The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know

[maineman]

I suppose...however it was done in fun as "Ensign Pulver" was a citcom and a movie character that was liked...but carry on Admiral...hows that???

You could call me maineman, or, if you were intent on using military rank, "Commander" would be the correct one.... and "Commander, sir" would be the appropriate form of address for one borne in battle - unless, of course, you reached O-6 in which case I will call YOU "sir".

 

[Battleborne]

Naw....

You could call me maineman, or, if you were intent on using military rank, "Commander" would be the correct one.... and "Commander, sir" would be the appropriate form of address for one borne in battle - unless, of course, you reached O-6 in which case I will call YOU "sir".

Commander(retired) would be the most appropriate...actually I prefer 'Ensign Pulver' and does not the Navy use the term "Mr."...never mind I am relating back to my childhood...My Step Dad was Navy a 'Commander'(pilot)also I just called him jerk! But thats another story...at any rate since you are retired and all and my rank in the Militray only reached the rank of 0-1(went on to GS 11 in fed service) we can call each other Mister...or not!...lol

 

[Damocles]

Commander(retired) would be the most appropriate...actually I prefer 'Ensign Pulver' and does not the Navy use the term "Mr."...never mind I am relating back to my childhood...My Step Dad was Navy a 'Commander'(pilot)also I just called him jerk! But thats another story...at any rate since you are retired and all and my rank in the Militray only reached the rank of 0-1(went on to GS 11 in fed service) we can call each other Mister...or not!...lol

Mr. is what officers called us peons. "Mr. Damocles, would you please report on the position of the..." would be something you might hear.

 

[Battleborne]

Lmao....!

Mr. is what officers called us peons. "Mr. Damocles, would you please report on the position of the..." would be something you might hear.

ya be the man...now how did I know ya would set Maineman straight! Never mind ya were Navy!

 

[blackascoal]

You stated in the post, "See he can be defeated easily" or something much to that effect. I didn't need to pretend that you posted it for any other reason than as an explanation of how he was likely to lose his seat after he he lost in the presidential primaries.

He is very unlikely to lose his seat.

I have no problem with what you believe .. but I never said what you quoted nor did you demonstrate that republicans aren't quite upset with him.

 

[Damocles]

You quoted Watermarks post about how he would not lose his seat, you then stated that he easily could and used numbers from 1996 as if they resembled a real idea of the current idea. You did not include the redistricting, and you ignored the fact that he has won by 10% or more the majority of the time.

He is like Tancredo, nobody will unseat him until he chooses to leave.

 

[blackascoal]

Ahhh it was "He most certainly can be beaten"... That was the point of the post. Directly quoted from the post.



Seriously, you should remember that we can actually go back and read these things.

How he fared in the past few elections is a far stronger indication of the "anger" republicans feel for him in his district. Almost none. He is extremely popular there. He isn't going to lose because he will lose in the primaries. He knows he is a long-shot and ran for a purpose other than the idea that he stood a chance to win.

I'm well aware of how message boards work and going back is probably what you should have done in the first place. I stand by what I said at the time which was not that he could "easily be beaten" but that he most certainly can be beaten, and I demonstrated the how.

Obviously you support Paul and don't really care about anything else.

You claimed I had no evidence that the comments were his .. I posted it.

You claimed I had no proof of his "participation" .. I posted it.

You said you needed to read a newsletter for yourself, not quotes .. I posted it.

My intent is not to convince you or anybody else of anything they don't want to believe. I'm posting what I believe and backing it up with evidence. Because you don't believe it is hardly the point as it appears that I know more about him than you do.

As for whatever purpose it is that he's running .. don't know, don't care. I know what my purpose is for exposing him.

Don't mean to make an enemy of you .. but you misinterpret a lot. If you scroll back again, you will find that I also did not say he was going to lose simply because he lost in the primaries, but rather, he's going to lose because he's a REPUBLICAN running in a REPUBLICAN district and has outraged REPUBLICANS all over the country .. evidenced by his almost non-existence showing in REPUBLICAN polls.

Associated Press / Ipso poll of June 9, 2007

(ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID THEY ARE REPUBLICAN OR LEAN REPUBLICAN)
If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were ... (NAMES OF CANDIDATES), for whom would you vote?

–Rudy Giuliani, 27 percent (35)
–John McCain, 19 percent (22)
–Fred Thompson, 17 percent (not asked in March)
–Mitt Romney, 10 percent (8)
–Newt Gingrich, 7 percent (11)
–Sam Brownback, 3 percent (3)
–Mike Huckabee, 2 percent (3)
–Other, 1 percent (X)
–None, 4 percent (6)
–Don't Know/Not Sure, 10 percent (12)

Would his numbers be in the "Other", "None", or "Don't know" category?

