The revolution continues...

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It does when that "orchestrated donation scheme" wasn't orchestrated nor schemed by Ron Paul himself, the supporters did that on THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Can Obizma or shittlery say the same?

no, but I bet one of them will be referred to as Mr. or Mrs. President soon... preferably Mr.

that's gotta sting a bit, eh?

Doesn't sting at all. The movement is much bigger than just this election.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
No one knows the numbers of voters only dollars. Use the facts (dollars) instead of guesses (number of voters). This is reaching (even for you). Its illogical to disregard the donations of military men for candidates who want to leave Iraq just because the number of individuals is absent. We could guess all day, in fact, an argument could be made that for every soldier one dollar was donated. This scenario has just as much basis as saying 5 soldiers made all of the donations.

We did that, and, according to rough estimates of total donations versus known total military strength, we came up with a MAXIMUM of 2.2% support for RP within the military -- and that's if every unique donation was just $1, thus equaling the maximum possible number of supporters.

For analytical purposes, as the average donation amount is increased in $1 increments, that percentage of total possible support goes down from 2.2 and quickly approaches almost ZERO.

once again, that's gotta sting a bit, eh?

Again, doesn't sting at all. What does sting is people not caring about getting out of Iraq when its clear a majority of Americans want out. This tells me its obviously not about what the people want, but what the powerful few want. Thats the reason for this Revolution and it will continue till the peoples voice is heard and adhered to.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
No one knows the numbers of voters only dollars. Use the facts (dollars) instead of guesses (number of voters). This is reaching (even for you). Its illogical to disregard the donations of military men for candidates who want to leave Iraq just because the number of individuals is absent. We could guess all day, in fact, an argument could be made that for every soldier one dollar was donated. This scenario has just as much basis as saying 5 soldiers made all of the donations.

We did that, and, according to rough estimates of total donations versus known total military strength, we came up with a MAXIMUM of 2.2% support for RP within the military -- and that's if every unique donation was just $1, thus equaling the maximum possible number of supporters.

For analytical purposes, as the average donation amount is increased in $1 increments, that percentage of total possible support goes down from 2.2 and quickly approaches almost ZERO.

once again, that's gotta sting a bit, eh?

Again, doesn't sting at all. What does sting is people not caring about getting out of Iraq when its clear a majority of Americans want out. This tells me its obviously not about what the people want, but what the powerful few want. Thats the reason for this Revolution and it will continue till the peoples voice is heard and adhered to.

All I care to do is stop the paulbots from claiming any substantial support within the military itself. As long as you stop blowing that particular smoke up everyones' asses, I couldn't care less what else you do with your cute little "revolution"...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ok, this argument didn't start with Paul's military donation numbers. It started with the assertion that our troops want to come home. Now, that assertion isn't supported only with Paul's military donations, but certainly Obama's as well.

Donations DO NOT EQUAL STATISTICS. For fucks sake people.

1. If you told me that *EVERY* person in the military donated $1, then it might translate into something meaningful. However, the fact that different donation amounts can skew the figure means it cannot be used for statistical analysis. To do so goes against all tenants of statistical analysis as your data set is corrupt.

2. Unless the donation of that money can be tied *DIRECTLY* to the actual stance of getting out of Iraq, then any conclusion that the money = getting out of Iraq is also false.

If you guys want to prove something, then get actual VOTES or statistical studies with large sample sizes and measurements of significance that actually mean something. Otherwise all of your "facts" are nothing more than spin.

I love how people who obviously haven't taken one statistics class claim the contrary.


You guys are fricking jokes.

If we (Paul supporters) are "fricking jokes", alleviate your headache and exit the thread. Otherwise deal with it.

I have way too much fun showing the rest of the world you guys have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Also, as far as me being an anti-Ron Paul guy, I donated 17.76 to his campaign 17 times, so shut the fvck up

Ron Paul thanks you, hypocritical douchebag!

Never said I was always right.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Perry404

Your contention. HA!
How about at least giving us some statistics as we have done.

You haven't given any real numbers that a statistician would see as significant. You've given a dollar figure and extrapolated that to mean *real* support, when, in fact, it means nothing at all.

How about you back up your assertion with something other than bullshit.

How about you provide even one tiny little fact to back up my statistics or is that too much to ask? I'm sorry but money talks and bullshit walks.

Do you honestly believe that the donation figures translate directly to widespread or significant support among military personnel? Seriously?

Who said that? The statistics given are for financial support which is an *indicator* of overall military support. How simple do I have to make it for you?
Would I bet my left arm that if the president were elected by military personal votes only that Ron Paul would be the president? Certainly not and I never suggested such a thing. Clearly Ron Paul has a strong support base in the military and he would not have received more donations than any other candidate if this weren't so. That's what this statistic says and we look at this statistic because we care what the military thinks.

