Beware Of "seeds Of Doubt" Planted By Non-ron Paul Supports

[robotsworld]

PLEASE beware that there are those who are going into Ron Paul Forums and planting "seeds of doubt."

They talk about how they "don't know what to do," "Ron Paul's answer to the news letter and other publications is not enough," "they continue to support Ron Paul but won't send ANY money." "Ron Paul didn't apologize."

ALL THIS CRAP.

Don't fall for it. Just tell them to go ahead and vote for whoever they want.

"One monkey don't stop no show."

peace:)

[hillertexas]

bump

[lucius]

PLEASE beware that there are those who are going into Ron Paul Forums and planting "seeds of doubt."

They talk about how they "don't know what to do," "Ron Paul's answer to the news letter and other publications is not enough," "they continue to support Ron Paul but won't send ANY money." "Ron Paul didn't apologize."

ALL THIS CRAP.

Don't fall for it. Just tell them to go ahead and vote for whoever they want.

"One monkey don't stop no show."

peace:)

Nice post and welcome. Other Possible Negative Talking points,

"1. Elections are valid, to dispute makes you a loon.
2. Mainstream polls are accurate (setting aside the irrationality that, yes, they were for RP in this case, but they were completely screwed for Obama/Hillary [in NH]).
3. Let's all gang up on HQ, call them names, demand firings, stop donating etc.
4. In general, lots of name calling and divisive behavior.


Most of the people who flock to RP still have their blinders on and think CNN is real news and Wolf Blitzer conducts a great interview."

[hillertexas]

bump

[diesirae]

This seems a little bit reactionary and paranoid.

To quote a great American patriot: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

[Kludge]

This seems a little bit reactionary and paranoid.

To quote a great American patriot: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Yep yep. This topic seems to be anti-free speech to be honest. With "Shut up and get in line" as it's slogan. I haven't sent RP any moneys since Christmas. I've just argued his points (most of which happen to coincide with mine). He has no chance of the nomination and HQ isn't showing me enough to justify a paycheck.

[Shavenyak]

There are about 7 people on this sub-forum that I've seen post nothing but negative crap. You can even go back in their histories and read every post they've ever put up and it's all negative.

They're either trolls or they're here researching negative articles for their blogs.

[Kludge]

There are about 7 people on this sub-forum that I've seen post nothing but negative crap. You can even go back in their histories and read every post they've ever put up and it's all negative.

They're either trolls or they're here researching negative articles for their blogs.

... Or they have a dissenting opinion.

[Shavenyak]

... Or they have a dissenting opinion.

Why would they start an account at Ron Paul Forums just to voice their dissenting opinion?

[Kludge]

Why would they start an account at Ron Paul Forums just to voice their dissenting opinion?

? Why would you start an account to voice your supporting opinion?

[Shavenyak]

? Why would you start an account to voice your supporting opinion?

I'm not saying they don't have a right to be on here. I'm just saying they're not on here to do anything but taunt supporters and perhaps gather information to use against Paul.

Like that blog the other day outlining one person's experience with the newsletters. They came here to gather information to use against supporters.

[dkim68]

My radar is on for these types. So beware you "doubters". Say the wrong thing and you end up on my ignore list.

Ignore the Eeyores.

http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_3_A/0197636/html/eeyore.jpg

[freelance]

PLEASE beware that there are those who are going into Ron Paul Forums and planting "seeds of doubt."

They talk about how they "don't know what to do," "Ron Paul's answer to the news letter and other publications is not enough," "they continue to support Ron Paul but won't send ANY money." "Ron Paul didn't apologize."

ALL THIS CRAP.

Don't fall for it. Just tell them to go ahead and vote for whoever they want.

"One monkey don't stop no show."

peace:)

I've always said, "beware of those saying 'beware of those,'" especially when he or she is new to a group and comes out with a negative in the form of unsolicited advice--just (poof) out of the blue.

BUSTED!

[uncle saddam]

Blumped!

[robotsworld]

I've always said, "beware of those saying 'beware of those,'" especially when he or she is new to a group and comes out with a negative in the form of unsolicited advice--just (poof) out of the blue.

BUSTED!

I'm not paranoid, I'm not trying to tell people what to do, I'm just trying to let folks know that there are people who will "plant seeds of doubt." If you believe that fine, if not that's OK to.

I say this because, I myself, almost fell into it right after the Newletters news.

This happens in Obama and Clinton youtube videos as well. It's not just Ron Paul supporters getting harassed or made fun of.

Anyway, those who post here against RP can certainly do so...I was just letting folks know.

So, you didn't BUST me for anything.

Be well.

[Airborn]

Yes, I have been seeing this alot, there are folks here that are trying to bring us down! from the inside, which is the best way to destroy a camp, don't fall for it!

[Nicketas]

.........

[Jeremiah]

... Or they have a dissenting opinion.

Then they should express it logically supported by facts and reason, not simply sow bad seeds. The posts that are being mentioned here are indeed simply destructive. This is after all a "Ron Paul" forum and we have enough to contend with without having internal dissension based upon poorly researched opinions and in many cases inflammatory articles written by Dr. Paul's enemies but taken to be gospel truth by those claiming to be his supporters. There comes a time when those dissenting with a point of view held by Ron Paul simply must decide if they wish to support him any more. If his position on some subject truly offends you then you must decide if it is a deal breaker. If it is then go seek your candidate elsewhere. There is no disgrace in changing your mind. Hanging around the forum moping and complaining is hardly helpful for you or the Ron Paul campaign.

I have responded several times to mere negative innuendo with well reasoned rebuttals presenting exhaustive factual information, just check my posts, and the "dissenters" simply repond with more negative innuendo. My conclusion is that either they are agents provocateurs or, more likely, they are simply emotionally and cognitively conditioned to such a degree they cannot see the wood for the trees. In the latter case as I said above, maybe the best thing for them to do is to seek their candidate elsewhere if they cannot resolve the issue in their own mind.