 

[Litmus]

I love him. But I'm an independant (Anarchist), so I don't know what that means in the midst of this.

 

[Battleborne]

Really....

I'm well aware of how message boards work and going back is probably what you should have done in the first place. I stand by what I said at the time which was not that he could "easily be beaten" but that he most certainly can be beaten, and I demonstrated the how.

Obviously you support Paul and don't really care about anything else.

You claimed I had no evidence that the comments were his .. I posted it.

You claimed I had no proof of his "participation" .. I posted it.

You said you needed to read a newsletter for yourself, not quotes .. I posted it.

My intent is not to convince you or anybody else of anything they don't want to believe. I'm posting what I believe and backing it up with evidence. Because you don't believe it is hardly the point as it appears that I know more about him than you do.

As for whatever purpose it is that he's running .. don't know, don't care. I know what my purpose is for exposing him.

Don't mean to make an enemy of you .. but you misinterpret a lot. If you scroll back again, you will find that I also did not say he was going to lose simply because he lost in the primaries, but rather, he's going to lose because he's a REPUBLICAN running in a REPUBLICAN district and has outraged REPUBLICANS all over the country .. evidenced by his almost non-existence showing in REPUBLICAN polls.

Associated Press / Ipso poll of June 9, 2007

(ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID THEY ARE REPUBLICAN OR LEAN REPUBLICAN)
If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were ... (NAMES OF CANDIDATES), for whom would you vote?

–Rudy Giuliani, 27 percent (35)
–John McCain, 19 percent (22)
–Fred Thompson, 17 percent (not asked in March)
–Mitt Romney, 10 percent (8)
–Newt Gingrich, 7 percent (11)
–Sam Brownback, 3 percent (3)
–Mike Huckabee, 2 percent (3)
–Other, 1 percent (X)
–None, 4 percent (6)
–Don't Know/Not Sure, 10 percent (12)

Would his numbers be in the "Other", "None", or "Don't know" category?

and where did you post all of this...besides a personal 'Hypothesis' sprinkled with hate and or fantasy??? You posted no such thing..sorry..sometimes those in the oppostion..."Just can't handle the Truth" stolen from a movie...as this is a continuing saga...poorly written may I add!

 

[blackascoal]

You quoted Watermarks post about how he would not lose his seat, you then stated that he easily could and used numbers from 1996 as if they resembled a real idea of the current idea. You did not include the redistricting, and you ignored the fact that he has won by 10% or more the majority of the time.

He is like Tancredo, nobody will unseat him until he chooses to leave.

I've already said why I used those numbers in spite of your mischaracterization to make a point.

You act as if the man has never lost a race and walks on water.

The new redistricting came by way of Tom Delay who took a more democratic portion of the district, LaMarque, into his own to leave Paul with a more republican district. .. Which makes my point .. it is even more republican now.

Yes, he has won by more than 10%, but in his elections he's Mr Red, White, and Blue, but his opponent, which looks to be Friendwoods Mayor Pro Tem / City Councilman Chris Peden a multi-millionaire, who will be punching some big ass holes in that illusion. He will be running ads, showing video, and reminding voters everyday of Paul's performance in the first debate which set Guiliani up like Paul was Jerry Lewis in the Martin/Lewis comedy team.

Pedan's words ...

"I support winning the Global War on Terror, the incumbent voted against the war; I think Islamo-Fascist terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, my opponent thinks America's Middle East policy was responsible; and I support fully funding NASA's budget and the Vision for Space Exploration, the incumbent does not."

Don't think that will play well in Texas .. in a republican district?

"This latest thing is just another example,” he said. “I’ve been all over this district. I’ve spoken to over 200 people who are strong Republican primary voters. Not one of those people shares his point of view on the war on Iraq.”

"I'm proud to say that we are the only city in CD 14, and one of only two cities in the state of Texas that has ever provided a property tax refund for its over-taxed citizens - we returned more than $1,000,000 to Friendswood residents. While some in Washington were talking about cutting taxes, we were actually giving taxpayers their money back."

"If I am fortunate enough to be elected to congress, as a pro-family conservative, I intend to defend the rights of unborn children and traditional marriage between one man and one woman, while opposing efforts to push God out of the public square,"

"What has Ron Paul delivered?"

Eric Dondero, Paul's former staffer intended to run for the seat but is reconsidering because he believes that Paul likes runoffs.

