# Ron Paul "Money Bomb"



## Paul Revere (Dec 16, 2007)

On Nov. 5th, 2007, Ron Paul supporters raised over four million dollars for the good doctor's campaign.

Today, we have raised 4.9 million (so far) for Dr. Ron Paul.

The donations for today's "money bomb" continue to 12pm EST.  To follow live coverage of donations, check: http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_extended_total.html

A Presidential candidate that can raise this much money in one day deserves a second look.  So far, RP has raised more than $16 million, shattering his goal of $12 million for this quarter.

Support freedom!  Support Ron Paul!







And gais, plz unban me from IRC


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 16, 2007)

Donations have soared to $5.3 million in the last hour.

1hr, 45min left to donate!


----------



## Lobar (Dec 17, 2007)

I'd donate but I'm not sure if he'd accept my fiat money and I have no purestrain gold to give.

also I'm lying I would never donate to this silly man KILL YOUR FATHER


----------



## Eevee (Dec 17, 2007)

Grats on blowing $5m on a guy who most likely won't win, I guess.

lol we the people act


----------



## Surgat (Dec 17, 2007)

I'm going to keep posting this until you realize that Ron Paul for president is a terrible idea. 



			
				Ron Paul said:
			
		

> Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
> Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> lol we the people act


True freedom = state government level majoritarian tyrannies. It are a fact. I know because of my learnings.


----------



## XeNoX (Dec 17, 2007)

oh hai I fixed your thread


----------



## Summercat (Dec 17, 2007)

XeNoX said:
			
		

> oh hai I fixed your thread



Ah! Now it looks more correct!


----------



## TakeWalker (Dec 17, 2007)

I have a conspiracy theory.

1) Star with Ron Paul.

2) Shorten his first name to an initial: R. Paul.

3) ???

4) So now you have Paul R.

5) And that stands for PAUL REVERE OMG HOW IS IT POSSIBLE OMFG LINCOLN KILLED KENNEDY AND THE JEWS WERE BEHIND 9/11 WITH THE SUPPORT OF TICKLE ME ELMO


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 17, 2007)

I fucking want a money bomb!

"Here, have a five."

"Why thank you. How very*BLADAAMMMMMM!!!!!!*"

By the way Paul, on your logic of "If it can raise lots of money, it's great." you better dive on the Scientology bandwagon and get addicted to heroin.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2007)

XeNoX said:
			
		

> oh hai I fixed your thread



You forgot a box mentioning the environment. Apparently Ronny boy supports dumping...


----------



## XeNoX (Dec 17, 2007)

EmilAnarchy said:
			
		

> You forgot a box mentioning the environment. Apparently Ronny boy supports dumping...



he obviously supports dumping crates


----------



## sateva9822 (Dec 17, 2007)

And what prey-tell dose this money go towards? Ron Paul's next yat and/or batch or sexy cars? 

Morons donating million to a man who already has million really cheeses me off. What about people like me who live ina bachelor apartment living pay check to paycheck? Or even worse people in government housing stealing from grocery stores to feed their kids? 

*stabs Ron Paul in the eyes with a rusty fishing hook*
Take it out of your own pocet you money grubbing parasite!


----------



## nobuyuki (Dec 17, 2007)

this thread had me laughing all the way to the bank!  When I was there I met Ron Paul and he was laughing too

in other news, yeah, RP is a great way to destroy our economy by creating a perfect power vacuum for big business to operate in.  If you like Ron Paul because you want lots of liberties, Vote for Dennis Kucinich instead.  If you like Ron Paul because you like liberties AND don't want to pay taxes, then grow up jesus christ.   The tax system _is_ broken.  The solution is to fix it so it's more fair to its original intentions, not to get rid of it!  Every single one of your government services will break down.  Imagine what it would be like to not know what the weather is outside unless you tuned to channel 5 and they told you "oh it's 72f and sunny" when it's a fucking snowstorm outside because they decided either to 1. not actually check / have crappy checking mechanisms  or 2.  just outright lie to you for some reason.  Not saying the government wouldn't also do this, but unlike the government, you can't vote out a corporation unless you're a majority shareholder.   A corporation's obligation is to make profit for its shareholders.  The government's obligation is to provide services to the people of its country.  Just look at the goalposts and you'll see which place is not where the average person would want to be at.

No one ever realizes to what extent the shit they take for granted (FREE STUFF) which is actually paid for by your tax dollars, and would never be as affordable if a for-profit business offered it.


[size=x-small]Edit:  I wouldn't feel so concerned if Ron Paul was more clear on his positions, which makes Xenox's edit even more biting, because it's totally true.  Maybe he'd be a bit more pragmatic if he saw the reality of being president, but I doubt it.  This is just another corporate patsy, in my opinion, but an "anti-neocon" right winger instead of an authoritarian right winger.  Don't let these people bankrupt our government!  (see my signature!)[/size]


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Dec 17, 2007)

I read Ron Paul as Ron White. Man I'm silly. 

Anyways, I gotta like a guy with principles even though his platform runs contrary to everything in congress ever. If he does win presidency, HOORAY FOR GRIDLOCK...unless you don't like gridlock then BOO FOR GRIDLOCK.


----------



## Eevee (Dec 17, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> If you like Ron Paul because you want lots of liberties, Vote for Dennis Kucinich instead.


fun times: he might actually have a shot if all the Paul-obsessed Diggers voted for him


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 17, 2007)

Wow, what a waste. The electoral college will keep him out even if by some freak of nature he does win the popular vote. Which won't happen, because he's a fucking nut case, and unlike most sociopaths with political aspirations,  like say George Bush, he lacks the ability to at least appear to be somewhat sane. For example, If you want to disband the CIA, you don't TELL everyone. Not if you want to win.


