digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Neo-Libs & Neo-Cons Gang Up On Ron Paul Supporters

prisonplanet.com — In another example of how the establishment of both sides of the controlled political paradigm are scared stiff of the Texas Congressman's surging popularity, smarmy liberal website Wonkette and frothing Neo-Con blog Red State have ganged up to form an alliance and "declare war" on Ron Paul supporters.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -10/+71Interesting. Now when's the last time you saw both sides team up to go after someone? Now let me ask you left or righties something, why do you think that's so? Could it be that both sides of the political aisle serve the same masters and RP is a threat?

    It's time to wake up America, time is very short. It's time to vote for someone who means what he says and does what he means or just sit back and feed your political idolotry and vote for someone who promises everything but delivers nothing.

    The choice is all of ours to make, choose wisely.
    • BeingJohnGalt, on 11/15/2007, -5/+29I would say it is worse... They promise everything and proceed to tighten the noose of government control.
    • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -18/+9"Now let me ask you left or righties something, why do you think that's so?"

      Well atleast you acknowledge Ronnie's not right or left wing, now can you admit that he has no place in the Republican party?
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -6/+16you think that's an insult?
        He's running as repub because you can't win unless you belong to the 2 parties of choice.
        He's been a republican congressman for 20+ years.
        owned again...
        • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -15/+10He's a Libertarian with unpopular views, somehow he checked the wrong box and is running for the wrong nomination.
          • jennifer4peace, on 11/15/2007, -6/+9i don't think his views are that un-popular. so are you upset that he is running as a republican? is that why you hate him so?
          • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -10/+9We kind of hate him because he's a delusional, racist moron who hasn't accomplished a single thing in Congress during his twenty years. He's got a lot of complaints about the government but he has yet to offer even one real, sane, workable solution to any of those perceived problems. The man is a waste of space.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8herkimer thinks accomplishing things is congress is making more laws, drafting more bills and imposing new penalties.
            $4 million in one day is the clear sign of a very, VERY unpopular candidate.
            The people hate him so much they are literally hurling their dollar bills at him in an attempt to injure him I guess.
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -6/+9No, $4 million in a day is not a sign of anything but an organized donation day.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6so you're telling me can organize tens of thousands of people to donate money to him on one day and he is unpopular?
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -6/+9Yes.

            A far better measure of support in this way would be the total end-of-quarter numbers, which he has been defeated in regularly.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -6/+5well that's where we differ. You think raising $4 million in one day is a sign of unpopularity.
            I think it's a sign of popularity.
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -5/+7It's only measure of how good he is at energizing a group of zealots. He still can't compare to the top candidates in terms of dollars raised, and is even further behind in the scientific polls.

            The thing about Ron Paul is that he really excites his base of Neonazis, truthers, survivalists, and other far-right fringe elements. When his message is played to a broad group of conservatives or a group of moderates he becomes perhaps the most repugnant candidate I've ever seen run since I started paying attention to politics.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3we're coming to get ya jcm!!! boo!!!
            haha
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5Thanks for the pointless reply, Grandmaster B!
        • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -13/+9"He's running as repub because you can't win unless you belong to the 2 parties of choice."

          So he's lying to get elected? I thought that Paul was "different" from other politicians?
          • jennifer4peace, on 11/15/2007, -6/+9i don't think he is lying, historically the republican party and dr. paul have the same views.
          • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -10/+9Wrong again.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7lying to get elected? How was he voted in as republican for 20+ years? Did his constituents disguise themselves as republican voters?
          Answer that then we'll continue...
      • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -18/+13I disagree. Ron Paul has a place in the Republican party, on the far right lunatic fringe.
        • janeuner, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9Lunatic compared to the population at large? Or lunatic compared to the rest of the GOP?
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -9/+11Both.
          • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -8/+12He's on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -8/+6damn how did all those mental patients afford $4 million in one day and have the sense enough to all get together for one day to donate?
            makes you wonder...
          • Parapadrifter, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1ya wonder about your criteria of mental patients... what is it? those who are insane don't know it? especially ones who don't give a ***** about Ron Paul but choose to spend all day making snide remarks.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6we're in two illegal wars and trying desperately to jump head first into another one. The public rejoices.
          The dollar is at its lowest point in history, even falling to the canadian dollar. The public say it's a good thing or doesn't matter.
          Millions of gallons of nerve gas is being dumped into the oceans daily. The public runs around screaming about carbon.
          The most important election in American history is approaching. The public is tuned into Paris Hilton, OJ Simpsons, Video games and sports.

          Never have I been so proud to be a part of the lunatic fringe!
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9Haven't you noticed yet that every Presidential election is the "most important in our nation's history"? I recall they said the same thing in 2000 and the same thing in 2004. Anyways, we are currently fighing in zero illegal wars. The falling dollar is a problem but not a precursor to the next great depression or anything. Ron Paul would do nothing to stop nerve gas from being dumped into the water. He would abolish the EPA and leave it up to the states.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3yeah jcm that's pretty much how it works! U figured it out! Every next election is usually the most important. We're at a critical junction though.
            the EPA hasn't stopped the nerve gas now..maybe the states will do a better job?
      • Durinthal, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15He is what the Republican party used to be, and what it still traditionally stands for. It's not his fault that everyone else in his tent decided that big government was suddenly their new policy.
    • tubular, on 11/15/2007, -16/+12Ron Paul has accepted a 500$ donation, on September 30th, 2007 from an American white nationalist neo-Nazi who is the founder and current webmaster of the "Stormfront" forum and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Don Black.

