RealClearPaulitics.com - New website!! I can use your help.

[PRIEST]

Okay folks, I've made some updates.

1. Snazzy banner
2. Different pictures of Ron
3. Fixed up some graphics

I hope you like it! Next step from here is to add more content and links.

Keep up the comments and suggestions! I'd love to see some content made for it using the structure of the layout which is:

-Concise mistruth
-Slightly elaborated, clear answer
-Dr. Paul's words (can be house floor, texas straight talk article, whatever)
-Additional resources

RealClearPaulitics.com

[JoshLowry]

The site is beautiful! Way to step it up a notch.

[Cleaner44]

I love the design! Simple is best.

You can certainly have more than one domain name forwarded and masked to the site.

Having the misconception picked by google would be a good thing, not bad. We want people to find the correct answers when doing their searches. Think about the most $#@!ed up things people might search and make those searches lead to you.

[JoshLowry]

I love the design! Simple is best.

You can certainly have more than one domain name forwarded and masked to the site.

Having the misconception picked by google would be a good thing, not bad. We want people to find the correct answers when doing their searches. Think about the most $#@!ed up things people might search and make those searches lead to you.

Yea, I'd suggest playing with the google autocomplete.

[wstrucke]

This is basically the same idea as this thread, right? I'm all for as many ways to promote the message as possible -- you could probably take all of the content from that site and put it on yours and give them anything new you come up with.

[PRIEST]

Yea, I'd suggest playing with the google autocomplete.

Brilliant! I'll fashion the next set of truths around the top autocompletes.

[HeyArchie]

You need colored sidebars for the background.

[PRIEST]

Added "FALSE: Ron Paul is an isolationist" to the site. I'm going to aim to do one of these per day.

[PastaRocket848]

The site looks awesome! I have a suggestion though...

You should have an area where people can post (without having to register with the site) questions that could then be answered individually by registered admins. That way prospective supporters could ask for clarification on issues, or ask about something that isn't mentioned on the site at all. Such a page should be quick and fairly simple to put together. If you need help I'd certainly be willing to do whatever I can. just an idea...

[NiceneTruth]

This is basically the same idea as this thread, right? I'm all for as many ways to promote the message as possible -- you could probably take all of the content from that site and put it on yours and give them anything new you come up with.

+1000

Synergy here would be ideal... Looks like you have the frame and they have the content.

[FreeTraveler]

Great site! Item 4, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the social safety net, needs work, though.

Your heading is great:
Ron Paul would save trillions of dollars by eliminating our worldwide militarism and would use these funds to support people who depend on the government.

But then the quote is about debt. It doesn't directly support the heading. There are several quotes that do. I've heard him say "use 50% for the debt, 50% to protect people dependent on the programs, etc..."

I think this is critical, because people afraid for their social security checks, welfare checks and medicare bills are going to pick that for their first choice. If they don't see how he plans to keep those checks coming, they'll dismiss him immediately.

Thinking about that being their first question of interest prompts me to remind you to think about the order in which statements are presented on the page. Can you track clicks and put the most-often clicked question on the top, etc?

ETA: If you could post a list, maybe in the OP, of questions you'd like to put up, some of us could help research the answers and find appropriate quotes.

[PastaRocket848]

yeah those two ideas definitely sort of cannibalize each other. i like the design of this one way better, though. there is no content on the other yet, correct? maybe we could merge the threads if the owners of the domains agree to consolidate?

[Paul Fan]

The Realclearpaulitics website looks great. Good idea, well executed. Please feel free to use any of the work I have posted on thr Ron Paul Myths thread. You could easily adapt and trim the bolded sections to create the "truth" sentences you are using as the introductions to the Ron Paul excerpts.

[PRIEST]

Great site! Item 4, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the social safety net, needs work, though.

Thanks - I knew that one was a stretch. Just need to find a better speech or article for the body there.

The Realclearpaulitics website looks great. Good idea, well executed. Please feel free to use any of the work I have posted on thr Ron Paul Myths thread. You could easily adapt and trim the bolded sections to create the "truth" sentences you are using as the introductions to the Ron Paul excerpts.

Thank you!! I didn't make this to cannibalize your idea/progress as some have mentioned so I definitely appreciate the support.

[Paul Fan]

You're welcome. If you tell me what mistruths you are aiming to do next, I can try to do some "truth sentences" in your format. I can't find videos that easily, but I really like the idea of long excerpts from Dr. Paul's own words.

