I'm starting to question some of the tactics of many of Ron Paul's base. Tonight, Bill O'Reilly called out some Ron Paul supporters for flocking to his Killing Lincoln Amazon.com page to give it 1-star ratings. Currently, it has about 950+ 1-stars to something like 400+ 5-stars, with a great deal of that coming from Ron Paul supporters or so it seems (people who call Lincoln a tyrant or reccommend DiLorenzo). Some of their reviews are the equivalent of, "OMG this book is awful, O'Liely is dumb." They are trying to get back at him for continuing to remove Ron Paul from presidential fan polls because he thinks they manipulate the results, or, "slamming the polls," as he puts it. Here is the Amazon link.
Of course, this is in addition to all of the "RON PAUL 2012" comments you'll see on any Youtube video you may stumble across. I'm not going to lie, a lot of his supporters are just immature. Now, I'm a huge Ron Paul fan and I don't begrudge their enthusiasm, but I don't think this is how you create friends or change people's minds. As most people think in uncriticial ways, they will associate the actions of the followers with the head guy, so this doesn't put Representative Paul in a good light in my opinion. I think they should just act a little more reserved when criticizing others.
RON PAUL 2012
I kind of agree and I hate Bill. The point the MSM makes with taking polls down because of SPAM clicking is their age. They don't have to be any age to spam Ron Paul comments. However, it does have psychological effects for everyone (pro and con) to constantly see Ron Paul comments online. it really does mean that the youger generation gravitates toward him. Hell with Bill O, his book desrves one stars, it even got one from Lew Rockwell.
Having said that,
Ron Paul 2012.
What do you mean it got one from Lew Rockwell? I noticed DiLorenzo posted a critical blurb of a review on the blog, but that was about it.
I am sorry but I will not read a historical work that has no primary sources. Historians sometimes do this (they call it a synthesis) but really O'Reilly is not a historian, he has not been talking about this or giving lectures on it. He brings nothing new.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Seems like the 5 star reviews are spammed ads for the book?
"I downloaded the free kindle sample version and found it absolutely fascinating. I couldn't put it down. So, I then downloaded the entire kindle book onto my iPad. It was surprisingly easy to do."
"I have obtained copies for all of my grandchildren to inspire their desire to LEARN of our great history. "
etc ...
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
More and more people are coming around to seeing what a horribly corrupt monstrosity the State has become and are sick of politicians and their lackeys spewing insane lies to prop up the status quo. A great deal of this “spam” as you call it, is just people voicing their opinion and support for important issues that the “mainstream media” refuses to cover. “RON PAUL 2012” is a way to let others know that strong grass-root support exists despite the silence of the MSM.
On that note, O’Reilly is an absolute slimebag and, while I don’t think it is OK to put phony reviews on Amazon, I certainly don’t feel sorry for him at all. And notice how he ignores the legitimate criticisms of his book and focuses on the emotional comments, which he tries to spin into something against Ron Paul. They can't find anything to pin on Paul, so they make him "responsible" (and often insinuate that he orchestrates) such actions when commited by anyone who claims to support him for President. After how he characterized Ron Paul as “whining” about his treatment in the media, it is damn funny to hear Billy is now using air time to whine about what anonymous people write about his book on the Internet.
I'm not defending O'Reilly or suggesting that his book is worthy of praise nor am I saying that the Paulites should keep their mouths shut. I am asking if the way they try to spread the message is effective or not.
A few things here:
Yes, people constantly posting "RON PAUL 2012" everywhere can get annoying, but at the same time, I honestly doubt a large percentage of that is even Paul supporters. People who don't like Paul or his supporters and wish to paint them as kooks have been known to plaster areas of the web, in a mocking way, trying to make supporters look like drones. And there's really no way to tell who's legit when that occurs. Something like was brought up here strikes me as false flag rather than geniune Ron Paul support.
Which brings me to my next point...how the hell does anyone presume to know who is giving the book low ratings? Let me guess...assumption.
Finally, the DiLorenzo blurb along with The Washington Post on the inaccuracies is here:
Bill O'Reilly's New Book on Lincoln Banned at Ford's Theatre
Well, as far as I could see, I went to RonPaulForums and they had some stuff about teaching O'Reilly about "blowback" which obviously refers to them getting back at him for his treatment of Ron Paul in his fan polls. I went back to check the link and they deleted the post for some reason. Granted, I don't know how much the book has been voted down due to Paulites since O'Reilly has a large contingent that really hates him.
Eric080:Granted, I don't know how much the book has been voted down due to Paulites since O'Reilly has a large contingent that really hates him.
Not only that, but I seriously doubt hatred of Bill O'Reilly — from "Paulite's" or otherwise — is what got his book banned from Ford's Theater. Obviously the deputy superintendent of Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site (and other historians/Lincoln experts) felt it deserves a low rating as well.
So I'm really not sure how one makes the leap from "Bill O'Reilly's new book got a lot of low ratings" to "Ron Paul supporters are 'slaming' the Amazon rating system" (that of course being O'Reilly's technical term for "a lot of people going online and casting their vote")...but then again, I'm sure that jerkwad would find any reason he could to demonize Paul supporters (he certainly does for everyone else he disagrees with).
(If you listen to that youtube clip, it's made even funnier by the comments. I especially tend to agree with this one: "Listening to O'Reily talk about their Fox News'technology' is like listening to my grandpa talk about Facebook")
Interesting take by HellsUnicorn: