Okay, I’m the originator of the Ron Paul sounds “bat-shit” crazy (at times) argument line.
Who the fuck is dumb enough to equate that with me being an ardent supporter of his? Oh that’s right… chucky/jerffy.
[quote]nominal Prospect wrote:
Let’s predict, but skip the betting shenanigans.
I’ve stated my predictions repeatedly on the Ron Paul thread. So far, I haven’t been wrong. [/quote]
nominal,
I’d be lying if I said I was surprised.
However, you’ve shown your true colors.
You don’t think ron paul is going to win the nomination.
So please preface any comments (unless you accept the wager) with, “I think…” instead of “He will.”
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
nominal Prospect wrote:
So please preface any comments (unless you accept the wager) with, “I think…” instead of “He will.”
JeffR
[/quote]
Jerffy, please tell me you are twelve years old and sitting in your basement.
If you aren’t, it is truly frightening to imagine your stunted little brain in a position of any importance.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Come on nominal and liftus. Remember all the trash talking on the ron paul thread?
[/quote]
As I recall it is people like Mick and you who are the trash talkers. Don’t equate me to that.
I’d bet money but not that I’d leave for six months. I wouldn’t want this place taken over by narrow minded idiots.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Come on nominal and liftus. Remember all the trash talking on the ron paul thread?
As I recall it is people like Mick and you who are the trash talkers. Don’t equate me to that.
I’d bet money but not that I’d leave for six months. I wouldn’t want this place taken over by narrow minded idiots.[/quote]
Translation: Not confident enough to bet.
Oh, Mick and I aren’t talking trash. We are telling you ron paul won’t win.
You must agree with our assertion, or you would take this bet.
It’s not really fun arguing with someone who doesn’t believe what they say.
JeffR
Do I like Ron Paul? Yes.
Do I think he’d be good for our country as long as the Dems control Congress? Yes.
Do I think he is in any way shape or form sane or in his mind? Hell… fucking… no.
Do I think he has a chance of going ANYWHERE in this election? No.
Personally, I think McCain will take the primary, but I’m not betting on it. I live in New York, Long Island at that. Damn near impossible to judge what the Cons like over here.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I’d bet money but not that I’d leave for six months. I wouldn’t want this place taken over by narrow minded idiots.[/quote]
Yes, we must be “narrow-minded” because we recognize communism as the bloodiest mistake that humans have made since they started socializing.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Is that what you want; high school drivel? From what I’ve seen, your reading comprehension level is tenth grade equivalent. I’d prefer you not dumbing down the section on a bet. [/quote]
Weak.
[quote]And this: if all of your political opponents leave, who would you argue with?
Answer: Yourself.[/quote]
Weaker.
[quote]orion wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
I hope jihad-on-you-lixy signs up, and bicycler of the anschluss orion, the conspiracy nut “bench specialist” (name escapes me), the belgian (congo) muffin man, spine-of-cartilage-vroom, bipolar pookie, and whatever lumpy/100 meters is calling himselves these days.
Come on boys, Ron Paul! Take the challenge!
And JeffR, sometimes you get embarassed by your fans.
To have ChuckyT applauding me would give me nightmares…
[/quote]
I applaud you, and wish you a lifetime of sleepless nights. Please notice there are no smiley faces attached to this post.
As much as I like Ron Paul (I’d vote for him if I’d live there) , I think Clinton is gonna make it. The Democrats just seem to have the upper hand this time with candidates who got far better media skills and who are a lot more photogenic.
As for the rep. primaries, I have no clue, cause the candidates (except for Paul) are hopelessly pathetic.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Let’s predict, but skip the betting shenanigans.
I’ve stated my predictions repeatedly on the Ron Paul thread. So far, I haven’t been wrong. [/quote]
Weakest.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, I’m the originator of the Ron Paul sounds “bat-shit” crazy (at times) argument line.
Who the fuck is dumb enough to equate that with me being an ardent supporter of his? Oh that’s right… chucky/jerffy.[/quote]
Could we please get some tough talk to go along with this?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Come on nominal and liftus. Remember all the trash talking on the ron paul thread?
As I recall it is people like Mick and you who are the trash talkers. Don’t equate me to that.
