It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Best Shot Yet For Ron Paul To Win A Primary...

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Qemyst
 



Conversely, when someone calls voter fraud and there is no hard evidence, they could say to you "go get hard evidence to prove that there WASN'T voter fraud."


Two things wrong with this statement.

1) You can't prove a negative

2) The burden of proof lies on the ones making a claim....in this case, the ones claiming fraud.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Qemyst
 



Conversely, when someone calls voter fraud and there is no hard evidence, they could say to you "go get hard evidence to prove that there WASN'T voter fraud."


Two things wrong with this statement.

1) You can't prove a negative

2) The burden of proof lies on the ones making a claim....in this case, the ones claiming fraud.


You would also be making a claim that they were incorrect when you do not know for a fact that they are incorrect. Granted, they are making a claim they cannot prove either, so claims from both sides are essentially pointless.

We could do this all day, but quite frankly, i'd rather not, since it bores me.

edit on 5-3-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Ok, I'm a Paul supporter...

But why does every thread about the guy turn into a fraud argument?

And it's not just from Paul supporters... Paul haters love to start the flaming war also just to derail threads, as it seems here.

Seriously...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



time to fix this problem one way or another!!!


So screw the 90% of Americans that don't want him for President??

The problem is the 90% of americans who do vote for him only to majicly have there vote not count because of lack of transparency when auditing votes. Based on what I have seen, no one will ever convince me that the outcome of every single poll to this date has not been altered. So don't talk to me about playing fair.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

So let me ask you.. Does that make it right? Is it ok that in a country who prides itself on being the "honest and true" land of the free for this to happen in order to further an agenda against its people who feel a change is needed? To me it makes this place as bad as all the rest of the dictator run govt.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Qemyst
 


Look at what they did with the big O's birth records, you could have substantial proof and still can't get anyone to listen to the case so tell me how that works? They do what they want and you have to accept it or its too bad!!! That sure is the results of proof. If you said a stop sign was red and they said it was yellow, you better believe your nuts and the sign is yellow because you would get no where with your argument.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Qemyst
 



Conversely, when someone calls voter fraud and there is no hard evidence, they could say to you "go get hard evidence to prove that there WASN'T voter fraud."


Two things wrong with this statement.

1) You can't prove a negative

2) The burden of proof lies on the ones making a claim....in this case, the ones claiming fraud.


You would also be making a claim that they were incorrect when you do not know for a fact that they are incorrect. Granted, they are making a claim they cannot prove either, so claims from both sides are essentially pointless.

We could do this all day, but quite frankly, i'd rather not, since it bores me.

edit on 5-3-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)


I make no claim when I ask them for proof.

My position is the default position that there is nothing abnormal going on. When someone comes up and claims there IS something abnormal going on...burden of proof is on them. When I ask them for proof...that is not me saying there is absolutely nothing going on...it is asking them to prove their claim.

This is basic logic...I think you are a bit confused on the process of it.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

So let me ask you.. Does that make it right? Is it ok that in a country who prides itself on being the "honest and true" land of the free for this to happen in order to further an agenda against its people who feel a change is needed? To me it makes this place as bad as all the rest of the dictator run govt.


I'm not sure what you are asking.

Does "what" make "it" right?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
The way I see it, MSM don't matter, not the republican party nor the democratic party or anyone else for that matter. The way I see it, DC has two choices. Ron Paul is the next President of the United States of America or there is a revolution to make him so. Number is up PTB, BEAT IT!


I completely agree with you on that statement! Those who say, "Ron Paul is unelectable" or "TPTB won't allow it, so don't waste your vote", are missing the main point. If enough people show their support for this man, it doesn't matter what the media says, he has started a Revolution and awaken the minds of not just Americans, but the world as well.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


A Ron Paul presidency would be revolutionary, but not in a good sense. His domestic policy has many flaws, but I suppose it is not something to be concerned about since congress won't let him get away with any of it. In regards to a comparison of Paul with other candidates and Obama, I'd prefer Paul, but he is no savior; just a pill less bitter.

As far as revolution occurring because Paul will be robbed of equal opportunity, I strongly doubt this. The American people are too complacent, comfortable, and fearful to riot. The same way that riots were averted during the downfall of Rome, they are being averted in America; people revolt when they are a) hungry (as in lack of food, i.e. Egyptian riots in spring 2011), b) made aware that they are being exploited, milked, abused, etc. The solution to this? Simple: bread and circuses. Or, in our case, McDonald's and Dancing With the Stars.

