Mitt Romney desperate and in panic, spends a million dollars to stop Ron Paul *tricks inside*

reply to post by Vandettas


Sorry no. My links prove that a majority of Americans, give or take, don't trust the MSM. Which shows that your paranoid delusion that the MSM is controlling everyone's opinion is wrong. People are often lazy, and many are ill informed, but they are not, en masse, controlled by the MSM. That's a BS myth.

And like the rest of your delusions, you cannot prove it or even defend it, besides simply saying, it's true.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Like I said, if you pay attention, by claiming there's liberal Libertarians you brought it up... Unless you were using some archaic American definition of liberal, welded onto the extremely modern definition of Libertarian?

So liberal, as defined as conservative, and libertarian as defined as conservative... then yes, Libertarianism runs all the way from conservative to ... conservative...

If you'd be so kind as to underline where I brought European political definitions into a discussion of American politics, I'd be ever so grateful. If you can't, but would prefer that I do so for your introduction of the external subject matter, well, we can do it that way instead.

Ron Paul is not a threat? Then why is Mitt's people doing spending all of this money?When he should be preparing for Obama.Not that it matters in the end.Both are corporatist scum who answer to the same people.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Like I said, if you pay attention, by claiming there's liberal Libertarians you brought it up... Unless you were using some archaic American definition of liberal, welded onto the extremely modern definition of Libertarian?

So liberal, as defined as conservative, and libertarian as defined as conservative... then yes, Libertarianism runs all the way from conservative to ... conservative...

If you'd be so kind as to underline where I brought European political definitions into a discussion of American politics, I'd be ever so grateful. If you can't, but would prefer that I do so for your introduction of the external subject matter, well, we can do it that way instead.

Here you go:

Originally posted by nenothtu

Libertarians span the same spectrum as Authoritarians - from the far "liberal" to the far"conservative". They just value liberty over authority.

I've explained it to you now repeatedly. And it should be noted, despite your withering and false confusion about my use of the word "liberal" you yourself use it as the antithesis of "conservative". Maybe if you'd used Progressive then... Oh wait no... It's perfectly clear what you mean, as was my statement.

What's also clear is that you're claiming some "liberal" Libertarians exist... Which is ONLY true if you include the primary definition of Libertarian, not the minority, US-only definition.

In other words, by bringing up liberal libertarians, you brought up the European definition.

Or you don't know what you're talking about?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Vandettas

 

And like the rest of your delusions, you cannot prove it or even defend it, besides simply saying, it's true.

Even though you've just did the same thing down here...

People are often lazy, and many are ill informed, but they are not, en masse, controlled by the MSM.

So a majority of Americans voted on that poll huh? What do you consider "majority". More assuming...

Sorry no. My links prove that a majority of Americans, give or take, don't trust the MSM

More denying. Are you sure your not the delusional one, considering you called someone delusional because they disagreed with you?

BTW, this was a metaphor :

They follow a universal banker-oriented script, and anyone who becomes president has to follow it, or he/she will never get in office, will hardly be mentioned in the media, newspapers, on the internet; subject to being a victim of fraud, and anything else bad.

But I'm guessing you didn't understand that.

reply to post by Vandettas


Those polls are much more proof than you've presented.

And those polls represent a fraction of the huge amount of data showing people's distrust in the MSM. Those literally were the first three I found. There's dozens of polls just like them though and they all show the same thing.

You also ask, and I am not surprised you don't understand this, really, but you ask if the polls represent 100% of the population of America.

This shows, again, a gross ignorance of reality.

Polls, by their very nature, do not EVER attempt to measure an entire population, but instead are designed to collect a statistically significant sample of people in a desired demographic. This non-random group allows pollsters to, accurately, extrapolate information about a much larger population.

The idea that a poll is useless because it doesn't look at 100% of people is just... well, sad.. and .. not surprising.

If you want to prove that you are justified in your "belief" then present evidence for it...

Btw: Why do you think I questioned your absurd premise? Because I've know about this polling data for years... it's very well known data that's been tested by numerous organisation in numerous ways and is consistent. People, now over 50% of Americans, do not blindly trust the MSM.

