Sportsbook has reduced Ron Paul’s odds to 4 - 1.
Hes is now ranked number 5 by gamblers.
http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/Republican+Party-betting-odds-753.html
http://laist.com/2007/10/01/pajamas_media_deletes_ron_paul.php
Anyone knows how legit’ that story is?
[quote]lixy wrote:
http://laist.com/2007/10/01/pajamas_media_deletes_ron_paul.php
Anyone knows how legit’ that story is?[/quote]
Pajamas Media editors have noted that the number of weekly votes in our poll has diminished drastically from the tens of thousands cast at the outset. For months now, many readers have been complaining to us about the increasing inutility of the poll because of vote-swarming by second tier candidates. Many voters have lost interest and are not participating. Websites that had run our widget were no longer doing so.
Makes perfect sense. Why do polls if people are going to cheat?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
http://laist.com/2007/10/01/pajamas_media_deletes_ron_paul.php
Anyone knows how legit’ that story is?
Pajamas Media editors have noted that the number of weekly votes in our poll has diminished drastically from the tens of thousands cast at the outset. For months now, many readers have been complaining to us about the increasing inutility of the poll because of vote-swarming by second tier candidates. Many voters have lost interest and are not participating. Websites that had run our widget were no longer doing so.
Makes perfect sense. Why do polls if people are going to cheat?[/quote]
Now Ron Paul supporters have been accused of that quite often, even when it was not possible.
If it is possible to limit the calls that are counted to one telephone it should be possible to limit it to one per IP adress.
To remove the frontrunners will hardly improve their accuracy.
[quote]orion wrote:
If it is possible to limit the calls that are counted to one telephone it should be possible to limit it to one per IP adress.
[/quote]
It is. It can be taken even further for networks that utilize IP sharing/pooling by tracking the MAC address on the network device. The only downside is in the public domain where hardware is shared there can only be one vote. Some polls have gotten around this making voters use a legit email address in which they must respond to an acknowledgment email in order for their vote to count.
To the initiated individual with knowledge of IP spoofing – i.e., all Ron Paul supporters – it is a simple matter of writing a script that subverts these “security” measures.
One must question if it is such a simple matter of writing “spamming scripts” why are Ron Paul supporters the only ones accused of cheating?
We all know Paul is against the war in Afghanistan. We also know he voted for the war.
At first I assumed he had decided we spent enough time there and it was time to pull out, which might be a reasonable approach.
I have since found out he has always been against the liberation of Afghanistan and he allowed himself to be pressured to vote for it.
This is the worst possible combination in a leader.
What do the Paulies say about this?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We all know Paul is against the war in Afghanistan. We also know he voted for the war.
At first I assumed he had decided we spent enough time there and it was time to pull out, which might be a reasonable approach.
I have since found out he has always been against the liberation of Afghanistan and he allowed himself to be pressured to vote for it.
This is the worst possible combination in a leader.
What do the Paulies say about this? [/quote]
How about you ask Paul instead of assuming and speculating?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We all know Paul is against the war in Afghanistan. We also know he voted for the war.
At first I assumed he had decided we spent enough time there and it was time to pull out, which might be a reasonable approach.
I have since found out he has always been against the liberation of Afghanistan and he allowed himself to be pressured to vote for it.
This is the worst possible combination in a leader.
What do the Paulies say about this?
How about you ask Paul instead of assuming and speculating?[/quote]
I learned the truth of his record and it is worse than my assumption.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We all know Paul is against the war in Afghanistan. We also know he voted for the war.
[/quote]
He did not vote for the war. He is for the use of “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” as provided by Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution.
[quote]
At first I assumed he had decided we spent enough time there and it was time to pull out, which might be a reasonable approach.
I have since found out he has always been against the liberation of Afghanistan and he allowed himself to be pressured to vote for it.
This is the worst possible combination in a leader.
What do the Paulies say about this? [/quote]
We did not go to Afghanistan to liberate people…at least that was not the intended mission. It was to hunt and capture/kill UBL.
The worst possible combination of traits in a leader is “knowing” one’s actions are always correct and that it is his or her moral obligation to bring about change that is based on arbitrary subjective reasoning.
If people want liberation from a government it’s those citizens’ responsibility to take action as they are whom ultimately have to live under any new system that is put in its place – usually more tyranny.
It is completely acceptable to want better conditions for other people – one could even call it moral – however, we have no legal right to do so under the US constitution.
We can see how our meddling has hurt us – why would we continue with this course of action?
You neocons will kill this country with your dangerous line of reasoning.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I learned the truth of his record and it is worse than my assumption.
[/quote]
It seems like you came across a misrepresentation of the legislation that put into place US military involvement in Afghanistan and then spun it to mean what you wanted. I’d like to see the evidence these “truths” are derived from.
Ron Paul has the clearest voting record in the history of Congress and has always voted consistently with his principles of non-intervention. Non-intervention does not preclude apprehending criminals.
The decision to go to Afghanistan wasn’t to liberate those people…that was just a consequence of going in and killing the supporters of al Qaeda.
Try again.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We all know Paul is against the war in Afghanistan. We also know he voted for the war.
He did not vote for the war. He is for the use of “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” as provided by Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution.
…[/quote]
He certainly did vote for it.
Ron Paul did not actually support Military intervention in Afghanistan. I was serving as his Senior Political Aide at the time. Myself and another Senior Staffer had to literally threaten to resign to get him to vote for the War in Afghanistan. He dithered til the very last possible moment.
The only thing that pushed him over the edge, was the �??other Senior Staffer�?? telling him straight out that he would absolutely lose Victoria, and have no shot at reelection if he would not vote for the War.
Why the major media has not covered this incident is beyond me. Although, the NY Times did mention it in passing in a feature story about him last month.
Still, it says an awful lot about Ron Paul�??s character or lack thereof. He cared very little, if at all for the victims of 9/11.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul, R-TX
1997-2003
Then September 11, 2001 hit. My boss, Ron Paul, all of a sudden changed dramatically. Whereas before he was a reasonable non-interventionist, he was now rabidly so.
…
But after Sept. 11, things changed. He became morose. He became bitter, and quite pessimistic.
I had to literally beg him to support the vote authorizing the President to send Troops to Afghanistan. I actually threatened to resign if he did not vote that way. And another key District Staffer, practically threatened to resign, as well. At the last minute Ron voted in favor of the Authorization. I suspected he only did it, cause he knew if he hadn’t he would cause the Republicans in the District to oppose him, and he wouldn’t win reelection.
But 9/11 served as a wake up call for me. I started questioning how it is that I could work for such a man.
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
Statement of Faith
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007
…However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Texas straw poll? OOPS![/quote]
Texas republicans didn’t allow people to vote who were not registered in the last election. There were Ron Paul supported beating the door down. How the heck did Hunter win it–he’s registering 0%?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Still, it says an awful lot about Ron Paul�??s character or lack thereof. He cared very little, if at all for the victims of 9/11.
[/quote]
You’re pretty dumb to make a statement like this. One it is a value judgment, two you don’t understand the consitution at all. A declaration of war was not made. We did not wage a war against Afghanistan.
P.S. I don’t care about the victims of anything. Life sucks!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan…[/quote]
Reluctantly.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Texas straw poll? OOPS!
Texas republicans didn’t allow people to vote who were not registered in the last election. There were Ron Paul supported beating the door down. How the heck did Hunter win it–he’s registering 0%?[/quote]
Apparently they only wanted real Texas voters to vote in the straw poll and not the same small core group of Paul supporters bussed in from out of state.