BLACK This Out!

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Quoting your own thread proves what?
[/quote]

I thought that was pretty clear. It shows that I CAN critise Ron Paul on his consistency.

squating_bear

Where exactly is Ron Paul in the latest polling? Do you know? According to every legitimate pollster SINGLE DIGITS!

As I have said and have been saying, Ron Paul will be lucky to break into low double digit support nation wide.

Right where he belongs.

Now how much media attention does that warrant?

Uh huh…

Shut up Zeb.

And when the mindless 20 something’s cannot defend their point, this is what they say

[quote]brnforce wrote:
Shut up Zeb.
[/quote]

Uh huh…

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And when the mindless 20 something’s cannot defend their point, this is what they say

[quote]brnforce wrote:
Shut up Zeb.
[/quote]

Uh huh…[/quote]

Pot kettle black.

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And when the mindless 20 something’s cannot defend their point, this is what they say

[quote]brnforce wrote:
Shut up Zeb.
[/quote]

Uh huh…[/quote]

Pot kettle black.[/quote]

Another trite post by someone who has nothing to say? That metaphor makes no sense. You can disagree with the volumes that I’ve written about Paul (or the election in general). But you can’t with any degree of accuracy claim that I simply say “shut up” and run away.

So try again. Start with a premise that defends your point and go from there. Just abandon the mindless quips, I have to believe that you’re smarter than that.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Another trite post by someone who has nothing to say? That metaphor makes no sense. You can disagree with the volumes that I’ve written about Paul (or the election in general). But you can’t with any degree of accuracy claim that I simply say “shut up” and run away.

So try again. Start with a premise that defends your point and go from there. Just abandon the mindless quips, I have to believe that you’re smarter than that.

[/quote]

Since when does the analogy extend to “run away”? How do you quantify “run away”? 24 hours, 10 minutes?

There is no standard for “run away” because it is a subjective point you used to build your argument. It’s completely irrelevant.

The analogy is apt because rather than form reasoning as to why someone is wrong you say things like “…junior.”

This is no more valid that saying “shut up”. Point being it’s a statement without argumentative weight.

Given that the phrase “Pot calling the kettle black” is taken to mean a given party accuses someone of something they themselves are guilty of and the fact that both you and brnforce used statements that are pointless means that the analogy is apt.

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Another trite post by someone who has nothing to say? That metaphor makes no sense. You can disagree with the volumes that I’ve written about Paul (or the election in general). But you can’t with any degree of accuracy claim that I simply say “shut up” and run away.

So try again. Start with a premise that defends your point and go from there. Just abandon the mindless quips, I have to believe that you’re smarter than that.

[/quote]

Since when does the analogy extend to “run away”? How do you quantify “run away”? 24 hours, 10 minutes?

There is no standard for “run away” because it is a subjective point you used to build your argument. It’s completely irrelevant.

The analogy is apt because rather than form reasoning as to why someone is wrong you say things like “…junior.”

This is no more valid that saying “shut up”. Point being it’s a statement without argumentative weight.

Given that the phrase “Pot calling the kettle black” is taken to mean a given party accuses someone of something they themselves are guilty of and the fact that both you and brnforce used statements that are pointless means that the analogy is apt.
[/quote]

Think again.

In my case I was accusing someone of a quick and meaningless hit and run. Which was also off the mark relative to the conversation. I have not done that. Me calling someone junior has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with said phrase used by the poster. Not in meaning, style or substance! Now if I posted the word “Junior” and nothing more, and it didn’t relate to the conversation you would have an argument. But, I diddn’t do that.

Therefore, you’re not only inept at defending your candidate (any candidate), you’re also wrong about the use of the term described above.

Try again?

Maybe something on topic?

I’m game let it rip junior… :slight_smile:

“Hit and run” doesn’t mean anything. There are no rules governing that on this forum. If someone writes a message and doesn’t later replay how does that invalidate what they said initially? It doesn’t.

Second part, sure it does. Both statements “shut up” and “junior” are irrelevant. I wasn’t talking in terms of style, meaning, or substance, but rather affect on making a point. Using the word “junior” or any of the other pejorative declarations that you like to use are ad hominem and ineffectual.

All of my premises were correct. “Not in meaning, style or substance!” is off mark.

Who is my candidate?

Mitt Romney is going to get the nomination now can everyone shut the fuck up

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
ZEB - Rather than belittling a man who cannot defend himself in this media (Paul), please tell me your choice in the running for President? And why?[/quote]

LOL…belittling a man who cannot defend himself? You mean talking about why one of the many Presidential contenders will not win? Is that what you’re trying to spit out? Or, are you really trying to play the pity card for Paul? Come on man that was weak.

Okay, to answer your question I prefer a candidate who will actually be able to beat Obama. Right now that could be any one of 3 or 4 people.

[quote]Dijon wrote:
“Hit and run” doesn’t mean anything. There are no rules governing that on this forum.[/quote]

I never said that there were.

I agree, and I never said otherwise.

