SO immature....

[noneedtoaggress]

I am part of the response

Ok... well you handled it more politely I guess?

I'm not sure what you want me to tell you.

 

[Revolution9]

Rev9, where ya been, man? Great to see you!!

I love ya, but sailingaway is right.

Sailingaway is incorrect in doing what he did to my statement as he inserted falsification into Universal Truths in some cases. Quite irresponsible and he must assume I am his toy and particularily in regards to this discussion.. Ergo, I must assume him to be dishonorable and will refuse to honor him in the future. Ya know..like when I was Sarge at Arms here in 08. As is stated, you are only in control of yourself as a Creation of The Divine. Only when you are incompetent or irresponsible can you come under the control of someone who by Ecclesiastical Authority derived from the Divine and understanding the nature of caretaking property which all belongs to The Divine as the Creator and Originator of such and is ONLY in our TRUST. The trick in the system we are trying to subdue is that the presentation immediately assumes you to be incompetent and irresponsible and re-presents you as such through their projection techniques. Various adhesion contracts and trusts manipulations are some of these methods. Political forums are another method where agreement through subterfuge is obtained due to disagreement not rearing its honorable head.Until and ONLY until you voice your disagreement with such ye are bound by their artifice and trickery.

The issue I am seeing as the pivot point and anvil of this discussion is those who wish to control others versus those who want freedom of expression and understand the ancient maxims of law..You agree if you do not protest your disagreement. Now here is the caveat neither you nor Sailingaway perceived. To be a competent and responsible Divine Creation one must treat other Divine Creations with the respect due to them as such and the fact that they are a sacred and Circumscribed Divine Being whose breath of life was given them by the Great Creator. If they absolve themselves from that responsibility of recognition then they are incompetent and of course, irresonsible. Being incompetent they have no say in how to run their own life..that is what the laws of criminal and contractual obligations are based on. Now the conundrum. If a Divine Being, let's say a member of the audience at a political debate, hears someone utter, speak or vocalise an outline of a plan that would subjugate other Divine Beings and/or possibly themselves to a fraud, criminal act, confiscation of The Divines Property in trust to one of his Creations, murder, injury or mischief to another Divine Being then proceeds to remain silent then that is agreement under the rules and form of law that is ancient in its origins. Furthermore the individual spouting such nonsense or malice against the Divine Being is insane, irresponsible, incompetent and double-minded. This is The Law. So...to boo disagreement or not is really up to the individual and those seeking to control them are no better than the one they booed. However, to boo one who has shown themselves to be competent, responsible and sane to their Service in Trust as one of the Divines Creations is dishonorable. To tie the hands, metaphorically, of the one who is centered in their Divine Being and correct in their actions puts you at peril for attempting to abrogate their natural rights and obligations.

So how do you suggest we adhere to The Law and express disagreement when plans are fomented before our eyes and ears in public in such forums as the RLC that are counter to the nature of The Divine? What shall we do when little men assume roles of Ghawd over others lives when it is plain to see they are incompetent and not even in control of themselves. To tell us to not make any disagreement in kind puts those who understand The Law in a very precarious position for they then are acquiescing to evil and that is a no-no. Sound is very powerful. Even more so than documents. In the beginning was The Word.

What is a Man to do?

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Goldwater was an outsider too. BUT, he still won the Republican primary. And he won, because his campaign and supporters learned how to play the game and played it better than the others. Then, they overwhelmed them with numbers!

Then lost the Presidency because he was painted as something he was not by the depiction of something that would not happen and nobody stood up tall enough and metaphorically boo-ed the grand lie which could only be borne in the mind of an irresponsible and evil incompetent..or cabal of them. That is who we are up against. Little men who have usurped power and believe themselves to be mini-me ghawds wielding the whip over their unruly slaves. Ya gotta beat them out of the start gate every time or they win the gambit because they have got men and women believing they are their lord and master by keeping hidden the real rules of the game.