While it is true that we should entertain many different perspectives, it is unlikely we shall have increased rights and freedoms in this regard by voting for anyone other than Ron Paul. All of the other candidates support "civil rights" and the American Empire and will therefore continue the destructive actions of previous administrations and Congresses, of either political party, in curtailing unalienable individual rights and civil liberties such as right to life, property rights, right to bear arms, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and right to privacy. The question of dissent that has been raised here will become of much greater import then and the authorities will be far less likely to entertain it.

The most divisive issue thus far has been the quotes extracted from certain allegedly racist articles published in the Ron Paul Political Report in the early part of the 1990's, the most quoted being the article on the LA Riots. The questions that must be asked in this regard are:

Was the article itself racist in tone or intention? Answer: No. It was, in my opinion and based on my understanding of what Dr. Paul considers racism, anti-racist. I have demonstrated this in other threads. Check my posts. The quotes from it were pulled out of their context and were slanted to appear racist in the current understanding of the meaning of that term, namely anti-black people as a group. Dr. Paul has averred that he has never said anything like this nor does he believe anything like it.

What was the purpose of the article? Answer: To critique, with devastating clarity, the destructive effects of civil rights legislation.

Was it consistent with Dr. Paul's positions on the Constitution or was it a flagrant departure from them? Answer: It was entirely consistent with his opposition to civil rights and his support for unalienable individual rights.

Did Dr. Paul write all the articles or were they written by another? Answer: He wrote some of them, most were written by others. The LA Riots article was written by another person.

Did he see them before they were published and did he give them his approval? Answer: He probably did not see all of them before publication but my understanding is that the general themes and subject matter were discussed with him and then written in the style of the actual writer. He did not have overall editorial control with regard to how all the ideas were expressed.

Was he morally responsible for the content of the articles even if he did not write them? Answer: Yes, and he has accepted that responsiblity.

These questions have all been answered fully by Dr. Paul or by others on this forum, including myself. The one question that has not been answered is who actually wrote the articles that were not written by Dr. Paul? Dr. Paul has refused to answer this question since he has taken moral responsibility for all of them. In my view that is an end to it. For those who do not understand the meaning of moral responsibility, Dr. Paul is saying that he should be held to be guilty of any infraction of the moral law occurring in these articles or any divergence between the content of the articles and his publicly stated positions. This being the case, seeking to know the identity of the actual writer, or speculating on it, is merely sinking to the level of the writers of the articles attacking Dr. Paul and indeed doing their work for them in perpetuating their malicious smears. Respect Dr. Paul's decision to accept moral responsibility, hold him responsible as if he had written the articles, make your support decision on that basis and drop the subject.

All of the relevant information is now in the public domain for anyone who wishes to seek it out. Making demands here in various forums for this information by invidious questioning must be viewed as being something more than mere dissent.

The issue addressed in the most quoted article, the LA Riots, is "civil rights". For those who were unaware of this fact, Dr. Paul is opposed to "civil rights". No matter who actually wrote the article the fact is it does reflect Dr. Paul's view that the effects of "civil rights" legislation are malign in the extreme and such legislation does not help the people for whom it is ostensibly enacted. Civil rights legislation is particularly deceptive and destructive. While claiming to promote the equality of all people before the law, as envisaged by the founders in the Constitution, it instead destroys the fabric of society by discriminating between different classes of people, granting privileges for some groups at the expense of others. This is the very essence of racism that almost destroyed the Union 160 years ago and is set fair to destroy it again unless Dr. Paul is elected. This is why I have characterised the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter as anti-racist.

The only question is whether the consequences of civil rights legislation are intended or unintended. My own view is that they are intended, since they create the divided society which is more easily controlled by the ruling elites. This is why they support civil rights. Their words and actions are consistent with establishing a new world order that can be controlled by a small number of powerful individuals. Whether one examines the economic, political, social or religious positons held by them all, the consistency is remarkable. They use the natural aspirations of humanity to attain to "the brotherhood of man" on a clean and productive planet to propose and implement policies that sound good but have the diametrically opposite effect. It is absolutely vital that we should understand their goals, and the strategy and tactics used to attain them, if this revolution is to be successful. They are experts at "divide and rule" so we must expect them to launch even more attacks along this line of civil rights since most people in the United States have been conditioned to accept them and view them as justified even if they are in a group that is disadvantaged by them. The arguments used in their support are most insidious and easily swallowed by the unwary.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, speaking recently in Las Vegas, have re-committed themselves to pursue this "civil rights" agenda. This is code to all those groups who benefit from the privileges granted to them under these laws and regulations. Meanwhile their allies in the media attack Dr. Paul as racist in order to silence him and his supporters on this critical issue. As you can see, I hope, these laws are not the natural or universal law envisaged by the Constitution, but "private law" (privilegium) which grants privileges to one or more groups in society at the expense of the others. The technique the elites use to accomplish this is to convince the disadvantaged groups that they "owe" the other groups this advantage. This is accepted and acquiesced in by the disadvantaged groups because to do otherwise would expose them to abuse and ridicule at the hands of the media which are controlled by the ruling elite. Sound familiar?

It is my belief that this issue of "civil rights" is going to become the defining issue for this campaign, even more than the war or the economy. The first salvoes have already been launched by the enemy. It is therefore vital that Ron Paul supporters understand the reasons why Dr. Paul opposes them, what he offers in their place and why his solution is not only better it is Constitutional while the others are not.

In support of what I have said please read Dr. Paul's comments on racism at his website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

[WilliamC]

This seems a little bit reactionary and paranoid.

To quote a great American patriot: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Perfect example.

