13 votes

A simple plea to think twice before speaking/posting

The first time I heard the name Ron Paul was in 2008. Ever since then, I have loved learning about individual liberty, sound money, a peaceful and "Golden Rule" foreign policy, and many other things. My number one source of information has been the great folks here on the DailyPaul. But it's not enough for just us to know or understand these things. We have a responsibility to live our lives as examples of these solid principles, and encourage others to listen and learn as well.

So how do we break through and get more people to listen? As I currently look over to the active forum topics, I see three topics which I wish to highlight. One post is entitled "I don't support the troops". Another is a video detailing why 9/11 was an inside operation. The third is a post about a tragic school shooting that happened less than a few hours ago, and many of the comments state that is probably an inside job by our government.

If you have not always been a member of the liberty movement, try to remember what it was that convinced you. Or at least try to imagine what a person who is not familiar with Ron Paul is thinking when they visit the DailyPaul for the first time. If someone has been conditioned to believe that Ron Paul and his followers are nuts, does seeing a conspiracy theory video first thing upon entering this site help change that perception and make them willing to learn more? If their neo-con friends tell them Ron Paul has a "blame America" foreign policy and doesn't support our troops, does seeing "I don't support the troops" as a topic with a lot of upvotes help change their minds?

It is my view that libertarianism, the liberty movement, whatever you want to call it, has to be seen as a movement of common sense. Understatement and deliberate thought are our allies.

What I'm proposing is that we think twice about how we appear to those we are tyring to convince. They may have already unfair preconceived notions about us. Do we label them "sheep", call them names, or do we try to engage them with the respect that we want shown to us? I'm simply asking that before we post or say something, we ask oursevles, "is this going to bring more people to understand the principles of liberty, or will it drive them from those principles?"

I appreciate all that my fellow brothers and sisters have done to advance the cause of liberty. May you have an excellent week.




Comment viewing options

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

before you go

dumming people down, lets give them a chance. Mostly open minded people stumble through here(now that the election is over!) and people fleeing from msn and fox.

deacon's picture

will this post

help,what with asking to water the truth?
did you read any of them posts you mentioned?
should we all stop posting everything under the sun
as it might offend someone else?
are you really asking us to filter what we want to say
read or post?
shall we not ever post anything for fear of offending another
who might come here seeking something they never received?
are you asking us to stop believing in the 1st amendment?
do you believe in freedom and liberty?
if so,how much?
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

The whole questioning

The whole questioning authority thing is about questioning the structure/group that gives you your duckets. If you've become embedded with 9/22 Truthers, your questioning sides needs to shift to question your current Truther allegiance. If you're in the Birther camp, your skepticism needs to switch to the Birther preachers. If you're in the Reptiles-Creatures-Control-the-Elite, your skepticism needs to contend with the what-ever-that-is prophets.

Authority is not someone else's authority, but yours. The questioning, skeptic nature is ONLY as valuable as far as it's directed toward the schema you bring and the social risk within your own subculture.

What in the world is a ducket?

But yeah, totally agree. Be a skeptic.

i agree with pseudonym, i

i agree with pseudonym, i don't think many people go here. when ron paul was running maybe a few thousand visited this site. but no one really visits here. unless if i'm mistaken.

And i think it's getting a little late in the game to care what other people post on this site. if the idiots couldn't see something was wrong by the time they were 9 years old, who cares if they don't figure it out when they are 40 and have a belly-full of mass-pop culture circulating in the stars of their eyes. they corrputed themselves and it will take 10,000 years until mankind can have a soul again.

lawrence

I don't think many people actually go to the DP

Not to hurt anyone's feelings but it's not like we are front and center in people's minds. Sometimes it feels good to vent amongst ourselves, to enjoy the freedom of speaking our common language of assumed truths. We see things differently and it IS tiresome to have to constantly acknowledge the propagandized version of events.

I'm all for tact but not when it gets in the way of honesty, especially when the tact is for invisible audiences who aren't reading anyway.

Completely agree.

I definitely don't want Michael to censor his site but at the same time I really wish posts like those you mentioned just never showed up on the front page. Like if all posts dealing with conspiracies, for example, were one link away instead.

