Ugh, is anyone else sick of the Paul bashers..?

[VoteRonPaul2008]

It's seems like everytime we have any kind of success.. the more paul bashers come out.. I just spend an hour arguing with a guy, because he continues to post flat out false accusations.. it's getting extremely annoying... they complain about us, yet they can't even bother to research basic things and reluctantly resort to name calling..

It's so hard to promote your candidate, when you spend all your time defending him,. and some people are so stuck to their own positions that they refuse to take anything you say into consideration.. even if you present them with facts


I didn't write this to be negative, I just wanted to see if anyone else feels this way.. and how to deal with people who refuse to listen to you but continue to bad mouth him for untrue reasons?

[RPFTW!]

"But ron paul be teh racists"

[VoteRonPaul2008]

lol

[American]

I agree, I get it on a few forums, but that there own denial of defeat.

try and stay on topic, not everyone wants to be free, some need to heavy hand of Govt to survive.

[progrock]

hit them with the truth, hand them a DVD of ron paul i suggest this one http://www.mininova.org/tor/957282 . tell them have a good day.
Then move on to someone with more common sense.

[Furis]

Attention:

THE BETTER HE DOES THE WORSE IT WILL GET.


First they ignore us, next they attack us, then we win.

[noxagol]

I don't mind the bashing when they at least of done some homework and make a credible argument aside from, "He's crazy!"

[theseus51]

Attention:
THE BETTER HE DOES THE WORSE IT WILL GET.


First they ignore us, next they attack us, then we win.

I made this point a while ago, you don't ever see "hit pieces" on guys like Duncan Hunter. Nobody cares about them. But think about all the candidates who have tons of media attention, TONS and TONS and TONS of hit pieces.

You can't get lots of media attention, without lots of criticism. How many times do we bash all the other candidates? Call them socialists, or tyrants, or liars, or whatever.

[curtisag]

It's difficult to make a credible argument against Paul, that's why the hostility and name calling of Paul will continue to increase as his popularity increases. He is the biggest threat to the party establishment in a long time. Losing elections is one thing, but if the neo-cons lose the Republican base's core support they're completely done.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Well, at least we're in Phase Three. Next phase is "you win".

Anyway, depending on who this person supports, just bring up dirt on them. There's plenty for everybody. Tell him if you want to debate on facts and the merit of each candidate's arguments, you're game. But by the sound of this guy, it's probably a lost cause.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

it seems like it's been attack after attack lately.. and to the other poster I don't mind either when it is a credible arguement, but what he said is completely false and he's accusing Paul and his supporters of things that we and Paul are not responsible for.. he's completely irrational..

[purepaloma]

The Hillary people get it too.

It'll be a great showdown between the 2.

[sgrooms]

hit them with the truth, hand them a DVD of ron paul i suggest this one http://www.mininova.org/tor/957282 . tell them have a good day.
Then move on to someone with more common sense.

the link didn't seem to work?

[SlapItHigh]

I just spend an hour arguing with a guy, because he continues to post flat out false accusations.. it's getting extremely annoying...

Yes, it can be very frustrating because people who have an agenda against RP have no interest in the truth. I have addressed false claims about RP on several occassions where I have provided links and solid evidence to refute some claims. I am almost always met with the response that they will still continue to spread the false claims. I hardly ever get involved with this sort of thing anymore. It just isn't worth the time.

However, a couple days ago I did get involved with another person who was posting false information about RP on a popular blog site for women. Her blog entry was titled "10 Reasons to Hate Ron Paul". I, along with several other women, posted that much of the information she was providing about Ron Paul was false and gave evidence to the contrary. She then deleted our responses and left the false smear as is. I pondered what to do and this is what I ended up posting on her blog entry:


Sarah, you know that you can be sued for libel? I'm forwarding this to the campaign.

It is one thing to copy and paste things you read on websites with ignorant bliss but some of this was totally debunked in the comments that you deleted. You chose to keep the inaccurate smear in your list even after the truth was brought to your attention. If that isn't libel, I don't know what is.

I will repost one of my comments regarding an inaccuracy and I will also do a screen print as I forward this to the official campaign so that they will be made aware of the libel:

Ron paul has never voted to ban gay adoption. This is a good reminder to actually read/research something before you go around copy & pasting things you read on the internet. If you had clicked on the link to the bill that is referenced on that site you would see that gay adoption is not even in the bill AT ALL. I do, however, know that at one time there was a tiny amendment within the bill that would prohibit federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people in Washington DC only. Ron Paul has always voted to prohibit federal funding related to adoption in any way regardless of whether the adopting party is same sex, opposite sex, married or unmarried. Federal funding for adoption is completely unconstitutional. Also, that amendment was removed from the final bill. Please research valid sources before spreading false smear about others on the internet.

