Look at their records

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Look at their records

DaKnife · Senior Member

Qualify your propaganda source when you post it plz.

arbilad · Head Chef

DaKnife, please refrain from the use of pejorative words. Just because you do not agree with a source does not make it propaganda. Does the source use incomplete information? Is the information inaccurate? Does it selectively report? Those are qualities of propaganda to me. Instead of making a blanket accusation, please state specific criticisms.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

It's not pejorative, imo. Lund posted that link to promote Ron Paul and make the other candidates look bad. I think that fits the definition of propaganda pretty well.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

The site is as biased as a push poll:

100% Pro-Life and 100% Pro-Family

You must define "pro-family" before you can determine if a candidate is or is not.

Voted Against Unconstitutional Wars

Yeah, NO bias there.

Understands Effects of "Blowback"

Another undefined term.

100% Balanced Budget Voting

Is that necessarily a good thing? The founding fathers did their fair share of deficit spending.

Strong Against Illegal Immigration

What constitutes "strong against?"

100% Limited Government

Define "limited"

End Costly American Imperialism

No bias in that choice of words.

Promotes USA Sovereignty Over UN

Okay, that's a good thing

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:

http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/

And, once again, the Paul supporters assume that no one knows anything unless they are a Paul supporter.

Your entire campaign drips with condescension. confused Why would you want to be so entirely off-putting when you're polling at less than 10%

Organist · Senior Member

That was propoganda, also known as "voter educational material" or "pro Ron Paul" website.

The website has no depth. In his 7 minutes video on abortion, he really just wants states to decide the abortion question. He side-stepped the question about criminally prosecuting doctors or women. The rest of it was rambling. Many would consider that he is thus not 100% pro-life.

I spoke with a pro-life catholic doctor who does not believe one is actually pro-life unless all contraception is taken out of the equation. I don't think that is Paul's position? Again, how can he claim to be 100% pro-life?

See, the website has no depth. But, the promoters of this propoganda are hoping that a good chunk of the people will not have the time to do the more in-depth research.

Organist · Senior Member

I clicked on the "source" for Romney's supposed favoring of UN sovereignty over USA soverignty, and the source said nothing of the sort. It said that Romney favors more VISAs for skilled foreigners, guest workers, and has no position on the "UN law of the sea treaty" because he hasn't studied it.

How does that translate into favoring UN sovereignty over USA soverignty? It doesn't. That website is bogus.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Sounds like propaganda to me.

DaKnife · Senior Member

Thanks to all those who spoke up with the backup regarding the propaganda label. Agree with me or not Arbi. It's propaganda. I was in a rush and didn't feel like wasting any more time expressing my opinion of the post.

So here is a more balanced opinion. I like most of the Republican Candidates, and could live with most of the Demo Candidates. None of the candidates are perfect, and all but one are viable. So when supporters of that one post such biased, onesided links, I'm going to call it what it is. And for the record, My FIL just sent a bunch of anti-Hillary propaganda out to all the family yesterday and that too was Propaganda.

PROPAGANDA!

Disagree with me all you want. But I will call it as I see it.

Oh and one more thing, I'd buy off on someone trying to claim all political campaign materials were nothing but propaganda, which they are.

Organist · Senior Member

Despite that propoganda, Paul is my second choice behind Romney. Any of the other Republican or Democrats will probably result in a write-in from me.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I honestly don't find the term propaganda offensive... it's just easily dismissible.

--Ray

DaKnife · Senior Member

Exactly

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yep. Now, if DaK had called it "hogwash" or "tripe"... that would have been pejorative.

