The clip that inspired me to subscribe to the Ron Paul Channel

[robskicks]

To all you haters saying it's too expensive, not enough features, blah blah blah.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rVd3JLg16U

Doesn't that boil your blood?

Compare $9.99 a month to all the other Bull crap you buy from the constant spew of crap being thrown your way via the MSM.

Cut back on one big mac meal per month (that is killing your fucking body) and instead invest it in something that's going to freakin' open your mind, your soul, and YOUR THIRST FOR TRUTH AND LIBERTY.

Not later, now.

http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/subscribe-now/

[angelatc]

Sorry, saw it live, and about 100 times since then. Justin Amash is getting my $10 a month.

[robskicks]

So did I man. what's your point?
Is it any less egregious?

[angelatc]

So did I man. what's your point?
Is it any less egregious?

I added a statement. Which is that Justin Amash gets my $10 a month. Ron Paul is still saying the same thing he's said for 20 years. That's why I love him, but I don't see any reason to pay him $120 a year to hear it again.

[robskicks]

I added a statement. Which is that Justin Amash gets my $10 a month. Ron Paul is still saying the same thing he's said for 20 years. That's why I love him, but I don't see any reason to pay him $120 a year to hear it again.

Great reasoning bro. Outstanding. Because a man has been so un-wavering and consistent in his views that he doesn't have to go back and change what he thinks every year, there's no reason to support him. You act like you only got $10 to spend per month, LOL. A true abundance mentality.

[robskicks]

I added a statement. Which is that Justin Amash gets my $10 a month. Ron Paul is still saying the same thing he's said for 20 years. That's why I love him, but I don't see any reason to pay him $120 a year to hear it again.

Keep editing your posts, or better yet delete 'em.

[brushfire]

I added a statement. Which is that Justin Amash gets my $10 a month. Ron Paul is still saying the same thing he's said for 20 years. That's why I love him, but I don't see any reason to pay him $120 a year to hear it again.

...If anything, how about the fact that contributing may make his message available for others? It may not be your intention but you sound like you're saying "Ron Paul..? He is sooo 2007..."

Not that Amash is not worth while too...

[angelatc]

Great reasoning bro. Outstanding. Because a man has been so un-wavering and consistent in his views that he doesn't have to go back and change what he thinks every year, there's no reason to support him. You act like you only got $10 to spend per month, LOL. A true abundance mentality.

Well, since $10 isn't a big deal, you're certainly welcome to buy me a subscription. But my next $10 a month will go to Thomas Massie.

[angelatc]

...If anything, how about the fact that contributing may make his message available for others? It may not be your intention but you sound like you're saying "Ron Paul..? He is sooo 2007..."

Not that Amash is not worth while too...

What part of his message have I not already heard? How is that $10 a month going to change my mind, or my life?

I have pitched in quite a bit of time and money getting his message out there. I'm not really on board with pitching in money so his message can be heard only by the choir, so to speak.

In the meantime, I'm probably going to get DH satellite radio for his Xmas gift. He likes Patriot Radio, including Mike Church.

[angelatc]

Keep editing your posts, or better yet delete 'em.

Guessing you don't do sales for a living.

[robskicks]

Guessing you don't do sales for a living.

Actually the most important rule of sales is you don't go after people who will never buy.

[angelatc]

Really, still thinking about this. If RP had asked me to send $10 or even $25 a month to Liberty PAC and given me content in exchange for a promise to help campaign for liberty candidates when the time came, I wouldn't have blinked.

But let's ask Gunny about fundraising, and how much $10 a month from several of us here could have meant for his campaign, shall we?

[robskicks]

Well, since $10 isn't a big deal, you're certainly welcome to buy me a subscription. But my next $10 a month will go to Thomas Massie.

People reading these comments: who would you rather be like?

