Mike Church offering two good bits of advice

[Decay]

Mike's awesome. I like his buddy Andrew Wilkow a lot too, but he's not much of a Paul fan unfortunately.

 

[shrugged0106]

Mike's awesome. I like his buddy Andrew Wilkow a lot too, but he's not much of a Paul fan unfortunately.

I used to like Wilcow, but he was so rude to Paul and us last go around. (I'll never get the sound of his snarky voice modulated "Ronpaul" mocking shout out of my head) that I have rejected his program. He's too in tune with Hannity/Levin's way of thought and I think he's beyond salvation sadly. Man he takes it to Libs though!

 

[scbissler]

There was a lot of racial hatred promoted by mainstream media in the 70's & 80's. As far as I can tell, the quotes I've read are not much different than what we heard weekly from Archie Bunker. Ron has said that he did not write those articles. Specifically, what exact quote(s) in the newsletters bother you the most and why?

As an example, regarding the 1992 LA riots(from wikipedia via the LA Sunday Times, May 3, 1992) Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton stated that people "are looting because ... [t]hey do not share our values, and their children are growing up in a culture alien from ours, without family, without neighborhood, without church, without support."

I can't believe that a direct quote like that would fly today. I've seen several news discussions about the newsletters that use the 'riots ended because the welfare checks came' as an example. People forget, and take things out of the context of the times. That being said, the newsletter backlash needs to be effectively dealt with.

 

[Decay]

I used to like Wilcow, but he was so rude to Paul and us last go around. (I'll never get the sound of his snarky voice modulated "Ronpaul" mocking shout out of my head) that I have rejected his program. He's too in tune with Hannity/Levin's way of thought and I think he's beyond salvation sadly. Man he takes it to Libs though!

Yeah, and what makes him better than Levin and Hannity is that he'll allow a lib to speak and debate for a while instead of just hanging up and insulting them. I do feel there's hope for him as far as Ron Paul goes though. He's one of those guys that has his bias but could be turned if Paul steps up his game in explaining his foreign policy better.

 

[RayB]

He's already strong on that issue. Even the big government neocons agree with him on economics. That's no longer an issue that he needs to try and win people over with.

I was just thinking that if we thought of these political talking points as locations on a map- perhaps a nomination map of targets and objectives. It would over- populate quickly with so many fascinating places to see that the campaign could bog down trying to win a battle here or there. If the war will be won by the economy then that is where the campaign should go. In the quote below I think ‘float’ means to be random unpredictable, then ‘sting’ with your best weapon. There is not a candidate on that stage that can withstand a Ron Paul free market idea brawl.
“Float like a butterfly, Sting like a Bee”- Ali

Anyway no argument thanks for letting me ramble.

 

[Captain Shays]

I would go further if I worked for his campaign and not only focus on clarity of my position on Iran but clarity on my entire national defense strategy. If I were Ron Paul I would outline EXACTLY what I WOULD do since everyone knows what I WOULDN'T do.
Great. Nor more policing the world. That sentiment turned out to be an esy sell and the garnishment on his appeal to so many Americans. OK No more wars that we get into easily or without a declaration of war. Easy sell. No more meddling in the affairs of other countries. Easy sell. Great so far. But the fact is every single American for the past 75 years has been bombarded, with fears of threats. Threats from Germans. Threats from Japan. Threats from the Soviet Union. Threats from terrorists who want to kill every one of us. The result is that people want to elect a president who has the balls to do whatever is necessary to keep this country and their children safe. Many of us are Reganites who still believe in peace through strength. We cannot get around these simple facts.

We RP supporters really believe that in a Ron Paul administration we would abandon militarism for a strong national defense. But that's us who already have faith that president Ron Paul would be strong. He would protect our children ffrom perceived threats.

