For all - Turn the other cheek for Ron Paul

[foofighter20x]

What i mean is that you see failure, and assign failure to something you THINK will make failure occur. And you say it as if you KNOW it will.. that is not honesty. Unless you can see the future.
Myself, as a sociologist, study what is called "the game" its any set of actions in combination resulting in any set of probably outcomes. And even after 11 years of study I can only say at best, research says their is a higher probability of failure if you come off abrasive.
And is the blame always on the abrasive person or can the blame actually be prescribed to those who have allowed themselve to be indoctrinated with a belief system that takes offense to such actions? The possibilities are unlimited... thus prescribing motive to failure before it happens is anyone's guess.
So- i say we should be following our on hearts and minds... it has gotten us this far...i don't think we should abandon it because the majority thinks it bad.

Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

 

[torchbearer]

Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

Yeh, Clinton's method of getting votes is to appease everyone. Ron Paul method is to be honest. You ask people to betray who they are... is that honest?

 

[TVMH]

Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

Logic and reason? Nooooo...it can't be that simple.

 

[torchbearer]

Over simplification are in general false by their very nature. It's a lazy man's thinking. Only in physics does your A,B cause and effect conversation have any weight.
In human behavior it does not apply. Until you can predict human behavior, you are WRONG.

Tell me. what will I do if you yell at me?
a. laugh
b. cry
c. run away
d. knock your teeth out
e. put a bullet hole in your head
f. nothing
g. donate to ron paul
h. post a drama thread about it
i. all of the above
j. none of the above
k. something else all together

 

[torchbearer]

show me the exact cause and effect of that human interaction between me and you. a future prediction.

 

[TVMH]

Yeh, Clinton's method of getting votes is to appease everyone. Ron Paul method is to be honest. You ask people to betray who they are... is that honest?

This is not exactly correct, torch.

No one is asking anyone to betray his or her own character.

What is being asked of Paul supporters is to utilize a learned skill...or learn the skill first if it hasn't already been.

This requires putting one's own ego in check, and admitting that this skill might be useful.

My 2 cents....

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Umm... Ok. I seem to be under the impression that we are trying to gain peoples' votes. It's something we have to earn from them. It's nothing that they owe any of us. Since we are trying to earn it, there are obviously going to be strings attached, such as civil discourse and a sense of propriety and respect for their sensibilities and rationale. If we don't meet the conditions of those strings, then we don't get their vote.

Not doing A means not having B. Cause, effect. Therefore, any persons that destroy any chance of meeting condition A are directly responsible for the lack of condition B.

It's that simple.

Whose votes are we going to get?

I'll tell you this much right now: we aren't getting the votes of the RedState guys. We aren't getting the votes of the Freepers. We aren't getting the votes of the Townhall people.

We're trying to get the votes of undecided voters, of Republicans who aren't committed to the war party the way the people I just listed are, and independent voters.

The thesis of the OP is that we need to engage in "reasoned discourse" with RedStaters, Freepers and Townhallers to get the votes of the people in the second list of groups.

There's no real reason to think that's true. Personally, I think you're just as likely to get the undecided people if you jump right up forcefully into some Freeper's face online as you are if you meekly try to recite the Beatitudes at them. Nobody likes a wuss. I think that for every undecided person who is put off by the aggressiveness of Paul supporters online, there is another one who is impressed by the ferocity of the defense Paul inspires. I also think that many of Paul's opponents on the internet would interpret respectful discourse as weakness - if their first set of lies isn't flamed into the ground, they'll just escalate their campaign of lies until they hit an obstacle.

 

[torchbearer]

This is not exactly correct, torch.

No one is asking anyone to betray his or her own character.

What is being asked of Paul supporters is to utilize a learned skill...or learn the skill first if it hasn't already been.

This requires putting one's own ego in check, and admitting that this skill might be useful.

My 2 cents....

Context: People who have no political experience are being frightened and intimidate by these media attacks and are asking everyone to change their behavior because they believe that it is the cause of the bad reporting. The apologist, as i call them, have fallen into the trap, and has given falsehoods (that have no grounds in reality) weight by starting mass hysteria and dementia laden threads. I see it in almost every thread.
What do you have to apologize for? What does ron paul have to apologize for?
This is the context I'm talking about... it doesn't have to do with this thread... it has to do with this new vice brought in by people(who are well intentioned) and then 90% of the posters in the thread (who are all non-politicos) buy into the lie... and then everyone here starts attacking the very hard-core activist that are dedicating their life, money, and sacred honor, to furthur this campaign. Pisses people off and starts us on a self-destructive decline.

