So when does Paul drop out?

[Richard Masters]

rtalman: Ah, I kinda live S of Spokane. Couldn't vote, had no real way to get there. Fscking road in front of my house was a nightmare until a few minutes ago (Someone wholives nearby finally got fed up and plowed it)

Don't worry. I live in WA as well, and didn't get a chance to Caucus. I'm hoping all the people I spoke with about Ron Paul did, however.

 

[Richard Masters]

You forgot the neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation. Oh, wait, you mean those, right?

I wonder how this anti-socialist one will stick with the German lefty moRons. Oh wait, they won't read further than the anti-war one. Or think for a change.

"Or think for a change"?

That's what I thought was wrong with the Ron Paul detractors all along!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

We have no one at the moment and even if we did it wouldn't matter. I don't mean the right person could actually do a whole lot better than Paul. This country is filled with two main types of idiots, liberals and conservatives. These are people that vote for Obama because he says "Change" and "Hope" 50 times in a speech, or vote for McCain because he is a "straight-talker" that straight-talks his way through changing his positions to get votes. Not too long ago McCain was on the Senate floor screaming about what bigots we are for not wanting his amnesty plan. Yet people who don't want amnesty vote for him in droves. And liberals are too busy living in the clouds pondering a glorious future to realize what the hell is going on.

Cynical Much?

 

[suicidesamurai]

Cynical Much?

Always.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, fair enough. I've been working on how cynical I'm being lately.

 

[Kerberos]

The Fark headline made me smile:

You know I went to the Fark cite and followed the link to the concessions mesage itself, only at first I thought it was a parody:

"Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. "

Yes indeed, what achievements have they had?

 

[Richard Masters]

You know I went to the Fark cite and followed the link to the concessions mesage itself, only at first I thought it was a parody:

"Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. "

Yes indeed, what achievements have they had?

If you are talking about the Ron Paul grassroots, they've had plenty of achievements. Record fundraisers (independent of the campaign), a persistent message despite the negative publicity via the media. Not to mention, Ron Paul's poll numbers continue to improve, and he is on the verge of winning Washington State in delegates.

Ron Paul also crushed the neocons at most debates, most notably the exchange with Rudy Giuliani at SC. He also put McCain and Romney in their place at a recent debate in California, when discussing the war.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

If you are talking about the Ron Paul grassroots, they've had plenty of achievements. Record fundraisers (independent of the campaign), a persistent message despite the negative publicity via the media. Not to mention, Ron Paul's poll numbers continue to improve, and he is on the verge of winning Washington State in delegates.

He needs to get 700 more votes (87% reporting). We'll see tommorow, I imagine.

 

[Richard Masters]

He needs to get 700 more votes (87% reporting). We'll see tommorow, I imagine.

I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice.

 

[Kerberos]

If you are talking about the Ron Paul grassroots, they've had plenty of achievements. Record fundraisers (independent of the campaign)

If only the US was a plutocracy..

a persistent message despite the negative publicity via the media.

I wouldn't consider spamming internet message boards and similar much of an achievement, but that might just be me.

Not to mention, Ron Paul's poll numbers continue to improve, and he is on the verge of winning Washington State in delegates.

Ok, I guess he's done relatively well for a no-hope candidate, but that's rather like winning the special olympics.

Ron Paul also crushed the neocons at most debates, most notably the exchange with Rudy Giuliani at SC. He also put McCain and Romney in their place at a recent debate in California, when discussing the war.

According to who?

 

[Richard Masters]

If only the US was a plutocracy..

I don't consider record fundraising any less of an achievement because this isn't a plutocracy. I also don't buy your implication that the reason for the record fundraising involves rich people. The average donation was about 100 dollars.

I wouldn't consider spamming internet message boards and similar much of an achievement, but that might just be me.

Nice straw-man.

Ok, I guess he's done relatively well for a no-hope candidate, but that's rather like winning the special olympics.

No, it's rather like losing a democratically judged special olympics to retards.

According to who?

According to reason. Did McCain and Romney make better points? Did Giuliani make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Kerberos]

I don't consider record fundraising any less of an achievement because this isn't a plutocracy. I also don't buy your implication that the reason for the record fundraising involves rich people. The average donation was about 100 dollars.

That wasn't my implication, though I supose it's a reasonable reading. My point was simply that it is votes not money that counts.

Nice straw-man.

Thanks.

No, it's rather like losing a democratically judged special olympics to retards.

Ok, I'll conceede the point. It's like loosing the special olympics.

