The Risk of going to sites that are negative to Ron Paul

[dspectre]

I think RonPaul4President put it best that when we go to these sites that bash Ron Paul, we only give them more hits, which in turn can make more money for them in the long run.

For the most part, I think it can be kind of wasteful going to these sites, and we shouldn't support them.

We should only go to places that are positive for Ron Paul.

[angrydragon]

Well, I think if comments, emails, or letters are allowed, better to leave intelligent comments and educate them on their misunderstandings. Otherwise yah, leave it alone and hope people do some research.

[jon_perez]

When people bash Ron Paul, it is usually not because they have anything against the person per se, it is because they don't share his views or possibly have misinterpreted or misread some of the things Ron Paul has said. If we can engage this people in intelligent debate, it might soften their stance and even possibly change their minds on certain issues.

If, on the other hand, we make it a "my candidate vs. your candidate" thing, then good luck with that, since you will almost certainly get nowhere and often contribute to a hardening of stance against the candidate you're championing.

[PatriotOne]

I have Ron Paul on my Google alerts and am sent summaries and links to articles/blogs by email. When I read the summary, if it is negative, I don't go to the site. If it is positive I make sure I go to the site to give them a hit.

I do the same thing for Rudy Giuliani except opposite. Summary good, no hit to the site. Summary bad, I hit it a couple times ;)