Update --Ron Paul raises Jaw Dropping $5,000,000.00+

[First]

^ He has some support, he just won't sniff the nomination is all.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ He has some support, he just won't sniff the nomination is all.

People have been saying that since the beginning and they are constently forced to modify their words. It's ok you aren't the first.😀

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ He has some support, he just won't sniff the nomination is all.

People have been saying that since the beginning and they are constently forced to modify their words. It's ok you aren't the first.😀

Maybe we should do some gathering on all the people that say he doesn't have a chance and when he does win nomination and/or presidency, make a thread about it. I think I would read each one with patience and glee 😀

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ He has some support, he just won't sniff the nomination is all.

People have been saying that since the beginning and they are constently forced to modify their words. It's ok you aren't the first.😀

Maybe we should do some gathering on all the people that say he doesn't have a chance and when he does win nomination and/or presidency, make a thread about it. I think I would read each one with patience and glee 😀

I thought about making a list but the truth is many of those people will eventually be Ron Paul supporters and i don't want to embarrass them. I am actually saying that partially truthfully. lol

 

[First]

Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Any objective reasoning to that prediction?

Giuliani doesn't have a chance in hell of presidency. His pro-war stance will increase Democrat turnout, even if it's for someone that only says he/she will end the war, like Hillary Clinton (hint: she is a neo-con). Giuliani will keep conservative Christians, and social conservatives from voting. He has got to be the worst candidate that the Republicans could use.

 

[morkinva]

Just passed $1M 10:31PM et

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

Originally posted by: Legend

Any objective reasoning to that prediction?

Check any credible, professional poll, anywhere. Paul isn't close. Better question is show me more than an isolated poll where Paul is leading for the Republican nomination, and that'd be big news to me.

Giuliani doesn't have a chance in hell of presidency. His pro-war stance will increase Democrat turnout, even if it's for someone that only says he/she will end the war, like Hillary Clinton (hint: she is a neo-con). Giuliani will keep conservative Christians, and social conservatives from voting. He has got to be the worst candidate that the Republicans could use.

Say what? Giuliani has plenty good chance at the presidency, look at the polls my son. He's not terribly far behind Hillary. Granted, I don't think he's going to win, but saying "no chance in hell" ignores, well, pretty much all the numbers and polls released for about a year now.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Just passed $1M 10:31PM et

Hellyeah! I was in a chatroom that was packed and people were flippen out. They love that man. 🙂

 

[Legend]

Check any credible, professional poll, anywhere. Paul isn't close. Better question is show me more than an isolated poll where Paul is leading for the Republican nomination, and that'd be big news to me.

And what polls are those? Links?

Please don't link "scientific" land line polls that don't even include many of the lesser known candidates many times.

Giuliani doesn't have a chance in hell of presidency. His pro-war stance will increase Democrat turnout, even if it's for someone that only says he/she will end the war, like Hillary Clinton (hint: she is a neo-con). Giuliani will keep conservative Christians, and social conservatives from voting. He has got to be the worst candidate that the Republicans could use.

Say what? Giuliani has plenty good chance at the presidency, look at the polls my son. He's not terribly far behind Hillary. Granted, I don't think he's going to win, but saying "no chance in hell" ignores, well, pretty much all the numbers and polls released for about a year now.

[/quote]

What polls? Are these polls comparing to democratic candidates? Who was polled?

You didn't really offer a sound argument against my reasoning:

1. Giuliani's campaign is based on 911, continuing the war on Iraq, and "nation building" is going to strengthen the Democratic turn out.
2. Giuliani's stance on guns, abortion, and a complete lack of 'family values' is not going to do well with the GOP base.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Legend

Check any credible, professional poll, anywhere. Paul isn't close. Better question is show me more than an isolated poll where Paul is leading for the Republican nomination, and that'd be big news to me.

And what polls are those? Links?

Please don't link "scientific" land line polls that don't even include many of the lesser known candidates many times.

The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. You're the one claiming this guy has a shot, yet by your own admission he's not even included in many scientific polls. That's because everyone knows he has no shot.

What polls? Are these polls comparing to democratic candidates? Who was polled?

It's not hard to find, do your own research:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28144
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28489
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html

Look at where Paul polls; low single digits, no one knows who he is.

You didn't really offer a sound argument against my reasoning:

1. Giuliani's campaign is based on 911, continuing the war on Iraq, and "nation building" is going to strengthen the Democratic turn out.
2. Giuliani's stance on guns, abortion, and a complete lack of 'family values' is not going to do well with the GOP base.

Except these subjective arguments aren't backed up to the degree to which you have over exaggerated his lack of a chance at winning the presidency. The numbers say otherwise, and they're not biased.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

Still don't know what you're saying here. Who is baby bush?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

Still don't know what you're saying here. Who is baby bush?

Wow. Ok. George W. Bush. , do you get it now?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

Still don't know what you're saying here. Who is baby bush?

Wow. Ok. George W. Bush. , do you get it now?

No, I don't. Your response had nothing to do with my post.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

Still don't know what you're saying here. Who is baby bush?

Wow. Ok. George W. Bush. , do you get it now?

No, I don't. Your response had nothing to do with my post.

