Paul campaign believes GOP cheating cost Paul a win in Arizona

Originally posted by XPLodER
same haters wait around to post anti RP stuff,
almost like there is a bonus to be the first to derail threads with toxic words
you know i see a pattern,
if you post a rp thread those who hate on paul the most will be first to post

i have seen enough to know there is a plan to make sure rp is not fairly treated,
to deny this is futile as more and more people are going to see the man who never made MSM
debate the MSM favourite,

they will then ask,
why have i not heard of thsi man before
your censorship is futile
your hating on rp threads is noted

you will be asimilated
xploder

Now hold on. My comments were completely on topic. It is the OP who has attempted to take me off topic. Just because I did not post pro-rp, does not mean I am off topic.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


if your intent is to stay on topic,
i will ask you for your opinion,
is Rp getting fair media coverage,
is there any "funney stuff" going on in the gop state elections?

note i am in new zealand and we see NO rp coverage and our media portrays romney as the presumtive winner,

yet i see RP drawing crowds of three to four times the size of rommney
is this a scewed perspective or not?

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

if your intent is to stay on topic,
i will ask you for your opinion,
is Rp getting fair media coverage,
is there any "funney stuff" going on in the gop state elections?

note i am in new zealand and we see NO rp coverage and our media portrays romney as the presumtive winner,

yet i see RP drawing crowds of three to four times the size of rommney
is this a scewed perspective or not?

xploder

No, Rp has not received "fair media coverage" (although I am not sure that actually exists).

There is funny stuff by both sides in the GOP right now. RP has his own funny stuff, trying to circumvent the normal process. And the rest the GOP has quite a record of shady dealings.

My point, again, was that I predicted this would happen. As soon as he stopped spending money, it became obvious that THIS was the type of tactic that would be used to keep his name out there.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


What the OP did was ask you several different questions that were on topic...questions that are still unanswered.

You're only selectively participating in the thread.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


in your opinion is it not fair to point out unfairness?
and if "normal" media is circumventing the coverage,
why would RP NOT point it out?

xp

Following the rules to the letter is "circumventing the process?" How is following the rules circumventing the process? Please answer and be specific.

Seems positively Orwellian to me to suggest that the rule breakers are the ones doing things in the proper fashion.

Originally posted by freakjive
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What the OP did was ask you several different questions that were on topic...questions that are still unanswered.

You're only selectively participating in the thread.

Questions like who I support, why, etc are not on topic. Accusing me of being snide by making a legitimate comment is taking it off topic. Saying I attack RP at every turn is off topic.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

in your opinion is it not fair to point out unfairness?
and if "normal" media is circumventing the coverage,
why would RP NOT point it out?

xp

Im not sure what you are getting at here. Where did I say it was unfair for him to point out the alleged "unfairness"?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ron Paul couldn't win the presidency if it was completely above board. Not enough people care, or even know who he is...

IOW you know it isn't completely above board. If he couldn't win in if they allowed it to be completely above board, why would the GOP be twisting themselves into knots making sure it isn't completely above board?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


you suggested it was a "campain tactic" to complain instead of canvasing for support,
but you agree that the coverage is unfair and that there is questionable stuff going on in the GOP,

why wouldnt you point out these things if you felt they were true?
and to say that this is only being used BECUASE of lack of campaining doesnt really mean this is the ONLY reason to complain,

what if it was true?

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

you suggested it was a "campain tactic" to complain instead of canvasing for support,
but you agree that the coverage is unfair and that there is questionable stuff going on in the GOP,

why wouldnt you point out these things if you felt they were true?
and to say that this is only being used BECUASE of lack of campaining doesnt really mean this is the ONLY reason to complain,

what if it was true?

xploder

It is a campaign tactic. The question is, why did he wait until he stopped spending money to be so vocal about it?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Questions like who I support, why, etc are not on topic. Accusing me of being snide by making a legitimate comment is taking it off topic. Saying I attack RP at every turn is off topic.

edit on 21-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

I don't understand. You just took the time to reply to that, but you won't answer the questions I presented. Not even the ones that "you" deem on-topic. Why are you still here then?

----------

I asked you who you support and why because it's very relevant to our discussion. If there are points to be made while you and I debate a topic, knowing where you come from lends well to addressing the issues.

----------

I accused you of making a snide comment, as that's just what it was.
You taking offense to that = me

snide/snīd/ Adjective:
1. Derogatory or mocking in an indirect way: "snide remarks".

----------

Regarding what I said about attacking Ron Paul Supporters:
I have noticed (this is a factual statement that I will provide proof below) that you attack Ron Paul supporters in your replies. Also notice how you say that you will answer questions in the below quote.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Ask me a question. Ill answer it. I am not an RP supporter, therefore I do not abandon a thread when challenged. Quit with the empty run around though.

I believe that is a blanket attack against any person that is a supporter of Ron Paul.

I've been wrong before though...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by freakjive
RP is using the GOP's own rules.

Exactly.

It's a loophole, other wise known as cheating.

BH, you get today's award for general contradiction of oneself:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course if Ron Paul doesn't win, it's because someone cheated...

The GOP probably cheated... They do that, I've noticed.

How is that a contradiction? The GOP probably cheated. They usually do... But Ron Paul couldn't win the presidency if it was completely above board. Not enough people care, or even know who he is...

