The revolution continues...

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...4/ron-pauls-fundr.html

"Paul filed his campaign's required financial reports with the Federal Election Commission over the weekend and said he raised a mere $123,523 in the entire month of March."

Well now it wouldn't be very wise to continue donating tens of millions of dollars when he can't be elected this time around now would it? lol
Paul challenged even Hillary and Obama when he was still in it. None of the other republicans can claim that and they all had MSM coverage. How sad is that?

An orchestrated donation scheme designed to capture headlines hardly puts him in the same league as Hillary or Obama in regards to fundraising.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Of the three remaining candidates besides Ron Paul, who would the Dr endorse if he had to? Obviously he wouldn't, because he's all like independent and such, but if he had to pick one...

Paul isn't going to endorse anyone that has a political philosophy that is too significantly different than his own.

Yeah, but suppose hypothetically that he was forced to pick one of the three.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Of the three remaining candidates besides Ron Paul, who would the Dr endorse if he had to? Obviously he wouldn't, because he's all like independent and such, but if he had to pick one...

If any one of them pledged to bringing the troops home as priority and they hadn't voted for the patriot act as even Barack Obama did I'll bet Paul would give them his vote.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...4/ron-pauls-fundr.html

"Paul filed his campaign's required financial reports with the Federal Election Commission over the weekend and said he raised a mere $123,523 in the entire month of March."

Well now it wouldn't be very wise to continue donating tens of millions of dollars when he can't be elected this time around now would it? lol
Paul challenged even Hillary and Obama when he was still in it. None of the other republicans can claim that and they all had MSM coverage. How sad is that?

An orchestrated donation scheme designed to capture headlines hardly puts him in the same league as Hillary or Obama in regards to fundraising.

Uhhh...sorry but he was right in line with them just prior to super Tuesday. This with almost no major media help whatsoever.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Of the three remaining candidates besides Ron Paul, who would the Dr endorse if he had to? Obviously he wouldn't, because he's all like independent and such, but if he had to pick one...

Paul isn't going to endorse anyone that has a political philosophy that is too significantly different than his own.

Yeah, but suppose hypothetically that he was forced to pick one of the three.

Obama

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Of the three remaining candidates besides Ron Paul, who would the Dr endorse if he had to? Obviously he wouldn't, because he's all like independent and such, but if he had to pick one...

Paul isn't going to endorse anyone that has a political philosophy that is too significantly different than his own.

Yeah, but suppose hypothetically that he was forced to pick one of the three.

Obama

Thanks for getting by back brother.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If his supporters will bother to vote for him in an election he can't possibly win why not also send him money for an election he can't possibly win?

Bad analogy.

Nah, it's perfectly correct. They're both meaningless gestures at this point, except to RP fanboys that want to distort the PA vote as an indication growing popularity when it's really nothing of the kind.

But, whatever. You guys can make another stab at it in 2012 and be disappointed once more than as well, assuming RP makes it til then.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If his supporters will bother to vote for him in an election he can't possibly win why not also send him money for an election he can't possibly win?

Bad analogy.

Nah, it's perfectly correct. They're both meaningless gestures at this point, except to RP fanboys that want to distort the PA vote as an indication growing popularity when it's really nothing of the kind.

But, whatever. You guys can make another stab at it in 2012 and be disappointed once more than as well, assuming RP makes it til then.

Taking everything into consideration, I wasn't disappointed at all.

But as someone who has defended every single thing this horrible administration has done, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Not at all.

 

[palehorse]

LOL! awww shucks, I sure as heck missed you whacky kids!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If his supporters will bother to vote for him in an election he can't possibly win why not also send him money for an election he can't possibly win?

Bad analogy.

Nah, it's perfectly correct. They're both meaningless gestures at this point, except to RP fanboys that want to distort the PA vote as an indication growing popularity when it's really nothing of the kind.

But, whatever. You guys can make another stab at it in 2012 and be disappointed once more than as well, assuming RP makes it til then.

Taking everything into consideration, I wasn't disappointed at all.

But as someone who has defended every single thing this horrible administration has done, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Not at all.

iow, you had no real response so you had to spew a classic non-sequitur instead, and a really, really stupid and childish one at that.

How typical of the folks like you in here. You guys have done it so often you're actually convinced it's a real argument.

What a shame. But, of course, you wouldn't recognize that because apparently you have no shame.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If his supporters will bother to vote for him in an election he can't possibly win why not also send him money for an election he can't possibly win?

Bad analogy.

Nah, it's perfectly correct. They're both meaningless gestures at this point, except to RP fanboys that want to distort the PA vote as an indication growing popularity when it's really nothing of the kind.

But, whatever. You guys can make another stab at it in 2012 and be disappointed once more than as well, assuming RP makes it til then.

Taking everything into consideration, I wasn't disappointed at all.

