PDA

View Full Version : For all - Turn the other cheek for Ron Paul




uncloned21
11-17-2007, 07:47 AM
On LRC this morning:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy128.html

Click the link and there is a Digg button.



Keeping the Love in the rEVOLution

As Lew Rockwell said, "I guess the memo went out." In the past week there was a seemingly coordinated effort by various right-wing pundits and websites to besmirch Ron Paul’s supporters. As we’ve argued before, Republicans who oppose Ron Paul at first hoped he’d just fade into oblivion. But now that ignoring him clearly isn’t working, his opponents have upped the ante.

This is why it is now more important than ever that Paul’s supporters be on their best behavior. Now let me unload the obvious disclaimer: I am not trying to give a sermon, and I have been known in the past to lose my temper in online discussions. Even so, I think my present analysis needs to be stated, just to remind everyone why courtesy works.

When it comes to Ron Paul’s nomination, there are three main objections. The first is that he can’t possibly win. Well, that particular claim is becoming less and less plausible. The second objection is that his ideas are too "radical." This objection too will be difficult for self-professed limited government conservatives to handle; they’d best stick to foreign policy, because anyone trumpeting "Big Government-lite" is going to get his clock cleaned against Ron Paul on domestic issues.

The third objection involves his supporters. They have been labeled Internet geeks, quixotic idealists, tinfoil wearing crazies, and even terrorist sympathizers and white supremacists. Yet there has also been a consistent charge that Ron Paul supporters are rude, intolerant bullies when it comes to reasoned political discourse. This is ostensibly why some sites have quite literally banned them.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not endorsing these charges. I’ve seen plenty of vitriolic Web discussions, and the average Ron Paul supporter seems at least as civil (and often more so) than anybody else. But the fairness of these charges is largely irrelevant. As Ron Paul gains more and more popularity – as more people follow up the invitation to "Google Ron Paul" – we have to make it crystal clear that these charges are bogus. If someone who hasn’t thought about politics in years stumbles unto a message board, and sees even one comment along the lines of, "how much is rudy ghouliani paying you to write this warmonger crap??? youll wish Ron Paul won when you get RENDITIONED!!" then that might be enough to validate the stereotype.

Besides his unexpected popularity, the thing that pleases me most about Paul’s campaign is the reverse LOVE embedded in the word revolution. For a candidate who is going to be portrayed as soft on terrorism, this was a risky move, akin to a new pro football team wearing pink jerseys. Yet at the same time it was a brilliant move, because the Ron Paul revolution really is based on treating everyone as a human being with rights, and being serious when we say that; it is the antithesis of "blowing people up" (as Glenn Beck warns us about).

Many of Paul’s supporters are Christians, and so I don’t need to remind them (and myself) of why we must answer insults with kindness and courtesy. But for those who do not subscribe to turning the other cheek as a matter of personal morality, let me offer the following strategic considerations.

First and most important, realize that in order for Ron Paul to win the general election, he will need the votes of rank and file Republicans. The left has been soft on Ron Paul because they still don’t view him as a serious threat, and because they find it entertaining to watch him castigate the militarism in his party. But make no mistake, if Paul wins the nomination, the left will be mobilized as we’ve never seen. It’s true, there will be many antiwar Democrats who won’t cast a vote for Hillary Clinton against Ron Paul, but even so he will be painted as the most reactionary, woman-hating Republican of all time; see here and here for a taste.

So it’s not enough to narrowly squeak through the primaries with a split war hawk vote, and building enemies all the way. On the contrary, if Ron Paul does pull off the unexpected and secure the nomination, he will have to have done it in such a faultless manner that even his biggest Republican detractors will think, "I strongly disagree with his foreign policy views, but he really would balance the budget and slash taxes. His followers mean well but are just naÔve about terrorist threats. I’m voting for him against Clinton. Better to have no foreign intervention than botched foreign meddling."

Looking even further, if Ron Paul were to actually become the next president, he will be able to achieve so much more if his supporters have conducted themselves with the utmost class. Yes, no matter what we do, there will be plenty of smears thrown our way. But remember not to focus on the loudmouths; our goal isn’t to convince them. Rather, the goal (in an online forum, say) is to convince the ninety-nine people reading the website who don’t post anything.

In many respects, today’s libertarians (and Ron Paul supporters in particular) face the situation of a racial minority in decades past. And for that reason, the nonviolent techniques practiced by many American blacks are instructive. For example, here is an excerpt from Diane Nash’s recounting of the workshops conducted by Jim Lawson, which led to the "sit ins" at lunch counters in the segregated South:

Jim Lawson was a very interesting person. He had been to India and studied the movement of Mohandas Gandhi. He also had been a conscientious objector and had refused to fight in the Korean War. He conducted weekly workshops, where we would do things like pretend we were sitting in at lunch counters. We would practice things such as how to protect your head from a beating and how to protect each other. If one person was taking a severe beating, we would practice other people putting their bodies in between that person and the violence, so that the violence could be more distributed and hopefully no one would get seriously injured. We would practice not striking back if someone struck us.

The reference to Gandhi is also relevant. Ron Paul’s supporters want to dissolve the "American empire." Well Gandhi was able to defeat the British Empire through civil disobedience and appealing to the conscience of the powerful. The same approach can work here. Ron Paul’s supporters are rightly outraged at the claim that they are closet terrorists because of the Guy Fawkes connection. In addition to eschewing actual violence, to truly be wise as serpents yet harmless as doves, we must be completely polite and fair with our opponents. As I said above, this won’t work on a lot of people. But some will take notice and make a case for at least tolerance. We know our ideas are better, and it’s much easier to defuse the name-calling if we refuse to follow suit.

In closing, all I’m asking is that Ron Paul’s supporters act as the candidate himself. Unwavering and uncompromising, to be sure, but also polite and civil to a fault. This is the way to win a revolution based on love.

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 07:51 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

uncloned21
11-17-2007, 07:56 AM
Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around.

:confused::confused:

TVMH
11-17-2007, 07:57 AM
Love, huh?

Maybe that Jesus dude had the right idea, after all... ;)

me3
11-17-2007, 08:00 AM
First and most important, realize that in order for Ron Paul to win the general election, he will need the votes of rank and file Republicans.
Great line. Hopefully some people catch on, the way Dr. Paul is catching on.

TVMH
11-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

This seems awfully closed-minded, Revo9.

Do you mean to suggest that you don't care how others perceive you, even if that perception could have a direct impact on that person's understanding of Dr. Paul's message?

I'm no evangelical, and I'm certainly no collectivist, but I do see the value in catching more flies with honey than vinegar...it's a LOT less work.

FreeTraveler
11-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

And you are exactly what item 3 is talking about:

"The third objection involves his supporters. ...there has also been a consistent charge that Ron Paul supporters are rude, intolerant bullies when it comes to reasoned political discourse. This is ostensibly why some sites have quite literally banned them."

If you can't talk as if your parents have invited the minister over for Sunday dinner after church, you're not going to reach people who believe in ministers, church, and reasoned discourse. George Bush can be a potty-mouth and get away with it because he's President, but look where that's getting him.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

Just shows that you are part of the problem.

When we lose because of this, we'll all know who it was that was at fault.

stevedasbach
11-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

If we lose, this attitude will be one of the major reasons why.

The posting from Lew Rockwell's site was spot on. Stay on message, don't retreat an inch from our views, but always treat our opponents with respect and courtesy, whether they've earned it or not. The methods of Ghandi and Dr. King work, which is why Dr. Paul holds them in such high regard.

FreeTraveler
11-17-2007, 08:02 AM
Oh, and +1 on the original message of this thread. I got distracted by another one of those rude supporters the article is talking about.

FreeTraveler
11-17-2007, 08:03 AM
Just shows that you are part of the problem.

When we lose because of this, we'll all know who it was that was at fault.

Yep, and just because we're civilized and can engage in reasoned discourse without being offensive, don't let that fool you into believing we're not armed and dangerous! :D

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 08:06 AM
Yep, and just because we're civilized and can engage in reasoned discourse without being offensive, don't let that fool you into believing we're not armed and dangerous! :D

First thing I'm buying when I get back to the states is a handgun. Any recommendations? I need something that's small and affordable, yet has stopping power. :)

uncloned21
11-17-2007, 08:23 AM
First thing I'm buying when I get back to the states is a handgun. Any recommendations? I need something that's small and affordable, yet has stopping power. :)

A Glock in .40 or .45. I love my Beretta PX4 .40 as well.

www.impactguns.com is a great site, they have lower prices that the local shop has on USED guns. Otherwise, a gun show is a good place to find one.

hawkeyenick
11-17-2007, 08:25 AM
First thing I'm buying when I get back to the states is a handgun. Any recommendations? I need something that's small and affordable, yet has stopping power. :)

everyone has different preferences for accuracy, accuracy in the field, stopping power, kick, etc.

if you have the money, the socom is usually the overall best pick, but a regular baretta and the desert eagle never fail as well (although they are WAY different)

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 08:27 AM
:confused::confused:

Confused? You seem to think that means I go hog wild and abusive. No.. that means I am in control of myslef and understand why I do everyhing I do. I need no outside iinterference in the momentum of MY life.

Is that so bloody confusing? Let me put it this way. I am not working to get a man elected as president so I can be left the fuck alone but be told what to do and not be left alone the entire time I work at that endeavor. This amacks of nanny-statehood. Like I do not know how to behave or act or uinteract. It is insultng ti read these drivelesque pieces daily from "well intentioned" school marms on a multiple per day basis here.

Randfy

Thurston Howell III
11-17-2007, 08:32 AM
If all you can do is work harder, you've already lost, just go home. But, if you realise that there are times when you must begin to work smarter, then you are a winner.

