Paul strong in Nevada

[Bruxley]

The only proven problem with Paul is lack of leadership ability. The rest (including his supporters actions) are effects of that. If he had leadership ability he would control of his campaign. Other then that his message and personal integrity are sound enough that he should be winning handily.

Examples of leadership ability ought to prelude any rebuttls..........


SteelCore: The response to your re-assertion in post #59 is in post #57............

 

[Wildalaska]

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.

Being intelligent does not preclude insanity. Ted Bundy had a genius IQ, yes?

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

A response to that would entail me ignoring the Green Cheese effect, which I have pledged not to do. Besides, I am a statist, neocon, zionist, sheeple, slave.......

WildlookitupAlaska TM

 

[SteelCore]

Being intelligent does not preclude insanity.

No, but it does preclude being an idiot, which is what you accused Ron Paul of being.

Incidentally, want to know what I think is insane? The way the GOP insists on running candidates who promise a continuation of Bush's insane policies. Those policies have made Bush extremely unpopular, and this is a fact. They're also the reason why the GOP lost in Congress in the last elections. If the GOP wants to win this election, then why aren't they running more candidates who repudiate Bush?

A response to that would entail me ignoring the Green Cheese effect, which I have pledged not to do. Besides, I am a statist, neocon, zionist, sheeple, slave.......

So you're content to keep chiming in with statements like "Paul's an idiot" or "Paul's a loony," but you don't feel like backing up those statements? I don't understand that, but whatever...

 

[SteelCore]

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.

The answer is no, I do not believe he will.

 

[Thumper]

Do you believe (counter to Dr. Paul's belief) that a third party bid could be successful?

 

[Unregistered]

I don't think he will the nomination (he will have about 10% of the vote max).

But I also don't think the Republican nominee will win the general election without the support of Ron Paul and his supporters.

So while you might not like the small minority of Ron Paul supporters that are bothering Sean Hannity and being obnoxious, you don't won't to piss off the rest of that 10% and exclude them from the Republican party.

The Republican party has no chance of a win if 10% of its voters don't show up to vote.

Somebody in the mainstream Republican party needs to figure out a way to get that 10% to vote in November. And its not going to be by calling them names (eg, Paulestinians), and calling their candidate names (eg, babbling idiot).

 

[SteelCore]

Do you believe (counter to Dr. Paul's belief) that a third party bid could be successful?

That's a harder question to answer, but I tend to doubt it would be successful. I think too many people are stuck in their "comfort zones" of voting Republican or Democrat and are afraid of rocking the boat too much (even though it's sinking).

For example, a lot of Democrats are angry at the Democratic Congress for not doing enough to end the Iraq occupation. Most Americans want it ended, and Congress' approval rating is in the toilet along with Bush's. Yet look at how many of those Democrats are supporting Hillary, who will almost certainly continue Bush's foreign policy to at least some extent. If these Democrats REALLY wanted to see the troops brought home, they'd support Paul, or at least one of the other Democrats. But they stick with what they feel comfortable with. Either that, or they just buy into Hillary's doubletalk.

So I'm not really optimistic that most Americans would vote for a third-party Paul, even though I think his positions jibe with what most Americans really want. The two-party system probably has too much inertia.

To give a better answer, I'd probably have to see some national poll numbers, and I don't think any such polls have been taken yet. But if Paul were running against, say, McCain and Hillary, and if the polls showed that he had nowhere near their levels of support, then I wouldn't be angry at him for dropping out. There'd be no point in continuing.

 

[Wildalaska]

and calling their candidate names (eg, babbling idiot).

If it walks like a duck. You actually listen to him as opposed to sound bites?

Babbling idiot.

Thats life. Take their balls and go home because folks think their chosen one is a babbling idiot? Ce la vie

WildnotveryconciliatorytothepaulcrowdAlaska TM

 

[Wildalaska]

So you're content to keep chiming in with statements like "Paul's an idiot" or "Paul's a loony," but you don't feel like backing up those statements? I don't understand that, but whatever...

Yep. I'm content. Learn the green Cheese effect.

Know ye that so far, approximately 90% of republican voters feel the same way.

WildonlytheballotboxcountsAlaska TM

 

[samoand]

Wild, oh, Wild (shaking my head in disbelief). Love your sig, particularly the third one from the top

 

[SteelCore]

Wildalaska,

Would you mind explaining what the "green cheese effect" is?

I suspect you'd rather just call Paul names than stick your neck out and actually offer (GASP!) reasons why you don't like him. It's safer that way, eh?