Are you the Disparaging internet commenter who thinks EHH I've already gotten all the knowledge and teachings that Ron Paul has to offer (from his 50+ years of fighting for liberty).

or

An abundant person who thinks, you know what I might actually get ALOT of use out from this awesome product (which is something Ron paul doesn't make a lot of)... and even if for some reason I don't use it very much, I will at least know (and not be left thinking aw man what if it's awesome) - and that alone is worth $10/month. Someone who thinks, you know what - this guy knows what he's talking about even a short look inside how he thinks and his reasoning is worth almost any amount of money, much less the price of a big mac meal. I want truth delivered to me now more than ever.

[robskicks]

Really, still thinking about this. If RP had asked me to send $10 or even $25 a month to Liberty PAC and given me content in exchange for a promise to help campaign for liberty candidates when the time came, I wouldn't have blinked.

But let's ask Gunny about fundraising, and how much $10 a month from several of us here could have meant for his campaign, shall we?

You sound like Mitt Romney answering a question. Changing topics, making false comparisons, random what-if scenarios... if the content's not worth it to you - then why is it suddenly worth it if he makes all these promises to you? Come on man.

[angelatc]

An abundant person who thinks, you know what I actually WILL get use out of this awesome product (which is something Ron paul doesn't make a lot of)... and even if for some reason I don't use it very much, I will at least know I'm helping ....

So, contributing to liberty candidates isn't helping?

[robskicks]

Back in 2007 people would be foaming at the mouth for this product. $10 a month LOL.

[angelatc]

You sound like Mitt Romney answering a question. Changing topics, making false comparisons, random what-if scenarios... if the content's not worth it to you - then why is it suddenly worth it if he makes all these promises to you? Come on man.

Why would it be different and suddenly worth it if part of my money would actually going to getting people elected? You really have to ask me that?

[angelatc]

Back in 2007 people would be foaming at the mouth for this product. $10 a month LOL.

Back in 2007 Ron was in office, voting on our behalf. And they also bought a blimp...

[robskicks]

Back in 2007 Ron was in office, voting on our behalf. And they also bought a blimp...


So, contributing to liberty candidates isn't helping?


Why would it be different and suddenly worth it if part of my money would actually going to getting people elected? You really have to ask me that?

Take another page out of Mitt's playbook, I see. Random accusations and trying to get the conversation off topic.

Here's the deal. This thread is about discussing the merits of the Ron Paul Channel ALONE.

No other factors. You don't think it's worth it because you said you won't learn anything new from the same old message. I challenged that. You have yet to follow up to my challenge (or any of my rebuttals to this point)

[angelatc]

T
No other factors. You don't think it's worth it because you said you won't learn anything new from the same old message. I challenged that. You have yet to follow up to my challenge (or any of my rebuttals to this point)

Ok. Tell me something I missed that would have changed my perspective if I had heard it.

[robskicks]

Ok. Tell me something I missed that would have changed my perspective if I had heard it.

No, your perspective wouldn't change no matter what was in the videos. Why would i try to change your mind? Stop trolling.

[angelatc]

No, your perspective wouldn't change no matter what was in the videos. Why would i try to change your mind? Stop trolling.

And yet I clearly told you what would change my mind.

[jkr]

WE NEED ONE
FREEDOM RING
TO RULE THEM ALL


AND, UM

...bind... THEM!

and ill pay 20/mo...

[angelatc]

Rob, I have another question. Are you being compensated in any way for this work?

[robskicks]

Rob, I have another question. Are you being compensated in any way for this work?

WOW. Are you fucking kidding? are you being compensated by the mainstream media?

[angelatc]

WOW. Are you fucking kidding? are you being compensated by the mainstream media?

That's not an answer. Looking for a simple yes or no.

[robskicks]

That's not an answer. Looking for a simple yes or no.

Stop trolling - get a life.

[evilfunnystuff]

...If anything, how about the fact that contributing may make his message available for others?

Thats exactly the reason alot of people haven't donated, myself included.

I can't shoot a link to these vids to the people who need to see them the most, people scared, ignorant, or unaware of the libertarian philosophy. Without that ability the channel is simply masturbation for liberty nerds.

PS was gonna stay outta this thread, till i seen the OP tying to make Angela look like a cheap jerk.

[Matt Collins]

Does anyone subscribe to it? Can it be ripped into audio form?

