Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Anyone else think the approach of linking everyone you dislike with devil de jour, Ron Paul (Original Post) whatchamacallit Jan 2012 OP
I haven't a single clue what this means ... Trajan Jan 2012 #1
Lots of stuff like whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #3
Thanks for reminding me that I had not yet put that poster on Ignore. ChadwickHenryWard Jan 2012 #6
:) whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #7
ya limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #2
Yes, in terms of the McCarthy like attempts to do so quinnox Jan 2012 #4
Well, I hear Ron is quite popular over at Stormfront. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #9
there ya go quinnox Jan 2012 #13
I compare Ron Paul to Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, etc. LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #15
Also an approach that can apply to many good people. Paul sits elected in Congress Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #5
Yep. whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #11
True, regarding all the Democrats in Congress who have worked with him sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #16
It's hilarious. Robb Jan 2012 #8
Common Ground whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #10
Depends what it's common ground with. LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #19
Our President has made "bi-partisanship" the centerpiece of his administration. By definition, he Romulox Jan 2012 #20
Actually I meant common ground with Robb whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #25
Well, the Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Pat Buchannon conspiracy makes sense to me. Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #12
It's an excellent method to drive some people away from the Democratic party cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #14
+1 whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #17
Anyone else think the approach of saying Ron Paul's ideas desperately need to be heard.. joshcryer Jan 2012 #18
When did antiwar/pro civil liberties stances become Ron Paul's ideas? whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #24
When liberals attributed those ideas to him. joshcryer Jan 2012 #26
I know this is beyond your comprehension whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #27
I have never contended that any progressives support Ron Paul. joshcryer Jan 2012 #28
Really? whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #29
Do you know what "implicit" means? joshcryer Jan 2012 #30
Yes, do you? whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #31
In this context is basically renders the support non-existant on a web-forum. joshcryer Jan 2012 #33
That's easy! cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #32
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced implicit supporters of Ron Paul are... joshcryer Jan 2012 #34
Another definitional problem, and a much harder one. cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #35
Thanks cthuman! whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #36
Well said... SidDithers Jan 2012 #37
Well at least I post an occasional OP whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #38
Just following your lead. When in Rome...nt SidDithers Jan 2012 #39
Uh huh... whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #40
Your concern is noted. great white snark Jan 2012 #21
Maybe you can explain it to me whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #22
Yup nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #23
It's Ron Paul tourettes lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #41
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..." Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #42
I don't care enough about Ron Paul to get all worked up whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #43
I didn't write the OP. I responded. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #44
You're quite simply whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #45
Touched a nerve, I see. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #46
Lol. Work it! whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #47
I don't think the two have much to do with eachother. Rex Jan 2012 #48
It IS counter productive. bvar22 Jan 2012 #49
 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
4. Yes, in terms of the McCarthy like attempts to do so
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 05:35 PM
Jan 2012

but the argument is a very weak one, and it really is not hard to refute. Its been done countless times already. But I do get a kick out of the over the top stuff being said. My favorite one so far is Ron Paul being compared to Charles Manson, lol. Next maybe Ted Bundy is on the agenda?

I don't get though why Hitler has not been used yet as a comparison to Ron Paul, maybe Hitler is considered old hat in terms of being a bit stale, but he was a political figure so it makes more sense to me anyway to bring that up than some of the other stuff.

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
9. Well, I hear Ron is quite popular over at Stormfront.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 05:51 PM
Jan 2012

Maybe you can find posts there that make this comparison?

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
13. there ya go
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 06:08 PM
Jan 2012

But I have not seen it used at DU. It just puzzles me this has not been used yet.

