Ron Beats Rudy in NH?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
His habit of making sure his district receives their share of pork and then voting against spending bills knowing they have enough votes to pass with the pork he inserted bothers me.

Earmarks are already spent money. By earmarking particular funds he is following the constitution by taking budget decisions from the executive branch. Read the constitution. Why should the president get to decide where the money gets spent if it is not clearly stated in the Constitution as one of his duties.

If the DoI is receiving $100 already then he should be able to send the money back that taken from his district in the form of DoI projects that benefit them. He votes against all these spending bills anyway. How is this inconsistent with his congressional duty?

Please get a clue! You’re bothered because you haven’t an understanding of the constitution or how it’s supposed to work.[/quote]

You really don’t understand how government works, do you?

103

I’m only mildly depressed. Primarily because the Repubs are not fielding anyone else that I can really vote for without holding my nose, and of course the Democrats… are doing that thing that they do.

104

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.

Was fun while it lasted.

Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…

But…but…but…I was so looking forward to that third year of his presidency that you promised us!!!

Sorry champ. He’d have had to do well in Iowa/NH for that to become reality, and I made it clear from the start.

On the pro-Paul sites, they are trying to play it down as if nothing bad happened. I reckon they will be saying “give him another week, he’s sure to catch on” right up until Nomination Day.

Paul had a good run up until December; no one can deny that. Unfortunately, he’s just been decisively defeated in the first two battles of this campaign.

There is simply no way the GOP will nominate him now, even if he were to (hypothetically) win every primary from here on out. The fact that he crashed and burned in IA/NH would still give them reason enough to say, “Well, you did well but you didn’t do THAT well, so we’re giving it to someone else”.

The only possible way for him to win, from the beginning, was to shock the elites by riding a huge wave of grassroots populism straight to the top. Unfortunately, the wave wasn’t large enough, or it came too early. Maybe his campaign didn’t spend enough money - who knows.

Of course, people are now going to treat this as an “educational” campaign. Since I’m already educated, I have no further reason to participate.

Well, I would have thought anyone educated knew this from the start. Paul has almost no chance of being the Republican nominee. That doesn’t mean he isn’t worth supporting.[/quote]

Has no chance…yes.
Had no chance? Not even close.

Here’s what he “had”, prior to last week:

-Extensive grassroots organizations in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other states (so we were told).

-Dozens of prime time appearances on all the major news networks - talk shows, debate shows, etc…He was covered repeatedly by every media outlet, an absolute FIRST for any libertarian in this country and almost unheard of for a “fringe candidate”.

-20 million dollars raised in the last quarter, with two record breaking single-day fundraisers occuring on consecutive months.

-He had participated in every significant Republican debate held up to that point.

-An impressive string of wins in local polls held all over the country, as well as the distinction of having won nearly every online poll since May.

-A respectable showing of 5th place in the Iowa Straw Poll, back in August.

Conventional wisdom on Ron Paul’s chances has come full circle. When he first started, everyone said, “He has no chance”. Then, at the peak of his surge, the CW changed to, “Maybe he can do it”. Now, unfortunately, we’re back to “no chance”.

But to pretend that it was “no chance” all along would make you FLAT OUT WRONG, sir.

Ron Paul HAD a chance and that chance is now gone.
That’s the truth of the matter.

105

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Secondly, you have neither understanding of sovereignty nor secession. Lincoln had no right to force a union on the South. Lincoln cared neither for slaves nor black people and stated he would keep the union in tact with or without slavery.[/quote]

Incorrect, again.

106

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Why don’t you scroll back to my posts from last summer they might make more sense to you now. Nommy, you might be a semi-bright kid but you’re still in dire need of real life experiences.

I told you Paul was going no where. And, not to toot my own horn, it has shaken down almost exactly as I called it.

Live and learn kid, live and learn.[/quote]

I don’t need to scroll back to your posts, because I remember them clearly.

You said that no one would remember his name.
You said that he would be off the radar screen by January.

You were wrong. That didn’t happen.

He had his biggest month ever in December. And now, he’s just lost the first two battles. He peaked, and then he fell (he hasn’t gone under yet, but it’s predicted). You failed to predict the peak and overestimated the extent of the fall.

You were not right about anything other than the fact that he would not win. But that was just a 50/50 guess. Your entire argument was flawed from the beginning. The bulk of it had already been disproved by August. Not coincidentally, that’s the time when I started ignoring your posts. I’m absolutely amazed by the fact that you’ve been posting the same drivel this entire time. It’s unbelievable. You’ve wasted such a ridiculous amount of your own free time on trying to convince other people.