[McChronagle]

Stop trolling - get a life.

dont waste your time arguing with angela over this. shes been a rpc hater from the get go since apparently ron has no need to make more money.

[Matt Collins]

dont waste your time arguing with angela over this. shes been a rpc hater from the get goYeah she's irrational about this (and many other things). She thinks there is a conspiracy under every rock and that everyone has ulterior motives. She apparently is overly skeptical of anyone. :rolleyes:

[Feeding the Abscess]

...If anything, how about the fact that contributing may make his message available for others? It may not be your intention but you sound like you're saying "Ron Paul..? He is sooo 2007..."

Not that Amash is not worth while too...

If Ron wanted his channel to be available to non-supporters, he wouldn't have hidden it behind a paywall.

[satchelmcqueen]

im going to subscribe tomorrow after i cash my check. since 2007 when i first started following ron, he has changed my life and outlook. ill gladly pay $10 a month. go ron!

[torchbearer]

woot!
all three parts of the rand/ron interview is up!
i got something to watch tonight!
ron's news program is how all news programs should be.

[torchbearer]

rand didn't really answer the last question of part 2.

[Matt McGuire]

If Ron wanted his channel to be available to non-supporters, he wouldn't have hidden it behind a paywall.

Sadly, this is true. He really would have been better off broadcasting all his content to Youtube, with just a few minor "premium" benefits for subscribing to his website. He is seriously limiting his audience, and only people who are already supporters will subscribe.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Sadly, this is true. He really would have been better off broadcasting all his content to Youtube, with just a few minor "premium" benefits for subscribing to his website. He is seriously limiting his audience, and only people who are already supporters will subscribe.

Or even keeping a good deal of it paywalled, but releasing 5 to 10 minute clips on the relevant topics of the day. It'd raise the profile of his channel and still encourage people to subscribe to get the full benefit.

[robskicks]

If Ron wanted his channel to be available to non-supporters, he wouldn't have hidden it behind a paywall.

the content wouldn't be produced if it was free... it costs money? dont ya know

[robskicks]

If Ron wanted his channel to be available to non-supporters, he wouldn't have hidden it behind a paywall.

you get paid for providing value... remember this isn't a socialism system where everyone gets everything "Free" bro

[MelissaWV]

Or even keeping a good deal of it paywalled, but releasing 5 to 10 minute clips on the relevant topics of the day. It'd raise the profile of his channel and still encourage people to subscribe to get the full benefit.

Correct, or providing additional benefits to those who pay to subscribe.

[fr33]

Why do some people feel that it's their job to sell this to us?

I guess we're getting a taste of our own medicine from back when we were trying to "sell" Ron Paul during the elections to people who weren't buying.

[Feeding the Abscess]

you get paid for providing value... remember this isn't a socialism system where everyone gets everything "Free" bro

People who don't like, care or are unaware of Ron Paul aren't receiving any value from RPC, and thus aren't giving him any money. If his material were available as part of a freemium or monetized advertising model, whenever someone watched a video, supporter or not, he'd get paid.

So, he'd not only make money, but he'd also reach many more people; some (or many) of whom wouldn't have otherwise encountered the material. He could even leave a significant portion of his material behind a subscription paywall, and obviously get compensated that way.

Bro.

Additionally, your 'criticisms' were a complete non-sequitur, as I was responding to the claim that subscribing to RPC would somehow bring its message to people outside of the movement; which is currently not possible, thanks to the paywall.

[TaftFan]

I'm sorry but this subscriber model is completely useless for "spreading the message of liberty". It is preaching to the choir. I don't know if Ron is this ignorant, or he just lets people manipulate him, or whatever. But this isn't his first mislead venture.

The channel needs to be boycotted until he adopts a model for reaching out to people. Many have pointed out Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh remain profitable online. I have suggested he wade into over the air broadcasts via subchannels.

[TaftFan]

Is the OP getting paid?

[trey4sports]

contribute if you want, or dont. I really couldn't care. Ron has done a lot for the movement and just because you decide to pay for this channel (or not) doesn't mean you're any better (or worse) of a liberty-loving Paulian.