Anytime I see the "9/11 was an inside job" or "contrails are killing us" or "fluoride is mind control" or "vaccines are the government making you sick" ... etc etc etc I feel like I'm in an out patient psych ward. I'm not saying that the government is always honest (hell, probably not even 10% of the time) and there have definitely been times proven in the past that our government has pulled some blatant BS. BUT... throwing out those, in my opinion, extremely implausible ideas (especially when they're on the front page) makes us all look silly at best, and downright "Ron Paul supporters are all crazy" at worst. Think of it this way: we're kind of like a family. A big "Ron Paul Supporter" family. All it takes is a couple of people to make those outside the family assume we're all crazy. Then they feel justified in writing us off, and thinking anyone who talks about liberty must therefore also think XYZ conspiracy theory as well.

As for the "anarchists are bad" comment below: I'm a libertarian who is becoming more and more anarchocapitalist every day. I know "anarchy" has a bad connotation but I think of it as it's real definition: "without a king". You know what's better than a monarch? No "Arch". Sounds kinda nice. :)

Hugs and love to all, and a Happy/Merry Christmas/Hanukkah, Season's Greetings, or just high five for winter time to everyone. :)

You said

Anytime I see the "9/11 was an inside job" or "contrails are killing us" or "fluoride is mind control" or "vaccines are the government making you sick" ... etc etc etc I feel like I'm in an out patient psych ward.

America is a psych ward whether you acknowledge it or not.

All the examples you gave show that you think it is insane to question the government.

The Ron Paul movement is about questioning the government.

Eh.... "questioning the government" isn't the same as a massive

conspiracy theory. For example: an immunology course or textbook will explain why vaccines work and why they save countless lives. In my opinion, it seems ridiculous to think the government is secretly using them to make us sick.

Really, the basic question is this: if our government is so absurdly incompetent at everything it does (pretty sure we can all agree here) then how in the hell would we expect it to keep a massive, decades long or century long conspiracy a secret? There's no way! There's no way in hell that not one single person involved in XYZ massive conspiracy wouldn't write a tell all book, post something online, or Wikileaks, or whatever. Something. Anything.

Not to mention, just try applying pure logic to a lot of these things. Contrails. Lizard people. Etc.

I may not trust the government at all, but that doesn't mean I buy into very unrealistic conspiracy theories that defy logic and science. I'm all for freedom of speech, and I'd rather have crazy conspiracy theorists then blind statists who support big government and fascist policies... but lets maybe try to make it harder to find the craziness then splashed across the front page of the DP. At least, that's my ideal scenario.

Who needs a massive

Who needs a massive conspiracy theory when every single part of the establishment finds it in their interests to propagate the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory of the government?

Eh...you give it a rest

why don't YOU apply pure logic to a lot of these things

Take for instance vaccines. You ever stop to wonder just who writes the text books? Any Parent of a grade-schooler can tell you text books don't always tell the truth and often skew things for an agenda. And even if those who write them are pure of heart, who says they can't be wrong.

How do you explain this ?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202865

In two New York counties, a predominately Jewish community gets 3500 cases of the Mumps in 2009. 97% were vaccinated previously with the MMR vaccine. Sure helped a lot didn't it? (sarc)

How about those 16 people in North Carolina that all had the whooping cough vaccine (DTP) and then promptly came down with it. Here's a quote about it from The Charlotte Observer:

"So far, all the reported pertussis cases in Gaston have been people who have had the vaccination for the disease, Hawkins said.

Dr. Jeffrey Engel, North Carolina's state epidemiologist, said several factors contribute to the outbreaks. The vaccine is not 100 percent effective, he said, and many people refuse to take it on medical or religious grounds, he said."

You might want to open your eyes before you call everything nonsense

The sad part is that there is so much evidence and most will never look at it because it seems improbable...or they blindly trust science or blindly trust the cdc or the government. There is so much evidence that it would fill several books so it's impractical to post it here. But, if you think a government would never purposely poison a population then you don't know history. And, you may want to read up on the history of Eugenics in this country.

*sigh*

see post below on why I think it's unlikely that Big Pharma or other dark shadowy forces time traveled back to 1796 when Jenner came out w/ the smallpox vaccine and started the entire concept of immunology.

Also see my post above on why it's extremely improbably that any massive conspiracy would ever go on that long w/o getting blown wide open by someone from the inside.

Duh!

