Cat herders make me laugh...
- Thread starter ronpaulhawaii
- Start date
kaleidoscope eyes
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,550
whoa! can I get an AMEN?!...just ignore them already.
If we want to have a HHUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGE rally we are going to have to welcome anyone, and everyone. Isn't that what this great country is all about anyway! I may not agree with what you say... and all that crap. Sheesh...
While I am the first to say that, some individuals have hurt this movement by focusing on deeper "mysterious" problems in the world, (and not enough on what matters to avg voters), I will say that we all have different levels of trust in Govt and have all taken the red-pill. While we may not agree with the premise/behavior, we understand the motivation. Something is rotton in Denmark, and the stench freaks some people out. Isn't that why we all end up defending the inconsiderate buffoons; like crazy cousins?
Anyway...
Does anyone really think this rally should be all RP?Or is it about US, being able to come to-gether from all sides of the omni-cultural spectrum? To show support for any politician who understands the value of Liberty, the rule of Law, the Oath of Office and that ga-danged piece of paper, the US Constitution??? IMO- if this event is limited to what we as a... group (- haha - ) agree on, it will be limited indeed.
And what in gods name is the big problem?, how many people here were planning on advertising their TRUTH anyway? Aren't there so many people who disagree with this that they will be lost by our overwhelming numbers anyway? How about we get away from the idea of (presumtively) inviting/excluding groups and just welcome EVERYONE, as an individual.
REPOST
Now, could y'all puleeeeze just flag and ignore the bridge-dwellers, and get back to making this rally as good as we can. There are no supporters like us, lets do this with style and make history...
(hmmmm, wonder if I'll have to move this to the vent -)
RPHawaii, you took the words right outta my mouth!
Awesome. Thanks.
NEPA_Revolution
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 607
We dont need to herd cats. We need to herd Sheeple.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,004
For the person who thinks putting things in a large font makes you more important, learn how to use a spell checker for your "ishues".
Regards,
John M. Drake
ronpaulhawaii
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 11,874
In a case like this, (responding to someone who implied that any msg is on-point at this -freedom?- rally, from the stage no less
), I tend to get right to the extremes, to see how far someone will defend their opinion. I do know there is a world of difference between these two sub-sets of RP supporters, but we cannot ignore they exist. My point is that we must avoid hypocrisy.
m - is thankful to all who understand the necessity of moving threads. It's a $#!++y job, but someone has to do it...:o
and please check my fundraising thread @
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1293346
The Tao Of Bill
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 361
Why do you think I'm trying to control what you do with the 20% of you that disagrees with the movement? I'm trying to say if you do anything with the movement then it'd better be with that 80% of you that agrees with the movement. Do the other 20% elsewhere. How is that so hard for you to grasp? It's about focusing the movement and making it very clear what we stand for. Not about giving everyone in the movement a soapbox to spew the 20% that disagrees with the movement.
No one on this forum is going to be able to stop me from voting for Obama in the general. But they know I won't be bringing Obama signs to a rally for the movement. That would be rude and it would confuse the issues.
Why not allow the stormfront people to bring their signs that say "Shut down the border and protect white America"
Because it's the same thing. Your bringing signs to a rally that has nothing to do with the rally. That's rude, inappropriate, inconsiderate and is doing nothing but using the movement as a soap box for your own agenda.
You have freedom of speech in this country. But it doesn't mean if you say something inappropriate at an inappropriate time you're not a dick.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
In a case like this, (responding to someone who implied that any msg is on-point at this -freedom?- rally, from the stage no less
[/URL]
A comment that just reinforces my comments (9-11 = extremes? Please). Of course, it was not implied that 'any' message was on point, just an issue that HALF or more of Paul supporters are concerned about. And no, winning arguments shouldn't have anything to do with moving threads, but threads seem to have been moved when truthers have replied to cheap shots. All clear?
