[dixiecrat88]

 

Originally Posted by mordan

You act as if hardcore supporters of any cause, or any person, aren't extreme, this is nothing new and is present in many forms of support. For you to try to tie it to why people don't take RP serious is whats laughable.

I'm not sure what being extreme has to do with it. Being a conspiracy theorist is not about being extreme, it is about being crazy. Wanting to end the Fed is extreme, believing that 9/11 was an inside job is just crazy.

[Realbigfish4]

 

Originally Posted by dixiecrat88

I'm not sure what being extreme has to do with it. Being a conspiracy theorist is not about being extreme, it is about being crazy. Wanting to end the Fed is extreme, believing that 9/11 was an inside job is just crazy.

and to some wanting to end the Fed seems just as crazy as 9/11 being an inside job. You're making assumptions on trivial terms based on your personal ideals.

[dixiecrat88]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

and to some wanting to end the Fed seems just as crazy as 9/11 being an inside job. You're making assumptions on trivial terms based on your personal ideals.

No, not really. If you said I want to end the Fed because I think they are harmful, and actually end up doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do, that isnt being a conspiracy theorist. If you say I want to end the Fed because they run some secret program that is trying to destroy the financial world, that is being a conspiracy theorist. Now maybe I have missed Ron Paul saying he thinks the Fed is some big conspiracy, but I always thought he believed in ending it because he doesnt believe it is Constitutional and that it actually harms the economy.

I understand we are on the internet and it is tough to put emphasis on certain words, but there is a difference in the term crazy. I am referring to crazy as like mentally unstable crazy, not just having an idea that people loosely call crazy. You can say cutting $1 Trillion off the budget in the first year is crazy, but I am assuming you understand the difference in usage of the term when someone says that truthers are crazy.

[mordan]

 

Originally Posted by dixiecrat88

I am referring to crazy as like mentally unstable crazy, not just having an idea that people loosely call crazy. You can say cutting $1 Trillion off the budget in the first year is crazy, but I am assuming you understand the difference in usage of the term when someone says that truthers are crazy.

and the fact that your trying to tie RP supporters to 9/11 crazys is a joke, your whole logic in this argument is a joke, and if you don't think extreme = crazy in terms of 9/11 people your logic is even worse, its their extreme viewpoints of the 9/11 situation that makes them crazy

[dixiecrat88]

 

Originally Posted by mordan

and the fact that your trying to tie RP supporters to 9/11 crazys is a joke, your whole logic in this argument is a joke, and if you don't think extreme = crazy in terms of 9/11 people your logic is even worse, its their extreme viewpoints of the 9/11 situation that makes them crazy

I am using 9/11 as an example. My logic is actually pretty sound. There is a difference between having an extreme viewpoint, IE ending the Fed, and believing that the Fed is a big conspiracy. I understand that the outcome is the same, the ending of the federal reserve, but the motivation is different. Im not sure why that is so hard to understand.

For example, I might agree with Paul that we should cut $1 trillion in spending. I agree with that because I think the government is too bloated, wastes money, is inefficient, etc. Now that might be an extreme point of view. But if I said I want to cut $1 trillion from spending because there is this big conspiracy for the government to bankrupt the nation, and international financiers are sitting in some back room pulling the strings, that is entirely different. That isnt extreme, that is a conspiracy theory.

Like I said, I am not sure why that is so hard to understand the difference.

[mordan]

Your a condescending troll of RP, nice dodging though the last few posts of how ridiculous your original premise of extreme RP supporters being the reason US doesn't take him serious. The last Congressional election for example embraced extremism (Tea party). Your conspiracy addition to that "extreme" group is also false as been stated already ITT.

As I already said in any group that is supported there are extreme/crazy/conspiracy based supporters, its the nature of passionate/paranoid people such as the Obama girl "he is going to pay my bills". Ron Paul's conspiracy nuts are based on the premise of distrust for the govt. (something he talks about a lot that would clearly draw that type of person in), some people who distrust the govt. also believe 9/11 was an inside job, for you to tie them to RP, and the nations viewpoint of RP is whats extreme.