Sarah - thank you for proving that Ron Paul haters such as yourself, do not hate him based on reality or facts, but rather your own personal agenda.

Guess what? After she read my post, she deleted the entire anti-Ron Paul blog post (along with another anti-RP post she had posted previously). Gotta say. It felt great to win that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I must have really scared her!! I'm sure she'll think twice about spreading lies about RP online from now on.

[partypooper]

It's seems like everytime we have any kind of success.. the more paul bashers come out.. I just spend an hour arguing with a guy, because he continues to post flat out false accusations.. it's getting extremely annoying... they complain about us, yet they can't even bother to research basic things and reluctantly resort to name calling..

take this as a positive. people now know who he is, or at least, they think they know. the debate doesn't stop today. and you can't win over everybody.

the day MSM starts talking about nazi and bullshit accusations we will know we are the front-runner.

[tsopranos]

It's seems like everytime we have any kind of success.. the more paul bashers come out.. I just spend an hour arguing with a guy, because he continues to post flat out false accusations.. it's getting extremely annoying... they complain about us, yet they can't even bother to research basic things and reluctantly resort to name calling..

It's so hard to promote your candidate, when you spend all your time defending him,. and some people are so stuck to their own positions that they refuse to take anything you say into consideration.. even if you present them with facts


I didn't write this to be negative, I just wanted to see if anyone else feels this way.. and how to deal with people who refuse to listen to you but continue to bad mouth him for untrue reasons?

Check it out, from Andrew Sullivan's blog...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-smearing-of.html

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Yes, it can be very frustrating because people who have an agenda against RP have no interest in the truth. I have addressed false claims about RP on several occassions where I have provided links and solid evidence to refute some claims. I am almost always met with the response that they will still continue to spread the false claims. I hardly ever get involved with this sort of thing anymore. It just isn't worth the time.

However, a couple days ago I did get involved with another person who was posting false information about RP on a popular blog site for women. I, along with several other women, posted that much of the information she was providing about Ron Paul was false and gave evidence to the contrary. She then deleted our responses and left the false smear as is. I pondered what to do and this is what I ended up posting on her blog entry:



Guess what? After she read my post, she deleted the entire anti-Ron Paul blog post (along with another anti-RP post she had posted previously). Gotta say. It felt great to win that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I must have really scared her!!


lol, good for you! at least she got the point, this guy doesn't seem too.. it's so unfair... it seems like every other candidate's supporters don't have to refute claims as much as we do... yet even when they are presented with facts, they refuse to listen.. and get completely irrational.. that's what worries me.. if this how ignorant people are. how will ron win?

[LizF]

Yes, it can be very frustrating because people who have an agenda against RP have no interest in the truth. I have addressed false claims about RP on several occassions where I have provided links and solid evidence to refute some claims. I am almost always met with the response that they will still continue to spread the false claims. I hardly ever get involved with this sort of thing anymore. It just isn't worth the time.

However, a couple days ago I did get involved with another person who was posting false information about RP on a popular blog site for women. Her blog entry was titled "10 Reasons to Hate Ron Paul". I, along with several other women, posted that much of the information she was providing about Ron Paul was false and gave evidence to the contrary. She then deleted our responses and left the false smear as is. I pondered what to do and this is what I ended up posting on her blog entry:



Guess what? After she read my post, she deleted the entire anti-Ron Paul blog post (along with another anti-RP post she had posted previously). Gotta say. It felt great to win that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I must have really scared her!!


Way to go! :D

[Adamsa]

I don't mind if people don't like Ron Paul, as long as they're informed of his positions. 99% of the time they aren't unfortunately.

[Indy Vidual]

It's seems like everytime we have any kind of success.. the more paul bashers come out.. I just spend an hour arguing with a guy, because he continues to post flat out false accusations.. it's getting extremely annoying... they complain about us, yet they can't even bother to research basic things and reluctantly resort to name calling..

It's so hard to promote your candidate, when you spend all your time defending him,. and some people are so stuck to their own positions that they refuse to take anything you say into consideration.. even if you present them with facts


I didn't write this to be negative, I just wanted to see if anyone else feels this way.. and how to deal with people who refuse to listen to you but continue to bad mouth him for untrue reasons?


Attention:

THE BETTER HE DOES THE WORSE IT WILL GET.


First they ignore us, next they attack us, then we win.