DaKnife · Senior Member

Or even worse, what if I had used this: rolleyes

arbilad · Head Chef

It wasn't the word so much that got me - it was that DaKnife was asking Lundbaek to label it as propaganda when he posted it, which is entirely inconsistent with his later protestations. If, as DaKnife asserts, pretty much all political campaigning is propaganda, wouldn't it be redundant to label a political link as such? He already labeled it political by his choice of thread title, and the domain name is obviously political. But by concentrating discussion on the source, DaKnife has steered discussion away from the content, which I feel is unfortunate.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, the observation was made about Ron Paul on this thread (ok, so it wasn't specifically about him by name, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who was being referred to) that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. I'm assuming that to mean that he couldn't get elected.
Be honest with yourself; whether you like him or not, would you have thought a month or two ago that Rudy Guiliani had a chance of getting elected? Of course you would have. He was, at least in some polls, the front runner. There was a lot of excitement about his campaign. Now he has been beaten by Ron Paul in every caucus or primary except New Hampshire, where Guiliani barely outpolled Ron Paul.
I grant you that the chances aren't great of Ron Paul getting elected. I consider that a pity, but I will continue to work towards getting him elected as well as donating to his campaign. But there is a chance that he will get elected, or at least get the nomination.
Ron Paul people are saying that Nevada will be the best test of Ron Paul's campaign, so I'm watching to see what will happen with that.

Organist · Senior Member

He'll finish second behind Mitt. I can't believe that South Carolina is getting all the news media, even though Nevada has many more delagates up for grabs. The west is snubbed, again.

DaKnife · Senior Member

it was that DaKnife was asking Lundbaek to label it as propaganda Wrong. I was asking Lundbaek to qualify the source of his propaganda. Specifically the fact that the linked page is so rediculously one sided for Ron Paul, that it is pure and actually very poor quality propaganda. And just posting an annonymous link with no real explanation or background is about as worthwhile a comment as my simply labeling it as Propaganda.

My reason for my initial short and simple post, was that it's such a poor and blatant effort at propaganda that Lundbaek should have qualified it as such (propaganda) to save anyone the time that was wasted by clicking on the link.

Now for my opinion: It's too bad Ron Paul has done so well to date. He simply is not electable in a national election. If he were to somehow win the nomination it would guarantee a Democratic Landslide victory. So be it with any fringe candidate with an off base platform. Should the Demo's win with by such landslide, they would then proclaim to the world about how they have a mandate from the people. And watch out then, everything and it's dog would get socialized, spending would go through the roof like you wouldn't believe, except for the military which would be gutted.

If you are a conservative, you should keep such things in mind and look at the candidates that could possibly actually win, or at least keep it close enough to deny the Demo's the Mandate. Who are those candidates? Most likely at this point only McCain and Romney, since Guiliani seems to be doing so poorly. Huckabee is a shooting star who's primary reason for sucess to date are that he's not a Mormon.

In fact look at who among the Repubs the Demo's are attacking, those candidates are the ones that scare the Demo's the most in the National election. So far they've been hounding Mitt non-stop, with the occasional jab at McCain. This at a time when they should be focusing on slinging mud at each other, not across the Aisle. That alone show's who they fear to face. Mitt and to a lesser degree McCain. On the otherhand they have been praising Huckabee, and mostly ignoring the other candidates. They would love to face Huck, and don't consider the other candidates viable threats.

Amen on the snub Organist. But that's okay, the press can focus on SC while Mitt quietly wins NV and pulls further ahead in the delegate count.

-- Edited by DaKnife at 11:28, 2008-01-19

arbilad · Head Chef

And yet, DaKnife, you have not commented in that same way to other people posting simple links about their candidates. I'm sorry if you don't like Ron Paul, but that's no reason to complain about a link being posted concerning him, even if it isn't spelled out what the link is to.
In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, Ron Paul is the only worthwhile candidate. The others are just variations on a theme. Why vote for Clinton Lite (McCain) or a flip-flopper (Romney)? This country is in dire straits, and we need something other than more of the same.
As to voting for someone "electable", I refuse to hold my nose and vote. If we don't strive for change, it will never happen. You're a military man; from an unbiased viewpoint, what would you have told a bunch of farmer militiamen who are woefully underfunded and inexperienced fighting against the greatest military in the world, and said greatest military is also backed by a large treasury that is paying for a large number of mercenaries? But the American colonists managed to pull it off. Ron Paul can win, too, if enough people are willing to fight for what is right.

