Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by Siberbat

NDAA is not very American, but it was passed by the Senate, House, and POTUS. Your outrage is too little to late.

Please explain what this post is supposed to mean to me. What are you hoping I take away from it? What is your point? I do not recall claiming to be a huge fan of the current government so I am at a complete loss here. I am also getting kind of tired of reading posts in these threads that are just rambling nonsense for some reason directly addressed to me.

edit on 16-1-2012 by Littikani because: (no reason given)

Who really cares what it means to you. Thats for you to figure out, no one can tell you that. So figure it out yourself. Do not look for other people to make up your mind do you own research and take responsibility for your self. People have tried to tell you how THEY felt and all you do is provoke and dimiss what they say. . I stop'd posting in this thread today because you can not be reasoned with. Honestly you come off as plane rude and confrontational.

If you really have serious questions list them out one by one and maybe someone will be kind or polite enough to address them. If anyone has lost anything it appears to be you and your reasoning not Dr. Paul.

So lets see how fast you pull my post apart sentence by sentence and attempt to tell me how wrong I am and how right you are.

On a side note you said you were looking for answers but in your OP you never asked any questions you just made statements. .

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by Littikani

Please explain these levels of winning when running for president. I know one level of winning and that is getting elected president. What else is there? I am dying to hear this.

OK, I see part of the problem here. Perhaps you don't understand the process very well. Understandable as the rules seem to vary by state laws, circumstances, moods, and whatever.

This entire post was a bunch of empty gibberish. I understand the process just fine. There is one prize - being president. Anything else is losing. No one comes in second president.

Splendid. Then you understand that decision is typically made in November. As this is only January there is still a long way to go in the process, many votes to be cast, many state elections yet to come, and a few eligibles remaining up to those November elections with various hurdles and many levels to be won leading up to that time.

Please, don't be dense. I expect you might well know the process and understand the various levels that need to be achieved. This could well be compared to competing in a decathalon where several events must be accomplished in order to win the entire contest. I realize your purpose here is neither to inform, intelligently discuss, or gain clarity or understanding of anything being discussed in this thread but my purpose for replying is more for the benefit of other readers who may be new to the process to regain clarity in areas you may have obscured. A candidate need not "win" in every primary election to receive their party's nomination and become POTUS. A consistent level of high achievement at each stage could get them there as well. And as demonstrated in the year 2000 election, winning the most number of votes does not assure victory either.

Though several have now dropped out of the race Ron Paul's performance thus far has shown him to be a viable contender. Though Paul has not yet "won" a primary election he has demonstrated a clear ability to become the victor of the 2012 race despite having been declared a hopeless longshot just last year. That "level of win" clearly shows him to be a contender this race.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro


Splendid. Then you understand that decision is typically made in November. As this is only January there is still a long way to go in the process, many votes to be cast, many state elections yet to come, and a few eligibles remaining up to those November elections with various hurdles and many levels to be won leading up to that time.

I really wish I understood why you felt the need to jump in to respond to something I said to someone else only to steer it into some kind of argument you think you can win. I replied with what I replied with to WHOM I REPLIED TO for a reason and nothing you have said has actually countered that.

This is really odd behavior.

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
Who really cares what it means to you.

I would assume the person that wrote it to me.
Otherwise, why would they address me and write stuff?

What are the two of you up to? I was talking to other people and neither of you seem to understand what was being said and yet jumped in.

So odd.

Originally posted by Littikani

I really wish I understood why you felt the need to jump in to respond to something I said to someone else only to steer it into some kind of argument you think you can win. I replied with what I replied with to WHOM I REPLIED TO for a reason and nothing you have said has actually countered that.

This is really odd behavior.

Uh, no, it's not odd behavior. It's called debunking a troll.

Like he said:

I realize your purpose here is neither to inform, intelligently discuss, or gain clarity or understanding of anything being discussed in this thread but my purpose for replying is more for the benefit of other readers who may be new to the process to regain clarity in areas you may have obscured.

Your purpose here is obvious, and your belligerence only reinforces it.

Some members of long standing are interested in hearing what other long-standing members have to say. Your first posts were perfect bait for him to come in here and talk to you at the very level on which you presented yourself: talking about things you don't know about, and trying to ram through a disruptive agenda, without actually contributing anything, and meanwhile avoiding the issues altogether.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the political forums. You'll not convince anyone with your lame attempts to derail something as a noobie troublemaker.

What exactly, IS your purpose, if you don't mind me asking....am I close? Paul has not lost, not by any stretch.

Originally posted by Littikani

This is really odd behavior.

Agreed, but I was willing to overlook that in order to further this threads discussion. [/offtopic]

I have been pleased with Paul's progress in the primaries given that he had been blacked out of mainstream news discussion. Still a long way to go and he IS solidly a contender at this stage. Those who feel after his solid second-place finish in NH means he's through just don't understand the process.