The Des Moines Challenge - Saturday June 30th! Rally outside Iowa Forum!

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Oh, I'm going to get flamed for this

In addition to leaving the "legalize hemp" signs at home, let's remember who is our audience. They've in large part been hannitized and bush-wacked. We're not going to win them over on the war with a "No More War" sign or chants. That argument has to be made in more depth, as Ron Paul may be able to do once he gets them in for dinner. But many of them may see "No War" signs with the Ron Paul signs and immediately decide they don't want to hear out Ron Paul.

I know whereof I speak, as I was neoconned for a couple years myself, and had to come around on the war on my own. Let them support the damn war for now, but come over to Ron Paul's side. I have a good friend who is very pro-war -- she's bought into all the crap -- but she's supporting Ron Paul on everything else. I don't push the war issue with her because what really matters is that she supports Ron Paul, who will end the war regardless of what she thinks.

Same goes for Truthers. You may be right (I may be crazy), but better to win them to Ron Paul's side than to scare them away. ONLY if Ron Paul wins will you get an investigation.

Now flame away.

 

[Bradley in DC]

In addition to leaving the "legalize hemp" signs at home, let's remember who is our audience. We're not going to win them over on the war with a "No More War" sign or chants. That argument has to be made in more depth, as Ron Paul may be able to do once he gets them in for dinner. But many of them may see "No War" signs with the Ron Paul signs and immediately decide they don't want to hear out Ron Paul.

While I confess to being a big fan of the Scribbler, I rise to disagree respectfully with the Gentlelady from the great state of Minnesota. She is correct, of course, in pointing out the matter before our great body is to decide whether our types of approaches match the appeals of the Iowa Republicans. I proffer that our esteemed colleague from Texas needs to own the anti-war issue and that that is in fact in line with the views of the citizens of the great state of Iowa. I refer her to the committee report, um, scientific polls, showing a majority of likely Republican caucus goers there supported bringing the troops home within six months. I return the remainder of my time, thank you.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

The gentleman from DC does make an excellent point, one I failed to consider. For this particular forum, however, I believe his forefront issue should be the reduction of government and abolition of the IRS. Sure, it wouldn't hurt us to have a few anti-war signs among all the RP rEVOLution signs, but if we're going to push a particular issue with this crowd, RP is going to resonate the most with an anti-tax message.

If we get on tv, the anti-war message will matter there, but so will the anti-tax message. I still wouldn't have an overwhelming amount of anti-war signs just because we want to drive home the tax message in Saturday's context.

Your constructive criticism was kind and well reasoned. This is, after all, the place for us to mull these things over.

 

[Noodles]

With Iowa, my major concern is Dr. Paul's promise to end farm subsidies. Lower taxes sounds good, the end of the war sounds good, but farm subsidies are what's in their pockets. Overcoming this is where the problem lies, and I'm sure Dr. Paul has already considered this and has a solution. I just hope the Iowans are buying.

For the country as a whole, I too feel that we should hammer home the anti-war platform.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Now I've rethought this again. 100% of the forum attendees will be anti-tax, where *maybe* 60% of them will be anti-war. (Although GOP caucus attendees may be anti-war, these will be the harder-core GOP activists in attendance, those who get their marching orders from Ed Failure, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.) If even 30% are bellicose, hannitized warmongers (but I repeat myself), don't we want to get them into hear Ron Paul speak?

 

[mdh]

Most farm subsidies go to big ag corps though. Most small-time farmers loathe them.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Most agricultural subsidies go to large corporate agribusinesses (ADM comes to mind) and not the vast majority of Iowa farmers in any significant way, though Noodles does make a great soup, er, point.

We are not only competing for the attention of the caucus goers but also against the other candidates who will all be claiming to be anti-tax, small government types (not that some of them could name a program to cut--in two tries, as opposed to Dr. Paul who got cut off on time just starting with the departments!).

