WSJ - Paul's Supporters Clash With Media

[dmitchell]

Paul's Supporters Clash With Media (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)


Early Halloween morning, "Taco John" posted a message-board call to arms: "Baltimore Sun Hit Piece...TAKE ACTION NOW!"

The paper's political blog had an item marveling at how Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had raised more money than "better-known Mike Huckabee, who is taken more seriously." Taco John took to an Internet forum frequented by Paul supporters, providing a link to the offending item, as well as phone and email information for the newspaper's public editor and advertising department. "They're trying to pigeonhole us," he wrote. "If we don't fight back, they'll keep doing it."

When he felt the media paid too little attention to the Nov. 5 fund raiser, Mr. Chesley, who posts as "RP2008" on a Ron Paul message board, was furious. On Nov. 9, he urged others to "ceaselessly bombard" media outlets. "You need to organize, call, boycott, protest and sue the media that is lying to us, and if you don't, it is your own d- fault if Ron Paul loses," he wrote.

The impassioned campaigning threatens Dr. Paul's efforts to convince undecided Republicans that he appeals to more than antiwar libertarians and fringes of the Republican Party.

Please, think before you act.

[0zzy]

amen, I just read this. Makes me mad that supporters are so aggressive, hostile, and vulgar when trying to spread the message.

[me3]

Actually, it makes the case that some more of the forums should only be visible to people who register. There are only going to be more Peeping Tom's as the campaign progresses.

[0zzy]

Actually, it makes the case that some more of the forums should only be visible to people who register. There are only going to be more Peeping Tom's as the campaign progresses.

indeed

[devil21]

Goes to show that the media is zero'ing on THIS forum for some of its dirt! Control yourselves with the constant reminder that anyone could be watching.

EDIT: I definitely second a separation of viewable forums from guest viewable.

[Delain]

Looks like the MSM is going after the supporters. They cant attack Ron Paul himself because that would draw attention to the issues, the last thing they want.
Spammers and hackers, donations by white extremists etc.

I woudnt be surprised if they'll send in some agent provocateurs. Imagine vandalism or violence by "Ron Paul supporters" (nudge-nudge). They would have a field day.

[Corydoras]

The reporter has been here. Taco John is one of us. I remember that thread.

What difference is registration going to make? Remember the reporter asking for people to contact him? He had to have registered to post. This WSJ reporter had to have registered in order to contact Taco John.

[ThePieSwindler]

Not sure whats so bad about this. Its not even that bad of an article, but whats so bad about bombarding a media outlet? The fact that another media outlet (Murdoch's WSJ) says its bad? Fuck that. As long as Ron Paul supporters and being vulgar or complete jackasses, whats wrong with email bombing? I don't do it, but its not like it seriously hampers us in any way except with ridicule from the few people who wouldnt vote for Paul anyways...

Seriously, using an internet forum as a source of attack on a group and as the source of a media report... they use us because of our (the new media) gaining power but don't acknowledge us outright, because they are leeches. Fuck the WSJ and this selective reporting.

[apc3161]

I read that article, it was extremely biased. I sent a polite email explaining that I actually am a WSJ reader and I was quite disappointed with the fairness of that article.

[0zzy]

Not sure whats so bad about this. Its not even that bad of an article, but whats so bad about bombarding a media outlet? The fact that another media outlet (Murdoch's WSJ) says its bad? Fuck that. As long as Ron Paul supporters and being vulgar or complete jackasses, whats wrong with email bombing? I don't do it, but its not like it seriously hampers us in any way except with ridicule from the few people who wouldnt vote for Paul anyways...

Seriously, using an internet forum as a source of attack on a group and as the source of a media report... they use us because of our (the new media) gaining power but don't acknowledge us outright, because they are leeches. Fuck the WSJ and this selective reporting.

Let's not "fuck" anyone.

[axiomata]

They alloted on paragraph at the end of the article to Hestia, who is more akin to the typical Paul supporter. The rest of the article was an attempt to lump all of Paul's supporters with rude troglodytes, fringe groups, conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and any other "meat" they could get their hands on. It was grossly ingenuous.

That said, I am not surprised that the attacks will focus on Paul's supporters. We are the easy target and a handful of us refuse to make them work for topics for their hit pieces by acting as examples of Ron Paul to others.

[LibertyEagle]

PieSwindler,

Please cool it with the profanity. Please. Whether we like it or not, our actions and language, reflect on Dr. Paul's campaign.

[angelatc]

How did they find out RP2008's real name?

[axiomata]

How did they find out RP2008's real name?

I think the author must have registered here, found threads that suited her purpose (i.e., making Paul's supporters look bad,) contacted the posters, and the posters gladly obliged to give their name for use in this hit-piece.

[ThePieSwindler]

PieSwindler,

Please cool it with the profanity. Please. Whether we like it or not, our actions and language, reflect on Dr. Paul's campaign.

I said fuck twice. Is the WSJ going to come in now and say that ron paul's supporters are vulgar evil child rapist monsters? Wouldn't be surprised. Saying a few cursewords here or there has nothing to do with reflecting Ron Pauls campaign. I don't go on profane tirades when i am out in the field supporting Ron Paul, of course, i am rather genial, but who the fuck cares what i say or type on an internet forum? Its the goddamn internet. They are going to attack us whether i swear every other word or act like a good little boy, get used to it. I don't think we are going to lose any supporters because i said a dirty word.

[me3]

I don't go on profane tirades when i am out in the field supporting Ron Paul, of course, i am rather genial, but who the f--k cares what i say or type on an internet forum? Its the god--mn internet. They are going to attack us whether i swear every other word or act like a good little boy, get used to it.
And you're more than happy to provide them the ammunition. :)

I'll never understand the logic that people will act civil in public, but on the internet, they behave like someone totally different.

[ThePieSwindler]

I think the author must have registered here, found threads that suited her purpose (i.e., making Paul's supporters look bad,) contacted the posters, and the posters gladly obliged to give their name for use in this hit-piece.

Aka shitty amateurish journalism that reflects poorly on this writer moreso than us.

[LibertyEagle]

I said fuck twice. Is the WSJ going to come in now and say that ron paul's supporters are vulgar evil child rapist monsters? Wouldn't be surprised. Saying a few cursewords here or there has nothing to do with reflecting Ron Pauls campaign. I don't go on profane tirades when i am out in the field supporting Ron Paul, of course, i am rather genial, but who the fuck cares what i say or type on an internet forum? Its the goddamn internet. They are going to attack us whether i swear every other word or act like a good little boy, get used to it.

Look. Other people are over here lurking too. People who have not decided for whom they are going to vote. It might surprise you, but a whole lot of people out there are offended by your choice of 4-letter words and blasphemy. And we absolutely KNOW that we have driven off people because it was so prevalent on this site. We didn't just run them off from here, we ran them off from looking further into Dr. Paul's record. So, while you are free to choose to cuss up a storm, be clear that by doing so, you are taking votes away from the campaign. Is that ok with you?

[Corydoras]

Reporters are always looking for the "hook" that the story will hang on, and typically, that is the most sensational thing they can find. And in our case, it is the passion of the supporters for this campaign.

I think I've only seen a couple of pieces where the reporter actually seemed to have made a serious attempt to get into our heads and understand WHY we care so much.

The rest simply refuse to believe us when we say we are concerned about the value of the dollar, erosion of civil liberties, and unjust war and happy to find a candidate who agrees with us. They simply will not believe that these things are worth getting excited about.

[ThePieSwindler]

And you're more than happy to provide them the ammunition. :)

I'll never understand the logic that people will act civil in public, but on the internet, they behave like someone totally different.

Wow dude, you seriously think me saying a swearword or two is going to be reported and people are going to say "you know, those Ron paul supporters on the internet sure are potty mouths, i dont think im going to vote for him now". No, i dont think it reflects on ron paul at all nor does it hurt any effort. What WILL hurt alot more are more of these "media boycott" threads, but you don't see the goody two shoes disparaging those threads now, do you? Considering thats exactly what this (poorly done amatuerish) piece is about, who do you think has the greater moral burden? The pottyfingers (since im typing) or the idiots who think we need to respond to every hit piece with mail bombards? Every now and then a polite response setting people straight for misinformation is necessary, but its overdone.

[axiomata]

Saying a few cursewords here or there has nothing to do with reflecting Ron Pauls campaign. I don't go on profane tirades when i am out in the field supporting Ron Paul, of course, i am rather genial, but who the fuck cares what i say or type on an internet forum?

So if saying a few cursewords has nothing to do with reflecting on Ron Paul's campaign, why do you self-censor yourself in the field supporting Ron Paul?

I think you and I both know the answer to that ... because what we say and do does reflect on Paul's campaign.

And while it used to have been true that what was said here in these forums was essentially private, this article is perfect evidence that it is not. Anything you say or do here can be used against Ron Paul in the court of public opinion, like it or not.

The internet is not the wild wild west anymore.

[Ozwest]

So if saying a few cursewords has nothing to do with reflecting on Ron Paul's campaign, why do you self-censor yourself in the field supporting Ron Paul?

I think you and I both know the answer to that ... because what you say and what you do does reflect on Paul's campaign.

And while it used to have been true that what was said here in these forums was essentially private, this article is perfect evidence that it is not. Anything you say or do here can be used against Ron Paul in the court of public opinion, like it or not.

The internet is not the wild wild west anymore.

Pleeeeze... Not another finger waving exercise.

[Corydoras]

This was the thread about the Baltimore Sun
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=30201

This is the thread about Larry Sabato, who gets named in zillions of publications except when this reporter thinks he needs to be protected from us... NOTE that the last post, the conclusion of the thread, was that Sabato was "A CLASS ACT," which the WSJ carefully does not report.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23425

[ThePieSwindler]

So if saying a few cursewords has nothing to do with reflecting on Ron Paul's campaign, why do you self-censor yourself in the field supporting Ron Paul?

I think you and I both know the answer to that ... because what you say and what you do does reflect on Paul's campaign.

And while it used to have been true that what was said here in these forums was essentially private, this article is perfect evidence that it is not. Anything you say or do here can be used against Ron Paul in the court of public opinion, like it or not.

The internet is not the wild wild west anymore.

Read what i wrote. I said i do not go on profane tirades in the field. This is very different from dropping a swearword here or there. I swear sometimes out of passion when i am talking to people. You know what? I've never had someone turned off by it, on the contrary, most see genuine passion, although its not the swearing that shows them that, as again, its not like i embark upon profane tirades. I dont go too far, just like i am barely dropping anything other than the occasional F-bomb here. But, presupposing that it DOES matter, there is still a very big difference between campaigning in the real world and talking about ron paul on an internet forum. People expect very different things when they come on an internet forum than when they talk to somene about a candidate at a table setup or at a door to door event. Its all about context, and seeing as i am not actively campaigning when i am signing on here, my intended goal is not to sweettalk people into the message and the campaign. I feel i represent myself and Ron Paul well, and I have never once initiated a flame war, although i can often be fairly harsh in some of my criticisms, it is never with malicious intent. So i'm not really sure where this criticism of my actions comes from, it seems pretty unfounded, and seems to be a case of sheeple/piling on when one person pipes up about it. Interesting.

[axiomata]

Pleeeeze... Not another finger waving exercise.

I didn't wag any fingers. Wagging fingers does no more good for the campaign than cursing up a storm.

I simply pointed out what it appeared that ThePieSwindler already knew (based on how he acts in public when campaigning for Paul.) The blowback of our words and actions applies on the internet as well as in RealLife(TM). Politeness wins converts, profanity and rudeness doesn't.

[Corydoras]

People who are used to the internet as represented by Salon and Slate are pretty shocked to run up against the internet as represented by Digg and Hannity, and vice versa.

[Richandler]

This topic's article is a worse hit-piece than the one the writer cites.

[LibertyEagle]

People expect very different things when they come on an internet forum than when they talk to somene about a candidate at a table setup or at a door to door event. Its all about context, and seeing as i am not actively campaigning when i am signing on here, my intended goal is not to sweettalk people into the message and the campaign. I feel i represent myself and Ron Paul well, and I have never once initiated a flame war, although i can often be fairly harsh in some of my criticisms, it is never with malicious intent. So i'm not really sure where this criticism of my actions comes from, it seems pretty unfounded, and seems to be a case of sheeple/piling on when one person pipes up about it. Interesting.

Let me try to be more clear for you, since you appear to NOT GET IT! WE KNOW some people have been run off from this campaign from seeing the profanity on this site. So, while YOU may not think you are actively campaigning on this site, while you are here, OTHER PEOPLE do not see it the same way. Some see us as mascots for Ron Paul. That if we have gutter mouths, that Ron Paul somehow must support such behavior and they want nothing to do with such a campaign. Whether you like it or not, IT OFFENDS A LOT OF PEOPLE. Think about the Bible Belt. Do you think they want to associate with a campaign who has people who are saying F this, GD that? Hardly.

Are you unable to control yourself or what exactly is the problem?

[axiomata]

Read what i wrote. I said i do not go on profane tirades in the field. This is very different from dropping a swearword here or there. I swear sometimes out of passion when i am talking to people. You know what? I've never had someone turned off by it, on the contrary, most see genuine passion, although its not the swearing that shows them that, as again, its not like i embark upon profane tirades. I dont go too far, just like i am barely dropping anything other than the occasional F-bomb here. But, presupposing that it DOES matter, there is still a very big difference between campaigning in the real world and talking about ron paul on an internet forum. People expect very different things when they come on an internet forum than when they talk to somene about a candidate at a table setup or at a door to door event. Its all about context, and seeing as i am not actively campaigning when i am signing on here, my intended goal is not to sweettalk people into the message and the campaign. I feel i represent myself and Ron Paul well, and I have never once initiated a flame war, although i can often be fairly harsh in some of my criticisms, it is never with malicious intent. So i'm not really sure where this criticism of my actions comes from, it seems pretty unfounded, and seems to be a case of sheeple/piling on when one person pipes up about it. Interesting.

