OMG - Ron Paul for President!

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I'd wager that no one in this thread cares if you're voting for Fred “Sockpuppet” Thompson, we're discussing the fact that Ron Paul is running and showing our support for him.

Originally Posted by D-FENS

If you like Fred Thompson, great, voice your support in his Presidential thread rather than trying to troll support for him by undermining the efforts of many campaigning for Ron Paul, which is what this thread is about.

I too did not realize that this was only a 'Yeah Ron Paul' thread and would ask CR to clarify the rules on this. While I understand and agree (well, sort of) with the rule against posting negative comments in WTS threads I'm not sure if we want to have political threads only open to group-think or majority agreed to comments.

[Slim Pickens]

Amen, Brother, amen.

Slim

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

Nineseven and I have been having a good debate, but nothing in any of his posts refutes the statement that Ron Paul is not electible

The discussion wasn't about that. The problem is, you keep trying to shift the point and raise the bar because your points lack substance. The original point of contention between us centered around whether or not Hillary is popular. Since you can't bring yourself to admit that %49 of all likely voters liking her refutes your point, you go on to something else and just take pot shots about the issue. That's extremely childish. If you feel that this tactic of yours has somehow bested the other side of the argument, it must be a very lonely world that you live in. I feel sad for you. At this point, I honestly don't wish to continue this discussion with you.

[ChamberedRound]

(sigh)
This thread has been around WAY too long for this crap to happen.

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

What's wrong with saying that I like Ron Paul's position on guns but I think Thompson (who has nearly identical 2nd amendment positions) is electible?

I'll tell you what's wrong with it: it's OFF-TOPIC on a thread specifically started to discuss Ron Paul. I'm not saying such a discussion shouldn't be had, I just don't think this thread is the place. There's a thread devoted to Fred Thompson on this site, and it's also been around for awhile; if you think he's more electable than other candidates, discuss it there. Better yet, start a new thread on the electability of candidates.

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

I'm going to go find some gun threads to comment on. That is, afterall, why we're here.

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

Anyway, I'm tired of this.

You've said this twice, and yet you're still here spamming this thread. This off-topic debate was started through your comments, so end it by NOT feeling the need to have the last word.

Slim, D-Fens, 9-7,
While I appreciate the debate, it's gone on long enough; I can't let this crap continue. The merits of who's electable other than Ron Paul are off-topic here. I don't believe "group-think" is a good thing, which is why I initially let the debate go on. However, in the last few posts the arguments started to fall apart and resort to insults and name-calling, including the ever-colorful posting of pics. At that point IMHO it was no longer a debate.

This thread has been around way too long, and I have no intention of closing it. If this debate continues here, timeouts (read: temporary bans) will be issued.

[Slim Pickens]

"At this point, I honestly don't wish to continue this discussion with you."

That's because you've lost the debate and you are ideologically bankrupt.

If you really think that 49% of voters in this country like Hillary Clinton, you are...what did you call me? Oh yes, delusional.

As you wish.

So long,

Slim

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

I too did not realize that this was only a 'Yeah Ron Paul' thread and would ask CR to clarify the rules on this. While I understand and agree (well, sort of) with the rule against posting negative comments in WTS threads I'm not sure if we want to have political threads only open to group-think or majority agreed to comments.

That's shanking the issue, don't you think? Calling it group-think is a little caustic. Is it group think when the MODs don't want someone coming into a "what's your favorite 9mm defense load" and saying "9mm is for girls, it's weak and you should only shoot a .45. I like it for plinking, but prove to me that it's better than a .45".

It has to do with keeping on-topic. There's nothing wrong with someone starting a "Fred Thompson is running for President" thread. If there was a rule against it, then THAT would be group think. I am, as are most adults, fully capable of reading more than one thread, so the virtues of Fred Thompson do not need to be extolled in threads that aren't really discussing him anymore than the virtues of a shotgun need to be extolled in a thread about AR15's.

What happens when you stray from this, especially in political threads, is that some troll comes along, riles people up, things get out of hand and then the MODs step in and the thread is locked. In fact, that's usually the troll's reason for doing it, to get the original thread locked and have all the information vanish to the bottom of the page.