The people who believe the Fed should be ended don't have extreme views either, they have sound Austrian Economic views, hardly extreme, and actually based in sound logic. There are examples where extremism doesn't = crazy, but more often than not a lot of parallels between the two can be found. The examples you have given are terrible though

 

I might agree with Paul that we should cut $1 trillion in spending. I agree with that because I think the government is too bloated, wastes money, is inefficient, etc. Now that might be an extreme point of view

lol @ that being extreme, that is called be logical when accessing our debt Edited By: mordan Feb 6th, 2012 at 11:18 PM

[LVpokerdealer]

I don't think 9/11 was an inside job....but if I did think it was a government inside job...would I be crazy after our own government did this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Basically our own government was planning to blow up a plane and claim American citizens were on it to hype up propaganda to go to war with Cuba....this was real

[time4badbeat]

 

Originally Posted by LVpokerdealer

I don't think 9/11 was an inside job....but if I did think it was a government inside job...would I be crazy after our own government did this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Basically our own government was planning to blow up a plane and claim American citizens were on it to hype up propaganda to go to war with Cuba....this was real

If that actually happened, it isn't too far fetched to think that 9/11 could have been a government operation to support a war with Iraq/Afghanistan.

[LVpokerdealer]

 

Originally Posted by time4badbeat

If that actually happened, it isn't too far fetched to think that 9/11 could have been a government operation to support a war with Iraq/Afghanistan.

It happened...that's real.

[Geoff Moore]

does anyone think the government is not corrupt?

[Realbigfish4]

 

Originally Posted by Geoff Moore

does anyone think the government is not corrupt?

A better question is; does anyone think there can be a government that isnt corrupt?

[time4badbeat]

Any Minnesota Paul supporters I urge you to PM me ASAP so I can get you in touch with your precinct captain so that we can put up a consolidated front.

[mordan]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

A better question is; does anyone think there can be a government that isnt corrupt?

+1

[P0KERDUUDE]

 

Originally Posted by dixiecrat88

I'm not sure what being extreme has to do with it. Being a conspiracy theorist is not about being extreme, it is about being crazy. Wanting to end the Fed is extreme, believing that 9/11 was an inside job is just crazy.

Have you ever studied the Fed and how it was created and how it inflates and destroys our currency?

Also, are you aware there are only 3 steel frame buildings in history to fall due to fire? And they all fell on the same day?

[saxman]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

A better question is; does anyone think there can be a government that isnt corrupt?

Animal Farm by George Orwell is a fun book to read on that subject

[P0KERDUUDE]

 

Originally Posted by time4badbeat

If that actually happened, it isn't too far fetched to think that 9/11 could have been a government operation to support a war with Iraq/Afghanistan.

There was a group called Project for a New American Century that was created in 1997 and they were basically calling for increased defense spending. Their plan was to increase by 20 billion each year, if not for an event such as a "New Pearl Harbor". This group disbanded in 2006, and reformed as the Foreign Policy Initiative. Members of it - Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, and many others. Some of their other plans were to "control cyberspace", and have the ability to "fight and win multiple theater wars".

[mordan]

 

Originally Posted by saxman

Animal Farm by George Orwell is a fun book to read on that subject

this was a required read in middle school, wow had forgot about it, takes me back, good suggestion

[bluefront]

Just saw CBS Miami say Ron Paul has 6 total delegates loooooooooool, sad Edited By: bluefront Feb 7th, 2012 at 04:11 AM
Reason: Nation totals, Romney had 81 newt had something in the 50s and santorium had 15

[Dyzalot]

 

Originally Posted by bluefront

Just saw CBS Miami say Ron Paul has 6 total delegates loooooooooool, sad

They are correct. Where they screw up is in the awarding of delegates to Romney and Santorum from Iowa. No one has delegates from Iowa yet.