Fact is moles and trolls are in the forums. If you don't believe me check out the poster Wingman for an obvious example. He was trying to get people to agree that public executions of certain high government officials was a good idea.

Most of them aren't so stupidly obvious, but just look for criticism without constructive, or negativity without encouragement, or continually naysaying any positive ideas. They're in here all right ;)

[WilliamC]

Why would they start an account at Ron Paul Forums just to voice their dissenting opinion?

Because they can. It's a public forum. Anyone with experience in online communities knows that there are trolls who like to cause dissent just for fun. With politics there are also moles who act like supporters but try and undermine the cause.

Real simple folks, this is not the campaign. The campaign is ronpaul2008.com. Volunteer, donate, and support there if you are really wanting to help Ron Paul.

The best this is is a fun way to share ideas and stories and to debate issues.

[jmc1144]

Why would they start an account at Ron Paul Forums just to voice their dissenting opinion?

This happens at other candidate forums as well. Just go look at Huckabee's forums. There are definitely a ton of people on there that don't support him, and just make fun of him and his supporters.

[LukeNM]

Many good, honest, respectable people have been driven away from here by the moles and operatives. These people have therefore lost the ability to keep in touch with grassroots donation drives, etc.

If the people that have done this are true supporters, they are extremely childish and have done irreparable damage to the campaign. These potential supporters are gone and not coming back. Good job, mission accomplished!

The people who run this site are just as much to blame for allowing this to take place. The forums sub description reads "Grassroots Support For Ron Paul", but yet they allow smears, foul language, dissenters and every other form of negative activity to flourish here. I just don't get it.

It is not about free speech, that's BS. These are privately owned forums and they could have established rules to moderate the forums to be an effective tool. It started out well but as support for Ron Paul grew (again the purpose of the forums) the negatives were not managed properly. Just delete the posts and if the people don’t come back good, if they complain, delete that post too.

[WATYF]

Nice post and welcome. Other Possible Negative Talking points,

"1. Elections are valid, to dispute makes you a loon.
2. Mainstream polls are accurate (setting aside the irrationality that, yes, they were for RP in this case, but they were completely screwed for Obama/Hillary [in NH]).
3. Let's all gang up on HQ, call them names, demand firings, stop donating etc.
4. In general, lots of name calling and divisive behavior.


Most of the people who flock to RP still have their blinders on and think CNN is real news and Wolf Blitzer conducts a great interview."
Well... I don't wanna burst your bubble, but your opinions on those topics don't rule the universe. :p People are allowed to disagree with you for reasons other than "they're just a troll".

I agree with the OP that the people whining about RP not apologizing more over the newsletters are just wasting our time and energy. Everyone should let that issue die. But I also think that whining about vote counts (that pass logical muster) is a waste. Even the campaign itself has said not to bother with a NH recount, and for good (statistical and logical) reason. A dispute only makes you look like a loon if there isn't sufficient enough reason for it. It's not a black/white issue. Sometimes not disputing makes you look like a loon, but you have to examine every situation individually. You can't just jump straight to "we HAVE to dispute this" as some kind of knee-jerk reaction.

And I also agree with you that the name calling and divisive behavior is detrimental, and that bashing HQ doesn't do any good, but I don't agree about the polls. They are (way more often then not) accurate indicators of how things are going to play out. Yes, you could spend all of your time focusing on the ONE time so far in this primary where they got it wrong (for Clinton/Obama), or you could look at the hundreds of other scientific polls that have had RP's estimates dead-on.

Ignoring polls by sticking your head in the sand and chanting, "they're not accurate... they're not accurate... they're not accurate" will do you no good. If you don't see your numbers going up in the polls, then you're not winning. Polls are a very good indicator of which tactics are working and which messages resonate with the most people. Use them to your benefit. Ignore them at your peril.


WATYF

[WATYF]

Many good, honest, respectable people have been driven away from here by the moles and operatives. These people have therefore lost the ability to keep in touch with grassroots donation drives, etc.

If the people that have done this are true supporters, they are extremely childish and have done irreparable damage to the campaign. These potential supporters are gone and not coming back. Good job, mission accomplished!

The people who run this site are just as much to blame for allowing this to take place. The forums sub description reads "Grassroots Support For Ron Paul", but yet they allow smears, foul language, dissenters and every other form of negative activity to flourish here. I just don't get it.

It is not about free speech, that's BS. These are privately owned forums and they could have established rules to moderate the forums to be an effective tool. It started out well but as support for Ron Paul grew (again the purpose of the forums) the negatives were not managed properly. Just delete the posts and if the people don’t come back good, if they complain, delete that post too.

This is standard fare for every political contest since the beginning of time. Like someone else pointed out... the same things are happening on every other candidate's forums (and probably more so). If you think that a few weak-willed individuals being chased away from a internet forum by trolls is a major issue for this campaign, then your focus is in the completely wrong direction.

What happens within the confines of this forum will not win the election for Ron Paul. This forum is just one of many tools that can be used to get people informed and send them out into the REAL WORLD... which is where the election will be determined.

My advice would be not to focus on the petty little things that are happening on the internet, and focusing on what will win the candidacy. If someone gets out of hand, of course you ban them or warn them or whatever... but this is trivial crap compared to what needs to be done to win.


WATYF

[billyjoeallen]

http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/

the trolls are gettin uglier

[Cleaner44]

Shun the non-believers, shun them!

[billyjoeallen]

http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/

stay positive. These trolls are energy vampires.

Ron paul 4th in Michigan! Who's the fringe candidate now, Rudy?

[TonySutton]

blimp

[billyjoeallen]

http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/

stay positive. These trolls are energy vampires.

Ron paul 4th in Michigan! Who's the fringe candidate now, Rudy?