People also are increasingly turning off their TV as a news source and relying on the internet. The MSM has very little in the way of control over the information on the internet.

So, yeah, unless you have proof the whole world is conspiring against you, and the MSM is brainwashing everyone into mindless sheeple, you're just spouting paranoid delusions.

If you have proof, show it.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Vandettas

 

Those polls are much more proof than you've presented.

In what way?
It could be said that those links show the same amount of what you call "proof" as mine does.

You also ask, and I am not surprised you don't understand this, really, but you ask if the polls represent 100% of the population of America.

This shows, again, a gross ignorance of reality.

No I didn't, this is what I said :

"Please show me the "internet polls" & "electric polls" that show a distrust in the media by the people. One that you know hasn't been manipulated or tampered with with a 100% certainty. Oh thats right, you can't."

So you show a gross ignorance of reality. Also, your still in putting words in my mouth.

Polls, by their very nature, do not EVER attempt to measure an entire population, but instead are designed to collect a statistically significant sample of people in a desired demographic.

Yet you claim they do from this :

Sorry no. My links prove that a majority of Americans, give or take, don't trust the MSM. Which shows that your paranoid delusion that the MSM is controlling everyone's opinion is wrong.

And then there's this :

If you want to prove that you are justified in your "belief" then present evidence for it...

I already did. Its actually all around. Take a look. My "belief" is that these politicians are getting paid off
and told what to do. If bailing out big banks that are the very reason why this economy is failing,
and politicians are doing absolutely NOTHING about it, It should make you wonder; are they working together?...Unless you know of course, its just paranoia.

People also are increasingly turning off their TV as a news source and relying on the internet. The MSM has very little in the way of control over the information on the internet.

Proof?

So, yeah, unless you have proof the whole world is conspiring against you, and the MSM is brainwashing everyone into mindless sheeple, you're just spouting paranoid delusions.

Don't have to. I never said any of that. Again, assuming, and making things up that I never said. No offense, put your making yourself look a little foolish now.

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Vandettas

 

Those polls are much more proof than you've presented.

In what way?

It could be said that those links show the same amount of what you call "proof" as mine does.

You also ask, and I am not surprised you don't understand this, really, but you ask if the polls represent 100% of the population of America.

This shows, again, a gross ignorance of reality.

No I didn't, this is what I said :

"Please show me the "internet polls" & "electric polls" that show a distrust in the media by the people. One that you know hasn't been manipulated or tampered with with a 100% certainty. Oh thats right, you can't."

So you show a gross ignorance of reality. Also, your still in putting words in my mouth.

Polls, by their very nature, do not EVER attempt to measure an entire population, but instead are designed to collect a statistically significant sample of people in a desired demographic.

Yet you claim they do from this :

Sorry no. My links prove that a majority of Americans, give or take, don't trust the MSM. Which shows that your paranoid delusion that the MSM is controlling everyone's opinion is wrong.

And then there's this :

If you want to prove that you are justified in your "belief" then present evidence for it...

I already did. Its actually all around. Take a look. My "belief" is that these politicians are getting paid off
and told what to do. If bailing out big banks that are the very reason why this economy is failing,
and politicians are doing absolutely NOTHING about it, It should make you wonder; are they working together?...Unless you know of course, its just paranoia.

People also are increasingly turning off their TV as a news source and relying on the internet. The MSM has very little in the way of control over the information on the internet.

Proof?

So, yeah, unless you have proof the whole world is conspiring against you, and the MSM is brainwashing everyone into mindless sheeple, you're just spouting paranoid delusions.

Don't have to. I never said any of that. Again, assuming, and making things up that I never said. No offense, put your making yourself look a little foolish now.

edit on 10-5-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)

In what way is data proof? If you don't understand that, what can I say? I know you don't believe in data, but everyone but the delusional DO believe that dozens of polls from a wide variety of pollsters, taken over years, that are all consistent, is evidence.

You obviously have n desire to explore reality... unsurprising for someone that spouts a lot of baseless BS.

In what way is it "more than you"... well, you've presented NONE, which is less than SOME.

You then misrepresent your own post... oh well... what I was responding to was this doozy:

So a majority of Americans voted on that poll huh?