      If Ron paul is a man of principle and is a believer in civil rights as he claims to be, Dr. Paul should return this money at once! Failure to do so will just be another indication of Ron Paul underlying racism that has been present for 2 decades in his writings, speeches and voting record.

      Ron Paul is the only member of Congress to vote against a bill honoring the 40 year anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paulites ignorantly claim that Ron Paul did not support a birthday party for such a seminal piece of legislation, however they are sorely wrong. Ron Paul gave an impassioned speech on the House floor that if you were not paying close attention you might think was spoken in 1958.
      • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -17/+11You should see what his own newsletters say about blacks, atleast he doesn't skirt around his pro-white ideals like he does about every other issue.
        • tubular, on 11/15/2007, -14/+9I'm well aware:

          "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

          I did more research on those statements. Ron paul originally said he was taken out of context. Then this year he said he didn't write them at all, even though it was under his own newsletter and signed by him. He attributed the writings to Lew Rockwell, and every RP nut job supporter knows who Lew Rockwell is. ***** bigoted racists!
          • jennifer4peace, on 11/15/2007, -9/+6that is why if you guys truly want someone else that is pro-peace and smaller government and all that good stuff look at Kucinich. Ron Paul I believe is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+10kucinich doesn't have any grassroots support...I like him except for the gun issue but he needs to get it going.
    • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -7/+11Good, I don't want him to be left or right because both sides are corrupt. Do you understand that? Get it? Put down the Kool-Aid.
      • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+11That's it! Anti-conformity! Be different!
        • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -6/+6Yep, especially when the people you support tell us that poison in our food is good and a falling dollar will make us rich. Yep, I'll be different than the nuts you support.
          • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -7/+10"especially when the people you support tell us that poison in our food is good"

            Says the guy who supports a candidate that would abolish the FDA.
          • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -5/+6Good! They don't do anything but allow big and foreign companies to push poisons on us anyway! Do the research, repeating talking points from your handlers is NOT research.
          • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -6/+11"Do the research, repeating talking points from your handlers is NOT research."

            Listening to Alex Jones isn't research either, but that doesn't stop you from spouting his BS... like you just did in claiming that our food is "poisoned".

            I don't have a "handler", BTW... I'm a Grand Puba of the Illuminati.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8the FDA has approved numerous drugs that have been not only damaging but fatal to consumers.
            I don't need anyone telling me what is safe to eat and drink. I'm not a baby.
            If you need a nanny state to approve what can go in and out of your body then that's fine...i support that. There should be an FDA type organization that makes recommandations based on scholarly work.
            It should not impose rules and regulations on what is legal and illegal to congest.
            If someone wants to buy a bunch of rat poision and eat it, that's their business. They should have the information presentented to them about what could possibly happen if they ingest the poision or not.
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -6/+8So you'd be ok dying as the first victim to chemicals seeping into your Coca-Cola because now a company doesn't have to follow standards? You're no baby, after all.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6i don't drink soda but the company will be sued majorly and lose a lot of money and go out of business eventually if they are going to sell faulty products.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4plus, you'll still have the FDA type organization that makes recommendations based on scientific research on the product.
            You can follow the guidelines if you want. Personally, I would read through them and make my own judgements.
            You would look to the government to see what they approve is OK for Horty.

            Once again, if you want that, fine! But we don't. No reason to attack us over it.
            Oh right, we disagree...it is reason for you to attack us.
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+7"Oh right, we disagree...it is reason for you to attack us."
            Says the guy that assumes anyone that doesn't agree with you is for tyranny and war. Hilarious.

            For health and safety, yes, I look to the government. I don't trust corporations to do ***** to ensure safety.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+3well i don't trust governments or corporations anymore. If you do that's fine.
            I never said that, by the way. Nice strawman ;)
          • jeffiek, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4@card51short
            Hortnon doesn't understand the concept that the manufacturer must convince the customer to buy the product. They have this burden with or without the FDA. Any idiot that buys food when the producer doesn't meet that burden is an idiot and deserves what he gets.

            Oh, by the way, you can buy rat poison and eat it if you want to. FDA won't stop you.
        • chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -1/+10You laugh because i'm different, I laugh because you're all the same.

          This has been your moment of Hot Topic wisdom for the day.
        • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4They already DO Hort, it's called aspartame!

          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Wait, what are you referring to?
          • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Hort, do you even know what you write? Is your attention span that short? C'mon man, wake up.

            Here, lemme refresh your "memory".

            "So you'd be ok dying as the first victim to chemicals seeping into your Coca-Cola because now a company doesn't have to follow standards?"
          • chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7You people are turning Howard Hughes' GERMS AND TOXINS insanity into an active subculture.

            Bravo.
    • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -12/+13"Could it be that both sides of the political aisle serve the same masters and RP is a threat?"