It's not an indicator for anything. Technically, 30 people could have given that entire amount. That's why the number is bullshit, it gives no indication *AT ALL* of overall support.

No one knows the numbers of voters only dollars. Use the facts (dollars) instead of guesses (number of voters). This is reaching (even for you). Its illogical to disregard the donations of military men for candidates who want to leave Iraq just because the number of individuals is absent. We could guess all day, in fact, an argument could be made that for every soldier one dollar was donated. This scenario has just as much basis as saying 5 soldiers made all of the donations.

Exactly! Which is why nothing can be extrapolated from the donation. This is why I stay in this thread, I rarely even have to work to prove you guys don't know what is going on.

The data is meaningless to everybody except blowhard demagogic zealots trying desperately to stay relevant.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
No one knows the numbers of voters only dollars. Use the facts (dollars) instead of guesses (number of voters). This is reaching (even for you). Its illogical to disregard the donations of military men for candidates who want to leave Iraq just because the number of individuals is absent. We could guess all day, in fact, an argument could be made that for every soldier one dollar was donated. This scenario has just as much basis as saying 5 soldiers made all of the donations.

We did that, and, according to rough estimates of total donations versus known total military strength, we came up with a MAXIMUM of 2.2% support for RP within the military -- and that's if every unique donation was just $1, thus equaling the maximum possible number of supporters.

For analytical purposes, as the average donation amount is increased in $1 increments, that percentage of total possible support goes down from 2.2 and quickly approaches almost ZERO.

once again, that's gotta sting a bit, eh?

Again, doesn't sting at all. What does sting is people not caring about getting out of Iraq when its clear a majority of Americans want out. This tells me its obviously not about what the people want, but what the powerful few want. Thats the reason for this Revolution and it will continue till the peoples voice is heard and adhered to.

All I care to do is stop the paulbots from claiming any substantial support within the military itself. As long as you stop blowing that particular smoke up everyones' asses, I couldn't care less what else you do with your cute little "revolution"...

Likewise you'll never convince us otherwise as the facts are contrary to what you're saying. Ron Pauls average contribution was much smaller that those of the other candidates. We're supposed to believe that a few wealthy retired colonels did this?
Laughable.
It is big news. Paul has very strong support in the U.S. military.
This is a bold statement by our military.
No wonder you're fighting it so much. It's a very difficult fact to minimize.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

This thread would be more correctly titled: The spin continues

RP supporters apparently have no extrapolation, logic, or math skills. I guess that's part of the reason why they got suckered into his campaign in the first place though.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This thread would be more correctly titled: The spin continues

RP supporters apparently have no extrapolation, logic, or math skills. I guess that's part of the reason why they got suckered into his campaign in the first place though.

Speaking of suckers, you keep falling for the Republican lie that they're a "conservative" party. Morons like you buy it hook, line and sinker.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This thread would be more correctly titled: The spin continues

RP supporters apparently have no extrapolation, logic, or math skills. I guess that's part of the reason why they got suckered into his campaign in the first place though.

Speaking of suckers, you keep falling for the Republican lie that they're a "conservative" party. Morons like you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Morons like you think I'm a Republican. I'm not. Never, ever voted for Bush. Never, ever been a Republican party member. But that's your own ignorance showing and your biased penchant for taking huge leaps off the conclusions mat, not mine.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Perry404
>>> There is no revolution <<< Uh-huh

:Q

LOL, I said before, it wouldn't be long until they started calling Paul supporters terrorists...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994162/posts

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404


Likewise you'll never convince us otherwise as the facts are contrary to what you're saying. Ron Pauls average contribution was much smaller that those of the other candidates. We're supposed to believe that a few wealthy retired colonels did this?
Laughable.
It is big news. Paul has very strong support in the U.S. military.
This is a bold statement by our military.
No wonder you're fighting it so much. It's a very difficult fact to minimize.

No you fool, the "facts" do NOT support that. I've already demonstrated that the maximum possible support within the military, based on the donation amount, is approximately 2.2%!!!!

AND THAT WAS EVEN BEING GENEROUS AND CONSIDERING A UNIQUE CONTRIBUTER FOR EVERY $1 COLLECTED!!! The percentage of support quickly goes down from 2.2 to almost zero the moment you begin to raise the average donation in $1 increments.

In other words, if the average donation jumps to $5, then the percentage of support drops to roughly 0.4% of the total US Military personnel. (roughly 12,000 unique contributers).