So far Ron Paul = racist and crazy, it seems to me the Hitler comparison fits in well to that narrative. Certainly better than Charles Manson does anyway, lol

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
5. Also an approach that can apply to many good people. Paul sits elected in Congress
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 05:42 PM
Jan 2012

for many, many years and the list of Democrats who worked with him in one way or the other is long, long, long. It is there duty to work with those who are elected. So easy to associate Paul with many in Congress. Just as the President is associated with many nasty Senators, including Frist, Holy Joe, and all. He was in the Senate, doing his duty.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
16. True, regarding all the Democrats in Congress who have worked with him
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 07:17 PM
Jan 2012

Once you start comparing everyone whose policies you don't like to Hitler then you have to have start looking at anyone who ever associated with them. And here we find that Grayson and Kucinich and many other Dems have worked with and said nice things about Paul. This is why it is a losing strategy.

For me, this is the most failed and despicable political tactic. I despised and railed against it when it was used against Kerry and so many other great Democrats. I have not changed my mind on this. Fight your political opponents on the issues, that's all most people want to hear. Leave these despicable tactics to Rove and the GOP and expose them when they do it.

But we lose the tool of being able to attack THEM for these political smear campaigns once we start emulating them. The last people I want to emulate since I find them to be without morals or ethics of any kind, are Republicans.

We have the upper hand on the issues. This kind of garbage only distracts from the important issues that need to be raised and focused on and sold by Democrats.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
8. It's hilarious.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 05:50 PM
Jan 2012

I mean, you're right, it's a weak-ass way to support anyone. Guilt by association, all thinking people know it's a crock.

But I laugh anyhow, because the proportionally weak-ass response that "Ron Paul ain't that bad" is thrown up by half the anti-Obama folks, probably before they take the time to think it through. They feel compelled to react by defending Paul.

LeftishBrit

(41,203 posts)
19. Depends what it's common ground with.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 08:20 PM
Jan 2012

Common ground with far-right-wingers is never a good thing.

This doesn't make it right to use guilt by association, and accuse people of having common ground with Ron Paul, if they haven't (if that has been happening). But nothing can alter the fact that Ron Paul, just like all the other Republican candidates, is a poisonous snake.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
20. Our President has made "bi-partisanship" the centerpiece of his administration. By definition, he
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 08:29 PM
Jan 2012

seeks common ground with his enemies.

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)
12. Well, the Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Pat Buchannon conspiracy makes sense to me.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 06:01 PM
Jan 2012

Plus I hear they're all agents of Moscow anyway.

Fucking reds, undermining our President!

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
14. It's an excellent method to drive some people away from the Democratic party
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 06:24 PM
Jan 2012

I am not suggesting that folks who want a 24/7 purge of people for the sake of purging people actually seek to harm the president and the party.

I think they believe they are helping. They are mistaken, of course.

There is an important statistical illusion that buttresses their view. If you drive everyone out of the room who disagress with you then you will feel that you have convinced everyone in the world of your position, because the room is all you see of the world.

In practice, the whole Ron Paul McCarthyite spasm becomes an ironic argument for Ron Paul. The guilt-by-association Paulopalooza bullshit is what George Orwell would have called "objectively pro Ron Paul."

I do not, however, take the additional step of accusing that group of being Ron Paul supporters.

And that is the difference.

They seem to want to force the question, though doing so can only drive people out of the party.

Eseentially, the argument they make (intentionally or not) is "If you don't want war and surveillance and a universal criminal mentality then you do not belong in the Democratic Party."

That is a poisonous message that is, in my view, pretty obviously not good for the party. A de facto Democratic Party loyalty oath demanding that one embrace authoritarianism is a very, very, very bad idea.

But they know best...

joshcryer

(62,266 posts)
18. Anyone else think the approach of saying Ron Paul's ideas desperately need to be heard..
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 08:19 PM
Jan 2012

...is a really weak-ass way to disagree with Obama? Cuz I do.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
24. When did antiwar/pro civil liberties stances become Ron Paul's ideas?
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:05 PM
Jan 2012

He's just the only one talking about them, unfortunately. Thanks for illustrating my point about false linkage with your response.

joshcryer

(62,266 posts)
26. When liberals attributed those ideas to him.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:30 PM
Jan 2012

FYI he doesn't represent liberal ideas in any way.