So, yeah, you claim a majority of Americans (10s of millions) need to take part in a poll before you'll consider it valid... a bizarre bizarre claim...

You think that my understanding of how polls work and what the data represents and how it's designed to be extrapolated out is somehow negated by your wilful ignorance of polling and statistics... surprise: it's not.

Present evidence of your claims, learn how polls are designed and how professional pollsters work, learn what the word extrapolate means, check out the history of statistics, see how accurately pollsters can measure people's beliefs and how well those measurements can be extrapolated onto larger populations, go check the dozens of polls which show the same results, go check how accurate the data behind the polls is... and then, when you've gotten your head around the concepts and data, find contradictory data to prove your point...

OR... and I bet this is the route you'll take...

Make # up based on your instinct, don't bake it up with data, refuse to engage with reality, assume everyone is out to get you... ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs and embrace ignorance that makes you feel like you've got it all figured out...

Here's the thing though, if you DON'T understand how polls work, don't talk about their validity, don't assume they're rigged and for god's sake don't waste the time of people that have bothered to understand them, which baseless claims based on your paranoid delusions.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Originally posted by nenothtu

If you'd be so kind as to underline where I brought European political definitions into a discussion of American politics, I'd be ever so grateful. If you can't, but would prefer that I do so for your introduction of the external subject matter, well, we can do it that way instead.

Here you go:

Originally posted by nenothtu

Libertarians span the same spectrum as Authoritarians - from the far "liberal" to the far"conservative". They just value liberty over authority.

I missed the European definition there - probably because you've failed to underline it. I was discussing US politics, not European. The very notion of valuing liberty over authority is unEuropean, so I can't find a European political definition in there anywhere.

I've explained it to you now repeatedly. And it should be noted, despite your withering and false confusion about my use of the word "liberal" you yourself use it as the antithesis of "conservative". Maybe if you'd used Progressive then...

Absolutely not. It's not my problem if your mind is only one dimensional. To help you out, though, if you have a dollar and you're "liberal" with it, you won't have it long. If you have a dollar and you're "conservative" with it, you may have it for several days. Why is it so difficult for you to understand "liberal" as a counter point to "conservative"?

Now, the concept extends beyond mere economic considerations, but in keeping with the K.I.S.S. principle, I prefer not to tax your mind too hard on your first day in class.

What's also clear is that you're claiming some "liberal" Libertarians exist... Which is ONLY true if you include the primary definition of Libertarian, not the minority, US-only definition.

Of course liberal Libertarians exist - there is nothing inherent in liberalism that precludes a love for liberty over a distaste for authority! Liberals don't require an authority to force them to be liberal!

In other words, by bringing up liberal libertarians, you brought up the European definition.

Or you don't know what you're talking about?

Just because I don't know what YOU are talking about doesn't mean I don't know what *I* am talking about. I'm not a European, nor do I have any aspirations or pretensions to be. Your definitions, for the umpteenth time, do not obtain here. They are far too unidimensional.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Originally posted by nenothtu

If you'd be so kind as to underline where I brought European political definitions into a discussion of American politics, I'd be ever so grateful. If you can't, but would prefer that I do so for your introduction of the external subject matter, well, we can do it that way instead.

Here you go:

Originally posted by nenothtu

Libertarians span the same spectrum as Authoritarians - from the far "liberal" to the far"conservative". They just value liberty over authority.

I missed the European definition there - probably because you've failed to underline it. I was discussing US politics, not European. The very notion of valuing liberty over authority is unEuropean, so I can't find a European political definition in there anywhere.

I've explained it to you now repeatedly. And it should be noted, despite your withering and false confusion about my use of the word "liberal" you yourself use it as the antithesis of "conservative". Maybe if you'd used Progressive then...

Absolutely not. It's not my problem if your mind is only one dimensional. To help you out, though, if you have a dollar and you're "liberal" with it, you won't have it long. If you have a dollar and you're "conservative" with it, you may have it for several days. Why is it so difficult for you to understand "liberal" as a counter point to "conservative"?

Now, the concept extends beyond mere economic considerations, but in keeping with the K.I.S.S. principle, I prefer not to tax your mind too hard on your first day in class.