You need more life experience, kid. I could teach you. First lesson is to get away from the keyboard. You also must learn to pick your battles. When I debate people on the internet, I don’t try to sway them to my side. If they’re wrong, then I simply point it out, and what they do afterwards is their business. Only a moron posts the exact same argument 100 time in a row.

107

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Secondly, you have neither understanding of sovereignty nor secession. Lincoln had no right to force a union on the South. Lincoln cared neither for slaves nor black people and stated he would keep the union in tact with or without slavery.

Incorrect, again.

[/quote]

If he’s incorrect, it’s your DUTY to point out the flaws in his argument.

You adopt the demeanor of a lazy, pedantic bum in all your posts. You’re fond of criticizing others, but not explaining your own views (or rebuking theirs). That’s your distinction on this forum.

Why don’t you argue with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lincoln and the Civil War:

What a dumb, old codger you must be.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pithyphrase.htm

108

[quote]orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.

So what is your point?

Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB

Huh? About two million people died. Partition was a fucking disaster. What on earth are you talking about?

2 million out of how many?

They could have been a giant balcans but they weren`t.

[/quote]
G$–
Orion here is following his tradition of moral relativism; 2 million is relative to some other number (perhaps 400 million at the time of the Partition) and therefore cannot weigh heavily on the imagination!
But that is 2 million, say, out of the 100 million in Sindh, Rajahstan, and Bengal who were hacked to death with machetes, or 20 million who were sent homeless through the desert…
So, to a relativist, like Orion, that is relatively light, relatively speaking!

It wasn’t. It was a disaster. Orion does know what he is talking about, but he would rather dissimilate than admit he was wrong.

And Orion now stands with Stalin, who said, “A single murder is a tragedy; but a million murders is a statistic.”

109

Relativity isn’t a choice.

It is a fact of reality.

You can DISPUTE a fact, but you can’t disagree with it.

Things are relative BY NATURE, not because we choose them to be.

Let’s hear you dispute the fact of relativism.

I’ll gladly take you on in this debate.

Why not settle it, once and for all?

Let’s have the relativists debate the realists/platonists.

Orion and I will be team captains for the former side.

P.S. Stalin was right

110

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Secondly, you have neither understanding of sovereignty nor secession. Lincoln had no right to force a union on the South. Lincoln cared neither for slaves nor black people and stated he would keep the union in tact with or without slavery.

Incorrect, again.

If he’s incorrect, it’s your DUTY to point out the flaws in his argument.

You adopt the demeanor of a lazy, pedantic bum in all your posts. You’re fond of criticizing others, but not explaining your own views (or rebuking theirs). That’s your distinction on this forum.

Why don’t you argue with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lincoln and the Civil War:

What a dumb, old codger you must be. A self-satisfied asshole like you must be considerably overweight.[/quote]

thunderbolt certainly needs no help from me.

But I will tell you that you are seriously misguided, and badly served, by reading the crap on LewRockwell, a nest of squirrels with bogus notions of history, especially in this field. Each assertion by DiLorenzo is distorted in the way that only historical cranks and loonies can envision as truth.

Nothing here is worthy of contesting; it is so wrong it cannot even be tested!

But, whatever your age and station, I wonder if you, Nommy, are so far beyond the fringe that you cannot be redeemed. Read some books–and not this masticated pabum for The Believers.

111

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Relativity isn’t a choice.

It is a fact of reality.

You can DISPUTE a fact, but you can’t disagree with it.

Things are relative BY NATURE, not because we choose them to be.

Let’s hear you dispute the fact of relativism.

I’ll gladly take you on in this debate.[/quote]

Why would I waste my time on this type of drivel?
Debate that.

112

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Secondly, you have neither understanding of sovereignty nor secession. Lincoln had no right to force a union on the South. Lincoln cared neither for slaves nor black people and stated he would keep the union in tact with or without slavery.

Incorrect, again.

If he’s incorrect, it’s your DUTY to point out the flaws in his argument.

You adopt the demeanor of a lazy, pedantic bum in all your posts. You’re fond of criticizing others, but not explaining your own views (or rebuking theirs). That’s your distinction on this forum.

