RP Email: ONLY pre-Convention event at which I'll be speaking [Archive]

danda

07-06-2012, 06:03 PM

I just found this gem in my inbox from the campaign about the Sunday rally. I was hoping to hear he would be speaking at PaulFest. Instead...

This event on Sunday, August 26th, at the University of South Florida's Sundome, will be the ONLY pre-Convention event at which I'll be speaking, so I hope to see you'll be able to make it.

I am a RonPaul fan since 1998, and will continue to be, but on this matter I have to say I find it disrespectful to some of his biggest supporters. These are people who have been working on, or will be attending the other festivals. Many travelling across the country to do so. For the campaign to not only not show up at those festivals, but also make a point of emphasizing that they won't be showing up -- as if they are in competition -- I find it... beyond rude. childish, I guess. Like they are trying to impress their new best friend by picking on their old best friend.

...at a loss.

Can someone put a positive spin on this for me please?

Entire email:

Subject: Important Update on Tampa

Dear ____,

My team and I have been hard at work getting our rally ready for Tampa, and I'm happy to say things are coming together nicely!

Our theme for this event will be, "We Are the Future - A Rally for the Liberty Delegates." I'm sure it will not only be a great time, but it will also go a long way to proving you and I are the future of the Republican Party.

This event on Sunday, August 26th, at the University of South Florida's Sundome, will be the ONLY pre-Convention event at which I'll be speaking, so I hope to see you'll be able to make it.

In fact, I shot a video today to share further information, which you can see here.

If you're planning to attend, I know my staff would truly enjoy hearing from you. Please click here to RSVP, print your free ticket, and get more information.

This rally will be a very special time for our liberty movement, and I very much hope you can attend this important rally in Tampa!

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

newbitech

07-06-2012, 06:09 PM

yeah, that line stood out to me as well. 'ONLY' in bold letters like I can't read it if it was in normal letters.

All I can think is apparently there must be some kind of confusion or they are getting a lot of calls asking him to come speak at another place.

It could be a security concern as well. I don't know. The first time I saw Ron Paul speak was in St. Pete in 2007 debate.

I seem to remember that he had no plans on speaking there, but the people rallying at the debate convinced him to come. There was probably 1000 people there and the venue was completely impromptu from my recollection.

I am sad that he doesn't want to or can't make it to the freedom den that PaulFest will be. It is par for the course tho as far as Ron Paul pretty much shunting the Florida grassroots and other organizers down here.

Matt Collins

07-07-2012, 08:13 AM

It's real simple -

He wants to be at an event he has control over. It's quote possible that he may not want to be associated with some speakers at the other event, or maybe some of the organizers, I dunno, but I could see that making sense. Probably both of those factors. I don't have any inside knowledge on this one, but if one thinks it out that's really the most logical conclusion.

DeMintConservative

07-07-2012, 08:49 AM

Gage

07-07-2012, 09:08 AM

He wants to be at an event he has control over. He may not want to be associated with some speakers at the other event, or maybe some of the organizers. Probably both of those factors.
This.

DerailingDaTrain

07-07-2012, 09:18 AM

This.

The people speaking and organizing are his supporters though. Right?

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 09:18 AM

Newsflash: Ron Paul is a Republican.

I've always said that the idea that he'd speak or acknowledge an event that is fairly hostile to Republicans - to the point of featuring a guy who's running against the GOP nominee for President and people who are functionally Democrat allies - was flat out crazy.
Perhaps for political reasons. But, Dr. Paul's allegiance is to liberty; not a political party.

I also think the Pauls want to create some separation from a segment of the people that have been supporting Ron Paul. Akin to what Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Buckley did to the Birchers nutjobs in the 60s.

One, Buckley did more harm to conservatism than the neocons have and two, those Birchers you called nutjobs warned against the very crap happening that we are so upset about today.

brandon

07-07-2012, 09:23 AM

Good news.

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 09:24 AM

The people speaking and organizing are his supporters though. Right?

Personally, I wouldn't put Kokesh in that category, given some of his videos. But, others may view it differently.

Regardless, it sounds like Dr. Paul wants to be in control of what is voiced as his message. I would guess it is politics, given that there is going to be tons of media at the RNC and he wants his message to be crystal clear.

jay_dub

07-07-2012, 09:24 AM

Whether Ron wanted to speak at the festival or not, not speaking there was probably a condition for RNC approval of his event.

moreliberty

07-07-2012, 09:24 AM

I have to agree with the OP on this. I still support the man, but this whole giving into the Republicans because he doesn't want to be associated with some of his supporters, or to gain political ground is pushing some of us away. If we aren't goin to get the nomination then now is not the time to give in. I just don't see the benefit of it, and if it is just to help people like Rand in the future, I'm out. I'm going to the festival myself, but not to his rally, say what you will but I believe this is just to pacify the GOP, and I don't like it.

KingRobbStark

07-07-2012, 09:26 AM

The people speaking and organizing are his supporters though. Right?

If they meant Paul good (and not to simply push their own agendas). Most of the speakers on that festival have only their own interest and egos in mind.

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 09:30 AM

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 09:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC1X47qMmzE&

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 09:53 AM

The people speaking and organizing are his supporters though. Right?

Oh, yeah.

It is possible there really are establishment nutjobs now embedded in the campaign who think they can take the energy and leave the part they choose to call fringe. However, you can't have creative energy without liberty.

And I have been looking for years to find out what is so bad with 'Birchers' and have concluded that was a huge smear job.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 09:54 AM

If they meant Paul good (and not to simply push their own agendas). Most of the speakers on that festival have only their own interest and egos in mind.

this is true as to some, and I was concerned when Johnson was picked, given all the RNC rules about not being able to participate in the nomination of another party or endorse etc. and still be nominated at convention Remember we have lots of delegates going through credentials committee and while we SHOULD win you well know they may just be looking for an 'excuse' to 'play hardball' and cheat.

But that emphasis on 'ONLY' struck me very poorly as well.

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 09:56 AM

Oh, yeah.

I think it is the establishment nutjobs in the campaign. They think they can take the energy and leave the part they choose to call fringe, but you can't have creative energy without liberty.

From where did you come up with this belief of yours?

And I have been looking for years to find out what is so bad with 'Birchers' and have concluded that was a huge smear job.
It was. They were gaining a whole lot of popularity and thus, influence, and some wanted that to be stopped.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:03 AM

From where did you come up with this belief of yours?

I was busy editing it as you were busy quoting it. It was just a knee jerk reaction to someone above calling some Ron Paul supporters nutjobs. However, it is speculation that would explain the weird occurences with the campaign, IF the once-supported-Robertson and once-supported-other 'typical southern conservative' candidates staffers really were pushing for Rand and throwing Ron's campaign under the bus. I don't know it is the case, but that email did provoke a thrown under the bus reaction in me, and I'm not a Bircher or a 9/11 truther or part of any of the witch hunted against sub-communities of Ron Paul supporters. I just am part of an overall community where liberty is considered a GOOD thing. If it was about Gary being in a different party, it seems someone who CARED how the grass roots felt about this might explain that. So someone at the campaign, at minimum, is a social klutz.

RonPaulFanInGA

07-07-2012, 10:06 AM

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:09 AM

Why should Ron Paul show up at an event just because it's called 'PaulFest'? He didn't give his approval to the name. No one would start a 'Lady Gaga-fest' and then have the audacity to expect her to attend.

Ron is not lady Gaga, and we have a different relationship with him. I did see issues when GJ was invited, the RNC rules have a ton of 'anti other party' stuff in them. But when Deb set up the Revolution March, Ron showed up. And he has shown up at numerous other rallies.

In fact in 2008 when he suspended his campaign he said 'regardless if you get the people and the event and get me there, I'll come' essentially. And people did, all over the country.

However, he also has a right, on the eve of the convention, to set his own tone. I just think the attitude lately from the campaign has been very careless of grass roots. That email could have been written very differently.

RickyJ

07-07-2012, 10:15 AM

It's real simple -

He wants to be at an event he has control over. He may not want to be associated with some speakers at the other event, or maybe some of the organizers. Probably both of those factors.

He goes on Fox news, CNN news, ABC, CBS, and NBC news and speaks there!

Everyone knows he does not associate himself with all the other guests on their shows!

Please, that excuse will not fly Matt. Why is it that you are making excuses for them anyway?

TruckinMike

07-07-2012, 10:16 AM

Prediction: When its over he'll be dumped like the high school whore after prom night.

Right now the "R" establishment is courting him, as he is courting them. All concession will be for naught.

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 10:18 AM

I was busy editing it as you were busy quoting it. It was just a knee jerk reaction to someone above calling some Ron Paul supporters nutjobs.
Yeah, I didn't like that, either.

However, it is speculation that would explain the weird occurences with the campaign, IF the once-supported-Robertson and once-supported-other 'typical southern conservative' candidates staffers really were pushing for Rand and throwing Ron's campaign under the bus. I don't know it is the case, but that email did provoke a thrown under the bus reaction in me, and I'm not a Bircher or a 9/11 truther or part of any of the witch hunted against sub-communities of Ron Paul supporters. I just am part of an overall community where liberty is considered a GOOD thing. If it was about Gary being in a different party, it seems someone who CARED how the grass roots felt about this might explain that. So someone at the campaign, at minimum, is a social klutz.
Considering how people misconstrue what they do say, I dunno, I would be very cautious about saying anything else. I mean, why provide more fodder?

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:20 AM

Prediction: When its over he'll be dumped like the high school whore after prom night.

Right now the "R" establishment is courting him, as he is courting them. All concession will be for naught.

I don't think Ron makes concessions like this. Ron is a hands off manager, which has hurt him, before, though. I think Ron MIGHT be thinking of moving towards retirement and might have been persuaded to let others manage the campaign with an eye to the future -- Rand's, and might be even more hands off than usual.

However, like all of us, I am just guessing.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:22 AM

Yeah, I didn't like that, either.

Considering how people misconstrue what they do say, I dunno, I would be very cautious about saying anything else. I mean, why provide more fodder?

