[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You want us to prove a negative? [/quote]
I don’t want to prove anything. TB is the one making the claim that Ron Paul supporters are more likely to spam internet polls. I want him to support his assertion by something more tangible than “it’s no secret”.
Is that too much to ask?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You want us to prove a negative?
[/quote]
If you use it as an argument, yes.
Just to demonstrate that you can´t.
One Israeli mad at Ron Paul. Can anyone guess why?
[quote]lixy wrote:
One Israeli mad at Ron Paul. Can anyone guess why?
Because it seemed like Ron Paul was focused more on Israel. However, it was Tim Russert who kept asking about Israel. Paul tried to remind him that we give the Arabs around 3x what we give Israel. And, that we restrain Israel when it’s none of our business (I think he has a point here).
Paul raised the issue of S. Korea, Germany, etc. Russert did take up the S. Korea issue for a minute, but that was it. I’m not sure why he kept Paul on Israel so long. Maybe he was hoping for something more controversial? I saw another interviewer do the exact same thing to him. And he reminded the person that we’re giving money and equipment that ends up being redirected against Israel.
And, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Israel wanted us to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. After all, we’re probably the one’s holding them back from doing so themselves.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
[/quote]
Well, I’d be mad too if I was an Israeli, enjoying the billions of dollars the US sends over, and somebody threatened to cut that off.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…
Well, I’d be mad too if I was an Israeli, enjoying the billions of dollars the US sends over, and somebody threatened to cut that off.[/quote]
Well, ALL the peoples of the world who are subsidized by US tax dollars. Not just Israel, Lixy. All, of them. Not a dime to any Middle-Eastern nation. No Palestinian relief. Hell, if Paul has his way the UN will get cut off. Again, all of them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, ALL the peoples of the world who are subsidized by US tax dollars. Not just Israel, Lixy. All, of them. Not a dime to any Middle-Eastern nation. No Palestinian relief. Hell, if Paul has his way the UN will get cut off. Again, all of them. [/quote]
I beg to differ. You won’t find Arabs complaining about how they were cut off US tax dollars. The tyrants and dictators won’t like it one bit, but the people will very much welcome US economic disengagement. Win-win.
The UN will bitch and moan, but they just have to suck it up. It’s a bloated organization whose staff could really use a dose of reality (my uncle and aunt work for the UN, so I see it firsthand). Plus, the US dollar is not what it used to be, and I’m guessing there’s gonna be more failures in the near future.
So, yeah, I can speak for 90% of my compatriots when I say take your aid money, convert it into rolls of nickels, and… nah, let’s remain civil.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, ALL the peoples of the world who are subsidized by US tax dollars. Not just Israel, Lixy. All, of them. Not a dime to any Middle-Eastern nation. No Palestinian relief. Hell, if Paul has his way the UN will get cut off. Again, all of them.
I beg to differ. You won’t find Arabs complaining about how they were cut off US tax dollars. The tyrants and dictators won’t like it one bit, but the people will very much welcome US economic disengagement. Win-win.
The UN will bitch and moan, but they just have to suck it up. It’s a bloated organization whose staff could really use a dose of reality (my uncle and aunt work for the UN, so I see it firsthand). Plus, the US dollar is not what it used to be, and I’m guessing there’s gonna be more failures in the near future.
So, yeah, I can speak for 90% of my compatriots when I say take your aid money, convert it into rolls of nickels, and… nah, let’s remain civil.[/quote]
Hey, whatever. Israel will do just fine. And, finding themselves less restricted while attempting to please us for their next check. I’ll have to disagree and say the Arabs will be crying the most, in the end.
So anyways, did anyone watch the interview on Meet the Press?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll have to disagree and say the Arabs will be crying the most, in the end.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s why Arab journalists and bloggers are commenting about Ron Paul’s “kookiness”. Oh wait…
The money you give to Arabs is spent on weapons. The only ones actually depending on foreign aid to survive are the Palestinians, but I believe cutting the cord is better in the long term since it’ll provide an incentive for them and the Israelis to seriously work something out.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ll have to disagree and say the Arabs will be crying the most, in the end.
Yeah, that’s why Arab journalists and bloggers are commenting about Ron Paul’s “kookiness”. Oh wait…
The money you give to Arabs is spent on weapons. The only ones actually depending on foreign aid to survive are the Palestinians, but I believe cutting the cord is better in the long term since it’ll provide an incentive for them and the Israelis to seriously work something out.[/quote]
Record this date in history. Lixy and Sloth are in agreement.
Edit: On second thought. I don’t think I’ll advertise polls here. Don’t want to be responsible for a “participate in this poll” trend.
[quote]lixy wrote:
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![/quote]
Heh - we can always count on Lixy whining.
Even Paul supporters have acknowledged this - why is this even a concern?
[quote]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![/quote]
Of course, I never said requiring evidence generally is silly and intellectually dishonest - but asking for “proof” of Paul supporters’ spamming polls when others don’t is a goofy request. You want a double-blind study, I suppose?
No, common sense should point you in the right direction - after all, Paulnuts explicitly waged a guerilla grassroots approach to try and move opinion by trying to convince people all the “noise” of the poll spamming was indicative of larger support. Howard Dean fans did the same thing in 2004 - it’s nothing all that novel - although Paul supporters have amplified that effort.