----------



## Owlperson (Dec 17, 2007)

RP is just like some people we have here in the UK - long on intentions, short on reality. It surprises me that most of the liberal internet community is supporting him, because he has the endorsement of David Duke. I suspect that his anti-war stance has been taken out of context. And someone will have to tell me what this money bomb is because no-one raises $0.5m in a single day. There is something fishy about it.

I don't have a vote but using my political eye I can safely say that Hillary Clinton is about the safest bet for nomination and the White House. Things are also hotting up here and 2008 could be "super 08" here and in the US. Not that I think David Cameron will win (again, long on ideals, short on policies...), but I think his successor might .


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 17, 2007)

Owlperson, this is for you:

If you know any Ron Paul supporters in the UK, tell them thanks for me



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TVBLFroSM[/youtube]


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 17, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Owlperson, this is for you:
> 
> If you know any Ron Paul supporters in the UK, tell them thanks for me



Most European countries also have a communist party and a neo-nazi party.

Their numbers are growing too, and we still tell them to bugger off.

All this "our numbers are growing" shit just makes you sound like a cult.

And all this "Strasbourg tea party" shit just sounds like another bunch of fanatics, much like yourself, saying what they think, and all the fucking youtube failvids and photoshooped propaganda in the world won't change that.

It's a fad. A flavour of the month. This shit will pass and before you know it we'll be wondering why Krystal can't just eat her sandwich again.


----------



## XeNoX (Dec 17, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Most European countries also have a communist party and a neo-nazi party.



Don't forget our Libertarian ones. LIKE ACTUAL PARTIES. LIKE RON PAUL woooow

which, roughly 20 years ago, made us realize they are all just in for profit and when they talk about freedom they mean "freedom for profits"

dunno can you confirm this, I can only give a continental European viewpoint xD


----------



## Summercat (Dec 17, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Paul Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amazing, once again, instead of actually using his words - Paul Reverse uses a video. 

And now I want to see a 'Ron Paul Can't Enjoy his Sammich' picture...


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 17, 2007)

XeNoX said:
			
		

> Bloodangel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, if you're going to preach shit, you may as well aim to get paid at the end. It always ends with Animal Farm with those types. All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Kudos to Ron Paul. He convinced a load of people to pay him for just the preaching. He didn't even have to try and take it, they just handed it over.



			
				Summercat said:
			
		

> Amazing, once again, instead of actually using his words - Paul Reverse uses a video.
> 
> And now I want to see a 'Ron Paul Can't Enjoy his Sammich' picture...



Ron Paul wouldn't eat a bland, everyday sandwich. He'd eat the SAVE AMERICA SANDWICH!! NOW PAID FOR WITH PEOPLES DONATIONS!!


----------



## Owlperson (Dec 17, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Owlperson, this is for you:
> 
> If you know any Ron Paul supporters in the UK, tell them thanks for me



Doubt it as they wouldn't have a vote and therefore would not be contributing to his campaign...unless they were donors redirected by mistake from the Labour Party website :cry:. The video is actually sticking for me, the only thing wrong with YouTube is dodgy buffering on about 25% of the clips.

I'll pass it on to David Cameron though, he might be interested in meeting him since he has been sucking up to the Bush Administration just at the time that (a) they are treading a fine line between neo-conservatism and outright fascism (b) that they are due to leave office and (c) none of them are running for the Republican nomination for the first time at least since FDR passed on and maybe longer. "Volpone" (as I call him) has impeccable political timing and even I am wondering how he managed to become leader.



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> All this "our numbers are growing" shit just makes you sound like a cult.



True but when I was in office  several years ago the Tory Party ballooned in size; 20,000 new members from November 2003 to March 2004 (surprising for a country like Britain where the media claim that people are uninterested in mass parties any more). Politics is measured in votes and members and pounds/dollars as all three are more reliable indicators of success than fickle poll results which go up and down from week-to-week.

I'm just suspicious of Paul's credibility as a candidate when compared to people like Clinton or even Giuliani who have proven track-records when it comes to administration of a polity (e.g. New York) or being effective second-in-command to a former president (hence the nickname Billary Clinton). For the same reason, Barack Obama does not impress me a bit and think that he would be a wasted opportunity for the Democrats if they were to nominate him. Ditto RP, though Obama has many more years on the clock than Paul given his relatively young age.

Given a vote I would still vote Clinton. Having met her she is the right person at the right time to run for President, and Obama would make a good VP and then graduate better to President in 2016. The toxicity of the Republican Party might be overcome by a good, solid administrator like Giuliani (who I also met in the course of my duties) and Paul seems to rely on spin and philosophising too much for my liking.


----------



## kingkento (Dec 17, 2007)

Paul, you love to go on about your beliefs in any other thread, but in this one youve only responded once and it was a video.  If you believe in this guy so much why not try and convince people hes right instead of posting some bad photoshops.  Hell you went on and on about other topics, what makes this different?


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 17, 2007)

kingkento said:
			
		

> Paul, you love to go on about your beliefs in any other thread, but in this one youve only responded once and it was a video.  If you believe in this guy so much why not try and convince people hes right instead of posting some bad photoshops.  Hell you went on and on about other topics, what makes this different?



I feel I've been responding too quickly to everyone's posts lately, so I'm trying to let up a little.

Sometimes I like to just say what I have to say, and just have it be said.  I'm trying to give other people the same courtesy.