Why don’t you argue with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lincoln and the Civil War:

What a dumb, old codger you must be. A self-satisfied asshole like you must be considerably overweight.

thunderbolt certainly needs no help from me.

But I will tell you that you are seriously misguided, and badly served, by reading the crap on LewRockwell, a nest of squirrels with bogus notions of history, especially in this field. Each assertion by DiLorenzo is distorted in the way that only historical cranks and loonies can envision as truth.

Nothing here is worthy of contesting; it is so wrong it cannot even be tested!

But, whatever your age and station, I wonder if you, Nommy, are so far beyond the fringe that you cannot be redeemed. Read some books–and not this masticated pabum for The Believers.[/quote]

You cannot refute a closed circle by positing another closed circle. It’s like having two duelists making thrusts in separate rooms.

You’re asking me to substitute one set of “lies” for another set of “lies”.

I’ve read books. You don’t like the ones I’ve read? Too bad. What makes YOUR books any better than mine? What if I don’t like YOUR books? Why couldn’t I turn around every statement you made about my beliefs and apply it to your own? In other words, what OBJECTIVE criterion can you produce to show that YOUR opinions are better than mine? Do I need to put together your argument for you?

Lew Rockwell has fantastic, phenomenal, extremely lucid articles. You disagree? PROVE ME WRONG.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Why would I waste my time on this type of drivel?
Debate that.[/quote]

I have no idea “why” you would, I know only that you already have.

So get to answering my question, you intellectual peon.

113

Interesting article in Reason why Ron failed to come in ahead of Rudy.

With respect the closing mention of Murphy’s Taproom, the de facto Paul bar in Manchester, I sat at the bar at Murphy’s drinking Guinness and watching the primary returns come in. The mood was somber, but the crowd was pretty thin. Down the bar from me was a blogger in a black beret webcasting. She seemed pretty perky.

114

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…

Has no chance…yes.
Had no chance? Not even close.[/quote]

You’re correct. He had a very small chance, much like Bill Richardson had a very small chance to win the Democratic nomination or Tom Tancredo had a very small chance to win the Republican nomination.

His odds, according to the betting markets, which at the very least reflect conventional wisdom were never above 9.5%. See Intrade’s contract for RonPaul2008RepublicanNominee: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1199924841619&grpID=95#

For comparison, Tom Tancredo had a high of 5% http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1199924841619&grpID=95# and Bill Richardson had a high of 9.9% http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1199925018540&grpID=95#

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Here’s what he “had”, prior to last week:

-Extensive grassroots organizations in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other states (so we were told).[/quote]

So does Ralph Nader.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
-Dozens of prime time appearances on all the major news networks - talk shows, debate shows, etc…He was covered repeatedly by every media outlet, an absolute FIRST for any libertarian in this country and almost unheard of for a “fringe candidate”.[/quote]

He’s running as a Republican. And also, “fringe” candidates get attention if they’re interesting.

But these don’t translate into votes necessarily. If the coverage was on what a great president he would be, that would be one thing; if it was highlighting nutballery or the nutballery of a contingent of his supporters, the coverage could actually have hurt his overall chances.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
-20 million dollars raised in the last quarter, with two record breaking single-day fundraisers occuring on consecutive months.[/quote]

This is probably the one main factor that is actually significant on this list - lots of people gave him money. Looks as if they weren’t that successful at convincing their friends to vote for him though.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
-He had participated in every significant Republican debate held up to that point.[/quote]

Pretty much all the candidates participated in the early debates. The % cut-offs occur later.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
-An impressive string of wins in local polls held all over the country, as well as the distinction of having won nearly every online poll since May.

-A respectable showing of 5th place in the Iowa Straw Poll, back in August.[/quote]

I explained at the time these didn’t mean anything because they were easily manipulated by motivated supporters. LIFTICVS disagreed…

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Conventional wisdom on Ron Paul’s chances has come full circle. When he first started, everyone said, “He has no chance”. Then, at the peak of his surge, the CW changed to, “Maybe he can do it”. Now, unfortunately, we’re back to “no chance”.

But to pretend that it was “no chance” all along would make you FLAT OUT WRONG, sir.

Ron Paul HAD a chance and that chance is now gone.
That’s the truth of the matter.[/quote]

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1199924841619&grpID=95#

It went from just about 0% to just under 10% and back down to just about 3%. I don’t know about you, but I don’t pack an umbrella if The Weather Channel website tells me there’s a 10% chance of precipitation today…

115

I wasn’t using Intrade’s odds, I was using my own.

