Ron Paul L337 H4XX0r5

[Timshel]

Yeah Damo I just get the spam about enhancing wither male or femal sex stuff....
Or selling drugs or fake Rolex's....

Yeah, stuff an old fogey might be intereseted in.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm I do not need breast enhancement stuff I am not a republican piolitician!
And Rolex is just a status symbol, a fake one is even worse.
Reminds me of flying back from Hong Kong once and overhearing all those talking about the cool fake Rolex's they bought and whether they had already quit or not

I certainly have no need for Viagra.A bit of saltpeter would be more apt.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah Damo I just get the spam about enhancing wither male or femal sex stuff....
Or selling drugs or fake Rolex's....

I feel out of the loop. I mean, I usually only get the ones that link you to pr0n if you click on them.

 

[Cancel7]

This idea that the Paul campaign has made no important empirical gains is simply flat wrong and downright ignorant.

Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire, and has outfundraised, out organized and advertised more than every candidate but Romney.

The campaign is not only growing internally, it is gaining in statewide polls, which is all that matters in a nomination contest.

Ron Paul will place in Iowa and now the discussion among experts is whether he will WIN New Hampshire.

...And I don't know what will happen in the end, but I'm hitting the streets in South Carolina, and not letting other people--especially clearly wrong people--make up my mind for me.

Don’t tell me Rudy’s ahead in New Hampshire?

 

[blackascoal]

You are full of shit. Anything to back this up?

The meetup groups, yahoo lists, youtube, etc., were not organized by the campaign, but spontaneously by supporters. If anything the direction has been coming from the roots to the campaign as the campaign has moved to hrness the spontaneous efforts of disbursed supporters.

Of course supporters organized themselves into meetup groups, but once again you're operating from that place in the space-time continum that suspends all non-programmed logic and knowledge.

Are you suggesting that this is the first time you've heard of Paul supporters being accussed of spamming and flooding polls? .. I'll assume you gave the honest answer of no it isn't. Given that lots of people have heard of it, including meetup groups and those who support him, would not it just seem logical to you that some, perhaps many who have addressed this to the campaign? I know of Paul supporters that have addressed not only this, but have also implored the campaign to issue clear denouncements of the hate groups he's been associated with.

Sorry if I interrupted your journey.

 

[blackascoal]

This idea that the Paul campaign has made no important empirical gains is simply flat wrong and downright ignorant.

Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire, and has outfundraised, out organized and advertised more than every candidate but Romney.

The campaign is not only growing internally, it is gaining in statewide polls, which is all that matters in a nomination contest.

Ron Paul will place in Iowa and now the discussion among experts is whether he will WIN New Hampshire.

...And I don't know what will happen in the end, but I'm hitting the streets in South Carolina, and not letting other people--especially clearly wrong people--make up my mind for me.

It is not my intention nor desire to change anyone's mind here about anything. I assume I'm talking to adults so I'm not understanding why it would ever be a question.

I'm here stating my perspective and questioning the perspectives that don't make sense to me. I'm wondering how you and those experts reconcile your thought that Paul may win New Hampshire with this ...

Mitt Romney has re-asserted his lead in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that Romney holds a nine-point advantage over Rudy Giuliani in the Granite State. That’s up from a three-point lead in September.

The New Hampshire poll also contains good news for John McCain and Mike Huckabee, each of whom has gained four percentage points since mid-September. McCain and Huckabee have also been gaining ground in the daily Presidential Tracking Poll which measures support on a nationwide basis. The big loser in New Hampshire this month is Fred Thompson who lost two-thirds of the support he enjoyed shortly after entering the race.

Romney now has support from 28% of Likely Primary Voters while Giuliani earns the vote from 19%. McCain at 16% and Huckabee at 10% are the only other Republicans in double digits. Thompson attracts just 6% of the vote and is trailed by Tom Tancredo (3%), Ron Paul (2%), and Duncan Hunter (2%). Fourteen percent (14%) remain undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lection_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary

I post that as an example of prevailing thought among experts and there's an awful lot more just like it. From all the evidence I've seen Ron Paul isn't ahead of anybody in Ne Hampshire and even in his own state of Texas he never gets above 6% .. that according to the very Ron Paul friendly USA Election Polls.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html

Not trying to damper your political spirits but there is a distinct line between enthusiasm and delusion.

 

[Timshel]

Of course supporters organized themselves into meetup groups, but once again you're operating from that place in the space-time continum that suspends all non-programmed logic and knowledge.

Are you suggesting that this is the first time you've heard of Paul supporters being accussed of spamming and flooding polls? .. I'll assume you gave the honest answer of no it isn't. Given that lots of people have heard of it, including meetup groups and those who support him, would not it just seem logical to you that some, perhaps many who have addressed this to the campaign? I know of Paul supporters that have addressed not only this, but have also implored the campaign to issue clear denouncements of the hate groups he's been associated with.