I can see not going nuts on speculation, but like every forum member here, I am here because I like discussing things with people here, and this is a big issue. If there is no way for me to discuss it at all, and the aspects that concern me, I'd frankly rather not be mod.

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 10:23 AM

RickyJ

07-07-2012, 10:23 AM

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 10:25 AM

I can see not going nuts on speculation, but like every forum member here, I am here because I like discussing things with people here, and this is a big issue. If there is no way for me to discuss it at all, and the aspects that concern me, I'd frankly rather not be mod.

That wasn't directed towards you, specifically. It was a general statement. You aren't the only one, are you, who is angry with the campaign? If I had meant you, I would have said, YOU, rather than "people". :)

EDIT: I guess I can see why you think it was, since I was replying to your post. I have a bad habit of quoting someone and then giving my own opinion on the subject. A lot of the time, they aren't even directed towards the poster that I quoted.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:28 AM

That wasn't directed towards you, specifically. It was a general statement. You aren't the only one, are you, who is angry with the campaign? If I had meant you, I would have said, YOU, rather than "people". :)

Yeah, I can count on you to be blunt :p

(kidding.... I prefer directness.)

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 10:29 AM

Yeah, I can count on you to be blunt :p

(kidding.... I prefer directness.)

Ha ha.

RonPaulFanInGA

07-07-2012, 11:48 AM

He wants to be at an event he has control over. He may not want to be associated with some speakers at the other event, or maybe some of the organizers. Probably both of those factors.

Or a few of the attendees.

http://i56.tinypic.com/6pq0c7.jpg

FSP-Rebel

07-07-2012, 12:00 PM

I support what Ron is doing here. He didn't go on Alex Jones' show for a reason and for that matter, Free Talk Live either. Controlling the message is important and you don't want wannabe liberty icons doing any damage to it. Sometimes extra baggage doesn't help.

torchbearer

07-07-2012, 12:05 PM

i may make the sunday engagement.

musicmax

07-07-2012, 12:23 PM

musicmax

07-07-2012, 12:26 PM

If they meant Paul good (and not to simply push their own agendas). Most of the speakers on that festival have only their own interest and egos in mind.

CNN crawl: "PAUL SHARES STAGE WITH TALK SHOW HOST WHO ASKS 'SHOULD WE KILL MITT ROMNEY?'"

RickyJ

07-07-2012, 12:42 PM

CNN crawl: "PAUL SHARES STAGE WITH TALK SHOW HOST WHO ASKS 'SHOULD WE KILL MITT ROMNEY?'"

Romney shares the stage with political leaders who ask, should we kill Ahmadinejad, and he asks the same question himself.

CNN might think such a question would remove any candidate from serious consideration but with the way the electorate is pissed off at both the presumptive republican nominee and the democrat one they might not get their desired response.

Matt Collins

07-07-2012, 03:15 PM

But that emphasis on 'ONLY' struck me very poorly as well.See post #19.

Matt Collins

07-07-2012, 03:18 PM

He goes on Fox news, CNN news, ABC, CBS, and NBC news and speaks there!

Everyone knows he does not associate himself with all the other guests on their shows!

Please, that excuse will not fly Matt. Why is it that you are making excuses for them anyway?If you can't understand the difference between that and Paulfest, then there is nothing I can do to explain it to ya.

PierzStyx

07-07-2012, 03:20 PM

It's real simple -

He wants to be at an event he has control over. He may not want to be associated with some speakers at the other event, or maybe some of the organizers. Probably both of those factors.

Exactly. And I think it a bit arrogant of people to have expected the Doctor to come when the entire event was planned without consulting him or what he had planned. Why should he give us his plans to fit someone else's?

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 03:35 PM

See post #19.

See post #20

newbitech

07-07-2012, 03:38 PM

Exactly. And I think it a bit arrogant of people to have expected the Doctor to come when the entire event was planned without consulting him or what he had planned. Why should he give us his plans to fit someone else's?

Once upon a time, his campaign was grassroots driven.

parocks

07-07-2012, 03:41 PM

Once upon a time, his campaign was grassroots driven.

when?

Remember the big Philly rally in November 2007? That was originally a contest. Whichever meetup group raised the most money, Ron Paul would speak in that town. This was November 2007. This was not a meetup driven contest. This was an official campaign contest.

Philadelphia won. And then there was a big fight about where the event would take place. Independence Hall or Valley Forge. This was all October or November 2007. The Official Campaign and the grassroots did not see eye to eye even then.

And the important thing to remember is that that big November 2007 rally took place because Ron Paul SAID HE'D BE THERE. The rally didn't take place because grassroots organizers wanted a rally which somehow forced Ron Paul to attend.

newbitech

07-07-2012, 03:50 PM

when?

Remember the big Philly rally in November 2007? That was originally a contest. Whichever meetup group raised the most money, Ron Paul would speak in that town. This was November 2007. This was not a meetup driven contest. This was an official campaign contest.

Philadelphia won. And then there was a big fight about where the event would take place. Independence Hall or Valley Forge. This was all October or November 2007. The Official Campaign and the grassroots did not see eye to eye even then.

And the important thing to remember is that that big November 2007 rally took place because Ron Paul SAID HE'D BE THERE. The rally didn't take place because grassroots organizers wanted a rally which somehow forced Ron Paul to attend.

I guess you are right, there was never an idea in that this movement was being run from the bottom up. Ron Paul never said anything like that.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul2008

Matthanuf06

07-07-2012, 03:52 PM

Absolutely!

You can't make a deal with the devil and expect to come out the winner, it just doesn't work that way.

You do realize Ron is a Republican? He is a Republican for a reason

newbitech

07-07-2012, 04:01 PM

“Nothing is more important than mobilizing a grassroots army to stop this sellout of conservative principles by the Washington establishment of both parties. And it is vital that Congress hears from the people, loud and clear, that they cannot support more of the same reckless spending and government overreach they were sent to Washington to end,” continued Paul.

I guess the grassroots are just some after thought. This was from last year. I am sure I can find tons more quotes, but why? It is a fact that Ron Paul's success is driven by the grassroots. I am not sure why anyone would argue that.

Something about setting brush fires.

parocks

07-07-2012, 04:25 PM

I guess you are right, there was never an idea in that this movement was being run from the bottom up. Ron Paul never said anything like that.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul2008

That link doesn't work.

liberalnurse

07-07-2012, 04:32 PM

I guess the grassroots are just some after thought. This was from last year. I am sure I can find tons more quotes, but why? It is a fact that Ron Paul's success is driven by the grassroots. I am not sure why anyone would argue that.

Something about setting brush fires.

:)

parocks

07-07-2012, 04:35 PM

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 05:15 PM

"Grassroots Army" - Official Campaign Commander in Chief

LOL! good luck with that....

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 05:21 PM

Once upon a time, his campaign was grassroots driven.

I don't understand why we cannot work together. Why do we have to make it an us vs. them? We had the Phone-from-Home program and tons of training sessions since the last election. No one was stopping us from going door-to-door handing out campaign literature, etc.

Why does it have to be so adversarial? Sometimes it seems to me that we are almost looking for it, because we want someone to blame.

Feeding the Abscess

07-07-2012, 05:37 PM

when?

Remember the big Philly rally in November 2007? That was originally a contest. Whichever meetup group raised the most money, Ron Paul would speak in that town. This was November 2007. This was not a meetup driven contest. This was an official campaign contest.

Philadelphia won. And then there was a big fight about where the event would take place. Independence Hall or Valley Forge. This was all October or November 2007. The Official Campaign and the grassroots did not see eye to eye even then.

And the important thing to remember is that that big November 2007 rally took place because Ron Paul SAID HE'D BE THERE. The rally didn't take place because grassroots organizers wanted a rally which somehow forced Ron Paul to attend.

Ron Paul, April 2011, on who he wants to make his ads:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/04/23/rep-ron-paul-17/

4:30 minutes in

LibertyEagle

07-07-2012, 05:49 PM

Ron Paul, April 2011, on who he wants to make his ads:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/04/23/rep-ron-paul-17/

4:30 minutes in

If he truly wanted it that way, he would have made it happen.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 05:50 PM

If he truly wanted it that way, he would have made it happen.

Ron isn't about central planning.

parocks

07-07-2012, 06:05 PM

LOL! good luck with that....

Oh, all I'm saying is that Armies are led. People don't seem to understand that.

Feeding the Abscess

07-07-2012, 06:05 PM

If he truly wanted it that way, he would have made it happen.

So Ron wanted the newsletters to be as they were?

parocks

07-07-2012, 06:07 PM

Ron Paul, April 2011, on who he wants to make his ads:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/04/23/rep-ron-paul-17/

4:30 minutes in

So, you're basically going to cherry pick selected comments from the massive quantity of Ron Paul quotes, and completely ignore what actually happened?

His ads were done in house.

Feeding the Abscess

07-07-2012, 06:08 PM

So, you're basically going to cherry pick selected comments from the massive quantity of Ron Paul quotes, and completely ignore what actually happened?

His ads were done in house.

Right, he said in the interview that he was overruled by the campaign.

parocks

07-07-2012, 06:11 PM

The grassroots was never in charge, never driving. Although some random people thought they should be, they never were.

liberty2897

07-07-2012, 06:30 PM

Personally, I wouldn't put Kokesh in that category, given some of his videos. But, others may view it differently.

Regardless, it sounds like Dr. Paul wants to be in control of what is voiced as his message. I would guess it is politics, given that there is going to be tons of media at the RNC and he wants his message to be crystal clear.

I have no problem with Dr Paul wanting to be crystal clear and playing whatever political games are necessary to be effective for the cause of liberty. I do, however, find your remark about Kokesh strange. I can't think of many individuals who have publicly supported Dr Paul as much as Adam Kokesh has. Not that anyone here cares what I have to say, but Adam has my utmost respect. So, yes, others do view it differently.

Also, F**K the Republican establishment. They have stood in the way of progress during the entire campaign. I have no idea how anyone who cares about liberty could view it otherwise.