----------



## sateva9822 (Dec 17, 2007)

kingkento said:
			
		

> Paul, you love to go on about your beliefs in any other thread, but in this one youve only responded once and it was a video.  If you believe in this guy so much why not try and convince people hes right instead of posting some bad photoshops.  Hell you went on and on about other topics, what makes this different?



True... all you have pointerd out to every one so far is hes a wealthy man asking for charity....

Exuse the spellin... spell check is down...


----------



## kingkento (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> kingkento said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You were doing this earlier as well.  In other threads youd post some photoshop of Ron paul, you wouldnt respond to things Ron paul related but youd continue to discuss whatever else you were already discussing.

And really, if you want more people to support the guy, try and argue his case here.  People have presented his unpopular social views, so is there anything that can outweigh that, or are these points false and if so who made them up?  That or why not support one of the other libertarian candidates who arent as nutty elsewhere?

Im not going to make a Kucinich thread and not explain why I like him and find him more electable than the other candidates (poor Gravel, all alone).


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 18, 2007)

Hi, just stopping by to clear up a little misconception about Ron Paul.

[size=xx-large]Ron Paul is not a Libertarian[/size]

And please, nobody try to argue how he IS a Libertarian, because you're just going to make yourself look really, really stupid.


----------



## Blue Dragon (Dec 18, 2007)

I hate politics... I just wish everything was straight forward, but I know that it will never happen. I agree that what Ron Paul is doing is wrong, he's taking gullible people's money.  But if they are stupid enough to give it to him, then they shouldn't have it in the first place.  There are hundreds of charities that they could give it to if they really feel the need to part with it.  Such as the Me fund, j/k.  But I really do wish it would go to something worthwhile that might help someone that really needs it.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 18, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Hi, just stopping by to clear up a little misconception about Ron Paul.
> 
> [size=xx-large]Ron Paul is not a Libertarian[/size]
> 
> And please, nobody try to argue how he IS a Libertarian, because you're just going to make yourself look really, really stupid.



But but but but MARKET FORCES!


----------



## Summercat (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Reverse is looking more and more like an asshat...


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

I really don't understand why people have said its wrong for Ron Paul to raise money through donations.

First of all, the money bomb was NOT Ron Paul's idea.  It was an RP supporter who posted a video on YouTube and made a website.  This goes to show that RP has geniune grassroots support.

Surgat, I read your extra-long post last time you posted it.  I still support RP because he has many good ideas AND a perfect voting record (esp. gun rights).  Nobody's perfect, and besides, there may be some political bias lurking in that article...

All the rest of you are just repeating what you hear on the media.  No offense, its just true.

And kingkento, ideally, you should be researching the various candidates on your own.  I'm glad to tell you my opinion, but I'm super-lazy right now.  Here's just a few videos where you can see for yourself what RP thinks:  (plz watch, he explains himself much better than I can)

(isn't it funny how the news is designed to look like some sort of sick football game?  OMG LETS TALLY THE BODY COUNT!)

RP on the Iraq War, excessive spending, and other issues
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8[/youtube]

RP in action, attacking the fed on the house floor (wow, courageous)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q[/youtube]

RP on fiat currency and the fed, excerpt from "Fiat Empire"
(Someone else metioned fiat currency in this thread before...)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8[/youtube]

Sneakers O'Toole, um, wait, i mean RON PAUL for 2008!!!


----------



## Summercat (Dec 18, 2007)

And once again, Paul Reverse misses the fuckin' point.

Use your own words, not a video, Paul.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

Summercat said:
			
		

> And once again, Paul Reverse misses the fuckin' point.
> 
> Use your own words, not a video, Paul.



What difference does it make?  I think he explains himself rather nicely.  Much better than I could (I think I've said this before...).

And the only "point" is for you to be informed citizens.  Go get informed, that's the point!

(And no, you're not going to get informed by watching Bill O'Reilly or Keith Oberman on your neighborhood-friendly gov't-propoganda cable news show)

EDIT: plz lets not have a huge flame-fest over this.  If you can't help urself from being an ignoramous, then don't post in my threads.


----------



## XeNoX (Dec 18, 2007)

wait I realized something... 

a medical doctor with an internet based grass root campaign???

does anybody still remember that guy?






I will now further clarify my position with a video link to the 14 hour version of Goethe's Faust


----------



## Summercat (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We've been informed. That hes a racist bigot with no idea how a modern economy works and would, if elected, throw the country's system back to how it was prior to the civil war, probably up to and including re-establishing slavery.

Okay, the last bit is a hyperbole, but...

I'm informed. Ron Paul is a moron, and Paul Reverse can't actually fight his own arguements.


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> What difference does it make?  I think he explains himself rather nicely.  Much better than I could (I think I've said this before...).
> 
> And the only "point" is for you to be informed citizens.  Go get informed, that's the point!
> 
> ...



We're not saying he's wrong for collecting money. He's totaly right. If you're stupid enough to just hand over the money you worked long and hard for to some guy who most likely gets a much bigger paycheck than you do and is most likely doing better for himself, then by all means he deserves it more.

And I'm informed. I'm well informed. Thats why I'm not crapping my pants going "I LURVE RUN PAWL!!" and dumping propaganda in favour of him around the net. He's a FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH!

And you can't use your "You just follow the media" crap on me. I'm on the other side of the planet. Your Fox News buggery doesn't reach me. I made my decision based on the ramblings of people exactly like you Paul. All the "HE'S TEH HERO OF OUR TEIMS!" crap just makes you look like a bunch of fanatics.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

XeNoX said:
			
		

> wait I realized something...
> 
> a medical doctor with an internet based grass root campaign???
> 
> ...



