Thread: Don't Believe The Ron Paul Hype

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

once_a_democrate is an aggitator

[quote:2694i9jv]UNTIL, the shills came out to play

Here is logic of the shills here

Now, IF these two don't make it.... The shills here "KNOW" this

So, I know -- and now you know, what these einsteins are up to.

A few here are like the MSM

So, as usual - the anti ron paul brigade are not much on reading.

BrightNail, I've called you on this several times over the last week or two. Why do you continously debase your fellow ALIPAC members through the use of derogatory language. Furthermore, why do you presume to know their reasoning for sharing information on Ron Paul? You do it all the time (share information on Paul), and I have no problem with that. Why are you so determined to keep folks from learning all there is to know about Paul? I think that's an honest question, don't you?[/quote:2694i9jv]

For some strange reasion
Id like a answer !!!

[i]A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. In the UK the term plant is used.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates “buzz,â€

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Why Dr. Paul has not signed on to the SAVE ACT.

No bashing here - just facts
SAVE ACT is employer sanctions and "unnecessary" per RP
From an interview asking about RP's 6 point stand on illegals

(1) Actions against Employers
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m.: Employer sanctions - No, Dr. Paul does not want to turn private employers in to federal agents. With a responsible policy in place, this is also unnecessary.

starts a half way down
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11833

If anyone wants to know what Dr. Paul has said or thinks about Illegal Immigration let them go and read HIS writtings not reports of half truths from people who either do not like Dr. Paul or are ill informed.

www.ronpaullibrary.com

Dont assume i dont like paul or I am ill informed about the man cause Ive been following his writings and issue for many many years....
there are a ton of his news letters that are not on that web site
I dont have time tonight but ill see about them in the morning

:LOL: Greg I was not refering to you (I think you are a level headed guy) or anyone on this board directly or I would have named you.If you look at my post you will see I was reacting to the post above my quote with a connection to a site that ,a halfway intelligent person ,could tell within a few sentences it deals in propaganda meant to cast Dr. Paul in a negative light.

I just think it is mean spirited to post obvious untruths about any candidate.

Everyone has the right to choose who they want to vote for but this constant and obvious smear campaign against Dr. Paul is becoming very irritating.

I could go out on the web and find crap written by idiots about all the candidates but what purpose does it serve to post it here and yes like Brightnail I question why this is happening ?

BTW I don't like everything Dr. Paul stands for but of ALL the candidates he is the only one who will restore our Republic and give the power back to the people by adhering to the constitution.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Why Dr. Paul has not signed on to the SAVE ACT.

No bashing here - just facts
SAVE ACT is employer sanctions and "unnecessary" per RP
From an interview asking about RP's 6 point stand on illegals

(1) Actions against Employers
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m.: Employer sanctions - No, Dr. Paul does not want to turn private employers in to federal agents. With a responsible policy in place, this is also unnecessary.

starts a half way down
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11833

If anyone wants to know what Dr. Paul has said or thinks about Illegal Immigration let them go and read HIS writtings not reports of half truths from people who either do not like Dr. Paul or are ill informed.

www.ronpaullibrary.com

Dont assume i dont like paul or I am ill informed about the man cause Ive been following his writings and issue for many many years....
there are a ton of his news letters that are not on that web site
I dont have time tonight but ill see about them in the morning

:LOL: Greg I was not refering to you (I think you are a level headed guy) or anyone on this board directly or I would have named you.If you look at my post you will see I was reacting to the post above my quote with a connection to a site that ,a halfway intelligent person ,could tell within a few sentences it deals in propaganda meant to cast Dr. Paul in a negative light.

I just think it is mean spirited to post obvious untruths about any candidate.

Everyone has the right to choose who they want to vote for but this constant and obvious smear campaign against Dr. Paul is becoming very irritating.

I could go out on the web and find crap written by idiots about all the candidates but what purpose does it serve to post it here and yes like Brightnail I question why this is happening ?

BTW I don't like everything Dr. Paul stands for but of ALL the candidates he is the only one who will restore our Republic and give the power back to the people by adhering to the constitution.

Thank you
Giving the power back to the people by adhering to the constitution, is awesome
I feel extremely hopeful that our long and well learned education thro Bush has Began that process already…
I can’t speak for any one else, but for my self
A candidate’s record speaks loader then what the candidate says to the people.

BrightNail wrote:

dude, I have already addressed this is ANOTHER THREAD.

No, you really didn't.

And please MW. Stop selectively taking my words out of context. Please use them in relation to what I was talking about.

Name calling is name calling, regardless of the context presented.

What I have issue is ATTACKS. Let me repeat that, ATTACKS. Over and Over and Over... on many many threads, the same persons making inferences and obvious smears and posts.

I can't speak for everyone, however, I can speak for myself. I challenge you to provide me an instance where I purposely lied or attempted to mislead anyone. I would suggest that much of what you view as attacks on your candidate of choice are nothing more than efforts to share factual information. Sure, there have been some questionable things said about Paul that I don't necessarily agree with. However, you won't find my support of those positions on the applicable threads.

Now, because you DO NOT support Ron Paul, you have NO issues with this - But you have issue with me calling others out on it.

I have absolutely no problem with you disputing arguments. What I have issues with is the way you go about doing it. There is no reason for name calling or debasing your fellow ALIPAC members just because they don't share your views.

So, let me repeat myself. Don't address 'my' posts until you also address others and their obvious plans. It is tiresome.

Fortunatley your not the decider on who can and can't respond to posts or threads on ALIPAC. If you'll notice, it wasn't the overall content of your above posts that I was responding too - it was the lack of demeanor you were using to directly address ALIPAC members who do not agree with your ideology. I don't speak for ALIPAC, however, I believe folks should be able to disagree without resorting to name calling and such. Don't you agree? All I'm asking is that you attempt to be more tactful in your responses. Personally, I don't think that is asking for too much.

For the record, I'm sure Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread (illegal currency producing and distribution). He isn't responsible for the actions of his supporters.

And please - stop with your selective 'quoting' out of context to make me look a certain way. I know what you are doing, and its rather underhanded.

What way am I making you look? The purpose of my so called "selective quoting" was to identify specific items I had issue with (name calling and personal insults). What's underhanded about drawing attention to specific portions of the post I wanted to directly respond too? I consider that normal procedure. Why quote your entire post when I wasn't taking issue with the whole thing?

Greg wrote:

I can’t speak for any one else, but for my self
A candidate’s record speaks loader then what the candidate says to the people.

You're definitely speaking for me on that count. A real indication of where a candidate is going to stand on the issues that are important to you is his or her voting record.

Ron Paul Only Garners 5% in Home State

Houston, TX 11/20/2007 04:32 PM GMT (FINDITT)



Despite recent surges in the polls, Ron Paul only receives 5% in the latest Texas poll by IVRPolls.

With regards to the results, David Terr of USAElectionPolls.com does not preach doom, as he states "this specific poll only questioned GOP voters who have previously voted in a Primary election".

He suggests that a polling methodology such as this leaves off younger voters, anti-establishment voters, and emphasizes George Bush loyalists; each contributing to downgrade Ron Paul's support.

David Terr continues on to say "not all polls use this as their polling methodology and can be considered more accurate but Ron Paul's support base is being left off in this poll".

According to the results, Ron Paul was tied for first place among voters under 40 years of age.

For the poll results:

November 2007: Texas Republican Poll

This thread is important because it is not debating the policy positions and the candidates outright. We are discussing debate tactics and methods. If I am not mistaken, the mods are going to be very strict about how we conduct ourselves when the 2008 presidential candidate forum goes up. I am very confident that I will not be repremanded by the mods. Nothing I say is a "smear," "attack" and what not. I only discuss policy positions, votes, and quotations. I don't attack character, the persons themselves, motivations etc. From what I can tell most of my allies on this topic conduct themselves well and only debate policy positions. I hope that people from all sides can tell the difference between discussing policy honestly and attacking and smearing a candidate. We are not promoting our favorite football team, we are tryng to save America from a Third World invasion.

This is getting very tiresome and personally I'm not enjoying myself here anymore. It's one thing to have disagreements and opinions, but the attacks and attempts to smear Ron Paul and his supporters is no different than what the Globalist Media is doing.

The final straw was the article - http://www.therant.us/staff/williams/09052007.htm , MW posted in another thread that basically
calls ALL Ron Paul supporters anti-semitic, and implies we are extremists.

You posted that article for a reason MW. Is that how you truly feel about the Paul supporters on this board? The neo-cons want open borders. Want the NAU. Want a New World Order. You posted an article that favors neo-conservatism and attacks Ron Paul. Is that the kind of America you want?? You're just regurgitating the smear stories coming from Glen Beck and Fox News.

It's both sad and frustrating that people here still don't see the bigger picture. For God's sake open your eyes. We're all being played to go against one another.

Someone sent me this:

The "left" versus "right" split is fraudulent and used to control the debate and condition citizens to think along certain lines. Left-wing magazines like the "The Nation" and "The New Republic" and right-wing magazines like "The National Review were "artificially set up." The former were financed by Whitney money while the latter by Buckley.

"Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left. This is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them." - Dr. Anthony Sutton Scholar


This film examines the relationship between the media, corporate America, and government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SV_mvc4zKw

Those who are on the fence about Ron Paul, do your own independent research, away from these ridiculous accusations and the MSM.

The Ron Paul library is a great place to read up on all the issues he's written about over the years: www.ronpaullibrary.org

This is getting very tiresome and personally I'm not enjoying myself here anymore. It's one thing to have disagreements and opinions, but the attacks and attempts to smear Ron Paul and his supporters is no different than what the Globalist Media is doing.

The final straw was the article - http://www.therant.us/staff/williams/09052007.htm , MW posted in another thread that basically
calls ALL Ron Paul supporters anti-semitic, and implies we are extremists.

You posted that article for a reason MW. Is that how you truly feel about the Paul supporters on this board? The neo-cons want open borders. Want the NAU. Want a New World Order. You posted an article that favors neo-conservatism and attacks Ron Paul. Is that the kind of America you want?? You're just regurgitating the smear stories coming from Glen Beck and Fox News.

chloe I agree with you 100%