[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Paul does not need the money…[/quote]
It has nothing to do with need and that is a fallacious statement. It has to do with the fact that certain individuals are held to standards that others are not. This is called having principle.
Why does no one go after killers and manufacturers of death that give millions to HRC and RG? They don’t need the money either. Where is your logic?
Oh, I get it…only people with improper beliefs are wrong not people that actually steal taxpayer money to build destructive weaponry, etc…
Oh, and in case I failed to mention it earlier the reason most of Pauls followers are inexperienced is because they’re young…young males that is.
[/quote]
Lol…you won me over with that one.
You’re right, I haven’t read all the Ron Paul posts. I made an assumption based on those I have read. I just can’t imagine anyone really thinking this guy has a chance (I’m still not convinced that when pressed, those who feign optimism wouldn’t admit the reality of the situation), but, hey, if I’m wrong, so be it – I’ll take your word for it.
I will admit that every time I see a new Ron Paul thread I cringe (which is why I haven’t the energy to read the vast majority of them).
It has nothing to do with need and that is a fallacious statement.[/quote]
It can’t be a “fallacious” statement - it is a factual statement that is either right or wrong. Ron Paul supporters have said Paul has more money that he can spend.
Did you and Lixy skip all the same classes?
Actually, it doesn’t - how many donations have been returned on the basis that it looks unseemly? Not unusual at all. Then to this gem…
This is just ideological drivel - you mean defense companies? You never say. They don’t register as “evil” except to radical wannabes like yourself.
My point was to examine the effect of Paul’s refusal to give back the donation on his electoral chances. As to your “logic”, the logical answer is that neo-Nazis and not viewed the same as a vice president at Lockheed Martin by the electorate - and your painfully stupid suggestion highlights a foolish consistency of treating unlike things alike.
This is silly, of course - in your “relativistic world”, people who steal are no worse than people who don’t…must you keep refuting your own theory? It looks bad.
More to the point, people who vote most certainly measure a candidate’s “improper beliefs” and the beliefs of people associated with them. That is precisely what they are supposed to do when picking a candidate. You have already done so with Rudy Giuliani and HRC - over and over - surely the rest of the electorate enjoys the same privilege?
You should try the real world sometime - it is a fascinating place.
Remember how the polls showing Paul with huge advantages was not the result of Paulnut spamming?
[i]I am sick of people not understanding why we post broken links!
We do this so they can’t track where we are coming from. If they see a couple hundred people voting from this site for Ron in 30min, it makes us look bad.
Trying to follow this story. One problem I’m having is that LGF uses the Robert Taft club as evidence of Paul’s connection to White Supremacy. It seems Ron Paul has spoken there. The only “racism” I’ve been able to find, conncected to this club, is that illegal immigration is a top issue there. Are fellow conservatives on this board comfortable with anti-illegal immigration being labeled as racism? Now, if someone has information otherwise, I’ll be glad to look at it.
Anways, this secret connection to the ‘Neo-nazi’ Robert Taft club, was aired on C-SPAN 2. Here’s a link to Ron’s speech at the club.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Remember how the polls showing Paul with huge advantages was not the result of Paulnut spamming?
[i]I am sick of people not understanding why we post broken links!
We do this so they can’t track where we are coming from. If they see a couple hundred people voting from this site for Ron in 30min, it makes us look bad.
Serious question: Aren’t supporters of every presidential candidate on the same level playing field when it comes to internet polls? If so, why is it that you single out Ron Paul? As far as I know, nobody here claimed internet polls are legit’.
Has anybody else seen the laughable aspect of the anti-Ron Paul people basically raising a conspiracy theory about Ron Paul being associated with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (and the white supremacists, etc.)?
Serious question: Aren’t supporters of every presidential candidate on the same level playing field when it comes to internet polls?[/quote]
Of course they are - that is what we have been saying all along: internet polls are pure touch and go.
Are you kidding? Go back and read the ridiculous arguments being attempted that said that traditional polling was bunk but that internet polling was Gospel.
Courtesy of Lifticus, of course.
Go read “Ron Paul on the Record” - it is illuminating on exactly the issue you are raising.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Are you kidding? Go back and read the ridiculous arguments being attempted that said that traditional polling was bunk but that internet polling was Gospel.
Courtesy of Lifticus, of course.
Go read “Ron Paul on the Record” - it is illuminating on exactly the issue you are raising.[/quote]
Fair enough. Although, I don’t quite understand why you’re bringing it up in this thread if it was already addressed in the “on the record” one.
But you didn’t answer the main point: We all know internet polls are, by their very nature, easy to abuse but why is it that you don’t consider other candidates’ supporters doing just that? Why do you assume Ron Paul’s crowd are the only ones with access to browsers? And if everybody’s doing, basic statistics tells me that it must even out.
