Look who is on the front page of NYT

This is great picture:

23282309.JPG


Interesting quote a few slides away from this one:




Ron Paul likened to a Marxist??



Another quote that is like "Huh?"

hmm yeah wtf is up with that.
 
And we yet still fight.

We are still here.

We are moving forward.

They don't understand, they can't... so they mock.

It's OK, we are underestimated as well as unrespected.

We will survive, and so will the message of Freedom.

People are starting to wonder why they still see us...

Soon they will wonder why they didn't join us.

"Keep the faith and a smile on your face"

Love all these Positive Patriots for Paul!!
:cool:

Well, at least they mentioned Marc Scibilia's "Hope Anthem." Maybe some people will check it out. Music affects people in a subconscious way.
 
Damn, does this piss me off! I suppose I should be used to this stuff by now, but these hit pieces never cease to make my blood boil. Disgusting and infuriating!:mad:
 
I thought the article was overwhelmingly positive. We can't expect articles to be written as if they were written by us.

I'd have preferred if they had dug a bit deeper, enabling them to conclude "It's not just a campaign, it's a MOVEMENT"...but, hey, it IS the style section. And better that, than nothing.

This was the only thing I had a real problem with:

A popular campaign T-shirt has Mr. Paul sitting with the founding fathers, which is not to say they would have been aboard for some of Mr. Paul's libertarian ideas.

To suggest that the founding fathers would not be on board with any of Dr Paul's positions is just a total misunderstanding of where he is at, and from where he comes: the Constitution.



ps. Tim1776 - 1 post? Where have you been? Not being narky, just wondering. How is it you have come to here, at this stage in the campaign? Are you a long-time supporter, or new to the cause? It'd be nice to know we are still bringing in fresh blood.
 
I thought the article was overwhelmingly positive. We can't expect articles to be written as if they were written by us.

I'd have preferred if they had dug a bit deeper, enabling them to conclude "It's not just a campaign, it's a MOVEMENT"...but, hey, it IS the style section. And better that, than nothing.

This was the only thing I had a real problem with:



To suggest that the founding fathers would not be on board with any of Dr Paul's positions is just a total misunderstanding of where he is at, and from where he comes: the Constitution.



ps. Tim1776 - 1 post? Where have you been? Not being narky, just wondering. How is it you have come to here, at this stage in the campaign? Are you a long-time supporter, or new to the cause? It'd be nice to know we are still bringing in fresh blood.

This piece will be quoted/echoed by NeoCons from now until the convention
 
This piece will be quoted/echoed by NeoCons from now until the convention

Nonsense. There have been far, FAR worse hit-pieces - including one in the NYTimes itself - and they haven't been "quoted/echoed by NeoCons" till now. The damage is done. They don't need to go after Dr Paul now. They have already successfully shut him out. This is more coverage in a major outlet than Dr Paul has had in quite some time (albeit in the "Style" section), and it was 90-95% positive. Would we have been better off if the article WASN'T written?
 
Nonsense. There have been far, FAR worse hit-pieces - including one in the NYTimes itself - and they haven't been "quoted/echoed by NeoCons" till now. The damage is done. They don't need to go after Dr Paul now. They have already successfully shut him out. This is more coverage in a major outlet than Dr Paul has had in quite some time (albeit in the "Style" section), and it was 90-95% positive. Would we have been better off if the article WASN'T written?

I respectfully disagree.
In my opinion, the piece was 90-95% negative. And, yes, we would have been better off had it NOT been written.
You are correct, of course, that there have been far worse hit-pieces, but that doesn't excuse this one.
You also rightly state that they have already been successful in shutting Dr. Paul out, IF you confine that to his campaign to gain the nomination. But they have been less successful in squelching the 'MOVEMENT'. Had they accomplished that, then I don't know why we're even here.
In their opinion, Dr. Paul was "supposed to be gone by now", and they've made every effort to see to that. But they remain vexed and irritated by our "loud sideshow" (ugh!).
The very title of the piece: "IT'S NOT A CAMPAIGN, IT'S A MOVEMENT", suggests their current target. They want to discredit us with the same tactics they've employed against Dr. Paul, and that is to paint us as fringe and inconsequential. They want to marginalize us, employing the same insinuations of "kookiness".
This piece was written to that end.
 
Divide and conquer. They're trying to put us in that little box with the latinos, blacks, over 60, etc. We're the Ron Paul people......:cool: Being a musician I've come to learn no hype is bad hype. Even when your trashed in the news there's a chance you reach someone! We've have to take what we can get and hold our heads high and continue to "spread the message".
 
Divide and conquer. They're trying to put us in that little box with the latinos, blacks, over 60, etc. We're the Ron Paul people......:cool: Being a musician I've come to learn no hype is bad hype. Even when your trashed in the news there's a chance you reach someone! We've have to take what we can get and hold our heads high and continue to "spread the message".

well said, that is exactly what this article is trying to do.
 
Divide and conquer. They're trying to put us in that little box with the latinos, blacks, over 60, etc. We're the Ron Paul people......:cool: Being a musician I've come to learn no hype is bad hype. Even when your trashed in the news there's a chance you reach someone! We've have to take what we can get and hold our heads high and continue to "spread the message".

I agree! We can not really control what others say about us. We just "spread the message" and continue to fight for liberty and justice.
 
Back
Top