Obama, Hillary, McCain and Paul

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha, yes, Ron Paul is most likely to do what he says of any candidates, I don't think many people deny that.

Problem is, the VAST majority of Americans think his ideas are insane.

The vast majority of Americans are morons.

LOL, elitism at its finest.

You're right, the vast majority of Americans are intelligent and well-educated. That's how Bush won in 2004.

Even the most intelligent person can be hoodwinked.

I guess when George Carlin says it, he's awesome. When I say it, I'm an "elitist."

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre
70% of Americans are bright, intelligent people who understand what's going on in the USA.

More proof that Americans are intelligent.

BFD? So people were hoodwinked in 2003.

Faith plays a huge part in evolution, which can often overrule intelligence. Who are you to question their faith, provided they aren't shoving it upon you?

Again, elitism.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha, yes, Ron Paul is most likely to do what he says of any candidates, I don't think many people deny that.

Problem is, the VAST majority of Americans think his ideas are insane.

The vast majority of Americans are morons.

LOL, elitism at its finest.

You're right, the vast majority of Americans are intelligent and well-educated. That's how Bush won in 2004.

Even the most intelligent person can be hoodwinked.

I guess when George Carlin says it, he's awesome. When I say it, I'm an "elitist."

A comedian uses it as a joke, for satire, and for monetary gain. You use it as a way to beat on others to somehow either feel superior, or get them to vote your side. Both ways are hyperbole but they are very different.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Kuragami
Paul lost for a number of reasons. Bad ideas being one of the Media themes circulated but wasn't the only one:

1. Media
- kept his name out wherever they could from any story or poll
- included him in stories or interviews designed to twist his words
- continually pushed key words in interviews and news stories that painted him as some sort of nut (Objective: if you hear it enough you will start to believe it or question even obvious things he says)
- started a media circus around McCain and filled the news with positive stories and mentioning his name everywhere at the exact time that McCain was about to drop out of the race due to lack of support, money and polling below Paul

2. GOP
- change delegate venue rules last minute to keep out or minimize Paul's supporters
- force the closure of venues to keep Paul's supporters from gaining ground in the delegate selection process
- voter fraud with re-counts showing Paul's votes being disappeared
- allowing straw poll manipulation by rival candidates without so much as a mouse squeak

I wonder what someone would say if they objectively psychoanalyzed this charade you call the "voting process". In my observation this process is anything but geared towards the voter.

1. RP was irrelevent because his ideas were irrelevent and his zealous followers were irrelevent. He, and they, were made so because the ideas espoused, both online and through debates, are ridiculous. The tangential subjects were continually seen as ill-conceived and foolish. As such, he got the time deserved, little.

2. RP supporters were minimized to begin with, because they were minimal. Sorry that you need conspiracy to get some sort of reality.

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Kuragami
Paul lost for a number of reasons. Bad ideas being one of the Media themes circulated but wasn't the only one:

1. Media
- kept his name out wherever they could from any story or poll
- included him in stories or interviews designed to twist his words
- continually pushed key words in interviews and news stories that painted him as some sort of nut (Objective: if you hear it enough you will start to believe it or question even obvious things he says)
- started a media circus around McCain and filled the news with positive stories and mentioning his name everywhere at the exact time that McCain was about to drop out of the race due to lack of support, money and polling below Paul

2. GOP
- change delegate venue rules last minute to keep out or minimize Paul's supporters
- force the closure of venues to keep Paul's supporters from gaining ground in the delegate selection process
- voter fraud with re-counts showing Paul's votes being disappeared
- allowing straw poll manipulation by rival candidates without so much as a mouse squeak

I wonder what someone would say if they objectively psychoanalyzed this charade you call the "voting process". In my observation this process is anything but geared towards the voter.

1. RP was irrelevent because his ideas were irrelevent and his zealous followers were irrelevent. He, and they, were made so because the ideas espoused, both online and through debates, are ridiculous. The tangential subjects were continually seen as ill-conceived and foolish. As such, he got the time deserved, little.