But as someone who has defended every single thing this horrible administration has done, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Not at all.

iow, you had no real response so you had to spew a classic non-sequitur instead, and a really, really stupid and childish one at that.

How typical of the folks like you in here. You guys have done it so often you're actually convinced it's a real argument.

What a shame. But, of course, you wouldn't recognize that because apparently you have no shame.

There was really no substance in your post that called for a real response. And what I posted wasn't an argument, just an observation. If you disagree, perhaps you should read what you type. I am sure I am not alone with what I see. If you don't want others to see that you're nothing short of an apologist for perhaps the worst administration in US history, just cancel your account here and stop posting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If his supporters will bother to vote for him in an election he can't possibly win why not also send him money for an election he can't possibly win?

Bad analogy.

Nah, it's perfectly correct. They're both meaningless gestures at this point, except to RP fanboys that want to distort the PA vote as an indication growing popularity when it's really nothing of the kind.

But, whatever. You guys can make another stab at it in 2012 and be disappointed once more than as well, assuming RP makes it til then.

Taking everything into consideration, I wasn't disappointed at all.

But as someone who has defended every single thing this horrible administration has done, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Not at all.

iow, you had no real response so you had to spew a classic non-sequitur instead, and a really, really stupid and childish one at that.

How typical of the folks like you in here. You guys have done it so often you're actually convinced it's a real argument.

What a shame. But, of course, you wouldn't recognize that because apparently you have no shame.

There was really no substance in your post that called for a real response. And what I posted wasn't an argument, just an observation. If you disagree, perhaps you should read what you type. I am sure I am not alone with what I see. If you don't want others to see that you're nothing short of an apologist for perhaps the worst administration in US history, just cancel your account here and stop posting.

If there was no substance then why bother even responding in the first place?

Let me give you a clue. It's not that I'm pro-Bush. The only "pro" I am regarding a politician is pro-Obama. The problem is that you are so far to the deep end of the anti-Bush spectrum that anyone who isn't as anti as you are appears to be a Bush apologist.

iow, the problem is yours, not mine. You might figure that out someday. Probably not anytime in the near future, but it could happen eventually. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. Good luck figuring things out.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not that I'm pro-Bush.

Taking into account every post of your's that I have ever read here, I don't believe that for a second.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not that I'm pro-Bush.

Taking into account every post of your's that I have ever read here, I don't believe that for a second.

I already explained that in the remainder of my post that you decided not to quote. Try reading my entire post.

It's like someone who's entirely anti-drug. They'll designate anyone who occassionally smokes a joint as a "pot-head." That's because it's much easier for them to malign people with labels rather than actually deal with reality and have a reasonable discussion about the issues. Attempts at villianizing people are very popular in this forum as a debate tactic, in case you have't noticed. Or maybe you have noticed and would rather ignore that fact when it suits your purpose?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not that I'm pro-Bush.

Taking into account every post of your's that I have ever read here, I don't believe that for a second.

I already explained that in the remainder of my post that you decided not to quote. Try reading my entire post.

It's like someone who's entirely anti-drug. They'll designate anyone who occassionally smokes a joint as a "pot-head." That's because it's much easier for them to malign people with labels rather than actually deal with reality and have a reasonable discussion about the issues. Attempts at villianizing people are very popular in this forum as a debate tactic, in case you have't noticed. Or maybe you have noticed and would rather ignore that fact when it suits your purpose?

Yeah, read the whole post. Doesn't change my mind. You can say what you want, I read your posts, I know you do nothing but apologize over and over for this administration and the effects they have had on this country.

Good example right on the first page...
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2180495

I could take the time to read back through a lot of your posts, and quote you here and there, but its not worth the time and effort. Again, people see your stances, you post them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not that I'm pro-Bush.

Taking into account every post of your's that I have ever read here, I don't believe that for a second.

I already explained that in the remainder of my post that you decided not to quote. Try reading my entire post.

It's like someone who's entirely anti-drug. They'll designate anyone who occassionally smokes a joint as a "pot-head." That's because it's much easier for them to malign people with labels rather than actually deal with reality and have a reasonable discussion about the issues. Attempts at villianizing people are very popular in this forum as a debate tactic, in case you have't noticed. Or maybe you have noticed and would rather ignore that fact when it suits your purpose?

Yeah, read the whole post. Doesn't change my mind. You can say what you want, I read your posts, I know you do nothing but apologize over and over for this administration and the effects they have had on this country.

Good example right on the first page...
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2180495

I could take the time to read back through a lot of your posts, and quote you here and there, but its not worth the time and effort. Again, people see your stances, you post them.

WTF does that have to do with Bush?

Or did you mean to post the one where I'm supposed ot have some sort of love for people who rape children and somehow I'm the bad guy for having no compassion for them?

Sheesh. Reach much?

 

[fskimospy]

You have to admit the raping thread was pretty classic.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You have to admit the raping thread was pretty classic.

