Digg & Why it Does Not Work

[Informed Dissent]

I've recently started using Digg to spread the truth about Ron Paul, the media, and other issues. I was aware of how Digg could be manipulated so that certain posts would be buried and not searched. I am now facing this daily. This morning I updated the site and posted on Digg and it is no longer to be found on Digg. Please do your best to tell this truth about Digg to everyone you know considering the fact that I am no unable to do so from houston911truth.org.

best,
houston911truth.org

[Suzu]

I've recently started using Digg to spread the truth about Ron Paul, the media, and other issues. I was aware of how Digg could be manipulated so that certain posts would be buried and not searched. I am now facing this daily. This morning I updated the site and posted on Digg and it is no longer to be found on Digg. Please do your best to tell this truth about Digg to everyone you know considering the fact that I am no unable to do so from houston911truth.org.

best,
houston911truth.org

Digg will often ban a user for doing too much "blind digging" (digging based on keywords or headlines without reading the stories). If you object in writing and give good reason for the way you dugg articles, they'll give you another chance.

[mdh]

Houston911Truth, can you explain further just what isn't found on digg? Maybe some people just rated you down because they genuinely disagreed with what you had to say or the way in which you presented it.
If you provide more specifics and details, we can make better judgments with regard to what is really occuring, instead of just spreading FUD about DIGG as a site. Hopefully experienced DIGG users can help you, in the same way as Suzu has posted, to keep your posts from ending up removed/rated down/whatever.

[JoshLowry]

That's because your story was buried.

Users can either "digg" or "bury" a submitted link to content.

If the link you submitted is buried by multiple users then the link will no longer show up in the newest links section.

[Korey Kaczynski]

We don't need truthers here, go away.

[mdh]

We don't need truthers here, go away.

Korey, a variety of *theories* about what occured on 9/11 and why. I personally feel that people who buy into any internet conspiracy theories regarding "9/11 was an inside job - BY ALIENS WITH FLOURIDE" and whatnot are doing themselves a great disservice by believing thusly. It's there perogative, though, to believe whatever they want. It's my perogative to think that those theories are stupid. On the other hand, I for one am glad to have them here. Just because we have wildly differing views on one specific event in the history of this great nation doesn't mean we can't join together in supporting core principles like liberty, hard work and capitalism, and Ron Paul for President in 2008. :)

[Korey Kaczynski]

Korey, a variety of *theories* about what occured on 9/11 and why. I personally feel that people who buy into any internet conspiracy theories regarding "9/11 was an inside job - BY ALIENS WITH FLOURIDE" and whatnot are doing themselves a great disservice by believing thusly. It's there perogative, though, to believe whatever they want. It's my perogative to think that those theories are stupid. On the other hand, I for one am glad to have them here. Just because we have wildly differing views on one specific event in the history of this great nation doesn't mean we can't join together in supporting core principles like liberty, hard work and capitalism, and Ron Paul for President in 2008. :)

Not really; the point is they publicy announce it in too high of numbers, and it gives dipshits like John Gibson and Michelle Malkin ammo to fling against Ron Paul. Does this guy REALLY have to have his screen name as Houston911Truth? Is that going to do ANY good for us?

[JoshLowry]

He was asking about Ron Paul related info on Digg.

Be nice to everyone. :)

[mdh]

Not really; the point is they publicy announce it in too high of numbers, and it gives dipshits like John Gibson and Michelle Malkin ammo to fling against Ron Paul. Does this guy REALLY have to have his screen name as Houston911Truth? Is that going to do ANY good for us?

I just can't help but think that *censoring people we don't agree with* is a bad idea. I know I've been hearing a lot about this particular theme lately... where was it again?

You've got a valid point, but if winning an election costs us our dignity and means sacrificing such high principles and lofty ideals, is it worth it at all? Fight the detractors on the facts alone, they can't argue coherently against them, and remember - we're not running Mr. Houston911Truth for president, we're running Ron Paul for president, and Ron Paul has never made any statements regarding belief in whacko internet conspiracy theories.

[Korey Kaczynski]

I just can't help but think that *censoring people we don't agree with* is a bad idea. I know I've been hearing a lot about this particular theme lately... where was it again?