According to reason. Did McCain and Romney make better points? Did Giuliani make any sense whatsoever?

Meaning according to you. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The CT is in the fear expressed by those who cannot remember far enough back in time to when we had 3 networks to choose from and 2 daily newspapers (unless you lived in New York). There was no interwebs, no large forums, no public access television, no talk radio on either side of the political spectrum, all information was spoonfed through damn few sources, and nearly all international news came through either the AP or the UPI.

Today we have the luxury of a plethora of news choices.

Compare 2008 to 1978. More news outlets, or fewer? More choices for your source of news, or fewer? Media in more hands, or fewer? Be honest, Jerome, don't fall for the CT junk pushed by Democracy NOW! or the DailyKOS.

Access to information is greater today, yes. The thing is, outside of the main voices the information is considered invalid. You see this even on this forum.

In 1978 the newspapers and local TV were separately owned, today these entities are part of the few voices.


Ohh, I do not get my ideas from others, I discern for myself based on the facts.

 

[Richard Masters]

Meaning according to you. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

Then who won the debates based on reason and consistency?

 

[Kerberos]

Then who won the debates based on reason and consistency?

I didn't watch them, even if I had I could only give my opinion, and while I value my opinion more than yours I don't think my opinion is automatically a fact. Particuarly not on issues with no factually correct answer.

 

[Richard Masters]

I didn't watch them, even if I had I could only give my opinion, and while I value my opinion more than yours I don't think my opinion is automatically a fact. Particuarly not on issues with no factually correct answer.

How can you know that there is no factually correct answer if you are uninformed about the results?

 

[Kerberos]

How can you know that there is no factually correct answer if you are uninformed about the results?

Because that kind of questions don't have objective answers. There are many different ways of defining "winning the debate". Not only is that choice arbitrary, most of the definitions are heavily subjective and/or very difficult to measure. Did you carefully consider every possible meaning of "winning the debate" and using careful methology conclude that RP won in all of them? Or did you just watch the debate and decide that you felt that RP won? Somehow I think I know which answer is closer to the truth.

ETA: Sure in some cases you might have a debate that given any set of criteria cormal in the socierty in question (the US) could only be said to have one winner. If that was the case though I think the media might have mentioned it.

 

[rtalman]

Access to information is greater today, yes. The thing is, outside of the main voices the information is considered invalid. You see this even on this forum.

But the alternatives are there. This completely destroys your assertion that the media are in fewer hands.

In 1978 the newspapers and local TV were separately owned, today these entities are part of the few voices.

Are claiming that the dailies around the country lack independant editorial control? If so, evidence, please.

Ohh, I do not get my ideas from others, I discern for myself based on the facts.

Strange... when it comes to this particular CT you certainly hit every talking point (word for word) that others on this forum spew forth.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But the alternatives are there. This completely destroys your assertion that the media are in fewer hands.

If the alternative sources are deemed invalid; which they are, I am correct.

Are claiming that the dailies around the country lack independant editorial control? If so, evidence, please.

Pick-up a Washington Post and a Baltimore Sun and see if you can find the difference in overall presented thought.

Where do you think the majority of news deemed acceptable comes from?

Hint: Reuters and the AP

 

[Richard Masters]

Because that kind of questions don't have objective answers.

Being factually correct in most of what you say is not an objective measure?

There are many different ways of defining "winning the debate".

I'll give you my definition. Winning a debate means the justifications for your arguments relied on logic. It means you expressed your reasoning far better than the other candidates, and that you avoided resorting to dishonest answers to direct questions. It means you backed up your arguments with factual information and not a gut feeling or appeal to "authority" and "honor" like Huckabee, vague inconsistent statements like Romney, etc., ignorant statements like Giuliani, etc.

Basically, if your fallacy count was the lowest, and your opponents could not refute your arguments successfully either because they were factually incorrect, or because there was a disconnect in their logic, I'd say you won.

Not only is that choice arbitrary, most of the definitions are heavily subjective and/or very difficult to measure.

Try a fallacy count

Did you carefully consider every possible meaning of "winning the debate" and using careful methology conclude that RP won in all of them?

My contention isn't that he won all of them. My contention is that he won most of them. I only watched the majority of the debates. I can't speak about those I missed.

Or did you just watch the debate and decide that you felt that RP won? Somehow I think I know which answer is closer to the truth.

That's right, you should think with your gut. Your headbone is for breaking things like concrete walls you feel angry, not for thinking.