ronpaulhawaii
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 11,874
Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom
EVERY issue of concern to this movement is ON message for a FREEDOM march
Hence my reference to - what I consider - an extreme end of the fringe of this movement (Don Black/etc). What is ironic is that I wrote the OP in response to those who were making such a big deal of the 911 fanatics being part of our big, happy
family. Another irony is that I took the redpill over 30yrs ago and was a "truther" long before 911.That said, I doubt "911 truth" is much of an issue to the vast majority of RP supporters. Yes, most of us will agree that there is something wrong with the official version of events. But, I believe most of us understand that the criminals responsible, for any mis-information, are guilty of other crimes as well. By focussing on that one very sensitive issue, we lose ground in our effort to bring about the kind of change that will expose the whole shebang. ISTM, in a presidential election, it is best to present facts to the electorate, not theories.
Discretion is the better part of valor...
m - who moves posts due to flags and content, reluctantly.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
And it is best to realize the truther issue is led by facts, not theories, and so should be presented, especially in a presidential election. It's certainly 'very sensitive' to those who would quibble over one word--the imagined implications of 'every' or 'any'--while ignoring the CLEAR meaning implied in the comment, that there is WIDESPREAD concern among Paul supporters about the signal subject that has led to the wholesale loss of constitutional liberties at home, and our $2 BILLION per week war in Iraq. You can't bring about change unless you focus on the the main factor preventing that change.
The War on Terror is the chief driving agent currently moving things in this country in an unconstitutional direction, and its chief foundation is the 9-11 official myth. Ignoring the elephant in the room is not exactly helping to 'expose the whole shebang,' while outright discounting its importance does help to shred the credibility of the 'revolution.' If we are a serious freedom movement, let's have all issues of widespread concern to the movement presented from the podium at a freedom march.
Edit/P.S.: The next comment makes a false suggestion. The intent of my point is to simply advocate for inclusion of all issues of widespread concern to the freedom movement. SOMEBODY ELSE is unfortunately preoccupied with charging people with 'hijacking threads' or other obsessions.
Last edited:
ronpaulhawaii
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 11,874
Well, since my OP CLEARLY dealt with what is truly meant by "any" and "every", it now seems your comment was meant to hijack this thread and turn it into another round of the SOS. And this is why I use the term fanatics, overzealous enthusiasm and uncritical devotion.
About theories, facts, and what is palatable to the electorate. I ask you to consider Galileo and where his fact based theory got him...
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,004
Well first off I totally disagree with your numbers. 9/11 truthers make up at least 33% of the American population. Taking into account that the Ron Paul campaign has been actively pushed in the 9/11 community by none other than Ron Paul himself I would suspect the 9/11 movement is closer to 40 or 50 percent. Yes I'm not misspeaking. Ron Paul has been on Alex Jones at a much higher frequency than he has been on any other talk show. No, that doesn't mean he agrees with Alex Jones. But only a complete idiot would think his appearances are no different than his going on Fox News. If John McCain, who's been endorsed by James Dobson, went on Focus on the Family twice a month then only a complete moron would come to the conclusion that John McCain wasn't trying to court the Christian conservative vote. Why is that so hard for YOU to grasp?
As for your question about stormfront? I wouldn't try to stop them from bringing their signs. That would be stupid. The more I argued on a forum that if they brought their signs I would stay home the more likely it would be that they would bring their signs. It's like throwing water on a grease fire. You just cause it to spread. Why is that so hard for YOU to grasp?
And finally, I already said go ahead and bring your Obama sign. That would be no different than the Ron Paul people showing up at Obama rallies with Ron Paul signs. Great. The more the merrier. It's silly for a movement that's made it's mark by going where we're not invited to get around the media blackout to think that someone from another camp might not show up at one of our rallies. The only sane reaction to that is to have more Ron Paul signs. The free market of ideas at work. The only people being "dicks" are the ones going around trying to tell others what to do. That was the point of the title of the thread. Quit being a cat herder. You're just wasting your own energy and everybody else's time.