2. RP supporters were minimized to begin with, because they were minimal. Sorry that you need conspiracy to get some sort of reality.

irrelevant, ridiculous, ill-conceived, foolish, zealous, minimal, conspiracy

You would have had a great future in the Office of Special Plans LegendKiller.

Great to have an intelligent discussion with you.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Robor
Paul didn't lose because he wasn't honest. Paul lost because people didn't like his ideas.

Paul dosent pander, and people fear real change.

No, he doesn't pander, because he'd be pandering to 5% of the population, which includes tin foil hat'ers and wingnuts.

LOL, elitism at its finest.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko

:roll:

bamacre
you don't think like me, god you're a moron!

That mentality is a large reason why no one respects Paulbots.

I didn't say the vast majority of people were morons because they won't vote for Ron Paul. But thanks for twisting my words. They've been morons before Ron Paul ever decided to run for President. Think I am wrong? There's plenty of evidence to support my claim.

I didn't say that most Americans are geniuses, just that the over-zealous fans, such as yourself, actually turn people off to him. Not only do you flood every political discussion (hence the name, Paulbot), there IS an absurd sense of elitism amongst many Ron Paul fans.

I'm telling you nothing you haven't heard before, but then again, we're still getting crythreads from Paulbots, so we might as well continue the circle.

 

[Lemon law]

Its not as if Ron Paul lied, its just the fact that these kind of Libertarian ideas have never been really been put into practice in the history of the world. So no one can honestly say if they will work or will instantly flop flatter than a pancake. But they just did not meet the sniff test with about 96% of the voters.

End of story. Back to the drawing board, prove that you have at least a working pilot model before you try to sell this to the most powerful country on the planet.
Otherwise its just more pie in the sky and Bob Barr is now where all the Ron Paul hopes need to go.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Kuragami

irrelevant, ridiculous, ill-conceived, foolish, zealous, minimal, conspiracy

You would have had a great future in the Office of Special Plans LegendKiller.

Great to have an intelligent discussion with you.

So you say.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Robor
Paul didn't lose because he wasn't honest. Paul lost because people didn't like his ideas.

Paul dosent pander, and people fear real change.

No, he doesn't pander, because he'd be pandering to 5% of the population, which includes tin foil hat'ers and wingnuts.

LOL, elitism at its finest.

If it weren't true then RP woulda had more than 5% and people like you wouldn't be running around screaming about the gold standard getting smacked around by people like me.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure you can rank Obama when it comes to credibility. He has too short of a record.
We can't go back and look at his previous positions and see where he changed his mind.

Voting for Obama is a big risk. He could turn out to be exactly what he claims he is, or he could turn out totally different.
At least with McCain we have a long record to look at and can guess and what he will be like as President.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For once I agree with PJ 100%, we can guess that McCain will be too much like GWB and that is a damning statement to make. Making Obama a no brainer far better choice.

PJ, you and the GOP did not listen to us GWB&co critics, and now the GOP is going to pay the price for it. You already got that big shot fired across the bow on 11/6/06, the GOP still did not wise up, again putting GWB political power before results, and now the final end will come on 11/4/08.

I doubt those GOP Senators and Congressmen who fail to win re election will learn a damn thing from it either, but they will be out of office and will no longer matter.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
70% of Americans are bright, intelligent people who understand what's going on in the USA.

More proof that Americans are intelligent.

BFD? So people were hoodwinked in 2003.

Faith plays a huge part in evolution, which can often overrule intelligence. Who are you to question their faith, provided they aren't shoving it upon you?

Again, elitism.

Hoodwinked? By who? How?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha, yes, Ron Paul is most likely to do what he says of any candidates, I don't think many people deny that.

Problem is, the VAST majority of Americans think his ideas are insane.

The vast majority of Americans are morons.

LOL, elitism at its finest.

You're right, the vast majority of Americans are intelligent and well-educated. That's how Bush won in 2004.

Even the most intelligent person can be hoodwinked.