Badger Paul

07-07-2012, 06:32 PM

cheapseats

07-07-2012, 06:40 PM

The grassroots was never in charge, never driving. Although some random people thought they should be, they never were.

Like the country in which they bob & weave, right? The people are never in charge, never driving. Some random people think they should be, but BEHIND THE CURTAIN is Invitation Only. Utmost Skull & Bones carefulness is exercised with Admissions.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 06:41 PM

Like the country in which they bob & weave. The people are never in charge, never driving. Some random people think they should be, but BEHIND THE CURTAIN is Invitation Only. Skull & Bones carefulness in choosing Members.

The thing is, leading only counts when people follow. THAT requires inspiring buy in, and as of late, the campaign isn't so great at that.

cheapseats

07-07-2012, 06:45 PM

The thing is, leading only counts when people follow. THAT requires inspiring buy in, and as of late, the campaign isn't so great at that.

YOU, of the heavily moderated dissenting opinions, are telling ME?

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 06:49 PM

YOU, of the heavily moderated dissenting opinions, are telling ME?

I moderate stuff out of forums where it doesn't belong. I do believe buy in is needed to lead, though. RON doesn't need a campaign to get US. They just have to dangle him on a string and we'll come running, and they are about down to that strategy now.

cheapseats

07-07-2012, 06:56 PM

Perhaps Ron Paul capitalized ONLY so that the "sides" of the Liberty Moovement would not tear themselves and each other apart over whether he would grace the OTHER side with his presence.

Or maybe he didn't write the email, lol.

After everything everyone has been thru, it'd be a cryin' shame to see the Sides reduced to competing for BEST BEHAVED.

Badger Paul

07-07-2012, 07:00 PM

"Or maybe he didn't write the email, lol."

This.

Anti Federalist

07-07-2012, 08:32 PM

I also think the Pauls want to create some separation from a segment of the people that have been supporting Ron Paul. Akin to what Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Buckley did to the Birchers nutjobs in the 60s.

Ron Paul gave the keynote speech at the JBS 50th anniversary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdASDHJ2qAc

See, this is why I hate playing in the GOP pool.

Ya'll have pissed in it so much, it's turned yellow.

I've about had enough of every clown that strolls along, that doesn't care for a certain segment of the liberty community, to immediately apply the "nutjob" label to them.

It was CIA man Buckley purging the true conservatives that had it right all along, and opened the door to the neocons.

God, I hope whoever the establishment candidate of the GOP is this year, that they end getting a mud hole stomped in their ass come November.

newbitech

07-07-2012, 09:26 PM

The grassroots was never in charge, never driving. Although some random people thought they should be, they never were.

Two words my friend.

Money
Bomb

Two more words.

Inter
Net

In charge does not mean driving. You are misunderstanding my comments. When I say that the grassroots drove the campaign, I mean the grassroots was the engine, the force behind it. Without the grassroots activating when it did, Ron Paul goes no where. I am sorry to say that because it sounds like I am ridiculing Ron Paul's ideas and maybe even him personally.

I am not. I am point out a fact. The man has been consistent for 30 some years. It's only the last 6 years have people finally sprung to action around his message. Mainly because the message wasn't getting out. People had to go looking for it. Thankfully, Ron Paul was there along with people who found him a whole lot sooner.

Now, it appears that Ron Paul is bowing out, and probably rightfully so. The man deserves to go out with a hero's parade. What I am referring to is that now that his campaign has launched this movement, it seems it is quickly abandoning what made it successful in the first place.

SEEMS.

I am a defender of Rand Paul and the endorsement. I think it's the right thing to do. At the same time, I also thing that Ron Paul is losing some of that mystique and appeal that put him in touch with the grassroots in 07.

It's getting harder and harder to see him as a leader in this movement, and not for any other reason than he is retiring. He is giving it up. He will still be the icon, but who is going to deliver those epic speeches that rallied the masses?

I must say, his charge in to the convention this time around has lost the edge. Sure there will be more delegates, but from what I am sensing, there won't be that grassroots surge we saw going in to 2008.

Not trying to be a downer, just observing. It's pretty rotten if you ask me that Ron Paul or whoever makes these decisions is choosing to go out with a whimper this time around. He could go out with a roar, but maybe that is just not his style. It's definitely not the Ron Paul that I have recognized and been around a few times.

Seems to have lost his bite a little. Maybe it will all work out, or maybe the grassroots will go dormant once again and leave a shell of a movement. Stay tuned.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 09:33 PM

I think Ron is a roar kind of guy, but I think some in his campaign have different ideas. Ron is NOT a hands on manager.

I also don't think he was ready to go out period, it felt like the campaign was trying to shift us over before time, thinking what was the climax to Ron's career, to us, was unimportant enough to be bargained away for concessions these masterminds found important -- not for Ron. I don't know that, but damned if it doesn't feel like that is what happened, to me.

Surely I'm not the only one who was getting emails from 'Rand' (who I suspect writes his own emails the same way Ron does his) saying 'it is almost time you and I will go on together and my father will have moved on...' or something similar. I didn't post them but I was pissed as hell.

Ron wakes the apathetic like no one else and throwing away his last roar (to use your term, and assuming for the moment that this is actually what that is) is a betrayal of all who have supported him, imho.

newbitech

07-07-2012, 09:57 PM

I think Ron is a roar kind of guy, but I think some in his campaign have different ideas. Ron is NOT a hands on manager.

Oh I know he is. Every time I have seen him in person he is stalking the crowds looking for people to share with and talk to. He is outgoing and energetic and I have never heard him back down from an opportunity to share his ideas in any setting, any venue, any stage.

I remember when he was presented with a Ron Paul shirt signed by hundreds of new activists in Tampa. Campaign from the bottom up.

Watch this whole speech, this was really a turning point night in the movement and you can tell from his cadence that he just completely fed off the grassroots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKI1mThAUM

and here is his full debate performance from that night. Notice around the 7 minute mark when this debate they play supporters Youtubes. Listen to Ron Paul in that youtube talking about how it's up to the grassroots to spread the message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-DdsRh_v-s&feature=related

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-DdsRh_v-s&feature=related)and here is that ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjTAH8Y_L8&feature=player_embedded

I digress. The grassroots is going to be wherever Ron Paul is speaking and there is NO WAY in heck that place is big enough at USF to fit all the people who want to hear Ron Paul speak in there. We'll watch it on stream. If the campaign(what's left of it) doesn't want Ron Paul live, it doesn't matter, because you know what we say around these parts.

toob or...

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:06 PM

Oh I know he is. Every time I have seen him in person he is stalking the crowds looking for people to share with and talk to. He is outgoing and energetic and I have never heard him back down from an opportunity to share his ideas in any setting, any venue, any stage.

I remember when he was presented with a Ron Paul shirt signed by hundreds of new activists in Tampa. Campaign from the bottom up.

Watch this whole speech, this was really a turning point night in the movement and you can tell from his cadence that he just completely fed off the grassroots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKI1mThAUM

and here is his full debate performance from that night. Notice around the 7 minute mark when this debate they play supporters Youtubes. Listen to Ron Paul in that youtube talking about how it's up to the grassroots to spread the message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-DdsRh_v-s&feature=related

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-DdsRh_v-s&feature=related)and here is that ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjTAH8Y_L8&feature=player_embedded

I digress. The grassroots is going to be wherever Ron Paul is speaking and there is NO WAY in heck that place is big enough at USF to fit all the people who want to hear Ron Paul speak in there. We'll watch it on stream. If the campaign(what's left of it) doesn't want Ron Paul live, it doesn't matter, because you know what we say around these parts.

toob or...

I have to assume the stadium is dinky because the RNC wouldn't give Ron a bigger one -- or he'd upstage the other event.

newbitech

07-07-2012, 10:15 PM

I have to assume the stadium is dinky because the RNC wouldn't give Ron a bigger one -- or he'd upstage the other event.

it holds 11k. So far, Ron Paul has quadrupled his support in the last 4 years. Rally for Republic had at least 10k. There aren't many other bigger venues. You have the pro football stadium. You have the hockey rink, which is walking distance to the convention in downtown. And you have the fairgrounds/concert hall.

I was a little disturbed to get an email back from one of his event organizers saying they won't sell out the 11k at USF. I am like whaaaatt? I mean in the surrounding counties he had over 25k votes in the primary.

I am getting the sense that this isn't a Rally at all. It's a meeting for delegate strategy. I am getting the sense that it is a mistake to try to compare this to 2007 end of prez campaign, and launch of C4L rally for the republic.

This has to be more about the delegate and planning the convention coup or something. For whatever reason, they are playing it very low profile, or so it seems.

I just was hoping to get one last chance for my friends and family who have never seen him in person to get out to this event. But I have to put names on tickets with addresses etc.. and present ID to whoever shows up. Sort on lock down.

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:20 PM

it holds 11k. So far, Ron Paul has quadrupled his support in the last 4 years. Rally for Republic had at least 10k. There aren't many other bigger venues. You have the pro football stadium. You have the hockey rink, which is walking distance to the convention in downtown. And you have the fairgrounds/concert hall.

I was a little disturbed to get an email back from one of his event organizers saying they won't sell out the 11k at USF. I am like whaaaatt? I mean in the surrounding counties he had over 25k votes in the primary.

I am getting the sense that this isn't a Rally at all. It's a meeting for delegate strategy. I am getting the sense that it is a mistake to try to compare this to 2007 end of prez campaign, and launch of C4L rally for the republic.

This has to be more about the delegate and planning the convention coup or something. For whatever reason, they are playing it very low profile, or so it seems.

I just was hoping to get one last chance for my friends and family who have never seen him in person to get out to this event. But I have to put names on tickets with addresses etc.. and present ID to whoever shows up. Sort on lock down.

do you have an actual link to get the tickets? I've been on vacation and last I saw it was still a 'hold the date' kind of thing. I had to give names for the rally at UCLA, and email, but not ID. Maybe they don't want trolls trying to out stealth delegates or something. But UCLA was 7000 plus people in trees (see my avatar) and it was 3 day's notice directly following Chino and Berkeley rallies. Not sell out? I kinda doubt that.

