Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[joemiller]

The Wisdom of the Crowd

Since when did we become a "democracy"?

And electorate was heard from, and they rejected peace and freedom and instead voted overwhelmingly for welfare and warfare.

Fair enough, Joe. I can't argue that the bias against fair and honest distribution of the candidates positions and views is the ultimate insult to fair elections.

But did you watch the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoEThese are the same answers I get locally when I question people about there presidential choice.

Even if people are presented information, (which of course is a monumental problem ) their decision making process would still have to evolve past :

"I'm voting for him because he's black...and that's cool "
or
"I can't voter for her. She's a B%@ch!"
or
"I don't know his policies...I just like him cause he's a Republican."

Today's electorate has an "American Idol" mindset. I do not respect this and it may be closer to the heart of our problems than even the MSM disinformation machine.

Knowing exactly what Ron Paul's (as well as other candidates) policy positions are, is a distinquishing feature of the typical Ron Paul supporter. We don't fall for the MSM lies and misinformation.

Why does the rest of America?

There's no doubt about it, there are lots of uninformed and narrow-minded voters in a large democracy, but given the truth, the wisdom of the crowd will unerringly find that truth eventually. The inherent strength of a democracy lies not in its successes, but in its failures.

It is our job to work as hard as we can to keep our truth before the electorate until it eventually sees our truth. Nobody is saying this is going to be easy, or that once the electorate hears our truth, they will respond appropriately, an mass. But the essence of Dr. Paul's message is, if the electorate continues to ignore his truth, dire consequences will happen. Does anyone doubt that as those consequences grow, Dr. Paul's support will also grow? This is why we, as Dr. Paul's supporters, must insure the political foundation for the R3volution is laid to handle Dr. Paul's growing political support.

joe

 

[Flirple]

Can we please try to keep back and forth dialog between us (both positive and negative ones) down to a minimum and keep this thread for asking specific questions to Jonathan, Debbie, and Don?

The more back-and-forth chit-chat there is means that it takes longer for folks to sift through this long thread to read Jonathan's answers. And then we get more of the same redundant questions because people are too lazy to read through all the pages first before asking their questions. We have the rest of the message board to talk with each other on, lets keep this one thread as simply a back and forth between us and former staff.

I don't have the time to do it but does anyone feel like going through and cutting and pasting only Jonathan, Don, and Debbie's posts onto a PDF file or something so people can more easily read through all the questions and answers faster? This thread is a great resource and we should try to keep it that way by avoiding unnecessary posts.

Oops, I guess I just broke my own rule with this post didn't I ?

 

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

 

[SteveMartin]

A denial would work...so far, all we are getting is name calling and questions as to where the info came from....

 

[Elm]

Finally, on your point about an expert changing things... would you every say "if only we could get an expert in the government, things would be instantly better"? Because I wouldn't. So why should any of us believe that the same is true with a campaign. One person in an orgnization does not make the difference that you seem to think, and it's really just a slight against the talented people who already in the campaign. That's not to say additional people wouldn't have helped -- just that I believe it's incorrect to think finding that "right person" would have won Ron Paul the election. In that regard, the one person who controlled our chances was Ron Paul himself.

This isn't government, this is a private group of like minded individuals trying to accomplish a goal. In that regard it is much closer to a business model than government. Predicting needs and filling them before crisis period is paramount in a business. The media is the channel through which the campaign or business gets the product to be known. Not having a media team before day 1 was near suicidal.

Having been on the receiving end of horrible and insulting treatment by Kent Snyder I can say that I wouldn't trust that man to manage a lemon aid stand despite his alleged "best intentions" we value results not intentions otherwise we would be socialists.

If I have the time later tonight I'd like to address specific issues and get your take on why things were handled as the were.

Thank you for doing this though because of my experiences with the campaign I can't help but feel there is more than a sense of personal responsibility as a motive here.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

You better take me seriously, pal.

Answer the questions.

Thousands are listening.

It was our campaign too.

Steve,

This is just bizarre. Don was a big help to us in various ways in Minnesota. He was always a guy I could call up if we needed something. I've never heard anyone say anything negative about him.

Marianne
MN Coordinator

 

[SteveMartin]

Marriane,

That's good to hear. Others have said exactly the opposite, however. Don's name came up often as a person who was very uncooperative and insulting to others in the grassroots.

I am sure he was on better behavior with people like you. Is he a married family man?

Were you on the paid staff? You've got to realize that if so, that this would carry less weight.
Also, I have another paid staff person telling me now that it is quite possible there were indeed homosexuals on the campaign staff.