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 08:36 AM
This seems awfully closed-minded, Revo9.

Do you mean to suggest that you don't care how others perceive you, even if that perception could have a direct impact on that person's understanding of Dr. Paul's message?

I'm no evangelical, and I'm certainly no collectivist, but I do see the value in catching more flies with honey than vinegar...it's a LOT less work.

No.. I mean to suggest that at 50 years of age I don't need no goddamned lectures from nobody on how to act. I didn't cotten to being told how to act at five by a big drill sargeant with a web belt. This type of drooldonkey advice assumes that those who do not adhere to the positions laid forth by THAT INDIVIDUAL is skewing the campaign and making them look bad. There ain't a snowballs chance in hell that I made the campaign look bad. In fact i am the reason we have a near monolithic RP name recognititon around here. Ask the meetup 294 leaders. They know who I am and how I act.

This should not have been a sticky. It is another effing lecture for kindergarteners. When are we going to get respect as grown adults is what this comes down to to me. Stop treating us like children and assuming we need lectures on how to behave like we are some goddamned savages in loincloths all fired up on liquor. Jeesh.

Randy

uncloned21
11-17-2007, 08:47 AM
Revolution9, in case you didn't notice, your name was never mentioned in the article. I apologize if the message came across as telling you exactly how to act and implies that you are stupid and can't think for yourself. I did not sense that tone AT ALL in the article and felt it was tasteful. He was just saying that if act like children we will be looked at as children. This is a simple fact that outsiders looking in and seeing child-like behavior will think in their minds "that person is acting like a child". Get it?

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 08:48 AM
And you are exactly what item 3 is talking about:

"The third objection involves his supporters. ...there has also been a consistent charge that Ron Paul supporters are rude, intolerant bullies when it comes to reasoned political discourse. This is ostensibly why some sites have quite literally banned them."

If you can't talk as if your parents have invited the minister over for Sunday dinner after church, you're not going to reach people who believe in ministers, church, and reasoned discourse. George Bush can be a potty-mouth and get away with it because he's President, but look where that's getting him.

The minister cussed and swore . he was a military chaplain. Trying to appeal to me through a hypocritical church scenario is off base to begin with. Second...you make alot pf assumptions about me you have no right to make. As well as using the article to attempt to paint me as a bully for wanting to be left alone. Funny how that works eh? I want to be left alone and am adamant about it.. I am a bully. Someone is going around expecting certain behavior from people to match their mindset and perceptions and insulting them if they do not conform and attempts to call in the collectivists to cudgel any dissenters../well damned if ya didn't show up in droves...but they are not bullying by using these tactics.. Ya know what.. yer full of it. Hypocrisy is rip[e.. Do you think you do RP a good trun by using such tactics on a fellow RP early bird supporter? I do not think so. You have earned my scorn for this attempt at bullying me into conformity with that which is not me nor my style nor akin to my sense of individulaity. I am not part of any collective. i work for Dr paul to become President and I have gotten well over several hundred converts. I have also put on festivals here that garnered him monlithic name recognition and near unanimopus support amongst the metal, rock and rol and punk musicians locally as well as the counterculture artists and the neighborhood folks.

I don;t need no steenking lekkktures and i sure as hell do not take kindly to clowns insulting me as you have attempted in your screel. My job here is to teach you what real liberty means. Some of you still do not have a clue.

Randy

Randy

Bradley in DC
11-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

Nice advice Randy. Win a lot of elections that way? :rolleyes:

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 08:57 AM
Stop treating us like children and assuming we need lectures on how to behave like we are some goddamned savages in loincloths all fired up on liquor. Jeesh.

Randy

Randy, if you stop acting like you do here in the forums, I'm sure a lot more of us would have confidence in how you act in front of potential supporters.

Throw us a friggin' bone, mmkay?

And please note: no one is telling you how to act. We are asking.

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 09:02 AM
Revolution9, in case you didn't notice, your name was never mentioned in the article. I apologize if the message came across as telling you exactly how to act and implies that you are stupid and can't think for yourself. I did not sense that tone AT ALL in the article and felt it was tasteful. He was just saying that if act like children we will be looked at as children. This is a simple fact that outsiders looking in and seeing child-like behavior will think in their minds "that person is acting like a child". Get it?

I know what they were saying. It is so obvious. Why does it need a lecture format. We are supposed to be grown up. If this was a piece on its own then that is one thing but these pieces have been barraging the forum for weeks and I am starting a stand against them based on the fact we are INTELLIGENT THINKING ADULTS. This is just more attempts to still the passions and that is why we are where we are. If people want to act like children well..children seem to be much closer to the Creator than adults. The problem is not enthusiasm. The problem is anal retentives in the movement who have never been around other than their circle of people from their church or family or neighborhood. They see things and conjure bogeymen of bad reputations and lost elections in their minds eye. The other problem is that the other candidates supporters will lie, obfuscate, steal signs and whatever it takes to shut us up. I had some idiot send the cops to shut down my permitted RP Freedom Fest because they could not stand us being there taking up the whole square. Lied and said we took the square over without a permit. One of my speakers there..a black fellow, was jacked by Homeland Security and taken in chains and threatened with a miltary dungeon fthree weeks later from this neigthborhood. After four days they cut him loose. Claimed he was stalking a ciongressman and broke into his house.. BS.. And it would be local police jurisdiction for this anyways..The guy paints parking decks and hangs out in the square.. There ain't a congressmans house anywhere near here. The cages were being rattled..Don't talk Ron Paul..

I ain't lying down and dropping my momentum for anybody. This is dead assed serious business and not a Miss Manners school for the politcally unaware.

Randy

leonster
11-17-2007, 09:02 AM
The minister cussed and swore . he was a military chaplain. Trying to appeal to me through a hypocritical church scenario is off base to begin with. Second...you make alot pf assumptions about me you have no right to make. As well as using the article to attempt to paint me as a bully for wanting to be left alone. Funny how that works eh? I want to be left alone and am adamant about it.. I am a bully. Someone is going around expecting certain behavior from people to match their mindset and perceptions and insulting them if they do not conform and attempts to call in the collectivists to cudgel any dissenters../well damned if ya didn't show up in droves...but they are not bullying by using these tactics.. Ya know what.. yer full of it. Hypocrisy is rip[e.. Do you think you do RP a good trun by using such tactics on a fellow RP early bird supporter? I do not think so. You have earned my scorn for this attempt at bullying me into conformity with that which is not me nor my style nor akin to my sense of individulaity. I am not part of any collective. i work for Dr paul to become President and I have gotten well over several hundred converts. I have also put on festivals here that garnered him monlithic name recognition and near unanimopus support amongst the metal, rock and rol and punk musicians locally as well as the counterculture artists and the neighborhood folks.

I don;t need no steenking lekkktures and i sure as hell do not take kindly to clowns insulting me as you have attempted in your screel. My job here is to teach you what real liberty means. Some of you still do not have a clue.

Randy

Randy

Thank you for your work, and I'm sure the "lectures" don't apply when you're out talking to people.

I think the point was, though, that online matters too. When people actually do Google Ron Paul, and end up here, the level of discourse they see may very well impact their decision to get involved or not. That was me... I lurked here for a week or two before ever signing up and posting.

There are a LOT more people reading this, I am sure, than there are posting.

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 09:11 AM
Randy, if you stop acting like you do here in the forums, I'm sure a lot more of us would have confidence in how you act in front of potential supporters.

Throw us a friggin' bone, mmkay?

And please note: no one is telling you how to act. We are asking.

Foo..you and I just will never see eye to eye. I have no need to quell your unfounded fears.. they are your bogeymen to deal with. I know exactly and precisely what i do around here. Many of the long time posters know what i do as well and see the value in it.. I have my own unique methods of accomplhing the necessary. If I had not got on trevors ass for telling folks to change their sites and got in a knockdown with him he may never have made his own site..and the November 5th thing may not have occurred.

So..The methods to my posting may not be obvious at first glance but I get results. Currently the nanny staters and the busybodies who want to control others projects but have no talent to speak of are in my sights.. And I have a special smack for those purveyors of underhanded backbiter insults..like "That ad is a waste of money"..Aaarggh.. You think I have no manners.??? That boy needed his face slapped aroound his head for a one time spin and the spit knocked out of his mouth.

The original posts linked content was pure unadulterated nannystate mindset.

Best Regards
Randy

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 09:16 AM
Thank you for your work, and I'm sure the "lectures" don't apply when you're out talking to people.

I think the point was, though, that online matters too. When people actually do Google Ron Paul, and end up here, the level of discourse they see may very well impact their decision to get involved or not. That was me... I lurked here for a week or two before ever signing up and posting.

There are a LOT more people reading this, I am sure, than there are posting.

Yes.. I am aware.. And frankly I send alot of counterculture and musician types here. they will run away in horror at some of the same old same old. We are not just recruiting church ladies. If some of the adults i know get sent here and the first thing they view is lectures on how to behave they are going to LEAVE immediately and not get involved. Does that notion ever get through to the control freaks and their pleas to make the site a certain way so their people will "like" it? It seems like they do not care about anybody that is not like they are.

Randy

Wyurm
11-17-2007, 09:17 AM
This isn't going to be easy. Its already been said that we are like angry cats. Try to give direction to most of the other candidate's supporters and you will get sheep-like submission. However, ask us to behave different than we naturally do and you get our natural response. I personally understand what Lew is saying and why it's being said, but its not likely to take root. The reason is simple. We don't want to be bothered or told what we can or can not do and we feel oppressed by the government. Dr. Paul is the main guy on our side that is trumpeting our cause and we are highly protective of him. So when someone equates him with terrorism, its not unreasonable to expect us to react like guard dogs.