NY-Dano

07-07-2012, 10:25 PM

do you have an actual link to get the tickets? Here is the link: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/07/06/ron-paul-tampa-rally/

sailingaway

07-07-2012, 10:29 PM

Here is the link: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/07/06/ron-paul-tampa-rally/

thanks, I'll add that to the front page.

newbitech

07-07-2012, 10:43 PM

do you have an actual link to get the tickets? I've been on vacation and last I saw it was still a 'hold the date' kind of thing. I had to give names for the rally at UCLA, and email, but not ID. Maybe they don't want trolls trying to out stealth delegates or something. But UCLA was 7000 plus people in trees (see my avatar) and it was 3 day's notice directly following Chino and Berkeley rallies. Not sell out? I kinda doubt that.

yeah, these are actual seat vouchers. I see someone posted the link for ya. Anyways, I signed myself up because I am going regardless. If Ron Paul was speaking at the dump 20 miles from me, I'd be there. I also wanted to check out the process so I could get others to sign up to. After signing up, you get a link to talk to the organizers. I asked him if they really needed email addresses and phone numbers and house addresses, and if so, it makes it kind of hard to get tickets to invite people who may or may not want to go. Cause obviously the requirement to show id. It's not like I can get someone a ticket and give it away at the gate, since the ticket has a name on it and has to match the ID.

So I also asked well what happens once 11k people sign up and get their vouchers, do they shut it down? Cause you know there are going to be people sign up and then not go. I am thinking they will have a head count going in (fire marshal stuff) and if there are available seats, let walk ups come.

So I was told not to sign anyone up unless I know for sure they are coming, to send them a link instead. Ok. And about running out of vouchers? I was told the venue holds 11k people "we won't run out".

So either they won't run out, or more than likely, they will run out and end up with less than a packed house because of no shows and not being able to transfer the voucher.

Whatever, as far as I am concerned, this event needs to be all about supporting the delegates and their fight on the floor. BUT, damn, this is probably the last time Ron Paul will speak in Florida.

Oh, on other thing I noticed besides the ONLY part.

pre-convention. Sounds like he knows he will be speaking at the convention. That would be a plus.

All this seems a lot like church to me. Some kind of etiquette thing going on here. What do I know. Just excited about the convention coming in less than 2 months.

TruckinMike

07-08-2012, 05:58 AM

...I've about had enough of every clown that strolls along, that doesn't care for a certain segment of the liberty community, to immediate apply the "nutjob" label to them.

It was CIA man Buckley purging the true conservatives that had it right all along, and opened the door to the neocons.

God, I hope whoever the establishment candidate of the GOP is this year, that they end getting a mud hole stomped in their ass come November.

One more reason to +rep AF. +REP

TMike

ross11988

07-08-2012, 07:59 AM

newbitech

07-08-2012, 08:38 AM

This will sell out no doubt, just be interesting to see if they pick a bigger venue, like they did for rally of the republic. I really believe we could get 50K to go to this with the right venue. If we could get 10K to go to Rally for the Republic which was in Minnesota (not densely populated) 4 years ago. We could definitely get 50K to go to this in Tampa, Florida.

that's what I am thinking, and didn't they have to buy tickets for Rally for the Republic? Of course here, they aren't going to have a walk up crowd because they way they are doing the vouchers, I think. That is what I am trying to figure out.

If those vouchers all get claimed, then I think they will close the doors on vouchers. Then when people with vouchers don't show/can't make it, you end up with less than capacity and no way to fill it out. See the conundrum?

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 09:11 AM

that's what I am thinking, and didn't they have to buy tickets for Rally for the Republic? Of course here, they aren't going to have a walk up crowd because they way they are doing the vouchers, I think. That is what I am trying to figure out.

If those vouchers all get claimed, then I think they will close the doors on vouchers. Then when people with vouchers don't show/can't make it, you end up with less than capacity and no way to fill it out. See the conundrum?

At UCLA they moved to a bigger venue (the tennis stadium) then had two lines, the voucher line and the no voucher line. The voucher line all got in before Ron started speaking but it was an incredible line. Then they started letting in the no voucher line WHILE he was speaking. A good half hour later they were still letting some in. I understand a bunch left because they had been told there was no room. (there actually was a little strip of seats behind Ron even at the end, but when we came out there were people coming down from trees.) So it isn't just a 'room' issue it is a 'timing' issue, as in, will you get to see the whole thing? Honestly, I'd get the vouchers.

riviera1992

07-08-2012, 09:23 AM

"He wants to be at an event he has control over."

Or the campaign or those running it. Don't kid yourself. They're terrified little Davy Weigel will show up and then quickly post "I saw Nazis at PaulFest! Nazis I tell you!"

That being said, inviting Gary Johnson pretty much assured Paul would not show up at the grassroots event. Not smart at all.

Oh well, what's important is not who is at what festival, it's what you intend to there and I hope Paul supporters buy up tickets for the convention sessions if they really want to make their presence felt.

Totally confused here.

I lost track of all these events supporters are planning. I thought there was 2 now there's 3? Is this right?

One for the Libertarian party with GJ somewhere outside Tampa?

One at the Fairgrounds for RP supporters.

And now one rally for the delegates at the SunDome?

I don't get it. If RP will address his delegates on that Sunday the 26, why are they expecting 10 of thousands if it's only for the delegates? Didn't Ron said he had about 500 delegates?

So as an independant RP supporter, which rally should I attend?

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 09:27 AM

Totally confused here.

I lost track of all these events supporters are planning. I thought there was 2 now there's 3? Is this right?

One for the Libertarian party with GJ somewhere outside Tampa?

One at the Fairgrounds for RP supporters.

And now one rally for the delegates at the SunDome?

I don't get it. If RP will address his delegates on that Sunday the 26, why are they expecting 10 of thousands if it's only for the delegates? Didn't Ron said he had about 500 delegates?

So as an independant RP supporter, which rally should I attend?

the Sun Dome is where Ron will be speaking and it is NOT only for the delegates, it is kinds showcasing them and sweet talking them to get them to do whatever it is the campaign has in mind, I suspect. I trust our delegates, however, and even if they make a choice I wouldn't, they are the ones who went through all this and are the proper ones to do it. I think they'll be fairly representative of supporters, however, given they were elected by supporters.

But Ron's rally is for everyone. They are just asking delegates sign up a special way so they have a better count and data on any stealth delegates they have missed. Some still may not, but then they may not get some of the top secret communications I am sure are planned AFTER the 6 pm end time for the rally. But that is the only one you will see Ron at. Paul fest is the big supporter one Deb is planning, but I understand there will be some coordination of getting people to Ron's rally from there, and maybe from Ron's TO there, I don't know yet (but if I were Deb I'd try to do that). A bunch of people, including Johnson will be speaking at Debs, but it is a three day event so I don't know who will be speaking there on the 26th. Ron's is free, so I'd think you'd want to go there, without precluding going to Deb's, particularly if there is transportation available between the two events.

pacelli

07-08-2012, 09:52 AM

riviera1992

07-08-2012, 09:55 AM

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 10:10 AM

Thanks. So that's 2 rallies then? PaulFest and Paul Festival 2012 are the same right?

Ok so planning my Sunday to be at the air conditioned SunDome during the heat of the day then drive to the Fairgrounds for an evening of music when it's starting to cool down a bit sounds like a good day. Will there be good food to buy at the Fairgrounds or should we eat at the Sun Dome?

I can't swear to food, but I can't see Ron's event having more than stadium food IF that, and I would trust Deb to have fairground food (or vote for it here, if she hasn't thought of it). Generally speaking, I'd think Deb's food would be better, and Ron's might be nonexistent.

There might be 3 rallies, but I am not sure the third one is still going on, I think it might have just been if Paul Fest couldn't get its spot, but both the 'Paul' named ones are the same one.

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 10:12 AM

I just watched the video with Ron speaking that was linked in the first page of the thread by LibertyEagle. I'm a bit concerned that the campaign doesn't know who their delegates and alternate delegates are.

Please don't ban me for saying this, but if the whole campaign was all about the delegates, how is it possible that the campaign doesn't have contact info for them? Did I hear him say something that he didn't? He starts talking about this at about 1:10 in the video..

"Also those who are delegates and alternates, we want to have a little closer contact, we're in contact with alot but we don't want to miss anybody, so you can find out how to email us and let us know exactly who you are, where you are so we can communicate and make the preparations for this event".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TC1X47qMmzE

Ron's campaign knows with whom they worked to become delegates, but there are stealth delegates and states where Ron was expected to do poorly so the campaign didn't even have a presence. We have some delegates from surprising places, as the campaign has discovered, often after the event. I am sure they are trying to get ahold of all the ones they haven't yet identified.

They need to know Ron's overall strength so they have a idea what they can accomplish. I wish Bierfeldt was still with them at this point, or maybe that guy from Maine. The campaign needs to have this info, but the delegates may need to set their own priorities imho, particularly if the campaign seems to be giving stuff away.

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 10:21 AM

"Grassroots Army" - Official Campaign Commander in Chief

LOL! good luck with that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 10:22 AM

They're terrified little Davy Weigel will show up and then quickly post "I saw Nazis at PaulFest! Nazis I tell you!" Not just him, but others. Why give the media ammo to shoot back at Ron and the movement?

newbitech

07-08-2012, 10:55 AM

Not just him, but others. Why give the media ammo to shoot back at Ron and the movement?

Really Matt? What are they going to do? Call him a conspiratorial, moonbat, nutjob, unelectable, etc etc..

I don't buy that reason, guilt by association and what the media might say. I think it's more concern about what the establishment GOP might shoot back at him. Hell, I'd buy the 'security' argument over worrying about what the media might say do. Just my opinion. Ron Paul and his campaign will obviously do what he thinks is best. If they aren't interested in a grassroots organized rally, or if they are looking to control some message then I have to accept that as Ron Paul & Co. have a good reason from distancing themselves from the broader revolution.

