Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

This debate made me hate everyone so much.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone still watching? That panel dude just slamed Paul pretty hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw that - that guy was an idiot. I can't stand huckabee but even I know that Huckabee doesn't want to *only* do away with the IRS, he wants to add the so-called "fair-tax" which he thinks would be revenue neutral.

Also, CNN picked that question to ask RP, he didn't just suddenly start talking about the super-highway.

What a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's too bad someone wasn't there to call him out for being an idiot. How do you call someone crazy for answering the question they gave him.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
This debate made me hate everyone so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

[/ QUOTE ]

This nation was founded by people who thought along the same lines as RP. To refer to RP's ideas as cynical and unrealistic is to deny history. The ideas that RP supports are the same one that produced the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. You would do well to refrain from your attacks and do some homework.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't ... [words]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that it indeed wasn't.

The rest of your post is a product of the same mindset.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Why was that one youtube guy so hung up on us going to Mars? doesn't he know what the martian atmosphere does to humans?


http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/totalrecall09.jpg

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like Huckabee, Guiliani (sp?), McCain, Thompson
Dont like Paul (wish he would just go away), Tancredo, Hunter, Romney

But I would vote for any of them if they were running against Hillary...I would stay home if it was Paul v Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]


So YOU are the guy that Zogby polls.

So..... how do you get on their mailing list?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't ... [words]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that it indeed wasn't.

The rest of your post is a product of the same mindset.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf stop being such a blatant homer, especially considering the newest good post he just wrote. The word "trolling" is so horribly abused in this forum.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Ok, I'm watching the post debate show on CNN, and some white dude with an afro is asking why Ron Paul is even talking about some "mythical" transcontinental road and the organization that is planning this, as if this 'totally isn't happening.'

This should be easy enough to prove or disprove. I read about this road WAAAAAY before I heard Ron Paul talking about it.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm watching the post debate show on CNN, and some white dude with an afro is asking why Ron Paul is even talking about some "mythical" transcontinental road and the organization that is planning this, as if this 'totally isn't happening.'

This should be easy enough to prove or disprove. I read about this road WAAAAAY before I heard Ron Paul talking about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well the reason he was talking about it in the first place was because that was the question that was given to him by CNN. It's like they were setting him up, it's [censored] retarded.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not drive-by trolling, I was seriously asking you to explain your viewpoint, and thank you for doing so.

Ron Paul is more of a libertarian nowadays than a Republican, as much as he says he isn't. He is a constitutionalist, and believes in many of the original values the founding fathers of the United States believed in.

If people believe that the changes he wants to institute cannot be done, and, as you say "couldn't possibly come to fruition," I do not have hope for the United States of America (KneeCo, if I remember correctly you are Canadian? please correct me if I am wrong).

If the US changes its foreign policy, all of the sudden more money starts appearing in the treasury and the rest of his proposed reforms snowball from there.

Is it really unrealistic to think that:

- With a focus on international trade and peaceful relations instead of an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy, the US could save hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars every eyar?

- With all of this extra money, the IRS is no longer needed to claim unneccesary taxes from the American people.

- Eliminate the need for a Dept. of Homeland Security. The whole purpose is to secure our interior from military threats from abroad. Maybe if we didn't play the role of world police, countries and radical terrorist cells wouldn't hate us so much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I could go on and on, but I truly think that if we changed our foreign policy, many of the problems within our country could be addressed. Are these things too far-fetched to believe?

Ron Paul will most likely not win the Republican nomination in 2008, but his campaign should start a grass-roots revolution that slowly evolves from a bushfire into an inferno over the next decade or two which calls for individual rights, a smaller government, and more peaceful international relations. If believing in these things is unrealistic, then the world is going to be a [censored] place in 20 years.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't ... [words]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that it indeed wasn't.

The rest of your post is a product of the same mindset.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf stop being such a blatant homer, especially considering the newest good post he just wrote. The word "trolling" is so horribly abused in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's comical to watch though.

