Paul Devotees Spark Online Backlash

[Bradley in DC]

[please think, and pause, before acting rashing--there's no "undo" button for sent emails--as theraputic as those emails can be individually, collectively they hurt us worse.]

http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=weeklyreport-000002630668

CQ WEEKLY – VANTAGE POINT
Nov. 18, 2007 – 6:13 p.m.
Paul Devotees Spark Online Backlash
By Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff

He may be the Republican version of Howard Dean in this election cycle, creating an impressive online fundraising base made up of Net-savvy activists. But Ron Paul is having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode.

Indeed, things have gotten so bad that a growing number of political blogs and discussion boards — not exactly prime outlets of delicacy in public-spirited discourse — have taken the drastic step of barring especially vocal backers of the Texas congressman from their ranks. Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites. And this month, Bobby Eberle, who runs the site GOPUSA.com, addressed an open letter to Paul backers urging civility.

Eberle’s letter took pains to note that he wasn’t singling out Paul supporters per se but rather “the aggressive network of online fans who bombard discussion boards, spam Web sites, flood online polls, and behave in a manner that puts their candidate in an extremely bad light.”

Eberle says that in seven years of running GOPUSA.com, he’s never come across users as routinely abusive as Paul backers can be. “The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter often contains profanity and is filled with name-calling and attacks on the other candidates,” he says. “They throw out slurs such as ‘neo-con’ or ‘fake Republican’ or ‘sheeple’ or ‘jerks’ or worse. They say people are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots,’ ‘traitors,’ and worse for not supporting Ron Paul .”

In addition, Paul’s backers have spoiled the fun when the site has sponsored unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field. In September, when Eberle sponsored one such poll, Paul’s backers bombarded the site. Paul ended up with 66 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson finished second, with 12 percent. By contrast, in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Eberle noted, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally.

Meanwhile, last month, redstate.com barred newly registered users from writing any pro-Paul commentary on the site. “Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada,” wrote Leon Wolf, a senior editor for the Web site.

Wolf added that the reason for the change was his view that backers of the libertarian Paul — who, unlike most Republicans, has always opposed the Iraq War and opposes federal laws criminalizing drugs — are “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.”

Likewise, littlegreenfootballs.com dropped Paul’s name from its online polls in May after Paul backers racked up another win by alerting colleagues to vote on the site. Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn’t cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. “ Ron Paul ’s supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this,” he wrote.

At least some Paul enthusiasts have begun arguing that their online zeal may be on the verge of becoming counterproductive. “Now that Dr. Paul has more attention from the mainstream media, we have to take extra precaution to ensure that we are being as tactful as humanly possible,” one anonymous poster wrote recently on a popular Paul discussion board about the congressman, who’s also a physician. “We cannot afford to give the mainstream media or any of Dr. Paul’s opponents ammo.”

But the Paul campaign says it’s in no position to enforce such message discipline among its supporters. “These are independent supporters that are acting on their own volition,” says campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “The campaign doesn’t have control of or influence over that.”

That would seem a considerable understatement, to judge by the candidate’s recent dealings with his fired-up base. The Philadelphia chapter of Paul’s fan club recently won a fundraising thank-you visit from Paul — but then refused to reconnoiter at the site in suburban Valley Forge that Paul had selected for the appearance, according to Slate.com writer Chadwick Matlin. Instead, they scouted an affordable venue in Philadelphia — and won the candidate’s assent to meet them there. Benton shrugs off such episodes as the price of a committed fan base. “None of this campaign’s growth would be possible without these grass-roots supporters out in the field unleashing their creativity and energy,” he says. “We have the kind of grass-roots energy that other campaigns are trying to buy.”

[Menthol Patch]

The Paul supporters have done nothing wrong. The Republicans and Democrats are simply terrified of us. They will twist everything around to make it look like we did something wrong.

[Zydeco]

Classic that they cite the ever-polite Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs as an authority in online manners.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I'd like to get that "anonomyous" poster's name! I doubt it's really a Ron Paul supporter. Probably just someone made up out of the blue. No true supporter would throw his fellow Paulites under the bus like that. We have done nothing wrong! Oooohhhhhh, Ron Paul supporters use slurs such as neo-con or jerks or fake Republicans! How dare they! Let's burn them at the stake! Give me a break Bradley! Menthol Patch is right. They twist it around on us everytime!

[Danny Molina]

If we were all backing Giuliani (cringes) Romney or Hillary we would be praised and would receive nothing but positive words from the MSM.

[Spirit of '76]

This guy's about three weeks late with the scoop.

Here's my favorite part:

Likewise, littlegreenfootballs.com dropped Paul’s name from its online polls in May after Paul backers racked up another win by alerting colleagues to vote on the site. Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn’t cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. “ Ron Paul ’s supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this,” he wrote.

So according to the littlegreenfootballs guy, energizing people to vote for the candidate they like is a "sleazy, essentially stupid tactic"?
:confused:

[American]

I dont see any comments, where?

[LinuxUser269]

We must be winning!

[Train]

I agree with some of what that article says. The emails should've been done in a more civil manner. Name calling was not warranted (yet). I'm not a fan of redstate or littlegreenfootballs, so I could care less what happens there. I don't think we (as a collective) should be trolling other sites that obviously do not want us there.

As for the online polls, are those people lost? Honestly? Polls are polls. They make it sound like somehow Paul supporters cheated for voting for Paul in an online poll. In my opinion if a poll is online, that means it's open for anyone online to vote in it. It's not Paul's fault or anyone elses that his supporters online vastly out number those in traditional archaic polls.

[Anti Federalist]

Bah, RedState banned because of the message not the messenger.

We're just a bunch of panty waisted liberals and democrats, we're not "real" republicans (I'm assuming since we don't want to kill enough "hay-rabs") according their very own banblog.

And I imagine LGF did the same thing for the same reasons.

[Mark]

you can't seriously believe this junk Bradley?