I guess when George Carlin says it, he's awesome. When I say it, I'm an "elitist."

A comedian uses it as a joke, for satire, and for monetary gain. You use it as a way to beat on others to somehow either feel superior, or get them to vote your side. Both ways are hyperbole but they are very different.

Stop twisting my words, please. I NEVER said people were morons because they don't vote for who I like politically.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha, yes, Ron Paul is most likely to do what he says of any candidates, I don't think many people deny that.

Problem is, the VAST majority of Americans think his ideas are insane.

The vast majority of Americans are morons.

:roll:

bamacre
you don't think like me, god you're a moron!

That mentality is a large reason why no one respects Paulbots.

I didn't say the vast majority of people were morons because they won't vote for Ron Paul. But thanks for twisting my words. They've been morons before Ron Paul ever decided to run for President. Think I am wrong? There's plenty of evidence to support my claim.

I didn't say that most Americans are geniuses, just that the over-zealous fans, such as yourself, actually turn people off to him. Not only do you flood every political discussion (hence the name, Paulbot), there IS an absurd sense of elitism amongst many Ron Paul fans.

I'm telling you nothing you haven't heard before, but then again, we're still getting crythreads from Paulbots, so we might as well continue the circle.

Oh, I'm flooding the boards with "crythreads?" Now YOU are being ridiculous. I haven't posted a single Ron Paul thread in months I imagine.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not as if Ron Paul lied, its just the fact that these kind of Libertarian ideas have never been really been put into practice in the history of the world.

Uhhh, what country are you living in?

The Constitution was never practiced?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
70% of Americans are bright, intelligent people who understand what's going on in the USA.

More proof that Americans are intelligent.

BFD? So people were hoodwinked in 2003.

Faith plays a huge part in evolution, which can often overrule intelligence. Who are you to question their faith, provided they aren't shoving it upon you?

Again, elitism.

Hoodwinked? By who? How?

Please, the amount of bullshit spewed by Bushco in 2003 hoowinked a lot of people, myself included.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
70% of Americans are bright, intelligent people who understand what's going on in the USA.

More proof that Americans are intelligent.

BFD? So people were hoodwinked in 2003.

Faith plays a huge part in evolution, which can often overrule intelligence. Who are you to question their faith, provided they aren't shoving it upon you?

Again, elitism.

Hoodwinked? By who? How?

Please, the amount of bullshit spewed by Bushco in 2003 hoowinked a lot of people, myself included.

I cannot remember where Bush or Cheney or Rice ever said that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Please, refresh my memory.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not as if Ron Paul lied, its just the fact that these kind of Libertarian ideas have never been really been put into practice in the history of the world.

Uhhh, what country are you living in?

The Constitution was never practiced?

The Constitution was a framework that included, but not exclusively, some of the rights of the people and methodologies for running the government. As time adapted, so did the form of government, according to the people's will. Provided that the people are still represented in their desire for the goods and services the government uses, then there is no problem with those goods or services.

You only have to look at some of the endevours and ambitions of the founding fathers to see that they went far outside of the mandate "foundation" of the Constitution in wielding federal power.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
70% of Americans are bright, intelligent people who understand what's going on in the USA.

More proof that Americans are intelligent.

BFD? So people were hoodwinked in 2003.

Faith plays a huge part in evolution, which can often overrule intelligence. Who are you to question their faith, provided they aren't shoving it upon you?

Again, elitism.

Hoodwinked? By who? How?

Please, the amount of bullshit spewed by Bushco in 2003 hoowinked a lot of people, myself included.

I cannot remember where Bush or Cheney or Rice ever said that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Please, refresh my memory.

Well that's a bit of a quandary. You're right to say they never explicitly said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but they unrelentingly mentioned them in the same breath. So did the media. You can see the change in attitude through the polls. During 2001, few people believed that Iraq and Al Queda were linked, but by the time the war came around it was over 70%.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Well that's a bit of a quandary. You're right to say they never explicitly said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but they unrelentingly mentioned them in the same breath. So did the media. You can see the change in attitude through the polls. During 2001, few people believed that Iraq and Al Queda were linked, but by the time the war came around it was over 70%.