Seriously, this has been bugging me for quite some time and I could really use your perspective on it.
Fair enough. Although, I don’t quite understand why you’re bringing it up in this thread if it was already addressed in the “on the record” one.[/quote]
Well, there really is no topical boundaries on the slew of Paul threads - that is the prerogative of the Paul supporters.
What is to consider? The point in directing readers to the Paul forum was only to refute the Paulnuts’ claim that the internet polls weren’t being “spammed”. Supporters of all candidates can spam all they want - no one cares.
What people care about are the silly arguments that “spammed” polls represent an accurate view of political support - and Paulnuts swore the internet poll support was genuine.
Now, of course, we know the spamming was calculated in order to make polls look a certain way. Now we see the Paulnuts with egg on their face after pleading innocence.
Well, that would be wrong - you are assuming consistently similar behavior among candidate supporters who browse the internet. That is a wildly inaccurate assumption.
And more besides - I don’t care if Giuliani supporters spam an internet poll. That isn’t the point - what is the point is that don’t lie about your intentions and your mission.
Paulnuts swear they are all about principle and hate the Machiavellian side of politics - and yet we see them speaking out of two mouths.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What people care about are the silly arguments that “spammed” polls represent an accurate view of political support - and Paulnuts swore the internet poll support was genuine. [/quote]
I see what you mean. But you can understand how throwing in random and uncalled-for bits of hate, can make you seem - to the outside observer - even nuttier than the people you criticize.
Also, I suggest that you start addressing the people who claimed internet polls are legit’. As I’m sure you realize by now that Ron Paul supporters are all across the political spectrum, with a wide range of IQ, faiths, convictions and backgrounds. Lumping them all together under a generic derogatory term reflects poorer on you than it does on them.
Just saying…
Duh! The US population is large enough to consider that is the assumption is valid. When dealing with millions, that is the default assumption. If you have anything that would suggest a flaw in it, tell me. I’m dying to know why that is a “wildly inaccurate assumption”.
It may seem clear in your head but trust me, from where I stand, your statements sound really weird. You are basically saying that you don’t really care whether “Giuliani supporters spam an internet poll”, and at the same time never miss a chance to express your outrage at the hypocrisy of the people behind Ron Paul because they “spam an internet poll”. Did I get this right?
Yeah. Taking pride in internet polls is very silly. There’s alot of spamming going on by some Paul supporters. It’s just not deniable. But, I think he’ll do better than many expect. If he can making a good enough showing to wake up the GoP to the ideals of a smaller government, I’ll be satisfied.
(CBS) His progress has been as gradual as a tortoise on ice, but Ron Paul can no longer be dismissed as the favorite of the fringe, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds.
…
What is to consider? The point in directing readers to the Paul forum was only to refute the Paulnuts’ claim that the internet polls weren’t being “spammed”. Supporters of all candidates can spam all they want - no one cares.
What people care about are the silly arguments that “spammed” polls represent an accurate view of political support - and Paulnuts swore the internet poll support was genuine.
Now, of course, we know the spamming was calculated in order to make polls look a certain way. Now we see the Paulnuts with egg on their face after pleading innocence.
…
Paulnuts swear they are all about principle and hate the Machiavellian side of politics - and yet we see them speaking out of two mouths.[/quote]
“We must not always judge the generality of the opinion by the noise of the acclamation.”
(Edmund Burke (1729 to 1797), Irish philosopher, statesman. Letters on a Regicide Peace, letter 1 (1796), repr. In The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, vol. 9, ed. Paul Langford (1991).)
Like most posturing on the internet, the Paulnuts’ salting of the polls is narcissism; it is meant to validate their lives and ideas, however insipid they may be. Machiavellian, yes; but to what purpose? The illusion of popular support raises money, and a sense of legitimacy which, in normal situations, Ron Paul could never claim.
Before Howard Dean (remember his internet glory?), wingnut politicians would be winnowed out, or they would have to appeal to minority media, extremists (e.g. “Storm Front”), fear mongering, etc. Now, we have the Internet, and manufactured acclaim, providing perpetual Paul noise.
I see what you mean. But you can understand how throwing in random and uncalled-for bits of hate, can make you seem - to the outside observer - even nuttier than the people you criticize.[/quote]
Uh, right, Lixy - I come across as nuttier by virtue of my comments?
I realize you have this passive-aggressive appeal to wanting me to be all touchy-feely with random political opponents, but you aren’t purchasing anything with your claim that my comments are “wackier than thou”. My direct attacks on the Paulnuts have come straight from a desire to see some common sense - the exact opposite of “nutty”.
I’d stop on that one - I suspect that is a smaller range than you suggest.