[lucius]

Well... I don't wanna burst your bubble, but your opinions on those topics don't rule the universe. :p People are allowed to disagree with you for reasons other than "they're just a troll". <snip>

I called no one a troll, but I think you are ‘sheltered’ and possibly fall into this group:


…
Most of the people who flock to RP still have their blinders on and think CNN is real news and Wolf Blitzer conducts a great interview."

It is shameful that a constitutional republic conducts these types of operations against their dissenting citizens. Open your eyes to the possibilities or, as you said, ignore at your peril.

“COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents.”

Government Documents
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Internal Security. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Operations for Internal Security Purposes. 93rd Cong., 2d sess, 1974.

U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Intelligence. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Programs. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Hearings on Riots, Civil and Criminal Disorders. 90th Cong., 1st sess. - 91st Cong. , 2d sess, 1967-1970.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings -- The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings -- Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report -- Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report -- Book III , Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.

Books
Bamford, James, The Puzzle Palace (Penguin Press, 1983).

Blackstock, Nelson, COINTELPRO: The FBI's Secret War on Political Freedom (Pathfinder, 1975).

Buitrago, Ann Mari and Leon Andrew Immermann, Are You Now or Have You Ever Been in the FBI FILES: How to Secure and Interpret Your FBI Files (Grove Press Inc., 1981)

Churchill, Ward and Jim Vander Wall, Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (South End Press, 1988).

Central Intelligence Agency, Counterterrorist Program Primer (author and publication date unknown)

Churchill, Ward and Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents From the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States (South End Press, 1990).

Donner, Frank J.,The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America's Political Intelligence System (Knopf, 1980).

Donner, Frank J., Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America (University of California Press, 1990).

Donner, Frank J., The Un-Americans (Ballantine Books, 1961).

Garrow, David J., The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.: From "SOLO" to Memphis (Norton, 1981).

Gelbspan, Ross, Break-ins, Death Threats and the FBI: The Covert War Against the Central America Movement (South End Press, 1991).

Gentry, Curt, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets (W.W. Norton & Company, 1991) (excerpt on the discovery of the mob)

Glick, Brian, War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It (South End Press) (excerpts COINTELPRO in the 60's * 70's* 80's & 90's).

Goldstein, Robert Justin, Political Repression in Modern America (Schenkman, 1978).

Haines, Gerald K. and David A. Langbart, Unlocking the Files of the FBI: A Guide to its Records and Classification System (Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1993)

Hoover, J. Edgar, Masters of Deceit (Pocket Books, 1959) (excerpt: Mass Agitation).

Jayco, Margaret, FBI on Trial: The victory in the Socialist Workers Party Suit against government spying (Pathfinder Press, 1988).

Johnson, Loch, A Season of Inquiry: The Senate Intelligence Investigation (University of Kentucky Press, 1985).

Lowenthal, Max, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (William Sloan Associates, Inc., 1950).

Marx, Gary T., Under Cover: Police Surveillance in America (University of California Press, 1988).

Matthiessen, Peter, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (Viking Press, 1991)

O'Reilly, Kenneth, Hoover and the Un-Americans, (Temple University Press, 1983) (Excerpt from Chapter 8, Counterintelligence)

O'Reilly, Kenneth, Racial Matters: The FBI's Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972 (Free Press, 1989).

Schrecker, Ellen, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (St. Martin's Press, 1994)

Sorrentino, Frank M., Ideological Warfare: The FBI's Path Toward Power (Associated Faculty Press, 1985).

Sullivan, William C., The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI (Norton, 1979).

Swearingen, M. Wesley, FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose (South End Press, 1995) (excerpt: The logistics of a black bag job).

Theoharis, Athan, Spying on Americans: Political Surveillance from Hoover to the Huston Plan (Temple University Press, 1978) (Chapter 5 - Political Counterintelligence).

Ungar, Sanford J., FBI: An Uncensored Look Behind the Walls (Little, Brown and Company, 1975).
Articles and Websites
Brandt, Daniel, The 1960s and COINTELPRO: In Defense of Paranoia (NameBase NewsLine, No. 10, July-September 1995)

Burghardt, Tom, Armies of Repression: The FBI, COINTELPRO, and Far Right Vigilantee Networks

Burghardt, Tom, The Public-Private Partnership

Centro para la Investgación y Promoción de Derechos Civiles Las Carpetas (FBI files on Puerto Rican activists)

Chomsky, Noam, Domestic Terrorism: Notes on the State System of Oppression (A revised version of the introduction to Nelson Blackstock's COINTELPRO, 1999)

Churchill, Ward, The Covert War Against Native Americans

Churchill, Ward, Wages of COINTELPRO Still Evident in Omaha Black Panther Case (3/10/99)

FBI Watch, The FBI ... Past, Present and Future

Glick, Brian, COINTELPRO Revisited - Spying & Disruption

Hanrahan, Noelle, America's Secret Police: FBI COINTELPRO in the 1990s

Hendricks Drew, Index to FBI Agents and Snitches

Ishgooda, COINTELPRO: The FBI War Against Leonard Peltier, Native News Online

Maoist International Movement, Black Panther Newspaper Collection (1967-1970)

Prison Activist Resource Center, Political Prisoners and POW's in the US

Rivero, Michael, What Really Happened? (COINTELPRO webpage)

Solomon, Norman, and Jeff Cohen, Nothing Vague About FBI Abuse: Here Are the Dossiers

Stec, Michael, Secret Documents (online document collection)

Waxman, Shelly, Some Call it Murder

Weinberg, Bill, Judi Bari Suit Reveals COINTELPRO Against Earth First! The Shadow, Issue #37.