You've got a valid point, but if winning an election costs us our dignity and means sacrificing such high principles and lofty ideals, is it worth it at all? Fight the detractors on the facts alone, they can't argue coherently against them, and remember - we're not running Mr. Houston911Truth for president, we're running Ron Paul for president, and Ron Paul has never made any statements regarding belief in whacko internet conspiracy theories.

I didn't say we should censor someone -- but having their S/N on something that already is damaging is pure wrecklessness.

Ron Paul has said he "didn't know much about 911 Truth" when confronted by a bunch of truthers on youtube (great job guys, putting a youtube video up and now linking RP to 9/11 truth). Besides, on the second debate he implied he believed that terrorists were behind the attacks.

[Informed Dissent]

Not really; the point is they publicy announce it in too high of numbers, and it gives dipshits like John Gibson and Michelle Malkin ammo to fling against Ron Paul. Does this guy REALLY have to have his screen name as Houston911Truth? Is that going to do ANY good for us?

Who are Michelle Malkin and John Gibson to spread lies about anything? "Does this guy REALLY have to have his screen name as Houston911Truth?" I'm a female, second yes I do have to have it as such. FREE SPEECH my friend. Look it up. Or here, watch what the country is doing to it in New York. http://blip.tv/file/get/Professor911-Dedicated_recut_fixed894.wmv


I didn't say we should censor someone -- but having their S/N on something that already is damaging is pure wrecklessness.

Because you do not agree with something it is "recklessness," you sound like Bill O'Reilly. Start thinking for yourself. Ron Paul wants answers just as the rest of us do.


I didn't say we should censor someone -- but having their S/N on something that already is damaging is pure wrecklessness.

Ron Paul has said he "didn't know much about 911 Truth" when confronted by a bunch of truthers on youtube (great job guys, putting a youtube video up and now linking RP to 9/11 truth). Besides, on the second debate he implied he believed that terrorists were behind the attacks.

It's people like you that keep thinking 9/11 truth is a conspiracy, more so than a guy in a cave orchestrating the downfall of the largest superpower in the world.

Here's what Ron Paul thinks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhouston911truth%2Eorg%2F), stop putting words in his mouth. 9/11 truth seekers never said terrorism was not a part of September 11th, 2001. Get your facts straight and stop spreading lies and deceit.


That's because your story was buried.

Users can either "digg" or "bury" a submitted link to content.

If the link you submitted is buried by multiple users then the link will no longer show up in the newest links section.

Unfortunately I am far too familiar with this. It's trolls on digg who bury posts in under an hour.

[Anne]

Unfortunately, a lot of people on this forum have issues with Ron Paul supporters who don't do things their way. They want this to be a polite campaign, they don't want people who don't agree with them involved, and they want to sit at home writing letters to the editor and sipping tea.

[mdh]

Here's what Ron Paul thinks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhouston911truth%2Eorg%2F), stop putting words in his mouth. 9/11 truth seekers never said terrorism was not a part of September 11th, 2001. Get your facts straight and stop spreading lies and deceit.

I've heard a number of different theories (all of which, of course, are purported by their proponents as the one and only possibly truth). Many do state that the major events of 9/11 were perpetrated not by radical Islamists, but by US agents.
Because of the genuine kooks out there, many of us make this association immediately when people start talking about "alternative theories of 9/11" and whatnot. This was obviously what happened for Korey, and it's unfortunate that it did. I understand Korey's point all too well, having been involved in "non-mainstream" politics for a number of years now - your enemies DO want to associate you with the fringes which normal average people want no association with. That said, our only real choice here is to take the moral high ground, be *very specific* about what Dr. Ron Paul *actually* believes with as little ambiguity as possible, and maintain that freedom of speech, regardless how silly that speech may sound, is paramount.

So I hold out my hand from the high-and-mighty soapbox on which we all seek to stand, and invite Korey and everyone else to join me in declaring ourselves as morally and ethically superior to our detractors. :p

[mdh]

Unfortunately, a lot of people on this forum have issues with Ron Paul supporters who don't do things their way. They want this to be a polite campaign, they don't want people who don't agree with them involved, and they want to sit at home writing letters to the editor and sipping tea.