[Bradley in DC]

The Paul supporters have done nothing wrong. The Republicans and Democrats are simply terrified of us. They will twist everything around to make it look like we did something wrong.

Many Paul supporters do a lot wrong, yes. The profanity, personal attacks and insults, etc., are not at all Dr. Paul's style.

Yes, Dr. Paul is tapping into a lot of (justifiable) anger and frustration out there. Still, how that gets channeled will make the difference between winning converts (and the presidency) or not.

[Ozwest]

No bullsh*t, the fear is palpable! With Ron supposedly polling around 5 % nationally, I didn't expect the "powers that be" to be jumping out of the fox-holes this early. The 5th of November has stunned them! Their criticisms of the Ron Paul campaign in Newspapers, television, publications, and far right blogs and forums may be losing its sting. Could it be that a small band of rag tag Patriots is waking up America?

[Spirit of '76]

Bah, RedState banned because of the message not the messenger.

We're just a bunch of panty waisted liberals and democrats, we're not "real" republicans (I'm assuming since we don't want to kill enough "hay-rabs") according their very own banblog.

And I imagine LGF did the same thing for the same reasons.


The thing is, though, that they love all the web traffic they get from talkin' dirty about Ron. It puts money in their pockets.

I wish people would just stop acknowledging their crap, and then we could all watch them simply fade into irrelevance...

[Mark]

I vote 4 it go in hot topics.

It's malarky.

if someone wants to point out/remind people to be civil.. great

but this kind of shill reporting has no place in the discussion imo...

[Bradley in DC]

If we were all backing Giuliani (cringes) Romney or Hillary we would be praised and would receive nothing but positive words from the MSM.

If we were backing them, none of us would say anything about anyone and be silent and ignorant. Dr. Paul's the only one getting people riled up!

[dircha]

No doubt there is abuse that occurs, but would it be so hard to believe that Ron Paul supporters in fact do significantly out number committed, activist online supporters of other Republican candidates?

If this is the case should we go out of their way to avoid voting in online polls and posting comments so as not to offend supporters of candidates who have far fewer activist online supporters? I don't think so.

I think there's a middle ground, and we're not all to blame. Yes, we should avoid abusive language and unwelcome abrasive engagement online. But at the same time there is absolutely a significant degree of sour grapes and sore loser sentiment coming from supporters of other Republican candidates. It very much appears that they simply do not have the same number of vocal, activist online supporters, and they are feeling bitter about this.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I vote 4 it to go in Bad Media Reporting with the rest of the trash! This article is garbage and I'm ashamed someone actually posted it. I'm starting to think this "anonomyous" poster is right here in this thread!

[Bradley in DC]

you can't seriously believe this junk Bradley?

It's way over the top, clearly, but yes, there is a kernal of truth to it.

We have known for some time that there are a lot of lazy/under-the-deadline reporters who typically have storylines already written in their heads that they just churn out variations of when they write stories. Unfortunately, this one is ours. With that in mind, we should do everything we can to change that default.

[American]

I'd like to get that "anonomyous" poster's name! I doubt it's really a Ron Paul supporter. Probably just someone made up out of the blue. No true supporter would throw his fellow Paulites under the bus like that. We have done nothing wrong! Oooohhhhhh, Ron Paul supporters use slurs such as neo-con or jerks or fake Republicans! How dare they! Let's burn them at the stake! Give me a break Bradley! Menthol Patch is right. They twist it around on us everytime!


Did someone comment on this article, I dont see anything, you say anonymous?

what.

I think I commented on this, and threw the truthers right under the bus!!!

:D

[Conza88]

please think, and pause, before acting rashing--there's no "undo" button for sent emails--as theraputic as those emails can be individually, collectively they hurt us worse.

<- Thinks & pauses... and sends anyway. They're running scared. This shit house journalism gets me riled up.. I'm going to get buy a boxing bag & pin up all the chickenhawks and assholes faces. [Hannity, Beck, GW douche bag etc..]

We've done bad work, collectively for the campaign? BAHAH. The exact opposite. The only reason people are getting their feelings 'hurt' is - because the TRUTH HURTS. Deal with it dickheads! [aimed at demagogues | neocrats | democons and anyone that wants to not follow the constitution].. ok going to buy that boxing bag now. brb

[Mark]

Many Paul supporters do a lot wrong, yes. The profanity, personal attacks and insults, etc., are not at all Dr. Paul's style.

Yes, Dr. Paul is tapping into a lot of (justifiable) anger and frustration out there. Still, how that gets channeled will make the difference between winning converts (and the presidency) or not.

sure some do..but.. how does anyone know that a lot of it isn't just
from supporters of other candidates trying to make us look bad?

How about we all take some time posing as supporters of other candidates
and do the same thing..?

Think they would report that..?

it's just another attempt to discredit the movement.

[Bradley in DC]

I vote 4 it to go in Bad Media Reporting

Opps, sorry, I thought I had.

Wait, I thought the consensus was to just post EVERYTHING in grassroots. :p

[Train]

Yes, Dr. Paul is tapping into a lot of (justifiable) anger and frustration out there. Still, how that gets channeled will make the difference between winning converts (and the presidency) or not.

I agree with that message. If articles like this one were to get the fox spin and they really focused on it, it could be very damaging. It's a good example of why we should remain civil, and not jump on things until we have facts. That whole email/debate thing was handled pretty poorly.

[Mark]

If we were backing them, none of us would say anything about anyone and be silent and ignorant. Dr. Paul's the only one getting people riled up!

Yeah..

and that's why their supporters send nasty emails and spam message boards trying to make it look like us.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Did someone comment on this article, I dont see anything, you say anonymous?

what.

I think I commented on this, and threw the truthers right under the bus!!!

:D

Did you read the article? It says an anonymous poster on a popular discussion board turned on his fellow patriots and threw them under the bus! If this was you then I cannot believe you sold out to the powers that be! You should be ashamed of yourself!

