Ron Paul surging in SC...

dignin

inlet13 wrote:

As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.

Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions about me and my intentions. For one, I like Ron Paul. I agree with many of the things he has to say. I like his character and I respect him. But yes, I also disagree with a lot of his ideas. This is possible.....to like some ideas that another has and dislike others. I know its hard to believe, but I also have friends that I dont agree with on everything.

I am confused how me posting quotes by Chomsky is thinking his words are gospel? I thought he had some interesting and insightful things to say about Ron Paul, and I thought the place to share these thoughts would be in a thread about Ron Paul. When you have conversations or debates with your friends do you get pissed at them when they dont talk about exactly what you want to talk about? Do you pick up your toys out of the sandbox and run home? I doubt you do......so why do you act like that here? To me my post was on topic, you bring up Ron Paul, call me crazy, but I think its ok to talk about Ron Paul. Every thread on here (a few pages or more) evolves as it continues, thats what this place is about. If you dont like that, maybe the Train is not a place for you.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I'm not sure what you want a thread about Ron Paul to look like. You're sick of POD changing the subjects to gay rights, but then that's what you respond to in the thread. There's been several other points and questions in the thread that you didn't respond to. Someone quotes Chomsky and you discredit it by saying he's just a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nearly all of Ron Paul's policies exist in the philosophical world and not in the pragmatic world. Why not recognize what a philosopher has to say about it? It seems like you just want to guide this into a 'Keynesian economics sucks' thread.

Ugh... here we go.

This thread began (by me) discussing RP in SC. Basically, showing his polls. There's been a multitude of RP threads on his stances. POD's posts would have been more appropriate there, or in his own thread on the subject matter he wanted to discuss... which is very similar in most of his posts.

As for what I've responded to, I don't sit by the edge of my seat and respond every day... nor every so often. I take a look when I can. So, to elaborate, I wouldn't respond all the time even if I wanted to. So, what I've responded to here, makes little difference.

As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.

Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.[/quote]

We're a feral bunch here. We need guidelines and direction, or we're going to run wild. All you posted was a link to survey results, with no comments or questions, so we went with it.

I know you're a stickler, so back to the link in the OP. I looks like it giving Paul about 5 points too many, compared to other polls. The same web page also shows Paul getting 8% in Florida, which says to me that RP people shouldn't get too excited about what conservatives in South Carolina think. Too many conservative kooks in South Carolina that don't represent conservatives elsewhere.

Prince Of Dorkness

I might want to point out that I haven't mentioned my job in this thread or any other that I can think of for quite a while.

I think someone else mentioned it in a parody thread I made last week. I can't be arsed to do a search.

Hearing someone whine that they started a thread on an internet forum that didn't go the way of people just posting "+1" and "lol" is kinda sad, especially when they themselves seem to have thrown the biggest tantrum in said thread.

When you grow up and become Larry King, you can guide exactly where the conversations you start go. On a forum like this, they take a life of their own. Getting upset abou that is pointless.

whygohome

I like some of what he stands for....but he still has no chance of winning. Instead, the republicans will be content with Gordon Gecko.

inlet13

dignin wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.

Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions about me and my intentions. For one, I like Ron Paul. I agree with many of the things he has to say. I like his character and I respect him. But yes, I also disagree with a lot of his ideas. This is possible.....to like some ideas that another has and dislike others. I know its hard to believe, but I also have friends that I dont agree with on everything.

I am confused how me posting quotes by Chomsky is thinking his words are gospel? I thought he had some interesting and insightful things to say about Ron Paul, and I thought the place to share these thoughts would be in a thread about Ron Paul. When you have conversations or debates with your friends do you get pissed at them when they dont talk about exactly what you want to talk about? Do you pick up toys out the sandbox and run home? I doubt you do......so why do you act like that here? To me my post was on topic, you bring up Ron Paul, call me crazy, but I think its ok to talk about Ron Paul. Every thread on here (a few pages or more) evolves as it continues, thats what this place is about. If you dont like that, maybe the Train is not a place for you.

