PDA

View Full Version : Should those that support other agendas instead of Ron Paul be banned?




mtmedlin
02-23-2008, 07:14 PM
Should those that support other agendas instead of Ron Paul be banned? There are some on this forum that have over 3000 posts and 70% or more are about their own personal issue instead of Ron Paul or views that Ron Paul supports.

Should we ban these people or at least give them a ban warning if they dont stop?

Cowlesy
02-23-2008, 07:19 PM
I had to vote option 3. This is an open forum, but we do have rules. Those rules being we don't censor others opinions (if they're honest to goodness opposing views and not troll-behavior), and that people can promote what they want --- post count will be the free market deciding whether or not they want a thread to live or die.

The One
02-23-2008, 07:21 PM
If you don't like what somebody else posts about, quit seeking out their posts to go argue with them.

integrity
02-23-2008, 07:22 PM
If you don't like what somebody else posts about, quit seeking out their posts to go argue with them.

yeah, go to an "argument clinic"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

IcyPeaceMaker
02-23-2008, 09:58 PM
Freedom of speech should not be curtailed. If other posters are here, they are subconciously asking us to swing them over to RP's side. There is no other viable reason to be here, they must find something to like and we should be courteous and inviting, especially if they seem to be picking a fight. Kill them with kindness, just as our mentor would do.

Kludge
02-23-2008, 10:24 PM
ONLY in "Ron on the Issues" should it be warned (banned for repeats) if someone gives their own opinion without making it absolutely clear. Otherwise.... "Liberty Forest".

PatriotOne
02-23-2008, 10:28 PM
I need a 5th option:

Ban all those who know little about the hot topic subjects but can't seem to stay away from them to spew their ignorance and cause infighting and then post stupid polls asking to have informed members banned.

Doktor_Jeep
02-24-2008, 03:53 AM
Should COINTELPRO who are trying to make the movement a simple dry political movement be banned?

What are they so afraid of the "other agendas" for? Ok so Ron Paul can talk about the Fed, the use of the Constitution as toilet paper, and illegal wars - all things the press and PTB can ignore and laugh at but those other agendas... oh no can't have that. That might wake more people up.

Tdcci
02-24-2008, 04:03 AM
are about their own personal issue instead of Ron Paul or views that Ron Paul supports.

Does this mean

Because Ron Paul abhors abortion, we cannot discuss abortion?
Because Ron Paul disagrees with the role of the Federal Reserve, we cannot discuss the Federal Reserve?
Because Ron Paul disagrees with managed trade, we cannot discuss managed trade?

I don't see a big difference here.

mtmedlin
02-24-2008, 09:01 PM
Does this mean

Because Ron Paul abhors abortion, we cannot discuss abortion?
Because Ron Paul disagrees with the role of the Federal Reserve, we cannot discuss the Federal Reserve?
Because Ron Paul disagrees with managed trade, we cannot discuss managed trade?

I don't see a big difference here.

Ron abhors abortion but has a fairly neutral stand but using a specific like this isnt the point. Where I have an issue would be if a person took a statement that Ron said and turned it to support a position that Ron has expressly stated that he Doesnt support. Such as a person, lets call him SL, who has taken a sentence about Ron supporting people speaking out. He then turns it to say that this means that Ron supports him speaking out about 911 truth. This same person attempts repeatedly to get a more visible discusion location for 911 truth even though Ron has stated numerous times that he doesnt support it.
Its not about what is discussed, it is the twisting of Rons words and using the forum to pursue a personal agenda that is in direct contradiction to the postion of the candidate. If, as you suggest, it was a simple discusion, then that would be innocent. This person doesnt have a single post or even a handful of posts. He has well over a thousand and if my sampling is correct, over 2000 posts on this issue. He, by his own actions and words, made it clear that he is interested in this issue and not Rons electability. At one point he attempted to leave and form a seperate group on another forum because he didnt get what he wanted.
His actions are WAY more then just a simple conversation.

mtmedlin
02-24-2008, 09:08 PM
I had to vote option 3. This is an open forum, but we do have rules. Those rules being we don't censor others opinions (if they're honest to goodness opposing views and not troll-behavior), and that people can promote what they want --- post count will be the free market deciding whether or not they want a thread to live or die.

I agree but I would differ on your opinion of troll behavior.

1. Forming a new forum and attempting to split the group
2. Twisting Ron Pauls words in order to support a view that has been denied by the candidate.
3. Having the overwhelming majority of someones 3000+ post count dedicated to a postion that the candidate is directly opposed to and has ASKED his supporters to stop associating their views with him. I believe that Ron stated during the debate that if the people cared about him then they would stop.
4. Constantly complaining about not having a more visible location to discuss postitions not supported by the candidate.
5. Making unfavorable comments about Mods on the forum because he has determined that hey are bigoted. This is a typical move by a troll in order to cause dissent and build loyalty in order to split the group.

Liberté
02-25-2008, 01:37 AM
yeah, go to an "argument clinic"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

You are one of the biggest banning trolls around, your answer shocks me.

Maybe you wised up!