16 votes

Occupy DC Adam Kokesh video should make RP supporters wary of the "Occupy-" protests

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
blonduxo's picture

Job #1 getting registered Republicans to the primaries/caucuses

not educating disaffected youthful communists and socialists who have a list of demands that would take more effort to convert to free market Capitalism than we have time to do before the voting starts.

Job # is electing Dr. Paul and ensuring he is the Republican nominee. The time is short my friends do not be deterred or distracted from this goal.

Between the primaries and the general go forth and try to educate these misguided souls.

Prioritize, please.

Seriously

When you first started to get "woke up", how much did you know about liberty, economics, foreign policy?

Were you able to articulate the Message clearly when you first started campaigning for Dr. Paul?

For some of us the answer is No. We didnt know much but we knew that the message resonated some how.

Likewise it is easy to question these young people and "cut them off at the knees" because they havent had the mentoring and havent done their homework.

It's no reason to reject them.

Michael Nystrom's picture

The protests are empty vessels

Like the GOP and the tea party. It depends on what you fill them with.

Whoever says they're communist operations and stay away - stand down.

These are the masses. Like it or not, these are the people we need to convert.

You think we're going to win by jacking off together here at the Daily Paul? Get real.

The movement needs to EXPAND. Go forth and multiply.

Check back here ONLY to let us know what works, then keep doing it.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

You guys jack off on here?

I'm missed that "bomb". lol

Mike, you state a lovely sentiment that I have found

generally to not be true in my life experience. Personality drives action (or reaction), and personality is not something one escapes. The "outsider" message that brings people to the libertarian cause ensures we remain a minority of the population. This has been and always will be true.

Our view is a subset of a subset that only has a wider reach at this time due to economic concerns. As soon as "the problems are behind us" no one besides the vocal few will again give a second thought to Ron, sound money, etc. It's taken Ron's message thirty years to resonate with a larger audience and it will be forgotten quickly, as soon as paychecks start rolling in for Joe Sixpack once more.

Sure, spread the message now because the time of opportunity is short. I expect liberty and freedom to remain a fringe concern in the Facebook era.

We need to fill the vessels

The people protesting know there is a problem with government and the economy. What they haven't figured out yet is the what caused it and how to correct it. That's where we come in, we need to educate them and bring them into the Ron Paul freedom movement.

as you sit on your butt,

Adam is at the protest making a difference. He is not alone. This is really happening and you sit at your computer telling people not to attend the protest. Great.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

?!?!?!

That girl thinks the war in Iraq is over?

Yay, the war is over!!!!!!

I've been saying over and over again, these Occupy rallies make the Tea Parties look like pure geniuses... At least the people at those Tea Party rallies understood that taxes, big government, and government bailouts are bad.

These communists don't even talk about the government bailing out Wall Street, yet they're protesting Wall Street?!?!?

If they really knew what was going on, they should be protesting in front of the White House and Capitol Hill for bailing out Wall Street and the big banks in the first place. Idiots.

That's a good point

"These communists don't even talk about the government bailing out Wall Street, yet they're protesting Wall Street?!?!?"

Wouldn't that be like protesting our welfare state by hitting the projects with a huge protest? Why protest the people for accepting what the government has trained them to accept as normal business? Protest the beast that keeps feeding upon itself and the citizens of this country, while handing out goody bags to anyone who doesn't feel they have enough.

.

"These communists don't even talk about the government bailing out Wall Street, yet they're protesting Wall Street?!?!?"

Haha. I don't think they are all communists though. I would categorize them as the college left. I bet they might even get Obama to forgive student loan debt for votes.

Wow

How many brain cells does it take to make a pretty blonde function, day to day?

As little as possible.

(I'm here all week folks)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

this is interesting or informative--

about what some of the people who are being interviewed think.

It can't possibly represent everyone there. I don't agree or disagree with the idea of this 'protest'--

I haven't really thought about it, beyond the fact that, while there is a general disinformation crisis (thanks in part to media, in part to educational institutions, etc.)--
in this country, not any one of these people is exactly the same.

Some of them genuinely 'know' that something is wrong; it's harder to identify it for some. Others obviously have huge gaps in understanding.

I can't tell anyone else what to do; I believe in individuality--

so I won't say if I think this is going to do any good to the cause of liberty or not. I honestly don't know.

Can any of *us* know?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Wow!

The scary part is that these protestors are actually more educated than most liberals. Unfortunately, they don't know squat. They seem to think it is okay for the government to use violence as long as it is to enforce something they agree with.

The girl with the student loan sign is typical of Obama supporters who don't even realize what a tyrant he's become since taking office. She thought we were out of Iraq and doesn't understand the mechanism by which tuition costs so much.

