11 votes

Kokesh: Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty legacy won't include foreign policy

AVTM #164 Humanity gets rational - Aubrey de Grey, James Corbett, & Kingsley Edwards.

http://youtu.be/RC8iXwkCMig

To hear the full podcast: http://adamvstheman.com/p...




Comment viewing options

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

C4L going the way

of the Tea Party movement, subverted and defused. Sad, but the sheep and goats are being separated, sides taken, agendas exposed. Ron Paul is no longer a threat to the established order so the pretense can be dropped, the liberty movement re-defined to suit the Israelis and the money elites.

IMO

AS LONG as we are actively pushing to AUDIT THE FED and accomplish this impossible tasks, I can see many people connecting the dots with regards to foreign policy. The Petrodollar warfare is that link that connects The Fed to inflating dollars. Those who have everything to lose if the dollar collapses are the same people who benefit by maintaining it as the world reserve currency. Time will tell, and it all starts with exposing the TOP of this Evil Pyramidal system!

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

Nothing wrong with swearing

...at times. Nobody is perfect and it is good to get off your chest imo. Better than physically attacking.

Now swearing with every other word is definitely a problem and uncivilized.

I personally recall swearing at certain instances to settle a particular argument/dispute and it worked surprisingly well...fortunately for me it did not escalate lol

donvino

If all we have to complain

If all we have to complain about is the man's swear words, we need to get lives outside of dailypaul. A vet will always talk like a vet. Swear words are a way of life haha. Adam's broader point is valid.

broader point

What did he say?

Naton

I would say his target market

I would say his target market is young people.

However, due to the swearing, it is not productive for me in activism efforts to forward certain material of his to older folks.

target market is young people

OK, that's fair and he can say what he wants but I don't have to listen and I won't.
I am a veteran and I have heard the language but I wouldn't use it to influence people I am trying to convince.

Naton

I understand.

I understand.

Language

Maybe it is just me but your choice of words are so distracting I can't hear what you are saying. Do you really think that your profanity adds to your dialogue?

I am just one guy so my opinion doesn't matter much but I am not inspired.

Naton

My worry is they eventually just become

the romney campaign. i.e. let's take whatever positions we think are electable.

My concern with NOT making FP

My concern with NOT making FP a central concern is that it postpones the education of the masses about the treacherous and debilitating effects of our FP on our society (suicides and deaths in military, violations of human rights of innocents overseas) and on our budget.

The neocons and even some Democrats are willing to first cut SS, which has NOTHING to do with our budget shortfalls! The neocon strategy is to point to the reduced share of GDP that goes to "Defense," while conveniently ignoring the FACT that GDP is lower than it was in 1980 if we account for government spending!

Although I want a gradual privatization of SS (ONLY after the moral hazard is removed from Wall Street) and Medicare, I first want this bloated Pentagon budget cut. We must demand huge cuts in the Pentagon, and be able to make a convincing case why. At this point in time, the MIC has almost everyone convinced that marginal reductions in future increases in Pentagon spending would be disastrous.

A meek approach to FP by CFL will not change a thing, unless we are ok with massive cuts to social programs that some of us are and will be dependent on.

You see,

one must not cut a tree branch he is sitting on. Talking about ideological principles is one thing, talking about reality on the ground is another. And reality on the ground is:

1) RP ideas do not spread well based on their own streangth (only due to bad economy.) Resentment about our foreign policy is also mainly due to bad domestic economy (and from children of immigrants.) Should gasoline cost 90c/gal and unemployment were 4%, few would care about our military bases or waterboarding.

2) US militarism serves two objectives - a) keep paper dollar as gold (to allow us troll the Internet all day long instead of working hard); b) employ millions of American workers (since stagnated corporatism does not feed all.)

some problems with this

Last I checked it's a volunteer army so enough with the 'Oh the poor troops' routine. As for Ron Paul's executive decision capability, it's his decision to re-deploy his assets to support Rand Paul and cut the losses. Adam and his crowd are the losses that are being cut. If Rand ends up president you might have to admit that Ron made a great executive decision in terms of achieving an objective. How much he could accomplish as president remains to be seen but would be considered part of Ron's legacy and a tribute to his 'executive ability'. Ron is still the messenger and might even run again but it looks like he wants to help his son as much as possible too. Rand is not a messenger, just a potential candidate who seems to be liberty friendly.

Also, to the fat bearded guy, the republican party is still the best battleground for this movement I think. Hanging around a third party or no party will just make you less relevant. How can you effectively protest, thwart, bring down the evil republican party if your whole strategy is to not show up or run away or only get involved with groups who already agree with you about everything and have no power whatsoever.

That's why the LM hates RP GOP

Those of us in the GOP are winning because we've got seats on committees, offices, including Rand getting MSM, PACs, we're meeting at events and working together inside the GOP, while all the LM's got is stuff like these vids.