So since according to you (and not any dictionary or anything like that) loophole=cheating (which that is false, as there are 2 distinctly different definitions), how do you feel about the fact that BOTH democrats and republicans set-up TAX LOOPHOLES for their buddies to STEAL YOUR MONEY through various laws set-up with loopholes for the sole purpose of them 'cheating'.

And to tie this back into the thread, since we are talking about cheating/stealing with regards to the candidates. How have you not seen Obama and Romney do just all kinds of cheating from illegal donations, to big corporate donations, mis-appropriations of the peoples tax money for pet projects like Solyndra or what have you, passing laws for certain corporations to pay less taxes, etc.

Yet you dont want somebody like Ron Paul to be in charge of our finances when even both sides have admitted he is the most financially frugal person in all of DC, has done the least amount of 'cheating' (none, actually, as a loophole isnt cheating if it was left open from the beginning) out of the three, and RP represents a true hope for the average person. Nah lets just use your logic instead. .............right

Originally posted by frazzle
IOW you know it isn't completely above board.

No, I don't know that. I said they probably cheated. I wouldn't be surprised.

If he couldn't win in if they allowed it to be completely above board, why would the GOP be twisting themselves into knots making sure it isn't completely above board?

Maybe because they're afraid that Ron Paul would split the GOP vote. I haven't read the threads about the GOP cheating because it would be like reading a thread claiming the sun came up today... But Romney needs every single vote he can get. If Ron Paul takes even 1/8 of the Republican votes, Romney KNOWS Obama will win.

reply to post by phishfriar47


Hey, if you and Ron Paul feel good about having covert delegates take the people's voice away from them, while accusing the GOP of cheating, go for it. I'm not interested in defending Obama and certainly not the GOP in a thread about Ron Paul...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by frazzle
IOW you know it isn't completely above board.

No, I don't know that. I said they probably cheated. I wouldn't be surprised.

If he couldn't win in if they allowed it to be completely above board, why would the GOP be twisting themselves into knots making sure it isn't completely above board?

Maybe because they're afraid that Ron Paul would split the GOP vote. I haven't read the threads about the GOP cheating because it would be like reading a thread claiming the sun came up today... But Romney needs every single vote he can get. If Ron Paul takes even 1/8 of the Republican votes, Romney KNOWS Obama will win.

edit on 5/21/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Obama will eat Romney for lunch, so unless you want another four years of Obama you'll get behind Paul's call for an above board election because his supporters will never support Romney. That's why you're admitting Romney needs every single vote he can squeeze out because its Romney who would split the republican vote. You know nobody likes him, he can't even fill a stadium. But there are some powerful GOPpers in washington and in every one of the states who know they'll lose their cushy lives if Paul is elected and they'll stop at nothing to keep that cushy life for themselves and **** the country. Are you cool with that?

Originally posted by frazzle
Obama will eat Romney for lunch, so unless you want another four years of Obama you'll get behind Paul's call for an above board election because his supporters will never support Romney.

Check out my avatar. I DO want 4 more years of Obama. But this thread isn't about Obama. It's about Ron Paul and the cheating GOP.

You know nobody likes him

Including me.

Originally posted by freakjive

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Questions like who I support, why, etc are not on topic. Accusing me of being snide by making a legitimate comment is taking it off topic. Saying I attack RP at every turn is off topic.

edit on 21-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

I don't understand. You just took the time to reply to that, but you won't answer the questions I presented. Not even the ones that "you" deem on-topic. Why are you still here then?

----------

I asked you who you support and why because it's very relevant to our discussion. If there are points to be made while you and I debate a topic, knowing where you come from lends well to addressing the issues.

----------

I accused you of making a snide comment, as that's just what it was.
You taking offense to that = me

snide/snīd/ Adjective:
1. Derogatory or mocking in an indirect way: "snide remarks".

----------

Regarding what I said about attacking Ron Paul Supporters:
I have noticed (this is a factual statement that I will provide proof below) that you attack Ron Paul supporters in your replies. Also notice how you say that you will answer questions in the below quote.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Ask me a question. Ill answer it. I am not an RP supporter, therefore I do not abandon a thread when challenged. Quit with the empty run around though.

I believe that is a blanket attack against any person that is a supporter of Ron Paul.

I've been wrong before though...

edit on 5/21/2012 by freakjive because: (no reason given)

ahh yes, that old "on topic" tactic of bringing in quotes from other threads. Ask me an on topic question, I will answer. I have wasted too much time letting RP supporters drag me into off-topic, juvenile debates. There is no point.

So, if you have a question pertaining to the topic, by all means, go ahead and ask.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, if you have a question pertaining to the topic, by all means, go ahead and ask.

Fair enough...I'll play by your rules. I reintroduce the first two questions I asked...

Originally posted by freakjive

Do you have any comments about the corruption/cheating that the RP campaign has faced?
Do you believe that there is basis for these claims?

Originally posted by freakjive

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, if you have a question pertaining to the topic, by all means, go ahead and ask.

Fair enough...I'll play by your rules. I reintroduce the first two questions I asked...

Originally posted by freakjive

Do you have any comments about the corruption/cheating that the RP campaign has faced?
Do you believe that there is basis for these claims?

Seriously? I already answered this.

My comments are as follows: I find it very interesting that with all this "evidence", its only ever used as a crutch. Furthermore, I find the timing of it becoming more vocal an absolute confirmation of what I predicted a week ago: that this will be the way that RP keeps his name out there now that he can't spend any more money.

Maybe you missed it the first couple times i said it.