Just to be clear, i cannot take any credit for the idea of Ron Paul Myths. I just saw the thread and wanted to help. I'm actually a bit discouraged as nothing has gone live yet. But I think there is definitely a place for both sites!

[mczerone]

I think the big ones yet to be covered are: "MYTH: Ron Paul is a Racist/Anti-semite" and "MISTRUTH: RP wants to deregulate industry and let corporations rule"

[PRIEST]

Made the Social Security one better. Thanks for the feedback, all. I will be compiling the next set based on your suggestions.

[PastaRocket848]

Any chance at a user-submitted q/a section? It'd be nice if people could get follow up info or ask questions.

[PRIEST]

Any chance at a user-submitted q/a section? It'd be nice if people could get follow up info or ask questions.

Pasta, I like that idea. I think at first, though, that I'll be spending the time populating the site with content in the format that you see there already. I would rather link people to places that could answer all potential questions and let people follow their own truth compass.

[Paul Fan]

Here is a reworking of the post on racism I did for Ron Paul Myths. I've put it into the RealClearPaulitics format. I hope this is useful - if only for the typing in of the long Ron Paul quote.

MISTRUTH: Ron Paul is a racist/anti-Semite.

TRUTH: Ron Paul is an individualist. He believes each person should be defended and respected as an individual. He opposes racism and other forms of collectivism.

Excerpt from The Revolution: A Manifesto, page 64:

“In the long run, the only way that racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals. And it is as individuals that we should judge one another. Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.”

Government exacerbates racial thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all groups, each of which believe that it is getting less of its fair share than the others.

Instead, we should quit thinking in terms of race – yes, in 2008 it is still necessary to say that we should stop thinking in terms of race – and recognize that freedom and prosperity benefit all Americans.”


Watch Ron Paul discussing racism on CNN [link at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw]

[Is it possible just to show a few short excerpts from this? This video is longer than necessary because it starts and ends with inflammatory stuff about the newsletters. But two parts in the middle are great. I don’t know how to excerpt from videos, but the really good stuff is from 1:39 – 2:24 and again from the 3:14 – 3:36 minute marks. From 2:24 to 3:14 is stuff about the drug wars, which isn’t too bad but it’s not as targeted. If the excerpts can’t be made then a different video might be better.]

Read Ron Paul explaining that the antidote to racism is liberty [link at http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...096&Itemid=69]

[PRIEST]

Here is a reworking of the post on racism I did for Ron Paul Myths. I've put it into the RealClearPaulitics format. I hope this is useful - if only for the typing in of the long Ron Paul quote.

Rock on, brother. Updated with your work. Really appreciate it. I have a busy few days of work coming up and updates of my own content will be sparse.

Also, I used your bolding of Read, Watch, etc., throughout the rest of the items. Thanks for the great idea.

EDIT: I think RP stands on his own in that video and it's okay to show the controversy. They are likely going to slander him like crazy this election so it's something we just have to accept. The real work is in getting people to understand the whole philosophy and RP does an awesome job of that in his honest and clear words.

[InTradePro]

These need to be on seperate pages so they can be linked from twitter.

[InTradePro]

All these projects, RealClearPaulitics.com, wrongonronpaul.com and ronpaulmyths.com have a domain name that limit it to only ron paul. Have a bit of forsight guys!
There needs to be pages on all the candidates that presents information in a truthful honest way - obvoiusly that still makes Dr Paul look good, because truth outs. But these three sites all have an obvious conflict of interest before they start and hence reduces credibility and the message greatly.

[PRIEST]

These need to be on seperate pages so they can be linked from twitter.

Good idea. After I get the site populated a bit more I'll see about setting up permalinks for individual "clarifications."

[wstrucke]

All these projects, RealClearPaulitics.com, wrongonronpaul.com and ronpaulmyths.com have a domain name that limit it to only ron paul. Have a bit of forsight guys!
There needs to be pages on all the candidates that presents information in a truthful honest way - obvoiusly that still makes Dr Paul look good, because truth outs. But these three sites all have an obvious conflict of interest before they start and hence reduces credibility and the message greatly.

Come up with some domain names, content ideas, and get the process started and I suspect you'll get people involved. We really can't do enough at this point.

[mosquitobite]

Use something about the Matrix or 1984 or Paul Revere or the like. People are starting to question the truth from the MSM and the establishment.