"Giuliani sucks"
"Agree"
"Seconded"
"I would say he really sucks"
"That Romney sure is a moron"
"Yep"
"Uh huh"
"Couldn't agree more"
"Ron Paul isn't what you think he is"
"TROLL TROLL TROLL"

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/...061871488X.gif

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you think Ron Paul doesn't believe in the "system" (which I can only assume to mean government, the United States government, federal power) He believes in all of these things, in accordance with the constitution, very firmly. Show me a qoute of him saying something to the contrary?

Don't confuse Ron Paul with the AC'ers on this forum. Just because the support his ideas of limited government (in a hope for no government) doesn't mean Ron Paul pushes for no government.


Edit: And I agree, the trolling accusations get annoying. The difference, elwood, in those examples, is that not really anyone here (maybe a few random people I can't think of) support the previous candidates - you can't piss anyone off by randomly insulting those candidates without providing any substance in the post. You can piss off all the Paul supporters (that make up a large % of the postsers in the Politics forum) with a silly statement like that. He later clarified and explained his posistion, which allows for intelligent discussion.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/...061871488X.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

In computer gaming, a headshot is the projectile-induced injury to the head of an enemy, often resulting in instant death. It is most often attempted in sniping.

Within and without the context of video games, a headshot usually signifies a shot of particular skill - the head is one of the smallest targets on the body to hit; and is therefore one of the most difficult to shoot. Many first-person shooters such as Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament and Halo reward players for headshots on this basis, with such a shot inflicting more than the normal amount of damage, usually proving lethal. In multiplayer Delta Force 2 and other games in NovaLogic's Delta Force series, shooting an opponent in the head will score double points, due to the increased difficulty of the shot. Many boss fights in the Syphon Filter series require headshots to be defeated as they are usually wearing body armor, though any person can receive one -- even the main character. Gears of War also offers players to make instant deaths from headshots. When doing so, it is extremely graphic and realistic compared to some other games.

Rarely, players will score a long streak of headshots, either through a phenomenal display of skill or through luck. One of the higher displays of skill is in attaining multiple headshots with a sniper rifle, since the difficulty of tracking a moving target through a scope and scoring a headshot requires much finesse. Due to this, such an extraordinary feat is often attributed to cheating. This accusation originates from programs or modified game files known as 'aimbots', which permit players to instantly score headshots upon seeing a target. Additionally, some weapons in games are dubbed as "headshot machines" due to their recoil pattern having the innate effect of rising the point of impact up towards the head after a burst of fire.

Many games also have specific "death animations" to signify a headshot such as the popular Halo: Combat Evolved, where a player will spin and fall to the ground. Many other games feature the head exploding or being torn apart such as Conker: Live & Reloaded and Gears of War. In Urban Dead, zombie hunters can buy the "headshot" skill to incapacitate the zombie players they kill. In most games featuring ragdoll physics animation, a headshot will result in an instant ragdoll effect, simulating the complete loss of brain input to the body, causing the body to react in a ragdoll movement. In the aforementioned Gears of War, the head will explode violently, expelling blood and other matter with exaggerated force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headshot

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
wtf stop being such a blatant homer, especially considering the newest good post he just wrote. The word "trolling" is so horribly abused in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Are you seriously suggesting that a random bullet point of:

[ QUOTE ]

* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not qualify as trolling?

You should try to be less of a blatant apologist for anyone who attempts an argument against Ron Paul. You just make yourself look bad if you try to defend things that are not defensible. I couldn't mind any less if he made a fair criticism (which yes, he eventually did attempt). But it doesn't change the fact that his first post was indeed trolling, at least as far as I understand the term to mean.

You actually disagree? Or was that just a random attack on me cause you like to aimlessly defend people who oppose "the home team"?