I was actually thinking about Howard Dean the other day.

You didn't watch the videos either, I'll wager, but I'll share my thoughts with you anyways.

This is how the media takes out real candidates.  Howard Dean's campaign died the day after he gave the speech that went something like:

"And were gonna go to Washington, and Deleware, and some other friggin place, WOOOOOOOO!"

Then the media takes that snippet, plays it a bunch of times, and the info babes on MSLSD and CNN (communist news network) and FAUX NEWZ, are like "isn't that guy ridiculous?" with a deceitful smile.  All to make him look silly.

But what you don't understand, what I didn't understand at the time, is that Howard Dean wasn't being fake.  He was NOT trying to rally the crowd with a bunch of rhetoric.

That was real enthusiasm, and if Ghouliani did something like that, you'd never hear about it.  (remember another individual's "macaka" comment?  no you probably don't).

So they get this idea in your head that Howard Dean is ridiculous.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was a man who actually cared about the people, a real statesman.

I'm telling you, you were fooled about Howard Dean and Ron Paul.  The media lied to you, it's not your fault.  Nothing to be ashamed of, I once trusted them too.

And as for YOU, Mr. Cat of Summer, you think RP wants to bring back slavery?  That he's some sort of racist biggot?

He's trying to pre-empt the push for bringing -back- slavery, trying to stop a kind of neo-feudalism that is developing, trying to stop the globalists and their international corporations who own large parts of the government from literally shredding the Constitution.  He's the one who will keep you free.

I probably shouldn't be wasting my breath.  I doubt either of you will actually watch those videos.  You seem to be content with ignorantly smearing myself and Ron Paul.

I picked those three videos in particular because they're filled with POWER PACKED information.  Info that will get you thinking about the Federal Reserve and its creation of fiat currency.  But if you won't watch, well, wtf why are you even posting here.  Those videos are the ESSENCE of who Ron Paul is.

But if you want to just believe the media whores, be my guest.  If you love being lied to so much, then by all means, stay asleep.  Just stop ruining my thread.



NOW WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST WATCH THE VIDEOS?  If not for me, then for your own sake.


----------



## XeNoX (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> So they get this idea in your head that Howard Dean is ridiculous. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was a man who actually cared about the people, a real statesman.



I dunno what gave you the idea but i was in strong favor FOR Dean
my point was : if he didn't make it, Ron Paul won't surely make it


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> But if you want to just believe the media whores, be my guest.  If you love being lied to so much, then by all means, stay asleep.  Just stop ruining my thread.
> 
> 
> 
> NOW WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST WATCH THE VIDEOS?  If not for me, then for your own sake.



This isn't ruining a thread Paul. This is the other face of the coin. This is the side that, while you're there going "RON SHITS GOLD AND VOMITS TRUTHES!" we're there going "Rons just a fucking hack.". Difference is we're not whipping out photoshoop-da-woop lame-ass propaganda and youtube videos.

I DON'T trust propaganda (It's biast) and I DON'T trust Youtube videos (They are there to entertain me. Nothing more.) and I WILL keep tearing threads like this a new rectal passage because I think it's FAIR for other people to see the guy who WILL point at your posts and say "This is propaganda.".

Welcome to the free speach world where you and me are equal Paul. Only the mods can tell me to get the hell out.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Paul Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



PLZ ALLOW ME TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.

People nowadays have a nasty habbit of running around like two year olds, pointing to things they dont like, calling it "prapuhgendas".

OK, I'm guilty of it, too.  BUT, let's make sure we're talking about the same damn thing, ok?

Time to take off the idiot caps, people.  What I'm about to say is simply FACT.  You simply must agree with me here, because if you don't, we simply can't communicate.  How can we converse meaningfully if we have radically different interpretations of words as simple as 'propoganda'?

I, as an individual, am simply NOT CAPABLE of producing propoganda.  Propoganda refers to any massive multimedia campaign designed to hide information and mold the hearts and minds of populations.

Lets say I make a political cartoon that you don't like.  And lets say I commit the oh-so-terrible sin of having a bias.  That doesn't make it propoganda.

But if I were to buy all major media networks, all the printing presses, and all the radio stations, THEN, MAYBE I'd be able to devise some scientific, tested means of disseminating propoganda, feeding the people with lies as to incapacitate them.  To make them unable to work together to stop whatever it is that I'm trying to do.

With that type of propoganda, I'd be able to do all sorts of things.  I could fly drugs into the country, get senators elected, pass fascistic laws, and generally all the sorts of things that corrupt governments do.

*[size=large]When you make lying a science, and when you have the capacity to ensure a population is presented only with your lies, THEN you have propoganda.[/size]*

So I guess those videos could be considered propoganda IN THE SENSE that they were filmed on the news (with the exception of the CSPAN video with RP on the house floor), and in the sense that the various newscasters try to spin RP's words.

BUT

all the images I've posted were created by Ron Paul supporters.

It is unfair and ignorant to call these images 'propoganda'.  Yes, they're trying to change your mind, yes, they're trying to get you to like Ron Paul, but they're not propoganda.  They're trying to spread the word.  They're trying to break through the iron curtain that is CNN, MSNBC, Fox News *propoganda*.


EDIT: This just in: The government forces Sneakers O'Toole to take his sneakers off.  That is all.


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> PLZ ALLOW ME TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
> 
> People nowadays have a nasty habbit of running around like two year olds, pointing to things they dont like, calling it "prapuhgendas".
> 
> ...



Paul, what you say is not FACT. What you say is a MATTER OF YOUR OPINION.