I should note that I'm talking more in generalities than about you in particular. A few swears here and there is no problem. Rude behavior is the problem, and swearing up a storm is often a component of such behavior.

Whoever said this, I agree with: ;)

"As long as Ron Paul supporters and being vulgar or complete jackasses, whats wrong with email bombing?"

I think there are a few supporters that are being vulgar and complete jackasses and that is ruining it for the whole bunch, not to mention RP.

[john_anderson_ii]

I think we have every right to be mad at the media and the propagandists that pass for journalists these days. Instead of reporting facts, they report their respective network's official opinion on the facts. Instead of spending time covering important issues like HR 1955, they devote entire segments of their programs to reality T.V. It's a disgrace, and we are constantly taking them to task for it. Needless to say, they don't like it and they'll use their weight to silence us.

It's my firm belief that every right in the Bill of Rights carries with it an unwritten, implied responsibility. In the case of Freedom of the Press, that responsibility is to bring unbiased and emotionless facts to the American household. The media networks and publications have shrugged off their responsibility out of greed and corruption. There is no other reason imaginable for their malpractice. They call Dr. Paul a kook, long shot, dark horse, and they continue to say he cannot win the nomination, all while failing to report on quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. In those same articles and broadcasts, they insist on calling him a libertarian with the intent of confusing voters. I'm well aware of the 'l' Vs. 'L' status, but you can't hear capitalization on the evening news.

This is America, if you are angry with a journalist you have every right to voice your complaint. Tact is necessary, but I, this forum, nor the journalists themselves dictate to the consumer the level of tact required. In short, these journalists and news outlets aren't doing their job, and we are their consumers. It's nearly the same scenario as when you take your car to the dealership for service. When you pay out of pocket and the job done isn't up to standard you have the responsibility to let the institution that conducted the repair hear of your displeasure.

I don't think it's some sort of conspiracy theory that is driving this particular malfunction of the press, though as a conservative I'm not trustful of any institution in bed with the government. However, I think it's more ego driven. Early on in his candidacy a lot of pundits spoke very lowly of Ron Paul, for no other reason than to have something to talk about. Now they are having all that talk come back to bite them in the rear, and their very reputations are at stake. Imagine what life will be like for a Hannity, O'Reily or Medved after Ron Paul's nomination? They imagine that very thing often, so don't think for a second that they won't take any step they can to keep that from becoming a reality.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Actually, it makes the case that some more of the forums should only be visible to people who register. There are only going to be more Peeping Tom's as the campaign progresses.

Already exists:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54

[Ozwest]

axiomata. Honestly, when I read threads similar to your's, on a Ron Paul forum, that resemble threads on a Hannity forum, it clearly illustrates why America is currently up the sh*ts.

[Corydoras]

We've been told all our lives to write letters to the editor and get involved in the future of our country and that journalists want to hear from their readership and really find out about what concerns John and Jane Q. Public.

HA!

[Revolution9]

Let me try to be more clear for you, since you appear to NOT GET IT! WE KNOW some people have been run off from this campaign from seeing the profanity on this site. So, while YOU may not think you are actively campaigning on this site, while you are here, OTHER PEOPLE do not see it the same way. Some see us as mascots for Ron Paul. That if we have gutter mouths, that Ron Paul somehow must support such behavior and they want nothing to do with such a campaign. Whether you like it or not, IT OFFENDS A LOT OF PEOPLE. Think about the Bible Belt. Do you think they want to associate with a campaign who has people who are saying F this, GD that? Hardly.

Are you unable to control yourself or what exactly is the problem?

On the other hand In have had reports of people leaving because of control freaks.. "If everybody doesn't play the way I want I am taking my toys(vote) and leaving.,." My son adamantly refuses to post here due to this mindset. Frankly..the same people who are pissed about some four letter words are probably taking in prime time TV viewing nightly and watching autopsies with their murder plots.. In my experience, I call that obscene.. But to each his own I say.

Fuck the MSM and any of their baragrugous mud slinging clowns. I will be posting a nice thread for them in the coming days letting them know where they stand. They do not have the drivers seat any longer. They cannot use their former tactics. We have them covered with withering fire.

Best Regards
Randy

[axiomata]

axiomata. Honestly, when I read threads similar to your's, on a Ron Paul forum, that resemble threads on a Hannity forum, it clearly illustrates why America is currently up the sh*ts.

Show me an analogous Hannity thread or I'm calling BS.

[Corydoras]

Randy, do you realize how often you use metaphors of violence? For what reason do you do that?

[LibertyEagle]

On the other hand In have had reports of people leaving because of control freaks.. "If everybody doesn't play the way I want I am taking my toys(vote) and leaving.,." My son adamantly refuses to post here due to this mindset. Frankly..the same people who are pissed about some four letter words are probably taking in prime time TV viewing nightly and watching autopsies with their murder plots.. In my experience, I call that obscene.. But to each his own I say.

Fuck the MSM and any of their baragrugous mud slinging clowns. I will be posting a nice thread for them in the coming days letting them know where they stand. They do not have the drivers seat any longer. They cannot use their former tactics. We have them covered with withering fire.

Best Regards
Randy

Sorry Randy, I'm not seeing how not using profanity stops you or anyone else from making their points.

[The Plan]

Though i don't agree with dropping the level of discourse down to name calling and stuff like that we should make sure that we are heard. One thing that history has showed is that the goup that speaks the loudest gets heard and right now we need to get heard. There is nothing wrong with letting people know when we disagree with them but everybody beware of the language you use to get your point across. Us as a group being percieved as dropping the level of discourse is just a another weapon they can use against us as a group. It's not about who you say it to, it's about how you say it.

[Ozwest]

Let me try to be more clear for you, since you appear to NOT GET IT! WE KNOW some people have been run off from this campaign from seeing the profanity on this site. So, while YOU may not think you are actively campaigning on this site, while you are here, OTHER PEOPLE do not see it the same way. Some see us as mascots for Ron Paul. That if we have gutter mouths, that Ron Paul somehow must support such behavior and they want nothing to do with such a campaign. Whether you like it or not, IT OFFENDS A LOT OF PEOPLE. Think about the Bible Belt. Do you think they want to associate with a campaign who has people who are saying F this, GD that? Hardly.

Are you unable to control yourself or what exactly is the problem?

The so called "Bible Belt" brainwashed zombies waiting for Armegeddon are not true Christians, and are a main contributing factor to the demise of America.

If you think these people are Ron Pauls political "Redemption," dissapointment awaits...

[Kombaiyashii]

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so I'm sorry if this point is repeated...

Probably not in this case but in future cases it could very well be the Journalist trolling the board to make up a hitpiece on Paul?

All he would need to do is make a few posts and give out some details and then make some obnoxious posts and claim that ALL us supporters endorse those views.

What about Hillaries supporters i.e. the arms contractors? Do I see many articles about them? No.

If you've got over a million supporters and most presidential candidates do then the chances are your going to find hundreds of people worthy of the insane asylum. Why is that article newsworthy (other than for propaganda and smear purposes)?

[axiomata]

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so I'm sorry if this point is repeated...

Probably not in this case but in future cases it could very well be the Journalist trolling the board to make up a hitpiece on Paul?

All he would need to do is make a few posts and give out some details and then make some obnoxious posts and claim that ALL us supporters endorse those views.

What about Hillaries supporters i.e. the arms contractors? Do I see many articles about them? No.

If you've got over a million supporters and most presidential candidates do then the chances are your going to find hundreds of people worthy of the insane asylum. Why is that article newsworthy (other than for propaganda and smear purposes)?
I think in this case she just found the one thread and one poster out of thousands that fit her pre-concieved notions and ran with it.

This article was of course, very bad reporting, but I don't think any actual trolling took place (not that it couldn't of course.)

I just think they wouldn't want to risk being caught. The admins can trace IPs after all.

[ThePieSwindler]

Let me try to be more clear for you, since you appear to NOT GET IT! WE KNOW some people have been run off from this campaign from seeing the profanity on this site. So, while YOU may not think you are actively campaigning on this site, while you are here, OTHER PEOPLE do not see it the same way. Some see us as mascots for Ron Paul. That if we have gutter mouths, that Ron Paul somehow must support such behavior and they want nothing to do with such a campaign. Whether you like it or not, IT OFFENDS A LOT OF PEOPLE. Think about the Bible Belt. Do you think they want to associate with a campaign who has people who are saying F this, GD that? Hardly.

Are you unable to control yourself or what exactly is the problem?

What exactly am i not controlling? I said a curse word or two and you crawl up my ass on it. excuse me, I mean, you lambaste and admonish me for it:rolleyes:. Why are you singling me out, exactly, when plenty of people do and say just as many unsavory things. I don't see you calling them out to make an example of. I don't even agree with you, but at the very leasy, be consistent with your criticism/censorship. And fine, if shutting the F*** up is honestly what it takes to get Ron Paul elected (though im skeptical of your claims in the first place), then ill F***ing do it.

Anyways, this thread is way too long considering how significant this hit piece is, as in, not very. My bad.

[ThePieSwindler]

On the other hand In have had reports of people leaving because of control freaks.. "If everybody doesn't play the way I want I am taking my toys(vote) and leaving.,." My son adamantly refuses to post here due to this mindset. Frankly..the same people who are pissed about some four letter words are probably taking in prime time TV viewing nightly and watching autopsies with their murder plots.. In my experience, I call that obscene.. But to each his own I say.

Fuck the MSM and any of their baragrugous mud slinging clowns. I will be posting a nice thread for them in the coming days letting them know where they stand. They do not have the drivers seat any longer. They cannot use their former tactics. We have them covered with withering fire.

Best Regards
Randy

Ah i was hoping youd be around to back me up... Think of it this way, liberty eagle. Have you ever read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt? In it, he gives numerous examples of instances of economic spending where only one party is considered, so people think only that party is affected, neglecting those from which the benefits towards one party are taken from, in most cases, the taxpayers taking the hit for needless government spending and waste. In this case, you are acting as if all we are doing is losing supporters that we would otherwise hav gained had we not used a F here or a S GD MF CS POS there. However, the unseen factor is that we might be losing just as many supporters, if not more, from do-gooder attitudes like yours. I never TRY to swear, it just comes out, and i dont feel the need to edit it out, and apparently the mods dont either, as there are no filters. Do you honestly think bible belters come in droves to RonPaulForums.com? Maybe a few, but its more than offset by the type of people randy describes, im sure. Think of the hidden costs and factors of every action. Look, i like you, youve done alot for the Ron Paul campaign, youve been around a while. I respect you. But put things in perspective.

On an unrelated note, come to Georgia tech vs Georgia tommorrow at around 1pm, randy! Help us promote Ron Paul - some people fromt he ATL meetup and a few of us students at GT are organzing this - a table, lots of signs, lots of literature.

[livinglegend]

Pat Robertson claims that 9/11 was caused by America's tolerance of homosexuals. Then Rudy Giuliani stands on stage next to Pat, smiling and gratefully accepting his endorsement.

The media says nothing about Rudy's support. There is no criticism.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul we get hacks like this author adding extraneous paragraphs about white supremacists. It has no relevance to the topic at hand... but it helps you attack more efficiently, so you use it.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul the author prints hyperbole from the Redstate.com owner in which he claims supporters spammed anti-zionist toilet conspiracies. There is no reporting on what Redstate.com has printed. Just baseless hyperbole is good enough for the Wall Street journal.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul we get this author who only focuses on how Ron Paul supporters have acted. Nothing about what the media has done. Nothing about the George Stephanopolouses who go on national TV and say to a candidates face that they will not win. Nothing about the FOX newses who claim that Ron is "infected with the 9/11 truth virus". Nothing about the Soledad O'Briens who lie and say that Ron is called a "flake" in many reports. Nothing about the CNN and MSNBC anchors who repeatedly call Ron an "isolationist".

The author doesn't mention those. It's just attack after attack on the response of Ron Paul supporters.





Many people don't like to be criticized, even when the criticism is valid. They lash out at any who would tell them what they don't want to hear. They lash out at those who ask questions.

It would seem much of the media, including this hack, falls into that category.

[ThePieSwindler]

Pat Robertson claims that 9/11 was caused by America's tolerance of homosexuals. Then Rudy Giuliani stands on stage next to Pat, smiling and gratefully accepting his endorsement.

The media says nothing about Rudy's support. There is no criticism.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul we get hacks like this author adding extraneous paragraphs about white supremacists. It has no relevance to the topic at hand... but it helps you attack more efficiently, so you use it.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul the author prints hyperbole from the Redstate.com owner in which he claims supporters spammed anti-zionist toilet conspiracies. There is no reporting on what Redstate.com has printed. Just baseless hyperbole is good enough for the Wall Street journal.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul we get this author who only focuses on how Ron Paul supporters have acted. Nothing about what the media has done. Nothing about the George Stephanopolouses who go on national TV and say to a candidates face that they will not win. Nothing about the FOX newses who claim that Ron is "infected with the 9/11 truth virus". Nothing about the Soledad O'Briens who lie and say that Ron is called a "flake" in many reports. Nothing about the CNN and MSNBC anchors who repeatedly call Ron an "isolationist".

The author doesn't mention those. It's just attack after attack on the response of Ron Paul supporters.