I don't believe you are that ignorant. Please. Bolded so as to give a better understanding.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Legend

Check any credible, professional poll, anywhere. Paul isn't close. Better question is show me more than an isolated poll where Paul is leading for the Republican nomination, and that'd be big news to me.

And what polls are those? Links?

Please don't link "scientific" land line polls that don't even include many of the lesser known candidates many times.

The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. You're the one claiming this guy has a shot, yet by your own admission he's not even included in many scientific polls. That's because everyone knows he has no shot.

What polls? Are these polls comparing to democratic candidates? Who was polled?

It's not hard to find, do your own research:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28144
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28489
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html

Look at where Paul polls; low single digits, no one knows who he is.

You didn't really offer a sound argument against my reasoning:

1. Giuliani's campaign is based on 911, continuing the war on Iraq, and "nation building" is going to strengthen the Democratic turn out.
2. Giuliani's stance on guns, abortion, and a complete lack of 'family values' is not going to do well with the GOP base.

Except these subjective arguments aren't backed up to the degree to which you have over exaggerated his lack of a chance at winning the presidency. The numbers say otherwise, and they're not biased.

The poll data from cnn neglects to consider Paul. The burden of proof is on you. Those numbers are not credible.

For fucks sake it's from 2006. It has Gore, Frist, Kerry on it.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Quote all the freaking "scientific" polls you like. Were any of them conducted on a college campus, a blue collar neighborhood or did they even include people who have a freaking clue who's running. Rudy wins the BS polls by gallup and such cause they poll people who mostly don't give a flip and they recognize his name. Strong reason why Hill Dog has the support she's got. Anyone ever heard the name Clinton before? The fact is, the more time that goes by and the more people who get exposed to Dr. Paul's message, the more those numbers are likely to change. The guy's not raking in the kind of cash he's got with no major media support because he's "some nut." Whether you like his message or not, the harder you beat that drum about him having no shot, the harder his supporters are going to work to spread his name and message. His support grows daily because he's talking about a change that the majority of the American people desperately want. There's a reason why the major media does their best not to discuss the man- HE AINT GONNA GO WITH THE STATUS QUO and the American people are sick and tired of the same old corporate shills and old money power elite telling us they know what we need/want.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

Still don't know what you're saying here. Who is baby bush?

Wow. Ok. George W. Bush. , do you get it now?

No, I don't. Your response had nothing to do with my post.

I don't believe you are that ignorant. Please. Bolded so as to give a better understanding.

No really, he's not included in the CNN poll? I wonder why? :roll:

Did you even read the Gallup polls? They include Paul and he's in extremely low single digits. Facts are facts, and you can't face them.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modify what? The nomination process hasn't started, no one has had to modify anything because nothing has happened yet. Honestly guys, Paul has zero shot at the presidency. Just none. He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, sort of death.

Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Huh?

The obvious reason being he (baby bush) cannot run again. So in essence what I'm saying is you would be voting in the same type of policy's including continued war.

Still don't know what you're saying here. Who is baby bush?

Wow. Ok. George W. Bush. , do you get it now?

No, I don't. Your response had nothing to do with my post.

I don't believe you are that ignorant. Please. Bolded so as to give a better understanding.

You still haven't made a point.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

No really, he's not included in the CNN poll? I wonder why? :roll:

Did you even read the Gallup polls? They include Paul and he's in extremely low single digits. Facts are facts, and you can't face them.

Because the poll is from 2006.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


You still haven't made a point.

And you have failed in comprehension at every post. Which boggles my mind. For your sake I will break it down for you. Kindness is not always easy, especially when you think someone is deliberately playing ignorant.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, short of death.

Here you say he is not beating giuliani no matter what.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Here is where I state that voting bush again would be the same as voting for guilliani, besides the obvious reason that you cannot be president for more than two terms.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
huh?

This is where you state you have no idea what I just posted and you continue that for the next couple posts.


If you do not get it by now you never will. So if you don't get it, don't respond cause I won't waste my time anymore.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

No really, he's not included in the CNN poll? I wonder why? :roll:

Did you even read the Gallup polls? They include Paul and he's in extremely low single digits. Facts are facts, and you can't face them.

Because the poll is from 2006.

My mistake there. Still, did you read the 2007 Gallup polls? Again, Paul is in single digits. No shot.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


You still haven't made a point.

And you have failed in comprehension at every post. Which boggles my mind. For your sake I will break it down for you. Kindness is not always easy, especially when you think someone is deliberately playing ignorant.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
He might give a good showing, anything is possible in that sense, but he's not beating Giuliani no matter what, short of death.

Here you say he is not beating giuliani no matter what.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Giuliani? Why not write in baby bush again then? (besides the obvious reason)

Here is where I state that voting bush again would be the same as voting for guilliani, besides the obvious reason that you cannot be president for more than two terms.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
huh?

This is where you state you have no idea what I just posted and you continue that for the next couple posts.


If you do not get it by now you never will. So if you don't get it, don't respond cause I won't waste my time anymore.

Your English isn't very good, so I'm sorry to tell you, but none of that makes any sense. If your point was that voting for Giuliani would be like voting for Bush (which you still couldn't write out correctly), then you're just plain wrong in the extreme and is why I never made that connection in the first place; Giuliani and Bush are really nothing alike.