How many fucking times do I have to walk you through the math before you realize that you are totally and completely full of fucking shit!?

once again... IS 2.2% CONSIDERED "VERY STRONG" IN RP'S WORLD?!!?

Now, IF you are trying to claim ANY support beyond the mathematical maximum of 2.2%, THEN YOU ARE LYING.

JHC, what the heck is wrong with you people? seriously... seek help. And stop fucking lying.

Ron Paul does NOT have substantial support in the U.S. military. Our personnel are too smart for that...

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404


Likewise you'll never convince us otherwise as the facts are contrary to what you're saying. Ron Pauls average contribution was much smaller that those of the other candidates. We're supposed to believe that a few wealthy retired colonels did this?
Laughable.
It is big news. Paul has very strong support in the U.S. military.
This is a bold statement by our military.
No wonder you're fighting it so much. It's a very difficult fact to minimize.

No you fool, the "facts" do NOT support that. I've already demonstrated that the maximum possible support within the military, based on the donation amount, is approximately 2.2%!!!!

AND THAT WAS EVEN BEING GENEROUS AND CONSIDERING A UNIQUE CONTRIBUTER FOR EVERY $1 COLLECTED!!! The percentage of support quickly goes down from 2.2 to almost zero the moment you begin to raise the average donation in $1 increments.

In other words, if the average donation jumps to $5, then the percentage of support drops to roughly 0.4% of the total US Military personnel. (roughly 12,000 unique contributers).

How many fucking times do I have to walk you through the math before you realize that you are totally and completely full of fucking shit!?

once again... IS 2.2% CONSIDERED "VERY STRONG" IN RP'S WORLD?!!?

Now, IF you are trying to claim ANY support beyond the mathematical maximum of 2.2%, THEN YOU ARE LYING.

JHC, what the heck is wrong with you people? seriously... seek help. And stop fucking lying.

Ron Paul does NOT have substantial support in the U.S. military. Our personnel are too smart for that...

Right. His support in the military percentagewise is more than 5x lower than his national average and you have shown this. Gotcha! :thumbsup:
And just who do you think is buying into your funny math? :laugh:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404
Right. His support in the military percentage-wise is more than 5x lower than his national average and you have shown this. Gotcha!

Yes, and I just did... again... with crayons.

And just who do you think is buying into your funny math?

I used the publicly-released dollar amounts for the donations RP received from "the military," and the publicly available total personnel strength for the U.S. Military. I then erred on the side of ridiculousness and provided the mathematical maximum which assumes a unique contributer for every $1 donated.

So, the only thing "fuzzy" around here is the hair on the nuts that are currently bouncing off your chin.

Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

Count the votes from each state little fella.
Your math = shite and because you want people too believe it doesn't mean anyone will.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

Count the votes from each state little fella.
Your math = shite and because you want people too believe it doesn't mean anyone will.

Who are you going to vote for in the general elections?

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama


Who are you going to vote for in the general elections?

I have no idea. The Zionist, anti-federal reserve, anti-war, anti patriot act pro veteran candidate.
Is there anyone like that?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

Count the votes from each state little fella.
Your math = shite and because you want people too believe it doesn't mean anyone will.

Sorry, I forgot... I RP's World, boys and girls, 2+2=5. :roll:

The math is fine, and the most support RP can claim in the military is 2.2%. "Very strong" indeed...

If you believe otherwise, or have mathematical evidence to the contrary, prove it or STFU.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

Count the votes from each state little fella.
Your math = shite and because you want people too believe it doesn't mean anyone will.

Sorry, I forgot... I RP's World, boys and girls, 2+2=5. :roll:

The math is fine, and the most support RP can claim in the military is 2.2%. "Very strong" indeed...

If you believe otherwise, or have mathematical evidence to the contrary, prove it or STFU.

Adding up the national percentages from every state works out to 7.6% in all 43 states combines to date. Given that Paul is especially popular with young voters as was shown time & time again throughout the polls in the past year I'd say that your calculation of 2.2% military support is laughable even to the most biased individuals.
Any thinking man can see that you're reaching.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

Count the votes from each state little fella.
Your math = shite and because you want people too believe it doesn't mean anyone will.

Sorry, I forgot... I RP's World, boys and girls, 2+2=5. :roll:

The math is fine, and the most support RP can claim in the military is 2.2%. "Very strong" indeed...

If you believe otherwise, or have mathematical evidence to the contrary, prove it or STFU.

Adding up the national percentages from every state works out to 7.6% in all 43 states combines to date. Given that Paul is especially popular with young voters as was shown time & time again throughout the polls in the past year I'd say that your calculation of 2.2% military support is laughable even to the most biased individuals.
Any thinking man can see that you're reaching.

in other words, the only evidence or "facts" you have for claiming any support beyond 2.2% is your own opinion?!

or, do you have some numbers, beyond those publicly released, that you just don't feel like sharing?