Regards,
John M. Drake
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,004
In a case like this, (responding to someone who implied that any msg is on-point at this -freedom?- rally, from the stage no less
I do know there is a world of difference between these two sub-sets of RP supporters, but we cannot ignore they exist. My point is that we must avoid hypocrisy.
m - is thankful to all who understand the necessity of moving threads. It's a $#!++y job, but someone has to do it...:o
and please check my fundraising thread @
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1293346
Oh I agree. I don't think Don Black or Alex Jones should be given a speaking spot. And keep rabid "anti truther" Penn of Penn & Teller off the stage too. Oh course if Ron Paul choose to invite any of those people to speak that would be his choice.
But I think we need to make distinctions not just on groups but also on how they have been involved in the campaign. We just need to be honest. Ron Paul didn't go on "stormfront radio". He hasn't publicly thanked stormfront readers for their support. This campaign has actively courted "truthers" while at the same time keeping its distance. That's just a fact. I guess I'm saying there is more than one way to be a hypocrite. John McCain has gotten the endorsement of James Dobson even though they disagree on VERY important issues. I doubt John McCain would say conservative Christians couldn't hold signs at one of his events.
Regards,
John M. Drake
The Tao Of Bill
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 361
First of all I was talking about percentage of YOUR agenda. The 9-11 truth movement does not fall into the Ron Paul movement. Second of all, my ass it's 33% of the American Population. If it was it would be impossible to ignore. The truth movement bareily makes up 33% of the Ron Paul movement and the Ron Paul movement has bareily made it to double digits of the voting population let alone the entire American population. Truthers like to claim their numbers are larger than they are when they say 70% of the American people want a new investigation on 9-11. First of all that number is way outdated. Second of all the truth movement is not about a new investigation. The truth movement claims it already has done the investigation. They claim to already know the "truth" and they claim it was the government. Truthers don't want a new investigation. They want justice for the supposed "criminals" they've already found guilty. In reality world I doubt the real truth movement even makes up 1% of the American population. I think the 33% you are talking about is the percentage of people who hate the truth movement. There is no way 33% of the population thinks 9-11 was an inside job. There is absolutely no poll that says such a number. Stop pulling figures out of your ass.
I would suspect it's closer to 0 percent. See I can pull numbers out of my ass as well!
Then I guess Ron Paul is a complete idiot because that's exactly what he says. When people have brought his appearances on Alex Jones up as a sign that he agrees with Alex Jones he says it's no different then him appearing on Fox News because he doesn't agree with Fox News either. So you should stop calling Ron Paul an idiot.
It's so hard to grasp because Ron Paul flat out said he does not endorse 9-11 truthers and he does not agree with their movement and if they care about him they won't protest 9-11 truth in his name
Right. Ignore them and they will go away. Let's just ignore the Neo-Cons too. Maybe they'll go away if we just turn our heads. Maybe the fed will go away if we pretend it's not there.
Seriously that is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. I think all this argueing as gotten to plenty of truthers just judging by the polls on this forum. The amount of truthers who say they won't mix their movement with Ron Paul's is rising. And the only people left are the incredibly stubborn ones who think their signs belong here. They don't.
I'm not threatening to throw anyone out. I'm discouraging it. There is a difference. I want a focused message. Not a bunch of random agendas spewing random things so no new person to the movement knows what the hell the movement is about. It's a simple concept. If you want to expand the movement people have to know what the hell your movement is about.
It's not about racism. It's not about blaming the government for directly being involved with 9-11 and it definitely isn't about electing Obama. So why the hell would you bring those signs unless your entire goal was to sabotage the movement.
And that's exactly how I see people to stubborn to correct their behavior. People who want to sabotage the movement to fit their agenda.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,004
So you'll just ignore scientific polls when they don't give you the answers you seek. Are you a Paul supporter, an Obama supporter, or a medium channeling the spirit of George W. Bush?