Fat bearded guy would have been better in the DMT smoking video.. all he did was look like a troll for Adam in this one, which could have been titled, "Adam's greatest Moments flashback, including admitted regret for the DMT smoking vid".

It seems you have made a

It seems you have made a distinction that the LM is grassroots and the RP GOP is, ... something else? Can you clarify this?

Since I am more of a unifier type person, I see it as the LM has two paths of involvement, political/gop involvement and eduction/awareness.
Individual people will choose which path they want to follow.

I am in the LM and I don't hate RP gop.

LM is grassroots

rEVOLution within the GOP is astroturf, we have joined the GOP, taken seats, and are using the tools within the GOP as our means to restore the republic.

My seat, loyalty oath, restricts me on some levels, but opens doors on others, like going to conventions, where I can meet up with Ron Paul Republicans who are seated like myself.. we already have a district,, so it's wonderful to be able to be able to be on the same page woth people.. we will be campaigning for Rand, we well be working together to change the CA GOP.

Many grassroots, Indy's or Libertarians, have an issue with those of us who defend, Ron, Rand, Benton, Tate..

I do not consider myself a unifier. Though I enjoy throwing great parties and have produced successful events, I think of people being on their own paths, and maybe our cross.. and maybe we even go along parallel paths for long periods of time .. but I can't get over knowing that each of us are indiviuals who will unite when we are ready. I was not ready for the GOP in 07/08. Now my only regret is not joining the GOP in 07. I acept that there are many here that are where I was in 07.. not ready for a GOP. So I don't push,, I do inform.. because the truth is, MY GOP, was NOTHING like I thought it was, and people should go see what their's is.

If mine was like yours, I'd be looking for support to knock that wall down.

Ron Paul's a unifier.

Ron Paul's a unifier.

I gave that credit to his message

leaset we forget all those decades he ate lunch by himself in the congressional lunchroom?

Adam, why the vulgarity?

Adam, why the vulgarity? You're articulate and you have a sturdy vocabulary. Why not say words that advance understanding and well being instead of retardation and contention?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I swear like a trooper

but I agree with you, it's unnecessary. It's funny the way no-one is swearing then Adam swears and then suddenly they are all swearing.

swearing is like yawning, contagious. apparently.

it's called freedom

it's his show. he is not the first freedom fighter to use swear words. the great albert ellis who fought for psychological freedom startled his patients and audience alike mixing his psychological message with a blue streak of language that shook them up.

adam comes off as more an outlaw, and personally i think it suits him. if he ever runs for office of course he'd have to clean it up.

It's called frustration

When people can't think straight they curse.

the founder of

rational emotive behavior therapy, & one of the most brilliant and rational minds since the stoics would completely disagree with you, of course there are surely cases who would fall under your definition.

Dr. Albert Ellis?

I had the pleasure to meet Dr Ellis in Los Angeles.. around 1992.. right after he published, "Anger: How to Live with it and without it."

I would think Ellis would say that cursing is "venting" frustration.. that's all you're showing me when you curse.. "uyou're frustrated or you have a short emotional vocabulary.

you would think incorrectly

yes, i met him as well. you evidently never heard his lectures.

question: You seem very comfortable swearing—in writing as well. Much more than your average 91-year old.

Albert Ellis: I was the first psychologist at the American Psychological Associate Convention in Chicago in 1950 who was able to use "fuck" and "shit." The rest were scared shitless. It strikes home. It's direct. It doesn't beat around the bush.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-16/people/the-interpreta...

Cursing indicates frustration

In Ellis' case, they were part of his evidense, not part of his personal frustration. Maybe you should read his books, to see for yourself, cursing was not how he communicated, but an example of emotion muddeling communication.

i didn't say they were

part of his frustration, rather a way of making a strong point.
what you see as frustration with kokesh others see as making a strong statement.

BTW is your use of FOS a strong statement or frustration?

Strong statements aren't common and vulgar; profane.

Strong statements aren't common and vulgar; profane. Common and vulgar statements are a dime a dozen. Being common and vulgar is how profane people attempt to make strong statements. (out of frustration)

It's a viscous cycle. They'll just keep piling on more vulgarity thinking their statements will become stronger, but they just become more and more common; weaker.

you're writing as though there is

one hard and fast rule, and only one kind of swearer. this simply is not true.

as someone pointed out above swearing or not swearing is much more important here than the C4L foreign policy issue. most curious.

Vulgarity tunes people out, so why does Kokesh choose;

Why does he choose to be such a common and vulgar man? Does he want that to reflect on all of us? Does he want to smoke dope and run his foul mouth weakening all the strong statements the liberty movement COULD make?

"not swearing is much more important here than the C4L foreign policy issue"

I don't see that at all. Some people are pissed off about it and some are attempting to explain why if you can win on one issue, you'll win on the other.

You thinking vulgarity has become "a much more important issue" just reinforces what I'm saying. It's become a distraction created by frustrated minds, common and vulgar, unworthy of our attention; weakening any strong statement a vulgar and common man would try to make.