I guess the way I see it is, you have this huge grassroots bubble rising up. Inside of it is anything and everything that is anti-status quo. In this bubble you see groups that are possibly completely opposite each other in ideology. OWS is in that bubble as is the Ron Paul Revolution.

What I am beginning to realize is that this grassroots bubble is not the "Ron Paul" grassroots bubble. Its just more and more people becoming dissident towards TPTB.

So inside that bubble you have other bubbles that are forming. For instance the Ron Paul Revolution. At one point, RP & Co. were inside of that bubble. As that bubble expanded, other bubbles started forming. You had people aggressively attacking the mainstream, people practicing civil disobedience, people finding other ways to challenge the status quo outside of RP's core ideology of effecting change from within the GOP.

So now we are seeing that Ron Paul Revolution bubble starting to pop in a manner of speaking. Well it's not so much popping as it is spitting out other bubbles. I'd say what has happened is some what of an identity crisis, not only withing the narrower scoped Ron Paul inspired movements, but in the larger grassroots bubble itself.

Now with Ron Paul & Co. seemingly wanting to make the scope even more narrow, it is inevitable that many of the diverse coalition will be inside their own bubbles that Ron Paul will not be a part of.

It is a defining moment I think, and I am just sad that Ron Paul is not going to be able to rise above all of this and keep the grassroots united.

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 11:03 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

again, I think that is a top down analogy. You don't herd cats effectively, you draw them with something they want. As they are doing by having Ron speak at this rally.

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 11:06 AM

It is a defining moment I think, and I am just sad that Ron Paul is not going to be able to rise above all of this and keep the grassroots united.

Ron certainly is able to, but only if he looks around and figures out what is going on. Leaving it to 'the campaign' will not work in this scenario.

liberalnurse

07-08-2012, 11:18 AM

Not just him, but others. Why give the media ammo to shoot back at Ron and the movement?

I'll second, Newbitech. "Really, Matt?" I think you need to remember who you are and where you came from. I'd tell you to fuck off, but I don't want to get banned. :mad:

nobody's_hero

07-08-2012, 11:25 AM

It's real simple -

He wants to be at an event he has control over.

Or maybe the GOP wants him to be at an event it has control over. I'm still curious as to why he had to make an agreement with the GOP before even getting 'permission' to hold this event.

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 11:39 AM

Or maybe the GOP wants him to be at an event it has control over. I'm still curious as to why he had to make an agreement with the GOP before even getting 'permission' to hold this event.

As part of the deal between the RNC and Tampa the RNC got first dibs on all event centers. How that worked with private property rights, I cannot say.

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 12:24 PM

again, I think that is a top down analogy. You don't herd cats effectively, you draw them with something they want. As they are doing by having Ron speak at this rally.I completely agree.

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 12:25 PM

I'm still curious as to why he had to make an agreement with the GOP before even getting 'permission' to hold this event.See the following post about venues. But also keep in mind, the RNC can control access to their event, so if he wants access (think '08) then he has to play by their rules or at least try and work with them.

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 12:26 PM

How that worked with private property rights, I cannot say.USF Sundome is not a private venue. And for the ones that are, the RNC simply put down a deposit.

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 01:14 PM

Really Matt? What are they going to do? Call him a conspiratorial, moonbat, nutjob, unelectable, etc etc.. Smear by association is quite likely which is why it is important for Ron to attempt to negate that sort of attack by not being around people who might be politically damaging. It doesn't do him any good if his message is undermined because he gets associated with "fringe". The goal is to mainstream the movement so that we open up more people to our way of thinking.

I think it's more concern about what the establishment GOP might shoot back at him. And that's a possibility too. In '08 they didn't allow him to do much with the RNC Convention, this time a speaking slot would be nice. So it doesn't benefit him to put his finger in their eyes, even though it might feel good to do so.

So now we are seeing that Ron Paul Revolution bubble starting to pop in a manner of speaking. Well it's not so much popping as it is spitting out other bubbles. I'd say what has happened is some what of an identity crisis, not only withing the narrower scoped Ron Paul inspired movements, but in the larger grassroots bubble itself.

Now with Ron Paul & Co. seemingly wanting to make the scope even more narrow, it is inevitable that many of the diverse coalition will be inside their own bubbles that Ron Paul will not be a part of.

It is a defining moment I think, and I am just sad that Ron Paul is not going to be able to rise above all of this and keep the grassroots united.Perhaps you might be on to something there, but again, if we are going to win politically we have to appeal to voters. That means that we must not appear "fringe". Remember Ron's support nearly doubled this time from '08 so we are trending upward.

DerailingDaTrain

07-08-2012, 02:46 PM

Smear by association is quite likely which is why it is important for Ron to attempt to negate that sort of attack by not being around people who might be politically damaging.

That might make sense if this wasn't his last election and if that hadn't been done already

parocks

07-08-2012, 03:09 PM

Ron Paul
Great news! My good friend Jimmie Vaughan has agreed to perform at our event on August 26th in Tampa!

DerailingDaTrain

07-08-2012, 03:14 PM

Ron Paul
Great news! My good friend Jimmie Vaughan has agreed to perform at our event on August 26th in Tampa!

Wow. That's pretty cool

Eisenhower

07-08-2012, 03:46 PM

blah blah blah Jesse Benton blah blah

nobody's_hero

07-08-2012, 04:14 PM

That might make sense if this wasn't his last election and if that hadn't been done already

For real!

Since when do we care so much about stepping on the GOP's toes? They'll break our bones if given the chance. If this is Ron Paul's 'last hurrah' I'd like to see him go out in style. I'm seeing a lot of backing-down that didn't occur in 2008 and it's making my stomach twist a bit.

twomp

07-08-2012, 04:50 PM

I'll second, Newbitech. "Really, Matt?" I think you need to remember who you are and where you came from. I'd tell you to fuck off, but I don't want to get banned. :mad:

I'll third this as well. Most of the time Matt Collins makes a post now a days, I feel like I'm being sold something.

Revolution9

07-08-2012, 04:54 PM

I have no problem with Dr Paul wanting to be crystal clear and playing whatever political games are necessary to be effective for the cause of liberty. I do, however, find your remark about Kokesh strange. I can't think of many individuals who have publicly supported Dr Paul as much as Adam Kokesh has. Not that anyone here cares what I have to say, but Adam has my utmost respect. So, yes, others do view it differently.

Also, F**K the Republican establishment. They have stood in the way of progress during the entire campaign. I have no idea how anyone who cares about liberty could view it otherwise.

In the dance at the Jefferson memorial the "girlfriend" he was arrested with was Medea Benjamin. He and she is not a friend of the Liberty Movement. He is an "actor"..Is code pink RP's pal? Not a chance. He is pro-life.

Rev9

Bastiat's The Law

07-08-2012, 04:54 PM

kylejack

07-08-2012, 04:56 PM

I've always said that the idea that he'd speak or acknowledge an event that is fairly hostile to Republicans - to the point of featuring a guy who's running against the GOP nominee for President and people who are functionally Democrat allies - was flat out crazy.
It's not crazy at all, and Paul actually hosted an event with opponents of the Republican nominee last cycle.

kylejack

07-08-2012, 04:59 PM

In the dance at the Jefferson memorial the "girlfriend" he was arrested with was Medea Benjamin. He and she is not a friend of the Liberty Movement. He is an "actor"..Is code pink RP's pal? Not a chance. He is pro-life.
And Jesus Christ hung out with prostitutes. So what? This is guilt by association. I have lots of friends, and they don't all agree with me politically. Some agree with me on some topics, and even attend protest events for things we see eye to eye on. You don't have to agree with everything Code Pink does to believe that people should have a right to freedom of expression.

parocks

07-08-2012, 05:00 PM

I'll third this as well. Most of the time Matt Collins makes a post now a days, I feel like I'm being sold something.

It's almost as if Matt Collins is "on message". How terrible </s>

Feeding the Abscess

07-08-2012, 05:00 PM

In the dance at the Jefferson memorial the "girlfriend" he was arrested with was Medea Benjamin. He and she is not a friend of the Liberty Movement. He is an "actor"..Is code pink RP's pal? Not a chance. He is pro-life.

Rev9

Ron Paul has worked with Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney, and Barney Frank on a number of issues over the years. Is he a socialist?

kylejack

07-08-2012, 05:03 PM

Ron Paul has worked with Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney, and Barney Frank on a number of issues over the years. Is he a socialist?
And Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.

DerailingDaTrain

07-08-2012, 05:32 PM

Anti Federalist

07-08-2012, 05:55 PM

I concur and +rep

Really Matt? What are they going to do? Call him a conspiratorial, moonbat, nutjob, unelectable, etc etc..

I don't buy that reason, guilt by association and what the media might say. I think it's more concern about what the establishment GOP might shoot back at him. Hell, I'd buy the 'security' argument over worrying about what the media might say do. Just my opinion. Ron Paul and his campaign will obviously do what he thinks is best. If they aren't interested in a grassroots organized rally, or if they are looking to control some message then I have to accept that as Ron Paul & Co. have a good reason from distancing themselves from the broader revolution.

I guess the way I see it is, you have this huge grassroots bubble rising up. Inside of it is anything and everything that is anti-status quo. In this bubble you see groups that are possibly completely opposite each other in ideology. OWS is in that bubble as is the Ron Paul Revolution.

What I am beginning to realize is that this grassroots bubble is not the "Ron Paul" grassroots bubble. Its just more and more people becoming dissident towards TPTB.

So inside that bubble you have other bubbles that are forming. For instance the Ron Paul Revolution. At one point, RP & Co. were inside of that bubble. As that bubble expanded, other bubbles started forming. You had people aggressively attacking the mainstream, people practicing civil disobedience, people finding other ways to challenge the status quo outside of RP's core ideology of effecting change from within the GOP.

So now we are seeing that Ron Paul Revolution bubble starting to pop in a manner of speaking. Well it's not so much popping as it is spitting out other bubbles. I'd say what has happened is some what of an identity crisis, not only withing the narrower scoped Ron Paul inspired movements, but in the larger grassroots bubble itself.