[Mark]

It's way over the top, clearly, but yes, there is a kernal of truth to it.

We have known for some time that there are a lot of lazy/under-the-deadline reporters who typically have storylines already written in their heads that they just churn out variations of when they write stories. Unfortunately, this one is ours. With that in mind, we should do everything we can to change that default.

Well, then "glean" the kernel, and surmise the good points in ones own words.

[me3]

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there may be a few people in the grassroots who write using strong language and are aggressive. We see it here on the board. So it is possible.

So the question is, if it is possible, does it serve the campaign well?

[Ron Paul Fan]

Opps, sorry, I thought I had.

Wait, I thought the consensus was to just post EVERYTHING in grassroots. :p

Well well well. The great and powerful Bradley makes a mistake and posts something in the wrong forum! Maybe you won't be so hard on people who do the same from now on?

[Anti Federalist]

Spirit of 76 wrote:


The thing is, though, that they love all the web traffic they get from talkin' dirty about Ron.

Double Bah!

They get a hit in traffic for a day or two and then their traffic falls off a cliff.

Who's got that Alexa graph of RedState's traffic vs. RonPaulForums right after their banblog?

Bottom Line:

We're doing nothing wrong, in fact, turn the heat up!

[Mark]

Did you read the article? It says an anonymous poster on a popular discussion board turned on his fellow patriots and threw them under the bus! If this was you then I cannot believe you sold out to the powers that be! You should be ashamed of yourself!

Yeah.. maybe we need to tattoo WWRD on some people's head

[Corydoras]

It just never occurs to these people that maybe Ron Paul supporters are in fact upset about the way this country is going.

[Ozwest]

The past week has brought unprecedented negative press, and most of the media I read and watch is so blatantly slanderous to the observer, all but the most gullible can read between the lines... Granted, some citizens are beyond redemption, but as Ron Paul knows, there is a growing number of dissatisfied people waking up to a new message.

[me3]

if you get an individual alone, you can usually draw out some things they don't like about the direction of the country. But if you come at them hard, a lot of people immediately tune out. I know I do. It's human nature to cover our ears.

[chipvogel]

Let me tell you about annoying

If annoying is a "live and let live" attitude then I'm annoying as hell.
I annoy people becasue I want to keep what I earn.
I annoy people becasue I want to live free.
I annoy people because I raise my voice when my rights are igorned.
I annoy people because I have a mind of my own.

Simply put...I annoy people who want to run my life and I stand up to them.
yeah....I'm pretty GD annoying
I should just shut the hell up and sit in the back of the bus so I don't annoy others!

[Mark]

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there may be a few people in the grassroots who write using strong language and are aggressive. We see it here on the board. So it is possible.

So the question is, if it is possible, does it serve the campaign well?

Yeah.. but I don't think it's unusual for operatives of other campaigns
to do the same to make us look bad..

and shill reporters to drum it up louder than it deserves to be..

This is "war" dude.. all's fair..

It's just.. TRUE supporters try to remember to emulate Dr Paul
and always think.. WWRD?

[Mark]

if you get an individual alone, you can usually draw out some things they don't like about the direction of the country. But if you come at them hard, a lot of people immediately tune out. I know I do. It's human nature to cover our ears.

Yeah.. but.. sometimes a "bastard slap" is necessary when all else has failed..

[me3]

Yeah.. but I don't think it's unusual for operatives of other campaigns
to do the same to make us look bad..

and shill reporters to drum it up louder than it deserves to be..

This is "war" dude.. all's fair..

It's just.. TRUE supporters try to remember to emulate Dr Paul
and always think.. WWRD?
Agree absolutely. It's just that every time this topic comes up, it's always agents of other campaigns that is a popular response.

But if we're really being honest, it's possible that some, maybe not all, comes from the very energetic supporters themselves.

And yeah, WWRPD (http://www.wwrpd.org) is always a good thing to keep in mind when communicating anything about the campaign. It lends strength to Dr. Paul's message.

[American]

Did you read the article? It says an anonymous poster on a popular discussion board turned on his fellow patriots and threw them under the bus! If this was you then I cannot believe you sold out to the powers that be! You should be ashamed of yourself!

No, that wasnt me. I said I thought I posted a comment saying that we get all kinds of supporters and that sometimes it appears they are either from different camps or kid fooling around. But the jist I was making was we get ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE following the message......But that reference in the article wasnt me.

We have all seen the trolls on here, they see the same posts that we see and can make ridiculous comments or whatever all in the name of the good Doctor.

[me3]

Yeah.. but.. sometimes a "bastard slap" is necessary when all else has failed..
Sure, but just like it's not smart to bomb Iran before they have nukes (or at all for that matter), it's probably not wise to enter a debate with a megaphone.

[Ozwest]

if you get an individual alone, you can usually draw out some things they don't like about the direction of the country. But if you come at them hard, a lot of people immediately tune out. I know I do. It's human nature to cover our ears.

Is that a glass half full me3? hehe

[hard@work]

[please think, and pause, before acting rashing--there's no "undo" button for sent emails--as theraputic as those emails can be individually, collectively they hurt us worse.]


You know Bradley - the real issue is that the supporters are overwhelming in number. We've seen the metrics. It isn't that supporters are in the minority and acting out. It's that they are in the majority and speaking their minds ... and this is seen by supporters of other candidates as a "vocal minority".

Not on the web where information flows freely still.

[Corydoras]

Aesop's Fables

Translated by George Fyler Townsend
The North Wind and the Sun

THE NORTH WIND and the Sun disputed as to which was the most powerful, and agreed that he should be declared the victor who could first strip a wayfaring man of his clothes. The North Wind first tried his power and blew with all his might, but the keener his blasts, the closer the Traveler wrapped his cloak around him, until at last, resigning all hope of victory, the Wind called upon the Sun to see what he could do. The Sun suddenly shone out with all his warmth. The Traveler no sooner felt his genial rays than he took off one garment after another, and at last, fairly overcome with heat, undressed and bathed in a stream that lay in his path.