[bwlibertyman]

It's a news channel. It isn't exactly his same speeches over again. I guess it's the same thing if you count that he's asking liberty oriented questions to people (you know the types of conversations that we have). But it's not just regurgitated circle jerk diatribes. There's so much hate over this. I really don't get it. If you disagree you disagree. If you want it pay for it. If you don't then don't. He doesn't take advertisers for a reason.

[Matt Collins]

I'm sorry but this subscriber model is completely useless for "spreading the message of liberty". It is preaching to the choir. I don't know if Ron is this ignorant, or he just lets people manipulate him, or whatever. But this isn't his first mislead venture.

The channel needs to be boycotted until he adopts a model for reaching out to people. Many have pointed out Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh remain profitable online. I have suggested he wade into over the air broadcasts via subchannels.
Maybe he just wants to keep the liberty movement informed? :rolleyes:

It's not "preaching" as much as it is letting his people (us) what is going on, and what his thoughts are.

[TaftFan]

Maybe he just wants to keep the liberty movement informed? :rolleyes:

It's not "preaching" as much as it is letting his people (us) what is going on, and what his thoughts are.

Believe me, we know.

[ClydeCoulter]

rand didn't really answer the last question of part 2.

So, you going to fill us in on what that was? please :)

[NJP411]

I unsubscribed from The Blaze and subscribed to The Ron Paul Channel.

[cjm]

PS was gonna stay outta this thread, till i seen the OP tying to make Angela look like a cheap jerk.

I mostly lurk here since I don't need to add internet drama to my real world drama, but in this case I have to say that angelatc is spot on. $10/month to an active liberty candidate is a better use of that $10.

[robskicks]

Is the OP getting paid?

only in hater-ade

[robskicks]

People who don't like, care or are unaware of Ron Paul aren't receiving any value from RPC, and thus aren't giving him any money. If his material were available as part of a freemium or monetized advertising model, whenever someone watched a video, supporter or not, he'd get paid.

So, he'd not only make money, but he'd also reach many more people; some (or many) of whom wouldn't have otherwise encountered the material. He could even leave a significant portion of his material behind a subscription paywall, and obviously get compensated that way.

Bro.

Additionally, your 'criticisms' were a complete non-sequitur, as I was responding to the claim that subscribing to RPC would somehow bring its message to people outside of the movement; which is currently not possible, thanks to the paywall.

People are really ignorant about internet Advertising revenue.

Mos think that if you can just get a bunch of traffic, you'll make tons of money because "ADS". The truth is, this is one of the worst online business models. If he were getting 90,000 visits per day (that's about 2.7m per fucking month) he might have a chance at making $3-4k per month. There's just no way...

Instead he only needs to get 800 people to sign up for his service and he more than doubles that, without having to worry about getting millions of new visitors every month (which would make hosting very expensive especially with videos... aka killing your profit).

So your statements are just wrong... or atleast they have just been proven to be false. For example, there's tons of videos of Ron Paul talking about stuff for free on youtube, why isn't he getting compensated for that? Oh yea, because when the content is free... it's literally a free for all.

And anyways, if your theory is correct, the only people that click on Ron Paul youtube videos are people who are supporters - therefore he's preaching to the choir with his free youtube videos.

However, I understand your thought process... but it's just wrong. The real world is counter-intuitive in that way sometimes. I guarantee that Ron Paul is making more money now than if he were trying to go with a monetized advertising model.

But go ahead and keep spewing uneducated garbage

"Ron Paul should give us all his hardwork for free because ADS!!!!!"

[tommyrp12]

We could pay 10$ for a new person to see it for a month or 5$ for 2 weeks or something similar its up to Dr. Paul I guess, we could raise the funds through a money bomb ? im just throwing ideas out there.

[fr33]

Mos think that if you can just get a bunch of traffic, you'll make tons of money because "ADS". The truth is, this is one of the worst online business models. If he were getting 90,000 visits per day (that's about 2.7m per fucking month) he might have a chance at making $3-4k per month. There's just no way...Ron Paul could easily get more views (at the very least double) than that if it were free. And if $3-4k per month for someone who is already a millionaire isn't enough, too bad. Most of us make nothing off the liberty movement. Most of us come up with a loss because we are actually working for liberty rather than trying to make a living off of it.


