Paul strong in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thumper: Ah. So you wanted to say that followers of RP are considered lower kind by others. Not real gun owners. Got it.

Manedwolf: I kinda understand it now, judging by many posts on the subject. It's very different in my heck of the woods (northern CA, hi-techish env.), but at least I now understand source of this much negativity. All I can think of - look at both sides of the spectrum, even though folks on the other side don't spend much time in bars and don't get this much public exposure. You actually have to look for them whereas the other kind is "right in your face". Detrimental, I know.

added: Thumper:
Unfortunately, you and those like you are drowned out by the intellectually and emotionally adolescent.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is the case in terms of numbers; it's just that the emotionally adolescent have more free time to rub elbows with others. There are many great folks on this side, but you don't see them for exactly this reason - they don't crush windows or chase hannities.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Manedwolf, I think it does matter, and I think you probably do know if it was a majority or not. No doubt a small group of Ron Paul supporters were involved in this sort of trouble making, which I agree 100 percent casts a negative light on RP and his viewpoints. But he got about 18,000 votes in New Hampshire, and I seriously doubt the large groups you describe had thousands of people in them. If t had been thousands o people in the street, I am sure it would have had much more media coverage, and the New Hampshire national guard would have been involved, assuming they aren't all in Iraq.

But, thats not the point. The reason I bring this up is because it is absolutely inevitable that Ron Paul will lose the primary. He will probably end up nationally with about 10% +/-2% of the Republican vote overall. While at first that doesnt seem like too many, remember how narrow the Bush victories have been.

If you offend the entire 10% of Ron Paul supporters (and I am offended by terms like Paulians because it is an attempt to make me look like a cult member) because of the actions of a small majority, the Republican party runs the risk of alienating these voters. In other words, RP supporters might not show up for the general election because they feel they have been excluded from the party. Basically driven out by insults. Do you really want to lose the entire 10% over the actions of a minority? I don't like to be called names because of the actions of people I don't even know.

Its just something to think about. I have been voting Republican since 1980 and I have never seen the Republican party appear so fragmented and so hostile to its own members. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The division is not just coming from the Ron Paul side of the fence.
 
I think most gun owners despise the Constitution, 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.
Click to expand...

Wow...neato. You do realize you're arguing your case on a gun board, right?

Are you trying to subtract from Dr. Paul's voting base?

I can't understand why Dr. Paul is having trouble bringing the party back to the right with such mental giants helping him out. :p
 
Strong showing in Nevada because he placed 2nd and did so with fewer than 1/3 of the votes of the winner? You have got to be kidding me!

2nd place is just the first loser position and with so few votes, it was a weak showing. Overall, he has only 1/12 the delegates as Romney.

Ron Paul is not making a strong showing. I realize a lot of you would like to believe he is, or convinced yourself he is, but he isn't.
 
DNS, I didn't realize it before reading this thread and looking it up, but Paul was the only Republican candidate that ran a TV ad in Nevada.

Thumper: Ah. So you wanted to say that followers of RP are considered lower kind by others. Not real gun owners. Got it.
Click to expand...

Nah, I just pointed out the ones that demonstrably aren't. Please read SteelCore's posts if you don't believe me.

I'm not sure this is the case in terms of numbers; it's just that the emotionally adolescent have more free time to rub elbows with others. There are many great folks on this side, but you don't see them for exactly this reason - they don't crush windows or chase hannities.
Click to expand...

Then you and I are on the same side...And you should be furious with them for ruining our mutual cause.
 
According to the Associated Press, half of the votes Romney got in Nevada were from Mormons. He won't have the advantage of a high Mormon population in too many other states.
 
Thumper said:
SteelCore said:
I think most gun owners despise the Constitution, 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.
Click to expand...
Wow...neato. You do realize you're arguing your case on a gun board, right?
Click to expand...
So what? I said what I said, and I meant it.

First of all, most gun owners don't post on this board -- though even many who do post here are obviously statists who worship the government (I won't name names).

Secondly, how many gun owners care about anything more than their "right to hunt and play target-shooting games"? Neither of those activities have anything to do with the 2A. Even defense against common criminals has little to do with the 2A. Yet as far as I can tell, even gun owners tend not to really think of the 2A as a check on government power.

The simplest way to look at it is this. There are a great many gun owners in the US, and they've always existed in sufficient numbers to sway any election toward a truly good, pro-Constitution candidate. How is it, then, that we've compromised so many of our Constitutional rights (not just the 2A)? It's because most people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. Then they complain that they keep ending up with evil.

Are you trying to subtract from Dr. Paul's voting base?
Click to expand...
Nothing I've said would offend anyone to whom it didn't apply.

I can't understand why Dr. Paul is having trouble bringing the party back to the right with such mental giants helping him out. :p
Click to expand...
That hurts. I wish I could rise to the standard of intellectual discourse you've displayed on this thread. :rolleyes:

Nah, I just pointed out the ones that demonstrably aren't. Please read SteelCore's posts if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...
Feel free to point out exactly what I've said that you find objectionable, and try to use some actual reasoning to back up your position. So far, YOU have been the one trying to drag this thread down into an ad hominem-fest. First you childishly attacked Pat H for the simple mistake of replacing a word, and now you're trying to start on me with name-calling. Is that all you got? How about some substantive comments on the issues?
 