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[tpreitzel]

Revolution9,

First, it's nice to see many of the old guard return to these forums. It's beginning to seem like old times, but there's the rub. Do we want the old times and results of 2008? Second, does responsibility accompany freedom? Lastly, does the expression of freedom have repercussions?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Then lost the Presidency because he was painted as something he was not by the depiction of something that would not happen and nobody stood up tall enough and metaphorically boo-ed the grand lie which could only be borne in the mind of an irresponsible and evil incompetent..or cabal of them. That is who we are up against. Little men who have usurped power and believe themselves to be mini-me ghawds wielding the whip over their unruly slaves. Ya gotta beat them out of the start gate every time or they win the gambit because they have got men and women believing they are their lord and master by keeping hidden the real rules of the game.

Best Regards
Rev9

Agreed. But, I don't think booing gets us any of that. I'm just talking strategy, man.

And about sailingaway, cut him some slack. He meant well.

Glad to see you here again.

 

[sailingaway]

Sailingaway is incorrect in doing what he did to my statement as he inserted falsification into Universal Truths in some cases. Quite irresponsible and he must assume I am his toy and particularily in regards to this discussion.. Ergo, I must assume him to be dishonorable and will refuse to honor him in the future. Ya know..like when I was Sarge at Arms here in 08.

Best Regards
Rev9

I inserted nothing into your statement, I created my own off of yours and restated my position.

My point is that this isn't about me controlling you or anyone controlling anyone. It is about us discussing if we want the same goal and if we do, what behavior best gets us there. If people then want to ignore those standards despite its cost to success, that is absolutely their right as individuals and others will then just have to decide their own actions after that.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I understand that.

I'm saying the way you handled it is not that different from what you had just railed against in the rest of that post.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way at all. People who have been here for awhile understand what we are up against and understand why it is so important that we give our all to winning. So, for them to go around the forums saying "he can't win", etc. is really not very helpful. You're new here, but those of us who have been here for awhile have had discussions ad nauseum about Dr. Paul running again vs. other alternatives. Well, guess what, he decided to run. So, if people want to naysay, I'm not thinking this is the best place to do it.

That is totally different than someone who is new to Ron Paul.

That is the way I see it. Sorry if you see it differently.

Note: If you want to talk about this more, just start a thread in The Vent and we can duke it out. lolol.
That way, we won't derail this thread further.

 

[Revolution9]

I inserted nothing into your statement, I created my own off of yours and restated my position.

Bogus. You struck through MY statements. They are not yours to do such with. Only I can rightfully perform that act.

Rev9

 

[LibertyEagle]

everyone is still missing the main point, the gop would rather elect obama then allow ron paul to win the gop primary nomination process! The real question is what will the liberty revolution do when the door is shut 2 political cycles in a row? I hope to god if ron Paul is alienated again? He should run indy or we are left voteless by the corrupt gop!

You're talking about the GOP like it is one huge slab of collectiveness and it isn't. Sure, a lot of the people who attend the things like the convention over the weekend are going to be more of the establishment types. But, you are forgetting the HUGE number of Republican voters who don't attend those things.

At the very least, don't you think we owe it to Dr. Paul not to RUN OFF Republican voters who would have voted for him, but some of our actions scared the crap out of them? Whether we like it or not, we are a reflection of Ron Paul. If we are rude, or canvass without having taken a bath recently or going there like we are holdouts from the hippie revolution of the 60s, and other things like that, a whole lot of Republican voters are going to run as far away from us and Ron Paul as they can. Please note that I did not say they should; only that a large number, WILL. Remember that these people are largely middle-aged or older, Christian Americans.

There is no reason whatsoever why a large number of these people wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul. If they can just HEAR what he is trying to tell them. Dr. Paul is doing his part. Who could've ever imagined that he would be willing to take input from someone like Doug Wead? Who could've imagined that he would've talked about his faith and given biblical examples to backup his points, like he did in the Faith and Freedom conference? Just WOW! He's in it to win this time; that is for sure.

Dr. Paul supported Reagan for a reason. The only difference is that while Reagan mostly just talked a good game, Dr. Paul would actually follow through and do those things. Conservative Republicans would still elect another person that talked like Reagan and they would do it TODAY.