      I can't speak for anyone else, but politcial affiliation has nothing to do with being sick on RonSpam like this submission.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7i agree...it's not because they belong to either side...it is because Paul is not part of the "in crowd" in washington.
  • Nothingtohide, on 11/15/2007, -4/+39This will only help our cause.
    • Kayakgirl2008, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1I have to agree with you. It will only make the Ron Paul movement stronger and more virulent.
  • kunkle187, on 11/15/2007, -5/+30Great report Paul!!!!!!
  • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -3/+35The more the media and the other lapdogs try to demonize Paul the more the message gets out and more people open their eyes.
    Not only that, the more the media tout their phony "polls" the harder his supporters work.
    Anyone know how the Fred Money Bomb is going? II could use a good laugh.
  • XPIOLT, on 11/15/2007, -6/+38First they ridicule us, then they accuse us, then they attack us and then we win. They are in the attack mode right now and will remain there until the fat lady sings. They are more afraid than ever, let them fear us. To be afraid of them now is dangerous. As we walk thru the valley of death we shall fear no evil! Love the truth and the hate evil! Keep exposing these evil bastards for what they really are and do not give in!
    • reed311, on 11/15/2007, -21/+13You guys severely overestimate how much other people think about Ron Paul. Any Political Scientist worth his Ph.D will tell you he doesn't have a chance in hell, but you guys continue to piss on Ghandi's grave by abusing his quote.
      • katie212, on 11/15/2007, -8/+17Is this why most donations come from our military men and women in uniform?
        • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -12/+11That's a lie.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -7/+8ron paul has the most donations from soldiers from any republican.
          Only Obama has more donations from military officers. And that is what the mainstream says. Independant publications with no association to ron paul are saying paul has the most.
          Either way, he has the most from any GOP candidate and the 2nd most overall.

          Why do you think the troops hate America so much as to donate to this evil man? Are they just stupid like other ron paul supporters? Are they moonbats?
          I think maybe you should take a missionary trip to Iraq and inform these guys why they are donating to the evilest man in America. Spend a few months out there and spread your wisdom to this uninformed idiots.
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -7/+10He only had the most donations from military people who declared the military as their employer. I believe Hortnon even said that, because Ron Paul is a federal employee, donating to Ron Paul (and some of the top tier candidates) is illegal.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7you guys he's right he only got the most donations from military people who admitted they are in the military.
            Those soldiers who run around pretending they aren't in the military weren't counted.
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -7/+8Wait, what? Why would they to do something illegal?
        • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -7/+12Let's operate under the assumption that most of Paul's donations come from the military.

          Even if that is the case, that doesn't mean (a) most of the military supports Paul, or (b) his chances are any better than zero.
        • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -6/+7It's illegal for military members to donate to a partisan political candidate. Therefore, it is impossible to tell where most donations came from for any candidate, since the option to lie about your employer is available.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2if you can't determine it then why is it a lie that ron paul is getting the most.
          How do you know he isn't?
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5How do you know he is?

            It's a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
          • card51short, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2i know he is from the news articles I just read on google. One was ABC saying obama first paul second. One was thenation saying paul first.
            How would they know?
            Evil commie terrorist trying to fool horty again?
      • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -6/+11If he was indeed no threat there wouldn't be such a sustained effort to attack him.
        The old bomber pilots used to say that you know you are over the target when you run into the heaviest flak.
        • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -14/+12The "attacks" on Ron Paul are reactions (or "blowback") to Ron Paul spammers.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -6/+11so basically jcm is saying we're spreading everywhere and our enemies are hearing his name so much that they are frothing mad and doing anything they can to stop ron paul.
          We hear about Hillary and Obama and the mainstream candidates ALL day on the TV and so we have to use the internet to spread our message. Sorry if that pisses you off. We won't stop!
          You could not click on our posts...just a thought ;)
          • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -8/+12Your enemies? You're taking this whole thing alittle too far kid. Also, the popularity of Hillary or Obama is no excuse to spam the internet. The only real excuse is "Hi Im a douchbag with ADHD!"
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -5/+5so why are you adding to the spam?
          • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -6/+10I would say that most of America is sick of Pairs Hilton. Why? Because she's been shoved down our throats, every day, for at least a year.

            The reaction to Paul is the same. His "awesomeness" has been touted all over the internet, over and over. Nobody is scared of Paul, just like no one is scared of Paris Hilton... we're just sick and tired of him, and any mention at this point is overkill beyond overkill. Paul supporters are ruining his name online.

            "You could not click on our posts...just a thought ;)"

            You could not submit these "articles"... Just a thought :)
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7So blueprint, you mean to tell me when you aren't burying ron paul articles you search for paris hilton stuff to bury too?
            Wow...is there anything you enjoy that you like to digg up that isn't hating on something else?

            "You could not submit these "articles"... Just a thought :)"
            But ummm....we want to read these articles...you don't you don't click on them.
            Simple but i can understand why your brain is boggled at the concept.
          • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -6/+8Afternoon, card.

            My point is this: if you saturate people with anything, they're going to get sick of it, and there's going to be a backlash. It's not fear, it's simple irritation. The anti-Paul sentiment on Digg is largely "blowback" from his supporters attempts to turn this site into a Ron Paul propaganda machine.

            "But ummm....we want to read these articles...you don't you don't click on them."

            With all due respect, *****. You're a PP regular, and would have read this article regardless. These articles are posted because they're an attempt at getting Ron Paul free publicity... Buy ads like Obama if you want to advertise.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2theblueprint...so do you go to paris hilton posts and try to bury them every day? Do you even search for them?
            aren't you doing all you can to stop her spam?
        • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -6/+8jcm - you change your handle to "brokenrecord267"
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -8/+10Broken record? You mean like when you followed me around thread to thread with the same message about Keith Seffen's paper apparently being a "hoax"? It exists, you know. My last submitted is actually a copy of this paper that you kept saying was a hoax.

            In case you were wondering, the paper is going to be published in February of 2008.
          • flamingpeacock2, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Where is it, do you have a copy? Have you read it?
            Do you understand it?
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6Learn to read:
            "My last submitted is actually a copy of this paper that you kept saying was a hoax. "
  • crawby, on 11/15/2007, -4/+28They just can't get enough war in their lives can they?
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9there is never too much war for a neo-con, neo-lib denier.
      • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+9Because if you don't believe 9/11 truthers, you are automatically for the war, right?
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5well without 9/11 truth, ending the war is going to be a hard thing.
        • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+7Answer my question.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2ummm i don't believe anyone but you made that stupid comment. Obviously there are war protestors that aren't on our side.
        • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5Don't back down now, you said that all "neo-libs" and "neo-con" "deniers" are for constant war. This happens to be everyone that you have deemed evil and wrong, and you claim they only want war.

