Replies

“It’s an Alinsky tactic to trash someone unfairly to destroy them. It’s not an Alinsky tactic to call a guy what he is on merit.”

Absolutely, we are in 100% agreement.

As there was nothing in the original 8 posts other than merit-less attacks they were a Saul Alinsky tactic which IMO is not worthy of FR and more like DU.

Seems one cannot point that out without further SA attacks.

You have the right approach. I only wish others did. We need as much ammo as possible for the next election.

It’s an Alinsky tactic to trash someone unfairly to destroy them. It’s not an Alinsky tactic to call a guy what he is on merit.

Absolutely, we are in 100% agreement.

I had no reason to think you wouldn't agree with that, and I'm glad you did.

As there was nothing in the original 8 posts other than merit-less attacks they were a Saul Alinsky tactic which IMO is not worthy of FR and more like DU.

I consider the first eight posts to be expressions of people's impressions of Paul. Are you trying to make the case that when we talk about Paul, Obama, or anyone else, we have to give a long list of supporting evidence that backs up our impression of the individual. When we talk about Obama, we expect others to be up to speed with regard to his actions. We don't need to explain everything in detail. We just expect others to understand where we're coming from and agree. Is that an Alinsky tactic? Is it a Democrat Underground tactic? I don't think so.

Look, if I called Obama a pedofile, I would certainly need to back that up. Calling him a Fascist is buttressed by common knowledge. With Paul it's much the same thing. I believe the guy is somewhat unhinged. Others share my view. It's not an Alinsky tactic or something that is typical of Democrat Underground to speak in terms that many of us understand fully.

Seems one cannot point that out without further SA attacks.

If you're a Paul supporter, it may look like Saul Alinsky-like attacks here. If you think of how we address other public figures, I think you could just as easily come to the conclusion that Paul does get a fair shake here. If you disagee with people's assessment, you are free to make your case and engage others on the topic.

You have the right approach. I only wish others did. We need as much ammo as possible for the next election.

I appreciate that comment. I agree that we need as much ammo as possible. I do believe that ammo is developed and provided here on a regular basis. If people were to do a search on Paul, I think they would run into years worth of comments and discussions of him here, that would prove educational.

I don't have a problem with people addressing him with short personal takes. If I were reading a negative comment about him for the first time, I'd either ask questions or do some searches to find out why some people have such a negative view of the man in the context of him running for the Presidency.

Take care.