• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

So when does Paul drop out?

(without reading the whole thread)

Paul will not drop out, or if so, only at the very last minute. For him, this has never been about winning. It has been about getting attention. He will continue to do so as long as he can, maybe even making a scene at the convention. You can call it dedication to his ideals or you can call it foolhardy stubbornness. But that's what he is, take it or leave it. (Most will choose the latter.)
 
mortimer said:
You're right. You said that the RP campaign said that. When asked for a source, you said "I didn't say that" and completely dodged providing a source. Are you going to provide a source? Or shall we assume you just made that up?
Click to expand...

That was not the salient topic at the time.

Is your argument really that I did not link what I was accused of saying that I did not say even though the source was in the first sentence of the statement?

Rather silly.

Should not someone be apologizing to me for making an accusation which was untrue, and obviously so based on the words I used?


See, when words are put together in a structure they are relying an idea. One really shouldn't make-up the meaning of what others write outside of the structure created despite ones desire.
 
Tricky said:
(without reading the whole thread)

Paul will not drop out, or if so, only at the very last minute. For him, this has never been about winning. It has been about getting attention. He will continue to do so as long as he can, maybe even making a scene at the convention. You can call it dedication to his ideals or you can call it foolhardy stubbornness. But that's what he is, take it or leave it. (Most will choose the latter.)
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That was not the salient topic at the time.

Is your argument really that I did not link what I was accused of saying that I did not say even though the source was in the first sentence of the statement?

Rather silly.

Should not someone be apologizing to me for making an accusation which was untrue, and obviously so based on the words I used?


See, when words are put together in a structure they are relying an idea. One really shouldn't make-up the meaning of what others write outside of the structure created despite ones desire.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, you were not accused of saying it. You provided text saying that the campaign estimated 24 delegates. You were subsequently asked for a source for that text.

D'rok said:
Perhaps that is because the Primary is on Feb 9 and McCain won 41 of the 47 delegates from the caucus - which was on Jan 22 and still seems to be unclear.

What is your source for 24 delegates won by Paul yesterday?
Click to expand...

So, are you going to provide a source, or shall we just assume you made it up?
 
Anyone see the Lettermen sketch? It was talking about the aftermath of California and went through the numbers of votes each candidate. It got to Ron Paul and said:

"One vote, from this guy:"
 
mortimer said:
Funny thing is, you were not accused of saying it. You provided text saying that the campaign estimated 24 delegates. You were subsequently asked for a source for that text.



So, are you going to provide a source, or shall we just assume you made it up?
Click to expand...

It seems you did not even read what you just quoted.

I suggest you look-up the word salient.


You are obviously not interested in conversation, just a game of gotcha' with out of context quotes.



Good luck with that.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It seems you did not even read what you just quoted.

I suggest you look-up the word salient.


You are obviously not interested in conversation, just a game of gotcha' with out of context quotes.



Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
No, I just want the source you quoted or paraphrased, or a retraction. That is all. Is it that difficult to provide a source? One must conclude that you are either being obstinate about providing a source, or that you just made it up.
 
mortimer said:
No, I just want the source you quoted or paraphrased, or a retraction. That is all. Is it that difficult to provide a source? One must conclude that you are either being obstinate about providing a source, or that you just made it up.
Click to expand...

It has already been linked.

Do you read the threads before you post in them?

:covereyes
 
It could be worse, I saw on one site where they were bragging about Paul having 42 delegates.

I didn't have the heart to tell them that they were in la la land. They are still in shock that the "revolution" didn't work because the world is not full of spazzdorks.
 
Let's be generous and give him 42 delegates instead of 16. That's still only 3.5%. Is that something to brag about?

Maybe if you actually realized that he's a radical nutjob, his platform is considered crazy by most people, and you didn't expect him to get any delegates. Then 42 is pretty good.
 
I had a brief flirtation with the Libertarian party, I even visited a friend who was attending a national convention. That was scary, they all are such rugged individuals to the point that nothing ever gets done, because no one will compromise, ever. And, they were perfectly happy about being thrilled with 1% of the national vote, and electing people who ran unapposed for water board commissioners, small town city councils, and other obscure, powerless positions.

So, for a Paulite, 3.5% is enough to make them giddy, but, they can't see that 3.5% equals 96.5% against you.
 
Dr. Lao said:
So, for a Paulite, 3.5% is enough to make them giddy, but, they can't see that 3.5% equals 96.5% against you.
Click to expand...

the funny part is that they assume that 96.5% of the people are against them because everyone but them is stupid or mislead by the "M$M".

it has all of the hallmarks of a cult.
 
joobie said:
the funny part is that they assume that 96.5% of the people are against them because everyone but them is stupid or mislead by the "M$M".

it has all of the hallmarks of a cult.
Click to expand...

A leader who is considered near divine and incapable of any error, a immense hostility toward anybody who does not share their beliefs, total rage towards anybody who dares to criticise their Glorious Leader....yeah,sound like waht is known in political science as a "Cult Of Personality" to me.
 
Latest stupidity on the part of the Ronulans: They have intreperted a sarcastic artical about how Paul forced Romney out of the race for real,despite a dead giveaway in the last part of the ariticle. See the "Romney Drops Out" thread for the gruesome/hilairous details.
 
Michael Redman said:
Let's be generous and give him 42 delegates instead of 16. That's still only 3.5%. Is that something to brag about?

Maybe if you actually realized that he's a radical nutjob, his platform is considered crazy by most people, and you didn't expect him to get any delegates. Then 42 is pretty good.
Click to expand...

Going back to the rule of law of the Constitution is 'radical'? Please explain?

If you are implying that going back to something that may be a few hundred years old is radical, we should go ahead and do away habeas corpus (permanently) as well. Because that is much older than the Constitution and therefor too radical.
 
Yes, HH, we all hate liberty, too.

Inform me, aren't all candidates supopsed to go by the rule of the constitution? Are there any candidates who say "WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT?"

Just because RP says he follows the constitution, doesn't mean no one else does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom