Debunking the Guilt By Association Smear

T

Timshel

New member
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028347.php

My colleague Dave Wiegel calls it "Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome," and there certainly seems to be something to it. Here you have a Republican running for president who's actually serious about downsizing the federal government, who gives a damn about individual rights, and who understands that big government overseas breeds big government at home, and reaction from the Beltway right is to dismiss the guy with eye rolls, patronizing lectures about "seriousness," and lame ad hominem attacks.
 
RStringfield said:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028347.php

My colleague Dave Wiegel calls it "Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome," and there certainly seems to be something to it. Here you have a Republican running for president who's actually serious about downsizing the federal government, who gives a damn about individual rights, and who understands that big government overseas breeds big government at home, and reaction from the Beltway right is to dismiss the guy with eye rolls, patronizing lectures about "seriousness," and lame ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this argument is that people have brains. If only it weren't for that, suggesting the people politicians associate and participate with doesn't matter might makes sense.
 
blackascoal said:
The only problem with this argument is that people have brains. If only it weren't for that, suggesting the people politicians associate and participate with doesn't matter might makes sense.
Click to expand...

My only problem with that argument is that people have brains and can see how stupid it is. Stop insulting my intelligence.
 
Watermark said:
My only problem with that argument is that people have brains and can see how stupid it is. Stop insulting my intelligence.
Click to expand...

If your intelligence is insulted by questioning why someone running for president has consistently associated and participated with kooky, lunatic, vile, and criminal individuals and organizations then I question your level of intelligence.

Since when did associations become unimportant?
 
blackascoal said:
The only problem with this argument is that people have brains. If only it weren't for that, suggesting the people politicians associate and participate with doesn't matter might makes sense.
Click to expand...

For most of these examples, there is no association or participation. The only one that can be said of is the lunatic truther Alex Jones.
 
Jones is a truther...
bac is a truther...
Jones and truthers like Paul...
NeoNazis endorse Paul...
bac is a NeoNazi...

To argue that the people bac "associates" with does not matter makes no sense.
 
Yes, it is.

If your intelligence is insulted by questioning why someone has consistently associated and participated with kooky, lunatic, vile, and criminal individuals and organizations then I question your level of intelligence.
Click to expand...
 
The notion that because nutjob truthers endorse Paul that Paul endorses nutjob truthers is VERY stupid. Paul has more of an "association and participation" with this truther Jones than most of the others you and other morons attempt to smear him with. But it's still insane to argue that Paul endorses Jones' views.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

I don't question your level of intelligence as I recognized that you are in desperate need of an infusion of brain cells long ago.

But if I could get back to the topic ... It does appear that Paul has been outed and even an idiot like Charen is aware of it.

Hey, since I'm aware that you've been surgically attached to Ron Paul's ass .. where is Mr. Excitment these days? What's happened to our daily Ron Paul report in the form of a new thread everytime his anus moves?

He got some money, but his poll nunbers haven't moved and the Ron Paul buzz seems barely detectable.

What's up?
 
blackascoal said:
I don't question your level of intelligence as I recognized that you are in desperate need of an infusion of brain cells long ago.
Click to expand...

I am just playing back your method of association and smear.

But if I could get back to the topic ... It does appear that Paul has been outed and even an idiot like Charen is aware of it.
Click to expand...

Nope, Charen's just another idiot you "associate" with. Her argument is as pathetic as yours.

He got some money, but his poll nunbers haven't moved and the Ron Paul buzz seems barely detectable.

What's up?
Click to expand...

His poll numbers are up, dipshit (and I have posted that before). He is now averaging 5% in national polls. His numbers have doubled in NH and are up in Iowa.
 
RStringfield said:
I am just playing back your method of association and smear.



Nope, Charen's just another idiot you "associate" with. Her argument is as pathetic as yours.



His poll numbers are up, dipshit (and I have posted that before). He is now averaging 5% in national polls. His numbers have doubled in NH and are up in Iowa.
Click to expand...

having his poll numbers go up from 1% to 3%, is like cheering a football team that scores two field goals in the fourth quarter, after being behind 56-0.

My arithmetic indicates his average rating for ALL available November polls in 3.6% i.e., Firmly ensconsed as a bottom tier candidate.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

:pke:
 
we have a historical comparison too.

Howard dean went from 1% support in 2004, to 30 or 35% support, in just a few months on the basis of internet activism, and strong internet fundraising.

Given the same basic dymanics as Dean, Ron Paul managed to bump himself from 1% to 3.6%.

Not impressed.
 
Cypress said:
having his poll numbers go up from 1% to 3%, is like cheering a football team that scores two field goals in the fourth quarter, after being behind 56-0.
Click to expand...

Duhuhuh... good one. Yay cypress!

The claim was that his poll numbers have not gone up. I was pointing out that that is not true, dumbfuck, I was not cheering anything.

Further, his national average has gone to 5%. Stated that explicitly. His number n NH have gone from 4% to 8%.

So many errors in so few words.

My arithmetic indicates his average rating for ALL available November polls in 3.6% i.e., Firmly ensconsed as a bottom tier candidate.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

:pke:
Click to expand...

Mine shows 4.8 since the 5th (since the argument was that his bump in funding has not produced higher poll numbers, it would seem only wise to consider just the polls after the 5th) and 4.5 for November.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
 
Cypress said:
we have a historical comparison too.

Howard dean went from 1% support in 2004, to 30 or 35% support, in just a few months on the basis of internet activism, and strong internet fundraising.

Given the same basic dymanics as Dean, Ron Paul managed to bump himself from 1% to 3.6%.

Not impressed.
Click to expand...

That's BS. Dean was leading in the polls by August and got much earlier media support. You guys go to all sorts of lengths...
 
RStringfield said:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028347.php

My colleague Dave Wiegel calls it "Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome," and there certainly seems to be something to it. Here you have a Republican running for president who's actually serious about downsizing the federal government, who gives a damn about individual rights, and who understands that big government overseas breeds big government at home, and reaction from the Beltway right is to dismiss the guy with eye rolls, patronizing lectures about "seriousness," and lame ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

Well now is RP a Republican or Libertarian ?

Yeah talk, and we heard similiar stuff from GWB.
And RP has voted with the Bush crowd the marority of the time.
Why should we believe a republican ?
 
RStringfield said:
Duhuhuh... good one. Yay cypress!

The claim was that his poll numbers have not gone up. I was pointing out that that is not true, dumbfuck, I was not cheering anything.

Further, his national average has gone to 5%. Stated that explicitly. His number n NH have gone from 4% to 8%.

So many errors in so few words.

Mine shows 4.8 since the 5th (since the argument was that his bump in funding has not produced higher poll numbers, it would seem only wise to consider just the polls after the 5th) and 4.5 for November.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Click to expand...

0.9% ...the difference between 3.6% and 4.5% .

Either way he's a bottom tier candidate and statistically he's hasn't moved an inch.

www.pollongreport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top