The vast majority of folks whom I've been involved with in political campaigning has two things - an opinion and an asshole. If you try and fight them over the opinion, they're just gonna call you an asshole. The important thing to remember is that none of our opinions really matter - we're each individuals, and got a right to 'em. What really matters are the opinions and platforms and policies of the candidate we're working with, and as long as we put those forth eloquently and factually, and leave our own opinions at the door for "official stuff" or make sure that our own opinions are clearly stated as such anywhere we're going to be connected with the candidate, then everything runs pretty smoothly.

Dr Paul is the only pro-liberty candidate with a real chance of winning. Keeping that in mind, it should come as no surprise to you that he will draw support from all of the political landscape. And keeping that in mind, it should come as no surprise to you that as awareness of the campaign grows, we'll get even more hardcore kooks and people we disagree with who want to lend their support, too. We need to welcome them as our brothers and sisters in arms, not push them away, so long as they can adhere to the basic ideas I set forth above.

That's my take - I certainly love comments and responses!

[Brandybuck]

I used to rag on the Truthers in the forum, but I'm doing my best to stop. Even the best of people can have wacky ideas, like Keynesian Economics, for example. But if we excluded everyone who didn't believe 100% exactly as we do, then there would be no one left here.

Here's what unites us all: a desire for a radically smaller government! Let's get the government so small that it ceases to be a tool for evil men and their evil plots.

[Informed Dissent]

I've heard a number of different theories (all of which, of course, are purported by their proponents as the one and only possibly truth). Many do state that the major events of 9/11 were perpetrated not by radical Islamists, but by US agents.
Because of the genuine kooks out there, many of us make this association immediately when people start talking about "alternative theories of 9/11" and whatnot. This was obviously what happened for Korey, and it's unfortunate that it did. I understand Korey's point all too well, having been involved in "non-mainstream" politics for a number of years now - your enemies DO want to associate you with the fringes which normal average people want no association with. That said, our only real choice here is to take the moral high ground, be *very specific* about what Dr. Ron Paul *actually* believes with as little ambiguity as possible, and maintain that freedom of speech, regardless how silly that speech may sound, is paramount.

So I hold out my hand from the high-and-mighty soapbox on which we all seek to stand, and invite Korey and everyone else to join me in declaring ourselves as morally and ethically superior to our detractors. :p

Unfortunately no one, "kooks" or otherwise, has any idea who the actual perpetrators were. Just do some research, this is not what these forums are for.

[Hawaii Libertarian]

I don't think that there's anyone in Giuliani's, Hillary's, or Obama's camps that is 100-percent supportive of everything their candidates stand for, but of course they shift their positions so much, it's hard to know from one moment to the next what their candidates really stand for.

I really think there is room in our tent for intellectually honest truthers and others outside the mainstream that believe in the core values that Dr. Paul espouses.

Likewise, there are some fellow Libertarians I have issues with over social issues. For example, search cafepress.com and you'll see the pro-hemp crowd selling their allegedly pro-Ron Paul t-shirts.

The key is looking at the big picture of what Dr. Paul's classic conservative (or libertarian if you prefer) message is. As with any other candidate with any other group of supporters, if you become a slave to a single issue or interest group, the candidate is doomed to fail.

Likewise, if anyone wants to use Dr. Paul as a mouthpiece for advancing a one issue agenda, that is dangerous and counter-productive.

What I fear most is not the sincere truthers (those that are genuinely looking for answers beyond what the MSM truth police feed us), but those that are using or emulating such people to infiltrate boards like this and the campaign as a dirty trick to embarrass Dr. Paul and his multitude of supporters and give them an excuse to discredit Dr. Paul's core message, values, and ideas.

I'm sure the video editors at the other campaigns are standing by, ready to record, if not stage on their own, an assembly of a polarizing group of alleged Paul supporters to frighten off the undecided,open minded voters we're trying to attract with fringe issues.

I can see it now--some dishonest, crooked operative from another campaign takes a page out of the Nixon dirty tricks play book and stages a fake "anarchists for Paul" or "dykes on bikes for Paul" or "potsmokers for Paul" or "drug users for Paul" or an equally repulsive, polarizing group to feature in a TV commercial or "expose" on a MSM TV news program.

I think most of us can agree that the 9/11 Commission Report only scratched the surface and there's a lot more that needs to be looked at before the book is closed on that horrific event, but the Paul campaign is and should be much bigger than just 9/11.