Did you ever think that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The Constitution was a framework that included, but not exclusively, some of the rights of the people and methodologies for running the government. As time adapted, so did the form of government, according to the people's will. Provided that the people are still represented in their desire for the goods and services the government uses, then there is no problem with those goods or services.

You only have to look at some of the endevours and ambitions of the founding fathers to see that they went far outside of the mandate "foundation" of the Constitution in wielding federal power.

Yeah, ok, that doesn't prove LL's statement correct.

And I wouldn't say that the adaption of our government and laws have been to due to the "will of the people." Certainly so in some cases, but certainly not in many others.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not as if Ron Paul lied, its just the fact that these kind of Libertarian ideas have never been really been put into practice in the history of the world. So no one can honestly say if they will work or will instantly flop flatter than a pancake. But they just did not meet the sniff test with about 96% of the voters.

End of story. Back to the drawing board, prove that you have at least a working pilot model before you try to sell this to the most powerful country on the planet.
Otherwise its just more pie in the sky and Bob Barr is now where all the Ron Paul hopes need to go.

You are wrong because of lot of them have been tried, just not all at the same time.

We tried the defense begins at the boarder thing in the 1920s and 30s when we tried to stay out of European affairs and it led to WW 2.

We also tried many of his economic ideas in the past as well.
Many of the policies and institutions he rages against were created because of problems that existed prior to their creation.

What is a shame is that many mainstream libertarian ideas would be very popular with the majority of Americans, however with Paul you don't get past his looney ideas to get to the good ones.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We tried the defense begins at the boarder thing in the 1920s and 30s when we tried to stay out of European affairs and it led to WW 2.

WW1 led to WW2. It was not our non-interventionism that led to WW2.

Besides, we were attacked by Japan. We were attacked by AQ, and Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't remember Iraq attacking us.

We also tried many of his economic ideas in the past as well.
Many of the policies and institutions he rages against were created because of problems that existed prior to their creation.

Be specific, please.

What is a shame is that many mainstream libertarian ideas would be very popular with the majority of Americans, however with Paul you don't get past his looney ideas to get to the good ones.

If they are so popular, then why do McCain and Obama not share those "other" beliefs? Why did McCain think invading Iraq was a good idea to begin with? Why did Obama change his views on decriminalizing marijuana?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Well that's a bit of a quandary. You're right to say they never explicitly said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but they unrelentingly mentioned them in the same breath. So did the media. You can see the change in attitude through the polls. During 2001, few people believed that Iraq and Al Queda were linked, but by the time the war came around it was over 70%.

Did you ever think that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

I never did myself, but I did believe that the intelligence behind the WMDs was compelling at the time, which violated the UN mandates. Since the UN wasn't doing anything about it something needed to be done, so was my thinking at the time.

That whole argument fell apart when they used false intelligence, misconstrued intelligence and then horribly mismanaged the war.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Well that's a bit of a quandary. You're right to say they never explicitly said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but they unrelentingly mentioned them in the same breath. So did the media. You can see the change in attitude through the polls. During 2001, few people believed that Iraq and Al Queda were linked, but by the time the war came around it was over 70%.

Did you ever think that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

I never did myself, but I did believe that the intelligence behind the WMDs was compelling at the time, which violated the UN mandates. Since the UN wasn't doing anything about it something needed to be done, so was my thinking at the time.

That whole argument fell apart when they used false intelligence, misconstrued intelligence and then horribly mismanaged the war.

Let's not change the direction of the argument here. Back to 70% of Americans thinking Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So, you were not fooled into thinking that Saddam was responsible. I wasn't either. So, I wonder why 70% of Americans were. Could it be, perhaps, and excuse my elitism here, because they aren't too bright?

And do you really think it's a good idea to go to war over UN mandates? I find this dangerous.