This applies to "caliber war", "AR VS x", religious and political threads all the same. The High Road had to shut down their political forum due to this. When you run into a thread where supporters of Fred Thompson have been discussing his candidacy for 40+ pages and start tossing off a bunch of BS or negative sentiment, what do you honestly expect to happen? If you want to debate the virtues of one candidate against another, then start a new thread with that clearly in mind. This thread has been used for supporters of Ron Paul to coordinate, discuss and get to know each other, to turn it into a debate thread after the focus of it has been well-established is trolling. I don't care how you shuck, shift or jive, that's what trolling is. I'm all for someone starting a "Fred Thompson VS whomever" thread, or a "Ron Paul is an idiot" thread, but I wouldn't jump into a 40+ page thread talking about Fred Thompson's appearances and writings and start calling him a Hollywood sockpuppet that will never get elected any more than I'd jump into a "which 1911" thread and start saying that they jam all the time and that I prefer a Glock.

Now sure, you can just say "don't feed the trolls, you're just as bad as they are if you do", but you know, I don't pretend to be Ghandi. I'm no better than anyone else, and I still firmly believe in the idea of don't start none, won't be none. I do not hold to the notion that if someone comes up to you and insults you that you are somehow as bad as or worse than the initial aggressor if you insult him right back. That's just too PC for my blood.

And to be honest, I have jumped into a Fred thread and stated my opposition to him, though I don't recall what I said, those folks would have been more than justified to call me out for trolling, even if that wasn't really my intent at the time.


This thread comes to mind as a better place for the most recent chain of discussion: http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-...gotta-say.html

[phillyd2]

I'm just asking a question and did not intend to be caustic but there you go. Seems to me Slim's first comment was more along the lines of Ron Paul not being electable so he is going for Freddy.

Anyways, once CR clearly states this is for Ron Paul cheerleaders only all should respect it and start a Ron Paul is Not Electable Tread - unless they too will be frowned on as trolling

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

I'm just asking a question and did not intend to be caustic but there you go. Seems to me Slim's first comment was more along the lines of Ron Paul not being electable so he is going for Freddy.

Anyways, once CR clearly states this is for Ron Paul cheerleaders only all should respect it and start a Ron Paul is Not Electable Tread - unless they too will be frowned on as trolling

Again, as I stated above, although I do believe this debate was off-topic, I initially had no problem with it. Brief, off-topic discussions have never been a problem for me, intellectual discussion is important, and I do not endorse "group-think". However, it quickly became clear that the debate was a circular argument, and also devolved into name-calling, which signaled the end to me.

Again, short OT discussions are OK, but to have a drawn-out discussion one should start a new thread. And regardless, name-calling and the like is just childish.

[Broomhandle]

I think in a general election Paul is the most electable Republican, the problem is getting him there. Except for Paul the rest of the field is pro-war and that is the BIG issue in the next election. Besides, the Republican party has betrayed every promise they made in the last 20 years, so all the status-quo candidates will go down to a huge defeat, regardless of who it is. Whatever they say will be seen as a lie.

Also, keep in mind that every time a Republican stands up to Paul in a debate they do well with the Republican focus groups, but they make an ass out of themselves with everyone else. The clips of Giuliani failing to understand "blowback" or Huckabee wanting to fight a war for "honor" are disgusting to all but the most pathological Republicans and will make very good campaign materials for the Democrats - if needed.

I am not saying it would be easy for Paul to win, but there are plenty of voters, including some liberals, who would pick him over Clinton. The rest of the Republican crowd is dead meat. The campaign has a long way to go so don't count Paul out yet (see below) and donate what you can.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_poli..._poll_gop.html

Republicans
Giuliani 30 (-4 vs. last poll 9/7-8)
Thompson 22 (nc)
McCain 18 (+3)
Romney 7 (-3)
Paul 4 (+3)
Huckabee 4 (-1)
Undecided 10 (+2)

[NineseveN]

It's not going to be easy for Paul to win the nomination, that's for sure. It is indeed something of a long-shot, though I think if he gets out of the primaries, he could win the general election.