and expand upon them, and keep his other views quiet. I saw his ads from New Hampshire besides the infamous ones, they were directed toward liberals, not Republicans. If Ron keeps his foreign policy rhetoric, he stands no chance in 2012. David Adams isn't that great, it's just that Rand has done so many things right that Adams job has become easy.

As far as Ron's speaking goes, he isn't as articulate as he was three years ago, that's for sure.