No doubt.

So is this there where I get to designate you a child rape apologist? After all, that's how it works in here. If you aren't against something you're clearly an apologist for it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not that I'm pro-Bush.

Taking into account every post of your's that I have ever read here, I don't believe that for a second.

I already explained that in the remainder of my post that you decided not to quote. Try reading my entire post.

It's like someone who's entirely anti-drug. They'll designate anyone who occassionally smokes a joint as a "pot-head." That's because it's much easier for them to malign people with labels rather than actually deal with reality and have a reasonable discussion about the issues. Attempts at villianizing people are very popular in this forum as a debate tactic, in case you have't noticed. Or maybe you have noticed and would rather ignore that fact when it suits your purpose?

Yeah, read the whole post. Doesn't change my mind. You can say what you want, I read your posts, I know you do nothing but apologize over and over for this administration and the effects they have had on this country.

Good example right on the first page...
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2180495

I could take the time to read back through a lot of your posts, and quote you here and there, but its not worth the time and effort. Again, people see your stances, you post them.

WTF does that have to do with Bush?

Or did you mean to post the one where I'm supposed ot have some sort of love for people who rape children and somehow I'm the bad guy for having no compassion for them?

Sheesh. Reach much?

I posted the correct thread. It has to do with your consistent and concrete apologetic attitude toward the damaging effects of this Bush administration.

Instead of a rational person seeing that the irresponsible use of our military has led to a drastic reduction of good military recruits, you post how its fine and dandy that the military lower its recruiting standards because "ex-cons have a right to be in the army protecting America."

It is just one small example on top of the pile of shit you post here every day. Again, I know I'm not the only one who consistently sees it.

We've got way off topic here, and its my fault. So, I'm gonna quit.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not that I'm pro-Bush.

Taking into account every post of your's that I have ever read here, I don't believe that for a second.

I already explained that in the remainder of my post that you decided not to quote. Try reading my entire post.

It's like someone who's entirely anti-drug. They'll designate anyone who occassionally smokes a joint as a "pot-head." That's because it's much easier for them to malign people with labels rather than actually deal with reality and have a reasonable discussion about the issues. Attempts at villianizing people are very popular in this forum as a debate tactic, in case you have't noticed. Or maybe you have noticed and would rather ignore that fact when it suits your purpose?

Yeah, read the whole post. Doesn't change my mind. You can say what you want, I read your posts, I know you do nothing but apologize over and over for this administration and the effects they have had on this country.

Good example right on the first page...
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2180495

I could take the time to read back through a lot of your posts, and quote you here and there, but its not worth the time and effort. Again, people see your stances, you post them.

WTF does that have to do with Bush?

Or did you mean to post the one where I'm supposed ot have some sort of love for people who rape children and somehow I'm the bad guy for having no compassion for them?

Sheesh. Reach much?

I posted the correct thread. It has to do with your consistent and concrete apologetic attitude toward the damaging effects of this Bush administration.

Instead of a rational person seeing that the irresponsible use of our military has led to a drastic reduction of good military recruits, you post how its fine and dandy that the military lower its recruiting standards because "ex-cons have a right to be in the army protecting America."

It is just one small example on top of the pile of shit you post here every day. Again, I know I'm not the only one who consistently sees it.

We've got way off topic here, and its my fault. So, I'm gonna quit.

Because ex-cons are sub-humans? Or maybe you're just reaching to find something to malign the US military?

But, of course, you support the troops, don't you? :roll:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain should be wondering why, many weeks after he locked up the nomination, 28% of Republican PA primary voters picked Paul and Huckabee (in that order).

Nearly a third of his potential voting base are picking candidates that will not be on the ticket in the fall.

One should also ask why there were not 28% or even 10% in the previous primarys/caucuses. When there was competition for Paul, he could not deliver.

He only obtained the 28% when there was no challenges to his ideals.
Apparently 72% do not accept his messages.

 

[Deeko]

lol you Paulbots are pathetic, it's hilarious.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain should be wondering why, many weeks after he locked up the nomination, 28% of Republican PA primary voters picked Paul and Huckabee (in that order).

Nearly a third of his potential voting base are picking candidates that will not be on the ticket in the fall.

One should also ask why there were not 28%, 16%, or even 10% in the previous primaries/caucuses. When there was competition for Paul, he could not deliver.

He only obtained the 16% when there was no challenges to his ideals.
Apparently 84% do not accept his messages.

I fixed the percentages in your post to reflect the actual results in PA. You accidentally combined RP's results with Huck's and "other"...

In other news, Paulbots are just so damn cute, aren't they? I hear the Japanese are programming them to play soccer now!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But, of course, you support the troops, don't you? :roll:

Like Paul, I support the troops. I support their desire to come home, and soon.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Apparently 84% do not accept his messages.

This is a group that voted for Bush, twice.