Where does this put us? Well you can't expect to win votes if you bite the hands that would give them. So, instead of telling everyone to be nice as Lew Rockwell (who should know better) did, I'm just going to say: Every single person from the most anti-government interferance person to the most big-government loving individual is a potential voter. If you are speaking to an American, whether online or out in the world, you are speaking to someone who could be a Ron Paul supporter if they are just given the chance.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 09:18 AM
Ends never justify the means.

Guess I'm just not explaining that well enough. *sigh*

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 09:24 AM
We don't want to be bothered or told what we can or can not do and we feel oppressed by the government.

As I said above: No one is telling anyone to do anything. However, we do ask that you use the brains and reason we know you have and recognize that there are people with different sensibilities than some of us have, but of whom we need to gain the support...

Please don't let ego get in the way of what we need to do to build our numbers.

uncloned21
11-17-2007, 09:24 AM
This isn't going to be easy. Its already been said that we are like angry cats. Try to give direction to most of the other candidate's supporters and you will get sheep-like submission. However, ask us to behave different than we naturally do and you get our natural response. I personally understand what Lew is saying and why it's being said, but its not likely to take root. The reason is simple. We don't want to be bothered or told what we can or can not do and we feel oppressed by the government. Dr. Paul is the main guy on our side that is trumpeting our cause and we are highly protective of him. So when someone equates him with terrorism, its not unreasonable to expect us to react like guard dogs.

Where does this put us? Well you can't expect to win votes if you bite the hands that would give them. So, instead of telling everyone to be nice as Lew Rockwell (who should know better) did, I'm just going to say: Every single person from the most anti-government interferance person to the most big-government loving individual is a potential voter. If you are speaking to an American, whether online or out in the world, you are speaking to someone who could be a Ron Paul supporter if they are just given the chance.


Good points. I don't think anyone here would say we should back down from this fight by any means! This is only about effectively getting the message across. If you don't agree with this message, fine. Please don't call me names and act like a child when I bring this point up.

Revolution9
11-17-2007, 09:26 AM
Nice advice Randy. Win a lot of elections that way? :rolleyes:

You ain't won one yet pal. Don't get all high horsey with me. You do the site a disservice with all the negative pundit crap and the neverending polls by you post ..which are mere fictions. But you seem to think they have some kind of mass and wieght to them.

I am never going to lose my personal integrity tby conforming to a paradigm in soemone eleses mind that I need to act like them to get someone elected. To give up my core principles and character is something the Good Doctor would not like to see me do. You seem to think I should just sway with the blowing winds. Ain't never gonna happen. And do not try this crap with me again about winning elections. I will have my meetup leader stuff an email up your fundament about what i have done here.

:cool:
Randy

me3
11-17-2007, 09:28 AM
It's a double edged sword. The people who are loudest can and do inspire action. But there is a fine line between being enthusiastic and fanatical. The Colorado Straw Poll thread is a testament to people seeing a problem that really isn't there, and taking it to extremes.

Without a broad base of appeal, there isn't going to be enough numbers to make our goal a reality.

Divisiveness undermines our goals.

There is nothing wrong with being aggressive, and smart. Or gentle and firm. Or "right" and polite.

Convert
11-17-2007, 09:28 AM
I think when we wear the mantel of Ron Paul supporter, we need to remember that our words and actions reflect on Ron Paul as well as all of the other Ron Paul supporters.

Wyurm
11-17-2007, 09:31 AM
As I said above: No one is telling anyone to do anything. However, we do ask that you use the brains and reason we know you have and recognize that there are people with different sensibilities than some of us have, but of whom we need to gain the support...

Please don't let ego get in the way of what we need to do to build our numbers.

You should have bothered to read my whole message. Like I showed in it, Lew could have written his message better. The way he wrote it is actually offensive to the majority of RP supporters, the base if you will. And, he really should have known better. Just treat everyone like a potential supporter.

leonster
11-17-2007, 09:31 AM
Yes.. I am aware.. And frankly I send alot of counterculture and musician types here. they will run away in horror at some of the same old same old. We are not just recruiting church ladies. If some of the adults i know get sent here and the first thing they view is lectures on how to behave they are going to LEAVE immediately and not get involved. Does that notion ever get through to the control freaks and their pleas to make the site a certain way so their people will "like" it? It seems like they do not care about anybody that is not like they are.

Randy

That's very cool, then...

...just, as a lifelong Republican, there are many more church ladies in the party than there are counterculture types... and church ladies vote in droves. While that may be changing now, as people join to vote for Ron Paul... still, let me repeat:

Church ladies vote in droves.

me3
11-17-2007, 09:31 AM
Lew Rockwell didn't write the piece.

LBT
11-17-2007, 09:35 AM
I think the article preaches no more than most suggestions, and i think the suggestions are very valid.

Better to present your arguments in a friendly manner than to do so in an aggressive manner. That is something that many of us need as a reminder.

Some might argue that an aggressive polemic style is in order, but I'm not convinced. But to blame Mr. Murphy as a proponent of collectivist thinking is quite absurd. I've read him for years and he is a talented presenter of ideas.

leonster
11-17-2007, 09:38 AM
There is nothing wrong with being aggressive, and smart. Or gentle and firm. Or "right" and polite.

Exactly. We NEED diversity, and different aspects and personalities and talents and representations... and everyone should be free to work in their own way...

...but when you're actively OFFENSIVE to some people, well... you know, if a social conservative was on here blasting the decadence of American culture, such as the "hippie rock stars that are ruining the American culture", that would probably not be the greatest message to the musician/counterculture types coming here, right?

Same for the F word, etc., to the more socially conservative members. Ron Paul IS socially conservative in many, many ways--and it's one of his strengths that he can bring people with very different backgrounds together with his message of liberty. Let's just try to be ourselves, but NOT fight with and offend each other.

We're on the same side here.

FluffyUnbound
11-17-2007, 09:46 AM
First let me say that I understand fully the spirit in which the original post is meant.

I understand it philsophically, and I understand it tactically.

But I still don't agree with it, for one simple reason: the other side is not engaged in "reasoned discourse" with us, in the first place.

There is an outrageous double standard at play here. You are buying into it.

That double standard says that Ron Paul and his supporters are crazy when they demand peace, but Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy advisors are engaged in "reasoned discourse" and are "serious" when they advocate Arab and Persian genocide.

The double standard says that Mona Charen can write an article saying that Ron Paul is like David Koresh, and that article can be picked up by blog aggregators and news sites all over the internet, and that's "serious discourse". But when Ron Paul supporters comment on her column, that's "bullying". Don't you realize the absolutely absurd disconnect there? And how you're saying that people with literally no power and no platform to speak are "bullies", and people connected to the Republican establishment and with their choice of public platforms are "the bullied"? It's insane.

The way out of the current political box the nation is in won't be found by using the current popular political language and methodology. Why not? Because it's been designed over a long period to keep acceptable political discussion within a determined range. Our opponents would love to have the entire political dialogue be about purely symbolic and meaningless nonsense like the Don Black donation, because that permits them to continue their narrative that "extremism = bad", because all extremes are actually the same, and holding literalist views of the Constitution is ultimately the same as wanting to exterminate "mud people". I saw that very argument openly made online this week. And we aren't going to overcome that argument by using the polite discourse that produced the politically correct climate we currently live in. We're going to overcome that argument and demolish that bounded discourse by telling people to go fuck themselves.

Every outsider political movement that has succeeded in moving the national discourse in the US since the end of the second world war did so by using extreme and confrontational language, and by deliberately mocking and abusing the establishment that sought to hold them back. People talk about Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but forget that by the standards of their own time their messages were highly offensive. The feminist movement and the gay rights movement advanced to the extent that their advocates were impolite assholes. The counterculture that sprang into being in the US in the 60's was considered highly rude. These are all movements that won in the end, and probably would not have won if the members of these movements limited themselves to "reasoned discourse". That might not make some people comfortable, but it's true.

ProBlue33
11-17-2007, 09:54 AM
Chill out dude, this level of anger doesn't help, we get it "Nobody tells you what you can or cannot do".

The point still stands, radical talk turns off most first time people, you must understand that. Those that don't, just don't get it, and I am sorry about that.

If you are talking to the converted we understand your anger and frustrations, but the new people just won't, they will think RP supporters are radicals that they might not want to be with.

Bryan
11-17-2007, 09:56 AM
A few quick points.

1- let us keep things civil around here, OK? We've got an election to win.

2- I don't care if people give advice all day long. If I don't like it nothing changes. If others are influenced by it then so be it. If others want to argue against the merits of the advice, no problem. But I don't see how advice or whatnot is inherently creating a unified mindset, at least not with this group. :)

hillertexas
11-17-2007, 10:01 AM
I was stopped at a stoplight in Houston. I have my Ron Paul bumper sticker up in the window so people have to look at it. i noticed that the guy behind me was looking at the bumper sticker. A homeless man was on the curb to my left. I got out some money and motioned him over and gave it to him. The man in the car behind me smiled. Then the car to my right got the homeless man's attention and gave him money. That got me inspired.

We need to be very charitable and compassionate this holiday season. Put on your Ron Paul T-shirt and get your group to a local homeless shelter or nursing home. I really think I affected this guy in the car behind me and the people in the car next to me. They saw me give money to a homeless man and they know I am a Ron Paul supporter from my bumper sticker.

We have an opportunity here to get a whole lot of free advertising while also helping people.