Now with Ron Paul & Co. seemingly wanting to make the scope even more narrow, it is inevitable that many of the diverse coalition will be inside their own bubbles that Ron Paul will not be a part of.

It is a defining moment I think, and I am just sad that Ron Paul is not going to be able to rise above all of this and keep the grassroots united.

Revolution9

07-08-2012, 06:05 PM

And Jesus Christ hung out with prostitutes. So what? This is guilt by association.

He was running a "make them look silly" op with a darling lynchpin of the liberals. Thank you for parading your insensibilities to obvious gambits. Kokesh is no friend. He is an actor in the legal and intel sense of the word.. He just happens to be with Medea Benjamin who is "acting" as his girlfriend at the Jefferson memorial. This is so in-yer-face and yet you deny it which points out either that you are ignorant or that as I always assumed, you are not here for the better interests of the RP Liberty momentum but are a damper. And using Jesus Christ to compare to Kokesh shows again absolutely improper perception.

Rev9

Revolution9

07-08-2012, 06:14 PM

He danced with the founder of an anti-war organization? Shame on him

You have proven in spades your lack of discernment and perception. Yer either a fool or a plant. The trajectory of Kokesh's public career puts him under extreme suspicion of being a part of the cointelpro op against the Liberty movement..,but hey..with friends like you involved this pile of shit is gonna just barnstorm it's way over the landscape and remove all ills from America..whilst lying in bed with the greatest internal enemies of it's philosophy of freedom and individual rights. But I don't expect you to have the brainpower necessary to plough your way through all the data on this. You might begin to try educating yourself by going through a library like this..just the titles may alert you if you can get past the initial cognitive dissonance your programming will throw in your mental gears.

http://www.american-buddha.com/site.map.htm

(http://www.american-buddha.com/site.map.htm)Rev9

Revolution9

07-08-2012, 06:24 PM

Ron Paul has worked with Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney, and Barney Frank on a number of issues over the years. Is he a socialist?

Both Medea and Kokesh are "actors". Learn about them in the intel community and their functions. You would probably be quite surprised how often and how many roles they carry out in various professional convention forums, newscasts and the like. You might also be surprised at the many seemingly horrific crimes done in public that were totally staged and fake. The information is available from many previous company employees and confessions of actors themselves. Ronnie Reagan was one kind of actor for example. The parents of Jon Benet Ramsey as well as the girl were another sort.

BTW.. Your question was entirely irrelevant.

Rev9

DerailingDaTrain

07-08-2012, 07:04 PM

or a plant.

You know you're actually right this time. The truth is that I'm a plant being paid by the liberal media and the Illuminati to post here. Now that the jig is up I'm afraid you will have to be "taken care of". A team of operatives will arrive at your residence within the next twenty minutes to transport you to a secure facility for re-education.

:rolleyes:

kylejack

07-08-2012, 07:21 PM

They weren't playing boyfriend and girlfriend. They were cooperative organizers of the event. Ron Paul appears with all kinds of people, even those dreaded liberals.

Matt Collins

07-08-2012, 07:35 PM

And Jesus Christ hung out with prostitutes. So what? This is guilt by association.But he wasn't running for US President.

I have lots of friends, and they don't all agree with me politically. Some agree with me on some topics, and even attend protest events for things we see eye to eye on. You don't have to agree with everything Code Pink does to believe that people should have a right to freedom of expression.In politics, perception is reality. Anything you do can be used against you by your opposition. So if you associate yourself with people that can be used against you, then it eventually will be.

parocks

07-08-2012, 07:37 PM

You have proven in spades your lack of discernment and perception. Yer either a fool or a plant. The trajectory of Kokesh's public career puts him under extreme suspicion of being a part of the cointelpro op against the Liberty movement..,but hey..with friends like you involved this pile of shit is gonna just barnstorm it's way over the landscape and remove all ills from America..whilst lying in bed with the greatest internal enemies of it's philosophy of freedom and individual rights. But I don't expect you to have the brainpower necessary to plough your way through all the data on this. You might begin to try educating yourself by going through a library like this..just the titles may alert you if you can get past the initial cognitive dissonance your programming will throw in your mental gears.

http://www.american-buddha.com/site.map.htm

(http://www.american-buddha.com/site.map.htm)Rev9

I looked at your link. What am I supposed to get out of that? Not being critical, but it's unclear what the "point" is.

I'm of the opinion that Kokesh is the worst.

That link could keep a lot of people very busy for a long time. It appears that the person who does that site has the full contents of hundreds of famous /important books in html form. A lot of conspiracy stuff. But there doesn't seem to be just the one link to "examples of cointelpro" or whatever

LibertyEagle

07-08-2012, 07:47 PM

And Jesus Christ hung out with prostitutes. So what? This is guilt by association. I have lots of friends, and they don't all agree with me politically. Some agree with me on some topics, and even attend protest events for things we see eye to eye on. You don't have to agree with everything Code Pink does to believe that people should have a right to freedom of expression.

True, but politics is 90% perception and what happened there on that day was not helpful at all.

RickyJ

07-08-2012, 07:55 PM

Ron Paul has worked with Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney, and Barney Frank on a number of issues over the years. Is he a socialist?

I am starting to think it has little to nothing to do with the other participants at "Paul Fest" and has more to do with his security. I can't say for sure, but I think there have been credible death threats against him and he is taking all the recommended safety precautions he has been advised to take by the FBI.

RonPaulFanInGA

07-08-2012, 07:56 PM

PaulA-bunch-of-no-name-bands-and-Gary-Johnson fest.

Who'd pay $70-something dollars (plus travel) for that?

kylejack

07-08-2012, 08:14 PM

But he wasn't running for US President.
We were discussing whether it is appropriate for liberty activist Adam Kokesh to associate with Medea Benjamin. Kokesh is not running for President either.

parocks

07-08-2012, 08:57 PM

PaulA-bunch-of-no-name-bands-and-Gary-Johnson fest.

Who'd pay $70-something dollars (plus travel) for that?

The idea always was that the hardcore Ron Paul supporters would like to hang out with other hardcore Ron Paul supporters. Having good, popular rock bands there would just wreck it, there would be too many of the wrong people there. They want at Paul Festival just the hardcore supporters.

parocks

07-08-2012, 09:04 PM

I starting to think it has little to nothing to do with the other participants at "Paul Fest" and has more to do with his security. I can't say for sure, but I think there have been credible death threats against him and he is taking all the recommended safety precautions he has been advised to take by the FBI.

He's putting on his own rally that is just to his liking. If we're going to make guesses, I'd also add that the official rally is free, and Paul Fest is not free. But there really isn't any reason for him to go to this, or any reason to think that he would go to this. The organizers I understand would want that, and the people buying tickets would want that, but no reason to think that it would happen. Somebody watched Waynes World II and other "let's make a concert" movies, and assumed that if you name a concert after somebody, that person has to appear. Usually, there's legal action, but the person doesn't show up. The Paul Festival has a lot of merit for what it is doing. Transportation to and from Tampa is being taken care of. And RV / Camping at the Tampa Fairgrounds for 7 days. This is really good stuff.

newbitech

07-08-2012, 09:06 PM

I starting to think it has little to nothing to do with the other participants at "Paul Fest" and has more to do with his security. I can't say for sure, but I think there have been credible death threats against him and he is taking all the recommended safety precautions he has been advised to take by the FBI.

I'd buy this before I'd buy the guilt by association thread. Hell I'd say this is on par with he is trying to make the GOP happy. I like my idea. It's a political roast. I am not sure that Ron Paul has turned down an invitation to come. He definitely won't be speaking, but then again, when you are being roasted, it's usually other people doing the speaking.

Controlling the message? That to me is contrived. Probably more like controlling the security situation. Look, it sounds like a lot of Ron Paul's friends have accepted the invite to come and speak. I am sure that a liberty crowd that packed will have more control over the security of Ron Paul than some hired jackboots that will more than likely grace the Sun Dome at USF.

Ivash

07-08-2012, 09:15 PM

True, but politics is 90% perception and what happened there on that day was not helpful at all.

Religious conversion is, in large part, perception as well. I'd give my right leg to find out why so many Romans converted to a religion founded by a provincial non-Roman lower class carpenter Jew (who, it must be added, died like a common slave- Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for murderers and revolting slaves), but even without that knowledge it is clear that stranger things have happened than a libertarian winning the Presidency.

Edit: I wasn't bashing Jews, carpenters, the lower classes, or non-Romans in that statement. It was simply that all those things listed would have been hated, or at the very least held in extreme contempt, by the mass majority of Romans and their very culture.

sailingaway

07-08-2012, 10:38 PM

Religious conversion is, in large part, perception as well. I'd give my right leg to find out why so many Romans converted to a religion founded by a provincial non-Roman lower class carpenter Jew (who, it must be added, died like a common slave- Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for murderers and revolting slaves), but even without that knowledge it is clear that stranger things have happened than a libertarian winning the Presidency.

Edit: I wasn't bashing Jews, carpenters, the lower classes, or non-Romans in that statement. It was simply that all those things listed would have been hated, or at the very least held in extreme contempt, by the mass majority of Romans and their very culture.

Well, there was that bit about the converted Caesar throwing non converts to the lions...

DerailingDaTrain

07-09-2012, 12:04 AM

I checked out your link Rev9 and I don't think I will be reading any of the listed works. Especially these:

Trust No Fox on His Green Heath and No Jew on His Oath, by Elwiara Bauer

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, by Sergyei A. Nilus

Did the Jews Foresee the World War?, by The Dearborn Independent

Why would you attempt to spread this garbage to others?

parocks

07-09-2012, 12:18 AM

I checked out your link Rev9 and I don't think I will be reading any of the listed works. Especially these:

Why would you attempt to spread this garbage to others?

That is a very very very long list, containing all the major conspiracy works, there might be 1000s of books there in their entirety. Protocols IS a major conspiracy work, no matter what else can be said about it. And if you're going to cover all the conspiracy bases, all the different types of conspiracy theories, and be complete, you're going to include conspiracy theories involving Jews. Are there any noteworthy omissions there? Any types of conspiracy not covered? I'd be concerned about that.