Ummm... why don't you be honest with this whole "I like Ron Paul" nonsense. You're voting for Obama. You've been an outspoken Obama supporter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, nor is it anything to be ashamed of (I would think). But, is it true? Please tell me I'm wrong and who you're going to vote for. That will settle that aspect.

As for the Chomsky quotes, he's a socialist. His points on Ron Paul's policies weren't interesting at all. The reason is he's an outspoken linguist who's also socialist activist.... In other words, he's incredibly bias. With all of that said, he didn't offer anything other than to basically say libertarians are wrong on healthcare because they aren't socialists. That's incredibly interesting, I guess.

Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again... you can do whatever you like. But, since you used a metaphor, I'll add to it.... when I am discussing something with my friends (and they originated the discussion) , I don't interject at inappropriate times on subjects unrelated to what they are discussing. It's called civility.... or better yet, it's called staying on message. This is not to say you can't do that on the forum... or can't even do that here. It's to say it's rude to randomly bring up things unrelated to the original topic... or better yet, it's trolling/baiting.

I'm saying in certain threads on a specific topic,... why not just stick to that topic? This thread was about polls. If you want to discuss other things... fine, do so in a new or other thread where it's more appropriate.I know that may be crazy new idea here. But, it seems kinda logical. Or, if you like, keep posting random messages on random things in here. Whatever floats your boat.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I might want to point out that I haven't mentioned my job in this thread or any other that I can think of for quite a while.

I think someone else mentioned it in a parody thread I made last week. I can't be arsed to do a search.

Hearing someone whine that they started a thread on an internet forum that didn't go the way of people just posting "+1" and "lol" is kinda sad, especially when they themselves seem to have thrown the biggest tantrum in said thread.

When you grow up and become Larry King, you can guide exactly where the conversations you start go. On a forum like this, they take a life of their own. Getting upset abou that is pointless.

The point here is that we should actually discuss topics that the thread title suggests. I know it may be hard to comprehend.

So...

...in other words, stay on message... or stick to the topic in the thread title. And if you'd like to talk about a different subject (like another Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage)... make a thread about it, or talk about that subject in a thread where it's appropriate (like the 1000's of threads on gay rights). That's all.

To me, this is very reasonable approach to a message board. The problem is... there's a large number of individuals here (who tend to lean left or better yet support the current administration) that don't like seeing more and more members on the forum supporting a traditionally non-leftist (Ron Paul). So, they try to hijack threads and alter the message (or intent) of the original thread. This is trolling by definition. There are plenty of threads where this behavior would be appropriate - Like threads on Ron Paul's ideas/message. But, this wasn't one of em'. Hence, my point.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

We're a feral bunch here. We need guidelines and direction, or we're going to run wild. All you posted was a link to survey results, with no comments or questions, so we went with it.

I know you're a stickler, so back to the link in the OP. I looks like it giving Paul about 5 points too many, compared to other polls. The same web page also shows Paul getting 8% in Florida, which says to me that RP people shouldn't get too excited about what conservatives in South Carolina think. Too many conservative kooks in South Carolina that don't represent conservatives elsewhere.

What about the fact that this number has been increasing with each state? In other words, when he started in SC he was much lower, but gained a lot since NH. Same thing happened with the transition from Iowa to NH.

dignin

inlet13 wrote:

dignin wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.

Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions about me and my intentions. For one, I like Ron Paul. I agree with many of the things he has to say. I like his character and I respect him. But yes, I also disagree with a lot of his ideas. This is possible.....to like some ideas that another has and dislike others. I know its hard to believe, but I also have friends that I dont agree with on everything.

I am confused how me posting quotes by Chomsky is thinking his words are gospel? I thought he had some interesting and insightful things to say about Ron Paul, and I thought the place to share these thoughts would be in a thread about Ron Paul. When you have conversations or debates with your friends do you get pissed at them when they dont talk about exactly what you want to talk about? Do you pick up toys out the sandbox and run home? I doubt you do......so why do you act like that here? To me my post was on topic, you bring up Ron Paul, call me crazy, but I think its ok to talk about Ron Paul. Every thread on here (a few pages or more) evolves as it continues, thats what this place is about. If you dont like that, maybe the Train is not a place for you.