DaKnife · Senior Member

No he can't. A fringe candidate will never be able to win in our electoral system. It's not necessarily a good fact, but it stands. Sure a viable third party would be very very good, but with our two party system, even if a fringe candidate wins his party, he will manage to drive enough of the moderate middle over to the other side that he will not win the general election, it simply cannot happen. And Ron Paul in general appeals even less to the liberals of this country than he does to the conservatives.

You are probably right that I've missed calling bs on some other links, but then there hasn't been nearly as much blatant campaigning for the others as there has been for RP. Between Lundbaek, HiddenTreasures and to a much lesser degree you, Bountiful's political forum has been at times a Ron Paul Campaign forum. Not that I think it's necessarily bad, but it has gotten to the point that, If such blatant onesided CRAP is posted by a RP fanboy I will react.

I haven't seen any links posted which claim so thoroughly that Mitt, Huck, McCain, Hillary or any other candidates are the political equivilant of the saviour, or that those candidates walk on water for that matter. The post that started this all was the equivilant of such a claim.

Oh, and comparing the Revolution to an election is a very poor analogy, it just doesn't work. But it's funny you bring up my military background as that is a very big reason why I feel Paul is a very very bad idea. He is an isolationist(very bad idea), who by refusing Medicaid/Medicare way back when he was in medical practice, also refused to treat military personnel. I'm in the military, since I live more than 50 miles from a military medical facility I use Tricare Prime Remote insurance, I need doctors to accept those insurances so they can take my insurance. Those two factors alone rule him out for my vote.

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm interested in your definition of "fringe candidate". He's earned as much as 10% of the vote in one caucus.
And he's getting support from people who have given up on the political process. Most people in the US don't vote; a candidate who can get their votes (and there are people who've been registering as Republican for the first time just to vote for him) has tremendous potential.
It's interesting that you feel that he doesn't have any appeal to the military; on the Ron Paul website it mentions that he's received more donations from active duty military than any other Repuiblican candidate. There are also endorsements there from various active duty soldiers and veterans.
I used the revolution example to point out that a good cause should be supported even though it may seem to be hopeless.
If you are correct and our country can no longer elect a true constitutionalist, then we are truly up a creek without a paddle.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Fringe is pretty much anything that is not main stream. Kind of self-explanatory, methinks.

This election cycle, his platform does not appear as fringe as it would otherwise because of the number of candidates... who honestly, all have fringe aspects about them (or have been made out to seem fringe by the media).

There are quite a few people who register to vote for the first time with every election cycle. Often because they want to support a particular candidate. Often because they are simply exercising their right to vote for the first time...

Joining a political party is a lot different than registering to vote, though. I doubt there are lots of people joining the Republican Party just to vote for Ron Paul. They may be indicating they want a Republican ballot, but that is a different thing altogether.

Smaug · Senior Member

Sorry, but Ron Paul appears to be a racist and has had a lot of Neo-Nazis contributing to his campaign. I'm sure you're aware of his newsletter from years ago. Here's just one link from a pretty good source alluding to it: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28537&only&rss

arbilad · Head Chef

So, it's gone from one neo-nazi to many? The hyperbole is out of control. And the racist charge has been rebutted successfully in many different ways. But it sounds like your mind is made up.

Smaug · Senior Member

If it were only one---heck, there's probably at least one Neo-Nazi contributing to every campaign. But Don Black's (the head guy at stormfront.org) $500 contribution is only the tip of the iceberg.
Check here for more information: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

Paul definitely has some good ideas. I agree with that. But his support from Nazi groups and white supremacists is inexcusable. His newsletters which were so easily explained (had there been only 1 or 2 and not dozens with racist comments) are another good reason to not support him. Frankly, other than his libertarian leanings, of which I support many, what is there good about him?

