PDA

View Full Version : new york times writes about Paulville:




haaaylee
05-08-2008, 11:35 AM
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/a-gated-community-for-ron-paul-supporters/?hp

torchbearer
05-08-2008, 11:54 AM
hmmmm

kirkblitz
05-08-2008, 11:59 AM
creepy

torchbearer
05-08-2008, 12:02 PM
well, its the timing of it too.
What has cable news taught us about these "communities" of "kooks"?
They are demons who rape children.

Talk about getting together in one spot so they could easily take us out.

acroso
05-08-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure why anyone would want to live in a Paul commuity\commune anyway. One guy probably thought this idea up, and the mainstream media thinks all the Paul people want to live in tents together now.

Mister Grieves
05-08-2008, 12:05 PM
I made comment number 15 in response to the article.

I'm actually surprised they posted it and even commented on it themselves.

Knightskye
05-08-2008, 12:06 PM
Wouldn't have been in the print version with all these insults.


Evidently the Paulville people take as libertarian a view of the laws of grammar, spelling and punctuation as they do of the statute books.


replicate in the physical world the comfortable feeling they’ve experienced online, of being fenced-off from the rest of us.

kirkblitz
05-08-2008, 12:06 PM
haha nice mister

torchbearer
05-08-2008, 12:08 PM
I'm not sure why anyone would want to live in a Paul commuity\commune anyway. One guy probably thought this idea up, and the mainstream media thinks all the Paul people want to live in tents together now.

That is exactly what happened.
It was a thread on this very forum. One guy made. One reporter read.
And now this is a new grassroots project that we are all supporting.

Any whack-job with a keyboard and internet connection can post anything on these forums.
What are the reporters sources? How many people are planning this?
Or is this just more propaganda to make us look kooks?

Kade
05-08-2008, 12:46 PM
I made comment number 15 in response to the article.

I'm actually surprised they posted it and even commented on it themselves.

Typos are a bit different than glaring misspellings and inconsistent English. The keys "o" and "r" are right next to each other. Just read the few posts above this one for a general idea of the level of written English on the forums.

yongrel
05-08-2008, 12:48 PM
Yeah... Jim Jones is a Ron Paul supporter.

Soccrmastr
05-08-2008, 12:50 PM
Im still VERY divide don this paulville. Who let it get popular enough to make it to NYTimes??

Mister Grieves
05-08-2008, 01:00 PM
Typos are a bit different than glaring misspellings and inconsistent English. The keys "o" and "r" are right next to each other. Just read the few posts above this one for a general idea of the level of written English on the forums.

Yeah, but the point is, it is the New York Times and it was just the third word into the short piece. It should have been caught just quickly scanning over it, let alone an actual proof-read. Forums and blogs should be held to a different standard.

Anyways, I mainly responded to knock the author of an obvious Paul hit-piece down a couple of pegs without me actually getting sucked into defending some random blogger who happens to like Ron Paul.

Kade
05-08-2008, 01:06 PM
Yeah, but the point is, it is the New York Times and it was just the third word into the short piece. It should have been caught just quickly scanning over it, let alone an actual proof-read. Forums and blogs should be held to a different standard.

Anyways, I mainly responded to knock the author of an obvious Paul hit-piece down a couple of pegs without me actually getting sucked into defending some random blogger who happens to like Ron Paul.

I suppose that is a good point. Ron Paul absolutism is... sketchy.

This compound is sketchy.

The article was a hit piece, but, unlike many other articles, it allowed comments.

Rhys
05-08-2008, 05:23 PM
lol this is my favorite comment from the blog:

"Communist Libertarians! What will they think of next."

15 post was great. glad you did it. that jab insulted me because I take grammar very serious, and Ron Paul too! (maybe not on forums, but I find it very rude to reprint a mom and pop in the New York Times and insult it for not being awesomely worded or whatever. I thought the point came across very clear, even with the bad grammar. And I KNEW they'd say something about the bad grammar cause they're pricks. And who lives separated from whom? We average people, or the fucking New York Times?)