Ummm... why don't you be honest with this whole "I like Ron Paul" nonsense. You're voting for Obama. You've been an outspoken Obama supporter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, nor is it anything to be ashamed of (I would think). But, is it true? Please tell me I'm wrong and who you're going to vote for. That will settle that aspect.

As for the Chomsky quotes, he's a socialist. His points on Ron Paul's policies weren't interesting at all. The reason is he's an outspoken linguist who's also socialist activist.... In other words, he's incredibly bias. With all of that said, he didn't offer anything other than to basically say libertarians are wrong on healthcare because they aren't socialists. That's incredibly interesting, I guess.

Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again... you can do whatever you like. But, since you used a metaphor, I'll add to it.... when I am discussing something with my friends (and they originated the discussion) , I don't interject at inappropriate times on subjects unrelated to what they are discussing. It's called civility.... or better yet, it's called staying on message. This is not to say you can't do that on the forum... or can't even do that here. It's to say it's rude to randomly bring up things unrelated to the original topic... or better yet, it's trolling/baiting.

I'm saying in certain threads on a specific topic,... why not just stick to that topic? This thread was about polls. If you want to discuss other things... fine, do so in a new or other thread where it's more appropriate.I know that may be crazy new idea here. But, it seems kinda logical. Or, if you like, keep posting random messages on random things in here. Whatever floats your boat.

I will only cover your first point (because the rest of your post is so ridiculous). I have never said I am a Obama supporter on here.....go back and look if you like. Quite the opposite. But I'm sure you wont because research and truth doesnt seem to be your strong point. I will not be voting for Obama either, kind of hard to because I am a Canadian.....which I have mentioned many times on here...funny you didnt know that about me because you seem to know everything else.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

This is trolling by definition.

Well no. "trolling" by definition would be intentionally posting obtuse and obnoxious things you don't believe with the intentions of causing shit.

As close to the title of the thread... Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination or the presidency. He can surge a bit as the next "anyone but Romney" name in the "which sock has floated to the top of the laundry machine of the week poll," but that's all it is.

He turns off more people,than he has ever attracted. D

dignin

And dont worry, I wont "troll" you any longer. I will stay as far away from your threads as I can

inlet13

dignin wrote:

I will only cover your first point (because the rest of your post is so ridiculous). I have never said I am a Obama supporter on here.....go back and look if you like. Quite the opposite. But I'm sure you wont because research and truth doesnt seem to be your strong point. I will not be voting for Obama either, kind of hard to because I am a Canadian.....which I have mentioned many times on here...funny you didnt know that about me because you seem to know everything else.

So, who would you vote for out of all of the potential candidates in the US elections? Clearly, you're interested in the results... or you wouldn't be posting in threads on US candidates.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

This is trolling by definition.

Well no. "trolling" by definition would be intentionally posting obtuse and obnoxious things you don't believe with the intentions of causing shit.

As close to the title of the thread... Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination or the presidency. He can surge a bit as the next "anyone but Romney" name in the "which sock has floated to the top of the laundry machine of the week poll," but that's all it is.

He turns off more people,than he has ever attracted. D

Hmmm...

Definition:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Prince Of Dorkness

Exactly.

The topic goes where it goes and I didn't post anything other than my own take on it.

But you seem more upset that you can't have the sandbox all to yourself. You've now spent longer throwing your tantrum than I did debating whether he'd be a good choice or not.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Exactly.

The topic goes where it goes and I didn't post anything other than my own take on it.

But you seem more upset that you can't have the sandbox all to yourself. You've now spent longer throwing your tantrum than I did debating whether he'd be a good choice or not.

Your behavior here fits the definition of a troll, like I showed. You said you it didn't, but it did.