          I ask again, "Because if you don't believe 9/11 truthers, you are automatically for the war, right?"
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2where did i say anything about 911 truthers?
          • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3"well without 9/11 truth, ending the war is going to be a hard thing."
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2wow you're an idiot dshpls LOL
            he copies it from a reply I made to another comment hahahaha.
  • Robodoon, on 11/15/2007, -3/+33John Quincy Adams, America's 6th President, wrote:
    "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. ... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force."

    http://www.radioliberty.com/nlapr99.htm

    Its amazing people calling for peace are being labelled the bad guys.
    • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -11/+7Perhaps you should ask the people trying to create war and claim American lives why they don't want peace? Why must you excuse the actions of the Taliban?
      • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -3/+10What war did the Taliban start?
        • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -7/+8They're engaged in a war against the infidels, it's been going on for thousands of years. Islamic Fanaticism is nothing new, go read a book.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5*hides under bed from terrorists* can i come out yet, dshpls?
            hahahahahahah
          • osullibhean, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Islam is less than two thousand years old. How could it have been going on for thousands of years? I suggest you forget about telling others to read books and go get a basic education.
            We don't support the actions of anyTaliban, whether it is the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Fascist/Zionist/Christian Fundamentalist version in Washington.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7why is it suddenly the biggest threat of all time?
        • flamingpeacock2, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8Islam has been around a long long time, why all of a sudden someone "discovered" that all the infidels must be killed?
          I thnk I have read more books than you, "The O'Reilly Factor Book" doesn't really qualify you a a reader.
          The Taliban started no war.
          • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -5/+5Yeah, and Islamic fundamentalists have been murdering people for a long time too. To them, if you're not following lock-step, you're dead. Betrayal comes from freedom. Martyrdom is glorious. Do some research on the Middle East for ***** sake.

            What is the Taliban? A loose collection of Islamists. What do they preach? Jihad. What is Jihad? Holy war.

            You ***** apologists sicken me, defending those who have killing countless INNOCENT people.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5dshpls, if you feel so strongly about this why are you here talking to us on digg? Why haven't you enlisted and deployed immediately? They need you man. Go free Iraq from the baddies!
            In all honestly...why aren't you out there? I'm not attacking you I want to know.
            Have you already served? If so, why not another tour? You don't want to let the terrorists win, do you?
          • dshPls, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Because I don't agree with the war.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7dshpls when have we ever supported the taliban? We think they are bad as well.
        In fact, our claims is that they are in cahoots with the Americans we hate so much.
  • stephbangm, on 11/15/2007, -4/+31They're getting scared, Paulites! They don't know what to do because they can see how powerful and burgeoning the Ron Paul Revolution is. They'll be even more scared when we become delegates to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination—this is the only way Ron Paul will be President because he won't run on a third ticket. Here's info on how to become a delegate: http://delegate.notlong.com
    • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -11/+9I love this kind of crap. It really cracks me up. Powerful and burgeoning? Are you serious with that garbage? You consider 3% in the national polls to be "powerful and burgeoning"?
      Here's a little piece from your linked website: "A word to the wise: if you present yourself as a supporter of Ron Paul, you will never get elected as a delegate. Wave the flag, shout power to the GOP, rah, rah, rah, get elected and then begin your campaign to get Ron Paul nominated."
      In other words, lie your ass off to the people that have to make you a delegate so you can get to the convention and shill for Ron Paul. That's hardly surprising because the Ronbots clearly believe that the end justifies and means even if it includes lying, cheating and stealing. Ronbots have the morals of a snake.
      • stephbangm, on 11/15/2007, -5/+6Herkimer56: "You consider 3% in the national polls..."
        Rebuttal: No; I consider 6% which is what Ron Paul is polling nationally: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016 ... It would behoove you to actually look up the number instead of pulling it out of your ...

        Herkimer56: "In other words, lie your ass off to the people..."
        Rebuttal: No; Devvy just recommends not shouting out Ron Paul's name or wearing Ron Paul shirts to a Primary convention. Of course, if we're asked who we support, we'll tell them Ron Paul—nothing wrong with that. Nice spin but too bad it's quite apparent and weak—Not powerful nor burgeoning. :)

        Herkimer56: "Ronbots have the morals of a snake."
        Rebuttal: I'm not sure what "Ronbots" are but we are women and men supporting a candidate that's truly about freedom and liberty and not selling out to lobbyists or special interest groups—unlike you because you're obviously part of the bury brigade and sold out a long time ago for money.

        How does it feel to get owned by a little girl? ;)
        • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -4/+8From your link: Update: 5% in Rasmussen daily tracking and 4% in ARG. So, 4-6%, depending on which poll you read. Then there's margain of error

          No, he's right, that's exactly what that guy is advocating.

          Ronbots are the blind, religious-like followers that believe he can do no wrong.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3"Ronbots are the blind, religious-like followers that believe he can do no wrong."
          and horty is just here to save us all and convert us to his religion.
          he just wants to help us! :)
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5My religion...of..what?