What they want to know is HOW. What is his plan for what he WOULD DO. Does he support a missile defense system? Does he think we should inspect the 36,000 shipping containers the size of a tractor trailer should be inspected? If yes, by whom? By what method? Is Iran really a threat or not? If yes or even if those who share an opposing opinion are partially correct in their concerns what would Ron Paul's plan to protect us or deal with Iran that at least equals the level of safety and security compared to support for sanctions, and our threats to Iran?

If he gives specifics and focuses on national security he will win big time.

 

[Len Larson]

Here's what I posted about Iran over at the DailyCaller under Jack Hunter's article.
Why conservatives must adopt ron pauls foreignpolicy

The 1952 Republican convention pitted the favored "Mr. Republican" Taft against Eisenhower. Ike chose to run specifically to prevent Taft's Non-Interventionist policies from being implemented. Ike eventually won the nomination, but not without resorting to "Fair Play" shenanigans at the convention.

Let's compare a couple of Ike's decisions while in office.

We look at Spain first, at that time a rogue state and brutal dictatorship. Ike chose to engage in diplomacy and trade just like Taft proposed. The result was the "Spanish Miracle".

Next we have Operation Ajax, Dulles' plan to overthrow Iran's popularly elected leader and install the Shah. While Ajax did succeed in securing the oil for Britain, our relations with Iran have never been peaceable since. The 1979 Revolution was not an accident and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. No "Iranian Miracle" was forthcoming.

60 years later America faces a similar choice.

Will we make the same mistake again?

We owe it to ourselves to at least think about the choice rather than just blindly follow others.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

 

[Decay]

I would go further if I worked for his campaign and not only focus on clarity of my position on Iran but clarity on my entire national defense strategy. If I were Ron Paul I would outline EXACTLY what I WOULD do since everyone knows what I WOULDN'T do.
Great. Nor more policing the world. That sentiment turned out to be an esy sell and the garnishment on his appeal to so many Americans. OK No more wars that we get into easily or without a declaration of war. Easy sell. No more meddling in the affairs of other countries. Easy sell. Great so far. But the fact is every single American for the past 75 years has been bombarded, with fears of threats. Threats from Germans. Threats from Japan. Threats from the Soviet Union. Threats from terrorists who want to kill every one of us. The result is that people want to elect a president who has the balls to do whatever is necessary to keep this country and their children safe. Many of us are Reganites who still believe in peace through strength. We cannot get around these simple facts.

We RP supporters really believe that in a Ron Paul administration we would abandon militarism for a strong national defense. But that's us who already have faith that president Ron Paul would be strong. He would protect our children ffrom perceived threats.

What they want to know is HOW. What is his plan for what he WOULD DO. Does he support a missile defense system? Does he think we should inspect the 36,000 shipping containers the size of a tractor trailer should be inspected? If yes, by whom? By what method? Is Iran really a threat or not? If yes or even if those who share an opposing opinion are partially correct in their concerns what would Ron Paul's plan to protect us or deal with Iran that at least equals the level of safety and security compared to support for sanctions, and our threats to Iran?

If he gives specifics and focuses on national security he will win big time.

Great points.

We should all hear the answers to these questions. "What if" scenarios need to be addressed because shit will go down in this world. One of the greatest fears people have is that our president will curl up in a ball under his desk in the time of a crisis. It disturbs me that the one real issue holding Paul back simply isn't being taken care of. It seems like a no brainer.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The media is trying to bait Dr. Paul into a briar patch with the newsletter issue, where the more he struggles, the more he will get tangled and stuck. The more he addresses it, the more they will over-analyze and twist his answers to make him look as bad as possible. Remember, these "journalists" don't want to vet him, they have an agenda to kill his campaign.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

First, he said Paul must address the newsletter issue by claiming responsibility for publishing it, but showing he's been clear of that nonsense ever since. He's basically gotta man up, own it, but explain that what existed in them did not necessarily represent his views.

This is key right here. Americans are pretty forgiving, especially when you own up to your mistakes.

 

[Decay]

This is key right here. Americans are pretty forgiving, especially when you own up to your mistakes.

If some can forgive Gingrich, then this should be a breeze. Should be, anyway.