Revolution9

07-09-2012, 05:27 AM

That is a very very very long list, containing all the major conspiracy works, there might be 1000s of books there in their entirety. Protocols IS a major conspiracy work, no matter what else can be said about it. And if you're going to cover all the conspiracy bases, all the different types of conspiracy theories, and be complete, you're going to include conspiracy theories involving Jews. Are there any noteworthy omissions there? Any types of conspiracy not covered? I'd be concerned about that.

It is a very thorough library..one of many I read frequently. It contains thousands of facts and enough information for YOU to decide what is and what is not or has not actually occurred. DDT..interesting acronym BTW.. is just frightened of any data that will cause him to readjust his corrupted thinking. Anyone who shies away from knowledge with such knee jerk reactions is not to be considered one to take advice from on where to obtain information from as their modality is in severe and programmed restriction. Interestingy he considers work by Dante, E A Wallis Budge, Rudolf Steiner, CG Jung, Anthony C Sutton, Johnathan Swift, Francis Bacon, Arthur Shopenhauer, Webster Griffin Tarpley and Ludwig Von Mises to name just a few to be garbage. And I should take this clownage seriously and allow weight to his responses other than ridicule for opening his fat piehole and shoving his foot in it in rapid and due ordering. He ain't done his homework.

Rev9

Tod

07-09-2012, 06:11 AM

...on this matter I have to say I find it disrespectful to some of his biggest supporters.

Somehow, I imagine the lobbyists, who first came to his office before everyone realized he couldn't be bought, felt the same way.

I can certainly understand why he would be reluctant to speak at an event where the situation is unknown.

Revolution9

07-09-2012, 08:46 AM

I looked at your link. What am I supposed to get out of that? Not being critical, but it's unclear what the "point" is.

I'm of the opinion that Kokesh is the worst.

That link could keep a lot of people very busy for a long time. It appears that the person who does that site has the full contents of hundreds of famous /important books in html form. A lot of conspiracy stuff. But there doesn't seem to be just the one link to "examples of cointelpro" or whatever

The original retort was of the contention that all is above board and there is not actors within conspiracies, especially in regards to keeping the current PTB at whatever time in history holding the reins of power. Vehemently disagreeing with this basic premise and having history on the opposing side of this contention is illustrated manifestly in a perusal of the titles and their contents. I challenged him to absorb any material at all he chose on the site and his reaction is there for posterity. As per specifics of the cointelpro I can gather specific links on these activities but a quick google search does the trick for anybody truly interested. As for Kokesh in particular. He has strange bedfellows and after making an initial serious foray into the liberty movement and gaining trust he set about making a fool of himself and by extension the grassroots. The dance at the Jefferson Memorial was a contrived and staged op in my opinion. There was nothing to it..like the Gary Johnson ad..a bunch of hipsters violating a dance ordinance. That is a surefire blow for liberty right there with all the seriousness of a Daffy Duck beak jarring explosion. The emotionally charged interview with the former RP staffer appeared to be another standard discreditation op based entirely on libelous speculation and Kokesh's eyes are just as shady these days. When I did realize who was playing the "part" of Kokesh's girlfriend at the JM I began to look at his operations with a jaundiced eye.

Rev9

Ivash

07-09-2012, 08:54 AM

Well, there was that bit about the converted Caesar throwing non converts to the lions...

You have it backwards- none of the Caesars (a family name of the first line of leaders before the death of Nero, rather than an actual position) were Christians, though they did throw Christians to the lions (well, Nero did, anyways. It is unlikely the Caesars before him had even heard about Christians). Constantine was the first Emperor to convert, some three hundred years after the death of Jesus, and it is possible that his conversion was, at least in part, pragmatic- already before his conversion there were far too many Christians in far too many key positions in the Roman Empire for the Emperor not to want to gain their support. Even his opponents in that particular Civil War (who were all pagans) needed to gain the support of the Christian Romans.

The persecution of pagans in the Roman Empire was, for the most part, extremely episodic until the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The remaining Eastern Roman Empire (the 'Byzantine Empire') did persecute heretics and pagans consistently during their periods of decline.

riviera1992

07-09-2012, 09:01 AM

This is the quote of the day my friend. ;)

Religious conversion is, in large part, perception as well. I'd give my right leg to find out why so many Romans converted to a religion founded by a provincial non-Roman lower class carpenter Jew (who, it must be added, died like a common slave- Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for murderers and revolting slaves), but even without that knowledge it is clear that stranger things have happened than a libertarian winning the Presidency.

Edit: I wasn't bashing Jews, carpenters, the lower classes, or non-Romans in that statement. It was simply that all those things listed would have been hated, or at the very least held in extreme contempt, by the mass majority of Romans and their very culture.

DeMintConservative

07-09-2012, 09:06 AM

Perhaps for political reasons. But, Dr. Paul's allegiance is to liberty; not a political party.

It's not like they're exclusive. I have a plurality of political allegiances: a primary one, a secondary, a tertiary, etc.

One, Buckley did more harm to conservatism than the neocons have and two, those Birchers you called nutjobs warned against the very crap happening that we are so upset about today.

I don't share Rothbard's narrative on Buckley's role in the slightest.

They did? What exactly? That President Eisenhower was a Kremlin agent, a traitor trying to turn America into a communist regime under the control of the Russians? That Alaska was being converted into a concentration camp to intern those who were opposed to water fluoridation - which was another soviet plot? That MLK and LBJ were actually communist agents and the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War were orchestrated by the KGB? The Freemason Illuminati KGB quest for world domination?

I'm curious. What were the Bircher nutjobs Goldwater and Kirk called out so prescient about?

Feeding the Abscess

07-09-2012, 09:12 AM

I checked out your link Rev9 and I don't think I will be reading any of the listed works. Especially these:

Why would you attempt to spread this garbage to others?

Now I understand the hate for Kokesh. Adam's Jewish.

sailingaway

07-09-2012, 10:17 AM

You have it backwards- none of the Caesars (a family name of the first line of leaders before the death of Nero, rather than an actual position) were Christians, though they did throw Christians to the lions (well, Nero did, anyways. It is unlikely the Caesars before him had even heard about Christians). Constantine was the first Emperor to convert, some three hundred years after the death of Jesus, and it is possible that his conversion was, at least in part, pragmatic- already before his conversion there were far too many Christians in far too many key positions in the Roman Empire for the Emperor not to want to gain their support. Even his opponents in that particular Civil War (who were all pagans) needed to gain the support of the Christian Romans.

The persecution of pagans in the Roman Empire was, for the most part, extremely episodic until the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The remaining Eastern Roman Empire (the 'Byzantine Empire') did persecute heretics and pagans consistently during their periods of decline.

I meant Constantine, not a Caeser. My understanding is that before he converted he had Christians thrown to the lions and afterwards had non Christians thrown to the lions.... but to be honest, it isn't my most familiar period of Roman history.

sailingaway

07-09-2012, 10:20 AM

Now I understand the hate for Kokesh. Adam's Jewish.

Oh please. there was a period there where Adam on his show very much tied himself to Ron Paul supporting then went out and did the antiwar dance at the Jefferson Memorial, right when the primary was starting to gear up. Conservative blogs were full of it and painted it against Ron. Many saw that as Adam using RON's profile to raise his own in ways he had to know would not serve Ron's purpose at the time (it was very 'in your face'.) The antiwar spirit was not the issue. I was pissed myself.

And I not only wasn't aware Kokesh was Jewish, I didn't and don't care. Reaching to turn a comment into anti-Jewish when it isn't, is just as much an ad hominum attack as playing the race card when race was never an issue.

sailingaway

07-09-2012, 10:22 AM

It's not like they're exclusive. I have a plurality of political allegiances: a primary one, a secondary, a tertiary, etc.

I don't share Rothbard's narrative on Buckley's role in the slightest.

They did? What exactly? That President Eisenhower was a Kremlin agent, a traitor trying to turn America into a communist regime under the control of the Russians? That Alaska was being converted into a concentration camp to intern those who were opposed to water fluoridation - which was another soviet plot? That MLK and LBJ were actually communist agents and the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War were orchestrated by the KGB? The Freemason Illuminati KGB quest for world domination?

I'm curious. What were the Bircher nutjobs Goldwater and Kirk called out so prescient about?

using 'nutjobs' makes it hard to take an argument seriously. Why don't you just stick to facts? I honestly don't know all the ins and outs of that war on JBS, but from all I've seen while there may have been a few specific people with out there ideas, it was no more than in any group.

Ivash

07-09-2012, 10:34 AM

I meant Constantine, not a Caeser. My understanding is that before he converted he had Christians thrown to the lions and afterwards had non Christians thrown to the lions.... but to be honest, it isn't my most familiar period of Roman history.

No, one of Constantine's many co-Emperors (during the Tetrachy's Civil Wars there were as around <b>thirteen</b> Senior, Junior, and former Emperors running around trying to claim sole power) Diocletian was infamous for his persecution of Christians. Another co-Emperor Daia was actively exterminating the Christians in the East when another co-Emperor (Licinius) defeated his rival Daia in battle.

Licinius was a pagan while Constantine was a Christian- together they passed the Edict of Milan, where both religious traditions would be respected in the Empire. Licinius and Constantine fought a lot, Licinius eventually began persicuting Christians again, Constantine defeated him. To his deathbed Constantine never persecuted pagans, though admittedly he did promote Christianity.

Sorry for that short and overly-simplified historical lesson. The entire period is one of the more confusing times in history given the political situation. Needless to say Constantine threw neither Christians nor pagans to the lions, and outright persecution can not be seen as a reason why Early Christianity grew (and anyways all the events described above were after Christianity had become a critical force within the Empire).

sailingaway

07-09-2012, 10:39 AM

No, one of Constantine's many co-Emperors (during the Tetrachy's Civil Wars there were as around <b>thirteen</b> Senior, Junior, and former Emperors running around trying to claim sole power) Diocletian was infamous for his persecution of Christians. Another co-Emperor Daia was actively exterminating the Christians in the East when another co-Emperor (Licinius) defeated his rival Daia in battle.

