PDA

View Full Version : Article on HuffPo using Kent Snyder's death to attack libertarianism and Ron Paul




maqsur
07-07-2008, 06:15 AM
Take some time and read the comments posted, you will see some ignorance that had me shaking my head.

I think it's funny how those commentators are up in arms over Kent's lack of health insurance, claiming that libertarianism and/or Ron Paul are at fault; I mean, let's remember, Kent did receive two months of ICU care, he wasn't out on the streets. Several of the posters are clamoring for universal health care.

The author, in my opinion, is just using Kent Snyder's passing as a way to attack Ron Paul and libertarianism in general.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/libertarian-legacy-ron-pa_b_111079.html

Have a read, and see what you all think.

Alex Libman
07-07-2008, 06:24 AM
Great, now every time a socialist dies we have to write "where's your universal health coverage now"?

votefreedomfirst
07-07-2008, 06:24 AM
Why would you read that garbage site, nevertheless give them exactly what they want (traffic)?

malkusm
07-07-2008, 06:25 AM
It takes quite a bastard to make an insulting political statement out of a patriot's death. If we want to take back the country, we should start by cleaning out the sewers.

maqsur
07-07-2008, 06:28 AM
Sometimes they have some interesting articles.

It's good to read different viewpoints, whether radical liberal lefty, or hard-core warmongering neocon.


That way, we know what we're up against. Besides, I love reading like-minded things, but I also like to see what else is out there, because it just reinforces my own political viewpoints.

mport1
07-07-2008, 06:30 AM
Wow, thats despicable.

revolutionman
07-07-2008, 06:33 AM
I'm actually creating an account just to go blast some idiots

poor man is spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken because these socialist pigs try to make him a sad sappy statistic to further their insidious nanny state ambitions. They feel so damn sorry for him, but i bet none of them are willing to donate to help his family and their time of need. Their form of government has to obligate them to be compassionate toward their fellow man, because the truth is they care less than we do. You wont see that on the news.

Who the hell do they think put that site together? Bleeding heart liberal democrats??

powerofreason
07-07-2008, 07:36 AM
I had to stop reading the comments because I got so pissed at the ignorance I was encountering.

Edit: I'm gonna go make an account and refer them to some mises articles.

james1844
07-07-2008, 07:54 AM
I'm shocked and outraged he would use Kent's death to score some cheap political
rhetorical points like that. Its disgusting.


Take some time and read the comments posted, you will see some ignorance that had me shaking my head.

I think it's funny how those commentators are up in arms over Kent's lack of health insurance, claiming that libertarianism and/or Ron Paul are at fault; I mean, let's remember, Kent did receive two months of ICU care, he wasn't out on the streets. Several of the posters are clamoring for universal health care.

The author, in my opinion, is just using Kent Snyder's passing as a way to attack Ron Paul and libertarianism in general.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/libertarian-legacy-ron-pa_b_111079.html

Have a read, and see what you all think.

powerofreason
07-07-2008, 08:07 AM
Their email confirmation is slow as fuck...

Sandra
07-07-2008, 08:46 AM
Don't visit that troll site and let it die. Their readership is dropping off and they're using troll articles to get RP supporters to join, and post dissenting opinion. It's more of a hostile membership drive.

mello
07-07-2008, 10:38 AM
Is it true that he did not have insurance or is that just BS?

angelatc
07-07-2008, 11:23 AM
Is it true that he did not have insurance or is that just BS?

No he didn't have insurance. I read that was because of a pre-existing condition.

This makes me sad. I wish Ron Paul would write a response.

RP4Pres2008
07-07-2008, 11:47 AM
Ron, or someone, needs to respond to this!

NH4RonPaul
07-07-2008, 11:54 AM
Liberals will stoop to any level even the name of a dead man to acheive their aims. They don't care.
They are the lowest of the low.

angelatc
07-07-2008, 12:12 PM
Not to mention they don't seem to let facts stand in the way of their objectives.

