A Reader Writes to Andrew Sullivan

[Brinck Slattery]

Alien Lanes - great name, great album! I can understand why Sullivan would post this. I think it's important for all of us to stick our heads outside the Ron Paul bubble occasionally and examine how others see us - both the positives and the negatives.

I think the "bubble" mentality is why some people fly off the handle about "hit pieces" where there's no hit, just regular questions. Example: Wolf Blitzer segment yesterday - not a hit piece. Article about stolen credit cards - hit piece.

We can't assume that just because others aren't fawning over Ron Paul they are mortal enemies - everyone is a potential supporter, we just have to put forth the message in a way that appeals to the individuals we interact with.

 

[Mr. White]

I think it's a brilliant post on Sullivan's blog. He's pointing out that some of us are right, some of us are a little nuts, and the source of the letter is a neo-con war monger anyway.

agreed

 

[adpierce]

Yes please, I would like to have that list as well.

A conspiracy: Underground plot to do something malevolent.

Conspiracies do exist. In fact, some people think that if you believe that there's a conspiracy to create a North American Union. Our very own Dr. Paul is one of those people. Fortunately, he's got facts behind him.

Facts: Cold Hard Evidence that nobody can with any intellectual honesty can deny from a reputable source who can provide proof of how he arrived at his conclusion.

Reputable Source: Somebody who is a well respected academic, journalistic or governmental authority who is known for integrity in reporting.

If you do believe in a so-called conspiracy however and people don't believe that it real then you should refer back to the basic elements of what the Greeks referred to as a good argument:
Logos: Logical ... Reasoned argument
Pathos: Presented in a relevant way, strikes the audience as an important topic
Ethos: Proven Integrity... the basic personal background of the person presenting the argument.

 

[Flirple]

I thought it might be a good thing to post to show how some people perceive us.

I have been trying for 6 months to get this message across to that segment of RP supporters to try to get them to change their ways but there is no reasoning with them.

It is a problem that we need to address because this is going to get worse in the near future as media covers us more. But I don't have the answers.

 

[thegearbox]

Yeah, lets all let people tell us what to think while we sit here and fight for our rights!

 

[me3]

Do Ron Paul supporters have anything good to say about Huckabee or Giuliani supporters?

 

[thegearbox]

Most have nothing to say, and that's better then what everyone else is doing.

 

[Mark Rushmore]

I have been trying for 6 months to get this message across to that segment of RP supporters to try to get them to change their ways but there is no reasoning with them.

It is a problem that we need to address because this is going to get worse in the near future as media covers us more. But I don't have the answers.

So long as the message keeps getting spread and more and more people start signing on, the problem won't get worse but rather fade away. Do you think there aren't a few hundred Hillary supporters wacked out of their minds wanting to kill all males and let science handle reproduction or whatever the case may be? I'm sure there are, but when the "Hillary" portion of the population is so large, the fringe elements seem properly fringe.

The trouble now is that one of the exact same sorts of personality that might lead a person to strongly embrace Ron Paul's message is the sort that, as you put it, isn't going to change their ways. After all, the subtext of the campaign is that we shouldn't, and should never have, changed our ways as a country and abandoned our constitutional principles. Nevertheless, as a more moderate following develops, the more radical early-adopters will make up a smaller representative slice of the "Ron Paul" population.

General legitimacy will increase without any need to try and suppress the fervent supporters. What's most important is that we don't fall into the trap of infighting and second-guessing other supporters when we all have the same goal in sight. There seems to be a rash of threads and articles all with this same gist, and with each one a bit of time is possibly detracted from the overall campaigning work we might do. We just have to keep on keeping on, and let the message of truth and freedom carry the day.

 

[adpierce]

Yeah, lets all let people tell us what to think while we sit here and fight for our rights!

I'm not going to tell you what you can and cannot say, and as to what you can think I'm not even going to presume to pretend that I can change what is in your mind. I'm simply saying that some things people say are unnecessary distractions from the already difficult to get across message of liberty that Dr. Paul is promoting. I advocate that if you're a Dr. Paul supporter that you focus on articulating the message as well as you can and leave the controversial stuff for another time when Dr. Paul is not a candidate for the Presidency.

 

[Flirple]

So long as the message keeps getting spread and more and more people start signing on, the problem won't get worse but rather fade away. Do you think there aren't a few hundred Hillary supporters wacked out of their minds wanting to kill all males and let science handle reproduction or whatever the case may be? I'm sure there are, but when the "Hillary" portion of the population is so large, the fringe elements seem properly fringe.

The trouble now is that one of the exact same sorts of personality that might lead a person to strongly embrace Ron Paul's message is the sort that, as you put it, isn't going to change their ways. After all, the subtext of the campaign is that we shouldn't, and should never have, changed our ways as a country and abandoned our constitutional principles. Nevertheless, as a more moderate following develops, the more radical early-adopters will make up a smaller representative slice of the "Ron Paul" population.