You seem to think that, to qualify as propaganda, I have to have some sort of covert operation of lies and bullshit to fill peoples heads.

Propaganda isn't about lies, it's about OPINIONS. It's one person making their opinion to be a GROSS REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IS REALLY GOING DOWN. Propaganda can be FOR or AGAINST something. This means that your biast statements that claim Ron Paul can do no wrong are, believe it or not, PROPAGANDA.

You said yourself that propaganda gets men elected. Thats EXACTLY what you're attempting. And sitting there going "Well, if you don't agree you shouldn't be allowed post here." just goes on to CONFIRM my accusations.

You're posting the BIAST side of things, the side YOU like. Don't give me an oppinionated view Paul, give me the whole goddamn picture. If you want me to see the flowers don't try to cover up the fact that there might just be a bed of fertilizer mixed in with them.

And if you don't want to give the FULL story, I'll be pointing that fact out until all this crap dies down, because I goddamn hate fanboyism.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Paul, what you say is not FACT. What you say is a MATTER OF YOUR OPINION.



We're dealing with definitions of words, here, which lie in the realm of FACTS.  My opinions don't factor into this equation.  I'm either right or I'm wrong, my opinions aren't invovled in any shape, manner or form, whatsoever.

You are so full of it.  You just heard the word "propoganda" and associated with it a definition of your own choosing, OR some idiot told you the wrong meaning of the word, "propoganda".

Sorry, but words have definite meanings which don't change just because you -decide- they should.



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> It's one person making their opinion to be a GROSS REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IS REALLY GOING DOWN. Propaganda can be FOR or AGAINST something. This means that your biast statements that claim Ron Paul can do no wrong are, believe it or not, PROPAGANDA.



No.  You're just making things up.
(GOD, I'm not trying to beat him up on this one.  But it's a little ridiculous that people think words mean whatever they want them to mean!)

---------------------------------------

Why won't you just watch my videos?  Why won't you just admit there's a posibility that I may have some information that could be useful to you?
All this furstration, all the arguing and bickering could be EASILY avoided if you would either:
a) don't read my posts
-or-
b) read my posts in their entirety, along with the 10-minute videos included.  It's not that hard.  Let's get literate!


This just in: Sneakers O'Toole charged with resisting de-sneaker-ification, sentenced to 20 years hard labor in Alaska.


EDIT:  When propoganda is repeated, it is then called 'rhetoric' by many.  But this does not mean all rhetoric is merely the propogation of propoganda.  The arguments Ron Paul aspouses about the Federal Reserve, IRS, etc. is also rhetoric.

I cannot produce propoganda, as I have stated, but I -can- repeat it.  However, all of the Ron Paul stuff doesn't come from producers of propoganda, it comes from ordinary people.  Hence, it is neither propoganda nor repeated propoganda.

I dunno why I made this edit, but read my words long enough and u just might learn something ...


----------



## Eevee (Dec 18, 2007)

propaganda:
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

Someone should really buy you a dictionary for Christmas, but I guess it would wreck the longest arguments you have (which tend to be nitpicks over word choice anyway).  Either way, you're rambling on over the guy you like and being an obnoxious cur while you're at it, and it's bloody annoying.

Edit:


			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> But it's a little ridiculous that people think words mean whatever they want them to mean!


loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 18, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Bloodangel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





"Full of it"? Thats rich coming from you.
(And if anyones unsure, unlike Paul, I'm willing to admit that I think my oponent is an asshat.)

I DID watch them Paul. They were the same shit I see MY politicians doing on MY fucking t.v. The shit they talk about is not the same, but they all just sit there arguing about crap.

All the stuff you post IS your opinion. You CHOOSE to select the pieces you want and throw them up. You select the good pieces because you like him. That doesn't mean he's some sort of demi-god like you seem to make him out.

And yeah, you and I seem to have a different view of what propaganda is. You seem to think I was wrong, I just think you aren't being broad enough. And how the fuck is what you're doing any different than the propaganda you claim stations such as Fox News put out? You're doing just the same thing, but selecting a different set of crap to fling out.

Like I said, I fucking hate fanboys. If you want to kiss the ass of Ron, then by all means keep going. I read all your posts and I watch all your boring ass videos, even though they make me want to tear my eyes out and swiftly slam them up my rectum to save me from having to watch that garbage again.

There's two ways this ends. Either all this dies down and Ron Paul goes back to his lolercoaster of a life, or the mods step in against this and put an end to it. I'm not going to "Just stop reading your posts" when I think you're being completely one-sided. You decided to post this crap in a community I'm a part of. I'm not gonna sit idely by if I think it's a bunch of crap.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> propaganda:
> 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
> 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
> 
> ...



You need to get yourself a better dictionary.  That's an absolute crap definition, and you should know it.

"anything spread to help/hurt something/someone": what kind of opinions/information -don't- fall into that definition?  It's bogus!

(just go to dictionary.com, search any given word and compare definitions from various cached dictionaries.  The meaning of the word, "propoganda", remains just as I had previously stated.)

The level of ignorance that exists in our society is -chilling-.  People go to Wikipedia and Dictionary.com expecting to get real information.  Then whatever crap they read there, they substitute as fact elsewhere.  Sorry, but dictionary.com and wikipedia are -crap-.


			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> There's two ways this ends. Either all this dies down and Ron Paul goes back to his lolercoaster of a life, or the mods step in against this and put an end to it. I'm not going to "Just stop reading your posts" when I think you're being completely one-sided. You decided to post this crap in a community I'm a part of. I'm not gonna sit idely by if I think it's a bunch of crap.



