Article on HuffPo using Kent Snyder's death to attack libertarianism and Ron Paul

[nate895]

I'm not going to read it...

Kludge, is your new avatar Gene Amondson of the Prohibiton Party?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, we don't have health freedom, so how can Huffpo criticize free market healthcare? We don't even have one.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Well, we don't have health freedom, so how can Huffpo criticize free market healthcare? We don't even have one.

Because they're unter-mensch liberals. They're disgusting, it puzzles my mind how any human can write that. A tragic death for a cheap political rhetoric. They're criticize what they don't know about.

To the stakes!

 

[Kludge]

Kludge, is your new avatar Gene Amondson of the Prohibiton Party?

Yes, he's amazing!

 

[nate895]

Yes, he's amazing!

LOL!!!!

There actually are crazies who want to expand the drug war. I say we should move on to caffeine after alcohol.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Prohibition party?...Lol

 

[The_Orlonater]

Found a good article for free market healthcare.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0692c.asp

This oughtta shut'em up.

 

[CasualApathy]

Why would you read that garbage site, nevertheless give them exactly what they want (traffic)?

Sometimes i suspect that this argument is being used as a way to passify us, and discourage us from using the internet to speak out. Remember how annoyed the FOX "news" "journalists" were when we kept sending them angry e-mails.

I think they sat down and invented this entire "dont give them any traffic" argument to fool us into being passive.

We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

indeed, that's what we used to do.

 

[constituent]

We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

...or just become members of the community.

either way, i agree.

and this argument is too easy to filet to be worth taking on. maybe someone else will feel like it.

srsly, i read the piece, it's weak...

go get 'em tiger.

 

[votefreedomfirst]

Sometimes i suspect that this argument is being used as a way to passify us, and discourage us from using the internet to speak out. Remember how annoyed the FOX "news" "journalists" were when we kept sending them angry e-mails.

I think they sat down and invented this entire "dont give them any traffic" argument to fool us into being passive.

We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

Ron Paul supporters are never going to "take over" the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal blogs there is. However, we can give them greater incentive (through increased ad revenue) to continue to publish this sort of garbage, though.

It's sort of like the Paul supporters who kept feeding the Wonkette trolls throughout the campaign. Why reward bad behavior?

It doesn't really matter though. People are going to do what they want. I was just making an observation.

 

[CasualApathy]

Ron Paul supporters are never going to "take over" the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal blogs there is. However, we can give them greater incentive (through increased ad revenue) to continue to publish this sort of garbage, though.

It's sort of like the Paul supporters who kept feeding the Wonkette trolls throughout the campaign. Why reward bad behavior?

It doesn't really matter though. People are going to do what they want. I was just making an observation.

By your logic a site that has an agenda against RP would rather have 1000 comments of which 90% are critical of their article then 100 who mostly agree?
They will get more hits for sure, but I really think they would rather be without those particular visitors, after all the comments are there for all to see, and they will undermine what they are trying to do, and in time the overall credibility of their site.
Or look at it another way, would you rather have a random visitor to the site see a hitpiece on RP with comments that mostly agree, or wouldn't it be better for the comments to clearly refute their article.
You remember how FOX, ABC and CNN deleted the comments from articles critical of Paul after they were flooded by RP supporters who completely refuted the articles, right?

 

[votefreedomfirst]

By your logic a site that has an agenda against RP would rather have 1000 comments of which 90% are critical of their article then 100 who mostly agree?
They will get more hits for sure, but I really think they would rather be without those particular visitors, after all the comments are there for all to see, and they will undermine what they are trying to do.
Or look at it another way, would you rather have a random visitor to the site see a hitpiece on RP with comments that mostly agree, or wouldn't it be better for the comments to clearly refute their article.
You remember how FOX, ABC and CNN deleted the comments from articles critical of Paul after they were flooded by RP supporters who completely refuted the articles, right?

If you think you can go on a site like the Huffington Post and change anyone's mind, you are kidding yourself. These people are socialists; they are the enemy of freedom and prosperity. Personally I'm not going to take the troll bait and reward a cheap political stunt.

I'm sure the Wonkette guy who paid his rent for months by slandering RP would agree with you, though.

 

[CasualApathy]

If you think you can go on a site like the Huffington Post and change anyone's mind, you are kidding yourself. These people are socialists; they are the enemy of freedom and prosperity. Personally I'm not going to take the troll bait and reward a cheap political stunt.

I'm sure the Wonkette guy who paid his rent for months by slandering RP would agree with you, though.

I must say, your argument is pretty weak. First off you make the claim that every single visitor to the Huffington Post is a hardcore socialist, which just isn't true, and really couldn't be unless the site had a screening process and forced membership or something like that. Secondly you assert that we shouldn't even bother to argue our case in "hostile" territory. If we accept that, we could only talk amongst ourselves, and our growth would stagnate completely. Perhaps a few people would stumble across our sites, but basically everything would stagnate. It doesn't seem to me that this is the right way to go.

I say we should make our case even more intensely when confronted by these hitpiece-articles. I agree that it may not change the minds of very many dedicated socialists, but it may very well change the minds of others reading the hitpiece, and that in itself is justification enough for making the minimal effort that is required to refute such articles.

People who have been here from the early beginnings will remember that we actually made the mainstreem news several times simply because of our coordinated efforts early in the campaign. Granted, the news was not positive, but nonetheless the fact that FOX and others took the time to moan about us on primetime news proved that we were having an effect. Coincidentally it was shorthy thereafter that the "Dont give them any traffic" talking point first started to appear regularly on these forums.

We have to use the tools the internet grants us to vioce our opinions, if we don't our internet pressence becomes increasingly more irrelevant.

 

[angelatc]

We shouldn't boycott websites, we should take them over.

indeed, that's what we used to do.

I agree. But we have to be well spoken. 500 "U R A IDIOT" posts don't really help anybody understand the error of their philosophies. We're not going to make anybody change their minds, but we can try to make them think outside their box. Passing out red pills....can't make them take it, but one by one they do.

I mean really, has anybody, except for Ariana Huffington who was apparently traded for Dennis Miller, ever grown out of being conservative? Nobody ever says, "Yeah, I slowly began to realize that big government would actually be the best solution."

I have 2 sites bookmarked. I check them every day for Open Registration opportunity. I shall announce the opportunity if and when I catch it.

I already got Little Green Footballs. They only leave theirs open for an hour or so at a time. I just got lucky, and by the time I finished typing my info it was closed.