Persuasion is better than Force.


Of course, as anybody knows, the Sun can be pretty darn uncomfortable!

[Mark]

But if we're really being honest, it's possible that some, maybe not all, comes from the very energetic supporters themselves.


Point the spot out WHERE I DIDN'T SAY THAT dude..

just POINT THE SPOT OUT..

[Mark]

Sure, but just like it's not smart to bomb Iran before they have nukes (or at all for that matter), it's probably not wise to enter a debate with a megaphone.

AGAIN..

Point the spot out WHERE I SAID THAT dude..

just POINT THE SPOT OUT..


And.. YOU WONDER????

Why people call YOU A SHILL???????

[misconstrued]

This guy's about three weeks late with the scoop.

Here's my favorite part:


So according to the littlegreenfootballs guy, energizing people to vote for the candidate they like is a "sleazy, essentially stupid tactic"?
:confused:

Yeah, I thought that was bizarre too.

If anything putting up polls with Ron Paul in them is a great way to get traffic to their sites... ;)

[Bradley in DC]

No doubt there is abuse that occurs, but would it be so hard to believe that Ron Paul supporters in fact do significantly out number committed, activist online supporters of other Republican candidates?

I think that most of us are good most of the time but that the minority of bad behavior/"angry" emails, etc dwarfs the comments of all of the other candidates' supporters and so stands out more.

[Mark]

every time this topic comes up,
it's always agents of other campaigns

I'll tell you what.. qualify for THIS club and we'll talk..

http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/

[Bradley in DC]

sure some do..but.. how does anyone know that a lot of it isn't just from supporters of other candidates trying to make us look bad?

Mark, honestly, there is a subculture on this very forum that feeds on jerking off on that kind of thing and brags about it here. The least we can do is reinforce a custom of civility befiting Dr. Paul here of all places. Look at all of the Hitlery/Ghouliani posts for starters. If we want Dr. Paul to be respected, we need to show the same respect.

[Train]

I think that most of us are good most of the time but that the minority of bad behavior/"angry" emails, etc dwarfs the comments of all of the other candidates' supporters and so stands out more.

Negativity always stands out more, unfortunately. :(

[ConceivedInLiberty]

I'll tell you what.. qualify for THIS club and we'll talk..

http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/

That was surprisingly easy to qualify for. I bet they're a bunch of Hucksters.

[Mark]

Mark, honestly, there is a subculture on this very forum that feeds on jerking off on that kind of thing and brags about it here. The least we can do is reinforce a custom of civility befiting Dr. Paul here of all places. Look at all of the Hitlery/Ghouliani posts for starters. If we want Dr. Paul to be respected, we need to show the same respect.

You are correct sir.

[Bradley in DC]

Well well well. The great and powerful Bradley makes a mistake and posts something in the wrong forum! Maybe you won't be so hard on people who do the same from now on?

I gave up my powers, remember? ;)

[Mark]

That was surprisingly easy to qualify for. I bet they're a bunch of Hucksters.

You did?

Your name's on the list?

Like Mine?

Try the message boards and see how much of a "huckster" it is..

http://revmark.org/images/ih.jpg

[Bradley in DC]

This shit house journalism I'm going to get buy a boxing bag & pin up all the chickenhawks and assholes faces. [Hannity, Beck, GW douche bag etc..]

And the example that proves the article's kernal of truth. :(

[ConceivedInLiberty]

You did?

Your names on the list?

Like Mine?

Try the message boards and see how much of a "huckster" it is..

http://revmark.org/images/ih.jpg

I took the IQ test on the top and scored 130 (barely passed).

But then again it's 3:40 AM and I'm tired.

I didn't sign up for anything.

The hardest part was the spatial reasoning, I ended up skipping 2 or 3 of them because I had no idea what was going on.

[Mark]

..

[Mark]

I took the IQ test on the top and scored 130 (barely passed).

But then again it's 3:40 AM and I'm tired.

I didn't sign up for anything.

The hardest part was the spatial reasoning, I ended up skipping 2 or 3 of them because I had no idea what was going on.

Congrats.. I know.. it IS easy for some..

but.. not others.. and that's who I was talking to (me3)



as in here:


every time this topic comes up,
it's always agents of other campaigns

I'll tell you what.. qualify for THIS club and we'll talk..

http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/

He acts like I'm an idiot.. and I was just sick and tired of it..

[Mark]

I took the IQ test on the top and scored 130 (barely passed).

But then again it's 3:40 AM and I'm tired.

I didn't sign up for anything.

The hardest part was the spatial reasoning, I ended up skipping 2 or 3 of them because I had no idea what was going on.

And actually.. it's been a while.. but it was only a low one time fee to join when I did..

a good deal for the intellectual stimulation on the message boards at least..

[Nash]

I got banned from Free Republic for a whopping 2 posts declaring why I supported Ron Paul and why I thought other Republicans should.

The post was not negative in any way. There were no personal attacks on anyone on the board. Nor were there any personal attacks against any of the other candidates. I simply pointed to their voting records and contrasted them with Ron Paul's.

I'd never been banned from a forum until then.

They are of course welcome to ban me for any reason they want to, but I still find that kind of behavior ridiculous and I'm not going to apologize for that.

Nasty threatening emails are another thing but I never have engaged in that kind of stuff.

Either way the MSM ignores us and the Republican establishment hates us. Too bad for them. They choose to cut off their noses to spite their face. They are making a huge mistake.

[Bradley in DC]

You know Bradley - the real issue is that the supporters are overwhelming in number. We've seen the metrics. It isn't that supporters are in the minority and acting out. It's that they are in the majority and speaking their minds ... and this is seen by supporters of other candidates as a "vocal minority".

I think we're saying that same thing, but it's late here and I'm not clear I guess.