Vaccines have been co-opted within the last 50 years or so. I don't think it ever was good science but it sure is a good way to mass medicate a whole population.

Vaccines have had very little to do with the reduction of disease. Good nutrition, good water sources, hand washing, cleaning up hospitals and education on how germs spread have all helped people stay healthy. Disease death rates dropped dramatically way before vaccines ever became widely used and mandated.

You, my friend, are a victim of medial propaganda.

Honestly, how about you go read the text book (because you enjoy them so much) Eco-science written by Obama's current science czar John Holdren. Here I'll even give you the link:

read online from:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22480029/Ecoscience-Population-Res...

or download full book at:
http://remixxworld.blogspot.com/2009/08/ecoscience-by-john-h...

It might give you insight in the agenda of population reduction that is rampant among those who are powerful in this country. If you need some quotes, I'll give it to you.

Fascinating.

So, just so I'm clear... Smallpox... a terrible disease that killed countless people, spread predominantly by inhalation was NOT eradicated over a 200 year period by the first ever vaccine? Rather it was declared completely eradicated over 30 years ago... ... because of hand washing? Seriously, that's the argument you're making?

Textbook was purchased by the med school that is funded

by Big Pharma which coincidentally also sponsors politicians' campaigns. Textbook was written to conform with Big Pharma's preferences, research, and deeply entrenched bias toward unnatural cures...since natural cures are cheap and cannot be patented.

But let's not talk about any biases, it's odious to consider any foul play within the higher ranks of our over-arching Establishment.

Stay tuned for your next government installment of What You May and May Not Think while we keep trying to get to the bottom of things. K?

Really? Big Pharma has been around for over 200 years?

I'm very impressed. Given that Edward Jenner came up with the smallpox vaccine in England over 200 years ago, then Big Pharma must have been secretly behind it all back in the 1700s for that first ever vaccine. Seriously. 200 years. It was 1796. We'd only existed as a country for 20 years! So please explain how in the hell Big Pharma traveled back in time to make that happen.

Look. Either you think germs don't exist, there's no such thing as an immune system, and the imbalance of the four humors are what cause disease... .... ... or you were born in the last 100 years, you understand that tiny things you can't see without a microscope cause lots of diseases, and we have this really cool way of fighting them off using an immune system. If you understand that, then you mush also understand that the body has to in some form or fashion figure out what to fight and what not to. By now you may even realize that when a kid gets chicken pox once, he almost never gets it again (until he gets older, then gets reactivation of the VZV virus, known as Shingles... because he never got the chicken pox vaccine in the first damn place!). You may have also figured out that when this immune system process goes haywire and attacks itself, you get autoimmune diseases.

By now, by golly, you're almost an immunologist. So that last tiny step is this: if your body can make antibodies to a pathogen that it encounters in a "natural" setting like inhaling, digesting, or direct transmission via blood or sexual activity... why the hell couldn't it do it through a needle stick? I mean, Jesus man, what do you think would happen if you got injected w/ someone's blood who had Hepatitis C? You'd be at risk of getting Hep C! Now what if we were able to modify that virus slightly instead so that it couldn't infect you but your immune system was still able to build antibodies against it? Then you get injected on purpose? We'd have the first ever Hep C vaccine instead!

It's really not all that complicated how vaccines work in a basic sense. P.S. in the example above, if you got injected w/ a Hep B virus w/o the vaccine, you'd have about a 30% chance of getting Hep B. Know what your odds are if you're already vaccinated? About 0%.

You've got the Jenner tale and that line of history quite wrong

His vaccine was never proven useful and carried so many other infections with it that it was outlawed in the UK in 1840. Some of the largest and worst outbreaks of smallpox in history have occurred AFTER mandatory vaccination programs were in place.
Don't forget that diseases have come and gone in history without vaccines, just as smallpox has done since the 1970s. The boubonic plague and yellow fever are examples of such diseases.
Here's something to read if you care to:
http://cure-guide.com/books/the-vaccine-guide/smallpox-vacci...

It's the Anarchists hiding in the Libertarian movement.

Ignore the Anarchists. They aren't Libertarians, and don't support anything that has to do with government. All they want to do is destroy. They're Judas Goats, and that's why when you log on you see self destructive posts from guys screaming "I don't support our troops". Anarchists bear bad fruit, and the DP is infested with them.