ACJohn
11-17-2007, 10:04 AM
Let me see, sound advise posted in a GRASSROOTS forum on the importance of getting the message out in a manner that gets people to listen, gets a negative reaction in the first follow-up post is sad. The goal of this forum is to find ways to promote RP and get him Elected. The best picture of our efforts is the revolutionary with the bouquet of flowers, for me it symbolizes and enthusiastic mobilization of supporters working to SELL RPís message tempered by a peaceful delivery.

We are selling RP to people. The stereotypical used car salesperson method turns people off. The rude waitress gets no tip. The obnoxious campaigner does not get heard.

Try handing out a flower with the Slimjim next time your out there on the street. The right man with the right message delivered in the right manner is unstoppable.

thomj76
11-17-2007, 10:22 AM
Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

This is a load of crap! Acting respectful to others, setting good examples, being balanced in your thoughts and deeds, gets the above comment? Randy, I am calling you out. Do you engage that grey matter before you type? You engaged this topic in the exact manner that others use when they tune out the message of Liberty and Limited Government.

Next time, don't feel compelled to type the statement that for the most part proves what the post was about. Take a little longer and see if you really want to shove your foot further into your mouth.

tremendoustie
11-17-2007, 11:54 AM
Confused? You seem to think that means I go hog wild and abusive. No.. that means I am in control of myslef and understand why I do everyhing I do. I need no outside iinterference in the momentum of MY life.

Is that so bloody confusing? Let me put it this way. I am not working to get a man elected as president so I can be left the fuck alone but be told what to do and not be left alone the entire time I work at that endeavor. This amacks of nanny-statehood. Like I do not know how to behave or act or uinteract. It is insultng ti read these drivelesque pieces daily from "well intentioned" school marms on a multiple per day basis here.

Randfy

I think the idea is to not to force you to behave a certain way, but to point out logically why it is in all of our best interests to behave this way. You certainly have the right to disagree, but for my part I think this message is extremely reasonable.

Our ideas are already making people sit up and pay attention. Political supporters that behave like gentlemen/women and intelligently discuss issues rather than mudslinging will be truely rEVOLutionary. +1 To the message!

courtney
11-17-2007, 02:41 PM
Revolution9,

I realize that I'm not your favorite Ron Paul supporter, but look at the issue this way.

In the real world, I seriously doubt that you actively campaign for Ron Paul, as well as engage the media, etc., in your birthday suit despite being born that way.

So, I think what many of us are merely asking is that (metaphorically speaking) that we all put on our clothes when engaging the topic online as well. No one is demanding that you, or anyone else, wear a specific uniform. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that we all at least wear some clothes, you know, throw on some jeans and a shirt -- something. 'Cause, even if you do look that good naked, I promise you, it's not all that appealing to our potential supporters....

dircha
11-17-2007, 03:02 PM
Do any of you going on about how you refuse to exercise self-control of your own behavior actually have a job?

Do you wear a raggedy t-shirt and cuss up a storm in meetings with clients?

Do you rail on about your favorite fringe conspiracy theories at lunches with customers, and then refuse to pay with anything but a Liberty Dollar?

Were you mindful of how you behaved at your last job interview?

We can't control how you behave; we're not trying to. We're simply attempting to convince you that is in everyone's rational self interest to exercise self-control when publicly supporting Ron Paul.

Is that so difficult? All we're saying is stop acting like a dick. Seriously, I know 5 year olds with better self control.

TVMH
11-17-2007, 03:05 PM
No.. I mean to suggest that at 50 years of age I don't need no goddamned lectures from nobody on how to act. I didn't cotten to being told how to act at five by a big drill sargeant with a web belt. This type of drooldonkey advice assumes that those who do not adhere to the positions laid forth by THAT INDIVIDUAL is skewing the campaign and making them look bad. There ain't a snowballs chance in hell that I made the campaign look bad. In fact i am the reason we have a near monolithic RP name recognititon around here. Ask the meetup 294 leaders. They know who I am and how I act.

This should not have been a sticky. It is another effing lecture for kindergarteners. When are we going to get respect as grown adults is what this comes down to to me. Stop treating us like children and assuming we need lectures on how to behave like we are some goddamned savages in loincloths all fired up on liquor. Jeesh.

Randy
I would suggest that if you feel that you don't need a lecture then you are free to ignore the author's article.

As far as I can tell, no one has accused you directly of being incorrigible.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 03:15 PM
Just shows that you are part of the problem.

When we lose because of this, we'll all know who it was that was at fault.

Is it beneficial to assign blame for future failures?

Indy Vidual
11-17-2007, 03:28 PM
...Stop the collectivist mindset pieces...

I'm very pro-individual (anti-collectivist) and the article did not offend me one bit.
Lew is suggesting we act like peaceful, 'classy' individuals, and (when we want to) people can act as a collective group.

IMO, Lew's piece is a much nicer read than your negative outburst.

Indy Vidual
11-17-2007, 03:34 PM
No.. I mean to suggest that at 50 years of age I don't need no goddamned lectures from nobody on how to act...