That minority of our comments that are disrespectful outweigh the total comments for the others. (Hope that's right, I'm going to sleep).

[hard@work]

I think we're saying that same thing, but it's late here and I'm not clear I guess.

That minority of our comments that are disrespectful outweigh the total comments for the others. (Hope that's right, I'm going to sleep).

I've seen a lot of very polite postings in places that people were demonized as well. I actually can say I have been shocked at how well the supporters have carried themselves and 19/20 times it's been detractors flaming a supporter or group of supporters who've remained cordial. I believe that the fear of loss is very strong and it is weighing heavy on some of us who are determined to see us win the logical fight. Personally I believe that our greatest enemy is lack of policy understanding, application, and causality. If we can increase the base's collective knowledge of what the Paul presidency would mean as far as immediate and long term implication I believe we will see a real shift in attitudes for those who are remaining nuetral. I also believe that those who have already dismissed Dr. Paul are doing so with a very sour taste in their mouths. Consider what is being said now, the entire system is being challenged. This system is something that these detractors are born into. Outright rejection of what you have been taught is difficult to stomache. So it could be that the detractors are causing more trouble for us than our own, yet we pool the detractors vitriol and venom in with our owns as a natural reaction to the fear of loss.

Additionally I do not think we reflect often enough on what it must be like for those who truly do not support our positions. I would imagine seeing for the first time in their lives the American political system being used with the original intent given to us for a belief system not one's own is very difficult to digest. What type of emotions are being wrought in individuals who's whole lives are based on beliefs contrary to the gift we were given in the first American revolution? The outright rejection of the American Experiment cannot be easy for the mind to allow when you've been brought up (at least partially) to revere our founding fathers. These are the types of mentalities that lead our punditry to stating erroneously that the founders could never have been prepared for the modern world's development. Although we know better, most people haven't read what the founders wrote. Most people even though educated did not retain the history of the revolution, taxation, tyranny, and empire. So for them the American system now is the perfected system even if there is one side (red state vs. blue state) that they believe are "idiots" (and vice versa). And if only we could be rid of the other side then we would have a much better America. And then we come along and point out that it's "free state", not the polarized red or blue?

You are definatley correct in worrying about those "loose cannons" who leave us open to attack. They are the ones the enemy will focus on (just as we will do the same). Except our enemy has the offline media working to protect themselves. So perhaps some policy arguments to be distributed would be helpful here. But no matter what we do... well you know them cats.

Just my 2 copper.

Sleep is for those who enjoy morning.


;-)

[Anti Federalist]

Some comments from the punks at Little Green Footballs on the Moanin' Charen article.

(and I already did post in it in Bad media, but since it's come up here...enjoy)

And no, don't bother, registration for comments is CLOSED.

Annnd yes, I know, be nice, rEVOLution and all that.

But dammit, just makes me want to chew nails.

Know the enemies of the Republic and freedom by what they write:

rightwinger3 11/18/07 9:11:11 am reply quote report 3

He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.
He would make a dandy new leader for the "People's Temple" as well.


saltmarsh 11/18/07 9:11:44 am reply quote report 3

It's a shame Ron Paul's mother didn't childproof their home

Ron Paul needs to go away....we are going to need every vote we can get to counter the voter fraud that will happen with Obama or Hillary (especially Hillary). We dont want another Clinton winning by pleurality and not majority

spidly 11/18/07 9:27:15 am reply quote report 2

re: #19 mad_scientist

still don't think Paul is going to draw a majority of votes from Rep. side.
half the Libertarians on campus were commies who want dope legal

jaunte 11/18/07 9:28:51 am reply quote report 2

re: #24 spidly

Here's someone who agrees completely with that;
interesting essay on the negative effects of Ron Paul.

...Because Paul supporters know that support coming from non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls, they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so that their anti-war supporter’s from the left can vote in the Republican primary.
...
Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?

Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle, he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on Terror and national security. That’s not good.

He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine the war on terror and that’s why he’s so popular among anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.

But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.
...

Last, at a time in American history when the Republican Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when every available conservative vote is needed in next years general election, Paul and his supporters are busy carving up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda


bikermailman 11/18/07 9:38:39 am reply quote report 0

RP supporters remind me more and more of the damn Brownshirts of the late 20's and early 30's stage, the way they're acting.

MikeySDCA 11/18/07 9:48:09 am reply quote report 0

Given his buddies, it's not clear if he's a Commie or a Nazi or just a nut case.

KentGO 11/18/07 12:58:00 pm reply quote report 0

re: #98 Skembo

Ron paulians scare the living Sh@# out of me. I call them the pod people...

Having only just recently fled a (formerly) conservative site which has been, in recent months, first infected and then wholly overrun by the Paulestinian horde, I can honestly state, without any fear of contradiction whatsoever: they are, virtually without exception, profoundly disturbed fanatics -- no less addled and unblinking than any hate-cranked suicide bomber.

Ron(Ron) 11/18/07 2:36:32 pm reply quote report 0

Bilderbergers and The Bohemian Grove? WTF? This sounds like it's right out of a Stephen King novel. The world seems more and more like one, big nutorama. Is there some theories about signal-to-noise ratio that explains what's going on? Is that's what's happening?


And let me stop right there.

That last one is the last straw.

That's how these people think, that's how they operate, "If I don't know about it, it must not exist".

And people wonder why WE get snotty sometimes??!!:mad:

[hard@work]

We just need to be better than that. These types of attitudes infest the internet. The ones that rise above always always win.

[Anti Federalist]

Take a screen shot of your post count hard at work...

LOL, now I know I need to go to bed...

[Ozwest]

hard@work, Rev9 had a great post several hours ago, but yours wins the day. So passionate and insightful. Thank you for reminding me that the message is our guide.

[happyphilter]

Seems to me somebody is scared, looking for a way to try to hurt ron paul. The internet is full of people who swear and use bad language, get over it, its the internet. Sure we many of us could act more civil, but stop for a second and consider what it would be like if we didn't have Ron Paul right now. I can tell ya things would be worse than a few bad words typed over the internet.