Wolf, Paul et al, COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story CBC report to UNHCHR Mary Robinson at the World Conference Against Racism, Durban, South Africa (Sept. 1, 2001)

Zinn, Howard, The Federal Bureau of Intimidation (Covert Action Quarterly)
Other
Lee, Lee Lew, All Power to the People! The Black Panther Party and Beyond (Video, Electronic News Group, 1997).

ps: Here is why I support Dr. Paul; I believe Gurudas said it best in his 'Treason: The New World Order':

“All these people say there are powerful groups threatening our way of life. Some sources identify the bankers and corporate elite as the source of our problems, while others feel the national security state is the threat. The power of Wall Street is now obvious to many. So much is happening today that it is increasingly clear a police state is no longer some distant event to fear. The American people must awaken and join together to restore constitutional government and diminish the power of the large corporations and their agent, the federal government, so that we can again be a free people.”

[WATYF]

I called no one a troll, but I think you are ‘sheltered’ and possibly fall into this group:
I was just talking about the general mentality of "anyone who dissents is a troll" (which was espoused in this thread by Shavenyak).

And no... I'm not sheltered... I don't watch CNN or Wolf Blitzer or believe that the gov't or large corporations have my best interests in mind.

I am logical. Nothing else. It is not logical to waste any more time on what most likely (according to statistics) was nothing in NH. It is not logical to ignore polls, and build up a bunch of false hope, when the vast majority of the time they are accurate predictors of how the election will play out. It is not logical to focus on conspiracies that can't be proven when all they serve to do is turn people off and make them think you're a "loon". It is not logical to ignore the methods that WIN elections just so we can hang on to how "right" we think we are about certain topics.

The only thing I have done up to this point is try to convince people to focus on what WORKS. Because everything else is irrelevant. If you lose the election then how "right" you are about those conspiracies does not matter. You will be no better off. You will still just be "some guy in the internet" ranting about big brother/military industrial complex/CIA/men in black/whatever who has no political representation.

Do what it takes to win... THEN use the influence you've gained to try to expose the conspiracies.


WATYF

[fmontez]

... Or they have a dissenting opinion.

Bump!

Remember, not all RP supporters fit in the same mold.

[freelance]

PLEASE beware that there are those who are going into Ron Paul Forums and planting "seeds of doubt."

They talk about how they "don't know what to do," "Ron Paul's answer to the news letter and other publications is not enough," "they continue to support Ron Paul but won't send ANY money." "Ron Paul didn't apologize."

ALL THIS CRAP.

Don't fall for it. Just tell them to go ahead and vote for whoever they want.

"One monkey don't stop no show."

peace:)

BTW, I think you are right. I was not actually directing my last post at you. Stating things as a negative can also dredge up a negative. Sorry if you took it personally. That was not my intent, but I did want to warn against it. Guess I should have put a wink after BUSTED! ;)

[fmontez]

I've always said, "beware of those saying 'beware of those,'" especially when he or she is new to a group and comes out with a negative in the form of unsolicited advice--just (poof) out of the blue.

BUSTED!

ah oh, I still don't think RP has provided a good answer to the NewsPaper scandal does that make me a Seed of Doubt? :(

[robotsworld]

BTW, I think you are right. I was not actually directing my last post at you. Stating things as a negative can also dredge up a negative. Sorry if you took it personally. That was not my intent, but I did want to warn against it.

It's ALL good.

You have a point.

You never can tell when reading from a post how things are actually meant.

be well.

[Dlynne]

ah oh, I still don't think RP has provided a good answer to the NewsPaper scandal does that make me a Seed of Doubt? :(

Yes. Either go along with the grassroots party line, or be banned to the Hot Topics forum where you will never be heard or your have your questions addressed.

[fmontez]

Oh, this is a no win argument. I see 6% and groan and call it a failure, others see 6% and call it a strong 4th place finish. Who is right? Me <--- j.k.

Newsletters, duck and hide or demand an answer? National, fire the lot of em or hail mary they are awesome and have some uper secret plan to sqaush the enemy on Super Tuesday.

All I know for sure is Dr. Paul is for freedom of speech! This forum should follow Dr. Pauls vision in that regard IMHO.

[freelance]

ah oh, I still don't think RP has provided a good answer to the NewsPaper scandal does that make me a Seed of Doubt? :(

No. I happen to agree with you.

[han_solo]

Sorry..there are a number of us that are "TRUE SUPPORTERS" and genuinely share these so-called 'seeds of doubt'.

[kellann]

Sorry..there are a number of us that are "TRUE SUPPORTERS" and genuinely share these so-called 'seeds of doubt'.

amen

[diesirae]

Perfect example.

Fact is moles and trolls are in the forums. If you don't believe me check out the poster Wingman for an obvious example. He was trying to get people to agree that public executions of certain high government officials was a good idea.

Most of them aren't so stupidly obvious, but just look for criticism without constructive, or negativity without encouragement, or continually naysaying any positive ideas. They're in here all right ;)

What, how? I don't appreciate being called a troll, and I think I've done a lot to help encourage people; especially in the economics and fundraising forum.

Someone can support Ron Paul, and what to talk about the issues facing his campaign without agreeing with everyone else who supports him -- especially on contentious issues like voter fraud.

[WilliamC]

What, how? I don't appreciate being called a troll, and I think I've done a lot to help encourage people; especially in the economics and fundraising forum.

Someone can support Ron Paul, and what to talk about the issues facing his campaign without agreeing with everyone else who supports him -- especially on contentious issues like voter fraud.

My apologies diesirae, I did reply to your post as an example of a what a troll might post without being clear I didn't mean to specify you personally as a troll. This was a mistake.

I thought I had been clear in pointing out that I was saying a former forum member, Wingman, was the troll.

There are people in this forum who seem to post a preponderance of negative and discouraging replies to any idea or suggestion, and while some of them may simply be very cynical and pessimistic undoubtedly others are either trolling for fun or trolling to deliberately sew discontent.

I do not accuse you of such, and again I apologize for giving that impression.