            Not to mention you didn't dispute any of my real points, just my fluff point.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3i'm not sure what your religion is...the hate ron paul/freedom religion?
        • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -5/+7"I'm not sure what "Ronbots" are but we are women and men supporting a candidate that's truly about freedom and liberty and not selling out to lobbyists or special interest groups—unlike you because you're obviously part of the bury brigade and sold out a long time ago for money."
          Ronbots are mindless drones that support Ron Paul and refuse to even consider anything about him that may be perceived in some way as negative. For instance, Ron Paul is not about freedom and liberty for everyone. He supports it for people like himself but he plans to deny the basic freedoms that we all take for granted to some people based on their sex, sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity. And if I've sold out for money then someone owes me a check. I don't do this because someone pays me. I do this because my personal ethics, principles and morals tell me that Ron Paul is the worst excuse for a Presidential candidate that I have ever seen.
          • ShawnHunt, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2I would appreciate me if you would explain how this would come to pass. How does he plan to deny the basic freedoms of people who are different than him?
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3you guys hear that? herk thinks ron paul is the worst excuse for a presidential candidate ever!
          If that doesn't scream VOTE FOR PAUL I dunno what does!
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4Herkimer do you also discourage jews in nazi germany from lying about their religion?
        • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -4/+8Exactly what are you trying to say? Are you comparing the alleged persecution that you feel to the very real persecution of the Jews under the rule of the Nazis? Are you that far gone mentally that you feel that this is a fair comparison?
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3I don't compare any persecution of any people to any other. There is no comparison. It's all bad.
          I'm simply saying that "lying" is not always a bad thing when you face something much worse.
      • vguard, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2It sounds like Herkimer56 has made a confession: The game is rigged and he and his fellow thugacrats intend to keep it that way!

        I have news for Herkimer56 you and your kind's time is coming to an end. This is our time. You guys are history. Its inevitable. Deal with it.

        In an fair fight truth beats *****, every time.
    • stephbangm, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3Link got truncated for some reason:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016 ...
  • readthis, on 11/15/2007, -5/+27Neo-conservatives are fascists, also known as Nazis. Unless you want to be under their control, you had better fight now. History has repeatedly shown that once a society is closed down it can only be re-opened with bloodshed. Don't take my word for it, Google "Naomi Wolf" or listen to her on YouTube.com

    • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -11/+7"Neo-cons" are defected Leftists who resemble communists, you politically retarded lout.
      • SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4National Socialists. It was the merging of two parties into one that created an authoritarian state.
  • fractalman, on 11/15/2007, -1/+27Let the Revolution begin!!!!!!
  • level1online, on 11/15/2007, -2/+32How can they declare war on us? I thought we don't exist?
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+16hey they declare war on inanimate objects like terrorism and drugs...they can declare war on people think they are non-existent.
  • DragonGirl724, on 11/15/2007, -1/+22sigh* it's the: "The enemy of your enemy is your friend" mentality.
    the fear these Neos have make Ron Paul's campaign and all his supporters even stronger. SO BRING IT ON!
  • manicmarvin, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9Dugg for using "smarmy" and "frothing" in the same sentence.
  • syroncoda, on 11/15/2007, -2/+18the far left and the far right and the politically confused and materialisticly corrupt politicians like having somebody to pick on. but here is the catch. they don't think he'll win. and if he does then they're out of jobs.
    • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -15/+10I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul won't be the President in 2009.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7you can bet in vegas and on the internet.
        • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+9...Yes, these are facts. Congratulations.
        • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -5/+9That's the first thing that card has been right about in weeks.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5jcm how much did you bet?
      • flamingpeacock2, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5You better hope not, or else you might have to go find a job or something
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+14anyone who can fit their political views under a label of "left" or "right" shouldn't be allowed to vote.
      • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -4/+8Actually I think government parasites shouldn't be allowed to vote, you know like those who live off the public teat. It's a conflict of interest.
        Only those who are forced to pay for it should have a say
        • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -4/+8You would prefer if "government parasites" lost the right to vote? Does that include people on welfare and social security?
        • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8What about people who work for businesses that do business with the government? And what about students that accept student loans or grants?
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2i doubt he would consider people who accept grants and do businees with the government leechers
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6What are you talking about? Grant = government money for doing nothing. These people are bigger leechers than government employees. At least government employees contribute to the government with their work.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2well grants should only be given to people deserving of them.
      • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -6/+7"only people who think like me have a valid opinion"
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4that's a closed minded way of thinking but it's your opinion...
        • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8Actually, card, he was just paraphrasing what you posted above. Didn't you know that?
        • flamingpeacock2, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5yeah we know, we see it in every post you make
      • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8I agree completely card... just like anyone who claims that the ONLY choice is Ron Paul shouldn't be allowed to vote.

        It's the same kind of intellectual dishonesty.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+4i definitely agree...ron paul is not the only choice...there are about 8-9 on each side.
        ron paul IS the best choice imo, though
  • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -25/+11Buried as more spam courtesy of Alex Jones.
    • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -5/+9Shouldn't you be looking for that Cambridge paper?
    • CoolHandLuke70, on 11/16/2007, -1/+4jcm267 --- after reading many of your posts over time I have come to the conclusion that you are a complete ***** --- I am sure the reason that you are on God's green earth is not soley to troll and bury Alex Jones articles yet it appears that is what you spend your time doing! You are not Dick Cheney are you?
      • jcm267, on 11/16/2007, -5/+4This isn't Luke the big star of WeAreIdiots is it? I haven't done anything to you. I only come here to spread the truth about Ron Paul, 9/11, and Alex Jones. Sue me if I also get a kick out of reading the delusional ramblings of truthers.
      • osullibhean, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1JCM is Dick Cheney? He may share the obnoxious character traits but is severely lacking in the intelligence department.
  • rdougherty, on 11/15/2007, -4/+20They call him "the peoples' candidate".