Sorry if I interrupted your journey.

No, its not the first time I have heard the unbacked accusation. I can't recall hearing anyone, that is not a complete crackpot, arguing that the Paul campaign was directing others to behave in such a way. Well, I guess I still have not.

You stated that his "operatives" were behind the supposed "spam" and "email flooding." That's absurd.

You can't even backup that any of his supporters have spammed or manipulated polls, as is often mentioned.

I am on the lists and active in the groups. Is there communication of polls, articles and such through them? Yeah, so fucking what?

 

[blackascoal]

No, its not the first time I have heard the unbacked accusation. I can't recall hearing anyone, that is not a complete crackpot, arguing that the Paul campaign was directing others to behave in such a way. Well, I guess I still have not.

You stated that his "operatives" were behind the supposed "spam" and "email flooding." That's absurd.

You can't even backup that any of his supporters have spammed or manipulated polls, as is often mentioned.

I am on the lists and active in the groups. Is there communication of polls, articles and such through them? Yeah, so fucking what?

SPAM’S FAVORITE SON

Ron Paul wins the botnet primary

In just about any news story on Ron Paul’s smallish campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, there’s an obligatory mention that Paul has a lot of support on the internet. Likewise, mysterious Nigerians looking for help moving large sums of money out of their country have lots of internet support. And now it looks like there’s some overlap between the two groups of supporters.

Wired reports that a University of Alabama at Birmingham computer forensics expert has discovered spambots shilling for Paul. Instead of promoting bigger penises, the bots are promoting the Texas congressman with spamish emails declaring Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate! and sending other pro-Paul messages. UAB’s Gary Warner notes that in addition to being annoying, the spam violates federal law.

A Paul campaign spokesperson says they know nothing about the spam, and would never do such a thing.

One does have to wonder, however, if Paul, a hardcore libertarian (he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988), actually supports anti-spambot laws like the federal Can-Spam Act, which interferes with an entrepreneur’s god-given right to use an army of hi-jacked computers and phony email addresses to bombard unsuspecting consumers with penis growth opportunities.

In 2003, Paul was one of only five members of the House of Representatives to vote against the Can-Spam Act. (It passed the Republican controlled House with a margin of 392-5.)
http://www.news.com/2100-1024_3-5110622.html

Maybe Paul should embrace his anti-regulation roots, and stand up for the spambots. If nothing else, it would get him the support of the mysterious Nigerian business community.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/wp_dev/daily/briefing/2007/11/02/spams-favorite-son/

How is it that such a long shot and obscure candidate like Paul is so prevelant on the web? .. Answer, people just like you. Even on this site I'm betting that there are more threads about Ron Paul than there are about anyother candidate.

Could that be because there are far more Paul supporters here than for other candidates? .. NO

Could that be because Paul is doing so well and has become a major force in the election? .. NO

It's because the same 2-3 people create numerous threads about him. None of you are directed by his campaign, but you follow a distinct and telling pattern of behavior that centers on an unprecedented state of denial.

It isn't just Wired that gets swarmed with his spam, Reddit, Digg, and a host of news sites get it as well, and some have taken action to prevent it.

This from a presidential candidate that gets no more than 6% of the vote in his own home state and 2% of the national vote.

America isn't clamoring for Ron Paul .. Ronbots are just playing make-believe.

 

[Timshel]

SPAM’S FAVORITE SON
How is it that such a long shot and obscure candidate like Paul is so prevelant on the web? .. Answer, people just like you. Even on this site I'm betting that there are more threads about Ron Paul than there are about anyother candidate.

Could that be because there are far more Paul supporters here than for other candidates? .. NO

You are quite likely wrong on your first premise. There are probably more committed Paul supporters on this site than for any other candidate.

Could that be because Paul is doing so well and has become a major force in the election? .. NO

It's because the same 2-3 people create numerous threads about him. None of you are directed by his campaign, but you follow a distinct and telling pattern of behavior that centers on an unprecedented state of denial.

It isn't just Wired that gets swarmed with his spam, Reddit, Digg, and a host of news sites get it as well, and some have taken action to prevent it.

Yes and the unique google searches and page views, the 233,000 (at the time of article linked) you tube views of his commercial, the increased traffic to sites that mention Paul, the many members in the social networking sites, THE NUMEROUS STRAW POLLS HE HAS DOMINATED, the presence he has had at other candidates and even other parties events.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=146668

Sure, it's all just a couple of people trying to make his support look like more than it is. It's just Adam and I traveling around voting in straw polls and holding signs everywhere because we know this will guarantee his victory.



You are the one in denial of the simple and obvious explanation I have given. Paul enjoys significant support among committed and enthused activists. Further, libertarians tend to be tech savvy. His libertarian campaign is the first in my lifetime to gain such attention. Fuck, he was on Jay Leno. It is encouraging.