It doesn't really matter though... Libertarians have to tools to deal with them. When confronted with the truth and asked to explain themselves, all an Anarchist can really do is puke out insults and run away.

Luke 6:43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit."

Mathew 7:16 "You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

Anarchists want to destroy, so they poison good people with bad fruit, and that's what you see in their posts; bad fruit.

What is it with you and "Anarchists"?

Why all the constant fear mongering out of you regarding Anarchy? Why always find ways to shoehorn your dislike of them in nearly every discussion you participate in? Seems more and more like Anarchy is your white whale.

All Anarchy means is "without rulers". You *do* know this, yes?

Seems to me like you're trying to paint the same picture of chaos and destruction that the MSM so often does. Ever wonder just why those in power make it seem as if the world would just fall apart if people one day decided that ruling bodies were unnecessary?

As far as you saying "all an Anarchist can really do is puke out insults and run away", I'm going to come right out and say you're full of shit. I've seen numerous Anarchists on this site debunk your endless stereotyping and spreading of disinformation (on purpose?), and all you do is spin your little cocoon and ignore any arguments that may poke a hole in your paper bag of a worldview.

I usually try to be polite and at least somewhat civil when I disagree with others, but you're one of those "one issue" people that just goes along, spouting the same garbage no matter how many times people call you out on it. Like I said, Anarchy seems to be your white whale.

And in case you're wondering, no, not an Anarchist. Just getting tired of all your stereotyping and blanketed statements regarding them.

A signature used to be here!

Anarchists will make their own bed with or without me.

"Anarchy seems to be your white whale."

Nope. Liberty is what interests me, and Anarchists are WORTHLESS defending the principle of self ownership because they don't understand what threatens it, or how it relates to the principle of self interest. They can't accept what it is that threatens our liberty, man covetous nature, nor will they serve justice; defend liberty. They want goon squads and a free market of violence serving their self interest, and all they can do is what you just did; call me full of shit when they realize they can't explain themselves.

"Just getting tired of all your stereotyping and blanketed statements regarding them."

I don't care what you're tired of. I'm not at all tired. I'm constantly fulfilled, and enjoy defending liberty. It's good fruit.

All you're doing is demonizing a label.

You harp on anything and everything you consider to be "Anarchist", then proceed to paint them as bands of marauding thugs. *All* of them. Sorry, but that kind of "Anarchist" is largely a product of Hollywood. Are there people who would take advantage of others in an Anarchist society? Absolutely-- but you'll find that in every type of society.

You take a label and you constantly demonize it-- sound familiar?

Also, will you PLEASE stop with the "all Anarchists think this" and "all Anarchists do that" talk? Tossing about such blanketed statements perpetuates stereotypes and misinformation. I can't even take it seriously, because it shows how little thought went into forming that opinion. It's like someone coming here and saying "all libertarians want to legalize heroin" or "all libertarians want open borders". It's nonsense.

If I understand, your issue is with Anarchists blaming government as the root of evil, where you see human action as the root? Am I correct in saying this? I can agree there, and I'll also say that I don't believe that total Anarchy will ever work on large scale, just as total statism will never work.

Also, you're fear mongering again. Saying all Anarchists want goon squads and yadda yadda. Yeah, I said you were full of shit in my last post like I'm saying it now. I tend to say people are full of shit when they LIE.

But go ahead and continue your crusade against all those evil Anarchists out there-- real or imaginary. Also, I'm pretty sure that windmill over there in the corner is giving you the stinkeye...

A signature used to be here!

Libertarians DO want to legalize heroin, and can defend it.

Libertarians want liberty.

I'm a Libertarian, and I DO want to legalize heroin. Does that surprise you? Just remember, it's a matter of you being the owner of your own mind, body, and labor. It's about creating a system of justice, defending your liberty, not creating a system of injustice, taking your liberty.

"Also, will you PLEASE stop with the 'all Anarchists think this' and 'all Anarchists do that' talk?"

If Anarchists don't want to be Anarchists, they should probably call themselves something else? That's RIGHT!!! They're trying to. They're now trying to call themselves "Libertarians", but that doesn't change what they are, because words have meaning.

The first books an Anarchist will try and burn are the dictionaries.

"where you see human action as the root? Am I correct in saying this?"