On the specific issue of voter fraud, well everyone pretty much acknowledges it happens at some level, but it is very much a controversial issue and easily dismissed as fringe or kook.

With regards to New Hampshire my position was and remains that, without individuals willing to file legal affidavits claiming fraud, there should have been no action taken by the official campaign. I am glad that they did not take action as that would have led to significant blowback from the media and the electorate.

However I am very glad that individuals not associated with the campaign took it upon themselves to demand and pay for a recount, as the several reports of Ron Paul receiving zero votes that suddenly turned out to be erroneous caused me concern.

I do also have concern that the vote counting is not completely transparent and reproducible to anyone willing to monitor the count or pay for a recount. As long as there is secrecy in the process there will be the potential for fraud.

I hope I have assuaged your feelings and answered your questions with this post.

[LynnB]

There are about 7 people on this sub-forum that I've seen post nothing but negative crap. You can even go back in their histories and read every post they've ever put up and it's all negative.

They're either trolls or they're here researching negative articles for their blogs.

Yes! They're VERY easy to spot when you do this, I'm surprised some of them haven't been caught this way before.
Or they post a couple of positive ones to get their foot in the door and then it goes negative. Personally, if someone loses confidence in the candidate, why would you stick around? you wouldn't! So it's definitely to spread evil negativity. :p

[Bryan]

It is not about free speech, that's BS. These are privately owned forums and they could have established rules to moderate the forums to be an effective tool. It started out well but as support for Ron Paul grew (again the purpose of the forums) the negatives were not managed properly. Just delete the posts and if the people don’t come back good, if they complain, delete that post too.

Flag posts that violate the forum guidelines with this icon: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/report.gif

Read and understand the guidelines, they are an asset- see my sig for a link.

Thanks!

[lucius]

I was just talking about the general mentality of "anyone who dissents is a troll" (which was espoused in this thread by Shavenyak).

And no... I'm not sheltered... I don't watch CNN or Wolf Blitzer or believe that the gov't or large corporations have my best interests in mind.

I am logical. Nothing else. It is not logical to waste any more time on what most likely (according to statistics) was nothing in NH. It is not logical to ignore polls, and build up a bunch of false hope, when the vast majority of the time they are accurate predictors of how the election will play out. It is not logical to focus on conspiracies that can't be proven when all they serve to do is turn people off and make them think you're a "loon". It is not logical to ignore the methods that WIN elections just so we can hang on to how "right" we think we are about certain topics.

The only thing I have done up to this point is try to convince people to focus on what WORKS. Because everything else is irrelevant. If you lose the election then how "right" you are about those conspiracies does not matter. You will be no better off. You will still just be "some guy in the internet" ranting about big brother/military industrial complex/CIA/men in black/whatever who has no political representation.

Do what it takes to win... THEN use the influence you've gained to try to expose the conspiracies.


WATYF

I like your attitude, glad that you support Dr. Paul and agree with you on certain points. But, it is self-evident from you post that you indeed are 'sheltered':


...It is not logical to focus on conspiracies that can't be proven when all they serve to do is turn people off and make them think you're a "loon"....

COINTELPRO, is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents, directed against American citizens and is 'Conspiracy Fact' as substantiated by our own Congressional investigations; the majority do not understand that.

Like trained monkeys, their responses are predictable, yet pitiful. I do not have a definitive answer if individuals are intentionally disruptive out of malice, but I think it is prudent to be wary.

IMO, this campaign is about education, our fellow Americans no longer possess the skills to function as citizens in a constitutional republic. Our success will hing on supporters educating fellow Americans to the point where Dr. Paul is the self-evident choice. Kissing babies, snappy sound-bytes and get-along-to-go-along will not prevail in this revolution, but knowledge will. I see this as due diligence on my part, as you are free to conduct yourself as you see fit.

I got this recommendation for a book I am reading from people on this forum. Listen to this Congressman's warning; it is as pertinent today as it was in 1971:

"The story you are about to read is true. The names have not been changed to protect the guilty. This book may have the effect of changing your life. After reading this book, you will never look at national and world events in the same way again.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy will be a very controversial book. At first it will receive little publicity and those whose plans are exposed in it will try to kill it by the silent treatment. For reasons that become obvious as you read this book, it will not be reviewed in all the "proper" places or be available on your local bookstand. However, there is nothing these people can do to stop a grass roots book distributing system. Eventually it will be necessary for the people and organizations named in this book to try to blunt its effect by attacking it or the author. They have a tremendous vested interest in keeping you from discovering what they are doing. And they have the big guns of the mass media at their disposal to fire the barrages at None Dare Call It Conspiracy.

By sheer volume, the "experts" will try to ridicule you out of investigating for yourself as to whether or not the information in this book is true They will ignore the fact that the author about to conjecture. They will find a typographical error or ague some point that is open to debate. If necessary they will lie in order to protect themselves by smearing this book. I believe those who pooh-pooh the information herein because Psychologically many people would prefer to believe we are because we all like to ignore bad news. We do so at our own peril.

Having been a college instructor, a State Senator and now a Congressman I have had experience with real professionals at putting up smokescreens to cover up their own actions by trying to destroy the accuser. I hope that you will read the book carefully, draw your own conclusions and not accept the opinions of those who of necessity must attempt to discredit the book. Your future may depend upon it.

October 25, 1971 JOHN G. SCMITZ UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN"

Enjoy, whole book at link: http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html#introduction

[billyjoeallen]

bump.

by Phil Manger
(Libertarian)
I guess we should have expected it.

The Beltway libertarians, those polished public intellectuals at Cato and Reason, have been falling all over themselves the past few days in an effort to distance themselves from Ron Paul following the "outing" of his old newsletters last week by The New Republic. Not that they were ever that close to begin with. The Cato gang never liked Dr. Paul, and the folks at Reason only warmed up to him after his campaign began to catch fire on the internet. Now, their blogs are full of I-told-you-sos, denunciations, and warnings of dire consequences for libertarianism.