In all fairness, here's another link from NAACP sticking up for Paul: http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10590

-- Edited by Smaug at 09:59, 2008-01-21

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug wrote:

If it were only one---heck, there's probably at least one Neo-Nazi contributing to every campaign. But Don Black's (the head guy at stormfront.org) $500 contribution is only the tip of the iceberg.
Check here for more information: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

Paul definitely has some good ideas. I agree with that. But his support from Nazi groups and white supremacists is inexcusable. His newsletters which were so easily explained (had there been only 1 or 2 and not dozens with racist comments) are another good reason to not support him. Frankly, other than his libertarian leanings, of which I support many, what is there good about him?

In all fairness, here's another link from NAACP sticking up for Paul: http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10590

-- Edited by Smaug at 09:59, 2008-01-21

They really lay it on thick in that first linked article. The agenda of the writer is really obvious. I wish that he had tried to evaluate the situation rather than cherry pick facts to support his viewpoint.

I made my major points regarding his fundraising in this thread. Basically it comes down to, why should they return the money? It's money that the giver can't spend for evil purposes, and that the Ron Paul campaign can spend for good.

Besides, the white supremacist leader in question even states outright that he doesn't think that Ron Paul is a white supremacist.

Smaug · Senior Member

Basically it comes down to, why should they return the money? It's money that the giver can't spend for evil purposes, and that the Ron Paul campaign can spend for good.

I know-I watched Paul on youtube talking to a couple of news organizations about it. But it's a fallacious point. For example, what if an abortion clinic, like Planned Parenthood, donated cash to his campaign. Would he use the same argument? That it's money that's not being spent on something evil like abortion? You see, the thing about that is that we always wonder if a candidate feels beholden to someone for contributing to their campaign. Maybe Paul doesn't--I don't know him well enough to say, but the question is in my mind that if he fails to return the money, will he feel like he owes someone for contributing?

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug, do you feel the same way about Romney? In a senate campaign, he actively solicited money from planned parenthood and from homosexuals. In fact, he was photographed at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.
I agree with Paul on not returning the money - at least it's better than what Clinton does: she claims that she will return the money to make people feel good about her, then she keeps it anyway.
Look at the sheer odds anyway. Many more people who despise neo-nazis contribute to Paul than actual neo-nazis. Which group is he more likely to be beholden to? The huge group, or the small fringe group?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

On the subject of getting support from questionable (to put it mildly) sources, Ron Paul is the only candidate not getting advice from the Council on Foreign Relations. Romney's advisors conventional Republican political hacks and even one very bad globalist "security" advisor (Coffer Black of Blackwater fame/shame).

I think of Ron Paul as Casey Jones at the throttle of "The Little Engine that Could", although now he's flogging head on toward a heavy freight coming his way also at full throttle, not just a parked wooden caboose, a car load of hay, another of corn, and a car of timber.

Smaug · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Smaug, do you feel the same way about Romney? In a senate campaign, he actively solicited money from planned parenthood and from homosexuals. In fact, he was photographed at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.
I agree with Paul on not returning the money - at least it's better than what Clinton does: she claims that she will return the money to make people feel good about her, then she keeps it anyway.
Look at the sheer odds anyway. Many more people who despise neo-nazis contribute to Paul than actual neo-nazis. Which group is he more likely to be beholden to? The huge group, or the small fringe group?

Yes, I know. But Romney claims that he was wrong back then and is on the right path now. But that's one of the reasons I really don't like Romney as a candidate either--he seems to be a pandering opportunist. But at least he admits he was wrong. Ron Paul fails even to acknowledge being at fault for the newsletters, or rather he admits he should've known about it, but didn't. I think that's a lie---how could he not know about dozens of racist comments in his newsletter. At best, that makes him a poor manager--not a good quality in a president. At worst, he actually agreed with what was being said in his newsletter--and of course, that makes him even worse.

Your "sheer odds" argument is your best one. I can't really refute that. ctr