Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
And I also miss 2007, when I joined here, and when I started one of the first five Ron Paul meet ups in the country (no. 5), when it was about distributing info and media about the candidate and our causes by DVD, flyers, blimps or whatever means. Back when it was about ending the wars, the Fed, and the IRS, tax truth, 9-11 truth, and so on, without certain Napoleons decreeing that the grassroots was only supposed to be about Paul and being "respectful."
Back when electing Paul was meant to be only a point of focus to unify and advance the entire liberty movement, not a point of idolatry, or used as a shield for certain Napoleons to project their hostility to many views held by much of the grassroots, by marginalizing non-conformers as "hijackers" or "infiltrators." Those censoring forces moved in by late 2007 like a cancerous polyp, and appear to have reached a malignant crescendo with the current controversy. But the real good old days were good, while they lasted.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 03-21-2016 at 03:46 AM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Anyone who believes Trump discussions should be forbidden is no lover of liberty.
/sarc
i simply enjoy saying, "You sir, are no lover of liberty."
makes me want to put on my powdered wig and bust out the dueling pistols.
Last edited by Jamesiv1; 03-21-2016 at 09:46 AM.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
Neither. The objection is that little to no promotion of Trump as a candidate has been going on, and that it was a phony issue to begin with. The issue is that the Trump bashers have been conflating posts that acknowledge there are beneficial aspects to the Trump phenomenon for the liberty movement with "promotion." That is fostering chilling, or stigmatizing free discussion on the subject, hence the comments stating that is the case.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Bubbleboy (whose postings I never even noticed) is the exception that proves the rule.
For every bubbleboy there are 20 people who have been accused of being promoters, or duplicitous, for simply noting they support the emergence of the outsider trend as currently embodied by Trump. You either haven't been paying attention to that, or...
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 03-20-2016 at 09:48 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Right. Glad we can agree. So I'm still wondering, what's the problem?
Since you are so genuine and pure in your libertarian beliefs in comparison to the rest of us here, why do you then not let the owners and mods use that freedom of choice to choose what they want to do in their own interest and in the best interest of the website, and let users of this website to also, freely choose how they would like to move forward given the new rule set?Unlike so many of you here, I actually adopt and adhere to a more Libertarian, free thought, freedom to choose, mentality then the closed minded we hate Trump bunch that have plagued these forums.
Bryan wrote: "In what way does anything that I have written indicate that we are shutting down sincere debate? Please explain, this will help me better communicate in the future since there is zero intent to shut down debate."
The statement of "Because it already has" does not answer my question as to what I wrote could indicate it would be an issue.
Otherwise, this question was posed to @Meritocrat - it's still open. thanks.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Bump to get an answer from @Smitty - thanks!
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Hillary's warmonger history and Cruz's alignment with the Bush clan,...which also has a history of warmongering.
Trump, on the other hand, has said that he would have no problem getting along with Putin and has expressed a desire to tone down the stress which currently exists between Russia and the USA.
Trump's association with the Clintons was business and maybe a small amount of socializing.
Cruz's association with the Bush clan was governmental. Not to mention his wife's connection with Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs, and the CFR.
There has never been absolute free speech on the site, we've always have had guidelines that limit what you can post. In this case we are adding that you can't promote Trump to win the presidency - as in the OP. Based on my extensive assessment, I respectfully disagree that it's a bad decision as the Trump campaign is not in-line with our Mission.
Thanks for the input.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
These can be serious concerns, and I think there are some things that are important for the movement to discuss. That said, I don't think that not supporting Trump is a linchpin to being relevant, I also don't think we compromise our principles, but that doesn't mean we still can't be strategic in what we do, and not expect a home-run at every turn.
How so, please explain. Use PM if needed if you're going to name names. Thanks!Lead, follow or get out of the way.
I see too many politically stagnant deadheads influencing Bryan now, get relevant people, or get sidelined.
The delegate process is something that everyone should be involved with, even for 2016. Find a way to make things work for you as best possible. Good points.The delegates that were for Ron Paul in 2012 that return to the state conventions in 2016 and get certified as delegates will be very relevant, especially if they are bound to Trump on the first round but not on the second round, that is real relevance, for those people they get the best of both worlds, and they will get a chance for payback on the GOP for 2012.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Right, giving her money and praising her in public, just business...
And no doubt it's a coincidence that his own professed political beliefs closely match hers.
No no no, Cruz just worked for Bush for the money, as does his wife for Goldman.Cruz's association with the Bush clan was governmental. Not to mention his wife's connection with Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs, and the CFR.
And joining the CFR was just a way for her to get ahead at her job, to impress the bosses, you see.
Just business.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Connect With Us