How can there possibly be a "successful" revolution in America? The majority of people have NO reason to revolt!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


In regards to vote fraud in Republican caucuses, it is pretty much blatantly obvious that it is happening. Maine is a great example; any counties were counted as having put in 0 votes, and when a county called in to report their numbers, they were told that their votes had already been received. Except, instead of Paul being in the lead, he had been "officially" replaced by Romney. Regardless of whether or not you support Paul, the evidence of this election being a sham is overwhelming.

Furthermore, WHERE ARE THE ROMNEY SUPPORTERS?! Romney's support base is very much like Iraq's WMDs: NONEXISTANT. Coupled with allegations of Romney's campaign and PACs PAYING people to come to his rallies and support him, it becomes apparent that he does not have the gigantic support base that the MSM claims. In the absence of proof, and the ever growing possibility, and probability, of fraud, one wonder's what is more likely: this election being fair and balanced, or a candidate being shoved down our throats?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Best Shot Yet For Ron Paul To Win A Primary...

went out the window when he told tornado victims to go to hell.
take note, this is not a way to win votes.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I make no claim when I ask them for proof.

My position is the default position that there is nothing abnormal going on. When someone comes up and claims there IS something abnormal going on...burden of proof is on them. When I ask them for proof...that is not me saying there is absolutely nothing going on...it is asking them to prove their claim.

This is basic logic...I think you are a bit confused on the process of it.


I'm not confused by the process of basic logic. I think that you "think" incorrectly in regards to my understanding of it.

You wouldn't be making a claim when you ask them for proof, that is correct.

When someone claims voter fraud has happened, and they don't have proof, your only legitimate reply would have to be "Oh. I guess that is absolutely a possibility." since you also have no proof that it's NOT happening.

As you essentially stated, If you chose to say "no, voter fraud isn't happening", then you would have to furnish proof of your own. All i'm saying is, if someone wants to claim voter fraud without proof, don't try to tell them they're wrong without proof of your own.
And on top of it, why must people say "oh look, there's the Ron Paul supporters CRYING over voter fraud again."
I just don't get why people need to act like snide and condescending know-it-alls without having proof that the claims that the others are making aren't true.

I'm not trying to argue semantics. I'm just wondering why everyone has to act the way they do regarding Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters when they're upset about Ron Paul losing an election.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Its obvious that RP can only Win by getting the delegates. This is a process that has been rehashed on this site many times so the ongoing bickering about whether RP Wins Virginia is really a mute point. I will concede that RP has not Won a single State based on Caucus voting alone and what ever type of other voting that is reported. But, the FACT remains that RP knows he isn't winning the MONEY game so he is doing the Delegate way hoping he can get enough support to take to the actual Delegate vote.

Anyway, the interesting point brought up is when or if a Revolution does happen is RP the best choice to lead that effort?? Good Question.

I think the best thing that is happening regardless of if he Wins is that more people, especially the younger voters, are starting to question there Government because it has been too damn long for us to be a sleep.

At the end of the day, RP has some very good ideas and also has WARNED us that the time would come that this Country and its over spending ways have come to an end. He has warned of the bubbles countless times over 30+ years, he has warned us about the dangers of printing money out of thin air, he has warned us about our Libertys being stripped for fear of a make believe terrorist network that might be funded by our own Government anyway, etc. I think the dis respect toward Dr. Ron Paul is a good example of what this Country has become and I would hope that some of you will look at RP's integrity and look at his foresight to basically predict all the the problems we are in right now. Doesn't that alone deserve some respect??



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Qemyst
 


No, I will not admit it to being a "possibility" if they provide no proof.

Unless you mean in the sense that it is a "possibility" equal to the "possibility" that Romney is an alien that is mind controlling all of us, or the "possibility" this is all a dream in someones head, or the "possibility" that we are in fact all Unicorns but our eyes mis-translate the light waves and we see ourselves as humans.


Hiding behind this false shield of "possibility" so people are free to claim whatever they want is not something I subscribe to.

If you are going to make a claim, you damn well better have some solid proof to back it up. Or I will call you out, I will make you look foolish, and I will say you are being ignorant.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


In order to prove voter fraud, you have to be an insider.

Unless the RP campaign has insiders that are tracking potential fraud, how else can it be proven?

And if the campaign does have such a thing, then either release the findings or STFU.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
No, I will not admit it to being a "possibility" if they provide no proof.


So when you said this: "When I ask them for proof...that is not me saying there is absolutely nothing going on...it is asking them to prove their claim."

You essentially meant, "When I ask them for proof...if they don't have it, it means that their claims are incorrect, and I don't need evidence to prove that their claims are incorrect." ??


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If you are going to make a claim, you damn well better have some solid proof to back it up. Or I will call you out, I will make you look foolish, and I will say you are being ignorant.


