Paul's numbers fell

blackascoal said:
Not true.

I said look to the scientific polls and he has not beat the margin of error yet.

No matter how one spins his failures .. they equate to failures and that entire mypoic dream is fizzling into dust real fast ..... JUST AS I SAID IT WOULD.
Click to expand...

We all said that we were under no illusion that he wasn't going to be the next President while you were running around saying how he's only worth 2% and that anyone who gave him money is stupid, while at the same time screaming like a ninny about what a powerhouse Nader was in 2000.

Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back about making the wrong predictions fellah. He did better than you said he would, you got roundhouse kicked in the face, and now you're doing damage control.

Touche'
 
blackascoal said:
Not true.

I said look to the scientific polls and he has not beat the margin of error yet.

No matter how one spins his failures .. they equate to failures and that entire mypoic dream is fizzling into dust real fast ..... JUST AS I SAID IT WOULD.
Click to expand...

I never really believed in the margin of error hypothesis. The candidates were running in a three way race for third place, favoring Huckabee, and Ron Paul did a bit worse than expected, possibly because of his exclusion from debates.
 
blackascoal said:
Oh .. so now you knew that he would sputter out as a miserable failure all along. And I suppose you knew the scientific polls were correct, all the straw polls were bullshit, the rEVOLution was more bullshit, and that there would be no rush of voters coming to support him in spite of the MySpace/Facebook hits and blimps.

That's interesting.
Click to expand...

Dude, I never claimed he was going to win except when mocking the dense and humorless (that'd be you and ib1... well I think ib1 understood the joke).

The scientific polls that I claimed were not going to prove accurate, did not.

The straw polls were not bullshit. They showed what I said they did that he had a committed group of activists supporting him. They have gained much attention for his campaign and I don't think they are going anywhere.
 
RStringfield said:
Dude, I never claimed he was going to win except when mocking the dense and humorless (that'd be you and ib1... well I think ib1 understood the joke).

The scientific polls that I claimed were not going to prove accurate, did not.

The straw polls were not bullshit. They showed what I said they did that he had a committed group of activists supporting him. They have gained much attention for his campaign and I don't think they are going anywhere.
Click to expand...

There was one poll that put Paul at 14%. WAY off the margin of error there...
 
blackascoal said:
That's strange because I've always said he was a failure and all the straw polls and the rest of the crap that people like you have been saying was nothing more than a delusional drug-induced fantasy.

NOW you, after creating about a 1000 threads proclaiming his rise to fame and how much he was loved ... NOW backpeddle as fast as you can proclaiming that you knew he was a failure.

What a liar as well as a political dummy you are.
Click to expand...


You are so full of shit. You have been wrong at every turn. The only thing I have said on the subject that has not proven correct was when I was making fun of your dumbass.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
There was one poll that put Paul at 14%. WAY off the margin of error there...
Click to expand...

These were the most recent polls.... if you have another that had Paul at 14%.... please share it with us.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/new_hampshire-primary.html

Side note... the average of those polls had Paul at 8%.... I wonder how Paul finished?

Personally I thought he would beat the poll numbers. But I guess I get my one error for the year out of the way early this year.
 
Beefy said:
We all said that we were under no illusion that he wasn't going to be the next President while you were running around saying how he's only worth 2% and that anyone who gave him money is stupid, while at the same time screaming like a ninny about what a powerhouse Nader was in 2000.

Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back about making the wrong predictions fellah. He did better than you said he would, you got roundhouse kicked in the face, and now you're doing damage control.

Touche'
Click to expand...

Damn, you're a lot dumber than I thought.

Post where I said Nader was a "powerhouse"

Post where I said Paul would only get 2%

I did say those who showered him with money were dumb and it seems to have been proven correct.

I did say all the stratw polls and google hits meant nothing and guess what?

While the idiots, like you, quibble over how much of a failure he is, the bottom line is that he is indeed a failure and so is his campaign.

It is interesting that you attempt to take me to task because you think he's less of a failure than I said he was, which he isn't .. but you avoid talking about how Ronbot idiocy claimed he would be a force in this election.

Could it be because you were one of the idiots making such a stupid ass claim?

NOW all the ronbot dummies are proclaiming they were right all along.
 
I thought he would go over 10% and do better than he had in Iowa before tonight. I was hopeful for third.

That's a long way from claiming he would win as BAC pretends all Paul supporters were doing or where he was predicting Paul would finish, near 2%.
 
blackascoal said:
Damn, you're a lot dumber than I thought.