And why do you continue to call him an idiot when he so obviously is not? There's certainly nothing wrong with my IQ (well into the 99th percentile on multiple tests), and yet the things Paul says make perfect sense to me. How is that possible, since I'm clearly not an idiot?

RP's positions also made sense to the late Milton Friedman -- a Nobel Prize-winner in economics -- and to many other academics and professionals in a variety of fields. Are they all idiots, too, for failing to see through Dr. Paul's smoke and mirrors?

Since you're clearly much smarter than all of us poor deluded Paul supporters, it should be extremely easy for you to enlighten us by explaining how we're wrong. Yet you refuse to do so.

As for 90% of Republicans not supporting Paul, I'm fully aware of that. There was once a time when the majority of Americans thought that Saddam had WMDs or that he was involved in 9/11. Fooling the majority is easy -- especially if the media is on your side -- and politicians know it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

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.

Timothy Leary is was a certified and highly educated doctor also. He served in the military medical corps, was an Asst prof at Berkely, and a lecturer at Harvard.

 

[SteelCore]

Timothy Leary is was a certified and highly educated doctor also. He served in the military medical corps, was an Asst prof at Berkely, and a lecturer at Harvard.

Leary was obviously a highly intelligent person, but by the standards of most people, he wasted his intelligence.

Incidentally, there are many brilliant people who've experimented with drugs like acid. Physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman is one example. But few of these people devote their lives to the promotion of drug use.

Anyway, I don't quite see how this relates to Paul, who obviously isn't a druggie. If he were, then I doubt he would have managed to deliver -- what is it? 4000? -- babies without getting sued for malpractice.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Just making a point that intelligence does not preclude poor judgement.

Nor does it preclude predjudice or mental illness.

Ron Paul could easily be the nutty bigot he is painted to be and his education is irrelevant. I am not saying he is but he could be and every time I see him speak he does not seem quite right to me.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wild, oh, Wild (shaking my head in disbelief). Love your sig, please review the third one from the top

Inserted a long while ago for the followers of the good doc

Would you mind explaining what the "green cheese effect" is?

Never discuss the moon with someone who beleives that it's made of green cheese. Think about it.

WildbeisdesimasheepleetcAlaska TM

 

[mvpel]

The New York Times is still excluding Paul from their "results" page even after his second-place finish in Nevada - see the attached screenshot of http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html

Similar to Fox's image of 51%, 14%, 8% posted above.

Back in the days of the Constitution's drafting, angry mobs would tar and feather a fellow and run him out of town on a rail if he was lucky, rather than just walking along behind him shouting at him.

Not too smart in New Hampshire, though, where the right to armed self-defense is still recognized.

 

[SteelCore]

Just making a point that intelligence does not preclude poor judgement.

Nor does it preclude predjudice or mental illness.

Point taken, but there is no evidence that Paul has any of those flaws. Quite the contrary; I can't think of anything he's been obviously wrong about. The worst thing his opponents have been able to come up with is the issue of the newsletters. He has taken responsibility for those and disavowed their contents.

For another example of judgment, Ron Paul opposed invading Iraq long before the majority of the country came around. He didn't buy into the claims that Saddam was a threat to the US, and he was right. Did he just get lucky?

Whose judgment should we question -- Paul's, or the others in the GOP who want to continue digging ourselves out of a hole? Should we spend another trillion dollars or two on "nation building," or should we keep that money in the US? Which is the more sensible, conservative policy?

Ron Paul could easily be the nutty bigot he is painted to be and his education is irrelevant. I am not saying he is but he could be and every time I see him speak he does not seem quite right to me.

I'll grant you that he's not the best speaker, but there's certainly not anything wrong with him besides that.

 

[SteelCore]

Never discuss the moon with someone who beleives that it's made of green cheese. Think about it.

Ahh, I see now. We're just so stupid, so far beneath your soaring intellect, that it would be utterly pointless for you to present your arguments to us.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[SteelCore]

The New York Times is still excluding Paul from their "results" page even after his second-place finish in Nevada...

Good find, mvpel!

So much for the accusations of media bias being "tinfoil hat" rantings. On this thread alone we have two screen captures of bias so blatant that it would look like a neon sign to Stevie Wonder. Anyone who wants to see more need only turn on the boob tube and watch coverage of the primaries. And then there was that Faux News debate... :barf:

 

[12-34hom]

There's one word to describe Ron Paul and his supporters.

SPOOKY.

Also, there just ain't enough white flags to go around to support Ron Paul's foreign policy aspirations.

12-34hom