Anyone else think the approach of linking everyone you dislike with devil de jour, Ron Paul

And PLEASE don't explain it ....

this http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133929 going on.

You have improved my DU experience.

Yes, it's intellectually lazy, but I'm learning to just ignore stuff like that.

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.

Maybe you can find posts there that make this comparison?

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

They are ALL devils incarnate.

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.

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.

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.

is good.

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.

seeks common ground with his enemies.

I probably should have been more clear

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

Fucking reds, undermining our President!

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...

Well put.

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

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

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

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

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.

Not once have I said that. Not once.

"Implicit support" is still a form support is it not?

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?

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)

...necessarily progressives.

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.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

A perfect rebuttal to this weak-ass OP.

Sid

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

What happened?

Sid

Happy New Year, Sid!

Your lack of understanding the hypocrisy is also noted.

This five minute of hate shtick got old a while ago.

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.

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

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

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.

My, my.

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?

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]