Your explanation is incomplete, failing to explain the offline presence (straw polls, sign holders, etc.), and you have nothing but speculation to backup the wild claim.

A further demonstration of your denial is that you will now likely claim for the billionth time (though you have been corrected and reminded over and over and over again) that this means we think Paul will win the election, or that this support necessarily translates to the population as a whole.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

bac, you even distort the distorted article that in no way indicates that this is how Paul intends to "run a pollitical campaign."

The article does not give enough info on what is in the spammed emails. Spam is used to sale crap or get you to click on a link. Are the Ron Paul subject lines just used to get people you to open the email?

While there's no general consensus on a precise definition of spam -- and I've had screaming (figuratively) arguments with the fascistic morons of NANAE and Spamhaus to prove it -- the pro Ron Paul email mentioned is clearly spam. Here's a definition from a group whom I don't even like: I consider them authoritarian and arrogant. I agree with them on the basic definition, however; I dislike the way they implement it.

TheDefinition of Spam

The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").

Unsolicited means that the Recipient has not granted verifiable permission for the message to be sent. Bulk means that the message is sent as part of a larger collection of messages, all having substantively identical content.

A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk.

-
Unsolicited Email is normal email
(examples: first contact enquiries, job enquiries, sales enquiries)

-
Bulk Email is normal email
(examples: subscriber newsletters, customer communications, discussion lists)

 

[Cypress]

I saw a youtube video recently, where ron paul was totally in denial about global warming.

Someone asked him what he'd to to reduce greenhouse gases, and he said some nonsense about protecting property rights.

 

[blackascoal]

You are quite likely wrong on your first premise. There are probably more committed Paul supporters on this site than for any other candidate.

I doubt that, and nearly all the Paul threads have been created by the same 2-3 posters .. which makes my point.

Yes and the unique google searches and page views, the 233,000 (at the time of article linked) you tube views of his commercial, the increased traffic to sites that mention Paul, the many members in the social networking sites, THE NUMEROUS STRAW POLLS HE HAS DOMINATED, the presence he has had at other candidates and even other parties events.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=146668

Straw polls don't mean shit. They're simply glorified fundraisers.

How about ALL the scientific polls which basically ALL say the same thing .. 2% ???

Sure, it's all just a couple of people trying to make his support look like more than it is. It's just Adam and I traveling around voting in straw polls and holding signs everywhere because we know this will guarantee his victory.



You are the one in denial of the simple and obvious explanation I have given. Paul enjoys significant support among committed and enthused activists. Further, libertarians tend to be tech savvy. His libertarian campaign is the first in my lifetime to gain such attention. Fuck, he was on Jay Leno. It is encouraging.

Libertarians also tend to be losers .. which is why Paul is running as a republican. If you think there are enough libertarians to elect him .. good luck with that one. Paul supporters are indeed committed, but there aren't very many of them, nor is there the internet presence you pretend.

Compare Paul's internet support to that of Howard Dean or Obama. Both got FAR FAR more fundraising from the internet than you or Paul could ever dream of. Obama has more internet donors than Paul could ever wish for.

Obama had 20,000 people show up to support him in Atlanta, and several campaign stops that topped 10,000 .. and he isn't even leading in the polls. Might you have ANY evidence that Paul got anywhere close to those numbers? .. Of course you don't.

Your explanation is incomplete, failing to explain the offline presence (straw polls, sign holders, etc.), and you have nothing but speculation to backup the wild claim.

I've explained it many times .. straw polls don't mean shit and some candidates don't even participate in them because they are meaningless.

"Sign holders" ??? Are you serious?

What kind of measure is "sign holders"?

How about supporters at campaign stops, scientific polls, demographics, and fundraising totals? These are tried and true measurables .. not sign holders, internet and straw polls, MySpace and FaceBook hits.

A further demonstration of your denial is that you will now likely claim for the billionth time (though you have been corrected and reminded over and over and over again) that this means we think Paul will win the election, or that this support necessarily translates to the population as a whole.

Only a complete fool would make the ridiculous claim that Paul is going to get anywhere near the nomination .. and I don't take you for the complete fool.

All this spinning and contortions about Ron Paul and how much support he does or does not have will all go away soon, and his ass will crawl back under the rock of obscurity from whence he came.

But that is my point.

No one, including Ron Paul believes he has a snowballs chance in hell of ever becoming president. Why? .. Because neither he or his lunatic ideas are supported by the American people.

I'm glad that you agree.

 

[Timshel]

I doubt that, and nearly all the Paul threads have been created by the same 2-3 posters .. which makes my point.

Oh well, I am fairly certain your doubts are wrong.

Straw polls don't mean shit. They're simply glorified fundraisers.

They can't be "spammed" and they go to my point of committed activists. Your fairytale hyopothesis of a few internet spammers does not explain them.

