The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: This should be good

(See in situ)

This should be good

This tactic is the basic Marginalization tactic. It's designed to position the target as insignificant and totally alone in their pov. While the FALSELY STATED "anyone here" implies complete agreement with the propagandists opinion.

No, I literally thought no one here agreed with you. It seems, actually, in this thread you have a sole, if misguided vocal supporter. I'll be the first to admit that the sole voice can be the correct one, but in this case it's obviously not.

A complete exaggerated, overly-simplified lie. The word applied to Rand was "sellout," not "evil."

Way to nitpick. There wasn't a sole "word" used. You've been bashing Rand and Rand supporters for weeks now at least. No problem, lets just keep moving with the question:

If Rand is a sellout for endorsing Romney, is Ron a sellout for endorsing Gingrich and Boehner?

It's really a simple question. You'll probably try and hem and haw around it, but it's very simple. To make it clear my position, I have no problem whatsoever with Ron endorsing Gingrich and Boehner, just as I have no problem with Rand endorsing Romney. I know endorsements are meaningless except to unthinking people. No one in the movement will be voting for Romney "because Rand said so."

This is another typical Establishment tactic. Conversation HAS TO END somewhere, so the propagandist will capitalize on this, by always claiming the conclusion was from their target's fear, lack of confidence or getting "zinged." The propagandist will also manufacture a FALSE "history" for their target of running away "NUMEROUS times" or similar behavior - to FALSELY reenforce this. Of course it's false, but the readers don't know.

Of course my rear end. Your established pattern is to come in at the beginning of the conversation, begin wailing with the caps lock key, and then when you've been logically destroyed you sulk back to your cave to wait for the next Rand post so you can go full bore again with the same tired hypothesis. Why does the conversation always end when your logical fallacies have been beaten like a rented mule?

Another awkward lie. My original statement about bleeding and dying, as anyone can see, WAS TO CALL ATTENTION TO HOW LOW I AM! How LITTLE I am sacrificing to correct deception.

I'm sure. If you patted yourself on your back any harder you may have dislocated your shoulder. Your emotive feelings of anguish over the state of the country are honestly not our problem, we're all dealing with the same over here and to try and hold that up as how righteous you are or how clean you are in your motives is slightly insulting.

When propagandists find themselves in a bind and way behind, they will SCOUR RP's history for ANY blemish to then use as some sort of contradiction "zinger."

Just to start here, you realize that labeling your opponent in conversation as part of some group called "propagandists" is... propaganda right? As for scouring for any blemish... what the heck? The point is directly relevant to our discussion at hand. I'm just trying to establish some sort of logic here.

Do you see it as a contradiction and a zinger? Because I honestly don't. I don't think endorsements for office really mean all that much. You however seem to think they invalidate everything else the person does in office.

Number one, without my researching the issue, I'll wager he voted for their Speaker positions BEFORE their dreadful legislating (during their "promising" phase).

You would lose that wager. Both Gingrich and Boehner had spent plenty of time in congress voting for unconstitutional garbage. In fact, Gingrich had tried specifically to take Dr. Paul down in his own district by supporting his opponent. You don't get to be Speaker of the House without moving up the ranks.


Sooo... how much did you wager and where can I collect? Awesome use of the caps locks key, and I think the 4 exclamation points really helped to emphasize your point. Which was wrong.

What did he gain?

What has Rand gained?


Again, awesome use of the exclamation point to emphasize your point. Most people stop at 1-2, but you're really leading here.

So your point isn't that the endorsement itself is bad, it's that they didn't gain enough in return for the endorsement? I may be misunderstanding you here. As for annihilated credibility... you really think that Ron Paul has no credibility? Honestly think about that for a second and come back to us.

Eric Hoffer