FWIW, I rarely use the word "Troll." I think I've done it twice, ever, and one of those times I admitted I was wrong and that it was a stupid accusation 5 minutes later. I think it's a weird term and using it isn't really my style. But, I was just agreeing with whoever first mentioned it that it clearly was "drive by trolling" (which, adds a mildly funny twist to the allegation). And I don't really appreciate your trying to turn my acknowledgment of this into something personal (i.e. "stop being a blatant homer").

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
lots of words about why Paul can win

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally staying away from any personal opinions whatsoever:

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/2063/2/

I assume Paul has spent lots of money in Iowa - not as much as in NH, but it has to be a significant outlay. Results:

[ QUOTE ]
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%. Those numbers reflect an eleven point-gain for Huckabee and a six-point decline for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged.

As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.

McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.

Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.

[/ QUOTE ]

His ratings are dead last in what is technically his own party.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Adanthar,

Who cares what a bunch of [censored] corn farmers think. RP is opposed to agriculture subsidies which I think is what turns off Iowans (imo, could be wrong).

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur8F_c5PQg

Paul's Ad tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks much. My Tivo cut off the debate after the allotted time ran out.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur8F_c5PQg

Paul's Ad tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks much. My Tivo cut off the debate after the allotted time ran out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great ad imo. About 1,000 times better than the last one.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Why do I watch this [censored]?

Romney was terrible compared to last debate. I no longer view him as much of a threat if he wins, unless he was just having a really off night.

Giuliani actually handled himself very well, except for the dumb cheapshot he took at Romney early on. On the other hand he was attacked a lot more than usual. As a dem, I don't care who he loses the nomination to as long as he loses. He's really got the best shot by far, besides Paul of beating the democrats. He's the best debater, the most moderate and not a fundie Christian..
(If Ron Paul wins the nomination then I'm fine with him beating the dems)

Thompson was nervous (he kept touching his face whenever he said anything), talked super slow and didn't say anything interesting (basically just "me too").

Huckabee, yeah, he did well. I don't know how to feel about it though. Is it good or bad for Giuliani? That's all I care about really.

McCain got badly "pwned" by Ron Paul early on and less badly "pwned" by Giuliani later on but did pretty well between. But Republicans dislike like McCain strongly enought that his performance doesn't really matter. Lol, so funny how he just randomly threw out "RON PAUL WHY ARE YOU AN ISOLATIONIST LOL WHAT ABOUT HITLER" in the middle of answering a completely unrelated question.

Paul never got to fugging talk. I think he got asked like three questions. Ugh.

Tancredo: All I can remember is that he doesn't like illegal immigrants and also doesn't like legal immigrants. Not a big fan of foreigners apparently.

Hunter: His commercial reminded me of a used car dealership ad. I laughed.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lots of words about why Paul can win

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally staying away from any personal opinions whatsoever:

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/2063/2/

I assume Paul has spent lots of money in Iowa - not as much as in NH, but it has to be a significant outlay. Results:

[ QUOTE ]
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%. Those numbers reflect an eleven point-gain for Huckabee and a six-point decline for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged.

As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.

McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.

Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.

[/ QUOTE ]

His ratings are dead last in what is technically his own party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

Because 2+2's search function sucks so bad (not your fault), I can't find a post that exemplifies why you hate Ron Paul so much.

I've read the Redbean posts, so I understand your views there. However, that's one issue among many, and I was wondering if you would be willing to divulge why you are so adamantly against him in every politics thread I see you in.

Granted, in this thread you simply posted some random poll results. I'm generally drawing from your passing comments in several other threads where Ron Paul has been the subject.

Posting a link to a former thread in which you opinion is adequately explained would be perfectly acceptable.

If you fail to respond to this post, I will take that to mean you have no response to this question, and do, in fact, admit defeat.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lots of words about why Paul can win

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally staying away from any personal opinions whatsoever:

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/2063/2/

I assume Paul has spent lots of money in Iowa - not as much as in NH, but it has to be a significant outlay. Results:

[ QUOTE ]
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%. Those numbers reflect an eleven point-gain for Huckabee and a six-point decline for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged.