Have you done a self-evaluation lately? :p

````````````````
What motivates you to support Ron Paul?

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 03:39 PM
I'll have to say I agree with Revolution9 on this one... and I understand his frustration, especially with people who want to water down Ron Paul's message for mass consumption, and then those people who buy into the crap that we are the evil people who turn people away because we are excited about our candidates.. i call these people the apologist.
The increase of mainstream people has also seen an increase in these vices... and some people are falling victim to group think and are not helping the cause anymore than the people they denigrate.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Brian? Why is this a sticky? Is this to be a universal doctrine of behavior we are to socialize our members to?

Fyretrohl
11-17-2007, 03:48 PM
Okay, I am going to step up and defend a bunch of people I despise here. :)

This issue, along with the Nazi issue currently raise its head can be tied together.

If someone, using the NeoNazi's, whose opinions and beliefs I stand against, can get up and present a reasoned, well spoken, clear, and non attacking argument for their point, I can respect them, even if I still disagree. However, if that same person gets up screaming, yelling, cursing, and putting me down, I will not hear the same reasoned opinion. Instead, the only message I will hear is 'I am a wacked out, crazy person spouting stupid stuff'. The message is lost by the method of the messenger. In this case, i think the message is more important than the messanger. Ergo, if you use the wrong method, what is happening is the method and messenger becomes the news and NOT the message. But, you are right. It is the messengers choice of which is more important to them.

Indy Vidual
11-17-2007, 03:48 PM
First let me say that I understand fully the spirit in which the original post is meant.

I understand it philsophically, and I understand it tactically.

But I still don't agree with it, for one simple reason: the other side is not engaged in "reasoned discourse" with us, in the first place.

There is an outrageous double standard at play here. You are buying into it.

That double standard says that Ron Paul and his supporters are crazy when they demand peace, but Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy advisors are engaged in "reasoned discourse" and are "serious" when they advocate Arab and Persian genocide.

The double standard says that Mona Charen can write an article saying that Ron Paul is like David Koresh, and that article can be picked up by blog aggregators and news sites all over the internet, and that's "serious discourse". But when Ron Paul supporters comment on her column, that's "bullying". Don't you realize the absolutely absurd disconnect there? And how you're saying that people with literally no power and no platform to speak are "bullies", and people connected to the Republican establishment and with their choice of public platforms are "the bullied"? It's insane.

The way out of the current political box the nation is in won't be found by using the current popular political language and methodology. Why not? Because it's been designed over a long period to keep acceptable political discussion within a determined range. Our opponents would love to have the entire political dialogue be about purely symbolic and meaningless nonsense like the Don Black donation, because that permits them to continue their narrative that "extremism = bad", because all extremes are actually the same, and holding literalist views of the Constitution is ultimately the same as wanting to exterminate "mud people". I saw that very argument openly made online this week. And we aren't going to overcome that argument by using the polite discourse that produced the politically correct climate we currently live in. We're going to overcome that argument and demolish that bounded discourse by telling people to go fuck themselves.

Every outsider political movement that has succeeded in moving the national discourse in the US since the end of the second world war did so by using extreme and confrontational language, and by deliberately mocking and abusing the establishment that sought to hold them back. People talk about Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but forget that by the standards of their own time their messages were highly offensive. The feminist movement and the gay rights movement advanced to the extent that their advocates were impolite assholes. The counterculture that sprang into being in the US in the 60's was considered highly rude. These are all movements that won in the end, and probably would not have won if the members of these movements limited themselves to "reasoned discourse". That might not make some people comfortable, but it's true.

FluffyUnbound :D
'Fluffy' Has A Good Point...

http://www.1life1time.com/images/happysink3.jpg

Indy Vidual
11-17-2007, 03:52 PM
I was stopped at a stoplight in Houston. I have my Ron Paul bumper sticker up in the window so people have to look at it. i noticed that the guy behind me was looking at the bumper sticker. A homeless man was on the curb to my left. I got out some money and motioned him over and gave it to him. The man in the car behind me smiled. Then the car to my right got the homeless man's attention and gave him money. That got me inspired.

We need to be very charitable and compassionate this holiday season. Put on your Ron Paul T-shirt and get your group to a local homeless shelter or nursing home. I really think I affected this guy in the car behind me and the people in the car next to me. They saw me give money to a homeless man and they know I am a Ron Paul supporter from my bumper sticker.

We have an opportunity here to get a whole lot of free advertising while also helping people.

Another good suggestion, thanks.

me3
11-17-2007, 04:16 PM
The message is lost by the method of the messenger. In this case, i think the message is more important than the messanger. Ergo, if you use the wrong method, what is happening is the method and messenger becomes the news and NOT the message. But, you are right. It is the messengers choice of which is more important to them.
Thank you.

The end goal is the same, as long as it's Dr. Paul and his message we are promoting, not our own using his platform.

Fyretrohl
11-17-2007, 04:19 PM
Thank you.

The end goal is the same, as long as it's Dr. Paul and his message we are promoting, not our own using his platform.


And, it is important to remember who your target audience is. Trying to preach the 9/11 Truth as a reason to support Ron Paul to your standard Republican will not work well. Trying to explain, instead, that he is about getting to the bottom of issues, such as how our intel did fail us, and that he does not believe in the hiding of this stuff. Now, if you are talking to a truther, then you can use his expected willingness to make sure the truth is found. Not his belief that it was an inside job, since he does not claim that. This is just an example.

Tberrie
11-17-2007, 04:23 PM
I'll have to say I agree with Revolution9 on this one... and I understand his frustration, especially with people who want to water down Ron Paul's message for mass consumption, and then those people who buy into the crap that we are the evil people who turn people away because we are excited about our candidates.. i call these people the apologist.
The increase of mainstream people has also seen an increase in these vices... and some people are falling victim to group think and are not helping the cause anymore than the people they denigrate.

...Proper civil discourse that facilitates intellectual discussions.


Personally. Nobody defines my behaviour and I act the way God made me to act. I do not give a good goddamn who i am working for or around. This is utter BS to me.. Stop the collectivist mindset pieces. This os from lew Rockwell's site.. Jeesh.. Even them now??? This is getting worse than the evangelicals and their borg conformity trip.

'Randy

... discourse which just offends and drives a wedge between the "old church ladies" and "anti-collectivists," contributing to a fantastic argument with no substance.

My issue is not with the ideologies, because we will never agree on just one- nor should we. We should be free to believe as we want. However, the self proclaimed individualists need to realize that they CANNOT get Dr. Paul elected by themselves. We have to function as a group, like it or not. One vote loses to two in this country (usually!).

As for the person who gave money to the homeless individual- props to you. That's the message that we should be sending to everyone, and its the message that Dr. Paul advocates for.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 04:55 PM
Is it beneficial to assign blame for future failures?

If one can foresee the logically occurring consequence of the behavior, then yes. It wasn't him specifically that I was blaming, however, only those that act as he does.

Your inquiry is like asking if it's beneficial to lay the blame for someone's hair falling out on the fact that they just told you they are about to go and play with some radioactive substance without any protection at all, even though they haven't done it yet and their hair has yet to fall out...

"Check out this x-ray stuff I swiped from the hospital dumpster! Let's check it out!"

"Um no... Your hair's gonna fall out if you mess with that... And you'll get sick."

"Whatever, man."

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:01 PM
If one can foresee the logically occurring consequence of the behavior, then yes.

Your inquiry is like asking if it's beneficial to lay the blame for someone's hair falling out on the fact that they just told you they are about to go and play with some radioactive substance without any protection at all, even though they haven't done it yet and their hair has yet to fall out...

What i mean is that you see failure, and assign failure to something you THINK will make failure occur. And you say it as if you KNOW it will.. that is not honesty. Unless you can see the future.
Myself, as a sociologist, study what is called "the game" its any set of actions in combination resulting in any set of probably outcomes. And even after 11 years of study I can only say at best, research says their is a higher probability of failure if you come off abrasive.
And is the blame always on the abrasive person or can the blame actually be prescribed to those who have allowed themselve to be indoctrinated with a belief system that takes offense to such actions? The possibilities are unlimited... thus prescribing motive to failure before it happens is anyone's guess.
So- i say we should be following our on hearts and minds... it has gotten us this far...i don't think we should abandon it because the majority thinks it bad.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 05:14 PM
What i mean is that you see failure, and assign failure to something you THINK will make failure occur. And you say it as if you KNOW it will.. that is not honesty. Unless you can see the future.
Myself, as a sociologist, study what is called "the game" its any set of actions in combination resulting in any set of probably outcomes. And even after 11 years of study I can only say at best, research says their is a higher probability of failure if you come off abrasive.
And is the blame always on the abrasive person or can the blame actually be prescribed to those who have allowed themselve to be indoctrinated with a belief system that takes offense to such actions? The possibilities are unlimited... thus prescribing motive to failure before it happens is anyone's guess.
So- i say we should be following our on hearts and minds... it has gotten us this far...i don't think we should abandon it because the majority thinks it bad.

Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:29 PM
Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

Yeh, Clinton's method of getting votes is to appease everyone. Ron Paul method is to be honest. You ask people to betray who they are... is that honest?

TVMH
11-17-2007, 05:32 PM
Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

Logic and reason? Nooooo...it can't be that simple. :rolleyes:

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:33 PM
Over simplification are in general false by their very nature. It's a lazy man's thinking. Only in physics does your A,B cause and effect conversation have any weight.
In human behavior it does not apply. Until you can predict human behavior, you are WRONG.

Tell me. what will I do if you yell at me?
a. laugh
b. cry
c. run away
d. knock your teeth out
e. put a bullet hole in your head
f. nothing
g. donate to ron paul
h. post a drama thread about it
i. all of the above
j. none of the above
k. something else all together

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:34 PM
show me the exact cause and effect of that human interaction between me and you. a future prediction.

TVMH
11-17-2007, 05:35 PM
Yeh, Clinton's method of getting votes is to appease everyone. Ron Paul method is to be honest. You ask people to betray who they are... is that honest?

This is not exactly correct, torch.

No one is asking anyone to betray his or her own character.

What is being asked of Paul supporters is to utilize a learned skill...or learn the skill first if it hasn't already been.

This requires putting one's own ego in check, and admitting that this skill might be useful.

My 2 cents....:cool:

FluffyUnbound
11-17-2007, 05:41 PM
Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

Whose votes are we going to get?

I'll tell you this much right now: we aren't getting the votes of the RedState guys. We aren't getting the votes of the Freepers. We aren't getting the votes of the Townhall people.