[quote]Second part, sure it does. Both statements “shut up” and “junior” are irrelevant. I wasn’t talking in terms of style, meaning, or substance, but rather affect on making a point. Using the word “junior” or any of the other pejorative declarations that you like to use are ad hominem and ineffectual.

All of my premises were correct. “Not in meaning, style or substance!” is off mark.[/quote]

Wrong, my direct reference was to brnforce whose total post included “shut up Zeb.” He had no point, just a hit and run attack.

You then said: “Pot meet kettle.”

To clearly define, that means,

“The notion of a criticism a person is making of another could equally well apply to himself.”

Now this hit and run tactic does not apply to me as I have always given in depth responses in these political threads. In fact, far too in depth for some. While I may call you, or someone else “junior” with in the context of my lengthy post that has nothing to do with me claiming a hit and run tactic against another poster. As it is not the attack that I’ve brought into question. It was the manner in which it was launched. Do you understand? It was the briefness of the ad hominem attack which was brought into question.

Therefore, your use of “pot meet kettle” is indeed inaccurate.

And before we break down into name calling (I feel it coming from your frustration) why don’t we move back to the topic.

I don’t know who your candidate is all I know is that you’ve tried mightily to point out that Ron Paul doesn’t get a fair shake from the media. And that is nonsense. As I’ve pointed out he gets as much coverage as anyone with 7% to 9% of the vote deserves.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
“Hit and run” doesn’t mean anything. There are no rules governing that on this forum.[/quote]

I never said that there were.

I agree, and I never said otherwise.

[quote]Second part, sure it does. Both statements “shut up” and “junior” are irrelevant. I wasn’t talking in terms of style, meaning, or substance, but rather affect on making a point. Using the word “junior” or any of the other pejorative declarations that you like to use are ad hominem and ineffectual.

All of my premises were correct. “Not in meaning, style or substance!” is off mark.[/quote]

Wrong, my direct reference was to brnforce whose total post included “shut up Zeb.” He had no point, just a hit and run attack.

You then said: “Pot meet kettle.”

To clearly define, that means,

“The notion of a criticism a person is making of another could equally well apply to himself.”

Now this hit and run tactic does not apply to me as I have always given in depth responses in these political threads. In fact, far too in depth for some. While I may call you, or someone else “junior” with in the context of my lengthy post that has nothing to do with me claiming a hit and run tactic against another poster. As it is not the attack that I’ve brought into question. It was the manner in which it was launched. Do you understand? It was the briefness of the ad hominem attack which was brought into question.

Therefore, your use of “pot meet kettle” is indeed inaccurate.

And before we break down into name calling (I feel it coming from your frustration) why don’t we move back to the topic.

I don’t know who your candidate is all I know is that you’ve tried mightily to point out that Ron Paul doesn’t get a fair shake from the media. And that is nonsense. As I’ve pointed out he gets as much coverage as anyone with 7% to 9% of the vote deserves.
[/quote]

Don’t worry I won’t break down into name calling and personal attacks like you have and do on a consistent basis.

I qualified my analogy and plainly spelled out why it is correct. Rather than address that you create a new interpretation which holds without ever addressing my points. Whatever. Anyone else can see what both you and I said.

Unless you can qualify it with some example, saying that you believe fair treatment is happening is just as good as hearsay. I’ll I did is provide a link to a video, which captures general tendencies of media to avoid Ron Paul as a topic. If you can compile or find something similar which invalidates that, then so be it.

I’m not averse to changing my mind. Are you?

[quote]Dijon wrote:

I’m not averse to changing my mind. Are you?
[/quote]

No, in fact I’ve changed my mind on several topics over the past 30 years. And you will find that you’ll do the same thing. And that’s not a slam on your age. It’s just that no intelligent human being holds the exact same views over such a long span of time for obvious reasons.

As to Ron Paul, you can post any sort of clips that you want. None of that proves that Paul was ignored by the media. Let me qualify that, ignored no more than any one else who has such a poor chance of becoming President. As I’ve said repeatedly the man has to have a perfect storm to get into the low double digits. He’s just not a serious candidate. AND he never was.

For someone to post that they like Paul’s views is one thing. But there are actually people on this site who believe that Paul will (or could) become the next President of the US (not saying your one of them). And to me that is probably one of the funniest things that I’ve witnessed on T Nation.

And when he loses, or as is happening now his campaign fails to get traction, it’s absolutely a riot to watch all of the Paulie’s make excuses, blame the media, or a government conspiracy and in general whine because they truly do not understand how the process works. And the fact that Paul never had a snow ball’s chance in hell of ever getting the nomination to begin with.

Thanks for that sort of reply, ZEB.

Is Paul here to defend himself? Rather than always stating your views how about you post the figures to back your claims. You supposedly post it everywhere and I have never seen it and I have better things to do, other than follow you around like a lost puppy.

