Ron + Liberty Movement FINALLY get good press in major conservative outlets

[catdd]

"I don't want to be in a party with them and I don't like their detrimental associations. "

Well, I don't want to share a party with neocons either, so I guess we're even.
But look, they weren't blaming us back during the primaries, they had something else to blame.
They will ALWAYS have an excuse not to support Dr. Paul.

 

[Anti Federalist]

That's exactly what I've been saying. Our movement is better off without the conspiracy theorists. It's bad enough that they ruined Ron Paul's presidential run. I hope they don't ruin Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, or Adam Kokesh.

You know, there is going to come a time, in the not too distant future, when I am going to take one more punch in the face like that, and I'm going to take my money and my time and my sweat and tell all of you to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

Fuck you.

 

[purplechoe]

You know, there is going to come a time, in the not too distant future, when I am going to take one more punch in the face like that, and I'm going to take my money and my time and my sweat and tell all of you to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

Fuck you.

Here, here!!!

 

[donnay]

//

 

[BillyDkid]

Well, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, so I resemble that remark. I don't think trying to ostracize people from the liberty movement is the right thing to do. I always tell people who criticize our movement because of the tin foil hatters, etc. that the beauty of the movement is in the diversity. The right to be free. All of us want the same thing - adherence to the Constitution - even the kooky among us want that. That, above all else is what our focus should always be on. It needs to be okay that we all have the right to think how we want, and to speak freely about it, whether we like someone elses view or not. Otherwise we become exactly like what we are fighting against.

I have always been inclined to welcome anyone who supports liberty - whatever other whacky ideas they hold. Unfortunately, sometimes those whacky ideas are anti- liberty. You can't be a part of a liberty movement if you don't support liberty. I didn't read the responses to my post asking if we are being co-opted because I am sensitive to people attacking me, but the fact is, the Rushes and the O'Reily's and the Hannitys and the Coulters are not friends of liberty and then hating Obama doesn't make them our friends. We can not forget the way these people treated Ron Paul and his supporters during the campaign and I don't want to see the movement for liberty derailed by those who view us as a vehicle for opposing Obama, but really hate everything we stand for.

 

[RM918]

I hold the opinion that any supporters of Paul are totally welcome, I don't care if they worship a block of cheddar cheese, so long as they don't go to rallies holding up signs that the cheddar cheese God demands compliance.

As far as the theories go in the minority, the 9/11ers or the birthers or the anti-Zionists, I don't see how thinking those things is 'anti-Liberty' at all. What it is that annoys fellow Paulers about these sorts is the fact that opponents who'd never sign on with the idea anyway use it as a flimsy way to attack us without challenging the actual message, total ad hominem. This has led to the cold-blooded thought that conspiracy-minded Paulers have become /inconvenient/, and should be removed, that's simply what it is, and it's a shame that people let themselves think this way when they realize they're committing the same sins they hated the establishment for.

While I think it's wrong to plaster people, just because they think something, as totally irrelevant or evil or complete whackjobs and thus write them off, I think this is a fight for another time. It's a fight we can't win while simultaneously fighting for Paul, and that's what I'd like those members to consider /if/ they're the sort of members who like using the influence or opportunity they have to stump for Paul stumping for their own theories. Although it's a damned shame it's gotten to this level, stumping for your ideas alongside Paul is serving as a hefty distraction to getting things across. To stump for Paul is challenging enough ideas, to focus people to believe the sort of lies you espouse have been going on is quite another. One step at a time.

I suppose it could be seen as hypocrisy to think this way, but I'm forced to take on an aspect of realism in this situation. In the end I don't personally have a problem with the people who /do/ simultaneously stump for their theories and Paul at once, but I think they should do some introspective thought about whether they're doing good for either of their ideas by going about it that way. I think most conspiracy-minded folks realize this, as they are indeed conspiracy-minded and know what our opponents will do with this.