We're trying to get the votes of undecided voters, of Republicans who aren't committed to the war party the way the people I just listed are, and independent voters.

The thesis of the OP is that we need to engage in "reasoned discourse" with RedStaters, Freepers and Townhallers to get the votes of the people in the second list of groups.

There's no real reason to think that's true. Personally, I think you're just as likely to get the undecided people if you jump right up forcefully into some Freeper's face online as you are if you meekly try to recite the Beatitudes at them. Nobody likes a wuss. I think that for every undecided person who is put off by the aggressiveness of Paul supporters online, there is another one who is impressed by the ferocity of the defense Paul inspires. I also think that many of Paul's opponents on the internet would interpret respectful discourse as weakness - if their first set of lies isn't flamed into the ground, they'll just escalate their campaign of lies until they hit an obstacle.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:43 PM
This is not exactly correct, torch.

No one is asking anyone to betray his or her own character.

What is being asked of Paul supporters is to utilize a learned skill...or learn the skill first if it hasn't already been.

This requires putting one's own ego in check, and admitting that this skill might be useful.

My 2 cents....:cool:

Context: People who have no political experience are being frightened and intimidate by these media attacks and are asking everyone to change their behavior because they believe that it is the cause of the bad reporting. The apologist, as i call them, have fallen into the trap, and has given falsehoods (that have no grounds in reality) weight by starting mass hysteria and dementia laden threads. I see it in almost every thread.
What do you have to apologize for? What does ron paul have to apologize for?
This is the context I'm talking about... it doesn't have to do with this thread... it has to do with this new vice brought in by people(who are well intentioned) and then 90% of the posters in the thread (who are all non-politicos) buy into the lie... and then everyone here starts attacking the very hard-core activist that are dedicating their life, money, and sacred honor, to furthur this campaign. Pisses people off and starts us on a self-destructive decline.

FooFighter would rather be right than see the points i'm trying to make. Stop trying to control peoples actions out of supposed fears... its that same fear the talking heads use to manipulate us in everything else we do

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:44 PM
Whose votes are we going to get?

I'll tell you this much right now: we aren't getting the votes of the RedState guys. We aren't getting the votes of the Freepers. We aren't getting the votes of the Townhall people.

We're trying to get the votes of undecided voters, of Republicans who aren't committed to the war party the way the people I just listed are, and independent voters.

The thesis of the OP is that we need to engage in "reasoned discourse" with RedStaters, Freepers and Townhallers to get the votes of the people in the second list of groups.

There's no real reason to think that's true. Personally, I think you're just as likely to get the undecided people if you jump right up forcefully into some Freeper's face online as you are if you meekly try to recite the Beatitudes at them. Nobody likes a wuss. I think that for every undecided person who is put off by the aggressiveness of Paul supporters online, there is another one who is impressed by the ferocity of the defense Paul inspires. I also think that many of Paul's opponents on the internet would interpret respectful discourse as weakness - if their first set of lies isn't flamed into the ground, they'll just escalate their campaign of lies until they hit an obstacle.

Thank you for the courage to voice a contrarian view.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 05:47 PM
Over simplification are in general false by their very nature. It's a lazy man's thinking. Only in physics does your A,B cause and effect conversation have any weight.
In human behavior it does not apply. Until you can predict human behavior, you are WRONG.

Tell me. what will I do if you yell at me?
a. laugh
b. cry
c. run away
d. knock your teeth out
e. put a bullet whole in you head
f. nothing
g. donate to ron paul
h. post a drama thread about it
i. all of the above
j. none of the above
k. something else all together

Based on some of your other posts, I'd say D or E. But you miss my point. Also, you've set your exercise above in favor of my argument. Remeber that I'm trying to elicit a positive reaction from you, and all the answers you listed are not postivie, but either neutral or negative responses.

You tell me: when would you be more apt to agree with me?

A) When I'm nice, congenial and show you respect and explain to you calmly and rationally why you should agree with me.
B) I'm mean, rude, snide, pushy, call you stupid because you don't agree with me and get angry when you react negatively to my behavior.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:53 PM
Based on some of your other posts, I'd say D or E. But you miss my point. Also, you've set your exercise above in favor of my argument. Remeber that I'm trying to elicit a positive reaction from you, and all the answers you listed are not postivie, but either neutral or negative responses.

You tell me: when would you be more apt to agree with me?

A) When I'm nice, congenial and show you respect and explain to you calmly and rationally why you should agree with me.
B) I'm mean, rude, snide, pushy, call you stupid because you don't agree with me and get angry when you react negatively to my behavior.

I'll agree with you when you are right, regardless of how you tell me.
On a good day, i may respond well to positive response.
On a bad day I may respond better to negative behavior.
It just depends on the day, the circumstances... and what it is being discussed.
I may find any political shill who is nice to be disingenuous. Being that my bias is not like any one else's.. it would be hard to say how I would react.
I may see and angry passionate response as having more value since I could see you truly believed in it with your whole being.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 05:55 PM
Oh, and you could have picked option "k" for anything positive. I didn't limit your choices.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 06:13 PM
I'll agree with you when you are right, regardless of how you tell me.
On a good day, i may respond well to positive response.
On a bad day I may respond better to negative behavior.
It just depends on the day, the circumstances... and what it is being discussed.
I may find any political shill who is nice to be disingenuous. Being that my bias is not like any one else's.. it would be hard to say how I would react.
I may see and angry passionate response as having more value since I could see you truly believed in it with your whole being.

Angry and passionate doesn't have to be directed at the potential supporter, however.

And I doubt that anyone will see someone as disingenuous who is

a) using simple logic and reasoning;
b) answering every question with candor (or at least refering them to where they can find the answer), and
c) above all telling the person to trust their own judgment after they've heard what needs to be said or expounded.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 06:39 PM
And I doubt that anyone will see someone as disingenuous who is

a) using simple logic and reasoning;
b) answering every question with candor (or at least refering them to where they can find the answer), and
c) above all telling the person to trust their own judgment after they've heard what needs to be said or expounded.

What happened to the certainty of cause and effect? ;)
Like i said earlier. People in general, will probably react negative to someone who is abrasive.

My main beef was explained in the total context:


Context: People who have no political experience are being frightened and intimidate by these media attacks and are asking everyone to change their behavior because they believe that it is the cause of the bad reporting. The apologist, as i call them, have fallen into the trap, and have given falsehoods (that have no grounds in reality) weight by starting mass hysteria and dementia laden threads. I see it in almost every thread.
What do you have to apologize for? What does ron paul have to apologize for?
This is the context I'm talking about... it doesn't have to do with this thread... it has to do with this new vice brought in by people(who are well intentioned) and then 90% of the posters in the thread (who are all non-politicos) buy into the lie... and then everyone here starts attacking the very hard-core activist that are dedicating their life, money, and sacred honor, to furthur this campaign. Pisses people off and starts us on a self-destructive decline.

FooFighter would rather be right than see the points i'm trying to make. Stop trying to control peoples actions out of supposed fears... its that same fear the talking heads use to manipulate us in everything else we do.

This thread is just a smaller part of a bigger trend. Despite the validity of approaching people civilly.. that is not what i'm disagreeing with...

me3
11-17-2007, 07:10 PM
The apologist, as i call them, have fallen into the trap, and has given falsehoods (that have no grounds in reality) weight by starting mass hysteria and dementia laden threads.
Are you referring to the Colorado Straw Poll Thread, where you tried and convicted the local GOP on a blog post that was proven false?

noztnac
11-17-2007, 07:23 PM
I can agree with both the "turn the other cheek" and the "hit 'em back" philosophies. I think most of us understand when each method is appropriate. Different situations call for different responses.

Personally, I'd like to see Ron paul be a little tougher when the audience boos or when Giuliani starts to demagogue with his illogical nonsense or when he openly laughs at Ron Paul's responses.

At the very least, if there is another debate, he needs a plan for dealing with the booing. Knowing in advance that they will boo he should be able to prepare one hell of a response.

I'm not sure exactly what that response should be but I've seen some comedians turn ridicule back against obnoxious crowds quite effectively. If you can think of a good way for handling this situation send it to someone in the campaign.

Dan Hall
11-17-2007, 07:26 PM
Nice advice Randy. Win a lot of elections that way? :rolleyes:

Thanks for your links in your signature Mr. Bradley. I enjoyed very much reading this one (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarvel.html) of the "ten key ideas."


Stay on message, don't retreat an inch from our views, but always treat our opponents with respect and courtesy, whether they've earned it or not. This I agree is wise. Though at times "hit'em back," is vital at the right place and time in front of an audience who would lean toward thinking less of us for such wisdom.


Personally, I'd like to see Ron paul be a little tougher when the audience boos or when Giuliani starts to demagogue with his illogical nonsense or when he openly laughs at Ron Paul's responses.

noztnac
11-17-2007, 07:26 PM
I can agree with both the "turn the other cheek" and the "hit 'em back" philosophies. I think most of us understand when each method is appropriate. Different situations call for different responses.

Personally, I'd like to see Ron paul be a little tougher when the audience boos or when Giuliani starts to demagogue with his illogical nonsense or when he openly laughs at Ron Paul's responses.

At the very least, if there is another debate, he needs a plan for dealing with the booing. Knowing in advance that they will boo he should be able to prepare one hell of a response.

I'm not sure exactly what that response should be but I've seen some comedians turn ridicule back against obnoxious crowds quite effectively. If you can think of a good way for handling this situation send it to someone in the campaign.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 07:36 PM
Are you referring to the Colorado Straw Poll Thread, where you tried and convicted the local GOP on a blog post that was proven false?

NO, I'm not talking about any thread in particular, I talking about the actions... the words... the ideas... the fear.. the hysteria... the intimidation.... the vices that are fostering hatred and self-destruction.

It's like people don't read my entire post. Perhaps the words are too big.

me3
11-17-2007, 07:52 PM
NO, I'm not talking about any thread in particular, I talking about the actions... the words... the ideas... the fear.. the hysteria... the intimidation.... the vices that are fostering hatred and self-destruction.
I'm seeing way more fear, hysteria and intimidation from you, than the people preaching, be nice.

I'm watching the grassroots training vids, and it's made pretty clear that fighting back is wasted effort. That the election will be won with votes and voters. Not casual supporters, favorable articles, or talk show hosts fired.


It's like people don't read my entire post. Perhaps the words are too big.
Maybe your shades are too dark? :)

skeet
11-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Acting like sheep will certianly not influence the sheep and acting like a wolf will certainly scare them away.

We had a sign waving. A woman walked up, identified herself as a school teacher, and asked for more information. I spoke with her briefly, and as it turned out she was already sold on RP, but wanted to meet some of the grassroots folks - she said she was going to join our group. When one of our more intense followers saw her at the tent, he rushed over and began to preach CFR, Gold Standard, NAU, etc. all in a span of 1 min. Admittedly he seemed a bit crazy. She gave him the classic nervous smile & left. I do believe she will still support Ron Paul, but we never saw her again.

