Remember Our Mission - Honor our Leader!

Maybe we could have a voting system like youtube and digg that would suppress the negative comments if they got enough thumbs down. Another thing to consider; what would you do if you had $100 million to win an election and wanted to suppress or discredit Ron Paul? Pay people to pose as supporters and try to steer the real supporters and potential supporters off course. I don't want to sound paranoid, but it wouldn't surprise me if we had a few wolves in sheep's clothing around here. I can't prove it, but I do believe there are people who are paid to attack Ron Paul all day long in comment sections around the net. Why wouldn't they come here as well? Always remain an open minded skeptic. As far as my real name? (see below posts) What difference does it make? I like being bamboooodmad. It's what I have to say that's important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Better to be flexible like bamboo than rigid like oak, for when the storm comes bamboo will bend and survive, where as oak will crack and die."

I would vote to ban someone if they threaten violence, or encourage others to commit acts of violence against someone else, or against elected officials.

Ron Paul does not condone violence in his campaign, and neither should his websites.

I posted this elsewhere and am adding it here, because I would like some thoughts. I'm thinking of looking for another RP forum to join because I think some of the things I read on this forum are unfair to Dr. Paul's dignity -- name calling of others, attacking another party or candidate, etc.

-------------
As Dr. Paul asks, "How would you feel if....."

So, while I'm totally for supporting our candidate and writing letters of support, and more importantly, building friendly relations, peace and exchange, ("with no entangling alliances"), I do think we are offending some people unnecessarily. Some of those people might enjoy discussion and learning about Dr. Paul. I am concerned that our rush to every poll and to flood every incident of oversight with objections is causing some resentment.

Do I have an answer? No. I think our participation is important; and I think that our communication with others (and to one another ABOUT others) should be lifted up, not sullied or disrespectful. Our feelings of hurt for Dr. Paul's being discounted and ignored and even attacked are genuine feelings.

What we do about those feelings, how we respond, and our efforts to reach out to others... all add up to a big complex picture. And I would like us to think, "What will REALLY be effective here? And how would I feel if I (and others who have set up a poll) and a particular group always swarmed it? I mean, it is fun for a time if one can enjoy the enthusiasm of those who do it, and the initial surprise may arouse my curiosity and interest. But, after a time, the game would grow old, and resentment would start to seep in and I would see them as over-zealous, and adolescent.

Please forgive me... I'm following the "What if it were me" experience to its extension. It would get tiring. And the genuine rebuff the Ron Paul supporters feel, though justified, would not compensate for the frustration I would feel -- as if my personal boundaries had been crossed. Almost as if spammed? Feeling violated.

I'm getting too long here. In short, let's build friendly relations and refrain from manipulations and entanglements, like Jefferson and Paul recommend. Can we get the word out in more freeing ways? More joyful ways for ourselves?

Build the wave.... and enjoy the ride... and let others be drawn on their own motivation and curiosity?

The question is: How to handle polls, and appearances (including Jay Leno), without excess? or to respond (if at all) rebuff and insult from MSM or blogs, etc? What is best?

We want of course 1) to get our message out 2) to educate and to inform where incorrect assumptions are made 3) to respond to disrespect with respectful protest; 4) to reach out to others with our hopes and our contagious enthusiasm, while maintaining our own dignity and Dr. Paul's.

I think understatement is more effective than "in your face."

My ruminations this quiet evening...

I would like some thoughtful suggestions... for my own behavior, if for no one else here.

Thank you,
gb

Please excuse my typos; I edited to correct them.

bury it!

The blog war is hell. We are all humans. We operate in cyberspace as individuals that come together to make a formidable mass. Some of us are dead serious with zealous effort and critical intent. Some of us talk about him all the time. Some of us get in our cars and drive to events to make sure the support of Dr. Paul is on the ground. Some of us get together with other local people and HIT the streets: Walking with signs, driving with signs, pooling and soliciting talent in order to do large billboards, spray painting homeade signs and putting them all around town overnight for shock and awe, chalk sidewalks, plaster Ron Paul 2008 stickers on all the mainstream media's newspaper machines, put out side of the road signs, go door to door with slim jims and laptops, etc.We recommend to everyone in our family to check out Ron Paul and consider him strongly. We follow up. A critical mass has a focus point right now. The more giddy of us rant all over the internet. But there are MANY offline RP supporters, there are MANY silent observers online. Ron Paul is the man of our times who holds the principles that we all would like aspire to and stick to. We have proven that we are off the hook, but Ron Paul, himself, is ALWAYS SOUND MONEY!!!!

And I reiterate, the blog war is emotional hell, but neocons are fun to mess with, and they have proven they are no good at war.

I'm no expert on the FEC's regulations, but I think the campaign must be careful not to give this site and its visitors any instructions or anything that looks like coordination in case it can be interpreted as part of the campaign.

If this site (or any of the Meet-up groups, perhaps) becames a coordinated ally of the campaign, all the money it raises (perhaps through ads) might be considered a contribution to the campaign--the paperwork, alone, would be a major headache.

Clearly, the rants help make the point that this is not an official campaign site ;) But I don't trust a judge not to say that just because it isn't a smooth and sanitized site, it's not one.

Anyway, there are many of our activities that the campaign cannot critique (I'm guessing) for fear of seeming to coordinate. That's a good reason to police ourselves.

IMissLiberty

Michael --
One of the best things about this site is that people do ask questions about Ron Paul's positions and want to hear the answers. Invariably, someone comes along and posts a very good response vis-a-vis the Constitution, and clarifies Ron Paul's position.

Meanwhile, other posts reflect varying degrees of misinformation and/or alternate viewpoints, and these are likely reflected by people who come to read, so here they can read it all and weigh the responses for themselves.

But here's the key -- if visitors read through, they can see the dynamic discussion and free market of ideas. And nothing, in my opinion, is harmed by that. That's just freedom.

I also appreciate the exposure of behind-the-scenes media tricks, such as recent posts about Luntz and his sham "undecideds" at the Fox debate. I don't know where else I would get that information. I think it is perfectly fine to expose lies in the media or on other blogs, or to expose evils about the candidates themselves. The public has a right to know.

But the other side of freedom is responsibility, and some who post are not careful to keep a civil tone, and respect the views of others, even in disagreeing. Maybe they should be warned, and allowed to clean their posts up.

Of course, if you were to start banning people outright, you may become no better than Free Republic or Pajamas Media types. Something to think about.

Obvious trolls and shills for other candidates, ulterior motive types, are going to be posting more and more as time goes on, just as surely as attacks on Ron Paul will increase. Because Paul has integrity (and cannot be bought), those who have already sold their souls despise him. For by being who he is, he exposes what they have become.