[agaiziunas]

This is a great site, love the design!! I would split the "defensive" Myths column onto one side though, and then add a "Truth/Positions" column next to it.. to make it seem less defensive; so take some of the top "Truths", like wanting sound money, and when clicked, a content section for how he's been consistent & talking about it forever.. or a truth like "Ron Paul predicted the Financial Crisis" and in the content, add a link to a video where he was predicting it. :-)

[Paul Fan]

Here’s an adaptation of the Stormfront one I just did for Ron Paul Myths. Actually, you might not want to post this just yet; with not many other issues posted so far, it might overload the site with personal attack-type untruths. It might be better to do a few more issues-based ones first. I just did it now since it was easier to do them both at the same time.


MISTRUTH: Ron Paul took money from Stormfront – he’s a white supremacist!

TRUTH: Ron Paul doesn’t return donations from people who hold unpleasant or bigoted views, because he puts the money to better use than they do. He uses the funds to promote freedom.

Transcript of Ron Paul Interview with Neil Cavuto, Fox News, Dec. 19, 2007:

Neil Cavuto: Congressman, let me ask you, talking about the amount of money you’ve raised over the internet and for your campaign in general - and it is staggering, last Sunday alone, six million dollars plus - There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach, and your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

Ron Paul: It’s probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes? You know, I don’t even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations in a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And, if he’s promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints? I don’t endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses.

They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government, so I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it’s impossible to do it. It’s a ridiculous idea that I’m supposed to screen these people.

Neil Cavuto: All right, so Congressman, when you find out that it’s Don Black who made the donation and who ran a site called Stormfront: White Pride Worldwide, now that you know it, now that you’re familiar – after the fact – you still would not return it?

Ron Paul: Well, if I spent his money and then I took the money that maybe you might have sent to me and donated it back to him that doesn’t make any sense to me. Why should I give him money back to promote his cause? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

Watch the whole video [link at http://lifeinmotion.wordpress.com/20...e-mans-fault/]

Read why the Ron Paul Campaign wouldn’t return Don Black’s donation [link at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091...-supremacist/]


Watch Ron Paul repudiating white supremacists [link at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c]

Watch Ron Paul explaining that libertarianism is the enemy of racism [link at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qzPt...ature=related]


[Note: In case you want it, here is a transcript of the rest of the relevant part of the video:

Neil Cavuto: So what do you think, Congressman, of the candidates who do this? Either – they say we got money from a group now we’re aware was kind of sticky, we don’t want to give it – Hilary Clinton has had to do this, a number of other candidates have had to do this. You think that just is a bad practice?

Ron Paul: I think it’s pandering. I think it’s playing to political correctness, so that when you quiz them, then they can say, ‘I did exactly what you suggested I should do,’ and brag about how pure they are.

You know, I think that’s a bit of pandering. There is no way that I’m going to institute a policy of looking at a hundred, two hundred thousands of these donations and find out.

What about the people who get donations from special interests, from the military-industrial complex? They bundle their money and send millions of dollars in there, and they want to rob the taxpayers. That is the real evil. It is the evil that buys influence in government. This to me is the corruption that should be corrected. Not to pick out one of my donors out of a hundred thousand donors and say, Ron Paul isn’t doing the right thing because he hasn’t sent the money back.

I think you’re missing the whole boat because it’s the immorality of government, it’s the special interests in government fighting the illegal wars and financing and taxing the people destroying the people through inflation and undermining the prosperity of the country. Now there is a moral problem that we should be dealing with and that should be the responsibility of government.

That’s what I stand for. And if people send me money, and I spend it for that purpose, I feel good about it.

Neil Cavuto: All right, Congressman, and to be fair, your campaign has raised well over ten million dollars in just a little more than a week. It’s kind of hard to keep track of contributions as little as $500. Thank you very much.

Ron Paul: People believe in our message.]

[PastaRocket848]

i just bought factcop.com. i'm going to turn it into a liberty-minded politifact, basically.

[Paul Fan]

Here is one about earmarks.

MISTRUTH: Ron Paul favors budget ‘pork’ because he uses earmarks.

TRUTH: The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to direct spending, and earmarks allow the Congress to do so. Earmarks don’t increase the total amount spent. Ron Paul votes against bills that contain unconstitutional or excessive spending.

Excerpt from Texas Straight Talk: Earmarks Don’t Add Up, Mar. 15, 2009:

To be sure, if earmarks were the driving force behind explosive government spending as some have been led to believe, that would be a good reason for all the fuss. The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding. The public and Congress are now trying to find out where all that money went.

Read the rest [link at http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...673&Itemid=69]

Read Ron Paul noting that earmarks don’t affect total spending levels [link at http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...1087&Itemid=69

Watch Ron Paul speaking about earmarks on the House floor [link at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoOX9p07xOk]