Many people don't like to be criticized, even when the criticism is valid. They lash out at any who would tell them what they don't want to hear. They lash out at those who ask questions.

It would seem much of the media, including this hack, falls into that category.

Excellent analysis. What this goes to show is that no matter how well we behave, there will always be hit pieces. What is important is actually winning the hearts and minds of the people. Much of the media is a lost cause (although some of it is friendlier than other parts).

[Chester Copperpot]

Paul's Supporters Clash With Media (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)



Please, think before you act.

WHy doesnt Amy the Wall Street Journal reporter write an investigative article about how specialists in the stock market totally manipulate the price and activity of all the stocks to the detriment of the little guy eh?

[Chester Copperpot]

Excellent analysis. What this goes to show is that no matter how well we behave, there will always be hit pieces. What is important is actually winning the hearts and minds of the people. Much of the media is a lost cause (although some of it is friendlier than other parts).

Exactly.. I for one am not concerned about people reading articles about a guy named 'Taco John'

[LibertyEagle]

What exactly am i not controlling? I said a curse word or two and you crawl up my ass on it. excuse me, I mean, you lambaste and admonish me for it:rolleyes:. Why are you singling me out, exactly, when plenty of people do and say just as many unsavory things. I don't see you calling them out to make an example of. I don't even agree with you, but at the very leasy, be consistent with your criticism/censorship. And fine, if shutting the F*** up is honestly what it takes to get Ron Paul elected (though im skeptical of your claims in the first place), then ill F***ing do it.

Anyways, this thread is way too long considering how significant this hit piece is, as in, not very. My bad.

You are assuming that I have not said much the same thing to other posters and you are wrong in that assumption.

Thank you for saying that you will at least TRY to clean up your language.

[Taco John]

Interesting hit piece. I had guessed halfway through the interview that she was looking for a negative story. It's a shame, because she shounded so fair to start the interview -- like she understood our frustration about the amount of slander that was coming out about Dr. Paul (among other frustrations). I was hopeful at the start, but about halfway through, she started to ask questions that put me on guard and made me wonder if she was doing some sort of a "look how crazy Ron Paul supporters are" story.

And let me be the first to admit that I have gotten excitable at times when the media has taken unfair shots at Dr. Paul, and I used this board as a vent, hoping to recruit people who feel like me and want to fight what's unfair. As far as I'm concerned, that's how the political system is supposed to work. In this day and age, public communication should not be a one way street, with the media and the rest of the establishment setting the course and the rest of us just agreeing to go along with it. I see that as the apathetic yesterday.

Anyway, I think she had her orders: Ron Paul is bringing in an unbelievable amount of money. We need to write a hit piece that makes them look like aggressive kooks. It's just another strand from the same fabric that Glenn Beck is weaving about us being dangerous terrorists. Anything we do to participate is going to be blown into something as ugly as they can paint it so that they can get across the message that "you don't want to participate with these freaks. You're better off staying at home for that caucus/primary."

In any case, this experience was disappointing, but not discouraging. It was encouraging actually, because it demonstrates to me that Murdoch is worried about the impact that we can make on the primaries.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got five letters to write before I can go to bed tonight... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=40590) We've got a vote to help turn out.

[LibertyEagle]

In this case, you are acting as if all we are doing is losing supporters that we would otherwise hav gained had we not used a F here or a S GD MF CS POS there.

By the way, I'm not just "acting as if" we might lose supporters with our gutter mouths, I am telling you that is a fact.


However, the unseen factor is that we might be losing just as many supporters, if not more, from do-gooder attitudes like yours.

I assure you that I am not a "do-gooder". If you actually knew me, you would realize that. However, I see no reason to drive off potential voters because some of us cannot construct a sentence without a 4 letter word.


I never TRY to swear, it just comes out, and i dont feel the need to edit it out, and apparently the mods dont either, as there are no filters.

Yes, you are free to cuss up a storm, but you are also responsible for the consequences of your actions.


Do you honestly think bible belters come in droves to RonPaulForums.com?

Believe it or not, a lot of the South is filled with such people. Are you saying you are willing to write off their support?


Maybe a few, but its more than offset by the type of people randy describes, im sure. Think of the hidden costs and factors of every action. Look, i like you, youve done alot for the Ron Paul campaign, youve been around a while. I respect you. But put things in perspective.

Are you saying that it is impossible to converse without the use of curse words?

Tell me this. If you were having dinner with Ron and Carol Paul, do you think you would find a way to express yourself without using curse words? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm thinking that you would be able to find a way.

C'mon, all I'm asking is for people to try.

[john_anderson_ii]

Anything we do to participate is going to be blown into something as ugly as they can paint it so that they can get across the message that "you don't want to participate with these freaks. You're better off staying at home for that caucus/primary."


Precisely, our only alternative is to do nothing, and that's just not acceptable to me.

[Chester Copperpot]

Interesting hit piece. I had guessed halfway through the interview that she was looking for a negative story. It's a shame, because she shounded so fair to start the interview -- like she understood our frustration about the amount of slander that was coming out about Dr. Paul (among other frustrations). I was hopeful at the start, but about halfway through, she started to ask questions that put me on guard and made me wonder if she was doing some sort of a "look how crazy Ron Paul supporters are" story.

And let me be the first to admit that I have gotten excitable at times when the media has taken unfair shots at Dr. Paul, and I used this board as a vent, hoping to recruit people who feel like me and want to fight what's unfair. As far as I'm concerned, that's how the political system is supposed to work. In this day and age, public communication should not be a one way street, with the media and the rest of the establishment setting the course and the rest of us just agreeing to go along with it. I see that as the apathetic yesterday.

Anyway, I think she had her orders: Ron Paul is bringing in an unbelievable amount of money. We need to write a hit piece that makes them look like aggressive kooks. It's just another strand from the same fabric that Glenn Beck is weaving about us being dangerous terrorists. Anything we do to participate is going to be blown into something as ugly as they can paint it so that they can get across the message that "you don't want to participate with these freaks. You're better off staying at home for that caucus/primary."

In any case, this experience was disappointing, but not discouraging. It was encouraging actually, because it demonstrates to me that Murdoch is worried about the impact that we can make on the primaries.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got five letters to write before I can go to bed tonight... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=40590) We've got a vote to help turn out.

I support you Taco John... Amy evidently is a twofaced lying reporter whose only goal was to make a hit piece.. Whether she interviewed you or not, she still would have written a hit piece...

May the spirit of Richard Ney enlighten everybody to the truth about Wall Street.

[Taco John]

Precisely, our only alternative is to do nothing, and that's just not acceptable to me.



Amen Brother.

[Chester Copperpot]

By the way, I'm not just "acting as if" we might lose supporters with our gutter mouths, I am telling you that is a fact.



I assure you that I am not a "do-gooder". If you actually knew me, you would realize that. However, I see no reason to drive off potential voters because some of us cannot construct a sentence without a 4 letter word.



Yes, you are free to cuss up a storm, but you are also responsible for the consequences of your actions.



Believe it or not, a lot of the South is filled with such people. Are you saying you are willing to write off their support?



Are you saying that it is impossible to converse without the use of curse words?

Tell me this. If you were having dinner with Ron and Carol Paul, do you think you would find a way to express yourself without using curse words? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm thinking that you would be able to find a way.

C'mon, all I'm asking is for people to try.

Liberty Eagle,

I know youve talked to me about the same topic.. and I try to reign it in a bit out of deference to others.. BUT, IMO... anybody who would refuse to vote for Dr. Paul because somebody said a four letter word, was never a supporter in the first place.

[aravoth]

Who cares. Just don't be an asshole to someone that is clearly a crapsack. You can shit on them all day long, but in the end they'll still smell like a wet turd.

I swear some of you guys argue more with each other than I do with my wife, is everyone here related or something?

[Chester Copperpot]

Who cares. Just don't be an asshole to someone that is clearly a crapsack. You can shit on them all day long, but in the end they'll still smell like a wet turd.

I swear some of you guys argue more with each other than I do with my wife, is everyone here related or something?

We're all Sons of Liberty.. so we're all brothers.

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty Eagle,

I know youve talked to me about the same topic.. and I try to reign it in a bit out of deference to others.. BUT, IMO... anybody who would refuse to vote for Dr. Paul because somebody said a four letter word, was never a supporter in the first place.

EXACTLY. But guys, don't you understand that people, wrongly or rightly, are ending up over here looking around to find out more about Dr. Paul BEFORE they have decided for whom to vote? Remember all those THOUSANDS of Liberty cards that we all handed out with this website on it? It's off of there now, but man, it was there until recently. Lately, this forum has been talked about more than a few times on the major media. If you do a search for Ron Paul, this site pops right up. So yes, we are getting more people over here than just true believers.

I think most of us agree that this isn't exactly the best place for people to come look, when they're still trying to decide on a candidate. They're probably better reading RonPaulLibrary or listening to radio interviews on RonPaulAudio, and of course touring around the campaign website. But here? No way.

[walt]

Actually, it makes the case that some more of the forums should only be visible to people who register. There are only going to be more Peeping Tom's as the campaign progresses.

I starting saying that as early as July - the suggestion - like many of my suggestions overall with the official campaign - has gone unimplemented.

[Taco John]

I think I need to cut out bigger eyeholes for my Klan hood. It's hard to read these posts with these little holes. ;)

[ThePieSwindler]

I think I need to cut out bigger eyeholes for my Klan hood. It's hard to read these posts with these little holes. ;)

Oh snap dude, why'd you reveal this? Damn, I expect a hit piece by tomorrow in WSJ "Headline: Taco John is a Klansman and supports Ron Paul" next to the daily financial news and before the stock quotes, of course. Well actuallyits probably already gone to press, so, we'll have to wait for this revelation to be put in the sunday edition.

Seriously, don't the elite media papers like the WSJ have better things to do with their page-space and time than write about what a poster on a forum named Taco John (no offense to you buddy , haha) says, especially when what he says is perfectly reasonable and they are just trying to misconstrue everything? Such horrible journalism, and the standards have gone the way of all things, for even a paper like the WSj. I mean the WALL STREET JOURNAL is writing crap like this. I know murdoch bought it out, but still!~!! Come on!!! What is this???

[trispear]

Wow, that article was the most blatant trolling I have seen here in a long and many here have played into the author's hands by validating her point and using it to admonish other fellow RP supporters, causing infighting amoung ourselves and driving traffic for that poor excuse of an article. I say let this topic die and please don't give that article or the author the time of day - let her traffic wither and die.

Let me break down the article: it is one big whine about how people say things in public, most notably the elites in the mass media, and are surprised that they get criticized or counter-attacked for them.:rolleyes: It goes on to complain that RP supporters have the audacity to organize themselves and make it known they are not happy. This, of course, must be a completely new tactic only we have used:rolleyes: -- shall we call it a "boycott" or a "letter writing" campaign or what?

Look, many here got trolled. We have better things to do than give that crappy, biased article the time of day.

[Nefertiti]

But, presupposing that it DOES matter, there is still a very big difference between campaigning in the real world and talking about ron paul on an internet forum. People expect very different things when they come on an internet forum than when they talk to somene about a candidate at a table setup or at a door to door event. Its all about context, and seeing as i am not actively campaigning when i am signing on here, my intended goal is not to sweettalk people into the message and the campaign.

80 percent of people are on the internet now, from blue haired grannies to 12 year old teenagers. I happen to work online and spend most of my time on the internet. The internet is not separate from the real world these days for me, it IS very much part of the real world. If you don't understand that then you are not living in the real world either offline or online. As I have said before, you don't know me or any of us reading this well enough to know what kind of language we are offended by or not and to presuppose your language is acceptable shows a lack of respect on your part for the people who are reading these forums.

Those users who are mentioned in the article should be banned from the forums, or at least the admins should change their usernames so people Googling them won't dig up anymore dirt.

[Nefertiti]

I never TRY to swear, it just comes out, and i dont feel the need to edit it out, and apparently the mods dont either, as there are no filters.

That is the most illogical excuse ever. I think you should be cut more slack for what comes out of your mouth, because once it does you can't put it back in. But there is absolutely no excuse with what comes from your fingertips. You type a message here and then you click submit reply. In between those two steps, you have the ability to edit it. Also, while what comes out of your mouth is heard by a listener, since you continue to talk and they can't rewind it, they will focus on your next words rather than dwell on the foul language. When you write something, people can pause and read it over and over again. An f word written out is 10 times more powerful than one spoken. It should not be used so recklessly. As for filters, they wouldn't make a difference, because 9 times out of 10 it is pretty easy to figure out what **** is.

[grfgerger]

I could go on to just about any forum on the internet and pull out some pretty insane posts. A major media outlet cherry picking posts on this forum is just plain unprofessional.

So, that article is a pretty terrible piece of journalism but it doesn't excuse some of the behavior that goes on with these forums. Most of us supporters understand the passion and enthusiasm but newcomers to the cause may not so we have to perform some self-moderation if we are to convert those people.

[BeFranklin]

Wow, that article was the most blatant trolling I have seen here in a long and many here have played into the author's hands by validating her point and using it to admonish other fellow RP supporters, causing infighting amoung ourselves and driving traffic for that poor excuse of an article.

I agree. Its irreverent, Ignore it.

[Mithridates]

Pat Robertson claims that 9/11 was caused by America's tolerance of homosexuals. Then Rudy Giuliani stands on stage next to Pat, smiling and gratefully accepting his endorsement.