[evolver]

I think the point that is being made that, whereas 9/11 Truth movements are or are not truth, by publicly coming out as 9/11 Truth supporters and attaching that idea to Ron paul we are further marginalizing what is, perhaps, the best chance we have for reclaiming control of our government to come along in years.

to me, i think we should do everything we can to stress Dr. Paul's record of voting, opposition to the War, Constitutionalism and support of Civil Liberties. These are things that NO ONE can argue with. Recalling 9/11 Truth to many people is divisive and distracts people's attention from the fact that we have a real live candidate here. That is exactly what Fox News is trying to achieve and it seems like it would be a shame for us to help them.

[Anne]

For example, search cafepress.com and you'll see the pro-hemp crowd selling their allegedly pro-Ron Paul t-shirts.

.

Count me in the "pro-hemp crowd." It's one of the reasons I support Dr. Paul. He is for legalizing medical marijuana. Why do you say they are "allegedly" pro-Ron Paul? He is open about his stance on this.

If you are all going to spend your time worrying that too many of Ron Paul's supporters are "wacky" then you're going to do him a disservice.

It's beautiful and wonderful that he unites people of so many different belief systems.

9/11 Truthers have just as much a right to support Ron Paul as you guys do. How do you know they are wrong? Were you there?

[Hawaii Libertarian]

Count me in the "pro-hemp crowd." It's one of the reasons I support Dr. Paul. He is for legalizing medical marijuana. Why do you say they are "allegedly" pro-Ron Paul? He is open about his stance on this.

If you are all going to spend your time worrying that too many of Ron Paul's supporters are "wacky" then you're going to do him a disservice.

It's beautiful and wonderful that he unites people of so many different belief systems.

9/11 Truthers have just as much a right to support Ron Paul as you guys do. How do you know they are wrong? Were you there?

I'm all for civil liberties, but IMHO, the focus of the campaign should be on highlighting Dr. Paul's support of smaller government that rules by the constitution. Singling out medical marijuana as an issue may win over some voters in Oregon, Vermont, and Massachusetts, and a few other places, but I think you'll lose a lot more votes, especially in the red states, because, like it or not, it is an extremely polarizing issue.

I know many of the average people I talk to about Dr. Paul would be absolutely horrified and turned off to see a t-shirt with a marijuana leaf and "Ron Paul for President" on it.

I'm not asking anyone to compromise their ideals, but you have to keep the focus on what will get Dr. Paul elected if you want to achieve your objective. Focusing solely on divisive, polarizing issues and shoving those before many undecided voters won't help, it will probably hurt the cause.

As for 9/11, I've been inside the Pentagon many times, before and after 9/11, and have several close friends who were actually there on 9/11/2001, thank you.

[Anne]

I'm all for civil liberties, but IMHO, the focus of the campaign should be on highlighting Dr. Paul's support of smaller government that rules by the constitution. Singling out medical marijuana as an issue may win over some voters in Oregon, Vermont, and Massachusetts, and a few other places, but I think you'll lose a lot more votes, especially in the red states, because, like it or not, it is an extremely polarizing issue.



It seems to me like you're a control freak who wants to pick and choose which issues get out to the public. Are you ashamed of Ron Paul's stances on things like medical marijuana? He wants to leave it up to the states.

Medical marijuana is legal in California. The people voted for it by an overwhelming majority. Yet the fed is busting down doors and arresting people. That's called a fascist government, overriding the rule of the people.

I don't know ANYONE who doesn't support medical marijuana and if Ron Paul wants to win this campaign people need to know he supports it. Every Republican and Democrat I know supports it. I'm not sure where you live where they would be "horrified" to learn of this. The deep South?

[Informed Dissent]

As for 9/11, I've been inside the Pentagon many times, before and after 9/11, and have several close friends who were actually there on 9/11/2001, thank you.

I'm sorry, this means you know what happened? Please enlighten us!

[cujothekitten]

Here's my take on it, I have absolutely no problem with "truthers". I feel the investigation we did is pretty darn close to what actually happened but I'm supportive of another independent investigation. I see no harm in that.