Aratus
07-07-2008, 01:13 PM
would this all be worse if hillary won out? between teddy kennedy's cancerous tumor and
poor kent snyder being a jack of all trades and juggling proverbially easily 15 plates in the air
while carrying the weight of the campaign on his sholders, are we now seeing the traditional
campaign worker status being redefined totally by this? if we all could get at least $40,ooo
up by the 17th, and a further chip-in for the rest that has the fall conventions as a timeframe
goal... wouldn't this be a fitting way to celebrate a life lived well??? anyway... this is my opinion...

revolutionman
07-07-2008, 02:02 PM
Liberals will stoop to any level even the name of a dead man to acheive their aims. They don't care.
They are the lowest of the low.

I'm upset about this too, but lets not go filling our mouths with hatred toward liberals, especially when it was a Republican candidate (Rudy) who ran on the "I was there when 9/11 happened" platform. Thats one man using mass murder, terrorism, and a national tragedy to achieve his aims. This is just Bluffington Post trying to make a name for itself by any means necessary.

Kludge
07-07-2008, 02:29 PM
I'm not going to read it... :D

The_Orlonater
07-07-2008, 02:30 PM
This is why I hate liberals. They're disgusting; unter-mensch liberals. How could any human write that? :mad:

nate895
07-07-2008, 02:32 PM
I'm not going to read it... :D

Kludge, is your new avatar Gene Amondson of the Prohibiton Party?

JosephTheLibertarian
07-07-2008, 02:34 PM
Well, we don't have health freedom, so how can Huffpo criticize free market healthcare? We don't even have one.

The_Orlonater
07-07-2008, 02:39 PM
Well, we don't have health freedom, so how can Huffpo criticize free market healthcare? We don't even have one.

Because they're unter-mensch liberals. They're disgusting, it puzzles my mind how any human can write that. A tragic death for a cheap political rhetoric. They're criticize what they don't know about.

To the stakes!:mad:

Kludge
07-07-2008, 02:40 PM
Kludge, is your new avatar Gene Amondson of the Prohibiton Party?

Yes, he's amazing!

nate895
07-07-2008, 02:44 PM
Yes, he's amazing!

LOL!!!!

There actually are crazies who want to expand the drug war. I say we should move on to caffeine after alcohol.

The_Orlonater
07-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Prohibition party?...Lol :rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
07-07-2008, 02:50 PM
Found a good article for free market healthcare.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0692c.asp

This oughtta shut'em up.

CasualApathy
07-07-2008, 05:13 PM
Why would you read that garbage site, nevertheless give them exactly what they want (traffic)?

Sometimes i suspect that this argument is being used as a way to passify us, and discourage us from using the internet to speak out. Remember how annoyed the FOX "news" "journalists" were when we kept sending them angry e-mails.

I think they sat down and invented this entire "dont give them any traffic" argument to fool us into being passive.

We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

indeed, that's what we used to do.

constituent
07-07-2008, 05:21 PM
We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.



...or just become members of the community.

either way, i agree.

and this argument is too easy to filet to be worth taking on. maybe someone else will feel like it.

srsly, i read the piece, it's weak...

go get 'em tiger.

votefreedomfirst
07-07-2008, 05:25 PM
Sometimes i suspect that this argument is being used as a way to passify us, and discourage us from using the internet to speak out. Remember how annoyed the FOX "news" "journalists" were when we kept sending them angry e-mails.

I think they sat down and invented this entire "dont give them any traffic" argument to fool us into being passive.

We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

Ron Paul supporters are never going to "take over" the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal blogs there is. However, we can give them greater incentive (through increased ad revenue) to continue to publish this sort of garbage, though.

It's sort of like the Paul supporters who kept feeding the Wonkette trolls throughout the campaign. Why reward bad behavior?

It doesn't really matter though. People are going to do what they want. I was just making an observation.

CasualApathy
07-08-2008, 06:39 AM
Ron Paul supporters are never going to "take over" the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal blogs there is. However, we can give them greater incentive (through increased ad revenue) to continue to publish this sort of garbage, though.