I agree that that particular young man . . .

is what someone else below called a 'pseudo-intellectual'; he obviously has some dangerous ideas, and he has been taught to defend them. *shaking my head*

However, not everyone who is/was participating in this event was interviewed, so there is no way of knowing if everyone is as . . . misinformed as that young man (who believes so confidently in the use of force)-

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

To be truthful

That kid was just spouting much of the mindless drivel I may have thought as a kid, thanks to public schooling and the kinds of ideas that remain stuck in the heads of the entitled until faced with "bill-paying" reality.

Harvard Represents!

I LOVE how Harvard represents. She ought to put a big crimson H on her protest sign.... I'm laughing too hard to go on.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Ambush journalism at its finest

I like Adam a lot, and as a ex-Marine, he's definitely got balls of steel to go into the Lion's Den or Hornets' Nest and gin up some controversy. And I enjoy it for what it is.

But if you're using his video as proof that RP supporters, or for that matter, any conscientious libertarians, should abstain from trying to reach these people anyway, you will be smacked down.

Honest question here: have any of you been on camera before? It's already quite a nerve-wracking experience, especially if it's your first time. Add to that a hostile interviewer/reporter and what do you expect?

The only reason they weren't more vehement is because he had them on camera. You take away that camera though and try to pull the "gotchas" he did. See how successful you are. This is true for ANYONE, ANYWHERE, not just left-wing protesters in D.C.

When he tried telling that girl that Obama actually extended the timetable for withdrawing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and she disagreed with him, how can you blame her? She either had two choices: agree and be suckered into a bigger trap, or just stop talking to him.

Ambush journalists use this technique all the time. Watch TMZ. It's not hard to learn how to do.

To anyone saying that this wouldn't have stopped them from agreeing with Adam if they weren't in his shoes, you're either mistaken or you're a liar. If someone from Moveon.org came up to you and tried to tell you something about Ron Paul, without tangible evidence in hand, would you just go along with it?

To those who say "that's completely different", you're only kidding yourselves.

Anyone knows if you really want to start a dialogue with people, you both have to agree to the terms, which means both sides have to know what they're getting into. You generally (and that's an understatement) don't bring a camcorder along either.

Outreach doesn't happen by trying to troll your prospective converts. It's illogical, certainly, but more important than that, it's shady.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people don't like when leftists get in your face with these deceptive tactics do you? So why do you circle jerk to Adam or Judge Nap when they do it?

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

reedr3v's picture

We see this differently. I doubt, as you do,

that Adam was seriously trying to convert people on the spot. Rather, the video showed typical examples of how clueless and unthinking these kids are, just parroting their partisan leaders and doing absolutely no independent thinking. It is instructive to see that we are not dealing with hard core ideologues but simple dupes. In other settings, dialogue might open channels.

I disagree that typical young libertarians would be caught as foolishly without knowledge. Minorities have to be more on their toes since we are constantly challenged on all sides. And those up to libertarianism are inherently more independent thinkers than the typical individual who supports the status quo.

What specific deceptive

What specific deceptive tactics did he use??

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Really? Do I need to say it

Really? Do I need to say it again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_genres#Ambush_journa...

Of course, he's not literally running up to people in this video, but you can't say that the principle of what he's doing isn't the same. Interrupting his interviewees to bash Obama?

Come on. Even if he didn't do it on purpose, that is not how you start a dialogue with these types. You have to work your way up until it is impossible for them to defend Obama without contradicting themselves.

If Adam were to try this on a forum like the Daily Kos or HuffPo, he'd be called out for "trolling". But just because this happened in real life and he's got a camera so that people were a bit more civil changes that? I don't think so.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

I guess we have a different

I guess we have a different definition of bashing. Bashing is misrepresenting, and misstating positions or facts. All Adam did was point out Obama's policies, which were true. Obama did order a killing of US Citizen. He has escalated the wars.

Would you complain if h stood in silence to their rhetoric? This is what a reporter is supposed to do. This is what JAke Tapper did with the White House spokesperson.

Im sure Adam did it on purpose, the same way any reporter would question positions that weren't based on anything.

You do realize they do that at evert debate, right?

I dont see what issue you have with it. Even according to your own source. "Ambush journalism refers to aggressive tactics practiced by journalists to suddenly confront and question people who otherwise do not wish to speak to a journalist."

These kids were willing to talk. In fact they did most of the talking and Adam just called them out on their ridiculous and dangerous positions. Unless you can point to something concrete I may have missed.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I guess we have a different

I guess we have a different definition of bashing. Bashing is misrepresenting, and misstating positions or facts.