No it doesn’t, Lixy - and you are becoming more transparent with every post. You keep trying to lecture me that my approach has given the Paulnuts some high ground as far as manners or etiquette - and I’d recommend you try a different tact. It ain’t working.
If you want me to respect the Paulnuts, no problem - but I won’t dole it out without merit. I like to call spades spades, to be frank - some of the nonsense around here attributed to Paulnuts deserves the scorn myself and others have heaped on.
I simply don’t think you are in much of a position to opine on how we all should communicate with another. You’ve been one of the worst offenders - let’s not pretend otherwise.
Folks interested in other political candidates simply don’t invest the time and effort into trying to spam internet polls - Pualnuts treat his candidacy like a “revolution”, others may read and vote, but they don’t exactly block off time out of their day to make sure their candidate wins a certain internet poll.
Ergo, Paul supporters across the board act very differently than supporters of other candidates. Same thing happened with Howard Dean.
I can only explain this as plainly as I can so many times:
Paul supporters take great pains to spam internet polls
Paul supporters then claim that the numbers on the internet polls represent true political support, not the result of a concerted effort to inflate the numbers in a manipulable poll
Paul supporters aren’t hypocritical because they spam polls - they are hypocritical because they spam polls then claim not to, a political hackery that they claim to be too principled to engage in.
Spam away, I don’t care - but after you do, don’t pretend as though you didn’t do it. That has been the whole stupid event - for some reason, the Paulnuts seem to think no one could figure out the scheme.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Folks interested in other political candidates simply don’t invest the time and effort into trying to spam internet polls - Pualnuts treat his candidacy like a “revolution”, others may read and vote, but they don’t exactly block off time out of their day to make sure their candidate wins a certain internet poll. [/quote]
We’re running in circles.
I know what you think. What I don’t understand, is why you don’t substantiate it. You claim that Paul supporters are more likely to spam internet polls, committed and militant, but I have yet to see evidence of that. If you got any, I encourage you to share. If it’s just a hunch, say so.
This conversation - whatever its worth in the beginning - is headed nowhere, on the simple basis that if you think you have no “evidence” of Paul’s supporters acting differently, you simply aren’t paying any attention to what is under your nose. This idea that you need “substantiation” is, well, silly and intellectually dishonest.
It’s no secret that Paul supporters spam internet polls - we have all known it for months, and the Ron Paul forum admitted what they were up to in the link above.
Pretending that you can’t quite see any difference in Paul supporters and others is patently transparent - we get it, you continue a low-grade propaganda mission to try and influence voting Americans to opt for an antiwar candidate.
Paul never was a viable candidate - his politics are fringe and his resume littered with too much kookiness - but one factor that truly damned his chances were his supporters. Not every single one, mind you, but they insured that Paul was completely unpalatable to the general electorate. If I were Paul, I would be very disappointed in the statements and behavior done and said in my name - and for libertarianism’s prospects generally.
We have been “clear” since your first posts in these forums - perhaps too clear for your intentions.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This conversation - whatever its worth in the beginning - is headed nowhere, on the simple basis that if you think you have no “evidence” of Paul’s supporters acting differently, you simply aren’t paying any attention to what is under your nose. This idea that you need “substantiation” is, well, silly and intellectually dishonest.
It’s no secret that Paul supporters spam internet polls - we have all known it for months, and the Ron Paul forum admitted what they were up to in the link above. [/quote]
I see. It’s some sort of common knowledge and anyone who’s questioning the premise simply hasn’t been “paying any attention to what is under your nose”. How convenient!
Better yet, you call the idea that one needs evidence “silly and intellectually dishonest”. With that attitude, and provided you get rid of your long term memory, you could easily apply for a job in the Bush administration.
If you can’t answer the question, just say so already!
Boohoo, you uncovered my cunning plan, genius. I don’t see why I should “try and influence” anything given that the majority of Americans are opposed to the war on Iraq. I thought they made that clear last year. But that’s another story…
What I don’t understand is why you keep bashing Ron Paul’s supporters, accuse them of being more likely to spam internet polls and at the same time, fail to support your assertions when asked to.
You say Ron Paul has very few supporters, but you also claim they easily overtake supporters of any other candidate in online polls. It’s the second part that I refuse to concede without some proof. Give me something…hell, anything that suggests the population supporting Ron Paul is more likely to “invest the time and effort into trying to spam internet polls”.
I don’t give a damn whether you consider him a viable candidate or not. I’m interested in the reason why you challenged my assumptino that supporters of all candidates are created equal when it comes to spamming (or not spamming) internet polls. If it’s a fact, then you shouldn’t have trouble demonstrating it. If it’s not, then please refrain from presenting it as such.