[fourameuphoria]

No doubt the neoconservatives are full of shit, and no doubt, we're the only ones saying/doing anything about our candidate in the first place.

But all one needs to do is read the youtube comments section and realize that while Ron Paul supporters are right, they also need a copy of "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie crammed down their throats.

We know we're right, but we don't win people over by saying "HAHA! You're Wrong you stupid Neocon fascists!" which tends to be the central premise behind many of the pro-Ron Paul arguments in blog/youtube comments.

[hard@work]

Take a screen shot of your post count hard at work...

LOL, now I know I need to go to bed...

LOL !!

:P

[ronpaul4pres]

I hear ya', Brad! See my signature!

[stevedasbach]

sure some do..but.. how does anyone know that a lot of it isn't just
from supporters of other candidates trying to make us look bad?


Because we see examples of abusive language like that referenced in the article frequently here on this forum. Sadly, some of Dr. Paul's supporters do behave like this.

People are free to post nasty, abusive comments and send similarly worded emails. But please understand that these comments do undermine Dr. Paul's campaign. They turn off undecided voters and feed the narrative that Paul's supporters are nuts.

[Ozwest]

Because we see examples of abusive language like that referenced in the article frequently here on this forum. Sadly, some of Dr. Paul's supporters do behave like this.

People are free to post nasty, abusive comments and send similarly worded emails. But please understand that these comments do undermine Dr. Paul's campaign. They turn off undecided voters and feed the narrative that Paul's supporters are nuts.

Oh please, I very rarely swear on this forum, and I agree the over-use of profanity is sometimes distasteful, but this is a forum for all... I know where my soup spoon is, but to deter yourselves from stimulating and robust conversation due to the use of 4 letter words, would be your loss.

[davidhperry]

So why are people people cussing these reporters out? What do they expect to come of it? That's what I'd like to know.

Yes, I know the whole "righteous indignation" argument. Yes, everyone is pissed off though - WE wouldn't be here if we didn't feel that way. Still, we don't need to insult people to get a point across. Honestly, I think some people just haven't taken the time to realize that telling someone to "F#$% @ff" is not the best way to get them to switch sides. :)

Someone please tell me - what beneficial things can come to the campaign by us insulting people and cussing them out?

Ron Paul is gaining traction every day. If he continues to do well, we're going to want many of these folks to join with is. When someone has to eat crow (and many will before it's all over), it's best to let them eat it on their own and not try to ram it down their throat. They tend to resent that. :)

[Ozwest]

Huh? Was my previous post directed at those reporters?

[Ron LOL]

FWIW, we could probably afford to really back off on "neo-con" this and "sheeple" that. It really doesn't help us in getting RP's message out.

On a related note, I'm kind of surprised to see that there's never any analysis from reporters about why RP supporters might be so impassioned beyond that we're "upset with the status quo." While that's true, our reasons for supporting RP run way deeper than that. Saying that we're just upset seems like it trivializes us as a group.

[davidhperry]

Huh? Was my previous post directed at those reporters?

No, I'm not directing my comment to your previous post. I'm asking a question to try to understand this issue more fully.

[Ozwest]

I'm clueless, are reporters on a guided tour of this forum? If someone made the decision to do that, it was a ridiculous idea, and under-handed. What were they expecting?

[hocaltar]

Wow, another media figure using the, "spoil the fun online poll" arguement. Even the most basic reasoning defeats these people. Seriously, how do they keep their jobs? If Ron Paul was really polling at 5% (I have no doubt in landline telephone polls he is) how does he win all the online polls?

Think about this for one minute. Ron Paul undisputably controls the internet. So much so that pundits apologize to us when they make an off the collar remark. These people will have a surprise come vote time. I have a feeling that the 100million people that don't vote just may have a reason to this election year.

[davidhperry]

I'm clueless, are reporters on a guided tour of this forum? If someone made the decision to do that, it was a ridiculous idea, and under-handed. What were they expecting?

I'm using the word "reporters" in a fairly abstract sense here. I could have just as easily said blog posters and forum participants since we have many examples of each who have been attacked by Ron Paul "supporters" in the form of insults and the like.

So the question remains: how does it benefit the campaign to insult these people?

As I've said, someone please tell me. If it's found to be an effective option, I'll change my strategy and will start adopting this technique.

[Mortikhi]

I've never heard of cqpolitics.com

It looks like this article was written by a shitty site about other shitty sites banning open dialog.

[Ozwest]

Jesus, it's 10:PM in Australia, and I posted in direct reply to post #71 without reading the rest of the thread. Got myself further confused with davidhperry response in thread #73. Thought I had insulted reporters or something. That'll teach me for smoking some Hydro and listening to the Doors while posting.

[davidhperry]

Jesus, it's 10:PM in Australia, and I posted in direct reply to post #71 without reading the rest of the thread. Got myself further confused with davidhperry response in thread #73. Thought I had insulted reporters or something. That'll teach me for smoking some Hydro and listening to the Doors while posting.

Yes, you should only smoke after posting. :)

[evadmurd]

The Paul supporters have done nothing wrong.

I think the term is "blowback". Actions have consequences. Accept it.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

"a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans."

They cry about name-calling and insults, then turn around and say something like that. It completely negates their argument.

[Bradley in DC]

Oh please, I very rarely swear on this forum, and I agree the over-use of profanity is sometimes distasteful, but this is a forum for all... I know where my soup spoon is, but to deter yourselves from stimulating and robust conversation due to the use of 4 letter words, would be your loss.

You don't get it at all. He did not make a personal comment about you. Also, he cited this very forum as an example of the kinds of language and attacks criticized in the article as explaining that the critics are likely valid about Paul supporters and not plants from other campaigns (though no one is denying that possibility for some cases).