Then according to this, you just "bashed" the true definition of the word.

bash (bsh)
v. bashed, bash·ing, bash·es

...

3. Informal To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair" (Lally Weymouth).
v.intr. Informal
To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

Nothing about misrepresenting or mistating there. Your version of "bashing" would of course be biased as is the case for most Paul supporters. You all claim that "bashing" by this definition, not yours, is okay, as long as it's done to other candidates.

It's just like with the Rick Perry ad that Paul's campaign put out. You all were quick to say it wasn't an attack ad or that it didn't bash Perry, it merely stated his record. Well, how is stating things like the fact that Paul wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, abolish most federal agencies, etc. NOT the same thing, but you call that bashing? That's hypocritical. Plain and simple. Own up to it, and you will be a better supporter, with more credibility for which to persuade people to our cause.

All Adam did was point out Obama's policies, which were true. Obama did order a killing of US Citizen. He has escalated the wars.

You didn't answer my question though, probably because your answer would blow your own argument to smithereens. If someone came out with some dirt on Ron Paul that was VALID (I'm not saying that it exists, but let's say it DID happen), and that you weren't sure of this person's motives or whether what they were saying was true, would you go along with it? No, you weren't, and you're lying if you say otherwise. And everyone who concurs with you is lying as well. But you're not just lying to me, you're lying to yourself.

You would be deeply offended and suspicious if someone just came out and listed facts without sources, which is exactly what Adam did. How do I know this? It's human nature. I'd react the same way. The difference between you and me? I recognize that people on the other side do it too. You, however, evidently do not.

Would you complain if h stood in silence to their rhetoric? This is what a reporter is supposed to do. This is what JAke Tapper did with the White House spokesperson.

Im sure Adam did it on purpose, the same way any reporter would question positions that weren't based on anything.

You do realize they do that at evert debate, right?

Now, you're just blending topics wherever you find it convenient. If we were even to accept the fact that Adam was an actual journalist, that still doesn't put him in the same class of journalists as someone like Jake Tapper. (Be careful, I didn't say "class" as a reference to how good of a journalist Tapper is or Adam isn't, so don't try that one, fly boy.)

So your example is comparing apples to oranges, and here's why: Tapper was asking Carney where the evidence was to warrant the assassination of al-Awlaki. This was a simple objective question. Adam didn't ask his interviewees any sort of question, so much as inquiring if they knew that Obama did "X number of bad things".

Also, Adam was confronting average DC college kids. Tapper was confronting the press secretary of the President of the United States. That he didn't even have an answer to Tapper's question is an indictment on the hubris of this administration and its blatant disregard for the rule of the law.

The kids are guilty of far less than that: simple ignorance. It's quite clear whose team Carney is on.

So in addition to the circumstances being different, the expectations of what kind of questions would be asked are necessarily different as well. I can understand if you're bitter about being wrong in that other thread, where you said we should ask "what evidence is there" before we asked "What authority is there". But trying to blend the topics here just makes you look confused and disoriented.

You do realize they do that at evert debate, right?

It looks like I'm more aware of it than you are.

I dont see what issue you have with it. Even according to your own source. "Ambush journalism refers to aggressive tactics practiced by journalists to suddenly confront and question people who otherwise do not wish to speak to a journalist."

These kids were willing to talk. In fact they did most of the talking and Adam just called them out on their ridiculous and dangerous positions. Unless you can point to something concrete I may have missed.

And if you remembered how to read, you would see that I said that what Adam did wasn't a LITERAL example of ambush journalism (such as running after someone and pinning them to a wall), but the kind of "gotcha" statements he threw out there totally were derived from the same intention.

The kids obviously were willing to speak to him, sure. And I'll give you he wasn't the straight-up arrogant prat that Billy O'Reilly is. But that doesn't change the fact that they didn't expect him to try to correct or "change" their views, and that's the point here.

That kind of tactics, especially with a camera, is not how you persuade people. I'm not surprised any of them reacted as they did, breaking off contact with him, since they were obviously not prepared to have an actual debate. And that's sort of the whole point: both sides must be ready to debate and receptive to having their minds changed.

Adam certainly didn't go in with the intention of learning anything new. And the kids didn't either.

So once again, I ask, how would you have reacted if someone came up to you at a Ron Paul rally, listened calmly for a few seconds, then "politely" interrupted in and said "actually, Ron Paul supports partial birth abortions and rape abortions" or something like that. And then, on top of everything, you don't even find out that this person is part of some left-wing Youtube personality's channel until they just casually throw it out there upon you asking?

You're not being honest with yourselves if you say you would have acted differently. Your prior comments prove it, and your argument here proves it. So I ask you then, if you really want to follow Ron Paul's principle that "we have to be honest with ourselves", when are you going to start?