The media says nothing about Rudy's support. There is no criticism.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul we get hacks like this author adding extraneous paragraphs about white supremacists. It has no relevance to the topic at hand... but it helps you attack more efficiently, so you use it.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul the author prints hyperbole from the Redstate.com owner in which he claims supporters spammed anti-zionist toilet conspiracies. There is no reporting on what Redstate.com has printed. Just baseless hyperbole is good enough for the Wall Street journal.

Yet when it comes to Dr. Paul we get this author who only focuses on how Ron Paul supporters have acted. Nothing about what the media has done. Nothing about the George Stephanopolouses who go on national TV and say to a candidates face that they will not win. Nothing about the FOX newses who claim that Ron is "infected with the 9/11 truth virus". Nothing about the Soledad O'Briens who lie and say that Ron is called a "flake" in many reports. Nothing about the CNN and MSNBC anchors who repeatedly call Ron an "isolationist".

The author doesn't mention those. It's just attack after attack on the response of Ron Paul supporters.





Many people don't like to be criticized, even when the criticism is valid. They lash out at any who would tell them what they don't want to hear. They lash out at those who ask questions.

It would seem much of the media, including this hack, falls into that category.

I was thinking much along the same lines. No outrage about gerrymandering, pork barrel projects, eagerness to start a whole new war in Iran (way bigger than Iraq, much larger population and strong army), etc. etc. but rather a whole hit piece on individual supporters.

This article seems to be just a reflection of the growing pains the old-school media is going through. Anyone who has written a popular blog for any period of time knows you need a thick skin with the comments you get on what you write, and you need to back up what you say or all the comments are going to be pointing out the flaws in your logic.

[evandi]

Rudy Giuliani supporters don't swarm websites with spam and abusive hate mail.

Thompson supporters don't swarm websites with spam and abusive hate mail.

Mccain supporters don't swarm websites with spam and abusive hate mail.

Romney supporters don't swarm websites with spam and abusive hate mail.

Needless to say, Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo supporters don't either.

What the author declined to point out:

None of the other candidates actually have volunteer support except Huckabee (whose support is much smaller then Ron Paul's).

I've seen quite a few Huckabee supporters on Hucksarmy being extremely rude about us before the moderator started saying good things about us.

Why don't all of you control freaks take your own advice and ask yourself what Ron Paul would do about this. Answer: nothing because we are all here voluntarily and I really absolutely love the free-market clash of ideas that occurs here. Hucksarmy forums don't allow people to talk about Ron Paul. We don't even have to ban people here who talk about other candidates simply because there aren't any other candidates who draw the level of actual support that Ron Paul does.

The reason the media is focusing on the supporters is because they have absolutely nothing else. That is a very good thing. If you want to be a jerk to all the people who advocate getting back at people who unfairly represent Ron Paul and people who support him, then you are only hurting this forum in my opinion.

I don't come here to see a few wannabe chiefs lording it over us measly Indians who haven't managed to wrestle control over this forum. I come here to see opinions, news and stories from all of Ron Paul's supporters.

Most of you who call others immature are being immature by pointing that out so much.

You might as well be saying "I'm humbler then you."

Grow up.

[wildflower]

The point is:

Don't give them any ammo!

I don't see why that is so difficult.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those who have said, try to be cool and respectful, it's the way you're going to win people, not by being an ___.

There are a lot of great people on this forum. But because they're watching us and waiting for something to use against us, the people who think it's ok to do the rude and immature stuff are giving ammo to those who want to bring Paul down.

Let's not help them out.

[evandi]

The point is:

Don't give them any ammo!

I don't see why that is so difficult.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those who have said, try to be cool and respectful, it's the way you're going to win people, not by being an ___.

There are a lot of great people on this forum. But because they're watching us and waiting for something to use against us, the people who think it's ok to do the rude and immature stuff are giving ammo to those who want to bring Paul down.

Let's not help them out.

It's not difficult, it is impossible for a bunch of free-thinking people to every agree on everything.

And do you think "give me liberty or give me death" means be quiet and respectful?

While we have a working Republic we need to fight verbally with wannabe fascists.

People who are never going to change there mind about Ron Paul: people working for the IRS, people abusing government power, journalists in league with government and big-business, and others like that, love a nice and wimpy response to all of their abuses. It empowers them because they think that the response represents apathy.

Do not ever try to argue respectfully with a sophist after his/her points have been proven as sophistry. He and any neutral observer will laugh at you. Most "respectable" online journalists don't write out lolz when they think the situation is funny at your expense. They would rather keep it going, so that you can be their inside joke as you furiously type out your respectful book-sized responses. I'm not advocating pure name calling, but name calling isn't really that bad.

[Bradley in DC]

Not sure whats so bad about this. Its not even that bad of an article, but whats so bad about bombarding a media outlet? The fact that another media outlet (Murdoch's WSJ) says its bad? Fuck that. As long as Ron Paul supporters and being vulgar or complete jackasses, whats wrong with email bombing? I don't do it, but its not like it seriously hampers us in any way except with ridicule from the few people who wouldnt vote for Paul anyways...

Seriously, using an internet forum as a source of attack on a group and as the source of a media report... they use us because of our (the new media) gaining power but don't acknowledge us outright, because they are leeches. Fuck the WSJ and this selective reporting.

This attitude, lack of understanding the consequences of one's action and language expressed in this post are Dr. Paul's biggest hurdle stopping him from being the frontrunner.

[Bradley in DC]

Wow dude, you seriously think me saying a swearword or two is going to be reported and people are going to say "you know, those Ron paul supporters on the internet sure are potty mouths, i dont think im going to vote for him now". No, i dont think it reflects on ron paul at all nor does it hurt any effort. What WILL hurt alot more are more of these "media boycott" threads, but you don't see the goody two shoes disparaging those threads now, do you? Considering thats exactly what this (poorly done amatuerish) piece is about, who do you think has the greater moral burden? The pottyfingers (since im typing) or the idiots who think we need to respond to every hit piece with mail bombards? Every now and then a polite response setting people straight for misinformation is necessary, but its overdone.

All of us who have worked on campaigns understand how destructive your posts on this thread--and the many others from many others like it--are to the campaign.

[tsopranos]

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so I'm sorry if this point is repeated...

Probably not in this case but in future cases it could very well be the Journalist trolling the board to make up a hitpiece on Paul?

All he would need to do is make a few posts and give out some details and then make some obnoxious posts and claim that ALL us supporters endorse those views.

What about Hillaries supporters i.e. the arms contractors? Do I see many articles about them? No.

If you've got over a million supporters and most presidential candidates do then the chances are your going to find hundreds of people worthy of the insane asylum. Why is that article newsworthy (other than for propaganda and smear purposes)?

It's funny you say this. I was just about to post something about this "Taco John" guy.

I remember calling him out as a troll a while back, ...ummm, when he used to actually post. Remember that people...haven't seen this guy in a long while, and a major paper actually references him as a supporter? That should trigger a red flag right there.

These people are so desperate they are writing articles referencing "random supporters" to create a certain narrative. Whatever passes for journalism these days I guess. Why don't they start quoting wikipedia as a solid source of info.

I'm too lazy to pull up the history of his posts, someone else might have the inclination though. I'm sure you'll find a lot of BS.

TACO JOHN was a troll. There is nothing to defend here. It's just another hit piece.

[evandi]

This attitude, lack of understanding the consequences of one's action and language expressed in this post are Dr. Paul's biggest hurdle stopping him from being the frontrunner.

Sat Nov 24, 2007

This just in:

Di-Hydrogen Monoxide causes cancer!

In a new study released by the Doesn't-Understand-That-Correlation-Does-Not-Imply-Causation Laboratory, researchers have found that 100% of people dying from cancer have drank Di-Hydrogen Monoxide all of their lives. Further studies turn up the terrifying fact that the newly discovered poison was present in extreme levels: greater then 60% by body mass at the time of death.

Lawmakers and environmentalists are quickly rising to challenge to bring about new legislation to fix this problem. No one will be allowed to buy sell or give away this poison if HR1234 passes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sat Nov 25, 2007

Bill HR1234 passes without debate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sat Nov 26, 2007

*crickets*

[KewlRonduderules]

I agree that people should refrain from cursing. it is really not helping us and I said as much that the media would indeed come in here and use whatever conflicts we had against us. We cannot afford to give them ammunition.

I have to admit I am guilty of this but have never explicitly written out such words.

The use of such language and coming up with wacky conspiracies is really only going to hurt us.

We cannot afford to have conflict like yesterday and the day before. Moreover, we have to watch out for moles and troll who only want to discourage the grassroots.

To Admin is there a way to (I hate to say this) regulate the use of vulgar language? I mean it is your own private property.

[Sandra]

By the time a journalist is writing an article on two Ron Paul supporters for the WSJ, the quality of articles, as predicted by most readers, is in steep decline. Thanks, Rupert!

[FluffyUnbound]

I have to tell you, the Wall Street Journal is dominated by Bushites who make Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz look like peace loving hippies at a Grateful Dead concert.

Some of you just don't seem to realize that there is nothing you can do, no forum rule you can change, no code of conduct you can create, that will get you a fair shake out of the Wall Street Journal. They hate you and will belittle and deride you no matter what you do.

I think many of you are still stuck in the mindset of the Reagan coalition, and you see "enough good" in other factions of conservativism that you think they're on your side. Rush uses libertarian arguments when he feels like it or when they can benefit him, so you think Rush is on your side. The WSJ is pro-capitalism, so you think they're on your side. James Dobson says he is a conservative, so you think he's on your side. None of these people are on your side. They all despise you, and despise Ron Paul. It's not liberals who are pushing the meme that Paul is a kook on the fringe, and that his supporters are nutcases. It's the mouthpieces of the other factions of the traditional conservative coalition, who think that you should just accept their big government version of right-wing philosophy and shut the fuck up. You can't sweet talk these people into accepting you or accepting Paul, so just put that dream out of your minds.

[Sandra]

As usual, she will return here to read what the forums are saying.

[Sandra]

Could the reporter and Taco John be working in tandem?

[Nefertiti]

Why don't all of you control freaks take your own advice and ask yourself what Ron Paul would do about this. Answer: nothing because we are all here voluntarily and I really absolutely love the free-market clash of ideas that occurs here.

The problem is not coming from control freaks, it's coming from people who lack self control.

[LBT]

Do not back down from this media hack!!!

She had to do a story on Ron Paul and try to make it seem as fair as possible while including as many smears as possible.

We have the power to shut these establishment prostitutes up. No journalist wants a youtube video exposing them to get a million views with blog links all over the webosphere. That becomes a stain on their career resume.

We can smear journalists much worse than they can smear the campaign when they are asking for it.

Ron Paul has set incredible benchmarks in grassroots politics. That is NEWS!!! Any reporter who shows more concern with smear angles is a fake journalist. They ought to be treated with contempt. They do not deserve respect. There is no need for anger, just for action to expose and humiliate them with a dose of truth when necessary.

[Thurston Howell III]

Though i don't agree with dropping the level of discourse down to name calling and stuff like that we should make sure that we are heard. One thing that history has showed is that the goup that speaks the loudest gets heard and right now we need to get heard. There is nothing wrong with letting people know when we disagree with them but everybody beware of the language you use to get your point across. Us as a group being percieved as dropping the level of discourse is just a another weapon they can use against us as a group. It's not about who you say it to, it's about how you say it.

I agree, you must be forceful to be heard. However, as soon as we are heard we are judged, or Dr Paul is judged by what we say and how we said it. That first impression determines whether they stay and learn more or leave. Maybe not in every case but in enough cases that I believe it matters. If one can not communicate without vulgarity then one is not really comminicating anything at all really, at least nothing positive. JMHO

[disciple]

I have to tell you, the Wall Street Journal is dominated by Bushites who make Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz look like peace loving hippies at a Grateful Dead concert.

Some of you just don't seem to realize that there is nothing you can do, no forum rule you can change, no code of conduct you can create, that will get you a fair shake out of the Wall Street Journal. They hate you and will belittle and deride you no matter what you do.

I think many of you are still stuck in the mindset of the Reagan coalition, and you see "enough good" in other factions of conservativism that you think they're on your side. Rush uses libertarian arguments when he feels like it or when they can benefit him, so you think Rush is on your side. The WSJ is pro-capitalism, so you think they're on your side. James Dobson says he is a conservative, so you think he's on your side. None of these people are on your side. They all despise you, and despise Ron Paul. It's not liberals who are pushing the meme that Paul is a kook on the fringe, and that his supporters are nutcases. It's the mouthpieces of the other factions of the traditional conservative coalition, who think that you should just accept their big government version of right-wing philosophy and shut the fuck up. You can't sweet talk these people into accepting you or accepting Paul, so just put that dream out of your minds.


And this is the truth.

[evandi]

The problem is not coming from control freaks, it's coming from people who lack self control.

First of all, my post about Di-Hydrogen Monoxide tries shows everyone why they really can't just say that one thing or another is responsible for Ron Paul's successes or failures. You just can't. There is no way to say that logically.

If Ron Paul was using people who were actually part of his campaign in order to abuse people verbally, that would be something different: an abuse of his power. He is not doing that and we are not part of his official paid campaign.

How many freak'n congressmen have become president? Ron Paul is doing extraordinarily well, and continues going up in the polls. What stops the media from completely ignoring this fact? Why can't people question their honestly in an appropriately angry fashion so that the crime or possible crime will be remembered?

Freedom isn't about people being allowed to not have self-control, its about people deciding for themselves what is self-control. You don't decide for me what self-control is. Its like people saying that you are only free to do whatever you want as long as you are only doing whatever we want you to do.

This forum is good while it is free. When it becomes non-free it is less good imo. Keyword blocking software is so easy to write so there is probably a lot of it out there: block the bad stuff yourself.