As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.

McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.

Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.

[/ QUOTE ]

His ratings are dead last in what is technically his own party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

Because 2+2's search function sucks so bad (not your fault), I can't find a post that exemplifies why you hate Ron Paul so much.

I've read the Redbean posts, so I understand your views there. However, that's one issue among many, and I was wondering if you would be willing to divulge why you are so adamantly against him in every politics thread I see you in.

Granted, in this thread you simply posted some random poll results. I'm generally drawing from your passing comments in several other threads where Ron Paul has been the subject.

Posting a link to a former thread in which you opinion is adequately explained would be perfectly acceptable.

If you fail to respond to this post, I will take that to mean you have no response to this question, and do, in fact, admit defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try not to troll here. I try not to overly criticize a forum member. But really, this has to be the dumbest [censored] thing I've ever read on this forum. "I'm calling you out. Answer my stupid [censored] question or you lose."

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lots of words about why Paul can win

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally staying away from any personal opinions whatsoever:

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/2063/2/

I assume Paul has spent lots of money in Iowa - not as much as in NH, but it has to be a significant outlay. Results:

[ QUOTE ]
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%. Those numbers reflect an eleven point-gain for Huckabee and a six-point decline for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged.

As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.

McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.

Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.

[/ QUOTE ]

His ratings are dead last in what is technically his own party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

Because 2+2's search function sucks so bad (not your fault), I can't find a post that exemplifies why you hate Ron Paul so much.

I've read the Redbean posts, so I understand your views there. However, that's one issue among many, and I was wondering if you would be willing to divulge why you are so adamantly against him in every politics thread I see you in.

Granted, in this thread you simply posted some random poll results. I'm generally drawing from your passing comments in several other threads where Ron Paul has been the subject.

Posting a link to a former thread in which you opinion is adequately explained would be perfectly acceptable.

If you fail to respond to this post, I will take that to mean you have no response to this question, and do, in fact, admit defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete speculation to follow.....

People like Adanthar are opposed to Ron Paul because to support him is to admit that individuals are capable of taking care of themselves. That a government isn't needed to force people to take the correct course of action. It would be to admit that an elitist group of liberal minded people aren't necessary to make sure that the hoi polloi won't cause there own extinction due to their small minds.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

wow, that's a random hijack, but okay. rather than go dig up my posts here, I'll give you a link:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2619669

warning: this thread is on a $10/registration forum - though I think you can read w/o registering - and has like 8 billion replies (in fact, it's one of around half a dozen of those threads) so you're probably not going to care. if you feel like trawling through the whole thing, though, feel free. I know I have a bunch of posts on the subject there.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
People like Adanthar are opposed to Ron Paul because to support him is to admit that individuals are capable of taking care of themselves. That a government isn't needed to force people to take the correct course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]
lool. supporting someone is not "admitting" that you agree with them on everything. are anarchists who support Ron Paul admitting that a state is necessary?
I tentatively support Paul and I'm like, near socialist.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Complete speculation to follow.....

People like Adanthar are opposed to Ron Paul because to support him is to admit that individuals are capable of taking care of themselves. That a government isn't needed to force people to take the correct course of action. It would be to admit that an elitist group of liberal minded people aren't necessary to make sure that the hoi polloi won't cause there own extinction due to their small minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, yes, that seems to be exactly what I think and not trolling at all*, please do go on

*see, *this* is actually a troll. look, I used the word correctly! yay!

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People like Adanthar are opposed to Ron Paul because to support him is to admit that individuals are capable of taking care of themselves. That a government isn't needed to force people to take the correct course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]
lool. supporting someone is not "admitting" that you agree with them on everything. are anarchists who support Ron Paul admitting that a state is necessary?
I tentatively support Paul and I'm like, near socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, If you are "near Socialist" I don't understand how you can support Ron Paul. Care to explain? The ACists who support RP do so from a standpoint of practicality and the knowledge that limiting the state is not condoning its existence (or at least thats my reason). Also, if you disagree with the two points that you quoted I don't understand why in the hell you would support RP (unless you consider the US foreign policy to be so important that it vastly outweighs the other points.)

