Sunday, February 3, 2008

Clarification on the Commnent Policy

Wow, the Rosa Parks article has recently sparked a lot more comments than normal, in a much shorter range of time. For the record, comments are moderated. When I first started this site, I figured that I could either open myself up to the spambots, or I could take a firm line against them. So here are a few guidelines:

  1. Don't post spam. "Ron Paul has never voted for this, Ron Paul has never voted for that." Trust me, we've already seen it. The problem is, we aren't very impressed.
  2. Don't make arguments that have already been addressed. "But Ron Paul volunteered to donate his own money!" If you can't show the courtesy of reading the article, then don't expect the courtesy of getting published. On the other hand, if you make a good argument, then chances are that I'll publish it. Because if you make that argument here, then you can make it somewhere else, and I'll want my readers to know how to address it.
  3. Don't try to change the subject. The purpose of the post is nailing Paultards on concrete issue that's easy to test and verify, and which should be fairly painless to concede to. When you attempt to change the subject, you only prove my point.
You can claim that it's a minor issue, but if it were so minor, then you should either be willing to concede to the argument, or ignore it. Yesterday's post on Paultards drinking Fiji was a lot more minor than this one, but I didn't see any of you Paultards commenting on that one. It seems like I've managed to strike a nerve here, "nailed" you where it hurts, and now you're trying to run off to Iraq or somewhere else where you think you can maintain the moral high ground. Personally, I think that the fact that Ron Paul wants to completely revamp the US Economy when he doesn't even understand the basic workings of the US Mint is pretty damn important.

Update: And sure enough, the Paultards are still responding with things that have already been refuted in the FAQ ("They can't use my tax dollars to fund the medal, dammit!") or attempting to change the subject to Iraq. Funny how Iraq seems to be only worth bringing up on this post, and not on one of the dozens of other postings to this site. You guys must be really desperate to change the subject. Again, if it's such a minor point, then it shouldn't be hard for you to concede.

For the record, here's my stance on Iraq:
  • I was protesting the war from the start, and you guys still suck.
  • Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke are also the war in Iraq, but I'm not voting for them either. Why? Simple. Because they're batshit crazy.
  • The entire purpose of the thread was to see if Paultards could be nailed down to something concrete and specific. If you want to discuss Iraq, then give us an actual exit strategy. Oh wait -- you guys don't have one. You want to bring troops out just as recklessly as Bush brought them in. Only, you guys seem to think that Ron Paul will have a magic wand, and that he'll bring everyone home just by having them click their ruby slippers.
  • Ron Paul's promises to take us out of Iraq is only meaningful if I had any faith that he could actually follow through on it. Ron Paul couldn't even follow through on his promise to contribute a token $100 donation to the Rosa Parks medal by purchasing a replica, and he's rich. Why should I believe that Ron Paul could succeed in immediate withdrawal?
  • The democrats have a policy of phased withdrawal for the vast majority of troops, based on the maximum number of brigades that we would be able to pull out per month, with a small number of troops remaining to protect the U.S. embassy. Somehow, the Paultards have distorted that position into being "pro-war."
  • Listening to Paultards saying that that all the democrats are "pro-war" because they live in a reality is stupid. It's like listening to someone insist that if you don't believe scientology can cure AIDS, then that means that you're "pro-AIDS" as a result.


cattle rustler said...

My policy has been, if you see *any* evidence of them trying to spam a forum (like digg) on, click through their link and post a comment on the vitims forum alerting them to the fact they are about to get a bunch of paultards.

The more we inform people where these paultards come from, the better chance we can completely marginalize their efforts.

Cattle Rustler said...

damn, forgot to mention that you always need to include a link back to the post on within your rat-post. They really, really, really hate when you link back to their forums when you call them out. Especially when you and your friends have one or more senior accounts on it and they have no idea who the mole or moles are :-)

On social sites like Digg, it is getting really hard for them to link directly to ron paul articles. What they are starting to do now is link to main stream media articles and than pre-load the post with pro-ron paul comments. For example, if there is an article in the WSJ about the mortgage collapse, they'll link to it and than post about 20 comments. If you post anything that questions the original pro-ron paul comments, you'll get sucked into a trap of arguing (and simultaniously getting dugg down by) a bunch of paultards and not know it. In these cases, make sure to reply to every single person who falls into the paul-tard trap and include a link back to the originating post on Encourage them to register on ronpaulforums because they will sometimes hide these posts in members only sections.

Keep in mind Digg's algorithm considers comment count and velocity in deciding to front-page stuff. This is why their ronpaulforum posts always encourage their members to post comments as well as digg an article.

You can see many examples of this behaviour. For example this article was pushed up from an internal post: (

Another example is this post: (

Anonymous said...

Being a daily visitor to your blog I share in your hatred of Ron Paul and his retarded army of pseudo-intellectual Paultards. But I do think your appraisal of the Democratic position may be a little optimistic. I've been involved with anti-war work from before the beginning of the invasion and have followed it closely. If you think I am incorrect I would be interested in hearing what you think I've missed.

Last year there was a Democratic "withdrawal" resolution which was vetoed. General Kevin Ryan at the Kennedy School at Harvard has done an analysis of it where he concludes it was more of a "re-missioning proposal." It allowed exceptions for reasons of "national security" and "anti-terrorist activities." The terms are basically left undefined. So if a President Clinton decides combating the Mahdi army is "anti-terrorism" than that's "OK." It also allows an exception for training Iraqi forces, which, like in Vietnam, can mean anything. It also leaves troops for the protection of U.S. forces and facilities, including the "embassy" (giant missile-laden city/intelligence hub). The air force & mercenaries are excluded from consideration. US would remain in control of logistics. Even with the removal of combat troops, that leaves many tens of thousands of troops still in the country (50,00+).

For geo-political reasons a democratic Iraq won't be allowed. Undoubtedly a Democrat in a White House is preferable to a McCain, but their position is certainly not "anti-war." That is, if we believe Clinton is sincere in her plans, which is unlikely since she only shifted from her aggressively pro-war stance when she sought the party's nomination. I do think Obama can be much stronger on this issue but ultimately Democrats have a very track record with war. Historically, Republicans are more likely to start wars but Democrats are more likely to escalate it.

-- Rodolfo

Bellesouth said...

Are your daily dealings with Paultards like comparing human years to dog years?

For example,I deal with an average of 3 Paultards a day. Does that mean you deal with 21?

Either way, I don't know how you do it, but I'm soooo glad you do. Are you going to move on to anyone else when Ron Paul deflates the blimp for good?