Paul strong in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's the graphic FauxNews used in the early reporting of the Nevada caucus.

nvqo0-vi.jpg


Fair and balanced, we decide.
 
Pat H vociferates:

I've watched them all and Ron Paul is the most erudite man on the stage at them all.
Click to expand...

When attempting to use the word "erudite," it's almost critically important that your sentence make sense.

:D

Hilarious.
 
To be fair Thumper you took Pat's sentence out of context.

You obviously weren't watching Ron Paul in a debate.

I've watched them all and Ron Paul is the most erudite man on the stage at them all.
Click to expand...

When coupled with the preceding sentence it makes perfect sense, and it is also true.
 
Pat H: Great pic! That's a perfect example of their bias.

Thumper: Got anything to add to this discussion besides gloating about someone accidentally using "at" instead of "of"?
 
Pat H, if you ran a business and a group of people representing someone attacked your business, would you want to have anything to do with the person they represented?

A bunch of crazed Paul supporters chased a Fox News employee in Manchester as if they were trying to emulate a Palestinian riot, and you're surprised that Paul is persona non grata to Fox News now?

Sow what ye reap.
 
The blind hatred and bleeting hysteria coming from those that dislike the honest Doctor never ceases to amaze me. It really isn't that hard to admit you might have been wrong. Heck I voted for George Bush twice.:barf:
 
So the ads helped. What's wrong with that? If people didn't like the positions outlined in the ads, then it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't vote for him.

The more ads Paul puts on the air, the better. People need to hear what he's saying if this country isn't to devolve even further into a welfare-warfare state.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't seriously expect Paul to get the nomination. But that doesn't mean I'm not heartened by any sign that people are waking up to what he's saying. Paul's message is bigger than he is.
 
Manedwolf said:
Pat H, if you ran a business and a group of people representing someone attacked your business, would you want to have anything to do with the person they represented?

A bunch of crazed Paul supporters chased a Fox News employee in Manchester as if they were trying to emulate a Palestinian riot, and you're surprised that Paul is persona non grata to Fox News now?

Sow what ye reap.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that incident occurred AFTER the decision was made to exclude Paul from the debate.

Fox has always been anti-Paul. It's a neocon propaganda outlet.
 
To inject a dose of realism here, 14% isn't exactly something to whoop and holler about.
Click to expand...

To inject a dose of realism here, lets consider the following:

1. In Iowa Paul got about 10% of the republican votes.
2. In New Hampshire he got about 8% of the republican votes.
3. In Michigan he got about 6% of the republican votes.
4. In Nevada he got about 14% of the republican votes.
5. In the last presidential election Bush won by a margin of approximately 3 million votes with a total of just over 62 million.
6. Taking the lowest results for Paul (Michigan at 6%) - without that percentage of just republican votes Kerry would have won the election.

So if 5%-6% of republican voters could throw an election, then yeah I suppose 14% is nothing to whoop and holler about.:rolleyes:
 
So if 5%-6% of republican voters could throw an election, then yeah I suppose 14% is nothing to whoop and holler about.
Click to expand...

I love this...it really frames Paul supporters almost perfectly.

Ron Paul 2008-"If you don't agree with us, we'll F you up."

Good luck with that, kids. This is why gun owners despise you.

BTW, we kinda like Ron Paul...just not the nutjobs.
 
Thumper
Good luck with that, kids. This is why gun owners despise you.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean... I thought many of his supporters ARE gun owners. Or are they gun owners of some other, lower kind? Or are they gun owners who have been sadly misguided and therefore shouldn't be considered?
 
Samoand,

Here in NH, the Paulians have been a very bad public image for gun owners. They tramp around a bar downtown open-carrying and drinking to show off their "rights", and people associated with the movements supporting him have been arrested for things like supplying the Browns (the militant tax evaders) with weapons. Granted, it might not be all of them, but the vocal ones have been very damaging.

So yeah, Thumper is right. The local Paulians here have been a disaster for gun owners in terms of public perception. There's a vast gulf between having a right and using common sense.
 
I thought many of his supporters ARE gun owners. Or are they gun owners of some other, lower kind?
Click to expand...

As Shaggy boasted, Paul supporters were capable of "throwing an election" to the anti gun candidate.

Yes, these types obviously demonstrate themselves to be "gun owners of some other, lower kind."
 
Actually, Unregistered, I don't. You occasionally burst through with an insightful comment.

Unfortunately, you and those like you are drowned out by the intellectually and emotionally adolescent.
 
I don't know, but I know what the public saw during the weeks leading up to the primaries.

They saw the Hannity thing, which was absolutely inexcusable for anyone. Americans do not behave like that. That belonged in the sandbox.

They saw Paul supporters blocking and interfering with traffic during rush hour in Manchester to "protest" the Fox debate decision. All they did was piss everyone local off by making them late to get home for dinner. That was brilliant, there.

They saw Paul supporters, with signs, in large groups, standing on Manchester streets chanting that "9/11 was an inside job."

They saw Paul supporters scare children and ruin a Nashua holiday event, a nonpolitical one, by coming down the street, back and forth in a group, bellowing at the top of their lungs about Paul.

Now. You tell me. Does it matter if it was all of them? Or does it matter what people saw, and what they think, now?
 
I love this...it really frames Paul supporters almost perfectly.

Ron Paul 2008-"If you don't agree with us, we'll F you up."
Click to expand...
But most Paul supporters I've seen don't think of it that way. You can try to paint us this way, but it doesn't reflect reality.

The reason I won't vote for anyone but Paul is because I will no longer be complicit in the downfall of this country. To me, a vote for someone other than Paul is

a vote against the Constitution
a vote for torture and human rights abuses that are completely contrary to American values
a vote for more wars of choice that benefit no one but Israel
a vote for more police-state surveillance at home
a vote for a continuation of the highly destructive drug war
possibly a vote for more gun control, even with some Republicans
a vote for more reckless spending in general

If the GOP loses this election, then it will because it nominated someone who basically promises four more years of Bush -- an enormously unpopular president. And I will not be held accountable for refusing to vote for a candidate who goes against so many things I believe in.

We keep voting for the lesser of two evils. Does anyone expect something good to one day come from that?

Good luck with that, kids. This is why gun owners despise you.
Click to expand...
I think most gun owners despise the Constitution (except for their "right to hunt and own range toys"), love big government police-statism, and think "freedom" is just a nice-sounding word, rather than something that should be put into actual practice. It's a shame, but I don't care if they despise me for disagreeing with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top