Pretty positive NYT piece on Paul here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/us...pagewanted=all

[P0KERDUUDE]

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

They are correct. Where they screw up is in the awarding of delegates to Romney and Santorum from Iowa. No one has delegates from Iowa yet.

Pretty positive NYT piece on Paul here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/us...pagewanted=all

Ya, Ron Paul's got at least 7 delegates out of Iowa though. It'll be interesting to see if any of Romney or Santorum's delegates get converted to Paul supporters before the convention.

[LVpokerdealer]

 

Originally Posted by bluefront

Just saw CBS Miami say Ron Paul has 6 total delegates loooooooooool, sad

Wasn't sure if I should even respond since you're trolling but....He has minimum 5 from Nevada, 3 from NH....and here is something you should read....

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-p...#ixzz1iSwIfARe

[bluefront]

 

Originally Posted by LVpokerdealer

Wasn't sure if I should even respond since you're trolling but....He has minimum 5 from Nevada, 3 from NH....and here is something you should read....

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-p...#ixzz1iSwIfARe

Wasn't trolling at all. I'm a supporter. I have a good knowledge of the numbers, maybe because it was local I was so lol at the numbers, I realize the media is all in in it, just first time I've watched the local news and seen an actual count on the screen.


And to add, I think it's pretty cool you are in a caucus state, would be a really neat experience to support Ron Paul (and honestly anyone you support) through that entire process of caucus, county and state conventions. Glgl Edited By: bluefront Feb 7th, 2012 at 05:25 AM

[Dyzalot]

 

Originally Posted by LVpokerdealer

Wasn't sure if I should even respond since you're trolling but....He has minimum 5 from Nevada, 3 from NH....and here is something you should read....

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-p...#ixzz1iSwIfARe

Isn't Nevada "non-binding"?

[LVpokerdealer]

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Isn't Nevada "non-binding"?

Ya, that's why I said a minimum....I heard close to 75-80% of the delegates chosen were all for RP...so he might get a good number out of Nevada

[Dyzalot]

 

Originally Posted by LVpokerdealer

Ya, that's why I said a minimum....I heard close to 75-80% of the delegates chosen were all for RP...so he might get a good number out of Nevada

He got a majority out of Iowa as well didn't he? Is it possible for him to pull some kind of upset at the convention by getting more delegates than the popular vote would suggest? Is it unusual for the candidate that comes in 3rd in a caucus to be getting a large majority of his delegates elected? The race this year seems so strange with the strategy Paul is using. Edited By: Dyzalot Feb 7th, 2012 at 05:55 AM

[LVpokerdealer]

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

He got a majority out of Iowa as well didn't he? Is it possible for him to pull some kind of upset at the convention by getting more delegates than the popular vote would suggest? Is it unusual for the candidate that comes in 3rd in a caucus to be getting a large majority of his delegates elected? The race this year seems so strange with the strategy Paul is using.

They are estimating he will have 200-250 delegates if he stays in till the end...and someone won't have the 1140 needed...and he might be able to get a prime time speaking spot at the convention

[Dyzalot]

 

Originally Posted by LVpokerdealer

They are estimating he will have 200-250 delegates if he stays in till the end...and someone won't have the 1140 needed...and he might be able to get a prime time speaking spot at the convention

No way he gets a speaking spot. They won't let him speak about foreign policy or the gold standard and he has said he isn't interested in a scripted speech.

[mordan]

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

No way he gets a speaking spot. They won't let him speak about foreign policy or the gold standard and he has said he isn't interested in a scripted speech.

So the only point in his strategy now is that he goes around state by state spreading his message?

[Aaron_Hacker]

 

Originally Posted by mordan

So the only point in his strategy now is that he goes around state by state spreading his message?

I love how you say "now" as if this wasn't the only strategy or purpose for the last 8 years Edited By: Aaron_Hacker Feb 7th, 2012 at 06:49 AM

[LVpokerdealer]