How do I know this? .. Because I've spoken to both Peden and Dondero.

AND .. I've been paying attention to what's being said in his district .. have you?

Paul’s debate line sparks comments at home

By Sara McDonald
The Daily News

Published May 22, 2007
http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=5b90d5d70a50ebc7

Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s comments last week during a Republican primary debate rippled through his congressional constituency in Galveston County, heating up the race for those hoping to capture his congressional seat.

In the debate, Paul suggested that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks occurred because of military presence in the Middle East before then. He also said that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and he hoped to provide views that appealed to all voters, not just Republicans.
*****

I not only say what I think, I back it up.

 

[blackascoal]

and where did you post all of this...besides a personal 'Hypothesis' sprinkled with hate and or fantasy??? You posted no such thing..sorry..sometimes those in the oppostion..."Just can't handle the Truth" stolen from a movie...as this is a continuing saga...poorly written may I add!

It seems you're a big fan of movies and illusion, eh there Doc Holliday.

And given the examples of your writing that I've seen here ..

ya be the man...now how did I know ya would set Maineman straight! Never mind ya were Navy

I'm really hurt by your critque

 

[Damocles]

I'm well aware of how message boards work and going back is probably what you should have done in the first place. I stand by what I said at the time which was not that he could "easily be beaten" but that he most certainly can be beaten, and I demonstrated the how.

Obviously you support Paul and don't really care about anything else.

You claimed I had no evidence that the comments were his .. I posted it.

You claimed I had no proof of his "participation" .. I posted it.

You said you needed to read a newsletter for yourself, not quotes .. I posted it.

My intent is not to convince you or anybody else of anything they don't want to believe. I'm posting what I believe and backing it up with evidence. Because you don't believe it is hardly the point as it appears that I know more about him than you do.

As for whatever purpose it is that he's running .. don't know, don't care. I know what my purpose is for exposing him.

Don't mean to make an enemy of you .. but you misinterpret a lot. If you scroll back again, you will find that I also did not say he was going to lose simply because he lost in the primaries, but rather, he's going to lose because he's a REPUBLICAN running in a REPUBLICAN district and has outraged REPUBLICANS all over the country .. evidenced by his almost non-existence showing in REPUBLICAN polls.

Associated Press / Ipso poll of June 9, 2007

(ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID THEY ARE REPUBLICAN OR LEAN REPUBLICAN)
If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were ... (NAMES OF CANDIDATES), for whom would you vote?

–Rudy Giuliani, 27 percent (35)
–John McCain, 19 percent (22)
–Fred Thompson, 17 percent (not asked in March)
–Mitt Romney, 10 percent (8)
–Newt Gingrich, 7 percent (11)
–Sam Brownback, 3 percent (3)
–Mike Huckabee, 2 percent (3)
–Other, 1 percent (X)
–None, 4 percent (6)
–Don't Know/Not Sure, 10 percent (12)

Would his numbers be in the "Other", "None", or "Don't know" category?

I don't act as if he walks on water, you are one disingenuous spinner. At least you admit that now you were saying that those numbers were about him losing his congressional seat. You weren't willing to admit that was what you were talking about until now.

I act as if he is very popular in his district because of his strict constitutional stance. He has voted against every War Powers Act war because of the end run on the Declaration and has for along time. You act as if it is somehow new and that his contituency will be surprised. His one comment isn't going to cause him to lose his seat in Congress. "Sparking comments" is seriously not the same as your previous surety that he WILL lose that sparked Watermark's comments.

"He can lose." Is also a far cry from your surety of your previous post of how he is a "loser who won't even keep his congressional seat".

He could lose, but it isn't very likely that he will. There are people who would lay odds on it.

 

[Litmus]

I see Ron Paul picking up many democrat/independant/ center votes, because of his stances against the elite machine. Thanks for helping popularize him, blackascoal.

 

[LadyT]

I don't act as if he walks on water, you are one disingenuous spinner. At least you admit that now you were saying that those numbers were about him losing his congressional seat. You weren't willing to admit that was what you were talking about until now.

In BACs defense, you libertarian leaning people have acted like he was the second coming for the last 3 years even before he ran. I'd never heard of the guy but I've heard nothing but high praises, admiration and almost freakish supoort for this relatively unknown. He wasn't around for that, but I've seen a lot of it.

 

[Litmus]

blackascoal is lame. He's fully on board with the nwo. What the elites fear most is people waking up and realizing the more important tension is actually them versus the government and it's fascist corporate puppetmasters, and not Republicans versus democrats. Blackascoal is afraid of ron paul being a spearhead of the new nativist movement which will cross party lines and destroy both parties, as the people erupt in a tempestuous display of self preservation against the lies and chains of our neo-fascist controllers.