So, we do have a chance. But, it's going to be a lot easier if we help by doing those things needed to win. The primary is all about the delegates. Very little else. If we have them, we will win. If we do not, we will lose.

Think about it this way. Dr. Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate who was endorsed by Ronald Reagan. None of the others. Not a one.

 

[sailingaway]

Bogus. You struck through MY statements. They are not yours to do such with. Only I can rightfully perform that act.

Rev9

To my mind I struck through a COPY of your statements, to show what I agreed with and what I did not agree with, ending up with my own statement.

I thought it was effective.

Are you trying to control how I write?

 

[Revolution9]

Agreed. But, I don't think booing gets us any of that. I'm just talking strategy, man.

There is the Temporal and the Eternal. What one must always ask themselves is am I serving the Temporal or the Eternal with my actions and expressions. I am of the firm belief it is all under control by something greater than us and we are being tested. The masks are coming off as the foolhardy become even more reckless due to their insanity being allowed to run rampant without check. Boo-ing as a strategy can be rude, for instance boo-ing at Ron Paul who is obviously competent, sane, responsible and aware of the Divinity of his fellow beings. Boo-ing at a being who has declared his enmity for Creation through utterances of plans of malice, theft or ill intent to be perpetrated on other Divine Beings/Creations of The Eternally Divine is entirely correct if the venue you are in does not allow nor subscribe to one on one disagreements. Especially is the case where these insane utterances can become actuality by the deriving of a consensus. By the same method...sound.. used to convey insane utterances, those opposed display their non-compliance, negate their complicity and give their fellow citizens notice of such as well as verifying their own sanity by abrogating the plan or proposal via the transmission of sound..since that is the nature of the venue.

Boo says "Put a double circle around this clown so he cannot run loose with his ideas and cause them to become reality."

So..as per strategy..do we win by playing the temporal cards or the Eternal suit?

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

To my mind I struck through a COPY of your statements, to show what I agreed with and what I did not agree with, ending up with my own statement.

I thought it was effective.

Are you trying to control how I write?

No. I am making sure I control what I wrote. You will learn junior. It was not effective.

Rev9

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

Both "sides" have valid points, but I am glad to see the internal balance is tipping towards decorum. In the external balance, our enemies are piling on the "RUDE!" side, so it is up to us to counter that.

In grand scheme of things and the history of heckling, most has been quite mild. My counter is, "ahh, the exuberance of youth... Nice to see the party growing" Then I move it back to issues...

Last cycle many of us were stirring out of a deep apathy, and many more were completely new to the process, few of us had any "political experience". Hence, much of the craziness. That has changed. Many of us now know how to win, (and that it is a matter of balance. In this case a balance between enthusiasm, and over-enthusiasm. A tightrope... )

At the end of the day it is a numbers game. LE wisely repeats "First Rule: Do. No. Harm." And as fun or righteous some things may seem (at the time) people should keep in mind that these people vote in much larger numbers

than do these

You got my vote right there

 

[JK/SEA]

No. I am making sure I control what I wrote. You will learn junior. It was not effective.

Rev9

Welcome back.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Are the boo'ers here boo'ing the boo'ers there much different then one another? And how about the boo'ers booing the boo'ers here who were boo'ing the boo'ers there?

 

[Revolution9]

Welcome back.

Thank you. Good to see Dr Paul on a roll. Great to see the diverse group of folks around here this round and reconnect with folks from the last campaign as they drop into threads I am posting in. Glad to see Rand get elected. I got to listen in to campaign strategy calls with him whilst I was having lunch with Ike Hall and he has a piece of my artwork in his collection. Woot! and he will be President right after Ron Paul..if we make it that far.. Looks like one heck of a roller coaster ride ahead.

Best
Rev9

 

[JK/SEA]

Are the boo'ers here boo'ing the boo'ers there much different then one another? And how about the boo'ers booing the boo'ers here who were boo'ing the boo'ers there?

Touche'.

 

[Revolution9]

Are the boo'ers here boo'ing the boo'ers there much different then one another? And how about the boo'ers booing the boo'ers here who were boo'ing the boo'ers there?

They should just swipe a pickanick basket and have lunch together.

You still riding about non-stop?