I’d bet money but not that I’d leave for six months. I wouldn’t want this place taken over by narrow minded idiots.
Translation: Not confident enough to bet.
Oh, Mick and I aren’t talking trash. We are telling you ron paul won’t win.
You must agree with our assertion, or you would take this bet.
It’s not really fun arguing with someone who doesn’t believe what they say.
JeffR[/quote]
Wait a minute, Jeff.
As far as I’m informed, three candidates will make it. (Could be BS, I know)
While it’s highly probable that Mr. Giuliani will be one those (along, perhaps Romney and McCain?- I really have no clue.), we all know Paul would need a last minute scandal or something like that to even hope to be nominated.
In reality you got a full house on your hand while the Ron Paul fans must simultaneously hope for a four of a kind as well as for some player to have a heart attack.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Do I think he is in any way shape or form sane or in his mind? Hell… fucking… no.
[/quote]
Why? If he’s out of his mind then who in this race can we consider sane?
All of the republicans except Paul want to continue exerting our military presence around the globe (insane in my book). All of the democrats want universal managed health care (which is beyond insane). Who do we have left to choose from?
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Yes, we must be “narrow-minded” because we recognize communism as the bloodiest mistake that humans have made since they started socializing.[/quote]
I would say that makes you stupid for not recognizing the difference between economics and government.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
kroby wrote:
Is that what you want; high school drivel? From what I’ve seen, your reading comprehension level is tenth grade equivalent. I’d prefer you not dumbing down the section on a bet.
Weak.
And this: if all of your political opponents leave, who would you argue with?
Answer: Yourself.
Weaker.[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
orion wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
I hope jihad-on-you-lixy signs up, and bicycler of the anschluss orion, the conspiracy nut “bench specialist” (name escapes me), the belgian (congo) muffin man, spine-of-cartilage-vroom, bipolar pookie, and whatever lumpy/100 meters is calling himselves these days.
Come on boys, Ron Paul! Take the challenge!
And JeffR, sometimes you get embarassed by your fans.
To have ChuckyT applauding me would give me nightmares…
I applaud you, and wish you a lifetime of sleepless nights. Please notice there are no smiley faces attached to this post.[/quote]
No nightmares then.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Let’s predict, but skip the betting shenanigans.
I’ve stated my predictions repeatedly on the Ron Paul thread. So far, I haven’t been wrong.
Weakest.[/quote]
Non-sequitur. Post something that addresses what I wrote.
There are only two possible correct responses to the claim of, “So far, I haven’t been wrong”:
A) Yes, you have, and here’s why…
or
B) No, you havent, but…
I made a claim. If you think that claim is incorrect, then write a post demonstrating so.
I have made a series of predictions, which you, in all likelyhood, have never even read. Thus, you could not have a legitimate opinion on the validity of my statement. The result is self-evident. For lack of a legitimate opinion, you present an absurd one. I’m asking you, quite kindly, to stop doing that.
Please form a real opinion and then post that.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
nominal Prospect wrote:
Let’s predict, but skip the betting shenanigans.
I’ve stated my predictions repeatedly on the Ron Paul thread. So far, I haven’t been wrong.
nominal,
I’d be lying if I said I was surprised.
However, you’ve shown your true colors.
You don’t think ron paul is going to win the nomination.
So please preface any comments (unless you accept the wager) with, “I think…” instead of “He will.”
JeffR[/quote]
You and Mick are using are classic bait and switch tactics, which I’ll reveal and explain in just a second.
I have no formal association with you, Mick, or any other poster on this forum. We all came here voluntarily and choose to remain here voluntarily. Any one of us has the ability and the full right to leave at any time. There are no contractual obligations, since there is no formal compensation for our individual contributions to this board.
In short, I am under no obligation to do anything you say.
Why do I sound like a lawyer? Because of this:
You’re trying to bullshit your way to high heaven, creating arbitrary rules and regulations where none have existed, then imposing them retroactively upon the rest of the forum participants.
This amounts to ideological warfare, since you would restrict the language of debate in such a way that you could never be proven wrong. This is and has been your basic operating strategy.
I understand that the way in which a question is framed dictates how people will think of it and how they can answer. I won’t be subject to your neuro-linguistic programming.