We need to differentiate ourselves as well as reassure them. Anti-tax, limited government signs are, without a doubt, appropriate, but the pro-peace argument needs to be there as well. Perhaps rephrasing the emphasis?
"pro-peace" rather than "anti-war"
targeting terrorists with Letters of Marque and Reprisal rather than indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations
no blowback (pictures of 9/11 imagery)
no starting nuclear wars; uphold Christian Just War Theory

 

[PatriotOne]

Now I've rethought this again. 100% of the forum attendees will be anti-tax, where *maybe* 60% of them will be anti-war. (Although GOP caucus attendees may be anti-war, these will be the harder-core GOP activists in attendance, those who get their marching orders from Ed Failure, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.) If even 30% are bellicose, hannitized warmongers (but I repeat myself), don't we want to get them into hear Ron Paul speak?

I would rather every audience hear his stance on the war from him personally rather than them getting it from other sources (particulary because of the way MSM tries to ridicule it). When Ron Paul speaks of it, it makes sense. When they hear it from the media, well, that's a whole other animal.

Editing to say never mind. I see your discussing signage instead of speeches.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

Most farm subsidies go to big ag corps though. Most small-time farmers loathe them.

"There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."


Dwayne Andreas, Archer Daniels Midland

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

I think Scribbler's point was that if it looks like the standard Leftie anti-war rally, it will turn people off. What Ron Paul does so well is frame his anti-war stance in Constitutional terms.

I also think that when 911 truthers are yelling Ron Paul's name, it's like a dagger in my side. I don't have a problem with the truthers but there is a time and place for everything. They unwittingly give the MSM media ammunition to attack RP. If anyone sees these guys at the rally, politely explain to them that they're hurting the cause of liberty.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I think Scribbler's point was that if it looks like the standard Leftie anti-war rally, it will turn people off. What Ron Paul does so well is frame his anti-war stance in Constitutional terms.

And Christian ones, especially for this audience.

I also think that when 911 truthers are yelling Ron Paul's name, it's like a dagger in my side.

Amen.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I also think that when 911 truthers are yelling Ron Paul's name, it's like a dagger in my side. I don't have a problem with the truthers but there is a time and place for everything. They unwittingly give the MSM media ammunition to attack RP. If anyone sees these guys at the rally, politely explain to them that they're hurting the cause of liberty.

And they're hurting their own cause. If Ron Paul doesn't get elected because people think he's a nut, there will be no legitimate investigation. I have nothing against truthers whatsoever. I don't trust government either. But you can't make a complete and coherant argument with a sign slogan. The only way you're going to get an investigation -- I believe this is the goal of the truthers -- is to get Ron Paul elected, and you can't do that by turning off people.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

Well said. Scribbler, I have a quick question. I read before and you just said you were neoconned for a few years. What changed your mind? I was an anti-war progressive type, much like the great progressive isolationists from your neck of the woods. So I am always curious how someone on the "Right' came to see the light.

 

[JoshLowry]

Well said. Scribbler, I have a quick question. I read before and you just said you were neoconned for a few years. What changed your mind? I was an anti-war progressive type, much like the great progressive isolationists from your neck of the woods. So I am always curious how someone on the "Right' came to see the light.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1767

Read that thread, it's pretty good.

 

[skyorbit]

No. Go to it anyway. And Tell all the neighbors sitting next to you in attendence and at the breaks that Ron Paul's stances and records are better then all those other guys.

Unfortunitely I have a wedding to go to that day, so I won't be able to make it. And the meet-up group in Sioux Falls, has some other Ron Paul campagning to do locally that's been planned for awhile.

Tracy

I just found out that a bunch of our Sioux Falls meet-up group are going even though I won't be there. Don't know the exact number, but it'll be a few. We reschedualled our other activities.

Tracy

 

[Duckman]

The gentleman from Florida has the floor

We had a similar debate to this at our last meetup group, basically a debate about how we should present ourselves so as to attract the conservatives who must, after all, elect Ron Paul.

My opinion is that we should build on the very consistent, relevant and recent message Ron Paul has been making about our involvement in wars. We are about to get involved in another war, and I think alot of Republicans realize that and are not sure it is a good idea. While 60% of Republicans may be in favor of maintaining the current war because they see no reasonable exit, I seriously doubt the number of Republicans who think it had been a good idea to go to Iraq is now anywhere near 60%. I don't think the number of Republicans who want to go to war with Iran is anywhere near 60%. I think if we made signs opposed to expanding the war they could have effect.