In contrast, I met a guy, gave him a slim jim, and asked him to "google RP" etc. He looked me over & gave me a "yeah right" look and kept walking. ( I am a 40 something, clean cut, church going, Republican - with the manners to go with it) I guess the guy thought I wanted him to attend my church- idunno. Anyway, one of our resident truthers caught him further down - talked conspiracy 101 (I cringed), yet the dude is now on board.

We must wake up to the reality that we are all different, with lifestyles, beliefs, and forms of expression. Yet we do have things in common.. the ideas of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom as expressed through our candidate, and in what I believe Americans (collectively) are.

Each an every one of us have been influenced and/or affected by the media and our government to direct our thoughts and behavior. They want us to think and act alike so we can be controlled and processed. (the very nature of advertising and propaganda)

Our strength within this movement is with our diversity. Lets use it to our advantage. Lets not be predictable. In other words let people be who they are, not what we want them to be. As strange as it sounds - it has worked so far.

Yes we will recieve some blowback, yes some people are just stupid, but in the end - if a person is stupid, would they comply with your plea to behave? No. Those who would - are already.

Just my two cents

courtney
11-17-2007, 07:59 PM
So like, this door to door salesmen comes knocking on my door. I answer, politely greet him, and then listen to his sales pitch.

After listening to him for 5, 10 minutes, I explain that I'm not interested at the moment, but I'll be glad to look over his product brochure later.

However, by this time, his impatience with me has grown thin. "Fuck-off then! I don't need your stinking money, Goddamned it!!! You just wait -- you'll figure out you're wrong one of these days, and guess what: I AINT GONNA BE AROUND, BITCH!!!!!"

Or, the guy could have merely offered his brochure and business card, and thanked me for my time.

I don't think anyone needs to be sociologist to realize that the second response would be much more productive than the first. One of the things that I've learned over the years is that folks don't like to be bullied into buying anything, and that includes ideas. From my experience, it's the metaphorical "planting of seeds" that's more productive.

It's much more productive to plant the seed, and then sit back and watch these folks discover for themselves what it is one is attempting to pimp.

For instance, many folks wonder why Glenn Beck has taken a sort of hostile attitude toward the movement. Well, I'm sure the first time he expressed skepticism about especially Paul's foreign policy agenda, Beck was probably swamped with Hate Mail.

Well, I'll tell you what I do when swamped with Hate Mail, I Hate Back -- don't most of us? It's human nature. Unfortunately, the situation tends to degrade to the point where the two sides talk over one another -- despite the fact that the two sides, especially in the Beck case, Agree more than they disagree! It's unfortunate really....

******************

And lastly, I find it ironic that some folks here take extreme issue with folks attempting to insert a level of sanity into some of these Internet discussions, including overall Internet behavior. Folks here don't want to be "told what to do," and moreover, they claim that we're "attempting to censure them," or else "run them off," or else "intimidate them," when that's simply not the case.

Yet, when somebody like Beck opens his big mouth and says something these folks don't like, then the first thing they do is try to get him fired, or else taken off the air by targetting his sponsors! Interesting!

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 08:00 PM
Right, I'm pointing out a bad trend.
No one wants to disagree with you because they are intimidated. People respond to me, because they are not. Get it?
You are using neocon tools without even realizing it (or maybe you do). Doesn't that power feel good? Yeh, I bet it does.

Keep on. its working. the people who have put all these events together are now backing out because of disgust. If only you knew the discussions had in private.

You are so focused on "getting votes" you forgot what its all for.... you are the one acting as a tyrant. I am simply pointing it out.

Those people who aren't brave enough can simply keep PMing me thanks for saying the things they aren't brave enough to say...

Remember, you will never be free until you are no longer afraid... and if you start buying into the whole "we have to do whatever it takes to get votes" mantra, you are going to become the thing you claim to protest... and in fact, you are already acting like them.

foofighter20x
11-17-2007, 08:00 PM
This thread is just a smaller part of a bigger trend. Despite the validity of approaching people civilly.. that is not what i'm disagreeing with...

1. I'm not doing this out of supposed fears or from what some think is a lack of political experience. It's somthing I advocate more out of simple courtesy, professionalism, and all the leadership traning and mentoring I've received.

2. Being assholes to potential supporters will generate negative media, guaranteed. Prove me wrong.

3. Acting civilly will not generate solely postive media, but it never hurts to not hand to our detractors the ammo they would use against us. How some people can't or refuse the see the common sense in that boggles my mind.

4. I agree with your point that Dr Paul has nothing to apologize for, but that's just not goint to cut it. This is a society where guilt by association is enough for any person to change their mind, no matter how unfounded the guilt is. As that old saw goes: "A man is judged by the company he keeps." To them, we're his company.

5. Again, no one ever said any behavior was required of any one. No ultimatums were laid down, as you seem to imply. It was simply asked that we all be reasonable in our approach. Apparently for some that was asking too much. :rolleyes:

courtney
11-17-2007, 08:13 PM
Right, I'm pointing out a bad trend.
No one wants to disagree with you because they are intimidated. People respond to me, because they are not. Get it?
You are using neocon tools without even realizing it (or maybe you do). Doesn't that power feel good? Yeh, I bet it does.

Keep on. its working. the people who have put all these events together are now backing out because of disgust. If only you knew the discussions had in private.

You are so focused on "getting votes" you forgot what its all for.... you are the one acting as a tyrant. I am simply pointing it out.

Those people who aren't brave enough can simply keep PMing me thanks for saying the things they aren't brave enough to say...

Remember, you will never be free until you are no longer afraid... and if you start buying into the whole "we have to do whatever it takes to get votes" mantra, you are going to become the thing you claim to protest... and in fact, you are already acting like them.


Not sure if this was directed at me or not. However, I will say this about the "intimidation" factor. Last night on the Glenn Beck thread, it wasn't me doing the intimidating at all! I could just barely keep up with reponding to those who were taking me to task! But hey, more power to them.

However, being new here and having less than 20 posts at the time (well, not that it's much higher now :D), it certainly seemed much easier for me to just take my butt chewing, and just leave. But i don't give up that easily, so I'm still here for the time being.

Lastly, it is certainly not my desire to suck the life out of this movement. As the movement grows, we've got to appeal to more folks, it's that simple. We've got to broaden the tent, or we lose.

I'll say again, it was the actions and dedication of most of you folks here that convinced me to buy into the campaign. Now I'm here -- just as you people desired. Now that I'm here, I ask that you listen to what I have to add to the discussion. That's all. :)

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 08:15 PM
1. I'm not doing this out of supposed fears or from what some think is a lack of political experience. It's somthing I advocate more out of simple courtesy, professionalism, and all the leadership traning and mentoring I've received.

2. Being assholes to potential supporters will generate negative media, guaranteed. Prove me wrong.

3. Acting civilly will not generate solely postive media, but it never hurts to not hand to our detractors the ammo they would use against us. How some people can't or refuse the see the common sense in that boggles my mind.

4. I agree with your point that Dr Paul has nothing to apologize for, but that's just not goint to cut it. This is a society where guilt by association is enough for any person to change their mind, no matter how unfounded the guilt is. As that old saw goes: "A man is judged by the company he keeps." To them, we're his company.

5. Again, no one ever said any behavior was required of any one. No ultimatums were laid down, as you seem to imply. It was simply asked that we all be reasonable in our approach. Apparently for some that was asking too much. :rolleyes:

Did i say you were doing this out of fear? Perhaps you misunderstood me or I mistyped something...
Those that are afraid are some of the newer people i've seen on the forums... they act more like my mother who is the typical non-poitical everyday jane. When they first step into the political world.. it overwhelms them in a sense that they don't understand that most people are smiling as they stab you and love playing mind games.... the inexperience compounded by the group supported hysteria from fellow newbies start a long progress trend towards changing everything to a point that their fear is eased.
Some people in this thread that know better... are using this fear to manipulate... despite what the thread title is...
In particular it started with the Glenn beck threads, all 100 of them.. then on to the ADL threads and the JDL threads... and then on the bogus colorado threads... and on the "i'm not supporting ron paul anymore" threads... and so on.
This was never about you. You just so happen to agree with the message on this thread... but it wasn't the thread message i was attacking.. it was this overall trend to force prudence on everyone for everything that is causing an environment of oppression and fear.

dude, people pm me to thank me for saying things, yet they don't say them themselves. they are afraid to... that isn't healthy at all.

I'm about at the end of my rope with this crap... we are starting to develop our grassroots stuff outside of this forum, because the amount of trollers, instigators, and saboteurs are running rampant... and you need to watch out for dangerous trends some our smarter enemies are trying to instigate.

Watch- I'm not talking about anyone in specific... but a guilty party would respond because they know i'm talking about them.

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 08:15 PM
Not sure if this was directed at me or not. However, I will say this about the "intimidation" factor. Last night on the Glenn Beck thread, it wasn't me doing the intimidating at all! I could just barely keep up with reponding to those who were taking me to task! But hey, more power to them.

However, being new here and having less than 20 posts at the time (well, not that it's much higher now :D), it certainly seemed much easier for me to just take my butt chewing, and just leave. But i don't give up that easily, so I'm still here for the time being.

Lastly, it is certainly not my desire to suck the life out of this movement. As the movement grows, we've got to appeal to more folks, it's that simple. We've got to broaden the tent, or we lose.

I'll say again, it was the actions and dedication of most of you folks here that convinced to buy into the campaign. Now I'm here -- just as you people desired. Now that I'm here, I ask that you listen to what I have to add to the discussion. That's all. :)

Oh, i wasn't addressing you. :)

torchbearer
11-17-2007, 08:17 PM
Courtney, if there is ever a concern or thought you want to share... you are more than welcomed to PM me. I will be able to get you ideas to people who can make them happen.
I hope you are never afraid to speak you mind, and I'm glad you joined us.

me3
11-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Right, I'm pointing out a bad trend.
No one wants to disagree with you because they are intimidated. People respond to me, because they are not. Get it?
That's an assumption. It would be just as simple to assume that people are not disagreeing because they agree.


You are using neocon tools without even realizing it (or maybe you do). Doesn't that power feel good? Yeh, I bet it does.
Collectivism and insults again.


Keep on. its working. the people who have put all these events together are now backing out because of disgust. If only you knew the discussions had in private.
They are backing out on the freedom campaign because people are promoting civility and diplomacy?


You are so focused on "getting votes" you forgot what its all for.... you are the one acting as a tyrant. I am simply pointing it out.
You can focus all you want on what it is for, but without votes, it will be for nothing. It's a time for action. Positive action that influences the ballot box.


Remember, you will never be free until you are no longer afraid... and if you start buying into the whole "we have to do whatever it takes to get votes" mantra, you are going to become the thing you claim to protest... and in fact, you are already acting like them.
I'm kinda getting tired with the constant implication that I am somehow afraid. It's condescending.