So, against my original intention, I'll gladly give away this thread in hopes that you won't continue to troll hundreds of others in the future.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

We're a feral bunch here. We need guidelines and direction, or we're going to run wild. All you posted was a link to survey results, with no comments or questions, so we went with it.

I know you're a stickler, so back to the link in the OP. I looks like it giving Paul about 5 points too many, compared to other polls. The same web page also shows Paul getting 8% in Florida, which says to me that RP people shouldn't get too excited about what conservatives in South Carolina think. Too many conservative kooks in South Carolina that don't represent conservatives elsewhere.

What about the fact that this number has been increasing with each state? In other words, when he started in SC he was much lower, but gained a lot since NH. Same thing happened with the transition from Iowa to NH.

It makes sense he would peak in NH, and then the SC bump comes from exposure. But then it's going to be a fade after that.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

We're a feral bunch here. We need guidelines and direction, or we're going to run wild. All you posted was a link to survey results, with no comments or questions, so we went with it.

I know you're a stickler, so back to the link in the OP. I looks like it giving Paul about 5 points too many, compared to other polls. The same web page also shows Paul getting 8% in Florida, which says to me that RP people shouldn't get too excited about what conservatives in South Carolina think. Too many conservative kooks in South Carolina that don't represent conservatives elsewhere.

What about the fact that this number has been increasing with each state? In other words, when he started in SC he was much lower, but gained a lot since NH. Same thing happened with the transition from Iowa to NH.

It makes sense he would peak in NH, and then the SC bump comes from exposure. But then it's going to be a fade after that.

Why?

dignin

inlet13 wrote:

dignin wrote:

I will only cover your first point (because the rest of your post is so ridiculous). I have never said I am a Obama supporter on here.....go back and look if you like. Quite the opposite. But I'm sure you wont because research and truth doesnt seem to be your strong point. I will not be voting for Obama either, kind of hard to because I am a Canadian.....which I have mentioned many times on here...funny you didnt know that about me because you seem to know everything else.

So, who would you vote for out of all of the potential candidates in the US elections? Clearly, you're interested in the results... or you wouldn't be posting in threads on US candidates.

For the GOP I guess I would have to say Gary Johnson would have been my first choice (Paul second). It looks like Mitt will be the winner though. So Mitt vs. Obama would be the lesser of two evils.......eating my ballot. Both candidates are bought and paid for. The two party system is a broken system.

But to go back to the topic and Ron Paul and SC poll numbers.....I think its great and the longer he stays in the race the more he can bring up issues that I agree with him on (foreign policy). But I dont think he has a chance against the staus quo. He's too dangerous. Thats the main point that I found interesting about Chomskys view.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

What about the fact that this number has been increasing with each state? In other words, when he started in SC he was much lower, but gained a lot since NH. Same thing happened with the transition from Iowa to NH.

It makes sense he would peak in NH, and then the SC bump comes from exposure. But then it's going to be a fade after that.

Why?

Why will he fade? Because Ron wont finish higher than 3rd in any state here on out, and people will hear over and over that it's between Romney and Santorum/Gingrich, and people don't want to vote for a loser.

blueandwhite

Go Beavers wrote:

Why will he fade? Because Ron wont finish higher than 3rd in any state here on out, and people will hear over and over that it's between Romney and Santorum/Gingrich, and people don't want to vote for a loser.

Unfortunately, I think there's some truth to this statement. The media has done an incredible job making Ron Paul literally disappear despite his strong showing. I suspect that there are far too many voters who are swayed by this. Right now, Mitt seems like a shoe-in and I think it's because the media keeps saying "here's your guy". Disturbingly enough, I think that Paul would have taken this in a landslide if the media had shown him the same support other candidates have received.

Prince Of Dorkness

blueandwhite wrote:

Disturbingly enough, I think that Paul would have taken this in a landslide if the media had shown him the same support other candidates have received.

Never.

The race has been like watching a game of whackamole but to lead the race on the GOP side you need to have more personality than brains.

Now I'm not saying Ron Paul has brains (he does, of course) but I AM saying he has no personality.

He really has none.