Don't pretend like it's ME, asshole.  YOU are the one who insists on flaming me, who refuses to listen or actually argue any real points.  It is YOU who cannot understand the meaning of a word so simple as Propoganda, and that Propoganda only comes from the State.

There really may be nothing I can do to help you people.  As much as it pains me to see you wallowing in your own ignorance, I just can't deal with people so closed-minded and dumb.

Good fucking luck.
Requoted for extreme ridiculousness:



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> I'm not gonna sit idely by if I think it's a bunch of crap.



You're being about as "idle" and useless as you can be.  All you, and others, have done is repeat lies about Ron Paul which you've heard in the media.  You call him racist, crazy, etc.

But he is not!  He is the only decent candidate out there.

You know nothing of Ron Paul, yet you repeat all this crap that you've heard about him.  Don't tell ME I'm being one-sided when you refuse to hear Ron Paul's side.

And someone said they watched the videos.  They went on to say that "it was all b.s." or something.

No, it's not b.s.  You probably weren't listening.  Or you're just lying to me, saying you watched the videos when you have not.  Watch them in full.  Do you not understand the significance of abuses of power within the Federal Reserve, or the concept of fiat currency?

I can understand how listening to Ron Paul can be like listening to Stephen Hawking go on and on about theoretical phsyics.  But like I said, those videos are filled with POWER PACKED information.  If you actually listen and try to understand the guy, and maybe follow up on claims RP makes in the videos, you just might learn something.

If you have an opinion of a candidate whom you really haven't researched, chances are, you have the wrong opinion.  'Nuff said.  (don't give me that crap, "no opinion is wrong" b.s., you know what I mean)


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 18, 2007)

Over $15mil now.


----------



## Rilvor (Dec 18, 2007)

Chill out people. I'm only going to say this once. If I come back to this thread again and both sides are acting like this, I'm just going to lock it. This is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 18, 2007)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> lock it


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Rilvor said:
> 
> 
> 
> > lock it



Oh come now, that's not necessary.  I'm sure you have some sort of intelligent response to the video's I've posted ...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 18, 2007)

For what it's worth, Ron Paul's supporters include Klansmen, Stormfront, Mel Gibson's dad and Barry Manilow, and he's not doing a whole lot to distance himself from any of them. Personally, this is my favorite line from the whole thing:

[size=x-large]"Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he wonâ€™t take telephone calls from Jews."[/size]


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 18, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, Ron Paul's supporters include Klansmen, Stormfront, Mel Gibson's dad and Barry Manilow, and he's not doing a whole lot to distance himself from any of them. Personally, this is my favorite line from the whole thing:
> 
> [size=x-large]"Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he wonâ€™t take telephone calls from Jews."[/size]



I'll try to make this as clear as I can: Ron Paul is not the man you see on television.  He isn't a racist, he isn't a homophobe, he is not a terrorist.

I highly suggest you watch the videos I've posted, or put forth some real effort to hear the man in his own words.  It's in your own best interest.


----------



## Bokracroc (Dec 18, 2007)

Haha. American 'politics' is funny.

<--PS. Nick Xenophon is kickarse.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 19, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Ron Paul is not the man you see on television.



Really? So who was that guy I saw on Bill Maher's show admitting he wants to disband the CIA and making himself look like a whack-job without much help from the host?



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> He isn't a racist



That's not what some of his own words suggest, let alone his failure to refuse contributions from racist organizations.



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> he is not a terrorist.



No. Terrorists, at least successful ones are a hell of a lot more discreet than Ron Paul.



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> *put forth some real effort to hear the man in his own words.*



That's exactly what I did, DUH! How the fuck do you think I found the article in the first fuckin' place? 



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> It's in your own best interest.



Oh I agree, it was, because at first, I thought supporting Ron Paul was a bad idea simply on the grounds that all he could hope to do, at best, is split the vote ala Ralph Nader - aside from being a nut (keep in mind, I'm saying all of this in the context of the fantasy-world simulation of democracy that the actual political process is, and so hate basically everyone involved in it. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you yourself will cease to be a nut.). However, thanks to you shoving him down all our throats, I now see that he's a racist, and if he is a Libertarian, than I have to strongly question whether or not I can call myself one.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 19, 2007)

Bill Maher is an asshole.  And Ron Paul has his reasons for wanting to disband the CIA.  Good reasons.  And I'm not going to list them all out - just watch for yourself.  Really look into this guy.

Back to you, Bill:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5BJzEshMes[/youtube]


It's funny: when people start learning the truth about "the conspiracy", all of a sudden, this term "conspiracy theorist" starts showing up.

Being called a "conspiracy theorist" or "terrorist" is like being called a spy in East Germany.  It's a huge, sick, sick joke.


----------



## Eevee (Dec 19, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> You need to get yourself a better dictionary.  That's an absolute crap definition, and you should know it.


How's Merriam-Webster for you?  "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Don't pretend like it's ME, asshole.  YOU are the one who insists on flaming me, who refuses to listen or actually argue any real points.


All of your points are "EVERYTHING YOU HEAR IS FROM TV AND TV LIES" or "GRR WORDS MEAN WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD MEAN".



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> As much as it pains me to see you wallowing in your own ignorance, I just can't deal with people so closed-minded and dumb.


Ah, the last resort of someone who has no stance: call the opposition closed-minded, shove one's nose firmly into the stratosphere, and walk off in a huff.



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> I can understand how listening to Ron Paul can be like listening to Stephen Hawking go on and on about theoretical phsyics.  But like I said, those videos are filled with POWER PACKED information.


Second-to-last resort: be very understanding that your opposition is stupid and forgive them for it.