I am not saying Don is one of them, but I do have confirmation that a very highly-placed campaign official is both a homosexual and a Buddhist, and then that same paid staff person is trying to tell me that it is hard to understand how this would affect our ability to go after the largest segment of the Republican Party--the so-called "Christian conservatives."

Doesn't add up....

 

[brandon]

Also, I have another paid staff person telling me now that it is quite possible there were indeed homosexuals on the campaign staff.

Whenever I read stuff like this, or other nutcase relegious rhetoric, it makes me feel extremely dirty for associating with some of the people in this campaign.

Can't we just keep the topic of conversation to freedom?

 

[SteveMartin]

[mod-edit- user has recieved infraction for violating signature rules]:

The forum guidelines have a sliding scale of tolerance based on the long established credibility of the user. Repeated offenses of guidelines can lead to further moderation actions including banning.

The forum guidelines are as follows:

...
+ Off-topic posts - Posts that do not relate to the threads intent are subject to being deleted.

...

+ Floods of low-value material may be subject to being moved into an alternate sub-forum or deleted. More tolerance will be allowed for established members. Reason: Excessive low value posts dilute users time spent on the forum just reading topic threads.

...
+ Promoting agendas alternate to the platform of Dr. Paul will have allowances for established members. Controversial topics should focus on facts whenever possible.

...
+ No excessive / pointless negativity on the campaign, its future or elements of it. All messages with a negative tone about the campaign from new users must provide supportive facts as to why there is a perceived negative and provide some suggested solutions to the issue.

Whenever I read big L nonsense about how it's OK to be an unrepentent homosexual I know exactly why this campaign never really got off the ground within the Republican Party.

 

[DeadtoSin]

Marriane,

That's good to hear. Others have said exactly the opposite, however. Don's name came up often as a person who was very uncooperative and insulting to others in the grassroots.

I am sure he was on better behavior with people like you. Is he a married family man?

Were you on the paid staff? You've got to realize that if so, that this would carry less weight.
Also, I have another paid staff person telling me now that it is quite possible there were indeed homosexuals on the campaign staff.

I am not saying Don is one of them, but I do have confirmation that a very highly-placed campaign official is both a homosexual and a Buddhist, and then that same paid staff person is trying to tell me that it is hard to understand how this would affect our ability to go after the largest segment of the Republican Party--the so-called "Christian conservatives."

Doesn't add up....

Steve, you shouldn't be hating on homosexuals and Buddhists. As Christians it is our calling to reach out in love to people, not berate them for doing what they do. L2read the Bible.

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. - 2 Timothy 2:24-26

Also, I wouldn't think that Jonathan would be hating on the grassroots while working for the campaign and then come over here to the grassroots central and start taking questions. It doesn't make sense, or to quote you "Doesn't add up...."

 

[acptulsa]

Jonathan, fly this thread to Cuba!

 

[SteveMartin]

DeadtoSin,

Show me where calling it what it is is "hating?" It is a plain fact that RP was urged by very important people to his Congressional races and even his Congressional office to pick somebody else precisely because he was a huge potential liability with the Christian right. You all tell me it is "hateful" to talk about the truth?? The truth is we need a real run for the Presidency now, one that is OUT TO WIN and not to make some minor points or pad an email list. (P.S. I am not a member of the Christian right--but the fact is you can not win the republican nomination without your share of their support...PERIOD.)

Go draft another hate crime bill. You Libertarians are really off base. We can criticize anything, but things that really matter? Free speech extends only as far as your warped understanding allows it to? Who will speak for all those who gave up so much in terms of material goods and time to support a campaign that was apparently never a serious campaign?!?

Someone has to....

 

[DeadtoSin]

I AM a Christian conservative, and I see it as hateful the way you placed "homosexual" and "Buddhist" in there. I am about as hardcore a Christian conservative as you can get, and I would like to assure you that the fact that Ron Paul might have had a Buddhist or homosexual on staff does not bother me. To insinuate that Christians are anti-homosexual is a pretty bigoted charge in and of itself. Of course there are some Christians who are bigots, but that also applies to every single group of people on the planet. I don't think Ron Paul would want to appeal to that lowest common denominator. *Edit* It's unfortunate that the only Christians the media puts in the spotlight are the ignorant ones, because otherwise you might have a different outlook on us.

You have fun with your troll-thread now Steve.