And by the way, do try and resist the urge to let your Bush Derangement Syndrome from poisoning a thread unrelated to that subject.
A waste of my time - only thing that matters for purposes of this thread and the discussion we were having is that a majority of Americans ain’t going to vote for Ron Paul - his supporters have insured it.
And here is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place - what you object to is not that someone would suggest Ron Paul supporters spammed internet polls, but that my “treatment” of Ron Paul’s supporters.
Sniff.
Why are you so upset that I bash Ron Paul supporters? Why are your precious feelings hurt that I don’t handle them with kid gloves?
And where are your crocodile tears for those people bashing Giuliani supporters?
Part of how Ron Paul supporters define themselves is through their grassroots approach via the internet - it’s common knowledge what they do. Your obsession with “proving Ron Paul supporters are the only ones that spam internet polls” is just another part of your silliness - everyone knows it, and Paul supporters actually are intentionally doing it as part of their strategy to help their man…so who cares?
What do you need outside of the internet poll numbers themselves, especially compared to the traditional polling numbers? What do you need outside of hardcore proof they try and cover their tracks via the Ron Paul forum directive I provided?
Use common sense. If Ron Paul supporters weren’t trying to spam internet polls, then why would they need to cover their tracks to make it look like they weren’t spamming internet polls?
The thing explains itself. My God. Embarrassing.
Please endeavor to do something other than be a worthless gadfly. Supporters of other candidates don’t spam internet polls - if you are sure of it, show me such activity. Doesn’t happen.
Question is: why are your feelings hurt so bad at my directing you to what is common knowledge, easily observable by anyone who follows blogs?
Do you think the Ron Paul supporters are being unfairly treated by noting they engage in internet polling? Poor babies. They made their bed, they can lay in it. They have been spamming since websites started having internet polls for 2008 - and everyone except you is perfectly aware of it.
That is more your problem than anyone else’s.
I defer to Sloth, whom I regard as a bright poster who recently threw his support behind the Ron Paul candidacy:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.[/quote]
I agree with this, as does most people not named Lixy.
Ron Reagan sounding like Ron Paul:
Pat Buchanan on Hannity & Colmes:
And on Glenn Beck:
Great clips, Pat is superb. He’ll get a cabinet appointment in Ron Paul’s administration, I’m sure.
Annnnd here’s RP with Glenn, in his best interview thus far:
Ron Paul on Meet the Press in his toughest interview, by far:
Can’t blame Tim Russert for doing his job.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ron Reagan sounding like Ron Paul:
Ronald Reagan Sounds like Ron Paul - YouTube [/quote]
Yup. See, unlike many of the posters on this forum, I can actually remember what it was like to have a real conservative (named Ron) in the White House.
My fellow Americans, I am here to tell you that it was a different country. Sure, the administration wasn’t perfect, and we supported a lot of slimy characters back then (Noriega and Saddam amongst them), but on the balance, Ronald Reagan’s administration presided over an America that one could be proud of. My only hope is that I live long enough to see that kind of America again.
Nobody knows for certain how the 2008 election is going to turn out (not even JeffR). I will be voting for Ron Paul, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he cannot win. Overwhelming evidence has been wrong before.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nobody knows for certain how the 2008 election is going to turn out (not even JeffR). I will be voting for Ron Paul, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he cannot win. Overwhelming evidence has been wrong before.[/quote]
I’m starting to feel a little glimmer of hope. Ron Paul has now hit double digits (10%) in Iowa according to an American Research Group poll. http://americanresearchgroup.com/
By the way how many people actually vote their primaries? Like a low single-digit % of the population?
Maybe Zogby was right?
"Ron Paul: He’s going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He’s different, he stands out. He’s against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he’s an appealing sort of father figure. He’s his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is “Live Free or Die.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ron Reagan sounding like Ron Paul:
[/quote]
Its even funnier than that, V. Here, Nominal Prospect–who certainly is not old enough to remember Reagan–is posting a film clip about which he understands nothing, to support his candidate. Instead, he offers evidence for his unschooled foolishness.
You, V, may remember that this speech was in Ronny’s General Electric to Barry Goldwater transition (1964), when he supported the conservative laundry list of lower taxes, balanced budgets, small government, etc.
And in 24 years, after his election, Ronny supported foreign interventions (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, etc. etc.), increased, massive defense spending; and he also lowered some taxes and in so doing, increased the national debt to new records. And the government grew nevertheless. He abandoned all that “Paul-like” crap because, love him or hate him, he had practical goals and they were prioritized: defense, defense, defense, and then, and only then, tax relief and smaller government.
So any attempt by the Paulnuts to enrobe Paul in Ronny’s bloody cloak is a farce, and underscores their youth and ignorance.
(You and Sloth and Mikeyali excepted, of course; not all idealists are fools, I warrant. But some fools mistake crap for ideals.)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m starting to feel a little glimmer of hope. Ron Paul has now hit double digits (10%) in Iowa according to an American Research Group poll. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ [/quote]
One thing is certain: With 20 million to spend, he’s going to be on perfectly level ground with all the other candidates (and ahead of some, like Huckabee) in Iowa and NH. The race is his to win. If he can get those two states, the momentum will be incredible.
Zogby may well be right. This could be historic.