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

To summarize:

Giuliani - is going down regardless of what this debate does for him. People have figured him out and realize that he's barely a republican, he's at LEAST borderline corrupt, and he has no other platform than 9/11.

McCain - He knows he's beat. I think he's a decent person, and he's simply not about to change his unpopular platform when he has VERY little chance to win. Bush Jr. broke his spirit when McCain lost that nomination, and he's never recovered.

Hunter - lol.

Paul - I didn't get to watch the very end of this debate, but considering that these debates are meant to pander to the unwashed, unlearned masses, I don't think he did very well. He has an uphill battle trying to debunk the MSM and conventional wisdom in 90 second sound-bites, so I don't envy him. He's my favorite candidate by far, but I don't believe this showing helped him very much tonight.

Hopefully, it didn't hurt him much.

Romney - by far the highlight of the debate to me. To see him flipflop at LEAST 3 times in one debate was extremely satisfying to me. I don't think he had one original idea the entire time, and to see him crash and burn made my night.

Anybody who would vote for this guy after watching tonight's debate simply likes his hair and is secretly infatuated with his masculine profile.

Tancredo - LOL.

Huckabee - I don't necessarily agree with him, but the night was definitely his. If I were a betting man, and I am, I would place money on him on any of these odds-making sites. Fortunately for me, he is not one of my bottom picks, so my world wouldn't be completely shattered if he got the nomination. It would simply be left in disarray for a time.

Fred Thompson - I think he did well tonight. He called some people out, and nobody could retaliate against him....mainly because nobody knows a god damned thing about him. He's some guy that was in the Senate once, he was also the guy on Days of Thunder, and he has a magical ability to pull hot young tail. How are they supposed to respond to him?

Honestly, this was his best showing to date.


Tancredo - LOL! Wait....I already said that.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Bahhhhh I'm angry about Paul's treatment tonight and let my emotions get the best of me. I'll lay off posting for awhile. My apologies, Adanthar.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bahhhhh I'm angry about Paul's treatment tonight and let my emotions get the best of me. I'll lay off posting for awhile. My apologies, Adanthar.

[/ QUOTE ]

np

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lots of words about why Paul can win

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally staying away from any personal opinions whatsoever:

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/2063/2/

I assume Paul has spent lots of money in Iowa - not as much as in NH, but it has to be a significant outlay. Results:

[ QUOTE ]
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%. Those numbers reflect an eleven point-gain for Huckabee and a six-point decline for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged.

As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.

McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.

Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.

[/ QUOTE ]

His ratings are dead last in what is technically his own party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

Because 2+2's search function sucks so bad (not your fault), I can't find a post that exemplifies why you hate Ron Paul so much.

I've read the Redbean posts, so I understand your views there. However, that's one issue among many, and I was wondering if you would be willing to divulge why you are so adamantly against him in every politics thread I see you in.

Granted, in this thread you simply posted some random poll results. I'm generally drawing from your passing comments in several other threads where Ron Paul has been the subject.

Posting a link to a former thread in which you opinion is adequately explained would be perfectly acceptable.

If you fail to respond to this post, I will take that to mean you have no response to this question, and do, in fact, admit defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try not to troll here. I try not to overly criticize a forum member. But really, this has to be the dumbest [censored] thing I've ever read on this forum. "I'm calling you out. Answer my stupid [censored] question or you lose."