I merely turned your argument around, which is why this is so amusing.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
27. I know this is beyond your comprehension
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:45 PM
Jan 2012

but very few, if any, people posting on this board support Ron Paul. He's only getting play because our guy is dropping the ball on things that really matter to actual liberals.

joshcryer

(62,266 posts)
33. In this context is basically renders the support non-existant on a web-forum.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 10:09 PM
Jan 2012

1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed

2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes>

Is "unexpressed support" a form of support?

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
32. That's easy!
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 10:09 PM
Jan 2012

1.Implied though not plainly expressed: "implicit criticism".
2.Essentially or very closely connected with; always to be found in: "the values implicit in the school ethos".

Example: The belief that non-white persons should be incarcerated at a high rate is implicit in a person's support for the drug war.

Im-pli-cit.

Implicit.

It does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, verging on or nearly.

It is a thing that is REAL though not stated explicitly.

Algebra is implicit. x + 3 = 5. X is equal to 2 whether explicit (2 + 3 = 5) or implicit (x + 3 = 5)




cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
35. Another definitional problem, and a much harder one.
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 10:17 PM
Jan 2012

Since progressive is not sharply defined I accepted your statement that you had never said any progressive to be a Paul supporter to be true, by your own definition of progressive.

I also do not think I have met any progressive Paul supporters.

I also have seen no advocacy for Paul's election on DU except from quickly TS'd trolls which is what makes the hobby of smearing DUers as implicit Paul supporters such an ugly business.

If a person does not advocate the election of someone running for office then it is hard to see them as supporters, implicit or otherwise.

Perhaps the term you are looking for is "sympathizers"... it has a rich history.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
38. Well at least I post an occasional OP
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 11:22 PM
Jan 2012

Hey, don't I remember you telling the DU2 holdouts they should come over because you're "a different person on DU3"?

What happened?

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
42. "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 02:51 AM
Jan 2012


Two of Ron Paul's bestest buds, Don Black, the owner of Stormfront and his son pose for a pic with their hero.


Fuck that grinning racist shitbag and anyone that supports him.

Fuck them with a cactus.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
43. I don't care enough about Ron Paul to get all worked up
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:30 AM
Jan 2012

but you can fuck them with a cactus... if that's your thing.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
44. I didn't write the OP. I responded.
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:38 AM
Jan 2012

You seem to have some sort of need to obliquely defend his homophobic racist sorry ass.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
45. You're quite simply
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:54 AM
Jan 2012

full of crap. The OP is about the dickless ploy of trying to smear liberals and DUers with bullshit accusations of Ron Paul support. A ploy you just demonstrated. Unless you can find a post where I actually defend Ron Paul, I suggest you STFU.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
48. I don't think the two have much to do with eachother.
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:59 AM
Jan 2012

Now I know what you are thinking - but posters here seem to have a certain obsession with celebrities be they politicians, rock stars or reality TVEE people...and as such they post far too much about said person out of a need. I don't think of it so much as a want.

Some people love reading those threads and they can be entertaining sometimes, but it is like a Sarah Palin thread that I will pass up most of the time. I've seen that trainwreck and know how bad the damage is.

Oh..this was about Obama...what was the question again?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
49. It IS counter productive.
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 01:44 PM
Jan 2012

Attacking loyal, active Liberal DEMOCRATS is NOT good for The Party.

---bvar22
a long term, loyal, Mainstream/Center FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT,
recently labeled a Ron Paul Supporter, and Fringe Left Wing Wacko at DU.
I haven't changed my position on The ISSUES, and won't be changing my position on
Traditional Democratic Party Values.
If Traditional FDR/LBJ Working Class Values are no longer welcome in the New Democrat Centrist Party,
than neither am I.

SEE?
Counter Productive.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Anyone else think the app...