patrick.net

HousingWatcher says

Is it just me, or are all thse Ron Paul threads getting really annoying?

So, now you've added another one.

I'm with you Normograph, it should be required paper work before you even file with the election board. Photocopies on the web for all to see. See now is that so hard?

I'm tired of it too. I've told him he's overdoing it. I can suspend the guy's account. Or temporarily ban the words "Ron Paul" from new threads... Should I?

I would be careful about that. Ron Paul's supporters are essentially a cult and if you ban or suspend the guy, you could get attacked by an army of Paulbots. I'm not joking, as it has happened to tons of other blogs in the past.

Logged in today, and good lord, I thought the Politics section turned into RP2012.com

I'm tired of it too. I've told him he's overdoing it. I can suspend the guy's account. Or temporarily ban the words "Ron Paul" from new threads... Should I?

I vote for no ban. When Ron Paul is crushed in the primaries, it will send these dopers, pedophiles, and racists back to their past times of abusing their fellow underclass wretches. They will give up on politics. Making these people victims by banning them will only keep them engaged in politics.

Even better, let's have Ron Paul win the Presidency. He would then proceed to thankfully sell-out in a New York minute. It would be the best way to dash the Libertarian hopes and dreams on the rocks of reality like one does with an unwanted retarded infant.

The Chartist underclass selected a Negro to be their leader, and racism became socially acceptable (win!). On top of that, the Chartist violated all of his own Chartist principles with Gitmo, NDAA, bank bailouts, queer marriage, etc.(win! win! win! win!).

The most hilarious outcome would be watching Little Ronny turn into Obama/Bush during 2012-2016. Keep the dream alive, Ronny Dummies. Ron Paul 2012!

No you should not ban. It's annoying but it's not grounds for a ban that you just find it annoying. Based on what rules of the forum would you ban?

Delete specific posts perhaps on the grounds that they're aggressively Not contributing to the thread...

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

The Chartist underclass

hahahaha.

Perhaps emailing him directly and asking him to tone it down, maybe only post a Ron Paul thread every other day or something. If he says know, then consider banning him. Some people are just tone deaf.

only 2 more days then hopegfully we dont have to hear about Ron Paul for another 4 years!

On another thread I proposed requiring a certain number of comments (I'd add: unflagged) per thread. The Ron Paul spammer posts more threads than comments. Almost no one posts more than one thread for every ten comments, so that's the number I threw out.

Another technical remediation might be removing the user-icon next to a thread, or banning user icons that are advertizements. If thread spammers are limited to getting textual exposure from their activity (as opposed to plastering graphics all over the topic listing pages) that could well remove the lion's share of their incentive to persist.

Over, over, over, over.

msilenus says

On another thread I proposed requiring a certain number of comments (I'd add: unflagged) per thread. The Ron Paul spammer posts more threads than comments. Almost no one posts more than one thread for every ten comments, so that's the number I threw out.

Another technical remediation might be removing the user-icon next to a thread, or banning user icons that are advertizements. If thread spammers are limited to getting textual exposure from their activity (as opposed to plastering graphics all over the topic listing pages) that could well remove the lion's share of their incentive to persist.

Wow, you're right: 292 threads, 254 comments:

http://patrick.net/users.php?display_name=anonymousone

One problem though is that some people just post links to the "Link Submission" forum (each as a new thread) and very few comments, but I rely on getting good links from that. I could make an exception to the comment/thread ratio for that one forum but then it's getting gnarly...

Hmmm, is there some way to automatically detect if there is text in an icon image?

For now, I'm working on just making the "ignore" link also apply to threads. I didn't really want to do that because even bad threads often have good comments, but people are asking for that ignore ability, and it's not hard to implement.

For now, I'm working on just making the "ignore" link also apply to threads.

Good job by the way. I think it's a good feature, because it guarantees that nobody can come in and mess up the forum. As it was, you as moderator would have had to delete the member, but only after they were clearly way too offensive. But this way giving individuals that discretion, definitely adds to the site.