What's also clear is that you're claiming some "liberal" Libertarians exist... Which is ONLY true if you include the primary definition of Libertarian, not the minority, US-only definition.

Of course liberal Libertarians exist - there is nothing inherent in liberalism that precludes a love for liberty over a distaste for authority! Liberals don't require an authority to force them to be liberal!

In other words, by bringing up liberal libertarians, you brought up the European definition.

Or you don't know what you're talking about?

Just because I don't know what YOU are talking about doesn't mean I don't know what *I* am talking about. I'm not a European, nor do I have any aspirations or pretensions to be. Your definitions, for the umpteenth time, do not obtain here. They are far too unidimensional.

edit on 2012/5/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

I'm assuming you're just trolling now... I didn't use the underline function, but I quoted your exact phrase, and explained it to you, repeatedly... so you're either an idiot, or a troll...

I don't think you're an idiot... I guess you could just be massively massively confused?

I'll do it one more time.. just to be nice:

Originally posted by nenothtu Libertarians span the same spectrum as Authoritarians - from thefar "liberal" to the far"conservative". They just value liberty over authority.

I see hat you're now trying to pretend you meant "far liberal" conservatives or some such other nonsense...

So yeah, you're trolling... weak.

If you want to try and pretend you didn't claim there were liberal libertarians, fine, but it's clear as day that you did.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


This is a waste of time. Its no point in engaging in a debate with you because you seem to not be able to comprehend what I am saying. Or for the matter, what your saying yourself. You are asking for proof of something I never even mentioned. Its like I'm talking about banks, and your talking about halloween.


What does this even mean?

Make # up based on your instinct, don't bake it up with data, refuse to engage with reality, assume everyone is out to get you... ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs and embrace ignorance that makes you feel like you've got it all figured out...

Sound like someone is getting a little mad based on the fact that I'm disagreeing with him. Based on the fact that everything in this quote above is an OPINION, makes no sense, and is just words pulled out of nowhere to make it seem like I have no proof of something I never claimed I had proof for in the first place; that, and the fact that you some how "think" I said these things.

Peace.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

I'm assuming you're just trolling now... I didn't use the underline function, but I quoted your exact phrase, and explained it to you, repeatedly...

Assume away - you know what they say about "assuming".

so you're either an idiot, or a troll...

Take your pick. since simple logic eludes you, I can't imagine why I would care what label you try to plaster me with.

I see hat you're now trying to pretend you meant "far liberal" conservatives or some such other nonsense...

Nope. Not pretending anything, just using simple logic, which I see eludes you. Not my problem.

So yeah, you're trolling... weak.

Sure thing, boss-man. Slap that label on and see if it sticks.

If you want to try and pretend you didn't claim there were liberal libertarians, fine, but it's clear as day that you did.

Again, I'm not pretending anything. I said exactly that, and I stand by it. As a matter of fact, I said the same thing AGAIN in my post immediately above.

You have a nice day now, y'hear?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Well, take a look at Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Team. He named the following people to his board of advisers:

Dov Zakheim - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Robert Kagan - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Michael Chertoff - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Eliot Cohen - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Eric Edelman - (Israele Dual Citizen)
John Lehman - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Evan Feigenbaum - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Aaron Friedberg - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Kent Lucken - (Israelie Dual Citizen)
Kristen Silverberg - (Israelie Dual Ctizen)

I threw Mitt out once and I will throw him out again he has been warned this is war. Now since I know he heard this as Verizon is their damn spy and that's my internet provider I am gonna log for a bit. Read over the table familiarize yourself.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Read it and weep RP fans. In Texas 10% of eligible voters participated in the primary. Voters could ask for a DEM or a GOP ballot. Voters picked Gop over DEM about 2 to 1, about what you would expect based on active enrollment. Only 12% voted for RP, even less in RP's own congressional district 14. So any way you look at it
support for RP is just over 10% of active GOP registered voters. No way to spin that level of support to an election victory. Support for Romney in Texas as expressed in the primary is 6X the level for RP.

The link is to the Texas Sec of State.


enr.sos.state.tx.us...