It has been my observation that you and Mick thrive on all manner of logical fallacies. Strawmen, Red Herrings, and circular arguments are your everyday tools-of-trade. Keeping track of them all is an exhaustive task.
Don’t tell me that I’m dodging anything or missing your point. I get your point. Your point is, “if you are so sure of something then you should be willing to bet on it”. I clearly understand that notion, and I’m sure everyone else here does as well. For you to pretend that anyone does NOT understand would be a red herring.
I am a philosophical warrior. I wear my heart on my sleeve and fight in the open. You are a philosophical turtle. You avoid open combat in favor of subterfuge. While I make a deliberate effort to understand and address opposing worldviews in my arguments, you make no similiar effort and seemingly enter each discussion with your mind already made up.
I fight with ideas - you toy with language. My rhetorical style is that of a conservative, yours is that of a liberal. Whether you realize it or not, you sound an awful lot like a Marxist ideologue, for whom lying is a job title.
If you had wanted to know my opinion of Ron Paul’s chances, you could have simply asked at any time, and you would have been duly informed. I expect you are fully aware of this. Moreover, I suspect that uncovering my real views about Ron Paul was not your motivation at all.
Your motivation, also shared by Mick, is to steer the discussion away from Ron Paul’s campaign and his ever-increasing popularity and into a type of artificial, black-and-white paradigm in which Ron Paul must be utterly opposed or utterly championed, with no middle ground to speak of.
Here’s what’s going on:
You and Mick are telling us that Ron Paul can’t win, just as you wrote.
And now, I’m telling you that everyone hears you loud and clear. That doesn’t imply that anyone who supports Ron Paul is going to abandon all hope for his chances of being nominated. I would venture that there isn’t a person on here who isn’t aware that Ron Paul is fighting the odds.
Your opinions have been duly noted. You don’t think Ron Paul has a chance in hell. We get it. We got it two months ago, when you first told us. Now, everybody wants you to shut up because you have nothing new to say. Nobody wants you to shutup because you’re telling them a “painful truth”, as much as that would please your ego.
We’re simply tired of hearing, “Ron Paul can’t win, period”, over and over again, even as news of his progress floods in by the day.
“Fighting the odds” is not the same as “has no chance of winning”. If you presuppose that he has no chance, then nothing that possibly happens in the interim between now and the nomination can possibly influence your view.
If, on the other hand, you are willing to grant the possibility that he has a chance, however small, then you allow yourself to revise and update your position as time goes by and changes come to pass.
I don’t believe I’ve ever stated, outright, that Ron Paul is going to win the nomination.
What I have stated - a view which I will gladly articulate a second time - is that he has a decent shot at going far in the primaries, and his odds are constantly improving, whereas those of his competitors are narrowing.
I have made more concrete predictions regarding some of the other candidates. I have no qualms about those, either. I stand behind them all, and have yet to be proven wrong, so far.
I have not “talked trash”. I have presented my opinions and made certain predictions. That is not talking trash, that is being an upstanding member of a discussion board.
-
After the first debate, I predicted that Romney was going to become one of the major contenders. He has.
-
I predicted that McCain had no chance of earning the nomination because of his stance on the second-most important issue of the day, immigration. His campaign has since fallen off a cliff and nobody considers him a serious contender anymore.
-
I predicted that Rudy’s early lead in the polls was all about name recognition and he would start sinking once Romney and Thompson were firmly entrenched. He has.
-
I’ve already advanced, and will take the opportunity to do so again, my notion that the Republican base will NOT nominate Rudy and that the GOP establishment WANTS to run a Thompson/Romney ticket. Fred to earn the nomination, Romney to pull in the moderates in the general election.
“Standing athwart this plan”, I wrote a month ago, “…is Ron Paul, who is the wild card this election”. Certainly, nothing has yet come to pass that would contradict those statements.
- I’ve also predicted that Ron Paul has a strong chance of winning the Iowa and NH primaries, in which Romney is his only real opponent. If he wins the poll tomorrow, then you can change “strong chance” to a “lock-in”. If he comes in second place, it’s still a “strong chance”.