I like the fact that if someone seems to have an agenda that really rubs me the wrong way, I can totally ignore them, threads and all.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Dr ÆŽVOL and Huntsman are still locked in a thrilling fight for last place.

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s, when many things that were fueling resentments -- for example, affirmative action -- could not be talked about in public because they weren't politically correct. Anyone who tried was labeled a bigot or an idiot. The tension of bottled up speech built and built until it found an outlet in talk radio. The GOP still feeds off that rage.

Something similar is happening today. Political speech about real grievances is being suppressed. You shouldn't have to be a Ron Paul supporter to acknowledge that the media has treated one candidate with extreme prejudice. In the last SC debate, the camera was angled to omit him, and he was given very little time to make his case, to the extent that the audience had to intervene twice. This has been a consistent pattern rather than an isolated incident. The media is not reporting the news but using its power to steer citizens towards a predetermined outcome.

It is no coincidence that this is happening when we are on the brink of a new war. The plans that are being discussed, with only that candidate opposed, are not about bombing facilities off in the desert somewhere. They involve cluster bombing major population centers of Muslims.

Some of you called me anti-Semitic because I referred to Jews owning most of mainstream media. Please allow me a few words in response.

Just as in earlier decades, political correctness is being invoked to define allowable speech. Mentioning the fact that Jews dominate an industry or criticizing some segment of that community is held to be an attack on all members. This is asserting an absolute blanket immunity for all Jews, regardless of the truth of an assertion against any one of them. The label anti-Semitic tries to shut down speech. It does not permit discussion as to whether overrepresentation of one segment of our society in our media might be a problem. It should not be off the table to question whether whether another preemptive war is in best interest of the USA and whether the leading war enthusiasts in the media have divided loyalties. The million Muslims whose lives are at stake merit that we ask such questions.

One hears very little about anti-Semitism of a different type in the USA. My work brings me into regular contact with Israelis. I have seen firsthand a type of casual racism in that society that might surprise Americans. I am not talking about a few informal remarks. At professional meetings, attended by hundreds of scholars - formal contexts where people are careful about what they say - I have heard Israeli scholars applauded by their peers for stating that Arabs are animals, that they will rejoice when they are all dead. I have also met other Israelis, a minority, who speak of the frustration of trying to build a peace movement when their efforts are undermined by US $$$ for Likud. Such experiences drive my frustration with the flippant and rude dismissal of Paul supporters and the smears of anti-Semitism leveled at them.

I hope that you do not censor this site to ban any mention of these issues. A conspiracy of silence already dominates most of our media. Free speech, however it might rub some of us the wrong way, is the cornerstone of our democracy.

Paperback Writer says

Some of you called me anti-Semitic because I referred to Jews owning most of mainstream media.

The stockholders OWN the media. Jewish executives run the media.

Theres no tin foil hat conspriacy against Ron Paul. They used to angle Rick Santorum out of the debates too when he was in LAST PlACE

Nomograph: "No one called you anti-Semitic; you just made that up so you can feel victimized."

Not true.

Rdm said I was "in bed with people of the John Birch society type"

In response to my post, CL called Ron Paul supporters like myself a "witch's brew" of the CCC, anti-semites, laissez-faire economics, civil war deniers, 9/11 truthers, anti-Fed crazies, and some decent people who've been deceived

I am none of these things. A tactic in suppressing speech is to smear dissidents as racist or delusional or just plain stupid.

Tooth Fairy: "Theres no tin foil hat conspriacy against Ron Paul. They used to angle Rick Santorum out of the debates too when he was in LAST PlACE."

You are misinformed. I will post links if you want proof. CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, etc have committed blatant media blackouts of Ron Paul. On top of that they began to demonize him when he started climbing rapidly in the Iowa polls.

Paul has always been shut out of the debates. In one, he was allowed to speak for only 89 seconds. He was in second place in the delegate count coming into SC. The official rules of presidential debates are that the second place candidate stands in the middle and is given equal camera time. CNN broke those rules. In their 2-hr followup discussion, CNN talked at length about the other candidates and did not mention Ron Paul.