			
				Paul Revere said:
			
		

> I'll try to make this as clear as I can: Ron Paul is not the man you see on television.  He isn't a racist, he isn't a homophobe, he is not a terrorist.


Yeah, he's just an idiot.

I find it hilarious that you keep yammering on about how all of our impressions of Ron Paul come from Big Media (which I pay almost zero attention to, by the by), yet most of the Ron Paul supporters I've seen have been the Digg swarm.


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 19, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> How's Merriam-Webster for you?  "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"



In a word, inaccurate.  Read Ed Bernaise's book, Propoganda.



			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> All of your points are "EVERYTHING YOU HEAR IS FROM TV AND TV LIES" or "GRR WORDS MEAN WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD MEAN".



Ugh, words mean what they mean, and I stand by my definition of 'propoganda'.



			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> Ah, the last resort of someone who has no stance: call the opposition closed-minded, shove one's nose firmly into the stratosphere, and walk off in a huff.



Well, I've certainly resorted to this less frequently than my opposition ...



			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> Second-to-last resort: be very understanding that your opposition is stupid and forgive them for it.



Yes, I forgive you    *tongue-in-cheek*



			
				Eevee said:
			
		

> Yeah, he's just an idiot.
> 
> I find it hilarious that you keep yammering on about how all of our impressions of Ron Paul come from Big Media (which I pay almost zero attention to, by the by), yet most of the Ron Paul supporters I've seen have been the Digg swarm.



In case you don't know, Digg has been censoring Ron Paul and other stories.  I was also just looking for a clip of President Bush I found to be very telling, but YouTube deleted it, unfortunately.

EDIT: Testing...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDzyY8Cfp58[/youtube]

yea, still censored...  chilling, ain't it?

EDIT: This video is almost the same, minus a few important points (and music which really set the mood)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVilAlCBYc


----------



## sateva9822 (Dec 19, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Paul Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*_Whoot Whoot Whoot_


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 19, 2007)

sateva9822 said:
			
		

> Bloodangel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Noooo, don't encourage him.  The videos I posted are clips from the news.  Propoganda insofar that the media itself is propoganda.

Don't you understand that part of the real Propoganda is getting you to believe that the opinions of your fellow citizens is propoganda?

Don't you realize that Propoganda, in the real sense of the word, is something that comes from the State and not an individual?

Or are you buying into this "Propoganda is any political opinion" nonsense?

What Hitler did to Germany with the media is PROPOGANDA.  What Soviet Russia did to its population is PROPOGANDA.  What Communist China and countless other nations have done to their people through the media is PROPOGANDA.  What is going on in the United States media right now is PrOpOgAnDa!!!

My opinions are NOT propoganda, dammit!


----------



## sateva9822 (Dec 19, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> sateva9822 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one said your opinion was PrOpOgAnDa. Ron Paul on teh other hand... Yesm, there is muchos pRoPoGanDa....


----------



## Summercat (Dec 19, 2007)

Holy crap!

My Hypocrastiometer just EXPLODED!

I'll get to Paul Reverse's idiotisms when I'm done playing WoW.


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 19, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Eevee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



THE PENNY DROPS! Give the man a prize!

Every opinion, when not offering every part of whats being discussed, can be viewed as propaganda. I can state "Dublin is a lovely place to live. There are many green areas and the population is happy."

You'll notice I've failed to mention that Dublin is one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, that crime (like many cities) is spreading out and that public services (transport/healthcare) aren't exactly "teh win".  This is propaganda in favour of living in Dublin. It's truth. It's fact. Thats what makes it so smart. It's factual propaganda.



			
				Paul-a-licious said:
			
		

> It's bogus!



No, you just don't want to admit the fact that you've been using propaganda created by other people, while I've made do with just my words.



			
				The Paul Revere Experiance said:
			
		

> (just go to dictionary.com, search any given word and compare definitions from various cached dictionaries.  The meaning of the word, "propoganda", remains just as I had previously stated.)



LOLWUT?!

The OXFORD English Dictionary.
      Propaganda:â€¢ noun information, especially of a biased or misleading    nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

The CAMBRIDGE Dictionary
     Propaganda: information, ideas, opinions or images, often only giving one part of an argument, which are broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions

Would you like it in American English from CAMBRIDGE?
       Propaganda: information or ideas that are methodically spread by an organized group or government to influence people's opinions, esp. by not giving all the facts or by secretly emphasizing only one way of looking at the facts

Lets head over to ENCARTA. This is the American edition:
       1. publicity to promote something: information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause

2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread

The American Heritage Dictionary:
         1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarch

And last on my journey of Discovery, El Wikipedia:
         Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propagare', "extending forth"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience

I could go on and on. I think going this far proves my point.

Now, they all seem to agree that it can be an organized party. One man can be an organized party.

They also seem to agree that propaganda is giving a biast view on a subject to shape peoples perception. You have also done this.



			
				Paul Rever said:
			
		

> Don't pretend like it's ME, asshole.  YOU are the one who insists on flaming me, who refuses to listen or actually argue any real points.  It is YOU who cannot understand the meaning of a word so simple as Propoganda, and that Propoganda only comes from the State.



Now, suddenly it seems I've been MISINFORMED. You read a book and suddenly it's YOU who has ALL THE KNOWLEDGE ON PROPAGANDA.

You read one book. I CITED several sources. Your argument of "You dunno what propaganda is" has worn thin.

In Ireland, I had to study propaganda when I was a child. It's was part of my standard education. I learn what it is, how it works and who can use it. I had educators show me how powerful simple propaganda is, and how the most powerful propaganda is generally a skewed truth.

