Derek Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,126
Angry Paul Caller
- Thread starter Fields
- Start date
Derek Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,126
Thanks!
Tell the screener that you want to talk about __________, whatever the host's topic is. Don't bring up RP to the screener. Know what the hell your talking about, don't write anything down...they will switch topics if they are on to you, or just delay you out if your too strong. Get on the air!
Derek Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,126
Ok, describe how you would have handled it.
JoBurke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 319
As a Veteran, I feel his anger - without the true following of the constitution our handlers will do exactly what they want...and we have been letting this happen about since say Nixon.....so yes, I feel his anger - as a soldier, you can shoot at the enemy, as a citizen, you must bow to the masters.
I would have cited where in the Constitution it states that a President cannot declare war and would follow up by stating the Congress passed a resolution regarding Iraq, which does not equate to a declaration.
Um he did mention where it says in the constitution the president can't declare war, I'm not going to critique where he could have done better. I've called in to talk shows, I'm not sure of how I would have handled it.
Derek Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,126
Oh no you don't:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
Now then, how exactly does this tie to Iraq? Exactly? What was the intel, and what was America told, and what did the 9-11 commission say in 2004?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/?GT1=10755
If this story is accurate the administration made 935 false statements on Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to a new study. Try harder.
Akus
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,403
You know better, sir.
You know better then disrespect the consitution.
You make me sick.
SIR
Wow, if I knew nothing of Ron Paul, I'd be like, ok, these RP people are nutjobs...
phree
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 810
I'm not trying to make this a popularity contest Derek, I only wanted to see if you considered your call in to be good political strategy. By your "grow a pair" comment I assume that you do.
I agree that you will win over a small percentage of new RP support by aggressively lashing out against neocon jerks like the host of this talk show, but I don't think it's logical that this approach will win more supporters than calm, rational debate will. Most people won't hear the facts that you present because they will be focused on the sensationalism of your rage. Most people are somewhat timid and averse to aggression and they will be inclined to avoid people or movements that seem too radical. It seems logical to me that while you pick up a handful of like-minded people, you're turning off the larger number of more moderate citizens. In elections you need the largest following to win. This looks like a classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.
I don't doubt that you're a brave man so I'll ask you to do something that requires a lot more bravery than being argumentative with a talk show host; examine your methods as dispassionately as you can and try to determine if you're really promoting Dr. Paul in the best way possible.
Have you seen the video of Dr. Paul taking on the fools on the Morton Downey show in the 80's when he was the Libertarian candidate? Dr. Paul is obviously angry and defiant on that show, and at one point he even insulted a chubby dude to make his point. Contrast that to the strategy that Dr. Paul uses today. He remains calm and respectful even while pundits and opponents hurl insults and lies at him. Does Dr. Paul need to "grow a pair"? I ask that you consider the change RP has made in his approach to spreading his message. I believe Dr. Paul realized that to be electable he needed to tone down his anger and frustration, and appeal to more rational, mainstream Americans by using a softer, more diplomatic approach.
I have to admit that I have a bad temper at times. I can get very worked up and when I listen to your comments on that show I see myself in your actions. After following politics for 30 years I have more than my share of pent up resentment. I'm desperate to get Dr. Paul elected, and in fact I don't know how I'll feel if he looses. Tears are rolling down my cheeks as I type this just at the thought of a loss. I know that this movement won't be finished if RP loses, but such a brave man and a hero as Dr. Paul deserves this election and the world will experience much less murder and torture and poverty if he gets elected. I'm a person who is ready to fight, but I choose to temper my emotions and focus on a strategy that is most likely to win this election for RP and all Americans.
All I ask is that you consider what I'm saying. All I want is Ron Paul in the White House. I would give anything to see that. You're obviously a valuable asset to this campaign, but I believe you could use your passion in a better way by controlling your emotions more. I don't mean to insult your efforts but I have to speak my mind, which I'm sure you can appreciate.
crazyfacedjenkins
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,443
HAHAHAH. This was the funniest shit I've heard in a while. Great find.
Derek Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,126
Considered. And thanks for your lengthy somewhat Dr. Philish post, I hear you man, but sometimes I just can't help it. And I was not going to post that rant to the web, but the Denver radio station and a member here didn't want to let the dog lie....so I included Bob's "...the president does not have to consult congress to take military action..." to show what stirred me up in the video. This should stir anyone up who believes in the founder's intent, this is a severe threat b/c our economic ruin is on the horizon...not to mention the oil-mercantile 50+ year foreign policy. If you watched any of the YouTube videos of radio calls, I don't rant in a hostile tone, usually. Believe me, this election doesn't come down to perception generated by talk show callers, we are up against much more powerful forces. And I'm sorry I told you to grow a fucking pair sir, obviously I shouldn't always wear my emotions on my sleave.
Last edited:
Akus
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,403
It was me, sure, I lost my head a bit, but that's what happens when I see my sweet country get raped in front of my eyes.
I'm well past trying to "act cool" to give us a "certain image", trust me I've made hundreds of talk radio calls yoga-calm. And when I was in the military, I didn't always have a cool head, just ask any of my commanding officers, I just wish I would have crossed paths with this punk-ass lying Marine.
Yup, this piece of shit "gunny" Bob lies, bold face lies about Iraq and the constitution on a daily basis...and I happened to be driving across the Texas panhandle getting beat in the ears with his bullshit. I just couldn't take it, but towards the end, I just too a deep breath and came back from my rage....'cept for Ron Paul, y'all.
You, sir, did more harm then good with this call, sir. If you hear some shock jock on the radio talk some crazy shit, sir, just turn off the damn radio, sir. Because shock jocks are called that for a reason, to shock you. You did exactly what they hoped, sir, you would do, sir. You've increased this shock jock's ratings, whoever he is, sir. You have also represented all Ron Paul supporters as psychotic zealots, sir. Stop listening to the radio and do something productive to get RP elected, becaue you sounded like a total clown. Were I not a Ron Paul supporter already, I'd dismiss him as a loony idiot because of calls like yours.
Sir.
Sauron
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 415
He has good reason to be angry. I went on an angry rant in Des Moines, IA on 6/30 about the fraudulent illegitimate income tax system and the IRS right in front of the conference where Ron Paul was not invited. It was filmed, and lots of people heard and saw me speaking about it with the emotion of anger in my voice as well as my body language.
phree
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 810
I have a question for those in this thread who believe displays of rage help Dr. Paul's chances in this election:
Do you believe that a majority of 50, 60, and 70 year old mainstream Americans will be inclined to join a movement after seeing or hearing an enraged supporter?
See, I don't think so. I also think that if we alienate this demographic we will certainly lose this election.
Are you more interested in venting your personal rage, or in enticing the largest number of undecided voters possible to our cause?
Do you believe that a majority of 50, 60, and 70 year old mainstream Americans will be inclined to join a movement after seeing or hearing an enraged supporter?
See, I don't think so. I also think that if we alienate this demographic we will certainly lose this election.
Are you more interested in venting your personal rage, or in enticing the largest number of undecided voters possible to our cause?
Similar threads