Why should we care anyway if children can't peruse this site without seeing the words they probably use far more then either you or I? If there are less children allowed to be here they won't distort polling and the perceived support level as much, not that theres anything wrong with children being interested in politics.

[Dustancostine]

I have not sent one email to a reporter yet, but now I just may send her one. That piece was a pile of crud. She complains about us, but then allows the Redstate guy to slander us.

Also there is nothing wrong with us fighting back against crappy/biased journalism.

And this is going on page A4, the highest for a RP article in the WSJ so far I believe.

BTW: Do you think this is in response to AOL getting outed?

[Ozwest]

All of us who have worked on campaigns understand how destructive your posts on this thread--and the many others from many others like it--are to the campaign.

I'm sorry Bradley, but who made you commandant? By what authority do you subjugate others? Does being bland and benign quantify authority?

Hide behind your comfortable facade, but do not over-step the mark, because it reeks of arrogance.

Who would have guessed?

[ladyliberty]

I have not sent one email to a reporter yet, but now I just may send her one. That piece was a pile of crud. She complains about us, but then allows the Redstate guy to slander us.

Also there is nothing wrong with us fighting back against crappy/biased journalism.

And this is going on page A4, the highest for a RP article in the WSJ so far I believe.

BTW: Do you think this is in response to AOL getting outed?


Yep! think about it - how much MSM madness have we actually "outed" on this forum - lots!

Let's face it - they hate us for who we are, not for who we support.

we are independent freethinking individuals who are not swallowing their lies - we will not drink their "koolaide" and that is what makes them angry at us.

Lets not fight with them. No point to it. It only distracts us from spreading the message.

My weapon of choice will be my vote at the Ballot Box, how about you?

[LBT]

Lets not fight with them. No point to it. It only distracts us from spreading the message.


Fighting them intelligently can actually be a very effective way of spreading the message!

Proof in point....

2 days ago a poster here put up a video exposing Soledad O'Brien's smear on Ron Paul.

Since then it has hit the front page of digg and had over 35,000 views. Almost surely it has created some new converts and I bet Solidad and a few of her journalistic equivalents have caught wind of it and thought to themselves that they better be VERY CAREFUL about smearing Ron Paul.

http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Soledad_O_Brien_Caught_Lying_to_Serve_CNN_Politica l_Agenda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvXMXHgDWHU

If we do this to several journalists they will soon get the message that they better be nice to Mr. Paul. It is not a good career move to be famous for being a biased journalist. The Internet never forgets.

We should launch PR wars on all terrible journalists. A few successful PR attcks on the net will go viral and have the effect of shutting them all up.

If done properly, this message of media bias will resonate with many undecided voters.

So we are not helpless, we are very powerful and growing in power each day. We can fight them and benefit greatly from it. Emails are pretty useless, the public arena is our main stage.

[jd603]

Other supporters of other candidates have done this sort of thing. This is yet another hit piece in disguise. They are analyzing everything to death to find anything to throw stones at....

Now they are even visiting our forums to find things to use against us... what next, undercover reporters infiltrating Ron Paul meetup groups? haha

"This is doug checking in, I snuck away from the group, they were just discussing proper placement of Ron Paul signs, possibly they plan to put so many signs in the roadways that they will stop traffic and cause a panic. It's hard to tell with these fringe supporters! If I don't check in in 3 hours, call the national guard!"


Paul's Supporters Clash With Media (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)



Please, think before you act.

[allyinoh]

Actually, it makes the case that some more of the forums should only be visible to people who register. There are only going to be more Peeping Tom's as the campaign progresses.

I agree. A lot of forums, to cut down on the trolling and spam, will make a forum viewable to people with over a certain amount of posts but it would not be advertised so you don't just spam until you get to that number.

Once you have enough posts, you can view all parts. Seriously, getting down to it, this is something I would do.

That way, if a reporter or journalist or any other peeper comes along and tries reading anything, they will get nothing. They would have to register, then post let says for example, 100 posts before they can get to view the whole forum.

It could be something to consider.

[max]

if u dont fight the media they will steam roll u...


do not let them disrespect us or our man

[snowgoosebob]

Back on March 4th 2007 I posted the following on my website (Waterfowl Hunting)message board..........

Note: I edited out my member name

My Post On my website forums on March 4th 2007........
I was surprised and very happy to find out that Republican Ron Paul of Texas has put a "2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee" together for a possible run for President of the United States.

Ron Paul is a true American, Statesmen and supports fully 100% the documents that our Founding Fathers put together to make United States the Great Nation that it used Be!

If Ron Paul does run for President of the United States and during his campaign ((including the Republican Primaries)) and it looks like he could win this thing, I expect (IMHO) the following to happen simply because a lot of Democrat & Republican politicians, big government supporters, big government bureaucrats and most of all the Media hate our freedoms (Bill Of Rights and etc)and they will trash him! Simply because these people (IMHO) hate true Americans and Statesmen who supports fully the documents that our Founding Fathers put together to make United States.

I (****) will make this prediction if it looks in anyway that Ron Paul could win this (((most of all during the Republican Primaries))).......

1- The media will call RP or RP Surporters Kooks, nutjobs, tied to the KKK, belong to hate groups and etc etc

-and/or-

1- All of a sudden RP died of a heart attic
2- RP committed suicide
3- or RP will died in someway during his campaign for President of the United States

How do I know this will happen? It's very easy...Democrat & Republican politicians, big government supporters, big government bureaucrats and most of all the Media really hate our freedoms (Bill Of Rights and etc) they will all start showing themselfs for who they really are. Trust Me!
--------------------------------------------------------------
I was darn close with My prediction!

The way I see it....
It aint about what we say or how we say it, RP and the surporters have flushed the cochroachs out of the woodwork..... the true haters of liberty. They are now showing themselfs bigtime now. And we need to point this out! (IMHO)

[Taco John]

Just wanted to reset this...


Interesting hit piece. I had guessed halfway through the interview that she was looking for a negative story. It's a shame, because she shounded so fair to start the interview -- like she understood our frustration about the amount of slander that was coming out about Dr. Paul (among other frustrations). I was hopeful at the start, but about halfway through, she started to ask questions that put me on guard and made me wonder if she was doing some sort of a "look how crazy Ron Paul supporters are" story.

And let me be the first to admit that I have gotten excitable at times when the media has taken unfair shots at Dr. Paul, and I used this board as a vent, hoping to recruit people who feel like me and want to fight what's unfair. As far as I'm concerned, that's how the political system is supposed to work. In this day and age, public communication should not be a one way street, with the media and the rest of the establishment setting the course and the rest of us just agreeing to go along with it. I see that as the apathetic yesterday.

Anyway, I think she had her orders: Ron Paul is bringing in an unbelievable amount of money. We need to write a hit piece that makes them look like aggressive kooks. It's just another strand from the same fabric that Glenn Beck is weaving about us being dangerous terrorists. Anything we do to participate is going to be blown into something as ugly as they can paint it so that they can get across the message that "you don't want to participate with these freaks. You're better off staying at home for that caucus/primary."

In any case, this experience was disappointing, but not discouraging. It was encouraging actually, because it demonstrates to me that Murdoch is worried about the impact that we can make on the primaries.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got five letters to write before I can go to bed tonight... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=40590) We've got a vote to help turn out.

[Ron LOL]

Just echoing the OP. Can we please listen to this author instead of flaming her?

No "sheeple, " no "MSM," and no "zionist conspiracy." Seriously, guys. I'm so sick of reading that crap here. When I hear "zionist," I still think of The Matrix.

[RPFTW!]

So you guys are just gonna sit back and let the media have its way us and smear Ron Paul? The media serves a traitorous agenda it is totally owned and operated by the elites who rule this country, I approve of Taco John, we need more people live him who will fight to get what is rightfully ours.

[Alabama Supporter]

Wow, the WSJ's second piece on Ron Paul in print is this gem.

I guess one positive is that most readers of the WSJ probably do not know who Ron Paul is considering they have only written 2 articles on him.

They have written several blog entries, but very few have been printed.

[Sandra]

Ron Paul,lol, If theauthor of the article was interested in discourse, she would NOT have written an opinion piece in the WSJ. I used to work at a newspaper in La. Writers would quit left and right because of the comprimises made to satisfy the editor who has to satisfy the advertisers,

[Ron LOL]

So you guys are just gonna sit back and let the media have its way us and smear Ron Paul? The media serves a traitorous agenda it is totally owned and operated by the elites who rule this country, I approve of Taco John, we need more people live him who will fight to get what is rightfully ours.

Dude, seriously, quit bitching. Oh no, they're smearing us! Somebody said something bad about our lord and savior, Ron Paul! AN AUTHOR DOESN'T AGREE WITH US?! HE MUST BE A NEO-CON MSM SHILL!

I support RP 100%, but I'm getting sick and tired of this attitude. If you see an article you don't like, then ignore it and leave the rebuttal to someone with a sense of self-control. Crying about some article you perceive as unfair is a waste of time. Leaving comments or e-mailing the author to "give them what for" is also a waste of time. If you want to make yourself useful, order some slim jims and go door to door.

[RPFTW!]

Dude, seriously, quit bitching. Oh no, they're smearing us! Somebody said something bad about our lord and savior, Ron Paul! AN AUTHOR DOESN'T AGREE WITH US?! HE MUST BE A NEO-CON MSM SHILL!

I support RP 100%, but I'm getting sick and tired of this attitude. If you see an article you don't like, then ignore it and leave the rebuttal to someone with a sense of self-control. Crying about some article you perceive as unfair is a waste of time. Leaving comments or e-mailing the author to "give them what for" is also a waste of time. If you want to make yourself useful, order some slim jims and go door to door.


Last I checked it was punks like you who are bitching "wah they are making us look bad in teh medias wah wah wah " Stop sucking up to them and buying their guilt trip. Why the fuck should we care??? They've been smearing us or ignoring us from the beginning, the only reason we have gotten half the coverage we have is BECAUSE of our complaining and emailing demanding that they give Ron Paul the coverage he deserves.

[Sandra]

Ron LOL, if this stuff gets you this angry, just stick to the other threads and leave these guys alone. The attitude you're complaining about is theirs. This is a GRASSROOTS campaign and unscrupulous posters as well as article writers are brought down by their own devices.

[Ron LOL]

Last I checked it was punks like you who are bitching "wah they are making us look bad in teh medias wah wah wah " Stop sucking up to them and buying their guilt trip. Why the fuck should we care??? They've been smearing us or ignoring us from the beginning, the only reason we have gotten half the coverage we have is BECAUSE of our complaining and emailing demanding that they give Ron Paul the coverage he deserves.

I have a great idea. Let's alienate potential sources of positive press by flaming them in to oblivion if they say even the smallest thing we disagree with. That sounds like an awesome way to get RP in office.

Did you even read the article? And if you did, did you understand it? We should care because, at least in theory, we want Ron Paul to be our next president.

We get the coverage we do based on the positive actions of the campaign, like Nov. 5th and moving up in the polls -- not by sucking journalists in to some sort of verbal abuse protection racket.

[Jerome]

It's just more confirmation as to what I've been seeing on a lot of fronts - the MSM is openly scanning blogs / forums for pulse topics.

And I don't see what is wrong w/ a call to email editors or advertisers if they are playing dirty w/ their columns. But always keep it professional and civil. WWRPD?

[evandi]

Dude, seriously, quit bitching. Oh no, they're smearing us! Somebody said something bad about our lord and savior, Ron Paul! AN AUTHOR DOESN'T AGREE WITH US?! HE MUST BE A NEO-CON MSM SHILL!

I support RP 100%, but I'm getting sick and tired of this attitude. If you see an article you don't like, then ignore it and leave the rebuttal to someone with a sense of self-control. Crying about some article you perceive as unfair is a waste of time. Leaving comments or e-mailing the author to "give them what for" is also a waste of time. If you want to make yourself useful, order some slim jims and go door to door.

If you don't think FOX News is biased you are being ridiculous. Guess who owns FOX news? Rupert Murdoch. Guess who owns the Wall Street Journal: Rupert Murdoch.

"Don't email people or write stuff down on a computer but go out and pass out slim jims instead." Is that what you are saying?

Is the amount of effort involved in both of those actions in any way equivalent? No. Mind your own business. People will do whatever they want to do. They will help however they can.

If this site is going to attempt to become a hierarchical power pyramid, it will no longer represent real actual people. It will just start representing some old crusty non-internet related activity. What is the fun in that?

If you cannot conceive of the fact that many organizations really do care about the possibility of losing their long-term viability due to bias or simply accusations of bias, then that is your trouble. I'm not going to go outside and do anything like pass out slim-jims unless I feel like it.

I don't feel like it. Its cold outside.

Are emails dirt cheap? No, of course not. It is actually far easier to write an email, then to go outside and get some dirt.

Each individual email is not necessarily going to change the world but why don't you stick to passing out slim-jims and allow people who aren't going to pass out slim-jims to just do what they want to do.

[American]

This is Murdochs new baby, The WSJ- he doesnt like anyone telling lies except him. He stands to lose allot if RP wins.

Either way, if we dont articulate better our position any "would be supporter" just wont get it if we carry on like this is one long argument continued from another blog or article.

[RPFTW!]

I have a great idea. Let's alienate potential sources of positive press by flaming them in to oblivion if they say even the smallest thing we disagree with. That sounds like an awesome way to get RP in office.

Did you even read the article? And if you did, did you understand it? We should care because, at least in theory, we want Ron Paul to be our next president.

We get the coverage we do based on the positive actions of the campaign, like Nov. 5th and moving up in the polls -- not by sucking journalists in to some sort of verbal abuse protection racket.