The problem I do have, and I'm sorry if it's offensive, is the way they get their message out. I understand you're angry; I'm angry too but why do so many of you need to bash the Jews? Zionism, NWO, Jewish controlled media, educate yourself, inside job... every time I see this stuff posted on a blog or youtube video it makes me cringe. I am asking... no BEGGING... please find a way to explain your position in a more professional manner.

I support you, I'm sympathetic, I want to get to the bottom of things too but it's so hard to take you seriously when you use those kinds of talking points. You guys are intelligent enough, I'm sure you can think of a more palatable way to communicate.

[JoshLowry]

This is going a little off-topic. I think it would have probably been better in OT in the first place.

The thread was about digg. :confused:


Anyways, we're all here for the same reason, and I think that would be to get our boy Paul nominated. We're all on the same team, try and help out each other as much as you can. Don't attack one another, it's not something any guest, registered user, or moderator wants to read.

Everyone has done pretty damn well composing themselves on this political forum for the most part. Let's keep it on the high road. <3

[Informed Dissent]

The problem I do have, and I'm sorry if it's offensive, is the way they get their message out. I understand you're angry; I'm angry too but why do so many of you need to bash the Jews? Zionism, NWO, Jewish controlled media, educate yourself, inside job... every time I see this stuff posted on a blog or youtube video it makes me cringe. I am asking... no BEGGING... please find a way to explain your position in a more professional manner.

I support you, I'm sympathetic, I want to get to the bottom of things too but it's so hard to take you seriously when you use those kinds of talking points. You guys are intelligent enough, I'm sure you can think of a more palatable way to communicate.

Who on earth are you referring to when you say we're bashing Jewish or any religion for that matter? Have you been to houston911truth.org? Sorry for this not being in the OT area, but honestly this does need to be addressed if there are people that think that people seeking the truth about 9/11 have anything against anyone besides liars and warmongers. I hate to break it to you, but yes the media is controlled and for the most part by very corrupt people.

Here's a great post from 911blogger.com it will explain everything you're mentioning, or confusing...

What everyone should know about the 9/11 truth movement… (http://911blogger.com/node/8655)

(For the uninitiated, the unsure, and even the disgusted)

Before you go throwing around “wackos, wingbats, nutjobs and conspiracy theorists, etc…” or listening to those who are, learn a little about the people who call themselves the 9/11 truth movement:

1. The 9/11 truth movement is diverse, democratic, and non-partisan. This is not a far right-wing or far left-wing movement. There are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hispanics, Whites, African Americans, rich, poor, PhD professors, college students, truck drivers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, architects, Reverends,atheists, democrats, republicans, and independents. There is no “type” of truther, because the truth knows neither religious, ethnic, social nor secular boundaries.

2. The 9/11 Truth movement is not a conspiracy movement. Believe it or not, the majority of people involved in criticism of the government's official story (the 'official conspiracy theory' as many have come to call it) do not know what really happened on 9/11, and they admit that. However, in admitting this they demand that we all should and moreover must know the truth about what did happen. Most agree that whatever the government's story, it does not hold up to charges of at the very least, omission and distortion if not outright lying. The majority of people involved in the 9/11 Truth movement have far more questions than theories, and almost everyone will acknowledge that no conclusions are possible until a thorough, transparent, citizen-led investigation occurs without the obstructionist tactics and top-secret classifications that our government has become all too good at deploying.

3. The people in this movement are not beyond critical thinking; they are deeply indebted to it. The forums on 9/11 truth have been filled with discussion and debate, much evidence, and many questions. In the past years and months many bad ideas and false leads have been weeded through. We have also become much more clear about what questions remain and what evidence best supports the notion that the government's story is incomplete, self-contradictory, and often times, simply false. This process of reaching consensus has been dynamic, and it is ongoing. It has been aided rather than hindered by the attempts of many scientists and even self-appointed 'debunkers' who have often presented compelling information which was acknowledged, digested, and incorporated into an ever-growing and changing body of knowledge.


4-8 etc. (http://911blogger.com/node/8655)

Please, for the love of whomever you worship, stop spreading the lies that make looking for the truth as bad as you make it out to be.

[axiomata]

I agree with Hawaii Libertarian here. I have no problem with Paul's pro-hemp stance or his willingness to reexamine the events of 9/11. It is, after all, a libertarian stance. I also, of course, have no problem with marijuana users or "Truthers" supporting Paul.