Contrary to your statements that we're behaving like Neocons, perhaps you should look at how you talk down to others, promote harassment, and diminish anyone who disagrees with you as weak.

ACJohn
11-17-2007, 10:26 PM
Flies Honey

End of story

libertygrl
11-18-2007, 05:08 PM
No.. I mean to suggest that at 50 years of age I don't need no goddamned lectures from nobody on how to act. I didn't cotten to being told how to act at five by a big drill sargeant with a web belt. This type of drooldonkey advice assumes that those who do not adhere to the positions laid forth by THAT INDIVIDUAL is skewing the campaign and making them look bad. There ain't a snowballs chance in hell that I made the campaign look bad. In fact i am the reason we have a near monolithic RP name recognititon around here. Ask the meetup 294 leaders. They know who I am and how I act.

This should not have been a sticky. It is another effing lecture for kindergarteners. When are we going to get respect as grown adults is what this comes down to to me. Stop treating us like children and assuming we need lectures on how to behave like we are some goddamned savages in loincloths all fired up on liquor. Jeesh.

Randy

Why are you taking this so personally? Sounds like you're doing a great job for the cause, but you've got to lighten up. You sound like an awfully angry person. Unfortunately, we have to walk on egg shells because the other side is just waiting to find ammunition against Ron Paul. They've already made false accusations against us supporters. What's the big deal about trying to use some restraint? It's just good strategy and makes common sense.

I went through this as an anti-illegal immigration activist. The illegals have enormous support groups who are always ready to pounce on anything that they could twist and distort as being racist and we were very conscience of it. Yet, when we discussed strategy like the one suggested by Rockwell, some guy reacted the same as you. Guess there's always one in every group!

The Minutemen operate under this same philosophy of awareness. Rockwell is on our side. There are a lot of kids involved with the campaign that can be a little overzealous in their support sometimes. Ever think that perhaps his message was directed more toward them? Chill out dude. Don't take it so personally!

The Plan
11-18-2007, 08:31 PM
Everybody here can absolutely relate to being really pissed off at the system we have here in government. Everybody here is a fan of liberty and that includes free speech of all kinds. However this fight is of such dire importance that we have to all pay close attention to the details. We all have a chance to throw a giant monkeywrench into the gears of a system that has been raping the people of their liberty and their prosperity and we all know there is only one man that can fix it at this moment in time.
These people that are in power right now are masters of language and they will point out any weakness they see and twist the meaning of everything to their advantage. Most of them are lawyers and that profession makes a living on their grasp of language. I know the people we have working for this campaign are allot smarter then these people will ever know and i know everybody can find a way to get their point across in ways that can not be twisted by the media. I love you all to death but i already see that we have made ourselves vounerable with some of the terms that have been used. Calling a donation a "Money Bomb" is a bad idea, we already see what Glenn Beck has done with that and relating the first donation to Guy Faux was a mistake as well for this same reason.
We all need to watch what we say a bit more carefully in the future because if we don't then we could become a liability to Ron. These people do not understand irony because if they did they would definitly attack the patriot act. We all have been watching this close enough to understand the game by now. We need to be smart about this and choose our words carefully. We have to beat them at their own game. These people are way too ruthless to be expected to play fair. We are not fighting a group of people anymore with this campaign, we are fighting a finely tuned machine. You've all seen them at work, we need to turn the tables and fight them with our minds. The situation is too dire and the consequences are too great is we don't get smart as a group.

Doc Dewey
11-18-2007, 08:54 PM
Perhaps a example of irrational thought process would bring a little clarity to this discussion.
Do we want to come across to viewers like these fine supporters of Rudy?

http://www.rudygiulianiforum.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f81a202e972133a4bef16650bc276f 19&topic=18.0

dircha
11-18-2007, 09:04 PM
Everybody here can absolutely relate to being really pissed off at the system we have here in government. Everybody here is a fan of liberty and that includes free speech of all kinds. However this fight is of such dire importance that we have to all pay close attention to the details. We all have a chance to throw a giant monkeywrench into the gears of a system that has been raping the people of their liberty and their prosperity and we all know there is only one man that can fix it at this moment in time.
These people that are in power right now are masters of language and they will point out any weakness they see and twist the meaning of everything to their advantage. Most of them are lawyers and that profession makes a living on their grasp of language. I know the people we have working for this campaign are allot smarter then these people will ever know and i know everybody can find a way to get their point across in ways that can not be twisted by the media. I love you all to death but i already see that we have made ourselves vounerable with some of the terms that have been used. Calling a donation a "Money Bomb" is a bad idea, we already see what Glenn Beck has done with that and relating the first donation to Guy Faux was a mistake as well for this same reason.
We all need to watch what we say a bit more carefully in the future because if we don't then we could become a liability to Ron. These people do not understand irony because if they did they would definitly attack the patriot act. We all have been watching this close enough to understand the game by now. We need to be smart about this and choose our words carefully. We have to beat them at their own game. These people are way too ruthless to be expected to play fair. We are not fighting a group of people anymore with this campaign, we are fighting a finely tuned machine. You've all seen them at work, we need to turn the tables and fight them with our minds. The situation is too dire and the consequences are too great is we don't get smart as a group.

Welcome aboard Mr. The Plan! :)

Excellent first post.

The Plan
11-18-2007, 09:08 PM
Thank you dircha :)

I plan on making many more.

JerzieJennie
11-19-2007, 01:58 PM
No.. I mean to suggest that at 50 years of age I don't need no goddamned lectures from nobody on how to act. Ask the meetup 294 leaders. They know who I am and how I act.

It is another effing lecture for kindergarteners. When are we going to get respect as grown adults is what this comes down to to me. Stop treating us like children and assuming we need lectures on how to behave like we are some goddamned savages in loincloths all fired up on liquor. Jeesh.

Randy


If you act mature and like an adult, and are polite to people, and represent Dr Paul well, then the original article was not speaking to you :)

However, some other people legitimately do need a reminder that their conduct can greatly influence someone's first impression of Dr. Paul, and could turn interest away from a great man. Attracting people, rather than scaring them away, we can all agree is what has to be done. Big picture = getting Ron Paul recognized as a winning candidate with winning ideas. Our own personal vandettas are fine after we get him elected :) First things first - the man needs to be put into office, and then we can be selfish about our own personal messages :)

Play nice, all-ages. What would Ron Paul Do?

Also - keep the ideas that you share while handing out a Ron Paul flier to what HIS issues are. Remember we have a diverse group of people that believe a lot of different thoughts, and we should only represent him for his own thoughts, not entangle our separate agendas or beliefs. :)

Duckman
11-19-2007, 11:05 PM
I'm glad most people on here realize we can't act any way we want to and expect to get people to listen to us.

That's all anyone is really saying, I think. We are noy trying to control your mind or what you think. At least I am not, and I would not. I'm even pretty OK with mingling other messages with Paul if Paul is 100% behind those messages. We are merely asking that for the sake of basic civility that we need to behave in a way that does not turn off average Republican voters, who we need in order to win.

I'm sorry for anyone who feels this is an affront to their basic rights. If you skin is that thin I don't know how you will get through life. These are the sorts of reasons why some people say that libertarians can't win, because they will always fight themselves and fight organization.

ronpaul4pres
11-20-2007, 12:53 AM
Great thread, and thanks for the sticky.

You've always had my support for this important subject as evidenced by my signature!

aroberso
11-20-2007, 10:13 AM
HELP PLEASE:

Is there a quicker way to IGNORE a member than to first view their profile page?

I respect people's right to say what they want, but I'm trying to wade through some of the noise that isn't helpful to me.

Also, is there any chance for content-based or keyword filters?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

foofighter20x
11-20-2007, 11:02 PM
Unfortunately not, but I'll see if Admin can work on it.

Bryan
11-20-2007, 11:22 PM
HELP PLEASE:

Is there a quicker way to IGNORE a member than to first view their profile page?
Unfortunately I don't think so, but this for sure is a good feature to use.



Also, is there any chance for content-based or keyword filters?
Your best bet is to use Firefox and get a keyword filter plug-in (free downloads) then you get it for every website.

alien
11-21-2007, 12:48 AM
Unfortunately I don't think so, but this for sure is a good feature to use.



Your best bet is to use Firefox and get a keyword filter plug-in (free downloads) then you get it for every website.


So Bryan, I did not know you were from Houston too. I have not seen any signs around Houston or bumper stickers or anything about Ron Paul, except for me. Since you're in the know, where is all the Ron Paul action? Have you seen anything activity wise?

BeFranklin
11-21-2007, 02:33 AM
[d]

BeFranklin
11-21-2007, 02:49 AM
Calling a donation a "Money Bomb" is a bad idea, we already see what Glenn Beck has done with that and relating the first donation to Guy Faux was a mistake as well for this same reason.


The first money bomb wasn't related to "Guy Fawkes" (not faux), it was related to Guy Fawkes day. Its a British celebration, not of a terrorist, but of a terrorist plot FOILED. The British light off fireworks to celebrate the day.

The original poem goes:
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow;
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A ****** of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!

gtjwkq
11-21-2007, 07:18 AM
I think revo9's argument about asking people to behave in a certain way equals endorsing collectivism, fails to acknowledge that elections are a collectivist effort: only the majority wins. Wake up.

Ron Paul's message of individual liberty is powerful, but right now I want him as President, so we (yes, we, as in a group) have to submit and follow through with the painstaking process of getting him elected by influencing other people's opinions. Do you think Ron Paul actually enjoys this country's inane process of election?

The original poster gave his opinion that we are more successful influencing others by being polite. Telling people what to do is not tyranny. Tyranny is forcing them to comply. If you believe in freedom, then people are also free to tell others what to do, freedom of speech. I happen to agree with him that politeness goes a long way, it's far more effective than having a short temper and being rude. I'd expect a 50 year old man to have figured that out already.

kotetu
11-21-2007, 09:20 AM
I am in total agreement - we all need to be on our best behavior, not because we want to conform, not because we're not excited, but because we want to project a welcome atmosphere to all new visitors.

Remember, Freedom of Speech lets us say anything we want, but when you say something that is difficult for the other party to hear, there's a chance they will turn away just from that difficulty. Sometimes you need to say those things, such as stating that the Patriot Act and the MCA have taken away our liberties. Other times you DO NOT need to say them.

If you keep your communications a little more on the professional level, make them easy for people to accept, people will gradually, inevitably, come over to our side. You don't need to rant and rave about how much a lunatic anyone is. After a while it will become clear. Another point - you may not be able to change their mind about the other candidate, so just state Ron's positions, and try to get them to change their mind about OUR candidate.

Finally, notice that Ron uses sanity and reason to deflect attacks and to expose the inherent flaws in his opponents. He rarely gets angry, and then only for good reason. Let's all try to emulate him, ok? Remember, above all the goal is to show that Ron Paul is the right man to be President, not that some other guy is the wrong one!

Bumnah
11-21-2007, 01:24 PM
perception is everything. act like toddler, you'll be treated like a toddler. act like an adult...