And we get the coverage by mass emailing to get the media to cover our positive actions, guess how many times Ron Paul has been mentioned in the MSM compared to all other candidates. Why does Ron Paul always get the least amount of coverage and asked the least amount of questions in the debates. Why are they still calling RP a long shot????? This is not ok, I'm not going to sit back and take it, Guess what a lot of Ron Paul supporters are pissed, and for damn good reason. I am going to email and DEMAND that they give fair coverage. The same strategy that has gotten RP on so many radio and TV shows.

[terlinguatx]

...

[Ozwest]

Dude, seriously, quit bitching. Oh no, they're smearing us! Somebody said something bad about our lord and savior, Ron Paul! AN AUTHOR DOESN'T AGREE WITH US?! HE MUST BE A NEO-CON MSM SHILL!

I support RP 100%, but I'm getting sick and tired of this attitude. If you see an article you don't like, then ignore it and leave the rebuttal to someone with a sense of self-control. Crying about some article you perceive as unfair is a waste of time. Leaving comments or e-mailing the author to "give them what for" is also a waste of time. If you want to make yourself useful, order some slim jims and go door to door.

Guess what? It's attitudes like yours that result in the "piss weak" America you are attempting to regain.

You should get some "attitude" and lose your self-censored-self-control and stop lecturing others.

I'm getting sick of YOUR namby pamby lecturing and lemming-like behaviour.

Leave the rest of the work to others while you finger point.

[Ron LOL]

If you don't think FOX News is biased you are being ridiculous. Guess who owns FOX news? Rupert Murdoch. Guess who owns the Wall Street Journal: Rupert Murdoch.

"Don't email people or write stuff down on a computer but go out and pass out slim jims instead." Is that what you are saying?

Is the amount of effort involved in both of those actions in any way equivalent? No. Mind your own business. People will do whatever they want to do. They will help however they can.

If this site is going to attempt to become a hierarchical power pyramid, it will no longer represent real actual people. It will just start representing some old crusty non-internet related activity. What is the fun in that?

If you cannot conceive of the fact that many organizations really do care about the possibility of losing their long-term viability due to bias or simply accusations of bias, then that is your trouble. I'm not going to go outside and do anything like pass out slim-jims unless I feel like it.

I don't feel like it. Its cold outside.

Are emails dirt cheap? No, of course not. It is actually far easier to write an email, then to go outside and get some dirt.

Each individual email is not necessarily going to change the world but why don't you stick to passing out slim-jims and allow people who aren't going to pass out slim-jims to just do what they want to do.
Maybe you missed it, but I was being sardonic. More importantly, it doesn't matter and you're missing the point. The argument presented in the article is one we all know is true -- lots of online supporters just can't help themselves when presented with a comments box. If you can't control yourself, then you do a disservice to the grassroots by replying.

With respect to boots, if you support RP then you should be asking yourself "what is the most effective use of the time I can volunteer?" I can pretty much guarantee you that e-mailing a journalist isn't going to do a whole lot of good for the campaign.

So yes, grab a jacket if you're able.

[Ron LOL]

Guess what? It's attitudes like yours that result in the "piss weak" America you are attempting to regain.

You should get some "attitude" and lose your self-censored-self-control and stop lecturing others.

I'm getting sick of YOUR namby pamby lecturing and lemming-like behaviour.

Leave the rest of the work to others while you finger point.

Again, fantastic idea, let's alienate potential supporters by calling them names. That sounds awesome to me. I bet when RP was on O'Reilly, he really just wanted to scream out "FUCK YOU, BILL-O."

Oh, wait, RP would never do such a thing because he's humble. Lots of us seem to like that. Hm...maybe we could apply this principle at the grassroots level.

[Ron LOL]

And we get the coverage by mass emailing to get the media to cover our positive actions, guess how many times Ron Paul has been mentioned in the MSM compared to all other candidates. Why does Ron Paul always get the least amount of coverage and asked the least amount of questions in the debates. Why are they still calling RP a long shot????? This is not ok, I'm not going to sit back and take it, Guess what a lot of Ron Paul supporters are pissed, and for damn good reason. I am going to email and DEMAND that they give fair coverage. The same strategy that has gotten RP on so many radio and TV shows.

There's a big difference between the subject of the WSJ article and mass e-mailing the MSM to alert them to things like Nov. 5th or winning an SMS poll. Surely you must recognize that.

I think you would benefit from a change in strategy. You aren't the only Ron Paul supporter, so let the numbers speak for themselves and stop "DEMANDING." Be tactful. That's all this article suggests. If it's lost on us, I think this campaign is doomed to implode.

[speciallyblend]

Press Release for all media.
Ron Paul supporters dirty their boots by canvassing across the country,strange boot prints have been noticed across all the cities and towns.Town officials want to ticket these vandals for leaving foot prints across the country.
A RON PAUL REPUBLICAN

[Ozwest]

You and your type, have allowed the O'Reilly's of this world to dictate the terms.

Don't worry, you're not the only one, but you get what you deserve, or maybe that's the way you like it.

[evandi]

There's a big difference between the subject of the WSJ article and mass e-mailing the MSM to alert them to things like Nov. 5th or winning an SMS poll. Surely you must recognize that.

I think you would benefit from a change in strategy. You aren't the only Ron Paul supporter, so let the numbers speak for themselves and stop "DEMANDING." Be tactful. That's all this article suggests. If it's lost on us, I think this campaign is doomed to implode.

Ron LOL. You do not know what you are talking about. When did this campaign include any of us?

We are just people on a forum talking to each other. Being on this forum and talking on this forum does not in any way imply any sort of liability for the others on this forum, nor does it imply any sort of agreement over what level of support you are willing to give.

"Campaign doomed to implode."? It will not happen due to supporters happening to have certain beliefs that I find abhorrent. Furthermore the success or lack thereof (like someone recently said) does not in any way hinge on this particular website.

Ron Paul became popular and then after that people from all over donated. Do you think that only the people on this forum donated? Are you nuts? This forum isn't the campaign.

We are just people who like Ron Paul. There is no reason, no implication for any sort of command about what people should do. If we want to talk about something and sometimes send an appropriate email, that is not going to kill the campaign.

You are being very ridiculous. There is no strategy. There is no command. The idea of a hierarchical campaign of a bunch of anonymous strangers meeting over the internet is hysterical.

That, and only that, could doom the campaign. Because then a few people could screw up the entire grassroots, and even if that was luckily avoided the grassroots would be nothing but astroturf.

[speciallyblend]

URGENT Press Release for ALL MEDIA SOURCES

Ron Paul supporters dirty their boots/shoes by canvassing across the country,strange boot/shoe prints have been noticed across all the cities and towns. Town officials/Neo-Con republicans complain and want to ticket these vandals for leaving RON PAUL foot prints across the country.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DIRT ON RON PAUL SUPPORTERS

This is vulgar and proof that its Ron Paul supporters,since the other candidates cant pay people to walk for their candidates.
A RON PAUL REPUBLICAN

Source, pics at www.desperatemedia.com j/k for real supporters,true for pathetic reporters

[Ron LOL]

Ron LOL. You do not know what you are talking about. When did this campaign include any of us?
Ron Paul's campaign is the grassroots. In many ways, the cart is pulling the horse.


We are just people on a forum talking to each other. Being on this forum and talking on this forum does not in any way imply any sort of liability for the others on this forum, nor does it imply any sort of agreement over what level of support you are willing to give.
That's great, but the WSJ article wasn't about our forum. It was about the barrage of tactless comments that follows any article slanting even just a little bit negative on RP.


"Campaign doomed to implode."? It will not happen due to supporters happening to have certain beliefs that I find abhorrent. Furthermore the success or lack thereof (like someone recently said) does not in any way hinge on this particular website.
Sure it does. This place is full of truly great ideas for helping to elect RP. If we can't use the forum to also get out the idea that we need to be more respectful when replying to articles, then I don't know how we will spread the idea -- and if we don't spread this idea, then I think that yes, the campaign will implode.


Ron Paul became popular and then after that people from all over donated. Do you think that only the people on this forum donated? Are you nuts? This forum isn't the campaign.
Of course the forum isn't the only place the donations came from. But the forum is a staging area.


We are just people who like Ron Paul. There is no reason, no implication for any sort of command about what people should do. If we want to talk about something and sometimes send an appropriate email, that is not going to kill the campaign.

You are being very ridiculous. There is no strategy. There is no command. The idea of a hierarchical campaign of a bunch of anonymous strangers meeting over the internet is hysterical.

That, and only that, could doom the campaign. Because then a few people could screw up the entire grassroots, and even if that was luckily avoided the grassroots would be nothing but astroturf.
This isn't an attempt at creating a command structure, it's very basic advice: if you're going to e-mail a journalist or comment on an article, don't be a jerk, don't call the author a stupid neo-con war monger shill, and so on. It's okay to make arguments to that effect. Just be wise with respect to your diction.

[Ron LOL]

You and your type, have allowed the O'Reilly's of this world to dictate the terms.

Don't worry, you're not the only one, but you get what you deserve, or maybe that's the way you like it.

So basically, my entire post was lost on you. Clearly, then, you must agree with the idea of simply alienating anybody who disagrees with RP. After all, why should we bother to try to convert people when we can just give them the finger.

I'm interested to hear about how I "get what I deserve" though.

[Ozwest]

I love Ron Paul, but hate most Republicans, neo-cons, and Evangenical Christians. Is there hope?

[RPFTW!]

So basically, my entire post was lost on you. Clearly, then, you must agree with the idea of simply alienating anybody who disagrees with RP. After all, why should we bother to try to convert people when we can just give them the finger.

I'm interested to hear about how I "get what I deserve" though.

Holy shit this guy doesn't get it

[Ron LOL]

Holy shit this guy doesn't get it

No, you're the one who doesn't get it. The WSJ article is pretty clear. We need to be more respectful in our discourse. Don't believe me? Check the comments for pretty much any anti-RP article. We can't conduct ourselves that way.

[evandi]

No, you're the one who doesn't get it. The WSJ article is pretty clear. We need to be more respectful in our discourse. Don't believe me? Check the comments for pretty much any anti-RP article. We can't conduct ourselves that way.

You are a very curious character.

"Ron LOL"?

The Author of that piece does not deserve respect. You are curiously defending her listing of various supporters.

The bottom line is this: Ron Paul is actually the only one who has a ton of supporters.

Supporters are people.

People do stuff. People believe various things.

/sarcasm

That WSJ writer is a woman. Obviously that means that she is responsible for the crimes of bloody Mary, Queen of England who persecuted protestants.

/sarcasm off

You define Sophistry Ron LOL.

[Sandra]

Ron LOL here's a snippet of your own words: "If you want to make yourself useful, order some slim jims and go door to door." Are you Still posting?

[JMann]

Politics is a dirty game and much mud will come RP way as well as to his supporters. The WSJ knows the game better than most.

[RPFTW!]

Holy shit this guy doesn't get it

I'll continue flaming the pundits that smear Ron Paul and give my thanks to the ones who give him a fair shake, go ahead and appease everyone for all i care.

[Ron LOL]

You are a very curious character.

"Ron LOL"?

The Author of that piece does not deserve respect. You are curiously defending her listing of various supporters.

The bottom line is this: Ron Paul is actually the only one who has a ton of supporters.

Supporters are people.

People do stuff. People believe various things.

/sarcasm

That WSJ writer is a woman. Obviously that means that she is responsible for the crimes of bloody Mary, Queen of England who persecuted protestants.

/sarcasm off

You define Sophistry Ron LOL.
How can you say the author doesn't deserve respect? The same piece, without the Stormfront and Red State stuff, is a very credible criticism of "Ron Paul supporters." Yes, that's a very broad label. But it's nevertheless true in general, and you needn't look beyond this forum (or indeed some of the posts in this thread) to see as much.

I agree with you when you say that Ron Paul is the only one who has supporters, and agree when you go on to say that people do stuff and believe various things. But when we associate ourselves with Ron Paul through leaving comments and sending e-mails, I think we do him a disservice if we don't commit to a certain level of professionalism. Nobody likes insults, and there's some merit to the saying "if you can't take it, don't dish it out." But there's even more merit to the saying "you'll catch more flys with honey than vinegar."

And I can't possibly define sophistry, because I haven't committed a logical fallacy.

[Ron LOL]

Ron LOL here's a snippet of your own words: "If you want to make yourself useful, order some slim jims and go door to door." Are you Still posting?

Thanks, I campaigned last night for three hours.

[RPinSEAZ]

Why does Ron Paul always get the least amount of coverage and asked the least amount of questions in the debates. Why are they still calling RP a long shot?????

Because he is polling in single digits throughout the country. Period.

[Ron LOL]

I'll continue flaming the pundits that smear Ron Paul and give my thanks to the ones who give him a fair shake, go ahead and appease everyone for all i care.

It's not appeasement to say "I disagree with your position on account of x, y, and z" instead of "ZOMG SCREW YOU ZIONIST WHORE."

[BeFranklin]

I'll continue flaming the pundits that smear Ron Paul and give my thanks to the ones who give him a fair shake, go ahead and appease everyone for all i care.

And I'll continue to support writing letters to sponsors when those accusations go overboard. Good job on the beck piece the other day people! :)

Support Ron Paul Supporters. Give them a hug and a smile, not a word! :)

[RPFTW!]

Because he is polling in single digits throughout the country. Period.

Wrong, he was polling above Tancredo Hunter and Brownback and all three had much more time than him.

[RPinSEAZ]

Wrong, he was polling above Tancredo Hunter and Brownback and all three had much more time than him.