But I think it is important to prioritize. Our goal right now is for Paul to win the primaries. There is no way that emphasizing Paul's stance on these issues will help him win the primary.

Put another way, I love Paul's stance in the death penalty (he's against it.) But I also realize that the majority of people voting in the primary are for it. For this reason, I'm not going to go around broadcasting Paul's opinion on the death penalty when the priorities for the voters are war, economy, government size, government corruption etc. However, if I know someone who is also against the death penalty I will of course mention Paul's views on the issue as it will help convince them to support him.

I'm not saying to lie, or cover up, I'm just saying broadcast what is truly important. And if asked, tell the truth about Paul's views.

[Hawaii Libertarian]

My point has always been to focus on the issues that unify, not divide. Personally, I'm all for state's rights and local choice. I agree that the so-called "war on drugs" has always been a joke and is totally ineffective. Personally, I would favor a Western European and Asian approach where responsible adults can practice whatever they want in private as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others or make themselves a burden on society.

The key word is responsible. The perception in many states, right or wrong, is that there are enough impaired people out there who can't behave responsibly and make themselves a hazard to others. There's also a widely held perception in many states, again right or wrong, that medical marijuana legalization is simply a pretext for legalization of all drugs for recreational purposes.

I believe decisions like these should be left up to the states and each state should have the right to decide as their citizens see fit, but even if Dr. Paul does get elected President, it will take a lot of votes in Congress to enact such change.

The bottom line is to gain enough electoral votes to win the White House for Dr. Paul. Whether or not you or I agree or not with the red states and their beliefs doesn't matter. Without at least some of their electoral votes, Ron Paul or anyone else simply can't win even if you take all of the blue states. That's reality. We're not trying to elect Dr. Paul as President of any particular state or the Republican Party or a particular interest group.

As far as Digg is concerned, because Dr. Paul has such a diverse group of supporters with very widely varying beliefs, unlike "single issue" (immigration) candidates like Tancredo, groups of people with a narrow, single issue focus, pro or con, can effectively digg or bury articles, but if we're not careful, unintended consequences can neutralize our efforts on behalf of Dr. Paul.

No offense towards any individual on this board or their views was intended. I was simply stating my opinion in good faith based on my previous experience working in public relations in hopefully a constructive manner to avoid lightning rod issues which might be a liability for Dr. Paul in many states that have malleable voters. I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Paul 100-percent on everything, but I still can strongly support him and find common ground with those that support what he stands for.

[mdh]

I'm all for civil liberties, but IMHO, the focus of the campaign should be on highlighting Dr. Paul's support of smaller government that rules by the constitution. Singling out medical marijuana as an issue may win over some voters in Oregon, Vermont, and Massachusetts, and a few other places, but I think you'll lose a lot more votes, especially in the red states, because, like it or not, it is an extremely polarizing issue.

I know many of the average people I talk to about Dr. Paul would be absolutely horrified and turned off to see a t-shirt with a marijuana leaf and "Ron Paul for President" on it.

I'm not asking anyone to compromise their ideals, but you have to keep the focus on what will get Dr. Paul elected if you want to achieve your objective. Focusing solely on divisive, polarizing issues and shoving those before many undecided voters won't help, it will probably hurt the cause.

As for 9/11, I've been inside the Pentagon many times, before and after 9/11, and have several close friends who were actually there on 9/11/2001, thank you.

We can't forget to use context here, Hawaiian. It's a rare occasion that we're engaged on television, or for a newspaper article. It's far more common that we're talking to individuals, or small often like-minded groups. Take the context into account, and touch on issues where you feel you're going to be effective in getting some "OH!"s from the given group you're dealing with. Be specific. Answer questions in depth. On the other hand, in mass-media outlets which are likely to reach large numbers of people often with disparate viewpoints and ideals, be as broad as possible. Try to single out individuals or groups for Q&A so that the answers can be tailored to the given individual or group. This doesn't mean lying, just spinning things slightly differently.

For example, when speaking to a group of soldiers, one may want to put forth an anti-war sentiment as "We respect your contributions, and feel you deserve to get back to your families as soon as possible.", whereas tackling the same issue with a group of Europeanists, one may choose to state it more like "The mismanagement of this war to the detriment of our people and people around the world must come to an end as soon as possible."
-- Same message, two distinct spins. Neither is a lie, but you can easily see how if you were you bring those messages to the opposite groups, it wouldn't likely go over as well, even if both support the underlying idea!