:roll:

The math gives RP a maximum of 2.2% support within the military. Any conclusions or estimates beyond that are 110% unadulterated bullshit... as in, you're making them up..

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Btw, just for the record, did you just claim ~10% national support for RP?!

Count the votes from each state little fella.
Your math = shite and because you want people too believe it doesn't mean anyone will.

Sorry, I forgot... I RP's World, boys and girls, 2+2=5. :roll:

The math is fine, and the most support RP can claim in the military is 2.2%. "Very strong" indeed...

If you believe otherwise, or have mathematical evidence to the contrary, prove it or STFU.

Adding up the national percentages from every state works out to 7.6% in all 43 states combines to date. Given that Paul is especially popular with young voters as was shown time & time again throughout the polls in the past year I'd say that your calculation of 2.2% military support is laughable even to the most biased individuals.
Any thinking man can see that you're reaching.

in other words, the only evidence or "facts" you have for claiming any support beyond 2.2% is your own opinion?!

or, do you have some numbers, beyond those publicly released, that you just don't feel like sharing?

:roll:

The math gives RP a maximum of 2.2% support within the military. Any conclusions or estimates beyond that are 110% unadulterated bullshit... as in, you're making them up..

Fucking joker you are so full of shit. lol I'm trough entertaining you.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404
Fucking joker you are so full of shit. lol I'm trough entertaining you.

There aren't any numbers to support any conclusions beyond the donations themselves, which is why the only accurate support that RP can claim, calculated using only the donations themselves, is a maximum of 2.2%.

That's the entire fucking point.

But, instead of realizing that, and backing off, his bots, such as yourself, go on to twist those donations and claim "broad" or "substantial" support within the military as a whole -- which is an entirely fabricated proclamation that is in no way supported by ANY facts or logical extrapolations from the limited data.

In other words, you need to stop LYING -- The donations to RP do not demonstrate ANY substantial support within the US military as a whole.

JHC, forget it... basic math and logic escape you, and we're going in crayon-colored circles. go back to fantasy-land... "joker."

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404
Fucking joker you are so full of shit. lol I'm trough entertaining you.

There aren't any numbers to support any conclusions beyond the donations themselves, which is why the only accurate support that RP can claim, calculated using only the donations themselves, is a maximum of 2.2%.

That's the entire fucking point.

But, instead of realizing that, and backing off, his bots, such as yourself, go on to twist those donations and claim "broad" or "substantial" support within the military as a whole -- which is an entirely fabricated proclamation that is in no way supported by ANY facts or logical extrapolations from the limited data.

In other words, you need to stop LYING -- The donations to RP do not demonstrate ANY substantial support within the US military as a whole.

JHC, forget it... basic math and logic escape you, and we're going in crayon-colored circles. go back to fantasy-land... "joker."

Theoretically, each person could have donated .02, which means that he'd have 100% of the armed force's support.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404
Fucking joker you are so full of shit. lol I'm trough entertaining you.

There aren't any numbers to support any conclusions beyond the donations themselves, which is why the only accurate support that RP can claim, calculated using only the donations themselves, is a maximum of 2.2%.

That's the entire fucking point.

But, instead of realizing that, and backing off, his bots, such as yourself, go on to twist those donations and claim "broad" or "substantial" support within the military as a whole -- which is an entirely fabricated proclamation that is in no way supported by ANY facts or logical extrapolations from the limited data.

In other words, you need to stop LYING -- The donations to RP do not demonstrate ANY substantial support within the US military as a whole.

JHC, forget it... basic math and logic escape you, and we're going in crayon-colored circles. go back to fantasy-land... "joker."

Whats the total number you're using to arrive at the 2.2% conclusion?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404
Fucking joker you are so full of shit. lol I'm trough entertaining you.

There aren't any numbers to support any conclusions beyond the donations themselves, which is why the only accurate support that RP can claim, calculated using only the donations themselves, is a maximum of 2.2%.

That's the entire fucking point.

But, instead of realizing that, and backing off, his bots, such as yourself, go on to twist those donations and claim "broad" or "substantial" support within the military as a whole -- which is an entirely fabricated proclamation that is in no way supported by ANY facts or logical extrapolations from the limited data.

In other words, you need to stop LYING -- The donations to RP do not demonstrate ANY substantial support within the US military as a whole.

JHC, forget it... basic math and logic escape you, and we're going in crayon-colored circles. go back to fantasy-land... "joker."

Whats the total number you're using to arrive at the 2.2% conclusion?

He mentioned it before. You can go back a couple pages and see it clearly.