Typical of these was David Boaz, Cato's executive vice-president, who told the world that "...over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know." Even Radley Balko, a Reason editor and former Cato policy analyst whose research on police misconduct made him one of the few shining lights among the Beltway libertarians in recent years, has joined the lynch mob. You can find links to dozens of other similar comments here.

Interestingly, all of them say they don't believe Dr. Paul is really a racist, and most of them say they believe him when he says he didn't write the articles in question. In fact, their real target seems to be something they call paleolibertarianism, a branch of libertarianism that has its center of gravity at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. And the man they really seem to loathe is the institute's president, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Ron Paul is merely collateral damage.

I should point out at this point that I really have no firsthand knowledge of any of the details of the mutual animosity that exists between the Beltway libertarians and the paleos. I only know that it exists and that it runs deep. I was a libertarian activist from the mid-'60s until the early '80s. I then decided to get a life and, except for an occasional blog post or attendance at a meeting, I was pretty much out of it for the next quarter century. It was my son who urged me to support Ron Paul in his run for President. (I didn't deliberately raise him to be a libertarian. Do you suppose it's genetic?) I did a lot of Googling of Ron Paul's name, and...well, here I am.

So, what about those newsletters? According to The New Republic article, the newsletters reveal "decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays". Actually, that's a gross overstatement. It's more like a careless phrase or choice of words here and there — sometimes very careless, and sometimes even mean.

What the newsletters remind me of is the "gold bug" marketing in the early '70s. The "gold bugs" — those who believed that the dollar was destined to continue to lose value — were a mixed bag: conspiracists, libertarians, John Birchers, survivalists (of both the Left and the Right), racialists, and some who just wanted to turn a quick profit. Following the dollar's devaluation in 1971 a number of businesses and newsletters appeared on the market to capitalize on the uncertainty of the times. They sold their wares, whether precious metals or newsletter subscriptions, by instilling fear and serving up red meat to the gold bugs. I remember attending one precious metals "seminar" in 1974. A black couple was sitting near me. When the speaker got to the part about riots in the cities and a breakdown of civil authority, I could see that the couple were extremely uncomfortable. They left before the end of the presentation.

For whatever reason, Ron Paul has a very bankable name in that market. The International Harry Schultz Letter, the granddaddy of all the gold bug newsletters, prominently features a plug from Dr. Paul on its webpage. So it would make sense that a newsletter bearing Paul's name, aimed at gold bugs or their like, would be profitable.

So, did Ron Paul write that awful stuff posted on TNR's website? I’m a former writer and editor and also a former college professor who got to be pretty good at sniffing out plagiarism in student papers, and I have to say I very much doubt it. It isn’t at all like Ron Paul’s style of writing (you can go to the Mises Institute website, where there is an extensive archive of Dr. Paul’s writings, if you don’t believe me), and there’s nothing in his voting record over 10 terms in Congress to suggest those are his views. I don't find it at all implausible that someone would use his name to sell subscriptions to a newsletter written and edited by others.

But I agree with Alex Wallenwein and Bill Westmiller that we need to know who did write that objectionable material so that we can move on. Otherwise, this stuff will come up again and again.

However, I am not so naive as to think that this will mollify the Beltway libertarians. In their writings on this controversy, I've detected a barely suppressed undercurrent of glee, as if they're trying to keep from shouting "Aha! Gotcha now!" They say they are concerned about what all this is doing to the reputation of libertarianism — although, it seems to me they're more concerned about what it's doing to their own standing in Georgetown — but I think they doth protest too much.

If the Beltway libertarians are really concerned about the reputation of libertarianism, let them take a look at what they're saying about Ron Paul over on the Left. Although they like his antiwar, pro-freedom message, a lot of the bloggers over there don't care for the fact that he's a libertarian. You see, they equate libertarianism with the Cato Institute. And to them, Cato is just another D. C. think tank laboring in the service of the corporate elites.

[Jane Aitken]

Ask yourself why they haven't dogged Hillary for her racism/anti-semitism which came from her mouth and actions, nor Obama's racist church?

Ron has never uttered a word of racism and the NAACP guy said as much.
I'd not keep repeating these unsubstantiated slurs, you're just making them go viral.
Do like Hillary and Obama do -- just ignore them.

[bcmiller]

ah oh, I still don't think RP has provided a good answer to the NewsPaper scandal does that make me a Seed of Doubt?



No. I happen to agree with you.

+1

And I am not a new join looking to sow seeds of doubt or, even worse, to engage in blind idol worship.

[xtr3me]

PLEASE beware that there are those who are going into Ron Paul Forums and planting "seeds of doubt."

They talk about how they "don't know what to do," "Ron Paul's answer to the news letter and other publications is not enough," "they continue to support Ron Paul but won't send ANY money." "Ron Paul didn't apologize."

ALL THIS CRAP.

Don't fall for it. Just tell them to go ahead and vote for whoever they want.

"One monkey don't stop no show."

peace:)

ITS CALLED FUD - FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT :mad:

FUD FOX NEWS!!!!!!

[Cinci4RP]

Well, my friend......

Back in the middle of October I was a regular, mal-adjusted, mostly apathetic Republican that saw the war as unpleasant and only thought about the decline of the dollar in terms of not being able to go to Europ this year.

Now, some 3 months later, many of my old friend that knew me then, are wondering where I got the tin foil hat.

I have seem enough and dug enough and read enough to know, trolls be damned.

Any seed of doubt will be like the seeds that fall on the beaten path of Luke 8:5, except my new knowledge is the bird that flitters them away.