[constituent]

people are still e-mailing these irrelevant clowns?

said it from the start and it now bears repeating, this election
will be won (by us) without them.

have you checked out these sites traffic stats in relation to say
ronpaulforums.com?

this is a much better place to get the word out... remember, it isn't
only RP supporters looking around here... others too, to the tune of
atleast a couple thousand/day.

oh yea, and here no one gets banned for mentioning Ron Paul.

[BillyDkid]

Bradley, you know as well as any of us that the establishment agenda was to ignore and (now that he is becoming a threat) to discredit Ron Paul through any available means. They will use any excuse. I'm sorry, we are the good guys. We are trying to stand up truth and liberty and everything that America is supposed to be. All these complaining bloggers and pundits - they have no regard for the truth. This idea that they might plausibly ever give Ron Paul a fair shake if it wasn't for his whacky supporters is complete bullshit and that is all it is.

[speciallyblend]

please show any proof of a ron paul supporter being un civil?? all i hear is whining

[Bradley in DC]

I hear ya', Brad! See my signature!

Wow. And I was just promoting sound economics! :o

[Bradley in DC]

On a related note, I'm kind of surprised to see that there's never any analysis from reporters about why RP supporters might be so impassioned beyond that we're "upset with the status quo."

Your expectations, sadly, may be too high. :(

[TVMH]

This guy's about three weeks late with the scoop.

Here's my favorite part:


So according to the littlegreenfootballs guy, energizing people to vote for the candidate they like is a "sleazy, essentially stupid tactic"?
:confused:

Well, yeah...if the "get-out-the-vote" goes against the grain.

Whas' wrong wit dat? :rolleyes:

[rockwell]

At least some Paul enthusiasts have begun arguing that their online zeal may be on the verge of becoming counterproductive. “Now that Dr. Paul has more attention from the mainstream media, we have to take extra precaution to ensure that we are being as tactful as humanly possible,” one anonymous poster wrote recently on a popular Paul discussion board about the congressman, who’s also a physician. “We cannot afford to give the mainstream media or any of Dr. Paul’s opponents ammo.”

Has anyone read Br'er Rabbit- I mean before the books were burned for insensitivity?

This is classic. The MSM has completely locked up the political process for at least a hlf a century to the point where they simply instruct the population who they will be allowed to choose, MSM candidate A or MSM candidate B.

Then this weird little thing happens, people abandon the MSM in droves and to find the information they so desperately crave online and surprise, surprise they discover they have another choice- Ron Paul- and so a movement is born.

Now unless you aren't pating any attention this has the MSM in a fit, first they ignored him, then they marginalized him, then they attacked him and now- here comes the best part- now they are going to tell us 'we're no longer effective! in fact we're counterproductive!!! The Internet is bad juju for the RP Revolution.

LMFAO!

Now that Ron Paul is getting media coverage- and isn't it fair? isn't it balanced? isn't it accurate and well researched?- but now that he's getting it here comes the pundits begging us not to throw them into the briar patch, please, anything but that.

So there's your marching orders folks- DO NOT use the Internet to spread the message, you are now officially on notice that all of you efforts are now counterproductive- the professionals are here and they will handle the rest of the campaign for us, time to go back to bed everyone, the MSM is on the job.

THANKS, GUYS!

[Bradley in DC]

I'm clueless, are reporters on a guided tour of this forum? If someone made the decision to do that, it was a ridiculous idea, and under-handed. What were they expecting?

We know many reporters come to this forum. It is neither ridiculous nor under-handed. This forum IS news. What we have done, and continue to do here, is AMAZING. So many examples, fighting sign laws, 5 Nov, Philly, the videos, Ames, calling/writing Iowa, the chipins, the USA Today and other ads and flyovers and ....

So, yes, we ARE news and we shouldn't be surprised to find reporters investigating it--we should expect it, be proud of it, happy Dr. Paul is getting more interest than otherwise...and act accordingly.

[constituent]

...

[davidhperry]

Bradley, you know as well as any of us that the establishment agenda was to ignore and (now that he is becoming a threat) to discredit Ron Paul through any available means. They will use any excuse. I'm sorry, we are the good guys. We are trying to stand up truth and liberty and everything that America is supposed to be. All these complaining bloggers and pundits - they have no regard for the truth. This idea that they might plausibly ever give Ron Paul a fair shake if it wasn't for his whacky supporters is complete bullshit and that is all it is.

BillyDkid, I can't speak for Bradley but I do empathize and agree with what you're saying. I don't think anyone here has an issue with people informing others and "trying to stand up truth and liberty" as you point out.

The issue is the way in which it is done. Would you agree? If we disagree with someone or even more, if someone has wronged us, surely it's not beneficial for us to retaliate against them by attacking them personally.

I think there is a way to transcend this stuff and still effectively stick up for the Ron Paul campaign. If someone has no regard for the truth, then we must help make them see.

[Bradley in DC]

I've never heard of cqpolitics.com

It looks like this article was written by a shitty site about other shitty sites banning open dialog.

Congressional Quarterly is on the short list of one of the most respected political publishers there are. They have lots of themed publications and are read in EVERY Congressional office and related professionals. Your comments are unfortunate on a host of levels.

[constituent]

...

[FluffyUnbound]

This is the comment I sent:


It's a simple matter of proportionality. For example, the other day Mona Charon wrote a profanity-free column where she said that Ron Paul supporters are Branch Dravidian freaks. As far as I am concerned, that entitles me to send her an email calling her a $%^*ing whore. That is a perfectly fair, appropriate, and proportional response. The fact that Mona doesn't like it is immaterial. If you insult me, I will insult you. The End. I really fail to see the problem with this, or why it's newsworthy. So perhaps you could go back over the notes to your article, and remove each and every incident where a columnist, blogger, or website had called Ron Paul supporters kooks or racists or cult members or anything along those lines prior to receiving "abusive" feedback - and then see if there's still an article there.

[Bradley in DC]

"a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans."

