Cry for information consolidation.

OK, I know I went through this before and I still feel the same way. Ron Paul saturation is beginning to hurt his campaign, but there is a new twist that I really did not speak to as much in my previous post.

Information saturation may be turning some off to Ron, but it is also eventually finding others that it needs to and having an effect, but there seems to be another problem. I have spoken to this in other posts and in many blog comments. I have also been seeing it from other RP supporters.

Duplication of the same story, especially on networking sites, is keeping the message down. Creating a blog post with a different URL with similar, almost duplicate content on these sites causes supporters to spread their power. Thus diluting the message and the support for it. Linking from your blog to another directly, that is already posted on the networking site, should absolutely not be done and seems to be nothing more than trafficking for blog hits.

The Ron Paul $1 Million mark is a prime example (on Digg anyway). That news was posted at least 20 times (can't get a good count since Digg's search engine sucks). The Diggs were spread an prevented a HUGE article for the front page; it would have hit in 15 minutes if there had only been one of them...

Let's make an effort to help the message percolate to the top, if you will. When you find something good, search on the networking site before you post it. If you find an identical article, Digg it or upmodded it, whatever. Don't post another; that causes dilution of the support! We can use the Internet even more efficiently than ever if we just take that little bit of time to check first.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from posting. I think it is great and a new movement is afoot; incredible things ARE happening!

What is the root of Ron Paul hate? (part 2)

OK, I have tried to investigate this before, but I still have no answers. So I will try it again.

Let's start with what I am seeing issue-wise; we will look at his presidential campaign later.
Ron Paul believes in the following things:

Personal Beliefs
Abortion is morally wrong.
Christianity is his religion.
He is personally frugal.
He is a doctor and believes that life is precious.
Americans have a right to keep what they earn.

Political Beliefs

Government should serve the people.
Americans should not be afraid of the government.
Americans should take care of their own first.
Government should be efficient and minimally invasive.
Control of communities should be local.
Business can be self-regulating and consumers have power.

I am sure there are other points of view and ways to word his beliefs, but I think these are the ones that are pertinent to the discussion. At least these are the ones I see that seem to be most disputed on blogs, social networks, etc. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but they align with my beliefs enough for me to think he is the best candidate for the job.

The 2008 presidential campaign throws more wrenches in the works. The grassroots movement around the Paul campaign has inspired his followers to expand the it into all available mediums. From skywriting to simple signs, but mostly on the Internet.

I think the "saturation" of the 'Net by Ron's supporters has just fanned the flames of "Paul hate". Ron has many opponents who do not believe that a free market is safe for consumers, that people do need the Federal government to help them in their lives, that wealth should be re-distributed in some ways, etc. Many have found reasons to attack him, even before the presidential campaign.

So that leads me to wonder if his sudden popularity AND the rising tide of Internet interest is causing the issue. I know there are some on networking sites who spend much of their time attempting to make Paul posts popular, but there seems to be an effort to also do the opposite. My question, beyond the root of the hate, also attempts to expose the positions of the "haters". Do they have a position? Are their actions purely anti-Paul? Or is there a real end to their means (other than defeating Ron Paul)?

To the "haters": If you don't want Paul, is there something else you do want? If so, I do not see it being voiced on the Internet. In the event that you are endorsing some other candidate, why not just do that? Why is it necessary to attempt to discredit Ron Paul and his followers?

Leave some answers here in the comments. Obviously, I am a Paul supporter, but I am still interested in some answers. They won't change my mind, but they may give me some insight into the voter pool and what drives them.

Why the labor unions should support Ron Paul.

The labor unions were created to protect workers from their corporate bosses; ensuring fair wages and working conditions. The Federal government was not nearly as large as it is now and it was not designed to protect workers. So the workers banded together and decided to protect themselves. Just as it should be and coincidentally, just as Dr. Paul suggests America should work.

The Federal government created their own mandate to provide global protection for workers by creating the minimum wage and rules for working conditions, etc. Which caused more Federal control where it may not have been necessary; since the workers had begun to protect themselves.

Now it is 2008. The unions have become less powerful, less necessary (due to Federal involvement) and everyone has become more dependent on the government to protect them in their jobs. Workers are learning that they don't have to be responsible for themselves since the government will "protect" them from their employers.

This is perpetuating a loss of personal responsibility in general. Any country that relies on their government as much as we do can only learn that lesson.

So, to the point of this post. Ron Paul wants to put an end to government "babysitting". He wants to empower people again and let them have the power back that belonged to them in the first place. We let them take it away; now it is our turn to take it back.

Ron Paul's ideas would give power back to the unions; back to our communities and back to individuals. The unions should WANT him to be elected. He will make them more necessary and that necessity would force them to become transparent to their members.

A Paul presidency allows the people decide what is right; lets community groups guide their own fate. Local governments can work WITH their citizens and constituents without interference and tyranny from the Feds. The unions would become and integral part of that group and could speak for the working class and regular people.

So all you voters in those unions, speak your mind to your leaders. Tell them you want to be free to decide your own fate. Corporations should not rule you. You have MORE power when there is less government!

I wil try another discussion forum; I love the stuff!

These forums can be so entertaining and you can learn a lot form them.

I will try another without the Ron Paul stigma that seems to scare everyone at Digg away.
No one was signed up for my other board and complained that the name meant they would have non-Paul posts deleted.

I am not interested in that. Yes, I am a Ron Paul backer, but I want real discussion here. I enjoy it and sometimes it is fascinating. Often entertaining, and quite funny.

So go check out the NEW non-biased, totally open 2008 Presidential Campaign forum

Sign up and let the fightin' begin!

(I won't even put my Ron Paul animated Gif on this post for you Paul haters on Digg. Try it, and have fun! I promise; no funny stuff from me.)