Post where I said Nader was a "powerhouse"

Post where I said Paul would only get 2%

I did say those who showered him with money were dumb and it seems to have been proven correct.

I did say all the stratw polls and google hits meant nothing and guess what?

While the idiots, like you, quibble over how much of a failure he is, the bottom line is that he is indeed a failure and so is his campaign.

It is interesting that you attempt to take me to task because you think he's less of a failure than I said he was, which he isn't .. but you avoid talking about how Ronbot idiocy claimed he would be a force in this election.

Could it be because you were one of the idiots making such a stupid ass claim?

NOW all the ronbot dummies are proclaiming they were right all along.
Click to expand...


So you likewise of course think all the people who gave Edwards money are also idiots? Because he has had no chance in hell since day one as I predicted. God, that MUST mean all those who have supported him MUSt be idiots. Can you believe all the Edwards lemmings thought he was going to be a force in this election.
 
blackascoal said:
Damn, you're a lot dumber than I thought.

Post where I said Nader was a "powerhouse"

Post where I said Paul would only get 2%

I did say those who showered him with money were dumb and it seems to have been proven correct.

I did say all the stratw polls and google hits meant nothing and guess what?

While the idiots, like you, quibble over how much of a failure he is, the bottom line is that he is indeed a failure and so is his campaign.

It is interesting that you attempt to take me to task because you think he's less of a failure than I said he was, which he isn't .. but you avoid talking about how Ronbot idiocy claimed he would be a force in this election.

Could it be because you were one of the idiots making such a stupid ass claim?

NOW all the ronbot dummies are proclaiming they were right all along.
Click to expand...

Try to remain calm. You're not the Nostradahmus you keep selling yourself to be. You were running around, fighting tooth and nail saying Paul was a failure and a nothing and all that Jazz. We were running around saying Paul has the right idea, but he's not going to get anywhere on the campaign trail.

You weren't exactly saying anything novel or unique there buddy. You were just spouting off Ronophobic talking points. Its not like there is anyone on here who was claiming he'd do much better than he did. But you were certainly yipping on and on about how he'd do worse.

What does it matter? I made the Earth shattering Maverick prediction that there was no way Paul was getting the nomination, and so did abour 300,000,000 other Americans. Don't get too proud of yourself. Pride is a sin.
 
Beefy said:
Try to remain calm. You're not the Nostradahmus you keep selling yourself to be. You were running around, fighting tooth and nail saying Paul was a failure and a nothing and all that Jazz. We were running around saying Paul has the right idea, but he's not going to get anywhere on the campaign trail.

You weren't exactly saying anything novel or unique there buddy. You were just spouting off Ronophobic talking points. Its not like there is anyone on here who was claiming he'd do much better than he did. But you were certainly yipping on and on about how he'd do worse.

What does it matter? I made the Earth shattering Maverick prediction that there was no way Paul was getting the nomination, and so did abour 300,000,000 other Americans. Don't get too proud of yourself. Pride is a sin.
Click to expand...

I asked you to post the bullshit you claimed I said but you came back with some crap about Nostradamous.

You sir are a liar and NOW you act as if you never heard the crap about how wrong the real polls were, and you never heard that he had a chance to win a primary, and you never heard that his supporters didn't have land lines but they would show up at the polls.

I'm real proud of myself for a hell of a lot more reasons that I knew all the Paul hype was bullshit. Don't hate because you don't have any pride in what you're forced to look at in the mirror Mr. Beefy.

NOW post the crap you said I stated or go grab a sandwich and fuck off.
 
blackascoal said:
Show me some evidence that Huckabee said blacks were barbarians and terrorists that can be identified by the color of their skin and I'll gladly hate him as well.
Click to expand...

Why is Paul the best option for the Republican nomination?

Because he takes any thought of continuing this stupid war off the table. It will be an anti-war candidate against an anti-war, or at least moderate, candidate. And he'll lose. So you'll never have to worry about that anyway.
 
Stringball must have expected him to do better. He invested over $2000 on the guy's campaign. That'll pay for a few nights in Cancun.
 
Watermark said:
Why is Paul the best option for the Republican nomination?

Because he takes any thought of continuing this stupid war off the table. It will be an anti-war candidate against an anti-war, or at least moderate, candidate. And he'll lose. So you'll never have to worry about that anyway.
Click to expand...

No clue what you're talking about here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top