    Isn't that what ALL CANDIDATES are supposed to be? It's like they're saying he's a bad candidate because he stands for the people... hmm
    • dshPls, on 11/15/2007, -8/+8And you listen to "they" because your a sheep.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7haha you know you're winning when people are now calling us sheep for following ron paul. He's so popular now! Look how far we've come.
        Someone also said that we are change are just following the trend.
        hahah its trendy now!
        • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -8/+7Actually, I think of you more as some sort of generic herd animals.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6so you agree the flock is following ron paul and we are change?
          We're the popular thing?
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7the people don't run the government anymore.
      The establishmen candidates like Obama, Hillary, Guiliani, McCain and others are the real future for America. The TV said so!
  • Nothingtohide, on 11/15/2007, -6/+16Looks like jcm was late to work today.
    • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14He is still trying to locate that Cambridge mathematical model he was touting a while back. You know the one that hadn't even been published when he was all so hot and enthusiastic about.
      • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -11/+8Look at my last submitted, idiot.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7oh you mean the one he said was right before he even read it just because it agreed with him?
        • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -10/+8I'm not a scientist, card. I based my opinions on the summary.I can read this paper but I'm not qualified to review this paper. I'm not a scientist.

          I eagerly await a peer-reviewed paper that supports the troof theories being published.
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6even once we get our papers peer-reviewed you're just goint to deny it.
          Or will you accept it once it is? Because, I assure you, in 2008 we will have at least one.
          • theblueprint, on 11/15/2007, -8/+9"Or will you accept it once it is? Because, I assure you, in 2008 we will have at least one."

            I swear on my life to accept it, provided the "peers" in question are the academic community at large, and not a group dedicated to 9/11 "truth".
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+7OK well i respect you for saying that. I can't swear on my life it is coming but I can promise you that it will.
          • KMye, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6What exactly are you trying to say your promise is worth there?
        • flamingpeacock2, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7Oh he's not a scientist now? But the fact remains you were a proponent if a paper that had not been published, and in fact as far as the scientific community was concerned did not exist yet you vehemently defended and called that paper accurate and credible yet you had not even seen it! Now you say you are not a scientist so you cannot understand it even if you had seen it.
          No wonder you Americans are so easily fooled.
          • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6Do you have anything to say about the merits of the paper or should I expect more of this nonsense?
          • KMye, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6A paper will not have a publishing date set for it in a journal until it's already passed through the peer-review process. It's had at least that going for it for some time now...
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3yeah flamingpeacock, jcm would never attack the messenger. He only attacks the merit of their work.
            Like these experts:
            www.patriotsquestion911.com and www.ae911truth.org

            Oh wait...either that or he says they all aren't experts because their papers aren't published in a journal.
          • onetimer, on 11/16/2007, -2/+5Yeah, how dare we question their work just because they haven't completed the most important process in verifying a theory...
  • MikeyGonebad, on 11/15/2007, -3/+16Yes. The only catalyst that could bring forth such an alliance is the mutual emotion of fear. Meanwhile, news like like this only turbo-charges the Ron Paul revolution with fresh throngs of supporters stopping by to see what all the fuss is about.....and for that, on behalf of myself and the Ron Paul campaign, we thank you for the free recruitment publicity.

    GO RON PAUL 2008!!!!
  • tubular, on 11/15/2007, -7/+18Google "Ron Paul's vision for America"
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5buried as spam.
      • tubular, on 11/15/2007, -7/+4I don't support Ron Paul, therefore I am not a spammer.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9no you're spam because you are asking people to go view a movie and advertising a website.
        JCM informed me that violates terms 7.8a(cc)1.a on the digg policy he has tattooed on his chest.
        Take it up with the hall monitor, I'm just trying to be a good diggizen.
        • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Funny coming from a truther. You guys (I'm not saying you specifically, Grandmaster B) have organized to try and get me banned from digg. Nathan/Femacamper has even written up some nice form letters to send to get me banned. I only report really bad spammers and extremely offensive people.
  • tubular, on 11/15/2007, -13/+15Ron Paul said "However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

    Yeah he wants all civil rights laws enforced locally. Sounds familiar, like the Jim Crow Laws. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is not perfect but Ron Pauls insistence on removing the 1964 CRA is a thinly veiled form of racism and is why Neo-Nazi's welcome Ron Paul to the White House.

    Secondly Ron Paul voted against the re authorization of the 1965 Voters Right Act, which outlawed the requirement that would-be voters in the United States take literacy tests to qualify to register to vote, and it provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible minority voters registered.

    We know who would lose out if this law was repealed. Blacks and minorities, and Ron Paul knows it, and so do the people like David Duke, Stormfront, and the National Vanguard and that's why neo-Nazis love Ron Paul. Couple that with the destruction of the department of education, and the IRS and we have a Neo-Nazi dream land, which is Ron Paul's vision for America!
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+8what do we need civil rights bills for? We have the constitution. All men are created equal.
      Oh my god are you serious? Ron Paul wants voters to be literate? Wait a second...are you serious? HE'S THE SECOND COMING OF SATAN!!! I can't believe he wants people to register federally to vote. I can't believe the evil of this man.

      Never mind that since the department of education took control of our schools we have had some of the worst test scores of developed nations in the world. Before that, we were tops.
      He obviously hates children and minorities.
      evil, evil man...thanks for sharing this dirt you dug up on him.
      • jcm267, on 11/15/2007, -6/+8I'm pretty sure that "all men are created equal" does not appear in the US Constitution.