 

[Damocles]

In BACs defense, you libertarian leaning people have acted like he was the second coming for the last 3 years even before he ran. I'd never heard of the guy but I've heard nothing but high praises, admiration and almost freakish supoort for this relatively unknown. He wasn't around for that, but I've seen a lot of it.

True. Very true. His voting record makes him appear more libertarian than republican. I don't like his stance on gay marriage. I do like the State's rights approach over the BAN them all approach, but would prefer the "there is no victim, ergo no need for a law" approach... when speaking of the gay marriage thing.

I'll have to admit that the newsletter after the LA Riots is "uncomfortable", to say the least.

 

[blackascoal]

You're a fucking moron.

You're black, eh? Couldn't come up with a less obvious name than "blackascoal?" Maybe I should call myself "Redheadedfreckleddorkywhite".

Missed this one.

Personally, I couldn't care less what the fuck you call yourself. My screen name was meant to be obvious and only a moron wouldn't have figured that out.

What kind of idiot would concern themselves with what someone's screen name is?

Jeez

 

[Damocles]

blackascoal is lame. He's fully on board with the nwo. What the elites fear most is people waking up and realizing the more important tension is actually them versus the government and it's fascist corporate puppetmasters, and not Republicans versus democrats. Blackascoal is afraid of ron paul being a spearhead of the new nativist movement which will cross party lines and destroy both parties, as the people erupt in a tempestuous display of self preservation against the lies and chains of our neo-fascist controllers.

Nah, he is running against Paul in his district.

 

[blackascoal]

I don't act as if he walks on water, you are one disingenuous spinner. At least you admit that now you were saying that those numbers were about him losing his congressional seat. You weren't willing to admit that was what you were talking about until now.

I act as if he is very popular in his district because of his strict constitutional stance. He has voted against every War Powers Act war because of the end run on the Declaration and has for along time. You act as if it is somehow new and that his contituency will be surprised. His one comment isn't going to cause him to lose his seat in Congress. "Sparking comments" is seriously not the same as your previous surety that he WILL lose that sparked Watermark's comments.

"He can lose." Is also a far cry from your surety of your previous post of how he is a "loser who won't even keep his congressional seat".

He could lose, but it isn't very likely that he will. There are people who would lay odds on it.

Disingenuous spinner????

You're the moderator???

"loser who won't even keep his congressional seat". -- THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS NOT MINE, BUT YOU HAVE THEM QUOTED AS IF THEY WERE, AND THAT SIR, IS DISENGENUOUS.

Remember your admonition about how a message board works? Why didn't you do it?

Scroll back through this thread and see if you can find that from me.

Here is what I, me, blackascoal said .. "The problem is that he's 72 years old with a limited future in politics. He's running in a republican race and republicans don't like him. He can't drop out and run as a libertarian because they already have a declared candidate. He could run with the Constitution Party but they don't have much ballot access. When he's out of the republican presidential race and if he loses in his own district, there won't be much of a political career left for him."

AND

"I have said .. VERY CLEARLY .. that I expect he will lose because of the anger REPUBLICANS have for him now. It does not take a svengali rethinking of what I have said. Now if you can demonstrate that REPUBLICANS are not angry with him then perhaps you'd have an argument. But in a REPUBLICAN district there is little question that I have a point."

AND

"He most certainly can be beaten."

Neither what you or Watermark claim I said about "easily beaten" is true, in fact, "easy" is nowhere in my comments.

I'll tell you what has changed is your comment that "He is like Tancredo, nobody will unseat him until he chooses to leave" .. to .. "He could lose", which I suspect comes by way of the information I've provided.

From the beginning of this thread I have presented evidence which I have provided links to all of it, that I did not make up, and facts as they are. But instead of rational, sane discussion about what is obviously there, that I did not make up, all I get is attacks on me, as if I have no right to present evidence or my own opinion. Everytime there's a question about the information, I've provided it .. and much more.

You asked "Which hate group has Ron Paul actually gone to a function of?" .. I provided the information and more .. but no analytical discussion came of it .. just more things wrong with me.

Mischaracterize and misquote what I've said, I'm a jew, I'm a neocon, I'm a racist ... But little to no intelligent analytical discussion of the information.

That's cool.

I'm getting a feel for the level of seriousness on this site.

 

[Damocles]

Disingenuous spinner????

You're the moderator???