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

Dude, i was going by YOUR

Dude, i was going by YOUR source of bashing. To me journalist bashing is what I said, and in your face harassment questioning.

"You didn't answer my question though, probably because your answer would blow your own argument to smithereens." What was the question I didnt answer?

I still dont really know what you are arguing against. To ME, the job of a journalist is to interview someone and then call them out on issues that either they may disagree with or are factually incorrect. Like playing devil's advocate.

Were the facts Adman state wrong? Do you expect him to pull out documents form his pocket for sources?

" Adam didn't ask his interviewees any sort of question, so much as inquiring if they knew that Obama did "X number of bad things"."

Did we watch the same interview?

I gave up there... your post is too long for me to go through.. and Im eating dinner..lol

Dude, seriously have you seen Peter Schiff argue with people? He calls them out like it is. I like that. I also like Ron Paul, but he is a LOT less aggressive... Frankly I dont think Adam was that aggressive as you make him out to be...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

To me journalist bashing is

To me journalist bashing is what I said, and in your face harassment questioning.

I can't help you understand if you assume everything has to be explicit and the people guilty of certain behaviors have to come right out and say that they are guilty of certain behaviors. Obviously, such a development like that will never come to fruition, so what you are asking for is of course like trying to prove a negative.

It's still deceitful. Just because he didn't literally call Obama any names, cut his interviewees off, or spit in their face and hiss at them doesn't disguise the fact that he deliberately was trying to confront them in a hostile way.

The dialectical arts do NOT work this way. If you want to change people's minds, you do not do it as a journalist. Yes, a journalist's job is to play devil's advocate, but only when there are certain mediums for that. What you apparently don't understand is this was not the right medium for that. And when you say stuff like "do you expect him to pull out documents form his pocket for sources?", it just shows that you don't understand this isn't how you convert people.

Now, I'm not going to harp on Adam because I do like him generally, and I don't think he was fully aware that what he was doing is ineffective. But that doesn't change the facts that you can't expect to do what he did and win people over on the spot like that. So wrapping up your segment with "I guess they don't want to talk" smacks of condescension and arrogance.

That is precisely the problem we have right now in trying to break through and convert people. You apparently (though unwittingly) are encouraging this.

I gave up there... your post is too long for me to go through.. and Im eating dinner..lol

Excuses. I have heard this argument many times and usually it's because people either don't have anything to offer in defense for their philosophical inconsistency or because they haven't the patience to see any thing (in this case, an argument) through. Which will it be in your case?

Dude, seriously have you seen Peter Schiff argue with people? He calls them out like it is. I like that. I also like Ron Paul, but he is a LOT less aggressive...

I too wish Paul were a bit more like Schiff, but I also recognize that he needs to make his criticism as presidential sounding as possible. Just look at Romney's veiled criticisms at Perry in the last debate. He came off very presidential because he didn't let Perry drag him down in the mud. Very frontrunner-like.

So there's a difference between being an attack dog of our movement like Schiff is, versus running as the elder statesman in the room, as Paul is. I will cut it off here, as apparently your brain will turn off if I spend too much time explaining the difference between Schiff, Paul, and Adam.
Have a good dinner. Maybe we can pick this up after you've dropped a zantec or two.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

ytc's picture

. . . and much to Adam's credit, he was courteous to his

interviewees and was earnestly listening to what they wanted to say. He expressed his own opinions as a sincerely engaged debater. . . without any of o'reilly smugness.

This is freakin' frightening

This is freakin' frightening but proof that these idiots dont know what they are talking about.. Its hilarious on one hand and its the kind of ignorance I encounter daily when I begin to ague with people..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Some of them do know what

Some of them do know what they are doing - they're hardcore marxists.

Look at that video of the Ron Paul supporter, at the end where one of the organizers is hushing him and saying your a nationalist. You don't care about the poor - of the world.

That is an international socialist. And the implication is if you believe in you're own country you're a natioalist - or "national socialist" ie nazi.

It's an argument they make.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Then just what is your

Then just what is your solution? Continue preaching to the choir and circle-jerking to Ron Paul and Freedom Watch? What brand of fascist were you before you "woke up", if you don't mind me asking?

This sort of ignorance, as you put it, is to be expected, but how else do you plan on fostering the kind of ideological change we want?

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

Haha...

I have nothing intelligent to add. You said it all. I just laughed so hard at your Freedom Watch comment I thought it warranted some typing.

I find it disturbing that so many people here are advocating something inherently opposed to Dr. Paul's philosophy of social change through education and the free exchange of ideas.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.