How about ALL the scientific polls which basically ALL say the same thing .. 2% ???

How does this contradict what I have stated, i.e., that he does not enjoy much support among the general public?

Libertarians also tend to be losers ???

Ad hom and a very inaccurate one. One of my green buddies is always talking about how the libertarians all have good jobs.

which is why Paul is running as a republican. If you think there are enough libertarians to elect him.. good luck with that one.

Dude, you are in your own little world. How many times does one need to tell you that you are using a strawman. I don't believe he has any real chance to win.

Paul supporters are indeed committed, but there aren't very many of them, nor is there the internet presence you pretend.

You offer nothing to counter the evidence I provided.

Compare Paul's internet support to that of Howard Dean or Obama. Both got FAR FAR more fundraising from the internet than you or Paul could ever dream of. Obama has more internet donors than Paul could ever wish for.

Source?

"Sign holders" ??? Are you serious?

What kind of measure is "sign holders"?

They are a measure of the point which you are too chickentshit to address and so you make up strawman arguments.

How about supporters at campaign stops, scientific polls, demographics, and fundraising totals? These are tried and true measurables .. not sign holders, internet and straw polls, MySpace and FaceBook hits.

You are trying to argue that he has no real internet support. The information I cited is definitely relevant to that point.

Only a complete fool would make the ridiculous claim that Paul is going to get anywhere near the nomination .. and I don't take you for the complete fool.

I wonder why you insist on acting as one with your insistence on attacking strawmen. You continuosly fail to make a relevant a response.

Maybe, I will just go back to playing along.

 

[Damocles]

Just point out to him that his alien-run candidate is full of phail as if it were relevant to the conversation, it tends to get him back on track. Nobody has suggested in this thread that R. Paul has strong popular support.

 

[uscitizen]

You are quite likely wrong on your first premise. There are probably more committed Paul supporters on this site than for any other candidate.
//

Yeah but only to have sex with him according to the polls on here

 

[blackascoal]

Just point out to him that his alien-run candidate is full of phail as if it were relevant to the conversation, it tends to get him back on track. Nobody has suggested in this thread that R. Paul has strong popular support.

Then what's your point?

My assertion .. America is not clamoring for Ron Paul and he lacks the support Ronbots pretend him to have .. which is clearly evidenced.

What's your point?

And pointing out Kucinich's problems is par for the course on your side of the fence in a discussion about RON PAUL.

Kucinich has some problems and if you have the slightest evidence that I have said anything different or that I haven't acknowledged that Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination .. post it.

Sorry dude, switching the conversation to Kucinich is kust kinda' goofy.

 

[Damocles]

Then what's your point?

My assertion .. America is not clamoring for Ron Paul and he lacks the support Ronbots pretend him to have .. which is clearly evidenced.

What's your point?

And pointing out Kucinich's problems is par for the course on your side of the fence in a discussion about RON PAUL.

Kucinich has some problems and if you have the slightest evidence that I have said anything different or that I haven't acknowledged that Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination .. post it.

Sorry dude, switching the conversation to Kucinich is kust kinda' goofy.

Nobody here has said America was clamoring for Ron Paul, except for your assertion that some people have, it simply hasn't been any issue on any thread about him.

This is called a logical fallacy, specifically the one called the Strawman Argument. Now can you relate to your own logical fallacy? You have stated that Kucinich has as much chance to win as the R. Paul supporters here have stated about R. Paul, except of course in jest.

Therefore asserting that he has suggested that America is "clamoring for R. Paul" is simply attempting to argue what you want to argue rather than the actual points he made.`

 

[Timshel]

Then what's your point?

My assertion .. America is not clamoring for Ron Paul and he lacks the support Ronbots pretend him to have .. which is clearly evidenced.

What's your point?

And pointing out Kucinich's problems is par for the course on your side of the fence in a discussion about RON PAUL.

Kucinich has some problems and if you have the slightest evidence that I have said anything different or that I haven't acknowledged that Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination .. post it.

Sorry dude, switching the conversation to Kucinich is kust kinda' goofy.

The point was that his interenet support is real and that he has a base of strong support among the politically active. Switching the conversation to his appeal among the general population is just kinda goofy.

 

[uscitizen]

The point was that his interenet support is real and that he has a base of strong support among the politically active. Switching the conversation to his appeal among the general population is just kinda goofy.

Of course there is the little matter of the general populace being the ones who elect presidents..

 

[Timshel]

While there's no general consensus on a precise definition of spam -- ...

Yeah, I was curious if there was anything else in the email and if they were simply using Paul as bait. Many websites were using Paul to attract traffic. I have since seen the entire email and yes, it is spam.

Usually, though, you don't see someone attempting to support a cause through spam. It's just not that affective. This is why some are speculating that it might be being sent out to discrdit Paul.