Licinius was a pagan while Constantine was a Christian- together they passed the Edict of Milan, where both religious traditions would be respected in the Empire. Licinius and Constantine fought a lot, Licinius eventually began persicuting Christians again, Constantine defeated him. To his deathbed Constantine never persecuted pagans, though admittedly he did promote Christianity.

Sorry for that short and overly-simplified historical lesson. The entire period is one of the more confusing times in history given the political situation. Needless to say Constantine threw neither Christians nor pagans to the lions, and outright persecution can not be seen as a reason why Early Christianity grew (and anyways all the events described above were after Christianity had become a critical force within the Empire).

thanks. There's a lot of wrong info out there on this topic. I could have cited a bunch of sources to support my position. I expect a professor threw it out at one time and I remembered it, but it seems to be at least urban legend.

Revolution9

07-09-2012, 03:38 PM

Now I understand the hate for Kokesh. Adam's Jewish.

Pfffft. Red frikkin' herring. What else ya got up yer skirt? What hate? I strongly suspect he is not what he presents himself as. It is really that simple.. I just can't stand a poseur getting away with it so.... He fits the bill and is not forthright. I had no idea he was Jewish. I had not looked at his family or origins..only his actions and timing and cohorts. Medea Benjamin is a Democrat operative and actor.

Rev9

RickyJ

07-09-2012, 03:58 PM

I strongly suspect he is not what he presents himself as.

Although I loved his speech at the march in Washington in 2008, I have always suspected from the beginning, even while he was giving that great speech that he was not truly authentic. With his "should we kill Romney video" it is kind of apparent that he is a pretender rather than a true fighter of liberty. Many are recruited to infiltrate groups, I am not saying Kokesh is one of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of them. Him being born Jewish has nothing to do with what I think of him. I have never heard him talk about Judaism in any way, so I assume it means nothing to him.

kylejack

07-09-2012, 03:59 PM

Pfffft. Red frikkin' herring. What else ya got up yer skirt? What hate? I strongly suspect he is not what he presents himself as. It is really that simple.. I just can't stand a poseur getting away with it so.... He fits the bill and is not forthright. I had no idea he was Jewish. I had not looked at his family or origins..only his actions and timing and cohorts. Medea Benjamin is a Democrat operative and actor.
I don't think she's a Democrat operative since she disrupts Democrat events and Congressional hearings. Nancy P hates her guts.

DerailingDaTrain

07-09-2012, 04:14 PM

I don't think she's a Democrat operative since she disrupts Democrat events and Congressional hearings. Nancy P hates her guts.

Don't try to argue with him. If you do then he will just label you a plant, a liberal, a moron, or an "actor" and claim that he is right and you are wrong.

DeMintConservative

07-10-2012, 06:53 PM

using 'nutjobs' makes it hard to take an argument seriously. Why don't you just stick to facts? I honestly don't know all the ins and outs of that war on JBS, but from all I've seen while there may have been a few specific people with out there ideas, it was no more than in any group.

Fair enough, I retract using that word. Although that was exactly the line of attack proposed by Russell Kirk.

And Buckley, Goldwater, Kirk et al restrained their attacks and denouncements to those who espoused those ideas, not the entire JBS membership (even though the promoters of those ideas included Robert Welsh and the rest of the leadership). That's why I wrote "Akin to what Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Buckley did to the Birchers nutjobs in the 60s" and not "Akin to what Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Buckley did to the Birchers in the 60s".

The point is that sometimes it's necessary for the leaders of some political movement to dissociate themselves and their movement from fringe factions and, in some cases, actively repudiate them - Sister Souljah moments. In some regards, this is a passive one.

sailingaway

07-10-2012, 06:57 PM

Fair enough, I retract using that word. Although that was exactly the line of attack proposed by Russell Kirk.

And Buckley, Goldwater, Kirk et al restrained their attacks and denouncements to those who espoused those ideas, not the entire JBS membership (even though the promoters of those ideas included Robert Welsh and the rest of the leadership). That's why I wrote "Akin to what Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Buckley did to the Birchers nutjobs in the 60s" and not "Akin to what Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Buckley did to the Birchers in the 60s".

The point is that sometimes it's necessary for the leaders of some political movement to dissociate themselves and their movement from fringe factions and, in some cases, actively repudiate them - Sister Souljah moments. In some regards, this is a passive one.

actually, what your passage there teaches me, if it is true, is that Kirk started a witch hunt and proposed groups of people be blanket labeled as unsavory and shunned. That's pretty awful.

It seems to me that what decent people need to do is have the courage to stand against that sort of bad behavior, not encourage it by shunning the targets.

DeMintConservative

07-10-2012, 06:59 PM

Needless to say Constantine threw neither Christians nor pagans to the lions, and outright persecution can not be seen as a reason why Early Christianity grew (and anyways all the events described above were after Christianity had become a critical force within the Empire).

You mean post-Constatine right? If not, I disagree. One of the few things upon which I agree with Bertrand Russell and Edward Gibbon is that the early persecution of Christians and martyrdom were instrumental in the growth of the Christian Church.

DeMintConservative

07-10-2012, 07:11 PM

actually, what your passage there teaches me, if it is true, is that Kirk started a witch hunt and proposed groups of people be blanket labeled as unsavory and shunned. That's pretty awful.

It seems to me that what decent people need to do is have the courage to stand against that sort of bad behavior, not encourage it by shunning the targets.

I don't get the witch hunt. He simply stated, freely paraphrasing, "guys who think Eisenhower was a communist agent are bat**** insane". I guess it's an ad hominem, but witch hunting? It's not like Welch and the JBS leadership were shy about their theories. I'm not sure what you're proposing. To engage in a civil debate with people who believe in that sort of stuff in the hopes of enlightening them?

Still, this is politics. They'd have preferred to not deal with the issue and leave it ignored as there were plenty of personal, business and political ties between the groups. But they were worried that Goldwater could be tied to them and painted as a gadfly disconnected from reality (even more than he already was).

sailingaway

07-10-2012, 07:13 PM

DeMintConservative

07-10-2012, 07:29 PM

I inferred from what you said that he essentially said 'let's all label them as nut jobs whenever we speak about them'. No, I'm proposing live and let live, not assuming nor letting others assume that an acquaintance's positions are those of another person, each only speaks for themselves, and let there be variety of thought. I think it sharpens arguments to have to face them all, not just the pc ones.

To be blunt, I don't like censorship through demonizing groups to create 'untouchable' topics.

I think there are a whole lot of stupid ideas out there. I'm entitled to my opinion, but I don't have to demonize people who think differently from me and encourage others to shun them just because they believe something I don't. That is really nasty imho.

So, you're agains Sister Souljah moments? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

I don't see how you can equate the repudiation, of someone's views or positions as censorship. That devalues the importance of real censorship.

This isn't about politically incorrect arguments. There's no gain in entertaining conversations about some topic. This is especially true the political and electoral arena. If you were Goldwater, you'd have opened a debate on Eisenhower being a communist secret agent and water fluoridation as a Kremlin plot? C'mon. He did what he had to do - labeled Welsh's views as disconnected from reality, irresponsible and called him to resign.

sailingaway

07-10-2012, 07:40 PM

So, you're agains Sister Souljah moments? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

I don't see how you can equate the repudiation, of someone's views or positions as censorship. That devalues the importance of real censorship.

This isn't about politically incorrect arguments. There's no gain in entertaining conversations about some topic. This is especially true the political and electoral arena. If you were Goldwater, you'd have opened a debate on Eisenhower being a communist secret agent and water fluoridation as a Kremlin plot? C'mon. He did what he had to do - labeled Welsh's views as disconnected from reality, irresponsible and called him to resign.

Not really up on 'sister souljah' but if it is collectivist demonization of people over nonviolent and non agressive beliefs and shunning them and making it un pc to associate with them, I think it is a sign of poor character.

DeMintConservative

07-10-2012, 07:46 PM

Not really up on 'sister souljah' but if it is collectivist demonization of people over nonviolent and non agressive beliefs and shunning them and making it un pc to associate with them, I think it is a sign of poor character.

How exactly do you square that with your criticism of, say, Romney, Obama or the parties establishements?

I think that's far more a "collectivist demonization" than saying "these men's ideas are bad, disconnected from reality and I refused to be associated with them and so should you". I mean, isn't this pretty par for the course in politics?

sailingaway

07-10-2012, 07:48 PM

How exactly do you square that with your criticism of, say, Romney, Obama or the parties establishements?

I think that's far more a "collectivist demonization" than saying "these men's ideas are bad, disconnected from reality and I refused to be associated with them and so should you". I mean, isn't this pretty par for the course in politics?

It would be except that it is just sloppy language on my part. I am only speaking of those who in my mind fit a description. I would never say assume any given person at the state GOP is terrible without finding out about them personally. I wouldn't say party establishment (meaninng in my mind power brokers set on their own power not representation) includes everyone in a specific group or status, without ever having met them. It is just useful as terminology here, with people who know what I mean.

As for Romney and Obama, I think they as individuals are terrible leaders for this country. I think both are good family men. It depends on what aspect is important to the conversation. In politics, their roles as family men is less important to me than that they both agree NDAA should have been signed. That is not collectivist. That is particular.

parocks

07-10-2012, 08:55 PM

Not really up on 'sister souljah' but if it is collectivist demonization of people over nonviolent and non agressive beliefs and shunning them and making it un pc to associate with them, I think it is a sign of poor character.

From memory, she was a rapper and Clinton said "i'm not with her". Like Ron Paul should do with Kokesh if possible.

Ivash

07-10-2012, 10:03 PM

You mean post-Constatine right? If not, I disagree. One of the few things upon which I agree with Bertrand Russell and Edward Gibbon is that the early persecution of Christians and martyrdom were instrumental in the growth of the Christian Church.

Sorry, I meant Christian persecution of pagan groups pre-Constatine. I of course also agree that the Christian Church grew through offical persecution, something that is not uncommon when to the Christian Church. I also agree with your thoughts on Russell and Gibbon, as well, actually.