General legitimacy will increase without any need to try and suppress the fervent supporters. What's most important is that we don't fall into the trap of infighting and second-guessing other supporters when we all have the same goal in sight. There seems to be a rash of threads and articles all with this same gist, and with each one a bit of time is possibly detracted from the overall campaigning work we might do. We just have to keep on keeping on, and let the message of truth and freedom carry the day.

Yes I think you've got a pretty good handle on this issue. That is what I am hoping. I think we are at that critical stage where the more people start to join us the more the "fringe" element will become irrelevant. Which then makes it even easier for the reluctant to join in without being called a "kook" by their co-workers and neighbors.

 

[Original_Intent]

I'm not going to tell you what you can and cannot say, and as to what you can think I'm not even going to presume to pretend that I can change what is in your mind. I'm simply saying that some things people say are unnecessary distractions from the already difficult to get across message of liberty that Dr. Paul is promoting. I advocate that if you're a Dr. Paul supporter that you focus on articulating the message as well as you can and leave the controversial stuff for another time when Dr. Paul is not a candidate for the Presidency.

In response to the bolded section I would say this. It is hard to sell a liberty message to someone who does not realize they are enslaved.

On the other hand, just like in The Matrix, if you wake up somebody to the truth to quickly they will not thank you for it and even if they believe you they will be so overwhelmed that they will reject what you are saying. If someone has been wearing a blindfold for years, whipping off the blindofld and shining a bright light in their eyes is not going to help them see, in fact it could blind them permanently.

/confucios

 

[Kandilynn]

I'm a paul supporter and I do nothing that this person says a supporter does.

 

[MS0453]

I'm a paul supporter and I do nothing that this person says a supporter does.

Than you're doing something wrong.

 

[Malakai0]

The CFR is just a conspiracy theory folks, duh.


www.cfr.org


http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/ (blueprint for a north american community)

 

[adpierce]

In response to the bolded section I would say this. It is hard to sell a liberty message to someone who does not realize they are enslaved.

On the other hand, just like in The Matrix, if you wake up somebody to the truth to quickly they will not thank you for it and even if they believe you they will be so overwhelmed that they will reject what you are saying. If someone has been wearing a blindfold for years, whipping off the blindofld and shining a bright light in their eyes is not going to help them see, in fact it could blind them permanently.

/confucios

I totally agree, to accept the message of liberty that Dr. Paul is promoting requires a profound paradigm shift from where most people are at in their thinking about government. In general it's difficult to sell the message of liberty. It takes time for a person to understand it's truth. It helps that our country was founded on this idea of liberty. Just imagine how hard the founders of this nation had to fight to show the inherent truth in their philosophy of liberty. They had to shed blood to do it. Now it's ingrained deep within our culture, even if recently it has been perverted and twisted into the system we have now. Our task to help get Dr. Paul elected is not a simple one, it'll take hard work and cost us much, but it will be worth it. Keep fighting, and leave the controversial stuff out, it just distracts.

 

[moonbat]

A conspiracy: Underground plot to do something malevolent.

Conspiracies do exist. In fact, some people think that if you believe that there's a conspiracy to create a North American Union. Our very own Dr. Paul is one of those people. Fortunately, he's got facts behind him.

Facts: Cold Hard Evidence that nobody can with any intellectual honesty can deny from a reputable source who can provide proof of how he arrived at his conclusion.

Reputable Source: Somebody who is a well respected academic, journalistic or governmental authority who is known for integrity in reporting.

If you do believe in a so-called conspiracy however and people don't believe that it real then you should refer back to the basic elements of what the Greeks referred to as a good argument:
Logos: Logical ... Reasoned argument
Pathos: Presented in a relevant way, strikes the audience as an important topic
Ethos: Proven Integrity... the basic personal background of the person presenting the argument.

Thank you so much but I really didn't need you to define what a conspiracy theory or a fact is.

 

[dc74rp]

I don't remember who said it, or the exact wording, but the spirits there:

"A prophets job is to slam the whole truth down on the people, who will reject it and kill him. A leaders job is to feed the people as much truth as they can handle at a time, so that they will follow him the rest of the way to it."

Do we want the movement to elect Ron Paul to be a prophet or a leader?

As for what's "fact" and what's "conspiracy", who am I to say? But in my view, if Paul makes it one of his official positions, then it's one of his positions. And if not, then it's not one of his positions. I don't agree with Paul on everything, but I'm not going to associate him with any of my views he hasn't come out in support of.

 

[freeslacker]

i think we're all aware of that perception... what it seems like you're attempting to do (on your what, 9th post?) is stir up the s*pot.

furthermore, i get a funny feeling that you know that (what, with so precious little time).

I agree with this sentiment.