        You don't know what the literacy tests were. They were tests given only to blacks to suppress the Republican vote in the south. Personally, I would favor the return of similar literacy tests only if we could guarantee fairness. I would like every voter to be required to pass a literacy (civics) test before voting.

        I surely hope that you are in favor of school vouchers, Grandmaster B. I was hoping for Bush to sign a school voucher bill, but that never happened.
      • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -7/+8All men are created equal appeared in the Declaration of Independance. That can't be right, though, because I don't understand the Constitution and/or Ron Paul, right?
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5i didn't mean that's what it quotes inside of it. I'm saying that's the basic summary of it. Well, one of them.
        Why do we need bills to tell us about civil rights? Everyone should have the same rights under Ron Paul. By the way Ron Paul wasn't administering the literacy tests so he has no choice where it would be implemented.
        So basically that whole paragraph above about ron paul's evils is *****.
        Seriously, if all you guys can dig up on Ron is that he wants states to decide rights, an employee of his office wrote a racist newsletter 20 years ago and that he votes against bills with great sounding names, then he seems pretty clean. Especially when you spend your days and nights just searching for something to discredit him.
        He voted against the Patriot act, too. Does that make him unpatriotic?
        • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8We need bills to tell us because people are dumbasses. Seriously. Races are targetted for crimes simply because they are a race that is different. We can't expect people to be good; This is why laws exist. So, to compensate for the dumbasses out there, we have to increase the penalties for race- (or other specific group) based crime. It's an unfortunate fact of life.
          • LuaPron, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3"Hate" crime legislation is blatant institutionalized racism - its punishing the same crime two different ways based on race or some other factor. If you want to increase the punishment for some criminal behavior, increase it for all criminals, not just the ones you think might be motivated by some aspect of their victim. We should be discouraging the criminal behavior across the board, not just focusing on particular motivations.
          • tubular, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2***** lua
        • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5See that is what Ron Paul is against. He doesn't want people to be singled out because of his/her race no matter what.
          There's always motives to why people do crimes. Their motives shouldn't be included into the crime because this opens a whole new window to linking the motive to the crime.
          Greed laws could be against people doing crimes to make money...etc.
          The crime alone should be what we are focused on.
          Basically it just adds more laws and ron paul doesn't want all these laws.
          If you do, that's fine...but it's hardly something to crucify him over.
          I know you don't have much on the man, but wow....
          • Hortnon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+4But being in one of those special groups can make you a target for some of the worst crimes imaginable. There has got to be a way to deter that kind of disgusting behavior.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4The deterent to that behavior is the crime the perpetrator comitted! If he is convicted of assault he'll spend years behind bars for his crime.
            I don't believe in putting an emphasis on race. I think race shouldn't be a factor in deciding anything in court.

            Once again: if you do...I can respect your opinion. You think ron paul is insane for not agreeing with you, though.
          • itsnt4me, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5I am so tired of people pissing and moaning about race. Geeze get over it. Forget about race. Get another crutch. That one is outdated. It's your individual merits that you are judged by. Should I blame my shortcomings and everything else negative that happens to me because I am of Irish decent. Does that sound ridiculous to you. Then, look in the mirror and listen to yourselves.
          • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5itsnt4me: there is real racism though. I think people can "piss" and "moan" about race if they feel they are really being hated on because of their race.
            It's easy for whites to say to forget race. It's also easy for non-whites to blame everything on race.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -16/+9Neo-Lib?!? WTF does that mean? Does this moron think neo=bad?
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6neo basically means new. Basically neo liberal is the new liberals.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8But is there really a difference between regular liberals and this new breed of liberals?
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9yes. these liberals are for the establishment and for the wars. Only less publically than the neo cons
      • teadrinker, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6The old liberals were half-way socialists, the new liberals are half-way Stalinists.
  • kayaker712, on 11/15/2007, -3/+22Ron Paul's "vision" for America is merely the vision of the founders, the principles that formed this nation.
    It's amazing to read the uninformed loudmouths all talking about Dr Paul being this or that, none of whom have ever read or even appear to be aware of the constitution.
    I heard a Hilary statement one time where she said in an interview that "..no government in the world grants as many rights to their people as does the US." - anyone know why this quotation is so frightening?
    Another time she was talking with Barbra Walters I think it was and was complaining that the "anyone can just a get site on the internet and say anything they want." And it was a concern that there were no "gatekeepers"
    • Corrosionx, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4The government of USSR too granted a lot of rights... it also took them away.