Those are my predictions, stated very plainly. Let nobody accuse me of “talking trash” or hiding my views.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Jerffy, please tell me you are twelve years old and sitting in your basement.
If you aren’t, it is truly frightening to imagine your stunted little brain in a position of any importance.
[/quote]
He’s one of the most shrewd posters here. His apparent weakness is his hidden strength.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
It’s not really fun arguing with someone who doesn’t believe what they say.[/quote]
If you and Mick didn’t find it fun, you wouldn’t be doing it. Lord knows, nobody asked you to start, and nobody would miss you if you left.
So it IS fun, as revealed by your own actions.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Personally, I think McCain will take the primary, but I’m not betting on it. I live in New York, Long Island at that. Damn near impossible to judge what the Cons like over here.[/quote]
It is not as difficult to make a good judgement as you would think.
All it takes is pointing your browser to a place like www.freerepublic.com/
I’m informing you, as a matter of fact, that McCain fell off a cliff about a month ago. It was widely reported that he had fewer available funds than Ron Paul. Then, a few weeks later, he lost most of his campaign staff in one day.
Trust me: McCain is done.
He never had a chance because he supported Bush’s amnesty. Immigration is the second most important issue to the Republican base, after foreign policy. The Republican base is heavily opposed to amnesty and heavily in favor of securing the borders. The popular sentiment on the right is that the Bush admin completely dropped the ball on this issue.
It is so important to Republicans that mainstream posters on FR are, for the first time, questioning GWB’s ability to be C-in-C. This, on a site that features a daily prayer thread for the Republican president.
I have already predicted that the Republican party is split and will be forced into making compromises this election. Here’s why:
The most hawkish candidates on foreign policy are weakest on the border issue.
Two exceptions to this are Duncan Hunter and Tancredo, which basically explains why they were the overwhelming pick of the userbase on FR. However, I don’t think they have the staying power to make it to the primaries. I am predicting that they will both lose to Ron Paul in the Ames poll.
Ron Paul is easily the strongest candidate on securing the borders, but the “weakest” on national defense, from a neocon perspective. Thus, the circumstances are such that much of the Republican base will be forced to choose between national defense and securing the borders. Hence, the necessary compromise which I spoke of earlier.
Ron Paul is the anti-neocon in this race. Nevertheless, I DO think he could become the “compromise candidate” for neocons in the Republican base who want to keep Hillary out of office. This does not account for the paleocon, libertarian, and independent factions of the Right, all of which will be in full force this election.
Long story short: You’re wrong, in more ways than one. Ron Paul is entirely sane and he has a much better chance than you think (judging by the fact that you thought McCain was going to get the nomination).
It’s obvious from my posts that I have studied this election at length and am not simply pulling things out of my ass. I would hope that would be as apparent to others as it is to me, in writing them.
From Day 1, I told you that I was following this in detail. You are entitled to disagree, but you have no right to belittle.
I have not seen anything of comparable substance come out of the “anti-Ron” camp. I know that most of you people support either Fred or Rudy. So, present your case. Let’s hear it, dingbats.
What I find disturbing is that JeffR is trying to kick republicans that don’t agree with his candidate off a website.
You are committing a cardinal sin, JeffR. This is the Big Tent Party. Your exclusionary tactics will be the reason if the elephant doesn’t win next election. You do not disenfranchise your republican neighbors; you do not speak ill of your republican neighbors. Divided we fall. Are you even a republican?
In fact, this little pissing contest is symptomatic of how MY party has fractured due to
-
the religious right thinking they run the party
-
conservatives thinking they run the party
-
dopes like you thinking to bully others, stifling legitimate discourse.
-
Yes-men, cronyism and Abramof type corruption
Quit acting like a child with his tongue sticking out. You’re embarrassing yourself. Listen to the posters wearing the big boy pants and learn how develop a cogent train of thought instead of reverting to adolescent antagonism.
It also disturbs me that you have such a hard-on for Rudy.
If Newt joined the fray, your man would be crushed. Utterly. Ever hear him speak? Concise. Heart-felt. Intelligent. He loves his country without having to speak of 9/11. That man is a Reagan Republican. We’d all do well to wish him into the primaries. Next to this real American, your guy is nothing but paper and hot air.