And predicting politics is not the same as predicting the weather…

Btw, I’m sure you know that Gambling911 had him higher, if we’re going to go down that route.

He had a betterr chance than either Richardson or Tancredo because he surpassed both of them. He started at the bottom and nearly broke into the top tier.

116

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Interesting article in Reason why Ron failed to come in ahead of Rudy.

With respect the closing mention of Murphy’s Taproom, the de facto Paul bar in Manchester, I sat at the bar at Murphy’s drinking Guinness and watching the primary returns come in. The mood was somber, but the crowd was pretty thin. Down the bar from me was a blogger in a black beret webcasting. She seemed pretty perky.[/quote]

That’s a great, informative piece.

Something obviously went wrong.

What we were being told did not mesh with what came to pass.

117

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

If he’s incorrect, it’s your DUTY to point out the flaws in his argument.

You adopt the demeanor of a lazy, pedantic bum in all your posts. You’re fond of criticizing others, but not explaining your own views (or rebuking theirs). That’s your distinction on this forum.[/quote]

Dumbest post I have read in months.

I have addressed this argument so many times, I didn’t want to detract from yet another thread rehashing the piss-poor arguments and stupid revisionism w/r/t to Rothbardian libertarians and the Civil War. It has been done many times - go do a search.

Don’t think I have addressed the issue? Ask Headhunter. Or the good Doctor. Or Fighting Irish. Or Varqanir. Or anyone who has participated in the discussion.

And the pathetic charge that “I don’t explain my views” - hilarious, child. You think that will stick, little fellow?

Oh, and didn’t you whine not too long ago that you weren’t going to engage me anymore? Poor baby - you never stop sniveling, do you?

[quote]Why don’t you argue with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lincoln and the Civil War:

What a dumb, old codger you must be.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pithyphrase.htm[/quote]

Shouldn’t you be taking your own advice and explaining your arguments rather than appealing to authority? One day when you grow up - if you grow up, my money is taking the under on that - you will realize you won’t get far linking to Lew Rockwell every time someone makes an argument.

Keep trying, Al - it is hilarious to watch.

118

Re: the Ron Paul newsletter issue, former Reason editor and very smart lady Virginia Postrel had this to say, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

[i]Libertarians Fall Off Turnip Truck

Thanks to The New Republic, libertarians who weren’t paying attention in the 1990s, don’t read Texas Monthly, and didn’t do their candidate research have now discovered that Ron Paul said–or, more likely, allowed to be said in his name (probably by Lew Rockwell)–nasty things in his newsletters. Much reaction can be found at Hit & Run, as well as Andrew Sullivan’s blog and The Volokh Conspiracy. The disclosures are not news to me, nor is the Paul campaign’s dismissive reaction a surprise. When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you’re not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan.[/i]

ADDENDUM:

and Virginia Postrel

[i] The Libertarian Turnip Truck, Cont’d
In response to my post below about Ron Paul, reader Bill Sullivan writes:

"My wife and I were big Ron Paul supporters (until yesterday, in fact). We're also 29 and 30 years old, which means we weren't paying attention to Ron Paul in the 90's. We donated money to the campaign, and I suppose we failed to do the due diligence on Paul, as we didn't dig through archives of his old newsletters. We feel terrifically betrayed, not only by Ron Paul, but by older libertarians like yourself for not publicly warning us about him.

If you knew he was such bad news and that he was becoming one of the biggest mainstream representatives of libertarian thought, why didn’t you warn us? I’ve been reading your work for about ten years, and I consider you a very fair and smart writer and if you had given a public warning about Ron Paul, I, for one, would have listened.

But now my wife and I and probably thousands of other young libertarians and libertarian sympathizers have been tricked into supporting something that sickens me. Even your colleague at the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan, was taken in among lots of other public people. I’m stunned by what Ron Paul turned out to be, but I’m also stunned that waited to mention him until it was too late to do any good."

Bill makes a good point. Someone should have told him. There are plenty of people who get paid to do that sort of thing. I did not mean to criticize the essentially apolitical people like him and his wife who heard some good things from Paul and decided to support him.

As I told Bill in an email, I was never particularly interested in the Paul campaign, which I considered a fringe effort in both its chances (nil) and much of its rhetoric (too many conspiracies). Rightly or wrongly, I didn’t consider Paul “one of the biggest mainstream representatives of libertarian thought.” I’m not sure whether I would have written about him if I had. Life is short, I don’t make my living as a professional libertarian any more, and I don’t feel responsible for commenting on every libertarian-related development that comes along.

