Posted on 08/29/2007 4:59:22 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.
Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalledger.com ...
Ron Paul - uberRino
You have to wonder???
Understood, but don’t think for a second that the divisions within the conservative movement are an accident...
You can blame all the politicians you want, but at the end of the day, when American voters only vote for politicians willing to pander via the treasury, politicians from all party’s learn to pander.
Also, don’t fool yourself into thinking that when you lack the power to reform your own party, you somehow have the power to launch and control a new party...
The DNC is working behind the scenes to make him the Ross Perot of 2008, because no Democrat candidate can win unless the conservative vote is divided.
He may stay in the campaign until the end but he’ll come nowhere near having the delegates to become the Republican nominee. His supporters aren’t normal Party members and will move on to other things once he’s history. He’s the Keyes of this cycle.
I'm sorry...you've blown your credibility right there.
Now, as propaganda goes, this is a second-rate effort. For one thing it involves the use of a language non-native to your target audience, and therefore will only really be received by people with a certain modicum of education. This is counter to your purpose. Also, the term "RINO" is an acronym known primarily to Republican party members and those who debate them, again limiting the scope of your audience.
On the plus side, it's short, punchy, and would fit on a bumper sticker. Goebbels would give you a C+.
I agree with your prediction...
He actually seems more the Republican Ralph Nader...
Know the enemy, eh?
The weekend after the 4th of July I took the family to Seattle’s Greenlake which is Mecca for Seattle area leftist anti-war moonbats. Its fun just watching all the very very strange people there. And who do I see? Dozens and dozens of Ron Paul supporters carrying signs and banners and handing out pamphlets to the 98% liberal visitors at the lake. I noticed they were received quite well, with smiles and hand shakes.
Try doing the same for any of the other GOP candidates and you would find your self in a confrontation real quick. Seattle Police would have to come to your rescue.
During the 2000 campaign for Bush/Cheney I volunteered to hold Bush/Cheney signs at Husky Stadium before the games and was flipped off so many times I could not count them all. A few even got in my face and tempted me to throw the first punch. And this was long before the war and the impeach Bush craziness. Imagine doing that now…
Then I look at these Ron Paul supporters being treated like old friends at a high school reunion, and I say Jeeeeeeeeez, who care what kind of voting record he can muster, if moonbats like him, he should be avoided like the plague.
Try reading the whole post before replying. I said at 4:30 in the morning you nothing but infomercials or Air America on the radio, and they are always good for a laugh. Yea I do tune in sometimes on the drive in to work, that does not make me a liberal. Read my profile for Gods sake.
No doubt about it...
No need to wonder any more!
Oh, I did. However, my purpose in posting was not to engage you on any factual, logical, or reasonable grounds, but rather to discredit you in a shallow emotional way that makes for good propaganda.
It's a tactic I've learned from the neocons on the Ron Paul threads. If you search my posts, you'll see that several times I have evaluated and even graded anti-Paul propaganda efforts based on a simple idea I call the WWGT principle: What Would Goebbels Think?
I was particularly impressed with the term "Paulistinian." That was a very good effort on behalf of one of our fellow Freepers.
Snap judgments on partial information are so much easier and much more entertaining... LOL
well, I think this author has taken an overly simplistic view to Ron Paul’s voting record. There was another thread where someone pointed to an ‘on the issues’ site or somethingrather which made similar claims.
Paul votes against nearly all pieces of legislation because he believes most of what congress does in unconstitutional. So, when bills are bundled together and amendments attached, he votes against the whole thing and then he is claimed as being against a part of what he was voting against, even though he might have voted for it if it had been on his own. Additionally, some of these votes may have been due to his strong belief in states rights. Others, the author of this piece is correctly stating he voted against an individual piece of legislation, but I think he is correct in doing so, votes against the failed War On Drugs for instance, defense of marriage, some aspects of foreign policy.
So, in conclusion I think this piece distorts on some facts, wildly speculates on others (the DNC is pulling for Paul as a 3rd party?!), contains many errors of ommission (only candidate to favor abolishing the IRS, pulling out of the UN, abolishing half the Fed gov), and has some truth to it here and there. :)
For a better sum up of Paul’s postions and legislative record see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
I'm glad you found some kindred spirits.
(see how easy it is to "debate" when you dispense with truth and reason?)
In all seriousness, judging Paul by the people who support him is illogical. David Duke probably voted for W, but that doesn't make W a klansman.
No, the subject is hacking, which is a felony offense. Does the author have evidence of this, or is the author a libeler?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.