Hurts Liberty Movement

[Anti Federalist]

Truth truly is treason...

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Right because I couldn't be someone who has spent countless hours defending Ron and fighting for liberty. I couldn't be someone who went to countless events and read every book of Ron's. And I couldn't be someone who gave an entire year of my life helping his son get elected. No, because then it might dawn on a few of you that this was hurtful to our own movement. And of course I should be attacked for not agreeing with some loud people on this forum.

I never said you haven't campaigned for Ron or spread the message. I was reminding you - in a manner that doesn't air your laundry - that you've said things before that have been incendiary, and for you to become histrionic over a truthful message that Ron tweeted betrays that fact.

 

[mczerone]

Where this hurts is in terms of how Ron Paul is perceived, which frankly, was doing pretty well since the primaries. Ron Paul had achieved the status of being a positive reference to some extent within many non-liberty circles, for his consistency and principle.

It is this kind of thing which undoubtedly makes those people less likely to think about Paul, at all or positively, and thus makes them less receptive to the message of liberty.

If you haven't gotten elected to a Republican party position, if you haven't dealt with the public humiliation of being a Ron Paul supporter in 2007 and 2008 in the face of some serious opposition, I would understand, but if you have, then I expect you to understand where I'm coming from, because it's those people who are so hard to reach and so much work has been done and it's easy to throw it away.

If we have to pretend that morality isn't important when it comes to war and governance, I'm not interested in winning these people over.

I haven't seen any evidence that the perception of Ron or the liberty message was "doing pretty well" since the primaries, and again, I don't see how someone who is getting "the message" could be so turned away by this biblical quote.

 

[Matt Collins]

This tweet didn't do a damn thing to further liberty or to hinder it. The same Paul haters called him a loon for saying it, the same Paul supporters are infighting about it like everything else, and 90% of the public will never hear about it or care either way.

I would respectfully disagree with you. I have seen many tea party types who were becoming a bit more sympathetic to Ron in recent months get quite upset at this. It's kinda ugly on FB about it right now

 

[1836]

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't keep having to recover from self-inflicted wounds?

Sure would. Much easier to destroy a house than to build one. Takes a long time to build it, when you build it from scratch. Takes seconds to raze it.

 

[1836]

I would respectfully disagree with you. I have seen many tea party types who were becoming a bit more sympathetic to Ron in recent months get quite upset at this. It's kinda ugly on FB about it right now

THE COLLINS HAS SPOKEN.

And clearly, then, I'm on the right side of this.

 

[1836]

If we have to pretend that morality isn't important when it comes to war and governance, I'm not interested in winning these people over.

I haven't seen any evidence that the perception of Ron or the liberty message was "doing pretty well" since the primaries, and again, I don't see how someone who is getting "the message" could be so turned away by this biblical quote.

If you didn't think the liberty message has been doing pretty well, why don't you take a look and see how people react when you say "Ron Paul" now as opposed to one year ago, two years ago, three years ago, etc...

And why don't you see how people are talking about John Boehner and the Congress, how Justin Amash is doing publicly, and Rand Paul for that matter.

The liberty message has been steadily growing, but it is fragile ground that is hard to win and easy to give up.

 

[mczerone]

I have personally seen people who were starting to be much more open to what Ron Paul was saying. I've seen them start quoting him. The tweet has done damage. Whether you like it or not, people are known by the people they choose to associate with and this tweet is causing people to want to distance themselves from Ron Paul.

Okay, you have anecdotal experience of people starting to "quote" Paul - are you sure that they're totally off the liberty bandwagon less than 24 hours after this hit the news?

And you haven't addressed the possibility that there are more people who have heard this today and decided to look MORE into the liberty message than those who have been dissuaded.

And, out of curiosity, what area were they quoting Ron from? Was it purely about fiscal issues, or was it coming from an understanding of liberty? Would they have voted for Herman Cain anyway because they didn't like Paul's stance on the war on Drugs, or would they have supported Gingrich because they (already) didn't support Paul's foreign policy stance?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't keep having to recover from self-inflicted wounds?

Ah, I don't might the cuts and bruises...

That which does not kill you.

 

[1836]

Okay, you have anecdotal experience of people starting to "quote" Paul - are you sure that they're totally off the liberty bandwagon less than 24 hours after this hit the news?

And you haven't addressed the possibility that there are more people who have heard this today and decided to look MORE into the liberty message than those who have been dissuaded.

And, out of curiosity, what area were they quoting Ron from? Was it purely about fiscal issues, or was it coming from an understanding of liberty? Would they have voted for Herman Cain anyway because they didn't like Paul's stance on the war on Drugs, or would they have supported Gingrich because they (already) didn't support Paul's foreign policy stance?

It's anecdotal, but it's true. Ron Paul has become "cool" to Republican conservatives and the talk radio crowd. Honestly, he's "ok" now.

Yes, it's mostly fiscal –*who cares? If they like Ron Paul, they're more receptive to what he has to say, and what the message is all about. It's a matter of getting people to slowly think about things that they may not have thought of.

You can't just say "oh, well so and so wouldn't have gotten it anyway, LOL"

That's what everyone said in 2007 and 2008 and look where it got us. Compare it to 2011 and 2012...

 

[mczerone]

If you didn't think the liberty message has been doing pretty well, why don't you take a look and see how people react when you say "Ron Paul" now as opposed to one year ago, two years ago, three years ago, etc...

And why don't you see how people are talking about John Boehner and the Congress, how Justin Amash is doing publicly, and Rand Paul for that matter.

The liberty message has been steadily growing, but it is fragile ground that is hard to win and easy to give up.

I've seen polarization, where Paul haters have gotten more numerous and louder, and Paul supporters have gotten slightly more numerous (and not really any louder than 07/08). But I haven't seen average-joe-American starting to study Austrian Economics or libertarian philosophy. We have a growing hardcore base, but we aren't gaining or losing anything in the national dialog.

The liberty message is the most steady ground upon which any of us can stand. We can stand on principle, history, logic, and empathy. We have truth on our side. We don't have to worry about these tweets, as they will merely expose those who are too bloodthirsty to give us the time of day anyway.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The whole thing was orchestrated to break Rand away from his father and his nutjob supporters, and it worked.

Gotta love the way everything is so much bigger than it is actually is.

 

[James Madison]

My personal opinion is that Chris Kyle was a fine soldier who did his duty. He did as he was asked to do, and I would be one to say that this is a good thing. I tend to take a very high view of military men and women personally, rather preferring to focus my disagreement upon the policies that put those men and women into battle in the first place.

This is a very frightening statement, to be honest. A 'fine soldier' doesn't do 'as he was asked to do'; he does what the Constitution asks him to do. What honor is there in following orders? Even the most wicked of men follow orders. I tell you this: the man who refuses evil, on Earth, may suffer, but the man who obeys will answer to God.

 

[mczerone]

It's anecdotal, but it's true. Ron Paul has become "cool" to Republican conservatives and the talk radio crowd. Honestly, he's "ok" now.

Yes, it's mostly fiscal –*who cares? If they like Ron Paul, they're more receptive to what he has to say, and what the message is all about. It's a matter of getting people to slowly think about things that they may not have thought of.

You can't just say "oh, well so and so wouldn't have gotten it anyway, LOL"

That's what everyone said in 2007 and 2008 and look where it got us. Compare it to 2011 and 2012...

Last reply for me tonight, I have an early morning in 5 hours.

The biggest thing I hear about Paul in talk-radio (when I can stand it) and internet fora is "Well, I like his stance on X, but his stance on Y is bat-shiat insane". X and Y vary by different groups, but this tweet wasn't going to grow or lose support among those who already disliked his foreign policy.

I'm saying that someone who is ready to hear the whole message isn't going to be swayed by this tweet - they will seek to understand why Paul (or whoever) said it, and either agree or disagree with it, while expanding their philosophical base to make up their own mind on the issue.

"Everyone" in 07/08 AND 11/12 were about pleasing the "mainstream" GOPer, and neither campaign won them over by moderating the message. The GOPers that I know who were swayed between 07/08 and 11/12 were swayed specifically because of the more "radical" statements that got them thinking and shook their comfort zones, not because we pandered to what we thought they wanted to hear.

 

[Butchie]

In things such as statistics, probability, economics, and social psychology "common sense" is typically misguided. That's why people who wish to treat these fields as SCIENCES must seek evidence.

I agree that the second was better that the first, and that the first was less-than-perfect. But I can't imagine one person who would actually take time to learn the liberty message who would be so off-put by a "soundbyte". That's not to say that they don't exist, but the comments to the Daily Caller article show people who already hated Paul and this just reinforced their position, and those who already like Paul who, at worst, said that the message was right, but the time and form wasn't perfect. I didn't see one "I would've looked into the liberty message, but this is just too far out."

So again, where is the evidence? Show me that more people were lost than were gained. I haven't seen evidence for the numbers of either group.

I see you live in MI, so perhaps you know we vote for committee memebers this week? You want to see the proof, go to your meeting, if you're not a delegate, come to mine, you'll see all to clear how Ron just threw us all under the bus, I'm curious with some of you, is there anything you have ever disagreed with Ron on? I swear he could strangle a 5yr old child on national TV and some of you would be on here saying how it helps us and Ron was right to do it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And it is not our position to judge him.

The hell it isn't! I have never understood claims like this ...

The notion that "it is not our place to judge" never seems to come up when we want to praise someone of whom we approve.

It also never seems to arise when we want to condemn someone with whom we are unsympathetic.

It only ever seems to be trotted out when when we want (for whatever reason) to excuse someone we know to be - or suspect might be - an undeserving scoundrel.

We know not the contents of his heart. Only God does.

Yes, we do know. He wrote a book in which he described them. He did interviews in which he revealed them.

And the contents of his heart turn out to be things that are not at all edifying for decent people to behold ...

 

[angelatc]

I've heard people all day trying to defend this snide tweet, and that only puts fuel on my fire.

Me too. Some guy on Facebook sent me a 4 paragraph explanation of "what Ron was trying to say," while simultaneously blaming the non-believers for daring it to spin it to mean something else.

The irony totally eluded him.

 

[parocks]

This is the first I've heard of this. After reading a little online, this is fine. Gives Rand an opportunity to distance himself from Ron - gaining favor with booyah patriots. Allows people to say that it's the unpatriotic nature of Ron Paul's words sometimes that makes them not like Ron Paul. All that's to the good.

 

[Tpoints]

so Rand Paul has to sell out his dad to promote his career in politics?

you sound like that's not a normal thing to do in this business.

 

[Tpoints]

Me too. Some guy on Facebook sent me a 4 paragraph explanation of "what Ron was trying to say," while simultaneously blaming the non-believers for daring it to spin it to mean something else.

The irony totally eluded him.

cognitive dissonance FTW