These days, I am more interested in understanding culture and economics than focusing on policy, much less policing the libertarian movement. Plus, as the Paulites will be quick to note, I disagree with Paul on his sexiest issue, the Iraq war (and on his second sexiest issue, opposition to immigration).

I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I’ll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn’t do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul’s newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul’s populist appeals. (Note that by “cosmopolitan” I do not mean “Jewish.” I mean cosmopolitan.)

I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul’s record and ideas seriously. As for Andrew Sullivan, his political infatuations are not his strong point as a commentator. [/i]

Note: internal links omitted.

119

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dumbest post I have read in months.

I have addressed this argument so many times, I didn’t want to detract from yet another thread rehashing the piss-poor arguments and stupid revisionism w/r/t to Rothbardian libertarians and the Civil War. It has been done many times - go do a search.

Don’t think I have addressed the issue? Ask Headhunter. Or the good Doctor. Or Fighting Irish. Or Varqanir. Or anyone who has participated in the discussion.

And the pathetic charge that “I don’t explain my views” - hilarious, child. You think that will stick, little fellow?

Oh, and didn’t you whine not too long ago that you weren’t going to engage me anymore? Poor baby - you never stop sniveling, do you?

Why don’t you argue with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lincoln and the Civil War:

What a dumb, old codger you must be.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pithyphrase.htm

Shouldn’t you be taking your own advice and explaining your arguments rather than appealing to authority? One day when you grow up - if you grow up, my money is taking the under on that - you will realize you won’t get far linking to Lew Rockwell every time someone makes an argument.

Keep trying, Al - it is hilarious to watch.[/quote]

I do explain “my arguments” - but this is not one of them. Regardless, I’m perfectly within my rights to admonish you for being derelict in your responsibility to provide LIFTICVSMAXIMVS with a proper reply.

As far as appeal to authority is concerned, it becomes a valid tactic precisely when one participant in a discussion refuses to address another on the basis of their identity.

I figured, if LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wasn’t good enough for you to respond to, perhaps you might deem Mr. Napolitano to be worthy of your time. Remember: You’re the one who dodged the argument in the first place. If you run from your dad to escape punishment then you’ll end up getting a reckoning from the Sheriff. That is, unless your dad IS the Sheriff.

I link Lew Rockwell seldomly - not often - and even that type of argumentation-via-proxy is a more respectable approach than your elitist position of ignoring your opponents.

120

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

I do explain “my arguments” - but this is not one of them. Regardless, I’m perfectly within my rights to admonish you for being derelict in your responsibility to provide LIFTICVSMAXIMVS with a proper reply.[/quote]

You can “admonish” all you want - I couldn’t care less. It was you threw a hissy and said you didn’t want to engage me anymore.

As for Lifticus, I don’t owe him a “duty” - but had he requested one, I would have directed him to do a search.

Remember, we live in a world of no moral absolutes - I don’t have any “responsibilities” to Lifticus. But now I am just having fun at your expense.

Not really, but was is even funnier is that the link is just some guy quoting Napolitano saying “Lincoln knew the war was unconstitutional”, something Napolitano said in a book he wrote. The link wasn’t even an argument defending your point.

Heh.

As for me not addressing Lifticus because of his “identity”, I am pretty sure I addressed him by telling him he was incorrect. He is used to that.

A few things:

  1. In order for me to respond to Judge Napolitano, it might make sense for you to actually link to his argument, genius. That said, I have no problem making the argument - I have just done it so much, I’d be repeating myself.

  2. It is impossible for me to have “dodged” the argument, largely because I replied to Lifticus, not you, and if he wants an argument, by God he can have one - and he can save me the trouble of typing with a basic search.

Ask any of the other posters if I have “dodged” the argument on the issue. Sorry, junior.

  1. I don’t get the creepy Dad/Sheriff talk, sounds like a fetish you need to work out - but no one runs from the likes of you or your airheaded colleagues. The tough talk doesn’t work - you’ve been laughed out of the forums as Al Shades…resorting to the tough talk only reminds us of that comical episode.

I didn’t ignore my opponent - in fact, I answered him directly. If he wants an explanation, I will politely direct him to the place he needs to get it so as not to, as I said earlier, detract from a thread that really isn’t about that topic.