[WATYF]

I like your attitude, glad that you support Dr. Paul and agree with you on certain points. But, it is self-evident from you post that you indeed are 'sheltered'
No, it is not "self-evident" from my posts that I'm sheltered. It is, however, self-evident from your posts that you don't understand human behavior or the political process.

The vast majority of people make their political choices based on feelings. How they "feel" about a candidate. It is important to associate a positive feeling about your candidate the very first time that you introduce people to them. People also have numerous impulse responses, based on social conditioning. For example, talk to an Iraq war supporter and mention, "It was only about oil" and they will immediately discount everything you say after that and assume that you're a anti-American, anti-war hippie.

This is how people work. Yes, it is unfortunate, and yes there are exceptions, but it is still the sad truth.

The first impression that people get about Ron Paul is the most important one, because that's the one that they will most likely stick with (regardless of any information that comes their way after that). This is why the media is treating RP the way they are... because if they can give him almost no attention at all, but every once in a while mention the "fringe candidate Ron Paul" or point out some "crazy" aspect of his personality or views, then the first impression people will get of him is that he is just some doofus running for president who doesn't have any credibility or electability. After that point, there's not a whole lot he can say to sway many people, because they will have already written him off in their minds.

This is also why it's very dangerous to try to convince people to vote for Ron Paul by talking to them about conspiracies. I've said it elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is, conspiracies DO NOT PLAY in the general public. Yes, you will find the occasional like-minded individual who will either agree with you right away or think you may be on to something, but the vast.... vast.... vast majority of people will look at you like you just sprouted a third arm if you start going on about how 9/11 was an inside job or try to tell them about COINTELPRO.

This is not because what you're saying isn't true (I'm not saying it is or isn't... the point is that it's truthfulness is irrelevant). This is because most people do not want to accept that what they believe in is a lie. As a result, their first reaction will be to reject you wholesale, which means they'd reject Ron Paul (as being associated with you and your "crazy" views). Now, does that mean we should never try to expose conspiracies or tell people the truth? No... it just means that we shouldn't try to use "exposing conspiracies" as an election tactic. After the election, if Ron Paul wins, you'll have all the more opportunity to expose those conspiracies.

So... you can choose to do your "due diligence" and tell all kinds of people about all of the evil gov't conspiracies going on, and hope that you win all kinds of votes by doing so, but history and human psychology and political experience says that your method will fail much more often than it works.

And like I keep saying. Do.... what.... works.


WATYF

[snaFU]

No, it is not "self-evident" from my posts that I'm sheltered. It is, however, self-evident from your posts that you don't understand human behavior or the political process.

The vast majority of people make their political choices based on feelings. How they "feel" about a candidate. It is important to associate a positive feeling about your candidate the very first time that you introduce people to them. People also have numerous impulse responses, based on social conditioning. For example, talk to an Iraq war supporter and mention, "It was only about oil" and they will immediately discount everything you say after that and assume that you're a anti-American, anti-war hippie.

This is how people work. Yes, it is unfortunate, and yes there are exceptions, but it is still the sad truth.

The first impression that people get about Ron Paul is the most important one, because that's the one that they will most likely stick with (regardless of any information that comes their way after that). This is why the media is treating RP the way they are... because if they can give him almost no attention at all, but every once in a while mention the "fringe candidate Ron Paul" or point out some "crazy" aspect of his personality or views, then the first impression people will get of him is that he is just some doofus running for president who doesn't have any credibility or electability. After that point, there's not a whole lot he can say to sway many people, because they will have already written him off in their minds.

This is also why it's very dangerous to try to convince people to vote for Ron Paul by talking to them about conspiracies. I've said it elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is, conspiracies DO NOT PLAY in the general public. Yes, you will find the occasional like-minded individual who will either agree with you right away or think you may be on to something, but the vast.... vast.... vast majority of people will look at you like you just sprouted a third arm if you start going on about how 9/11 was an inside job or try to tell them about COINTELPRO.

This is not because what you're saying isn't true (I'm not saying it is or isn't... the point is that it's truthfulness is irrelevant). This is because most people do not want to accept that what they believe in is a lie. As a result, their first reaction will be to reject you wholesale, which means they'd reject Ron Paul (as being associated with you and your "crazy" views). Now, does that mean we should never try to expose conspiracies or tell people the truth? No... it just means that we shouldn't try to use "exposing conspiracies" as an election tactic. After the election, if Ron Paul wins, you'll have all the more opportunity to expose those conspiracies.

So... you can choose to do your "due diligence" and tell all kinds of people about all of the evil gov't conspiracies going on, and hope that you win all kinds of votes by doing so, but history and human psychology and political experience says that your method will fail much more often than it works.

And like I keep saying. Do.... what.... works.


WATYF

This post hit the nail on the head.

[Cleaner44]

There are about 7 people on this sub-forum that I've seen post nothing but negative crap. You can even go back in their histories and read every post they've ever put up and it's all negative.

They're either trolls or they're here researching negative articles for their blogs.

PLease name them so I can put them on my ignore list.

[fmontez]

PLease name them so I can put them on my ignore list.

In an ironic way this is what a lot of voters have done to Ron Paul, put him on their IGNORE list, a lot of it has to do with RP Supporters, not RP's platform. So, I say again fight on people! Speak and share your thoughts people, don't let some narrow minded people silence you.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This seems a little bit reactionary and paranoid.

To quote a great American patriot: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

VERY GOOD QUOTE!

Here's another... Question Everything!

[jdrochon]

Sorry..there are a number of us that are "TRUE SUPPORTERS" and genuinely share these so-called 'seeds of doubt'.

And by their own testimony and response you can gauge who the Troll and Doubters are. On the same token we can weed them out.
There is no room for dissent towards Paul here.
We have chosen are side and stay loyal to our cause.
We dissent towards the establishment and come here for allies.
So the doubters and their seeds will be uprooted and called out as I find them.