Instead he only needs to get 800 people to sign up for his service and he more than doubles that, without having to worry about getting millions of new visitors every month (which would make hosting very expensive especially with videos... aka killing your profit). He could host his videos on youtube and his hosting costs would be NOTHING. Youtube even has a system for when people rip and reupload vids, his company can still get the ad revenue from those re-uploads.


And anyways, if your theory is correct, the only people that click on Ron Paul youtube videos are people who are supporters - therefore he's preaching to the choir with his free youtube videos.His theory was not that only RP supporters click RP vids. It is that only a segment of RP supporters are the ones who are willing to PAY for RP vids. Believe it or not, those not in our little club do click links when the title interests them.


However, I understand your thought process... but it's just wrong. The real world is counter-intuitive in that way sometimes. I guarantee that Ron Paul is making more money now than if he were trying to go with a monetized advertising model.If that is true, then why are you so hellbent on selling this product to us? What's it to you?

[fr33]

We could pay 10$ for a new person to see it for a month or 5$ for 2 weeks or something similar its up to Dr. Paul I guess, we could raise the funds through a money bomb ? im just throwing ideas out there.

Ron Paul could have had a moneybomb for his channel before launching it and have paid for all operating costs for the next two years.

And since his personal finances were made public during the election, he could have paid that same amount himself and still be richer than most of his supporters.

I'm all for promoting liberty through a video channel but so far this little adventure doesn't seem to be about that. Many of us aren't in this to enrich Ron Paul. We're in this to promote our movement and increase our numbers.

[MrGoose]

Great clip.

I wish most television just had 5-10 dollar apps instead of the way TV is now (I don't watch anymore). I hate commercials and would like to just pay for the stuff I want to watch (like Ron Paul Channel). Does RPC have an app btw? Did they say one is coming?

[robskicks]

Ron Paul could easily get more views (at the very least double) than that if it were free. And if $3-4k per month for someone who is already a millionaire isn't enough, too bad. Most of us make nothing off the liberty movement. Most of us come up with a loss because we are actually working for liberty rather than trying to make a living off of it.

He could host his videos on youtube and his hosting costs would be NOTHING. Youtube even has a system for when people rip and reupload vids, his company can still get the ad revenue from those re-uploads.

His theory was not that only RP supporters click RP vids. It is that only a segment of RP supporters are the ones who are willing to PAY for RP vids. Believe it or not, those not in our little club do click links when the title interests them.

If that is true, then why are you so hellbent on selling this product to us? What's it to you?

Again, your just ignorant about traffic and ad revenue. There's no way he could get the type of traffic your talking about. The Ron Paul Channel is currently getting less than 20k per day, man.

[Melissa]

I subscribed a week ok and so glad I did love the shows

[torchbearer]

So, you going to fill us in on what that was? please :)

on lunch, so i don't have time to give a transcript,
but the end of that segment Ron was pressing Rand on where decisions like who polices/teaches our children's habits.. the government or the family- when concerning drug laws.
the discussion was awesome.
this content is made for those people already in the liberty movement. all our arguments over rand and ron- well, they had a very frank dicussion for us to see.
Ron really pressed him on policies... but they also recollected political moments they shared together, got some history i didn't know.
if i could buy pre-paid packages for people i would. people would want to continue getting this kind of news programming.
you aren't getting this content anywhere else....

[MelissaWV]

Again, your just ignorant about traffic and ad revenue. There's no way he could get the type of traffic your talking about. The Ron Paul Channel is currently getting less than 20k per day, man.

Which is why a subscription model that offers bonuses to subscribers is the more popular compromise. You don't release ALL of the videos, just a few highlights... like movie trailers, if you will. You have subscriber-only events (chat directly with Ron or Carole or Rand? I'd be in for sure). And you allow for just flat-out donations, since a lot of people would pony up more than $10/month for this just because.

[angelatc]

However, I understand your thought process... but it's just wrong. The real world is counter-intuitive in that way sometimes. I guarantee that Ron Paul is making more money now than if he were trying to go with a monetized advertising model.