It's sort of like the Paul supporters who kept feeding the Wonkette trolls throughout the campaign. Why reward bad behavior?

It doesn't really matter though. People are going to do what they want. I was just making an observation.

By your logic a site that has an agenda against RP would rather have 1000 comments of which 90% are critical of their article then 100 who mostly agree?
They will get more hits for sure, but I really think they would rather be without those particular visitors, after all the comments are there for all to see, and they will undermine what they are trying to do, and in time the overall credibility of their site.
Or look at it another way, would you rather have a random visitor to the site see a hitpiece on RP with comments that mostly agree, or wouldn't it be better for the comments to clearly refute their article.
You remember how FOX, ABC and CNN deleted the comments from articles critical of Paul after they were flooded by RP supporters who completely refuted the articles, right?

votefreedomfirst
07-08-2008, 06:53 AM
By your logic a site that has an agenda against RP would rather have 1000 comments of which 90% are critical of their article then 100 who mostly agree?
They will get more hits for sure, but I really think they would rather be without those particular visitors, after all the comments are there for all to see, and they will undermine what they are trying to do.
Or look at it another way, would you rather have a random visitor to the site see a hitpiece on RP with comments that mostly agree, or wouldn't it be better for the comments to clearly refute their article.
You remember how FOX, ABC and CNN deleted the comments from articles critical of Paul after they were flooded by RP supporters who completely refuted the articles, right?

If you think you can go on a site like the Huffington Post and change anyone's mind, you are kidding yourself. These people are socialists; they are the enemy of freedom and prosperity. Personally I'm not going to take the troll bait and reward a cheap political stunt.

I'm sure the Wonkette guy who paid his rent for months by slandering RP would agree with you, though.

CasualApathy
07-08-2008, 07:28 AM
If you think you can go on a site like the Huffington Post and change anyone's mind, you are kidding yourself. These people are socialists; they are the enemy of freedom and prosperity. Personally I'm not going to take the troll bait and reward a cheap political stunt.

I'm sure the Wonkette guy who paid his rent for months by slandering RP would agree with you, though.

I must say, your argument is pretty weak. First off you make the claim that every single visitor to the Huffington Post is a hardcore socialist, which just isn't true, and really couldn't be unless the site had a screening process and forced membership or something like that. Secondly you assert that we shouldn't even bother to argue our case in "hostile" territory. If we accept that, we could only talk amongst ourselves, and our growth would stagnate completely. Perhaps a few people would stumble across our sites, but basically everything would stagnate. It doesn't seem to me that this is the right way to go.

I say we should make our case even more intensely when confronted by these hitpiece-articles. I agree that it may not change the minds of very many dedicated socialists, but it may very well change the minds of others reading the hitpiece, and that in itself is justification enough for making the minimal effort that is required to refute such articles.

People who have been here from the early beginnings will remember that we actually made the mainstreem news several times simply because of our coordinated efforts early in the campaign. Granted, the news was not positive, but nonetheless the fact that FOX and others took the time to moan about us on primetime news proved that we were having an effect. Coincidentally it was shorthy thereafter that the "Dont give them any traffic" talking point first started to appear regularly on these forums.

We have to use the tools the internet grants us to vioce our opinions, if we don't our internet pressence becomes increasingly more irrelevant.

angelatc
07-09-2008, 12:23 AM
We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

indeed, that's what we used to do.

I agree. But we have to be well spoken. 500 "U R A IDIOT" posts don't really help anybody understand the error of their philosophies. We're not going to make anybody change their minds, but we can try to make them think outside their box. Passing out red pills....can't make them take it, but one by one they do.

I mean really, has anybody, except for Ariana Huffington who was apparently traded for Dennis Miller, ever grown out of being conservative? Nobody ever says, "Yeah, I slowly began to realize that big government would actually be the best solution."

I have 2 sites bookmarked. I check them every day for Open Registration opportunity. I shall announce the opportunity if and when I catch it.

I already got Little Green Footballs. They only leave theirs open for an hour or so at a time. I just got lucky, and by the time I finished typing my info it was closed.