[/ QUOTE ]

That last line was in jest, but considering that you believe that 'this was the dumbest [censored] thing you've ever read on this forum,' I shouldn't even dignify this response with a rebuttal. You obviously have a LOOOT of people on ignore.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bahhhhh I'm angry about Paul's treatment tonight and let my emotions get the best of me. I'll lay off posting for awhile. My apologies, Adanthar.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don't understand what you are angry about? He got much more time than he usually does, he answered the questions well generally. (a little too passionate on one of them so he fumbled his words a bit) I don't know what you were expecting?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
That last line was in jest, but considering that you believe that 'this was the dumbest [censored] thing you've ever read on this forum,' I shouldn't even dignify this response with a rebuttal. You obviously have a LOOOT of people on ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't, but I do ignore a lot of what is written here (usually based on the topic, not the poster.)

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Yeah, it wouldn't let me read the forum posts.

Oh well.

[ QUOTE ]
wow, that's a random hijack, but okay. rather than go dig up my posts here, I'll give you a link:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2619669

warning: this thread is on a $10/registration forum - though I think you can read w/o registering - and has like 8 billion replies (in fact, it's one of around half a dozen of those threads) so you're probably not going to care. if you feel like trawling through the whole thing, though, feel free. I know I have a bunch of posts on the subject there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bahhhhh I'm angry about Paul's treatment tonight and let my emotions get the best of me. I'll lay off posting for awhile. My apologies, Adanthar.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don't understand what you are angry about? He got much more time than he usually does, he answered the questions well generally. (a little too passionate on one of them so he fumbled his words a bit) I don't know what you were expecting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about McCain calling him an isolationist and comparing the current situation to WW2 while saying it is nothing like Vietnam. I'm talking about retard biased panelist talking about him like he is a kook. It's about watching someone that has more integrity than anyone in that room being treated poorly. It's all cool though, it spurred to make another donation in addition to the ones I'll be making on the 30th and the 16th. Apparently RP gave an "amazing" speech that was shown on justin.tv. Hopefully someone will post a link when it comes up. I'll keep an eye out.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

^^ The little bit I saw was really good.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

Where is Copernicus at? He's a Romney supporter, lol. Did Romney even answer a question tonight?? What a friggin' loser. He showed his true flip-flopping, undeciding, fence-straddling persona tonight. Anybody that would vote for Mitt after this display IMHO is nutso. And Julieannie wasn't much better. I find it ironic that these two are the MSM frontrunners that people are supposed to vote for. These are the 2 worst candidates that one could vote for.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People like Adanthar are opposed to Ron Paul because to support him is to admit that individuals are capable of taking care of themselves. That a government isn't needed to force people to take the correct course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]
lool. supporting someone is not "admitting" that you agree with them on everything. are anarchists who support Ron Paul admitting that a state is necessary?
I tentatively support Paul and I'm like, near socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, If you are "near Socialist" I don't understand how you can support Ron Paul. Care to explain?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. I don't agree with any candidate on everything. I'm sort of a "libertarian socialist" in that I support moderately high taxes, translated into public services such as health care, education and day care, but I also strongly oppose throwing people into jail for non-violent drug use, prostitution, gambling and things of that nature. Unlike Paul, I'm not completely non-military-interventionalist. However, I think being completely non-interventionist would be far preferable to engaging in the kinds of intervention both that we are engaging in right now and that we've engaged in historically. The US foreign policy is an imperialist one, which I consider both immoral and detrimental. All Democrats talk about is getting out of Iraq (which most of them voted for and kept voting to fund) and being "anti-war". Paul actually talks about things like the immoral actions of the CIA and talks about much more major foreign policy change than simply withdrawing from Iraq.

Areas I like Democrats over Paul: pro taxes (esp. graduated), pro public healthcare (I doubt Hillary would do anything good on this tho'), pro public education.

Areas I like Paul over Democrats: Foreign policy, ending the war on drugs, cutting back on spending (not always something I'd care about, but certainly important right now)

I think THE BEST things we could do as a nation by far right now would be to stop antagonizing foreign countries with our imperialism and to end the war on drugs. That's why I like Paul... but I've been swinging back and forth on him TBH.