Who? Who? and Who? I have NEVER seen an article or anything in the news about any of them except when Brownback dropped out.

[OptionsTrader]

I recommend just ignoring these hit pieces and doing something productive like getting out there and Ron Pauling your neighbors and the shoppers that do not know who this man is.

[Ron LOL]

Wrong, he was polling above Tancredo Hunter and Brownback and all three had much more time than him.
I'm not making any specific claim here, but did you actually measure this? I'm kind of interested to see, if so..

[evandi]

How can you say the author doesn't deserve respect? The same piece, without the Stormfront and Red State stuff, is a very credible criticism of "Ron Paul supporters." Yes, that's a very broad label. But it's nevertheless true in general, and you needn't look beyond this forum (or indeed some of the posts in this thread) to see as much.

I agree with you when you say that Ron Paul is the only one who has supporters, and agree when you go on to say that people do stuff and believe various things. But when we associate ourselves with Ron Paul through leaving comments and sending e-mails, I think we do him a disservice if we don't commit to a certain level of professionalism. Nobody likes insults, and there's some merit to the saying "if you can't take it, don't dish it out." But there's even more merit to the saying "you'll catch more flys with honey than vinegar."

And I can't possibly define sophistry, because I haven't committed a logical fallacy.


Sophistry: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."

Associate with Ron Paul? The fallacy is the implication that people who support Ron Paul are supported by him.

And you are employing that strategy in a subtle and tricky manner, which is superficially plausible, but generally fallacious.

[BeFranklin]

It's not appeasement to say "I disagree with your position on account of x, y, and z" instead of "ZOMG SCREW YOU ZIONIST WHORE."

You're baiting people. No one has said anything like that. I've flagged your post, I'm not sure why you're even here. Maybe you're just upset. Remember, support Ron Paul supporters! Give them a smile and a hug :):)

[BeFranklin]

I recommend just ignoring these hit pieces and doing something productive like getting out there and Ron Pauling your neighbors and the shoppers that do not know who this man is.

Ditto.

[RPFTW!]

I'm not making any specific claim here, but did you actually measure this? I'm kind of interested to see, if so..

There was an article that had the total time and amount of words each candidate got, Ron Paul was at the back of the pack with something like 350 words, I believe Giuliani had like 18,000 or 8000 or something like that, I wouldn't know where to begin to google this though.

[fedup100]

Listen up fellow Paul supporters! I absolutely agree the rough talk and four letter words need to end. The rest of it needs to ramp up.

Don't fall for the this load of crap at WSJ. There are three things I have learned in my life so far that are absolutely true. Death, taxes and the Jews have cornered the market on protest. Learn from the best of them and swing at them with all you have within you. We are in the fight of our life for our country and freedom........be careful, be very careful.

These squealers most likely are zionists and know oh so well how to work the crowd.

Remember, "the squeaky wheel gets the oil". Now if rabid descent didn't work, why is applied often with absolutely thrilling results by the ACLU, AIPAC and the Jews in general?

There are two issues here:

1. Ron Paul supporters are being sabotaged.

OR:

2. Ron Paul supporters are pointing out the obvious MSM control and bias of our so called "free elections"

Either way, they have you backed into a corner, so fight back like Braveheart and don't look up until we see Dr. Paul sworn in to office.

Lets face the reality. People should be outraged by God and they need to express it. Most people are finally waking up to the fact that we have all been duped.

There are NO free elections in the greatest country on earth. If that doesn't make you mad as hell and shrill, then you aren't paying attention.

Again, do not believe that when we swarm an organization or what ever is thrashing Dr. Paul or thwarting his ability to be seen and heard, that we are crazies or conspiracy nuts. THAT IS THEIR age old game......and they don't play fair.

Throw it back in their face with more of the same, STORM THE GATES!!! Victory is in site and the enemy is writhing!

[Ron LOL]

Sophistry: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."

Associate with Ron Paul? The fallacy is the implication that people who support Ron Paul are supported by him.

And you are employing that strategy in a subtle and tricky manner, which is superficially plausible, but generally fallacious.
This argument is really only useful for dissociating RP from things that are actually fringe, like neo-nazis, truthers, and white supremacists.

Like it or not, when you mail a journalist, you are representing the campaign. Officially? No. But as a supporter, you are visible. When a preponderance of supporters start acting the same way, the result is an article like this WSJ piece. If it can be supported, and I think it can, then it's a reasonable article for the author to write.

Don't like it? Neither do I. So be civil. I try.

[Ron LOL]

You're baiting people. No one has said anything like that. I've flagged your post, I'm not sure why you're even here. Maybe you're just upset. Remember, support Ron Paul supporters! Give them a smile and a hug :):)

Nobody has said anything like that? Are you new here?

Check blog comments. Check threads in the "Bad Media" subforum. People get angry and throw caution to the wind. This is a well known problem that we have with online support for RP, and indeed a well known consequence (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19) of the 'net in general.

So no, I'm not baiting. It's legitimate criticism.

[RevolutionSD]

It's no surprise that the media is going after supporters. A lot of us saw this coming. Supporters will never be on perfect behavior. Do you think Giuiliani's supporters are angels? What about Hillary's? I've seen some vicious attacks on message boards on RP, many coming from democrats. The MSM can cherry pick which message boards it will report on. The WSJ specifically will come down hard on Ron Paul- Murdoch is pulling for Hillary & Rudy in the general.

[evandi]

"This argument is really only useful for dissociating RP from things that are actually fringe, like neo-nazis, truthers, and white supremacists."

Fallacy. ^

"Like it or not, when you mail a journalist, you are representing the campaign."

No basis in reality. ^

"When a preponderance of supporters start acting the same way, the result is an article like this WSJ piece."

They don't really care about congeniality. ^

[Ron LOL]

It's no surprise that the media is going after supporters. A lot of us saw this coming. Supporters will never be on perfect behavior. Do you think Giuiliani's supporters are angels? What about Hillary's? I've seen some vicious attacks on message boards on RP, many coming from democrats. The MSM can cherry pick which message boards it will report on. The WSJ specifically will come down hard on Ron Paul- Murdoch is pulling for Hillary & Rudy in the general.

I saw a really nasty thread over at Daily Kos (first time I've been there...got linked from Bad Media IIRC but maybe not), full of sensationalist Upton Sinclair garbage. But those guys get ripped daily by Fox. So we aren't the only group of "supporters" who get demonized.

Anyway, the point is that we can largely make this all go away by just choosing our words a bit more carefully.

[robert4rp08]

Paul's Supporters Clash With Media (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)



Please, think before you act.

Call me crazy, but I see nothing wrong with rising up against an unfair media as long as it's done in a civil, courteous, and polite manner. Sending emails, boycotting, protesting, etc. is all legit in my book as long as it's not vulgar.

[LFOD]

This attitude, lack of understanding the consequences of one's action and language expressed in this post are Dr. Paul's biggest hurdle stopping him from being the frontrunner.

It is extremely unlikely that an "attitude" of *some* RP supporters is the "biggest hurdle".

The primary obstacle to overcome is name recognition.

[Ron LOL]

"This argument is really only useful for dissociating RP from things that are actually fringe, like neo-nazis, truthers, and white supremacists."

Fallacy. ^
No, using this argument any other way is a fallacy -- specifically, a strawman. Again, you need only surf blog comments to see the colorful language used by many RP supporters. It's not uncommon at all. I'm saying we, as a group, should endeavor to stop this by resolving to adhere to a certain level of professionalism. This seems like a pretty non-objectionable goal to me.



"Like it or not, when you mail a journalist, you are representing the campaign."

No basis in reality. ^
Right, so I don't identify myself with the campaign in any way when I send an e-mail saying "I am a Ron Paul supporter..."


"When a preponderance of supporters start acting the same way, the result is an article like this WSJ piece."

They don't really care about congeniality. ^
Good thing congeniality wasn't at the core of the WSJ author's piece.

Oh, wait...

[evandi]

I saw a really nasty thread over at Daily Kos (first time I've been there...got linked from Bad Media IIRC but maybe not), full of sensationalist Upton Sinclair garbage. But those guys get ripped daily by Fox. So we aren't the only group of "supporters" who get demonized.

Anyway, the point is that we can largely make this all go away by just choosing our words a bit more carefully.

I only hope you go away.

I've read Kos. Its interesting. Normal people write stuff there. I don't agree with most of what they say. But they are just people. I love reading it occasionally because they are just people. Not some filtered goo, its a salad bowl of ideas.

The current media situation is not due to the fact that deep down people really like getting all their information filtered through one person.

The current media situation is only related to the cost of production. People like Bill O-Reilly want us little people to shut the hell up, because they are obsolete.

Lots of people are on the internet these days. Lets help everyone understand the beauty of the free flow of ideas. Lets not turn it into goo.

[evandi]

"Good thing congeniality wasn't at the core of the WSJ author's piece."

It was. She is lying. She doesn't care.

[Ron LOL]

I only hope you go away.

I've read Kos. Its interesting. Normal people write stuff there. I don't agree with most of what they say. But they are just people. I love reading it occasionally because they are just people. Not some filtered goo, its a salad bowl of ideas.

The current media situation is not due to the fact that deep down people really like getting all their information filtered through one person.

The current media situation is only related to the cost of production. People like Bill O-Reilly want us little people to shut the hell up, because they are obsolete.

Lots of people are on the internet these days. Lets help everyone understand the beauty of the free flow of ideas. Lets not turn it into goo.

You won't ever find me objecting to the free flow of ideas, and attempting to support that argument by pointing to my objection to the language some folks choose is pretty dishonest. Again, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's a pretty basic idea. Hopefully you can apply it.

[Kap]

If you don't have one, then make sure in any letter you send to WSJ that you are telling your family/friends to CANCEL their subscriptions.

[Jaykzo]

I just re-watched an interview with Ron and Carl Cameron.

After Carl says something about "people trying to have him removed from the debates," Ron responds with a story about how he wasn't included in the Iowa debates. He says "We didn't boycott or anything, we just quietly went next door and showed our support"


It makes me wonder what he thinks about everyone going on boycotting tangents and what not.

[Arklatex]

:D Why do they focus on some individual ron paul supporters, don't they feel a need to do a piece on Dr. Paul and his candicacy, his ideas and message? Hello? WSJ or NAtional Enquiror?

[Ninja Homer]

I'm surprised at how many Ron Paul supporters can't see this article for what it is. It's just an attempt to put us back in the place where they like us: as sheep that can be easily herded.

Since some people seem to be having so much trouble reading between the lines, please allow me to do it for you.


We are the media. We tell you what to think. When we ignore Ron Paul or write hit pieces on Ron Paul, you are not allowed to respond to it. You can not send us nasty emails, write comments that disagree with our stories, organize against us, call us, boycott us, protest against us, or sue us. If you do any of those things, you will make Ron Paul lose.

Anybody who does anything we don't like will be singled out by us and made a public example of, just like Taco John or RP2008. You will be compared to Ku Klux Klan members, anti-government fringe groups and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You will get all Ron Paul supporters banned from popular sites like RedState. You don't want to ruin it for all the Ron Paul supporters, do you?

A good Ron Paul supporter should make sure that other Ron Paul supporters do things that we like, just like Hestia. So be like Hestia, and condemn other Ron Paul supporters who do things we don't like. If you don't, you will make Ron Paul lose.

This is how many people can be controlled by a few. They don't have the ability to police all the Ron Paul supporters, so they have to teach some of the Ron Paul supporters to police themselves. They teach a sheep how to act like a sheep dog.

So decide for yourself... are you a sheep, a sheep disguised as a sheep dog, or a human?

I'm a human, so don't bother trying to herd me.

Watch this video through to the end. Taco John and RP2008 are like the first water buffalo to attack, and they should be applauded for their efforts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJaq7syc7ng

[fedup100]

Ninja Homer!!!!! Wooooo Hoooooo!!!!!!!!!!

[Ron Paul Fan]

The neo-con owned WSJ is always going to twist it around on us. Cavuto said in the recent interview with Paul that the attacks will start coming. They can't get much, if anything, on Paul so they'll attack a few of his supporters and lump them all together as a group. But we aren't a group, we're individuals so every individual should be treated the same way. I think Ninja Homer's analysis of this is spot on. Keep fighting for individual liberty, and don't succumb to their dirty, collectivist tactics.

[speciallyblend]

wsj=tmz.com,they are no longer a news source ,they should broadcast on the e channel

[gjdavis60]

If we were always docile and polite, would there be any press about us at all? Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."?

A complete cynic would conclude that the media are simply the political operatives of their corporate management. Perhaps this is so.

But sometimes I think the media look at RP's campaign in disbelief because they still don't understand that they are no longer the only source of information on the planet. They see a movement, which they have not sanctioned, gain serious momentum and they are threatened because they do not and cannot control it as they have for so many years. So they dismiss RP as some kind of aberration and they demean his support.

The truth is the broadcast and print media as we know them are approaching obsolescence and we are in the midst of a profound change in the way people get information and determine truth.

[Ozwest]

You won't ever find me objecting to the free flow of ideas, and attempting to support that argument by pointing to my objection to the language some folks choose is pretty dishonest. Again, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's a pretty basic idea. Hopefully you can apply it.

Language, and its use are a personal thing. Each person has their personal mores' and are a product of their environment.

I, personally mis- trust people who don't drink, swear, or copulate in a non-missionary position. But that's just me.

Ignoring all the details, this forum offers contexual clues that are worth repeating.

Like: Keep your honey and vinegar to yourself and have a party, but don't lecture me or this forum about proper conduct.

This is not the Daily Kos.