Human action is the root of all evil? See what I mean about producing bad fruit? No. Of course you aren't "correct in saying that", but being a liar and a Judas Goat is what Anarchists do. Evil is as evil does. I made it perfectly clear what causes injustice; mans covetous nature, and you unjustly want to put a position into my mouth; one that makes no sense, so for at least one moment in time, an Anarchist can make some kind of sense and pretend they "got me".

Anarchists can't EVER make sense, because they don't know what the problem is, and their nature is to revel in the problem.

I hate it

when people start babbling bible shit. Like the bible and scripture is the be all. Sorry, it makes you sound like a nut. THAT's ALL.

skippy

Have a problem with the bible Anarchist?

Like I said; they spit out insults and run away. All they can do is spread poison, bad fruit, because all they want to do is destroy.

In a political debate, the truth is "the be all", and an Anarchist has no truth to offer.

Luke 21:15 "because I will give you the ability to speak, along with wisdom, that none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute. "

Hey there, me again.

Since skippy is out to dinner, let me try and explain his/her point for them. I think maybe what they're getting at is that when people quote random stuff out of the bible to prove their point, it makes them look silly a lot of the time. Unless you're quoting it because it makes a really good point in excellent prose that you wish you had come up with (like the way you would quote a famous philosopher, economist, whatever), then it can come across like you're trying to make a logical argument using unrelated, illogical religious points.

Kind of like how sometimes people quote Leviticus to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, because the bible states "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)

But then there's all kinds of craziness in the bible. Quotes encouraging slavery (there ya go!), rape is ok in the right circumstance, certain foods are sinful, women are worth much less then men, and a whole host of things are punishable by death. So I think the point that was being made is that by just quoting the bible and expecting people to just think "O, okay, if that's what the bible says..." is kind of silly.

Some of the many ridiculous things in the bible are below. There are many more.

****************************
Exodus 21:7 If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money
Lev.15:19- 24 - When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. 24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

Lev. 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly

Exodus 35:2 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death

Lev. 11:10 - But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean

Lev. 21:20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles

Lev. 19:27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard

Lev. 11:6-8 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you

Lev. 19:19 - Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Lev.24:10-16 -

10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the Lord should be made clear to them.

13 Then the Lord said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Lev. 20:14 - If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you

John 8:7 They kept demanding

John 8:7

They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!"

_____________________________________________________________________

Am I stoning you to death? No. It just feels like it. This isn't your death. Anarchists are neither dying nor am I casting stones. I'm simply pointing out truths that I know Anarchists can't deal with, because their nature is to put out bad fruit, to revel in the truths they can't afford to see because it doesn't serve their self interest.

Make no mistake about it. Anarchists WILL cast stones. (they especially love targeting windows) They'll be the first ones to pick up a stone, because a Godless and profane man does not even recognize sin. They're not Libertarians. They're Libertines, and when they get the chance, if they can successfully argue that what the world needs is a free market of violence serving our self interest, the whole world will be filled with stones in flight.

Have you ever heard of Murray Rothbard?

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Of course I have. He's bad fruit.

Yes. Murray Rothbard is an Anarchist and a hero at the Ludwig von Mises institute. I don't hero worship any man. Sorry to burst your bubble.

He's kind of like Alex Jones; trying to mix bad fruit in with the good, but that won't make it any less poisonous.

Anarchists think they can blame injustice on government, and Murray Rothbard thinks the free market will serve justice. The free market will when governments serve justice, when the people want justice more than plunder, slaves and dominion.

Anarchists don't know what the problem is, and they're worthless in the fight. Force applied to serve mans covetous nature predates any government, and you don't get rid of injustice by getting rid of government.

An Anarchist thinks the principle of self interest will save humanity, but without justice, the free market serves one thing: value. In a free market, the best deal wins because people want to get the most value they can for their money, and nothing produces more value or is more self interested than slavery.

So that's what listening to Murray Rothbard will produce, slavery and the products of slavery; bad fruit.

Um... no.

How do you equate the lack of a top down government with slavery? That doesn't even make sense.

In a perfectly free market, you make the most money by trading value for value. If you cheat, you're punished. If you make a shitty product, you're punished.

Can we all at least agree that we'd like to minimize the federal government as much as possible? Pretty sure we could all get on board with that.