Best
Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Revolution9,

First, it's nice to see many of the old guard return to these forums. It's beginning to seem like old times, but there's the rub. Do we want the old times and results of 2008? Second, does responsibility accompany freedom? Lastly, does the expression of freedom have repercussions?

Of course it implies responsibility. If you follow the gist of what I am saying then you will note I state several times about responsibility and competence in regards to sanity. Is not "craziness" the opposite of sanity? Respect is due where it is due or you are dishonorable. BTW, the old times of 08 have led to this stage of the game. It is not a static entity. By placing your questions in tandem and following each one to lead to the next you imply some sort of failure in 08 and link it crosswise to freedom of expression. If there was failure why is Ron Paul all over the world media? Note I do not check Ron Paul sites regularly and in the past few years have seen him all over foreign media when US economics is the focus.

Let me ask you a series of three in a row questions. Did the media attempt a full blackout of Ron Paul in 08? Did they attempt this because his constituency was imbued with the responsibilities of freedom and expressed them eloquently or not so eloquently as the case may be? Lastly, what repercussions are the natural result of expression of freedom?

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[tpreitzel]

Of course it implies responsibility. If you follow the gist of what I am saying then you will note I state several times about responsibility and competence in regards to sanity. Is not "craziness" the opposite of sanity? Respect is due where it is due or you are dishonorable. BTW, the old times of 08 have led to this stage of the game. It is not a static entity. By placing your questions in tandem and following each one to lead to the next you imply some sort of failure in 08 and link it crosswise to freedom of expression. If there was failure why is Ron Paul all over the world media? Note I do not check Ron Paul sites regularly and in the past few years have seen him all over foreign media when US economics is the focus.

Let me ask you a series of three in a row questions. Did the media attempt a full blackout of Ron Paul in 08? Did they attempt this because his constituency was imbued with the responsibilities of freedom and expressed them eloquently or not so eloquently as the case may be? Lastly, what repercussions are the natural result of expression of freedom?

Best Regards
Rev9

So, you're apparently calling immature interruptions of a speech "crazy", then. Are Ron's appearances in the media merely as result of his 2008 campaign or another possibility? Actually, Ron's appearances in the media are due to a combination of factors, especially the political ones. If the oppressive political and poor economic conditions didn't exist, Ron's appearances or campaign wouldn't be necessary. The continual abuses of federal policies are driving Ron's continued popularity and campaigns, not simply publicity from his 2008 campaign alone. Currently, Ron is still polling in single digits after 4 years of exposure from his 2008 campaign. Although an improvement, I doubt those numbers will suffice in November of 2012. Lastly, you still haven't directly answered my question on the repercussions of the freedom of expression.

As far as your three questions to me: Any attempt by major media of a "full blackout" likely affected only certain demographics, e.g. 50+ years of age, an important block of voters for sure. Regardless of major media's efforts to mitigate Ron's campaign, with access to the InterNet, any attempt of a blackout was less than full. You'll have to ask members of the major media about their motivations as I can only guess. The "natural result of the expression of freedom" is anarchy. With internal restraint stemming from a sense of responsibility, one desirable result of the freedom of expression can be truth.

The consequences of federal policies have done more to advance the cause of Ron's popularity than the actions of Ron and his campaign itself as partly implicated by his current polling. Since political conditions have worsened since 2008, so Ron's popularity has concomitantly increased in relative inverse proportion. If another candidate were running alongside of Ron with similar constitutional views, voting record, and integrity, the vote would split between the two. So, the consequences of an attempted blackout by major media and the irresponsible actions of some of Ron's supporters is of lesser importance than the prevailing political conditions driving Ron's popularity. This observation doesn't mean that polling in single digits is simply a result of political conditions as it clearly is not. Without the disaffected, Ron's campaign is fruitless. Without Ron's campaign, the disaffected are left rotting on the vine. The key to Ron's success is both an increasingly disaffected electorate and an increasingly effective campaign. We see the former, but will we see the latter? Regardless, immature and irresponsible actions don't help Ron's cause whether one considers the expression of such freedom "eloquent", "crazy" or not.