We should also not make sure we are not anti-tax in our signage also. Make signs that would appeal to conservatives and libertarians alike. This is an anti-tax rally.

I think a two-pronged approach with both of those messages would be key.

I would, unfortunately admit that you should probably not bring any hemp related signs, unless there is alot of hemp historically grown in a certain area and you are speaking to an agricultural audience at an agricultural event. Then it might be ok, but I would still probably prefer a different strategy. Even though I am personally in favor of legalization, I think there's a better time and a place, unfortunately.

 

[skyorbit]

In addition to leaving the "legalize hemp" signs at home, let's remember who is our audience. They've in large part been hannitized and bush-wacked. We're not going to win them over on the war with a "No More War" sign or chants. That argument has to be made in more depth, as Ron Paul may be able to do once he gets them in for dinner. But many of them may see "No War" signs with the Ron Paul signs and immediately decide they don't want to hear out Ron Paul.

I know whereof I speak, as I was neoconned for a couple years myself, and had to come around on the war on my own. Let them support the damn war for now, but come over to Ron Paul's side. I have a good friend who is very pro-war -- she's bought into all the crap -- but she's supporting Ron Paul on everything else. I don't push the war issue with her because what really matters is that she supports Ron Paul, who will end the war regardless of what she thinks.

Same goes for Truthers. You may be right (I may be crazy), but better to win them to Ron Paul's side than to scare them away. ONLY if Ron Paul wins will you get an investigation.

Now flame away.

While I agree this is a anti-tax forum. It's also a Christian forum -- so we definitely need to be respectfull and Christ-like and focus on the anti-tax message.

However their is a big block of Iowa farmers that want hemp legalized. So, it might be a good idea for some people to have a few legalize industrial hemp signs.

Tracy

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think we should stay with the basics. If we feel the need to deviate from the traditional Ron Paul for President campaign signs, we should stay focused on small government, the Constitution, lower taxes... stuff like that.

If Dr. Paul wants to broach controversial subjects, that's HIS job; not ours and if we try, I think it will backfire on us badly.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

My opinion is that we should build on the very consistent, relevant and recent message Ron Paul has been making about our involvement in wars. We are about to get involved in another war, and I think alot of Republicans realize that and are not sure it is a good idea. While 60% of Republicans may be in favor of maintaining the current war because they see no reasonable exit, I seriously doubt the number of Republicans who think it had been a good idea to go to Iraq is now anywhere near 60%. I don't think the number of Republicans who want to go to war with Iran is anywhere near 60%. I think if we made signs opposed to expanding the war they could have effect.

My point is more that you can't put an entire, well-reasoned argument on a sign. You can do that in a brochure to some degree, but the best way to convince someone is through discussion.

LastOfTheMohicans asked me how I got neoconned and then un-neoconned. I've always been a Republican who leaned libertarian, not unlike Ron Paul. Although I've always listened to a lot of talk radio, I can usually catch myself when a conservative host tries to lead his listeners down the path against liberty. But like many people, I wanted to see us get retaliation against the 9/11 perpetrators. It was pretty seductive, how Bush orchestrated the entire party and talk radio into thinking that's what we were doing by going to war in Iraq.

I should have known better, but a similar-minded friend very gradually got me to think about it. He didn't scream Get Out Now at me, or pummel me with anti-war slogans. We talked about it over the course of months.

I despised the Cindy Sheehan types. Anti-war protestors turned me off to the idea that we should get out. It took reason. And time.

We need to get them to listen to Ron Paul speak. This may be the only opportunity some may have to hear him if they didn't watch the debates. And, honestly, very few people out of the population as a whole watched the debates.

Let's not turn them off, harden them to the message, if there's a chance otherwise they might listen to a well-reasoned argument.

 

[LastoftheMohicans]

My point is more that you can't put an entire, well-reasoned argument on a sign. You can do that in a brochure to some degree, but the best way to convince someone is through discussion.


I despised the Cindy Sheehan types. Anti-war protestors turned me off to the idea that we should get out. It took reason. And time.

.

The older I get, I almost think that the function of leftists is to give the anti-war message a bad name and the function of rightists is to give the free-market a bad name. They weigh down their good points with so much statism, intolerance, etc. that it's any wonder people are able to separate the wheat (liberty) from the chaff (statism).