 

[brandon]

DeadtoSin,

Show me where calling it what it is is "hating?" It is a plain fact that RP was urged by very important people to his Congressional races and even his Congressional office to pick somebody else precisely because he was a huge potential liability with the Christian right. You all tell me it is "hateful" to talk about the truth?? The truth is we need a real run for the Presidency now, one that is OUT TO WIN and not to make some minor points or pad an email list. (P.S. I am not a member of the Christian right--but the fact is you can not win the republican nomination without your share of their support...PERIOD.)

Go draft another hate crime bill. You Libertarians are really off base. We can criticize anything, but things that really matter? Free speech extends only as far as your warped understanding allows it to? Who will speak for all those who gave up so much in terms of material goods and time to support a campaign that was apparently never a serious campaign?!?

Someone has to....

If you wanted to be part of a campaign who focused on pandering to the christian right, you could have picked huckabee, tancredo, hunter, romney, thompson, or mccain. Why the hell would you support Paul if pandering to the christian right is so important to you?

Also, I think the fact that Paul was against the war, for allowing civil unions (and the right for gays to call it marriage if they so wish), legalizing drugs and prostitution, etc were just a tiny little bit more detrimental to our relationship with the christian right then one guy who nobody except you has heard about being gay.

Besides that, your thoughts on sexuality disturb me. Close minded people like you are the cancer that is destroying humanity.

 

[SteveMartin]

DeadtoSin,

I have worked with homosexuals, and I have helped some who wanted desperately to do so to escape the life style. I have done so with love and compassion, and never sought out those who didn't want to change. I have nothing against homosexuals as people at all, regardless of whatever epithets you may decide to throw around.

The fact is, a campaign run by a gay Buddhist is NEVER going to win the Republican nomination. The fact also is that if there were people given hiring preference because of their sexual orientation at the Arlington HQ, that this would run totally contrary to everything this campaign was supposed to be about.

Word is that Dr. Paul didn't even know the situation until it was too late to do anything effective about it (app. 2-3 months ago.)...Dr. Paul is not the problem here. He never was.

 

[SteveMartin]

Close minded people like you are the cancer that is destroying humanity.

"Open minded" people are the reason this campaign is so needed. So many are open to everything that is destroying the Republic.

 

[SteveMartin]

Ah...Looks like we aren't allowed to discuss certain topics here.

See you all later....



Private Message: Re: You have received an infraction at Ron Paul Forums

Today, 10:45 AM
ronpaulhawaii's Avatar
ronpaulhawaii ronpaulhawaii is online now
Moderator

About:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Road (Kauai ex pat)
Posts: 1,508
Send a message via MSN to ronpaulhawaii
Default You have received an infraction at Ron Paul Forums
Dear SteveMartin,

You have received an infraction at Ron Paul Forums.

Reason: Signature Rule Violation
-------
Steve, I am getting sick of dealing with complaints of your rumour mongering. Please stay on-topic and avoid excessive negativity

Thank You
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1368513
Quote:
Whenever I read big L nonsense about how it's OK to be an unrepentent homosexual I know exactly why this campaign never really got off the ground within the Republican Party.
All the best,
Ron Paul Forums

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Steve, the topic is JB answering questions, please stop hijacking the thread with excessive negativity/etc

 

[Proemio]

Steve, the topic is JB answering questions, please stop hijacking the thread with excessive negativity/etc

I suggest that you are dead wrong on this - Steve is simply starting to ask the right questions.

It has bugger all to do with lifestyle per se - who cares - but with the impact on performance, IF that lifestyle does not stay at home while on the job; and I suspect that most complainants must know this as well. The hijacking is done by those arguing lifestyle out of context.

Another germain question would be concerning the neocon association of some of the principals. When I first heard about that one (on the day of their hiring), I suggested to wait and see, since people working in the selection racket don't have much of a choice if they want to be employed, but...

Personally, I have stopped having questions some months ago. For clarity, just look at the actions when the MSM went on their "Paul quit" operation. Several staffers and ex-staffers reinforced that misinformation, when they could have stopped the falsehood right in the first minute; be it in interviews or personal blogs.

As to negativity - what negativity? Critique and a search for comprehending is not negative. For negativity, I would (did) look between the lines of several tens of 'professional' supporters and campaign staffers.

Being 'popular' or among the many is no measure of worth, often quit to the contrary - especially in politics...

 

[Matthew P.]

In my opinion, way too much preaching to the choir at rallies and way too little speaking to Republicans and others and answering their questions.

Bingo! We have had more success in winning people over to the side of Ron Paul by going where republicans are and talking to them about the issues. We began to question their said desires of "limited government" by showing them that the resolutions they were passing and candidates that they were supporting didn't really agree with their purpose.

You know what happened after that? They started to come around! Imagine that. . . .