FooFighter would rather be right than see the points i'm trying to make. Stop trying to control peoples actions out of supposed fears... its that same fear the talking heads use to manipulate us in everything else we do

 

[torchbearer]

Whose votes are we going to get?

I'll tell you this much right now: we aren't getting the votes of the RedState guys. We aren't getting the votes of the Freepers. We aren't getting the votes of the Townhall people.

We're trying to get the votes of undecided voters, of Republicans who aren't committed to the war party the way the people I just listed are, and independent voters.

The thesis of the OP is that we need to engage in "reasoned discourse" with RedStaters, Freepers and Townhallers to get the votes of the people in the second list of groups.

There's no real reason to think that's true. Personally, I think you're just as likely to get the undecided people if you jump right up forcefully into some Freeper's face online as you are if you meekly try to recite the Beatitudes at them. Nobody likes a wuss. I think that for every undecided person who is put off by the aggressiveness of Paul supporters online, there is another one who is impressed by the ferocity of the defense Paul inspires. I also think that many of Paul's opponents on the internet would interpret respectful discourse as weakness - if their first set of lies isn't flamed into the ground, they'll just escalate their campaign of lies until they hit an obstacle.

Thank you for the courage to voice a contrarian view.

 

[foofighter20x]

Over simplification are in general false by their very nature. It's a lazy man's thinking. Only in physics does your A,B cause and effect conversation have any weight.
In human behavior it does not apply. Until you can predict human behavior, you are WRONG.

Tell me. what will I do if you yell at me?
a. laugh
b. cry
c. run away
d. knock your teeth out
e. put a bullet whole in you head
f. nothing
g. donate to ron paul
h. post a drama thread about it
i. all of the above
j. none of the above
k. something else all together

Based on some of your other posts, I'd say D or E. But you miss my point. Also, you've set your exercise above in favor of my argument. Remeber that I'm trying to elicit a positive reaction from you, and all the answers you listed are not postivie, but either neutral or negative responses.

You tell me: when would you be more apt to agree with me?

A) When I'm nice, congenial and show you respect and explain to you calmly and rationally why you should agree with me.
B) I'm mean, rude, snide, pushy, call you stupid because you don't agree with me and get angry when you react negatively to my behavior.

 

[torchbearer]

Based on some of your other posts, I'd say D or E. But you miss my point. Also, you've set your exercise above in favor of my argument. Remeber that I'm trying to elicit a positive reaction from you, and all the answers you listed are not postivie, but either neutral or negative responses.

You tell me: when would you be more apt to agree with me?

A) When I'm nice, congenial and show you respect and explain to you calmly and rationally why you should agree with me.
B) I'm mean, rude, snide, pushy, call you stupid because you don't agree with me and get angry when you react negatively to my behavior.

I'll agree with you when you are right, regardless of how you tell me.
On a good day, i may respond well to positive response.
On a bad day I may respond better to negative behavior.
It just depends on the day, the circumstances... and what it is being discussed.
I may find any political shill who is nice to be disingenuous. Being that my bias is not like any one else's.. it would be hard to say how I would react.
I may see and angry passionate response as having more value since I could see you truly believed in it with your whole being.

 

[torchbearer]

Oh, and you could have picked option "k" for anything positive. I didn't limit your choices.

 

[foofighter20x]

I'll agree with you when you are right, regardless of how you tell me.
On a good day, i may respond well to positive response.
On a bad day I may respond better to negative behavior.
It just depends on the day, the circumstances... and what it is being discussed.
I may find any political shill who is nice to be disingenuous. Being that my bias is not like any one else's.. it would be hard to say how I would react.
I may see and angry passionate response as having more value since I could see you truly believed in it with your whole being.

Angry and passionate doesn't have to be directed at the potential supporter, however.

And I doubt that anyone will see someone as disingenuous who is

a) using simple logic and reasoning;
b) answering every question with candor (or at least refering them to where they can find the answer), and
c) above all telling the person to trust their own judgment after they've heard what needs to be said or expounded.​

 

[torchbearer]

And I doubt that anyone will see someone as disingenuous who is

a) using simple logic and reasoning;
b) answering every question with candor (or at least refering them to where they can find the answer), and
c) above all telling the person to trust their own judgment after they've heard what needs to be said or expounded.​

What happened to the certainty of cause and effect?
Like i said earlier. People in general, will probably react negative to someone who is abrasive.