As for Ron Paul's poll numbers, are you aware of the fact that 32% of Republicans want the U.S. out of Iraq within a year? As the only republican (besides fellow patriot Albert Howard) who wants that, why has Ron Paul never polled anywhere NEAR that nationally? Simple. He's not getting all of the Republican antiwar vote. Likewise it should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that he isn't getting all of the truther vote either. I personally know people who think 9/11 was an inside job that voted for Obama or some other candidate. These aren't your hardcore "fully understands that both sides are corrupt and nobody that ever votes against civil liberties can be trusted" truthers. But they are definitely people who would say it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
First I didn't say 70%, I said 33%. At least ATTEMPT to keep your facts straight! Yes I know the difference between the 70% that don't fully believe the official story (including Ron Paul) to the 33% that fall into the LIHOP or MIHOP categories.
Second the truth movement does not claim to already have done "the investigation". They've done preliminary investigations to be sure. I would hope that you would be intelligent enough to know the difference between a preliminary investigation and a final investigation. A preliminary investigation raises questions. A final investigation seeks to answer all of the questions. The 9/11 commission report was supposed to be a final investigation. But it didn't even ATTEMPT to answer all of the questions of the family steering committee and in the end it didn't follow up on questions raised in the course of the investigation itself. Case in point Dick Cheney should have been asked under oath to explain what Norman Minetta was talking about when he quoted Dick Cheney as saying "the order still stands". Instead Norman Minetta's testimony was left out of the final report.
Initial investigations are really only meant to raise theories. But unfortunately the final investigation took ONE theory as "fact" and the investigation was steered solely toward propping up that "fact".
Not true and you know it.
Stop your blatant lying. The 9/11 truth movement has two broad groups. Those that think the government let it happen on purpose (LIHOP) or made it happen on purpose (MIHOP). The Scripp Howard poll clearly states that 33% of the U.S. population according to their poll things that either the government let 9/11 happen on purpose (LIHOP) or was actively involved and made it happen on purpose (MIHOP).
Except I pulled my number from a scientific survey.
I already gave you the quote where Steve Gill was quoting Ron Paul directly and used that against him on 9/11. I gave you this link in another thread and you ignored it. So I'm not calling Ron Paul and idiot. But YOU are being willfully ignorant.
Its so hard to grasp that Ron Paul is playing politics. (Yes he's not above that.) Again look at the quote where Steve Gill quoted Ron Paul directly. But I shouldn't expect you to understand facts. You still think I made up the 33% number.
Maybe you'll go away if I pretend you're not there?
Really if you read any of the thread in "hot topics" the ones that people ignore eventually die out. It's the ones where people continue to argue (especially when they use stupid arguments like your "The 33% number doesn't exist even though you took it from a scientific survey" argument) that continue on indefinitely. So keep it up if you want to make 9/11 the focus of the D.C. march. In fact maybe that's your plot. You are an Obama supporter afterall.No. The most stupid thing you've ever heard is your own claim that no survey exists that 33% of Americans are 9/11 truthers.
Then what are you worried about? Seriously I've never brought a 9/11 sign to a rally, but you've almost convinced me to bring one just to spite you.
Right. You want collectivism. We might as well be communists and just follow the "Tao Of Bill". Yes collectivism is a simple concept meant for simple minds. Minds that can't even contemplate the fact that 33% of Americans fall into the LIHOP or MIHOP categories.
Why would you be discouraging people from coming unless your entire goal was to sabotage the movement? Why when a MODERATOR who DOES NOT SUPPORT 9/11 TRUTH starts a thread about the negative effects of "cat herding" do you persist in cat herding? Really even people who DON'T support 9/11 truth can see the end result of your actions. It's people like you who are killing the march and the movement.
Regards,
John M. Drake
Last edited:
ronpaulhawaii
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 11,874
bump
asgardshill
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,789
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,600
Bumpthump. Nice OP.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
Cat herder wannabes, really make me laugh too. 
< ROFLMAO! >
< ROFLMAO! >
GigiBowman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 103
Lol, that just happened to me!
GigiBowman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 103
Wherever you go John Drake...I love ya! Thank you for saying what I've been trying to say as I sit now in "Hot Topics" lol
Similar threads