[cujothekitten]

Who on earth are you referring to when you say we're bashing Jewish or any religion for that matter?

Honestly, you haven't seen people posting about the "Zionists", "Jewish media" and “NWO”?


Have you been to houston911truth.org?

No, and my post wasn't directed specifically to you.


Sorry for this not being in the OT area, but honestly this does need to be addressed if there are people that think that people seeking the truth about 9/11 have anything against anyone besides liars and warmongers. I hate to break it to you, but yes the media is controlled and for the most part by very corrupt people.

Correct. Very corrupt people is the correct term yet I continue to hear many using Zionist and Jewish media... as if being Jewish had anything to do with being a corrupt person. Again, this is to the people that use these terms. If you do not use them then I'm not talking about you.


Here's a great post from 911blogger.com it will explain everything you're mentioning, or confusing...

What everyone should know about the 9/11 truth movement… (http://911blogger.com/node/8655)

I'm not confusing anything. I completely understand that there are reasonable and intelligent people involved in the truth movement. My post was directed at the ones using the terms I listed. If you don't use them I don't see why you would think I was directing my remarks to you.

[Anne]

There is no way that emphasizing Paul's stance on these issues will help him win the primary.



You are 100% wrong. To win the California primary, all Ron has to do is come here and tell us he'll uphold our marijuana law. That will win him the California primary.

You guys obviously have some issues with medical marijuana and think most other people do, too. That's not the case. Most Americans want it legalized for medical use.

The Democrats won't legalize it. Ron Paul is the only one who will. Millions of Democrats will convert to Republican to vote for Ron Paul if they find out about this. And you don't want them to? It seems that many here are simply trying to appeal to uptight Neocons.

The way to get Ron Paul elected is to get Democrats to convert and vote for him in the primary. One big way to do that is to make it clear that he is pro medical marijuana.

Don't hide who Ron Paul is just because you don't think America can handle it. It's pretty clear that they can.

What we need to do instead is make sure everyone knows he will leave it up to the states. California can have its marijuana and it's pro-choice stance and Alabama can have its pro-life stance and no drugs and we're all one big happy family.

By not mentioned medical marijuana you are losing out on millions of voters. I have converted 10 people in California by telling them about his medical marijuana stance. When I told them he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade they got scared and balked but I told them he didn't want to make it illegal, just that the states should decide and they were ok with that once they understood.

The pro-life thing is going to be a huge problem but we need to make sure the states' rights thing is clearly understood.

[mdh]

By not mentioned medical marijuana you are losing out on millions of voters. I have converted 10 people in California by telling them about his medical marijuana stance. When I told them he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade they got scared and balked but I told them he didn't want to make it illegal, just that the states should decide and they were ok with that once they understood.

The pro-life thing is going to be a huge problem but we need to make sure the states' rights thing is clearly understood.

This is an excellent chance to make use of the technique I elaborated on earlier in this thread, though! For pro-lifers, he's "pro-life and wants to overturn Roe V Wade." For pro-choicers, he's "absolutely opposed to any federal legislation that would impact a woman's right to choose". Win/Win there.

With regards to medical marijuana, I'm from the LP side of the house, so personally I'm all for it - and decriminalization of victimless crime in general. Alcohol causes more death with drunk driving and alcohol-related domestic violence, etc, than weed ever has - I can't think of anyone having ever gotten stoned and then wanting to fight. ;)
Of course, to implement marijuana decriminalization, other sane legislation will need to be passed - in the same ilk as drunk driving, we'd need stoned driving laws, etc, as well.

[furface]

>>>Honestly, you haven't seen people posting about the "Zionists", "Jewish media" and “NWO”?<<<

What's wrong with posting about Zionists? If I criticized Nazis would you have a problem with that?

Just when I thought there weren't any ditto heads on this board, look what happens.

Do you want to talk about the history of "Israel?"

[mdh]

Do you want to talk about the history of "Israel?"

Not really - mostly because the Anti-Israel crowd is near-impossible to talk to without it turning into... well... a holy war. :(