My main beef was explained in the total context:

Context: People who have no political experience are being frightened and intimidate by these media attacks and are asking everyone to change their behavior because they believe that it is the cause of the bad reporting. The apologist, as i call them, have fallen into the trap, and have given falsehoods (that have no grounds in reality) weight by starting mass hysteria and dementia laden threads. I see it in almost every thread.
What do you have to apologize for? What does ron paul have to apologize for?
This is the context I'm talking about... it doesn't have to do with this thread... it has to do with this new vice brought in by people(who are well intentioned) and then 90% of the posters in the thread (who are all non-politicos) buy into the lie... and then everyone here starts attacking the very hard-core activist that are dedicating their life, money, and sacred honor, to furthur this campaign. Pisses people off and starts us on a self-destructive decline.

FooFighter would rather be right than see the points i'm trying to make. Stop trying to control peoples actions out of supposed fears... its that same fear the talking heads use to manipulate us in everything else we do.

This thread is just a smaller part of a bigger trend. Despite the validity of approaching people civilly.. that is not what i'm disagreeing with...

 

[me3]

The apologist, as i call them, have fallen into the trap, and has given falsehoods (that have no grounds in reality) weight by starting mass hysteria and dementia laden threads.

Are you referring to the Colorado Straw Poll Thread, where you tried and convicted the local GOP on a blog post that was proven false?

 

[noztnac]

I can agree with both the "turn the other cheek" and the "hit 'em back" philosophies. I think most of us understand when each method is appropriate. Different situations call for different responses.

Personally, I'd like to see Ron paul be a little tougher when the audience boos or when Giuliani starts to demagogue with his illogical nonsense or when he openly laughs at Ron Paul's responses.

At the very least, if there is another debate, he needs a plan for dealing with the booing. Knowing in advance that they will boo he should be able to prepare one hell of a response.

I'm not sure exactly what that response should be but I've seen some comedians turn ridicule back against obnoxious crowds quite effectively. If you can think of a good way for handling this situation send it to someone in the campaign.

 

[Dan Hall]

"Ten Key Ideas"

Nice advice Randy. Win a lot of elections that way?

Thanks for your links in your signature Mr. Bradley. I enjoyed very much reading this one of the "ten key ideas."

Stay on message, don't retreat an inch from our views, but always treat our opponents with respect and courtesy, whether they've earned it or not.

This I agree is wise. Though at times "hit'em back," is vital at the right place and time in front of an audience who would lean toward thinking less of us for such wisdom.

Personally, I'd like to see Ron paul be a little tougher when the audience boos or when Giuliani starts to demagogue with his illogical nonsense or when he openly laughs at Ron Paul's responses.

 

[noztnac]

Dealing with jerks.

I can agree with both the "turn the other cheek" and the "hit 'em back" philosophies. I think most of us understand when each method is appropriate. Different situations call for different responses.

Personally, I'd like to see Ron paul be a little tougher when the audience boos or when Giuliani starts to demagogue with his illogical nonsense or when he openly laughs at Ron Paul's responses.

At the very least, if there is another debate, he needs a plan for dealing with the booing. Knowing in advance that they will boo he should be able to prepare one hell of a response.

I'm not sure exactly what that response should be but I've seen some comedians turn ridicule back against obnoxious crowds quite effectively. If you can think of a good way for handling this situation send it to someone in the campaign.

 

[torchbearer]

Are you referring to the Colorado Straw Poll Thread, where you tried and convicted the local GOP on a blog post that was proven false?

NO, I'm not talking about any thread in particular, I talking about the actions... the words... the ideas... the fear.. the hysteria... the intimidation.... the vices that are fostering hatred and self-destruction.

It's like people don't read my entire post. Perhaps the words are too big.

 

[me3]

NO, I'm not talking about any thread in particular, I talking about the actions... the words... the ideas... the fear.. the hysteria... the intimidation.... the vices that are fostering hatred and self-destruction.

I'm seeing way more fear, hysteria and intimidation from you, than the people preaching, be nice.

I'm watching the grassroots training vids, and it's made pretty clear that fighting back is wasted effort. That the election will be won with votes and voters. Not casual supporters, favorable articles, or talk show hosts fired.

It's like people don't read my entire post. Perhaps the words are too big.

Maybe your shades are too dark?