So if someone says "God exists." but they didn't have proof, you would call them out, make them look foolish, and say they are being ignorant? Would it not be ignorance in itself to deny something is possible without having proof to back up your own claim?

If someone believes voter fraud is happening, and have no proof, so what? It doesn't hurt you in any way, yet you feel compelled to make them feel ignorant and foolish. What do you gain from going out of your way to make someone feel ignorant and foolish? Some sort of personal satisfaction? Gloating rights? I don't get it.

It would seem to me that a claim without supporting evidence (such as someone saying voter fraud is happening, or that god exists, etc etc) should be disproven before you can start to try to make people look foolish and ignorant for some strange reason.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Qemyst
 



So when you said this: "When I ask them for proof...that is not me saying there is absolutely nothing going on...it is asking them to prove their claim."

You essentially meant, "When I ask them for proof...if they don't have it, it means that their claims are incorrect, and I don't need evidence to prove that their claims are incorrect." ??


It means their claim was little more than an unsourced and uninformed opinion.

If they wish to continue to hold that opinion after realizing they have zero proof to hold that opinion, that is up to them...but they should really stop trying to spread that uninformed opinion unto others.



So if someone says "God exists." but they didn't have proof, you would call them out, make them look foolish, and say they are being ignorant? Would it not be ignorance in itself to deny something is possible without having proof to back up your own claim?


I myself hold a belief in God that I hold no proof of.

If I came out and said I KNOW God exists...I would expect someone to hold me to that claim and have me provide proof.

I don't do that, I hold a belief...I know I have no proof of the existence...which is why you won't see me trying to convince others to believe in the entity that I hold faith in. You may see me argue against atheists when they claim that god for sure doesn't exist...because then again that is making a claim. The atheists that claim they have no reason to believe because they have no proof...I have no disagreement with them.

But that isn't what Ron Paul supporters do that I call out...they say voter fraud is in fact definitely happening and that people should go to jail over it. That goes beyond an opinion.



If someone believes voter fraud is happening, and have no proof, so what? It doesn't hurt you in any way, yet you feel compelled to make them feel ignorant and foolish. What do you gain from going out of your way to make someone feel ignorant and foolish? Some sort of personal satisfaction? Gloating rights? I don't get it.


Because they are attempting to spread mis-information and illogical claims.

Now if the world was a perfect place and everyone was able to use perfect logic...no one would have to call them out, everyone would write them off as an illogical fool.

But the world isn't perfect, and many are very prone to falling for convulted illogical arguments that people mistake for logic when it is in fact just mis-information, false premesises, and fallacies.

If you want to live in a world where you stand by idle while people are trying to push off mis-information...be my guest...but i will not. I will call out an illogical stance when I see it.



It would seem to me that a claim without supporting evidence (such as someone saying voter fraud is happening, or that god exists, etc etc) should be disproven before you can start to try to make people look foolish and ignorant for some strange reason.


Ok...You're a racist...prove you aren't.

I'll be waiting for your "proof" to show us all that you are in fact not a racist.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But that isn't what Ron Paul supporters do that I call out...they say voter fraud is in fact definitely happening and that people should go to jail over it. That goes beyond an opinion.


What if that person isn't lying, and they are simply not fortunate enough to have proof? That doesn't justify making a person look like a fool and ignoramus. That's just unfair of you.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Because they are attempting to spread mis-information and illogical claims.


Refer to post above. What if it's true, and it's not mis-information, and they are simply not fortunate enough to have proof, because proof was deftly covered up, or something else stopped them from attaining proof?

I saw an alien craft once on a night time drive home from work. I was abducted and experimented on in their ship. It happened, and it is a fact that it happened. I don't have proof though, because aliens have more power than me (like our government has more power than most average joes) and it was easy for them to to keep the proof out of my hands. Are you going to outright deny that it is a possibility, make me look foolish, and look like an ignoramus because I don't have proof of something that did, absolutely for a fact, happen?


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Ok...You're a racist...prove you aren't.

I'll be waiting for your "proof" to show us all that you are in fact not a racist.


I don't have proof, so you can stop waiting for it.
Proof that I am a not a racist is not something that I can, or will ever be able to furnish.
Now, if you ACTUALLY believe I am a racist (i'm assuming you don't, and that it's merely an example
, but if you do, that's fine too.
) and wanted to use this against me by convincing others, you would need proof to convince them. So, prove that I am a racist.....And here we are, back at an impasse. You claim I am for a fact, a racist, and I claim that I am not. Neither of us have proof that I am/am not a racist (just like you don't have proof that voter fraud isn't happening.) In all honesty, I wouldn't care if anyone thought I was a racist, because I know for a fact I am not, even though I cannot prove it.

You don't need to make someone look like a fool because they claim something they can't prove.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join