They cry about name-calling and insults, then turn around and say something like that. It completely negates their argument.

Dr. Paul does attract a lot of non-traditional Republicans to our cause. This is a great acheivement. Just as we want them to understand our frustrations, etc., perhaps we should try to understand theirs?

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, you know as well as any of us that the establishment agenda was to ignore and (now that he is becoming a threat) to discredit Ron Paul through any available means. They will use any excuse. I'm sorry, we are the good guys.

Yes, of course we are! And your insights are dead on. For your reasons, my point exactly: we shouldn't give them excuses on a silver platter.

[rockwell]

Dr. Paul does attract a lot of non-traditional Republicans to our cause. This is a great acheivement. Just as we want them to understand our frustrations, etc., perhaps we should try to understand theirs?

I understand their frustration, they paid a lot of money for their MSM hegemony and it's not working dammit! Where's that undisputed power I am entitled to? Where is the fear? Why aren't people listening to the lies we're telling?

I understand it and I don't care. In fact, it's entertaining.

[Tenbatsu]

Regardless of the credibility of CQ, anyone with an ounce of Internet common sense knows that Littlegreenfootballs is one of the most belligerent blogging communities on the Internet. They were banning people way before Ron Paul was even on the radar - if you spoke out against the war on the "Islamo-facists" you were banned immediately.

Are some Paul supporters unruly? Sure. Is it as bad as this article is proclaiming, not at all. Politics will always be the touchiest of subjects and no one gets people more riled up than Ron Paul.

[Bradley in DC]

This is the comment I sent:

An you think calling here an explitive whore refutes her arguments and is the best way to win converts and put Paul in the presidency?

[davidhperry]

please show any proof of a ron paul supporter being un civil?? all i hear is whining

Ok, so I did one search and found this in 3 seconds. Wouldn't you consider this uncivil:

Blog post on A Note to Ron Paul Activists:
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042986.php

An example comment:


I would rather have bad manners than be a neocon-loving PRO-WAR, PRO-NORTH AMERICAN UNION asshole traitor, like yourself.

So FUCK YOU.


Again, how is this beneficial?

[leipo]

Ok, so I did one search and found this in 3 seconds. Wouldn't you consider this uncivil:

Blog post on A Note to Ron Paul Activists:
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042986.php

An example comment:



Again, how is this beneficial?

It is a rude post. But how can being uncivil be perceived as worse than supporting needless wars?

[davidhperry]

An you think calling here an explitive whore refutes her arguments and is the best way to win converts and put Paul in the presidency?

FluffyUnbound, please explain how that helps the campaign - I'd like to know as well. By sending that comment, what sort of outcome were you looking for?

[davidhperry]

It is a rude post. But how can being uncivil be perceived as worse than supporting needless wars?

So you're suggesting that people should join with us since we're "less bad" than other campaigns? Shouldn't we be examples for others to follow?

[roversaurus]

I have seen some very offensive things said by Paul Supporters as well as offensive
language.

But I have also seen some huge insults posted by the very people who are crying
foul about rude Paul supporters.

We need to collect in one place the worst insults. Not entire articles. Sentences
and short paragraphs. Every claim of kook and crazy.

Usually it is those accusations that bring out the "Paulbot" insults.

RedState would be a good place to start.

[torchbearer]

The Paul supporters have done nothing wrong. The Republicans and Democrats are simply terrified of us. They will twist everything around to make it look like we did something wrong.

+999999999

[Bradley in DC]

some efforts are counterproductive while others are not.

people have to choose their battles.

Rather, people need to choose their weapons more carefully, I suggest. There are lots of us and LOTS of battles worth fighting.

[Spirit of '76]

Why do these threads (and yes, there are many which are virtually identical to this one) go on for page after page, time after time?


Here, I can give you the cliffs notes and spare you the agony of actually reading this stuff:


I've been telling you guys we should be polite and friendly if we want to win people over to Ron Paul. Look, even Cranston Snord of the Snordville Daily Snore is writing about rude Ron Paul supporters.

Let's just try to be polite, ok?


Fuck that, fuck them, and fuck you! I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more! Those MSM vipers are paid to say that!


Everybody knows it's not really Ron Paul supporters being rude. It's paid disinfo agents and provocateurs from other campaigns. Real Ron Paul supporters would never be rude like that.


Look around, I see some pretty rude people right here.


Hey, they started it! It's only fair.


Look, guys, all I'm saying is let's try to be polite and mature when talking about Ron.


This is a revolution, so fuck yoooooooooouuuuuuuu!!!

Repeat ad nauseam.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Fuck you Spirit! You can't tell me what to do!

:p

[hard@work]

Yeah up yours buddy.

;P

[Spirit of '76]

You kids and your zany revolution... :D

[Ozwest]

An occasional good Fuck for emphasis is satisfying, but when you over fuck yourself, you just Peter out.

[davidhperry]

Why do these threads (and yes, there are many which are virtually identical to this one) go on for page after page, time after time?

Here, I can give you the cliffs notes and spare you the agony of actually reading this stuff:

Ha - that's hilarious dude! You definitely nailed the essence of it.

To answer your question, I think this issue gets brought up repeatedly because it never really gets resolved. Personally, I'd love to stop talking about it since it seems like we do this about once a week.

Until someone can convince me that being rude and offensive to people whom we have a disagreement with - even those who attempt to slander and demean this effort - is an effective campaigning tactic, then I will continue to participate in the conversation.

[Mark Rushmore]

I'd like to repeat my plea:

Can't we just sticky some thread that covers manners/tact/etiquette/profanity/spam/censorship/free-speech and save ourselves the trouble of hourly repeat threads?

[alien]

This guy's about three weeks late with the scoop.

Here's my favorite part:


So according to the littlegreenfootballs guy, energizing people to vote for the candidate they like is a "sleazy, essentially stupid tactic"?
:confused:

Yah I guess MTV is dirty too for telling young viewers to "rock the vote".