Paul's last place finish is a consequence of his marginalization in the press and not the reason for it. The media is trying to black him out and to discredit his supporters in hopes that they can dictate reality and sway people away from him.

It is one thing to have an honest debate and to have the people vote for another candidate. It is another when the media colludes to prevent fair play.

I am really disappointed that this discussion was buried. Why bother to have a politics section if you are going to exclude minority points of view.

I don't want to hear Liberals whine when Newt Gingrich becomes President. This much is true, there's greater initiative to get Obama out of office, than there is to keep in office.

Donald Trump would beat Obama if it came down to that.

US Constitution/Bill of Rights supporters:

I have come to realize this blog may exist for the purpose of promoting Communitarianism, which is a 50/50 mix of capitalism and socialism.

Patrick himself has stated his support for socialism in the past. Only recently did he state his support for a Libertarian (Ron Paul) candidate. This could very well be a tactic to draw in pro-Constitution debate, which is then manipulated to create the appearance that the socialists are winning nearly every debate. This creates the illusion of a fair debate, which impacts the views of anyone reading this content -- also known as sophisticated propaganda.

Communitarianism is a relatively new (20 years?) political party, sponsored by the ultra-wealthy central banking-owned financial arms of the United Nations. It uses strategies outlined by Fabian socialist Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Rules for Radicals." Key strategies include: never ever showing one's true intentions, never calling socialism by it's true name, constant ridicule of the opposition, distorting and skewing data, creating the appearance of a shared consensus view, and outright lies.

This constant ridicule includes calling their opposition lunatics, kooks, nutcases, tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-theorists, and so on. These same tactics were used by the KGB to address domestic opposition to the socialist government of the USSR. Opponents were universally labelled crazy, and eventually thrown in padded cells if the opposition was not already demoralized.

Communitarians seek the loss of individual private property rights, among many other things. Continually bashing home ownership for the middle class is one way of helping achieve this goal, over a long period of time (this tactic is being used on dozens of real estate blogs, worldwide). Notice that renting is now fashionable, and heavily promoted. It just so happens that private property ownership is the backbone of the US Constitution.

This comment will of course be ridiculed to no end. The goal is to defame the poster. Expect this and take this into account when reading the posts that come after it. Compare this to the methods used by ex-KGB Yuri Bezmenov, described in several of his interviews: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=vid&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=853&q=yuri+bezmenov&gbv=2&oq=yuri+b&aq=4&aqi=g5g-z1g4&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1286l3725l0l5904l8l8l1l0l0l0l239l1114l1.5.1l7l0

Be aware that Constitutional supporters who post here are likely being tracked closely, since this blog is likely sponsored by Communitarian money. Your IP address is collected and may perhaps be used against you at a later date, when the Communitarians take full control. Be careful out there.

"You are misinformed. I will post links if you want proof. CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, etc have committed blatant media blackouts of Ron Paul. On top of that they began to demonize him when he started climbing rapidly in the Iowa polls."

Are these not private corporations?

Does not Ron Paul defend the interest of corporations -- ie. money -- over the meddling of government?

Are you really too stupid to realize that your hero and you are being hoisted on your own ideological petards?

That Ron Paul having garnered only 3 delegates thus far is essentially a failure to perform in the marketplace?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/22/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE80L0U620120122

Look, I'm a left-libertarian mainly because I understand that in any pure libertopia the rich would get to call the shots -- 'one-dollar one-vote' essentially.

Why can't you see this?

Nomograph says

Victim much?

Communitarianism sounds good to me!

Just like those secret socialists up in Alaska, with their oil royalty dividends:

http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/

For a bigger example, we could look at Norway, with their $100,000 per-capita sovereign wealth fund:

http://www.nbim.no/en/Investments/Market-Value/

Nothing secret about Norway's socialism:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

nor their happiness:

http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-tops-happiness-index/

This country is obviously going down to tubes from too little socialism, not too much.

http://freebeacon.com/koch-industries-obama-trying-to-chill-free-speech-and-squelch-dissent/

BO trying to crush the 99%'rs.