[noztnac]

I send a polite e-mail expressing disappointment almost every time I read an anti-Paul article.
They need to know that we are customers and unhappy with the level of service they are providing.

[noztnac]

There was once a saying, "Never pick a fight with people who buy their ink in bulk."
But that was a long time ago!!
Now we have the internet and can fight back.

We just need to be careful how we conduct that fight.

[Ron LOL]

Language, and its use are a personal thing. Each person has their personal mores' and are a product of their environment.

I, personally mis- trust people who don't drink, swear, or copulate in a non-missionary position. But that's just me.

Ignoring all the details, this forum offers contexual clues that are worth repeating.

Like: Keep your honey and vinegar to yourself and have a party, but don't lecture me or this forum about proper conduct.

This is not the Daily Kos.
If you're not willing to learn the lesson, then I hope you'll at least savor each and every future article indicting RP supporters as raging jerks.

We can control this. But to do so requires cooperation.

[Ozwest]

If you're not willing to learn the lesson, then I hope you'll at least savor each and every future article indicting RP supporters as raging jerks.

We can control this. But to do so requires cooperation.

Hoy, I still have Daily Kos on my Bookmarks.

[evandi]

If you're not willing to learn the lesson, then I hope you'll at least savor each and every future article indicting RP supporters as raging jerks.

We can control this. But to do so requires cooperation.

No, Ron LOL, "we" can't control this. Don't say "we". You are not one of "us" if "us" includes me.

Any attempt to take over this board will lead to people leaving to another board. It doesn't matter which one, it will just be somewhere else.

Daily Kos has not learned any lesson because B-Oreilly has no influence over people who surf the web. There is nothing bad about Daily Kos. It is just a board.

To give the WSJ writer a pass after she used fallacious BS for no reason whatsoever is ridiculous, like I said before.

[Admin - removed personal attack]

[Ozwest]

No, Ron LOL, "we" can't control this. Don't say "we". You are not one of "us" if "us" includes me.

Any attempt to take over this board will lead to people leaving to another board. It doesn't matter which one, it will just be somewhere else.

Daily Kos has not learned any lesson because B-Oreilly has no influence over people who surf the web. There is nothing bad about Daily Kos. It is just a board.

To give the WSJ writer a pass after she used fallacious BS for no reason whatsoever is ridiculous, like I said before.

Fuck you Ron LOL.

Steady-on, no one's going anywhere, except disillusioned Democrats.

[Ron LOL]

No, Ron LOL, "we" can't control this. Don't say "we". You are not one of "us" if "us" includes me.

Any attempt to take over this board will lead to people leaving to another board. It doesn't matter which one, it will just be somewhere else.

Daily Kos has not learned any lesson because B-Oreilly has no influence over people who surf the web. There is nothing bad about Daily Kos. It is just a board.

To give the WSJ writer a pass after she used fallacious BS for no reason whatsoever is ridiculous, like I said before.

Fuck you Ron LOL.
You must be deliberately misunderstanding my argument.

"We" refers to Ron Paul supporters, and "we" can eradicate the source for articles like this if we would just conduct ourselves professionally. Don't you understand that this article didn't come out of nowhere? Do you buy Ron Paul's blowback argument? I do. The same principle is at work here. You may be correct when you point out a flaw in an author's reasoning -- and you're right to do so, too -- but how you address the author dictates how your comment will be received. I just can't figure out how anybody can argue "WE SHOULD YELL AT THEM LOL THAT WILL WORK" with a straight face

FFS, nobody is saying you can't disagree, and nobody is saying you're not allowed to send e-mails. I am saying don't send emails if you're going to resort to name calling.

If you can't get this very basic notion through your obviously thick skull, then it's a sad day for the campaign. Honey and vinegar. Learn this very basic lesson, and we improve our chances at winning.

[yongrel]

You must be deliberately misunderstanding my argument.

"We" refers to Ron Paul supporters, and "we" can eradicate the source for articles like this if we would just conduct ourselves professionally. Don't you understand that this article didn't come out of nowhere? Do you buy Ron Paul's blowback argument? I do. The same principle is at work here. You may be correct when you point out a flaw in an author's reasoning -- and you're right to do so, too -- but how you address the author dictates how your comment will be received. I just can't figure out how anybody can argue "WE SHOULD YELL AT THEM LOL THAT WILL WORK" with a straight face

FFS, nobody is saying you can't disagree, and nobody is saying you're not allowed to send e-mails. I am saying don't send emails if you're going to resort to name calling.

If you can't get this very basic notion through your obviously thick skull, then it's a sad day for the campaign. Honey and vinegar. Learn this very basic lesson, and we improve our chances at winning.

Agreed

[evandi]

You must be deliberately misunderstanding my argument.

"We" refers to Ron Paul supporters, and "we" can eradicate the source for articles like this if we would just conduct ourselves professionally. Don't you understand that this article didn't come out of nowhere? Do you buy Ron Paul's blowback argument? I do. The same principle is at work here. You may be correct when you point out a flaw in an author's reasoning -- and you're right to do so, too -- but how you address the author dictates how your comment will be received. I just can't figure out how anybody can argue "WE SHOULD YELL AT THEM LOL THAT WILL WORK" with a straight face

FFS, nobody is saying you can't disagree, and nobody is saying you're not allowed to send e-mails. I am saying don't send emails if you're going to resort to name calling.

If you can't get this very basic notion through your obviously thick skull, then it's a sad day for the campaign. Honey and vinegar. Learn this very basic lesson, and we improve our chances at winning.

I don't want to catch you and smash you, I just want you to go away. I'll choose Vinegar.

[Ozwest]

Answer me this one Ron LoL. Who will you vote for? Ex Dem. speaking. Buck up Bucko.

[Jojo]

This was the thread about the Baltimore Sun
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=30201
[/url]

Amazing. Everyone who responded to Taco John disagreed with his "call to action". We can use this to set WSJ straight, if someone hasn't already done so (didn't read this whole thread yet).

[Ozwest]

Come clean. Have a little dignity.

[Ron LOL]

I don't want to catch you and smash you, I just want you to go away. I'll choose Vinegar.

Do you not see yourself making the same mistake I was describing?

Nobody is trying to take away the damn forum. I've been arguing strictly about replying to journalists, not about what you can and cannot post to the forum. Obviously the forum is only governed by the posting guidelines.


Answer me this one Ron LoL. Who will you vote for? Ex Dem. speaking. Buck up Bucko.

You're joking, right? Obviously, I'm voting for Ron Paul. I was an independent, voted for Badnarik in '04, and re-registered as Republican to vote for RP in the primaries.

[FluffyUnbound]

You must be deliberately misunderstanding my argument.

"We" refers to Ron Paul supporters, and "we" can eradicate the source for articles like this if we would just conduct ourselves professionally. Don't you understand that this article didn't come out of nowhere? Do you buy Ron Paul's blowback argument? I do. The same principle is at work here. You may be correct when you point out a flaw in an author's reasoning -- and you're right to do so, too -- but how you address the author dictates how your comment will be received. I just can't figure out how anybody can argue "WE SHOULD YELL AT THEM LOL THAT WILL WORK" with a straight face

FFS, nobody is saying you can't disagree, and nobody is saying you're not allowed to send e-mails. I am saying don't send emails if you're going to resort to name calling.

If you can't get this very basic notion through your obviously thick skull, then it's a sad day for the campaign. Honey and vinegar. Learn this very basic lesson, and we improve our chances at winning.

When people insult me, I will insult them.

When people deal with me in a professional way, I will deal with them in a professional way.

If you don't like this arrangement of perfect justice, don't read any of my comments.

But if you keep bitching about it, I will simply curse at people double. Will that make you happy?

[Taco John]

I'm surprised at how many Ron Paul supporters can't see this article for what it is. It's just an attempt to put us back in the place where they like us: as sheep that can be easily herded.

Since some people seem to be having so much trouble reading between the lines, please allow me to do it for you.

We are the media. We tell you what to think. When we ignore Ron Paul or write hit pieces on Ron Paul, you are not allowed to respond to it. You can not send us nasty emails, write comments that disagree with our stories, organize against us, call us, boycott us, protest against us, or sue us. If you do any of those things, you will make Ron Paul lose.

Anybody who does anything we don't like will be singled out by us and made a public example of, just like Taco John or RP2008. You will be compared to Ku Klux Klan members, anti-government fringe groups and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You will get all Ron Paul supporters banned from popular sites like RedState. You don't want to ruin it for all the Ron Paul supporters, do you?

A good Ron Paul supporter should make sure that other Ron Paul supporters do things that we like, just like Hestia. So be like Hestia, and condemn other Ron Paul supporters who do things we don't like. If you don't, you will make Ron Paul lose.


This is how many people can be controlled by a few. They don't have the ability to police all the Ron Paul supporters, so they have to teach some of the Ron Paul supporters to police themselves. They teach a sheep how to act like a sheep dog.

So decide for yourself... are you a sheep, a sheep disguised as a sheep dog, or a human?

I'm a human, so don't bother trying to herd me.

Watch this video through to the end. Taco John and RP2008 are like the first water buffalo to attack, and they should be applauded for their efforts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJaq7syc7ng



Thanks bro. I appreciate you saying that.

[wfd40]

Thanks bro. I appreciate you saying that.

Hold on a sec bro..

The thanks should be to you - you're the one making sure the press doesn't think they can simply write this FUD.

Seriously, your work and that of others like you has made all the difference in the world.

So thank you man.

:)

[Taco John]

I just re-watched an interview with Ron and Carl Cameron.

After Carl says something about "people trying to have him removed from the debates," Ron responds with a story about how he wasn't included in the Iowa debates. He says "We didn't boycott or anything, we just quietly went next door and showed our support"


It makes me wonder what he thinks about everyone going on boycotting tangents and what not.


Ron Paul is a big supporter of civil disobedience. However, he isn't going to lead the way on that. He is going to leave it to the people to build support, and take individual action. When individual action gets multiplied, pretty soon you have a bunch of people pulling together in the same direction for a similar cause.

What individuals in this campaign are discovering, is that we individually have a lot of power to affect the political environment around us. All any one of us has to do is jump on here and actively sell our idea. This forum is like the eBay of ideas where we can sell our ideas to the rest of the community, and those who buy the idea transact by taking action. Whether it's the idea for a blimp, or the idea to contact the media over a story, there's nothing wrong with using the Internet to organize boycotts and take peaceful political action.

This is the First Amendment in action.

[Malakai0]

Control yourself, but also understand that if it isn't this it will be something else.

The MSM will attack the RP freedom movement every chance it gets and with whatever it can find. They cannot discredit RP since he is cool, so they are grasping at straws.

This forum is actually quite civil compared to most.

[Ozwest]

Ron Paul is a big supporter of civil disobedience. However, he isn't going to lead the way on that. He is going to leave it to the people to build support, and take individual action. When individual action gets multiplied, pretty soon you have a bunch of people pulling together in the same direction for a similar cause.

What individuals in this campaign are discovering, is that we individually have a lot of power to affect the political environment around us. All any one of us has to do is jump on here and actively sell our idea. This forum is like the eBay of ideas where we can sell our ideas to the rest of the community, and those who buy the idea transact by taking action. Whether it's the idea for a blimp, or the idea to contact the media over a story, there's nothing wrong with using the Internet to organize boycotts and take peaceful political action.

This is the First Amendment in action.

Ok mate, I honestly don't know the full story, but I hung out my cackleburys a few hours ago for you with Bradley DC. That doesn't bother me much, but why are you so down in the tooth? What happened?

[Taco John]

I'm sorry... I'm not familiar with the expression "down in the tooth."

[runderwo]

I'm surprised at how many Ron Paul supporters can't see this article for what it is. It's just an attempt to put us back in the place where they like us: as sheep that can be easily herded.

Since some people seem to be having so much trouble reading between the lines, please allow me to do it for you.



This is how many people can be controlled by a few. They don't have the ability to police all the Ron Paul supporters, so they have to teach some of the Ron Paul supporters to police themselves. They teach a sheep how to act like a sheep dog.

So decide for yourself... are you a sheep, a sheep disguised as a sheep dog, or a human?

I'm a human, so don't bother trying to herd me.

Watch this video through to the end. Taco John and RP2008 are like the first water buffalo to attack, and they should be applauded for their efforts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJaq7syc7ng

The funny part about it is, what does she expect us to do? Put tape over the mouths of fellow supporters who also happen to be idiots?

Is it okay to be an idiot and support some other candidate, but if an idiot supports Ron, then that's a reason to not vote for Ron?

I mean, the reason you don't have idiots behind other candidates is because their grassroots is nonexistent. QED.

[jenius]

Anyways, this thread is way too long considering how significant this hit piece is, as in, not very. My bad.

LOL, PieSwindler, you remind me of Whopper Jr.

"What are you gonna do? Spank my bun?"

Anyways, I agree with their sentiment, although I also agree that the biggest problem isn't swearing on the boards as much as it is sending flaming hate mail to various media members/bloggers and accusing them of being "Zionists." There's nothing more counter-productive than personally offending the people you want on your side.

[mojohnk2000]

Greetings,

I have read the rants and raves. I will remind you all that this is a REVOLUTION. A revolution whole and complete. It does not need to be over thought by want-a-bee pseudo intellectuals. If an enemy of our candidate is identified, punishment should be swift and assured. This is not some PC battle. Lead, follow, or get out of the way! People who play nice finish last. This is the last chance to save our country without resorting the the first law of this land and that is not the constitution. It is the Declaration of Independence. We are at war with the government media complex leave them no quarter.

[Corydoras]

An election is, in fact, a popularity contest.