So ‘could be any one of 3 or 4 people’ and you never provided a name. You claim to e an adult, please quite playing man. I asked a question and you provided nothing. shrug

[quote]ZEB wrote:
LOL…belittling a man who cannot defend himself? You mean talking about why one of the many Presidential contenders will not win? Is that what you’re trying to spit out? Or, are you really trying to play the pity card for Paul? Come on man that was weak.

Okay, to answer your question I prefer a candidate who will actually be able to beat Obama. Right now that could be any one of 3 or 4 people. [/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
squating_bear

Where exactly is Ron Paul in the latest polling? Do you know? According to every legitimate pollster SINGLE DIGITS!

As I have said and have been saying, Ron Paul will be lucky to break into low double digit support nation wide.

Right where he belongs.

Now how much media attention does that warrant?

Uh huh…
[/quote]

Did you even read the Politico article?

And are you now admitting that you were wrong? Because in this post you said “latest polling” but in the earlier post you said “ever”

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
When someone finishes third in a poll and is not mentioned in the results what would you call it?[/quote]

When has he ever finished third and not been mentioned. Name it and I want specifics!

[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Is Paul here to defend himself?[/quote]

The first time you said this I gave you a pass and simply said that it was weak. But now you’re alluding to the fact that Paul be here to defend himself or I shouldn’t talk about him. Now why do you want to play the fool for Paul? Public figures, especially those running for President, get talked about. Our system is such that when a political leader makes a claim, that claim and the person who made it, are talked about across America.

Talked about in bars, gyms, social gatherings and of course on the Internet. That I had to explain this to you is shocking and at the same time disappointing. You need to stop drinking the Ron Paul Kool Aid. Paul is a bufoon who will never become President — Not now not ever! And I’l continue to point that out as long as there are young and politically inexperienced people trolling for him on T Nation. Are we clear?

What claim would you like me to back up with “figures?”

I’m sorry I thought it was obvious who they were. But I will spell it out for you if you like.

I believe that the following people could possibly beat Obama if they run a near flawless campaign:

  • Romney

  • Perry

  • Christie

But Ron Paul is certainly NOT one of them.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
ZEB wrote:
squating_bear

Where exactly is Ron Paul in the latest polling? Do you know? According to every legitimate pollster SINGLE DIGITS!

As I have said and have been saying, Ron Paul will be lucky to break into low double digit support nation wide.

Right where he belongs.

Now how much media attention does that warrant?

Uh huh…

And are you now admitting that you were wrong? Because in this post you said “latest polling” but in the earlier post you said “ever”[/quote]

(eye roll) I am going to try to be kind but this is really difficult.

I referenced the latest poll to point out the correctness of my statement. Just as anyone would point out a piece of evidence to back up a claim.

My claim: Paul will be very lucky to break into low double digit figures. ( I doubt it will ever happen).

Reference: In fact the latest polls show him in single digits.

Please tell me that you understand this.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
ZEB wrote:
squating_bear

Where exactly is Ron Paul in the latest polling? Do you know? According to every legitimate pollster SINGLE DIGITS!

As I have said and have been saying, Ron Paul will be lucky to break into low double digit support nation wide.

Right where he belongs.

Now how much media attention does that warrant?

Uh huh…

And are you now admitting that you were wrong? Because in this post you said “latest polling” but in the earlier post you said “ever”[/quote]

(eye roll) I am going to try to be kind but this is really difficult.

I referenced the latest poll to point out the correctness of my statement. Just as anyone would point out a piece of evidence to back up a claim.

My claim: Paul will be very lucky to break into low double digit figures. ( I doubt it will ever happen).

Reference: In fact the latest polls show him in single digits.

Please tell me that you understand this.

[/quote]

hahahaha

Yes I understand that. I wasn’t disputing that. This is what I was disputing.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
When someone finishes third in a poll and is not mentioned in the results what would you call it?[/quote]

When has he ever finished third and not been mentioned. Name it and I want specifics!

[/quote]

1:54

The example of him being third is just that, an example. The video I linked shows the pervasiveness of him not getting a fair shake in media coverage.

It really doesn’t matter if you don’t like him or his ideas. If he’s really ineffectual and wasting his time running for the Republican nomination then he will lose head to head with any other candidate despite getting fair coverage.[/quote]

You proved nothing with that video - NOTHING! I wanted specifics and unless you can give them to me you don’t know what you’re talking about. He gets a fair shake on every network that I’ve ever viewed.

From what I’ve seen and read which ever place he finishes that’s exactly how it’s reported. He gets no more, or less coverage than any other candidate who finishes as low as he usually does. What you guys want is a big splash every time the old guys shows up and breaths, It aint happening. Here’s a clue the real world is not in love with him the way you are so however much coverage he gets will never be enough to please you Paulies.

You guys need to breath the fresh air of reality. Eh…someday you will…someday soon.

[/quote]

This part in particular -

“From what I’ve seen and read which ever place he finishes that’s exactly how it’s reported. He gets no more, or less coverage than any other candidate who finishes as low as he usually does.”

That statement is demonstrably false by the Politico article. Did you even read it?