Nobody is claiming that he isnt maximizing his revenue stream.

[robskicks]

Nobody is claiming that he isnt maximizing his revenue stream.

Oh hey everyone look!! angelatc is back with something new to say!!! awesome!!!!

after she tries to make it seem like i'm somehow getting paid for having the audacity of posting something pro-ron paul ON FUCKING RONPAULFORUMS.COM

You can go fuck yourself. Stop trolling this thread.

[robskicks]

Which is why a subscription model that offers bonuses to subscribers is the more popular compromise. You don't release ALL of the videos, just a few highlights... like movie trailers, if you will. You have subscriber-only events (chat directly with Ron or Carole or Rand? I'd be in for sure). And you allow for just flat-out donations, since a lot of people would pony up more than $10/month for this just because.

I understand if you don't agree with the business model I really do. (Even though I think it's a smart one).

However, I'm just saying that to me $9.99 is very much worth it.

[nobody's_hero]

Ron Paul could have had a moneybomb for his channel before launching it and have paid for all operating costs for the next two years.

Well, money bombs have really started sucking over the past few years. Trying to start up a competitive internet news network takes a substantial amount of money, unless you're gonna settle for someone standing in front of a cinder-block wall in a low-lighting basement reading notes about what goes on, in front of an I-phone camera.

A professional recording was Ben Swann's vision when he did his kickstarter project, but some of the same people complained that it was too much money, and that was when there was no specific amount required to contribute.

[MelissaWV]

I understand if you don't agree with the business model I really do. (Even though I think it's a smart one).

However, I'm just saying that to me $9.99 is very much worth it.

You have already heard of Ron, like him enough to pay $10/month, etc.. You are speaking to a group of people who largely spent far more than that on Ron. Hell... $10/mo since Ron announced his run in 2007 would still be well under $1000, and there were definitely many on here who donated more than that between the two campaigns.

The question is what the point of this is. To keep informed? Were we so uninformed that this was necessary? Or wasn't part of the appeal that this movement was full of decently-informed people? If the main point is to educate --- and the man ran an entire campaign to educate --- then it should reach as many people as possible in the broad sense, and in the focused sense become a trustworthy source for information not pushed out via the MSM.

Your counter implies that the rest of us don't think $10/mo is worth it. That's not the issue. It is whether enough people, in the long run, will even see this and take up the mantle for people who can't or won't continue to pay $10/mo.

Oh and very classy series of insults earlier. Really. It has convinced me that you have a point. <s>

[Henry Rogue]

I'm sorry but this subscriber model is completely useless for "spreading the message of liberty". It is preaching to the choir. I don't know if Ron is this ignorant, or he just lets people manipulate him, or whatever. But this isn't his first mislead venture.

The channel needs to be boycotted until he adopts a model for reaching out to people. Many have pointed out Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh remain profitable online. I have suggested he wade into over the air broadcasts via subchannels.I actually agree with angelatc in this thread. She is making a personal choice, allocating her resources as she sees fit, but calling for a boycott is ridiculous. The market will decide if the model needs to be changed without a boycott. I hope the Ron Paul Channel succeeds. At some point I would like to buy, but it's not in my budget right now.

[TaftFan]

edi-nm

[PaulConventionWV]

Why are people arguing about what they spend their own, personal money on? Why do people even bother to respond when someone tells them they should spend their money a certain way? If angelatc wants to spend $120 on 40 Big Mac meals, that's her own damn business, and nobody here is obligated to subscribe to the Ron Paul Channel if they don't think it's worth $10 a month.

Telling people how to spend their money is rude, and responding to that rudeness is just pointless. So why do it?

[PaulConventionWV]

People who don't like, care or are unaware of Ron Paul aren't receiving any value from RPC, and thus aren't giving him any money. If his material were available as part of a freemium or monetized advertising model, whenever someone watched a video, supporter or not, he'd get paid.

So, he'd not only make money, but he'd also reach many more people; some (or many) of whom wouldn't have otherwise encountered the material. He could even leave a significant portion of his material behind a subscription paywall, and obviously get compensated that way.