The issues, Thumper. The issues. Is it THAT hard?

Why not just explain why I'm wrong, rather than just saying, "Look! He's a nutcase!"? Maybe you'll even convince me. But I need to hear some arguments first.
 
I am SO sorry I started this thread.

Pat, SteelCore, you obviously don't realize it, but your writings are counterproductive to influencing others opinions. They are also counterproductive to PROPELLING Paul. VERY poor advocacy. Your repelling more people from Paul then you are causing them to consider him.

I tried...............

And please remember, there were SEVERAL candidates not invited to the debate, only ONE campaigns supporters mobbed anyone.

Why is behaving in a way that doesn't cause people to be reluctant to be associated with you escape Paul supporters?

Again, sorry for starting the thread. I was hoping that by repeatedly hinting that some dignity might go well toward garnering some support given a bump of good news for Paul had taken place. But instead it's right back to froth and mania.

..........it's not the imaginary all powerful 'neocon'(couldn't resist that ad hom could ya') sonsabiches hurting Paul. At that point in process there was 1% reporting and paul hadn't yet shown up. That's called INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. And that REDUCES credibility and is UN-DIGNIFIED.

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect a different result. Ya getting the result desired? When the whole world stinks the actual problem is a dirty top lip.
 
Bruxley said:
Pat, SteelCore, you obviously don't realize it, but your writings are counterproductive to influencing others opinions. They are also counterproductive to PROPELLING Paul. VERY poor advocacy. Your repelling more people from Paul then you are causing them to consider him.
Click to expand...
Can you please name specifics? For example, can you show where I've personally attacked anyone (who didn't attack me first)?

Why do you give Thumper a pass when he started off with ad hominem right off the bat?

It seems as if we Paul supporters are expected to endure all sorts of insults and personal attacks, but when we try to defend ourselves, people point to it as proof that we're "lunatics."

Kindly read this thread again and make an objective assessment of who began to attack whom.
 
Yes, because we all know pointing out ironic grammatical errors is the epitome of fascist, neocon mudslinging.
Click to expand...
No, it's just something that people resort to when they have nothing to add to the discussion except personal attacks.

Let's try again. What do or don't you like about Ron Paul? You say you kind of like him. What don't you like? About him, I mean -- not his supporters. His supporters are not running for election; he is.
 
Kindly read this thread again and make an objective assessment of who began to attack whom.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I think Ron Paul is a babbling idiot.

Now thats is of course, my opinion, which is worthless since I am, as a non Paul supporter, a neocon sheeple slave statist un-american anti-constitution constitution hating zionist who wants to spill American blood for the jews.

I can find a few more that are used to describe Ron Paul opponents by the supporters of the Doc, all of which could be used to justify a finding that a percentage of his supporters are indeed "lunatics"


WildimoneofthemAlaska TM
 
What don't you like? About him, I mean -- not his supporters.
Click to expand...

The same thing that I didn't like about Ross Perot: His major contribution could be to put a Dem in the White House.

I had hoped that some level of Paul support could influence the party back to the right. He's failed, largely because some of his more vocal supporters alienate the vast majority of the voting population.

So you see, it really DOES have to do with his supporters.

This stuff ain't hard.
 
Just keep doing it. Blame the OUTSIDE. Been going well thus far right.......

Set the tone rather then responding to it. Determine that resistance is normal and can only be overcome by making a case that contains cogent, honest information and is grounded in realities. AVOID sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. That may work with some drunken buddies that don't pay attention but here people WILL see through it and WILL call you on it. And it just steels up resistance and makes the OTHER person LESS responsive to your point of view. Is THAT the goal? Well that' what's happening! Did ya notice?

Don't pull the 'it's not an insult' sophistry. You realize nobody buys it right? Are there no moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, Centrist, etc. ? But calling them what they are lacks that 'zing' doesn't it. I don't have any appetite for the luke-warm either but I'm not going to fain intellectuality by making up a new term for them to pretend not to be insulting them.
 
Wildalaska said:
Keep in mind I think Ron Paul is a babbling idiot.
Click to expand...
You must have a very low opinion of Duke Medical School (where Paul got his M.D.), the Air Force (which employed Paul as a flight surgeon), the late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman (who supported Paul's views on economics), the thousands of patients Paul successfully treated medically, etc.

And I don't like to toot my own horn, but I'm not the dumbest person myself. Somehow this "lunatic" managed to learn subjects like quantum theory at the graduate level and become a research engineer in electronic materials. Yet if Paul's saying anything stupid, I sure can't see it.

Care to enlighten us? What's Paul saying that's so stupid?
 
Bruxley:

SteelCore said:
Can you please name specifics? For example, can you show where I've personally attacked anyone (who didn't attack me first)?

Why do you give Thumper a pass when he started off with ad hominem right off the bat?

It seems as if we Paul supporters are expected to endure all sorts of insults and personal attacks, but when we try to defend ourselves, people point to it as proof that we're "lunatics."

Kindly read this thread again and make an objective assessment of who began to attack whom.
Click to expand...

In addition, if I or anyone else has been using sophistry, feel free to point it out. Just saying "You're using sophistry!" is not an argument.
 
Is there anyone here that believes that Paul will win the Republican nomination for president? Please don't attempt to quantify the answer. This is a yes or no type thing.

I think this is a valid question in a thread with this title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top