"loser who won't even keep his congressional seat". -- THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS NOT MINE, BUT YOU HAVE THEM QUOTED AS IF THEY WERE, AND THAT SIR, IS DISENGENUOUS.

I am sure you have noted by now that I use quote marks often to emphasize rather than quote people. However, you are right I am sorry for putting quote marks around a paraphrased remark, rather than a quoted one.

Here is the actual quote:

"After he's dismissed from the presidential race, he'll have a tough time keeping his own seat."

And it would be disingenuous to pretend that "tough time" means that it will be easier for another to beat him.

Remember your admonition about how a message board works? Why didn't you do it?

Scroll back through this thread and see if you can find that from me.

Above.

Here is what I, me, blackascoal said .. "The problem is that he's 72 years old with a limited future in politics. He's running in a republican race and republicans don't like him. He can't drop out and run as a libertarian because they already have a declared candidate. He could run with the Constitution Party but they don't have much ballot access. When he's out of the republican presidential race and if he loses in his own district, there won't be much of a political career left for him."

AND

"I have said .. VERY CLEARLY .. that I expect he will lose because of the anger REPUBLICANS have for him now. It does not take a svengali rethinking of what I have said. Now if you can demonstrate that REPUBLICANS are not angry with him then perhaps you'd have an argument. But in a REPUBLICAN district there is little question that I have a point."

AND

"He most certainly can be beaten."

Neither what you or Watermark claim I said about "easily beaten" is true, in fact, "easy" is nowhere in my comments.

Remember saying this? "After he's dismissed from the presidential race, he'll have a tough time keeping his own seat."

Once again, "easy" is implied as the opposite of "tough" (quote marks for emphasis).

I'll tell you what has changed is your comment that "He is like Tancredo, nobody will unseat him until he chooses to leave" .. to .. "He could lose", which I suspect comes by way of the information I've provided.

No, it comes only from the fact that anybody could lose. But it would take a baby-killing picture in order for him to lose in his district. He is very popular there, as Tancredo is here in this district. Relative unknowns, very popular in their small districts, very secure in their congressional seats.

I stand by my opinion that nobody will unseat him until he chooses to leave. As I said, some people would lay odds on it.

From the beginning of this thread I have presented evidence which I have provided links to all of it, that I did not make up, and facts as they are. But instead of rational, sane discussion about what is obviously there, that I did not make up, all I get is attacks on me, as if I have no right to present evidence or my own opinion. Everytime there's a question about the information, I've provided it .. and much more.

Okay,

1. Your link to a 'Houston Chronicle Story' cannot even show that it actually was a Houston Chronicle Story. I've tried to find that opinion piece (not fact opinion piece) on any site officially linked to the Houston Chronicle, no such luck.

2. You provide me a link to a radio station that says he was a guest and say that is evidence of his collaboration. I then ask, (paraphrasing) "When Bill Owens went on Air America for an interview, and they posted it on their site that he was doing it, did that mean that he was no longer an R and that he supported their agenda? Or did it mean that he agreed with them on one point, and otherwise was pretty much called the devil himself by most people?"

You did not answer.

3. You did change from "tough time keeping his seat" to "could lose". AFTER you claimed that you didn't post those 1996 numbers of a Primary after redistricting to compare with current popularity in his district, you posted it to "prove" that Rs were angry at him.

You asked "Which hate group has Ron Paul actually gone to a function of?" .. I provided the information and more .. but no analytical discussion came of it .. just more things wrong with me.

Wrong. I asked questions such as the one above, "Bill Owens... blah, blah." You didn't answer.

Mischaracterize and misquote what I've said, I'm a jew, I'm a neocon, I'm a racist ... But little to no intelligent analytical discussion of the information.

That's cool.

I'm getting a feel for the level of seriousness on this site.

I have never called you a jew. I did "misquote" but only as a regular posting style where I was emphasizing. I'm working on getting out of that habit.

So, there you are.

1. If I support Ron Paul somewhere on the web it doesn't mean we have a "close association". If I support him because of his gun stance it does not mean we share any other opinion. If he doesn't "distance himself" from me, it does not mean we are the best of pals.

2. If I go on a radio station promoting libertarian views, they put it on their website, it does not mean that I support any other position at all or that I collaborate for them or are associated in any other way than as a guest on a radio show.

3. That newsletter you gave was an uncomfortable read, but has been attributed to a different writer who has claimed the writing as his own. You then say that Ron Paul has said that they were "his words", but it was clearly pointed out that it was written by another and attributed to him by Adam earlier in the thread.

So, there are the points I have made earlier in the thread reiterated for the one weary of re-reading.