And your "DON'T PRETEND LIKE IT'S ME ASSHOLE!" argument doesn't do you any good. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. If you put something out there, you immediately give me permission to swing at it any way I like. Only the mods can stop me.

And for anyone whos thinking it, I think I'll happily put it out there.

You can take everything I've said thus far to be negative propaganda if you like. I'm not going to stop you.

I thought I'd point that out now.


----------



## Summercat (Dec 19, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Paul Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bloodangel?

I don't care you're one of those lapsed moral commie Europeans.

I want you to have my babies.

Anyhow, just pulling one thing out, because everything else was answered...



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> hyÂ·perÂ·boÂ·le      /haÉªËˆpÉœrbÉ™li/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> â€“noun Rhetoric.
> 1.	obvious and intentional exaggeration.
> 2.	an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as â€œto wait an eternity.â€



I did say that Ron Paul wanted to restart slavery. I then said, the next line, that the last bit (slavery) was a hyperbole.

Please learn how to use the English Language. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 19, 2007)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Bloodangel?
> 
> I don't care you're one of those lapsed moral commie Europeans.
> 
> I want you to have my babies.



In Soviet Europe, babies have you!


----------



## Summercat (Dec 19, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Mom? Dad? I'm a seahorse..."


----------



## TakeWalker (Dec 19, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> I find it hilarious that you keep yammering on about how all of our impressions of Ron Paul come from Big Media (which I pay almost zero attention to, by the by), yet most of the Ron Paul supporters I've seen have been the Digg swarm.



I'm surprised no one has pointed out the great irony in PR's linking us to _videos_ -- which are _media_ -- in trying to... whatever he's trying to do, support his ideas, spread his opinions. Whatever it is, it's not very effective.


----------



## Summercat (Dec 19, 2007)

TakeWalker said:
			
		

> Eevee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is anyone taking Paul Reverse seriously?


----------



## Bloodangel (Dec 19, 2007)

Summercat said:
			
		

> TakeWalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Gods are, but thats only because it's in their job description.

And I'm taking him seriously.
It's not doing him any favours.


----------



## Ash-Fox (Dec 19, 2007)

Will Ron Paul protect the freedom to be furry not?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 19, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Bill Maher is an asshole.  And Ron Paul has his reasons for wanting to disband the CIA.  Good reasons.  And I'm not going to list them all out - just watch for yourself.  Really look into this guy.
> 
> Back to you, Bill:
> 
> [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5BJzEshMes[/youtube]




So calling Bill Maher an asshole and showing a video of him kicking out audience members interrupting his show, which he's perfectly justified in doing somehow rebuts my evidence that Ron Paul is a racist and pretty shitty Libertarian? Come on man, you're not even trying anymore.


----------



## sateva9822 (Dec 19, 2007)

Ash-Fox said:
			
		

> Will Ron Paul protect the freedom to be furry not?



and here I though that was part of the whole human rights thing. Its a good thing you told us! Or we might have lost all of our rights to fire ants and pigmy goat... LOLOLOL 


I think this thread is what some people call fail...


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 19, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> So calling Bill Maher an asshole and showing a video of him kicking out audience members interrupting his show, which he's perfectly justified in doing somehow rebuts my evidence that Ron Paul is a racist and pretty shitty Libertarian? Come on man, you're not even trying anymore.



Wut? No, I never said that video refuted anything.  It simply shows how the media is becoming less of a "window to the world" and more of a brick wall.

He kicked those people out mainly because they were talking about 9/11, building 7 and all that.  But what do you expect us to do?  The media won't address 9/11 properly, they won't refute the evidence that shows it was an inside job.  This is war, fool!






			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> The Gods are, but thats only because it's in their job description.
> 
> And I'm taking him seriously.
> It's not doing him any favours.



Well, I -do- appreciate that, but the fact remains that Propoganda comes from the State and nowhere else.  For anyone to call the images and videos created by Ron Paul supporters 'propoganda' is completely ridiculous.

Let's just look at a few of these definitions:



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Would you like it in American English from CAMBRIDGE?
> Propaganda: information or ideas that are methodically spread by an organized group or government to influence people's opinions, esp. by not giving all the facts or by secretly emphasizing only one way of looking at the facts



"Methodically spread by an organized group or government" - This doesn't describe the grassroots support of Ron Paul, nor the fruits of their labor (i.e. pictures and images designed to get u to think about Ron Paul).



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> The American Heritage Dictionary:
> 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
> 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
> 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarch



"systematic propogation of a doctrine" - there is nothing systematic about the support for Ron Paul.  It's spontaneous and geniune.



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> I could go on and on. I think going this far proves my point.



Honestly, I feel that if you read those definitions carefully, you will find that they don't describe a grassroots, populist movement, such as the support for Ron Paul.



			
				Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Now, suddenly it seems I've been MISINFORMED. You read a book and suddenly it's YOU who has ALL THE KNOWLEDGE ON PROPAGANDA.
> 
> You read one book. I CITED several sources. Your argument of "You dunno what propaganda is" has worn thin.
> 
> In Ireland, I had to study propaganda when I was a child. It's was part of my standard education. I learn what it is, how it works and who can use it. I had educators show me how powerful simple propaganda is, and how the most powerful propaganda is generally a skewed truth.



I still think you should read that book.  And as for what you learned in school, I'd call it "indoctrination" more than anything else.  I'm not saying this to piss you off, but I think your teachers gave you a lot of bad information.


----------



## codewolf (Dec 19, 2007)

ok this has gone on long enough.......locked for pure asshattery of the heighest calibre....


----------