Also, don't waste too much time on Neo-cons & Neo-bots, some of them really are not going to change.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

^thanks, this one isn't a fan of Bush, I'm not really sure who he is voting for.. he keeps saying he's from Texas and Paul lied.. and just a whole bunch of crap.. I think something may be wrong with him mentally lol

[Visual]

"Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
- Richard M. Nixon

[LinearChaos]

The only thing they have to smear him with is the 1992 newsletter that he didn't write, and it is the mildest of the weaksauce. I wouldn't be surprised if Rove has crawled out from his cave...

[VoteRonPaul2008]

^no, now their running out of things to smear him with so their making things up

[Seth M.]

Know who you are talking with. Is it really a potential voter? or just a disinformation expert? Realize that there are internet entities that have an agenda and they are a waste of time.

You will gain SOOOO much more handing out slimjims and talking face to face with real voters.

Anyway, here are some traits of the Disinformationalist: familiar?

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

[LinearChaos]

^no, now their running out of things to smear him with so their making things upOh... That means you win. I stopped worrying about that and learned to love the bomb.

And when you say running out, there are only a couple of things they can use, all of which are crap. Andrew Sullivan has blogged about it today:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-smearing-of.html

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been very fair to Paul, especially considering some of the posters there.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Know who you are talking with. Is it really a potential voter? or just a disinformation expert? Realize that there are internet entities that have an agenda and they are a waste of time.

You will gain SOOOO much more handing out slimjims and talking face to face with real voters.

Anyway, here are some traits of the Disinformationalist: familiar?

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.



what a great analysis.. thank you lol.. your right I'm only going put my time towards potential voters, the only thing that worries me though is that.. in political forums, if I'm not there to refute arguements... then he will keep spreading false info and turn voters off?

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Oh... That means you win. I stopped worrying about that and learned to love the bomb.

And when you say running out, there are only a couple of things they can use, all of which are crap. Andrew Sullivan has blogged about it today:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-smearing-of.html

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been very fair to Paul, especially considering some of the posters there.


good articles, thanks!

[jenius]

Don't get mad, just correct them on their facts and move on. I.E., don't let them falsely smear, but don't waste your energy getting emotional about it.

[steph3n]

I am sick of ron paul supporters pissing off the entire internet.
get it through your heads people, you are giving a WORSE name by these stupid continual antics.
Learn to be covert.

[chipvogel]

When you are getting more frags than the other players its only a matter of time before you are called
.
.
.
cheater and just about every derogatory name in the book

I just take the personal attacks as compliments and sleep well knowing I'm not the one who is going to sleep angry.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

I am sick of ron paul supporters pissing off the entire internet.
get it through your heads people, you are giving a WORSE name by these stupid continual antics.
Learn to be covert.

actually I'm always respectful towards people, he bashed me and Paul so I responded.. I didn't start this nor am an abrasive person.. please don't generalize

[steph3n]

actually I'm always respectful towards people, he bashed me and Paul so I responded.. I didn't start this nor am an abrasive person.. please don't generalize

not talking about you, I am talking about the general attitude across digg, blog comments, red state, wonke tte etc. oh and youtube!

[DealzOnWheelz]

Who cares Don't waste time with people set in their ways there are plenty of people out there that haven't chosen a candidate and haven't disapproved of a candidate

So what!!!

How many people do you tell about ron Paul surely not everyone you come in contact with...

STEP IT UP A NOTCH

talk to more people wave more signs send more emails, send more im's

[LinearChaos]

not talking about you, I am talking about the general attitude across digg, blog comments, red state, wonke tte etc. oh and youtube!
what do the haters expect? RP HAS been blackballed and bashed for even being mentioned, for a long time now, and with little provocation.

Do you think that every RP supporter goes around spamming "RON PAUL RULZLAWL!!1!"? No, they go make a comment and the regular clique on whatever board it is gangs up and goes apeshit crazy on the person, then cry when people bite back.

They are nothing but little kids who want to pretend they are nice by inviting everyone into their sandbox, then getting mad and blaming the other kids when they discover that the sand box is nothing but the neighborhood litter box and that it is full of turds.

[Akus]

It's seems like everytime we have any kind of success.. the more paul bashers come out.. I just spend an hour arguing with a guy, because he continues to post flat out false accusations.. it's getting extremely annoying... they complain about us, yet they can't even bother to research basic things and reluctantly resort to name calling..

It's so hard to promote your candidate, when you spend all your time defending him,. and some people are so stuck to their own positions that they refuse to take anything you say into consideration.. even if you present them with facts


I didn't write this to be negative, I just wanted to see if anyone else feels this way.. and how to deal with people who refuse to listen to you but continue to bad mouth him for untrue reasons?

Then let the hell go and move on. For one fanatic, there are 5 undecideds who have no idea who RP is.

[Mauiboy86]

When I talk to difficult people who are stuck in their ways, I hand then a flyer and say thanks.