      Whenever a politician tells you the government gives you right, BE ***** AFRAID.
  • blackhawk919, on 11/15/2007, -16/+2I haven't read the article but by the comments alone this should have been posted under comedy.
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5oh you haven't read the article? EHHHH invalid opinion.
  • paulverize, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8Does anyone have a full list of these sites? I have run into one of these people in my state as well.
  • Captainshays, on 11/15/2007, -3/+19Ron Paul is a threat to the statism that has permeated through our government and to authoritarians whether from the left or from the right. Yet its still not left vs right or Democrat vs Republican. Its the state vs freedom. That's why Ron Paul is a threat and gets attacked and the closer he gets us to a restoration of our Constitution and our freedom the more of a threat he will be to the authoritarian statists and the more we need to protect him.
  • PSWTyrant, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15This is great, having them attack is the best thing that could happen! Foolish Neos!
  • jlhoben, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15Its because of his stance on the war and the fed.
    • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5Nope. It's because he's a racist and an idiot.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4that's why he raised $4 million in a day? weird...
  • Corrosionx, on 11/15/2007, -2/+10It has begun...
  • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+11i love the denier logic:
    "They have NO support NO chance to win and are insane moonbats with no impact on the political structure....BUT WE MUST STOP THEM BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!!"
    hahahahahaha
    • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Lol, good point. But nothing they say makes much sense anyway. Sadly, they're still a product of the brainwashing media like most of us used to be.
    • Herkimer56, on 11/15/2007, -5/+5The best means that anyone could use to discredit or stop you people would be to simply back off and let people see you for what you really are. You might as well get used to the idea that the more people know about Ron Paul the less that they're going to like him. If the national media ever decide to take a real close look at Ron Paul he won't be able to be elected to his local city council.
      • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5hahahahahahaha so herk you're just here to protect us from the media by burying our articles? Aww thanks man, you're just trying to help out?
        If that was the best method to discredit us, why wouldn't you digg everything we say and make sure it makes the front page with your posse of cupcakes?
        hahhaha i'm literally laughing so hard...you're just too much herky!
      • Look4Truth, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Hehe, I guess that's why he set a money raising record eh? It's ok Herk, nothing to see here, move along.
  • itsnt4me, on 11/15/2007, -4/+11The Ron Paul Revolution is coming like a freight train. These people will be scared back under the rock they crawled from. Viva the revolution.

    Ron Paul for President 2008.
  • Corrosionx, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9They're kicking it into high gear:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFJt5Aa-om4
  • juankovo, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Money talks. Campaign donation money talks louder: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Money_talks_Camp ...
  • onetimer, on 11/15/2007, -9/+6Another prisonplanet story bites the dust. How many times to you truthers have to lose over and OVER before you realize the majority of digg isn't going to buy you or alex jones' *****.

    Don't worry, by burying my comment, you're sure showing me, right?
    • card51short, on 11/15/2007, -3/+4umm yeah actually we are showing you. No one agrees with you but your sidekicks horty herk and jcm; Digg's Mo Larry and Curly.
      See ya!
    • onetimer, on 11/16/2007, -3/+4If I even gave the slightest ***** about how many diggs my comments got, I wouldn't post in truther threads. If the majority of digg agreed with your *****, it would be on the front page. Sorry you are not showing me anything when you digg down my comments. But the digg community IS SHOWING you something when we consistently bury your prisonplanet *****.

      How about YOU try and post the inside job stuff in the regular front page stories. You'll be a lot deeper in the negatives than any of my comments.
      • amdathlon65, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1*****. Care to back up your claims?
      • amdathlon65, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Goes_On ...
        Here's an example of everyone agreeing with us.

        Moron.
        • onetimer, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2EDIT: Seems like you had to go back SIX MONTHS to find a PP story that hit the front page. A story that wasn't even about 911 truth. If you can find just ONE post in that story claiming 911 was an inside job that was heavily dugg up, than you'll have proved me wrong, otherwise, you still fail.
          • amdathlon65, on 11/19/2007, -2/+0Beware the shills folks..

            Eight Traits of the Dis-informationalist

            1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and 'expert' knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

            2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

            3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

            4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

            5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

            6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.

            The net result for a dis-info artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.

            You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old dis-info patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

            7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'Freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

            I have noticed that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author.

            For instance, one such dis-info player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

            8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, DIGG, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

            1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

            2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

            3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
          • onetimer, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2Nice copy and paste job. Looks like since you couldn't find the evidence I asked for so you went off on a tangent unrelated to the topic at hand.


            You lose, again.
          • chaosium, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2Traits of amdathlon65

            1) Schizotypal paranoia.

            2) Thinks people require active collusion to make him look dumb.

            3) Hasn't bathed in days, come on dude.
      • podrag, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1You sir are an idiot
  • whiteflash, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5I'm not going to bury you.The war with China is going to bury you.If you think that China and Russia are going to sit still after you bomb Iran, maybe you better check out endtime.com.2 Billion to die.You going to be one of them?Just keep them neo-cons in and see what happens.
  • sept11insidejob, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6Go Dr. Ron, Go!!
    If you've not seen this video--watch it, it's awesome!-- University of Michigan Supports Ron Paul
    http://www.
    add this
    prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/151107University.htm
  • johnyluv, on 11/15/2007, -5/+2Many people who aren't against Ron Paul are extremely annoyed not with his positions, but the floods of messages on sites arguing against everyone else who doesn't pledge allegiance to Ron Paul as being part of a propaganda machine. They actually like Ron Paul without the combative speech from well-intentioned political supporters. But the annoyance with a few supporters' antagonistic approaches can sometimes change people’s attitudes if those supporters speak louder than the politician.

    It is the same as all the other partisan political factions, and people get annoyed with it if they aren't in the same ideological mindset. Religious conservative politicos do the same thing as well as left-wing politicos (and there are many of both who are also grass-roots supporters). It is extremely annoying to anyone that doesn't embrace that same ideology.

    There are many people who used to be attracted to the hopes of libertarian ideals but are very turned off by the staunch ideological posturing that they saw in all the other political factions and now find in some libertarian circles.

    Please, be thoughtful and statesman-like in your responses to non-Paul-supporters. You will find more people wanting to listen if you offer them a carrot rather than beating them with a stick.
    • Corrosionx, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3The carrot is liberty, the stick is tyranny... I find it stupid that an election will decide which one we will get.
  • MarkEarhart, on 11/16/2007, -0/+5How dare we support an honest man with the cajones to buck the corrupt system?
  • paralentor, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3
    This only emboldens my support for Ron Paul and brings to light what David Icke has been saying all along how the left and right have the same owners.
  • podrag, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'

    Right... now for the last part...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.