Bro.

Additionally, your 'criticisms' were a complete non-sequitur, as I was responding to the claim that subscribing to RPC would somehow bring its message to people outside of the movement; which is currently not possible, thanks to the paywall.

Why don't you ask Ron Paul why he charges for subscriptions? Maybe he would be able to explain the economics of it to you, instead of just assuming that you know what's best for the channel and that he should use a different model.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why don't you ask Ron Paul why he charges for subscriptions? Maybe he would be able to explain the economics of it to you, instead of just assuming that you know what's best for the channel and that he should use a different model.

My posts in this thread have been arguing against the thought that subscribing to this channel will somehow bring the message to newcomers or outsiders, and I've laid out ways that that could be accomplished as opposed to the current course of action. If Ron wants a subscription model and that's it, that's his call. I've never said he can't do that. I've even said in my proposals that that could still be standard operating procedure, including in the post you quoted, so I'm not sure what your beef is here.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[angelatc]

Ron Paul doesn't charge for subscriptions. You be better off asking the question, "Why don't you ask Jason Goldberg (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-goldberg/6a/713/b06) why he charges for subscriptions?" - as he's the CEO for Social Programming Network (SPN). SPN owns the website and copyrights on the content offered there. SPN contracts with Ron Paul for content and offers Libertainment to subscribers for the recurring monthly fee of $9.95.

I wonder if they were the driving force behind the domain name suit, too?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[robskicks]

... or perhaps invested in that private offering that SPN put out in DEC/JAN (http://marketbrief.com/social-programming-network-inc-/d/form-d/2013/1/14/9912404?source=rss) :)

Or perhaps a person who is sharing why he likes Ron Paul's latest endeavor on a ron paul fan site? :)

[libertariantexas]

Maybe he just wants to keep the liberty movement informed? :rolleyes:

It's not "preaching" as much as it is letting his people (us) what is going on, and what his thoughts are.

Clearly, this is NOT a "get the message out" effort. Ron has been doing that for years, and it costs practically nothing to do so (Youtube, etc). If that was the goal, he would do it for free and post it on Youtube, or, at worst, create his own site and collect ad revenues without charging people to watch.

He's also not in office or running for office, so he doesn't need money for that.

Ron Paul is a wealthy man, so it's not like he needs the money to feed his family.

Frankly, I'm not sure why the RP channel is being run as a pay site. The pay wall keeps out new people who may be curious (and many supporters as well who don't see any value in paying for a message we've been getting for free for decades).

And for the umpteenth time, it's NOT that we "can't afford" $120 a year, its just that all of us, whether poor college kids or millionaires have to make decisions about how to BEST spend our money, and many of us don't see this as a good value.

For those that do, go ahead and subscribe, but don't try to browbeat the rest of us who disagree.

[libertariantexas]

Actually the most important rule of sales is you don't go after people who will never buy.

Which makes us wonder why you wrote dozens of posts trying to convince someone who clearly wasn't interested.

[jjdoyle]

Great reasoning bro. Outstanding. Because a man has been so un-wavering and consistent in his views that he doesn't have to go back and change what he thinks every year, there's no reason to support him. You act like you only got $10 to spend per month, LOL. A true abundance mentality.

What is un-wavering and consistent about ending your political career with a campaign like Ron Paul 2012 though? Was it to really try and win AND spread a message, or was it not to win and only run to keep an organization going and raise funds and help Rand make political connections for a 2016 run? I mean, if Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney the same way they did Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum, even Herman Cain by trying to set him up in the debate with the question/answer then releasing the YouTube clip of him in the middle of the debate...but agreed to not attack Mitt Romney in the same fashion?

There is no reason to support that, because WHEN it mattered Ron Paul 2012 didn't do what they were supposed to be doing, and instead continued on lying to supporters as has been shown with actual emails throughout the campaign.

Like others, I would rather give funds to candidates either in office, or running for office...if it is really about "the message", I think it's sad to have a $10 price tag attached to it. It doesn't show me it's about the message, as much as it being about the money.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx