Sunday, October 21, 2007

Pauliacs, It Isn’t Working


October 21, 2007

Fox News just announced who “won” the text mail poll on tonight’s debate and it comes as no surprise that whiney Ron Paul has an astronomical, unrealistic number of votes, 39%.

I say no surprise because every single one of these online or call in polls shows Paul with an out of balance outrageous number of votes.

Pauliacs, NO ONE IS BUYING IT ANY LONGER!!!

Paul can whine and cry all he wishes America doesn’t want him. The boo’s he received from the audience speak for themselves. In scientific polls under controlled conditions his numbers are decidedly poor, near the bottom. Stacking online and call in polls isn’t convincing anyone, you are just fooling yourselves.

We won’t elect Ron Paul because it is totally unrealistic and foolhardy to, as I was once told he desires, return America to 1913 while the rest of the world remains in 2007.

America doesn’t respect a whiner, as he continually does.

Keep stacking these meaningless polls thinking you are advancing his chances.

Good grief, what buffoons ya’ll can be.

Lew

36 comments:

John Nonconformist said...

Ho-hum, Team Romney encouraged spamming the poll and still couldn't make a dent. I see you have some Duncan Hunter propaganda here, are you family or close friend? I haven't met a supporter yet who wasn't one or the other.

Reticent said...

I'll admit from the get-go that I'm a so called 'Pauliac' as you so eloquently put it.

To begin with, 39% (34% last I heard) is not an "astronomical unrealistic number".

In the scientific polls under controlled conditions his numbers are poor.
Controlled conditions being the key words here. He is not included in these polls, thus cannot receive higher ratings.

Is there really that many people who support Paul?
I can't honestly answer that question, but what I can answer is the text message polls cannot be spammed.

So there are only two options here:
A> Paul actually has more support than the other candidates
B> Paul supporters are more prone to vote than supporters of other candidates.

Those are the only two realistic options.

My personal opinion of the debate tonight is that Mike Huckabee is the clear winner.

I don't plan on voting for him, but he would certainly be my next choice.

As for Duncan Hunter - I wouldn't give him the courtesy of a handshake, much less a vote.
http://www.beyonddelay.org/node/313

As a Paul supporter, I will tell you that you are not going to derail or undermine his supporters by bashing him or supporters.

The best way would be to present the FACTS.

The fact is, Paul does extremely well in all polls.
If you want to lessen it's merit, don't cry "spamming" or "stacking the deck", which simply isn't true.

Offer believable options such as presented earlier, such as Paul supporters being more active in polls.

Then start a campaign to get supporters of your candidate of choice to begin voting in these polls.

I encourage everyone to do this, as I actually want to see REAL numbers, whether my choice is listed on top or not.

By the way, I have NEVER voted in any of the debate polls.

Lew Waters said...

21 minnutes, Johnny, ya'll are slowing down.

I also note you haven't anything relevant to say, typical.

As far as Duncan, I guess in a sense he and I are brothers since our Tours in Viet Nam over lapped each other, but no, I never met him.

Keep an eye on Hunter and you will note that unlike Paulie, he doesn't whine when replying. He speaks straight and direct.

I like that.

Lew Waters said...

rettie, I haven't any intention of derailing your support for Whiney Paul. In fact, I enourage ya'll to get him on a third party ticket after he loses the GOP nomination.

I never said text messages were spammed, I said they were stacked, just as every other person with half on ounce of brains noted.

But please, do get him on that third party ticket, he would really do America the best favor imagineable when he does.

crackerjaxon said...

Stacked? I take it you mean that Paul supporters are better organized and more enthusiastic about their candidate than the other voters?

If not, what do you mean?

Lew Waters said...

What it means, cracker, is that you all are only fooling yourselves.

But please, as I already said, when he loses the nomination, use your excellent organizational skills to get him on a third aprty ticket.

You all will do America a really great service that way.

crackerjaxon said...

It seems to me that you want to discount the results because you do not like them. Plainly, they are real results. I will be interested to see how you will react when Paul wins in New Hampshire. Will the results be spammed, or merely stacked?

We are, indeed, doing the country a service by bringing people into the party who actually want to restore the republic.

It's not too late for you to join us.

Lew Waters said...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, cracked. You are funny and amuse me.

You honestly expect me to buy that you are a true conservative Republican and I'm not? All the anti-war leftists, 9/11 Truthers and other tin foil hat wearing kooks calling in are considered Republican now?

Your assessment is as banal as any I have ever read.

If you are the new Republican party, then it is time I left it as I did the Democrat party.

But, we all know you aren't.

So, keep that third party option open. I am looking forward to it.

If, by some remote chance, you morons succeeded in getting whiney Paul in office, you wouldn't restore a Republic, you would give in the radical Islam.

Besides, how does Paul think he will get past Congress? The same Congress he speaks against now? As much as they displease me, they do have long memories and play the silly games their way.

I eagerly look forward to seeing him on that third party ticket after he is embarrassed in the primaries.

Stephen said...

You think Paul's supporters shouldn't vote, Lew? Why not?

Paul attracts support from all corners. Not just anti-war, leftists, or 9/11 truthers... but also traditional Republicans who refuse to vote for a Democrat. Namely Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee.

Lew Waters said...

Hi Stevie, I been waiting for you.

I never said they shouldn't vote, all I ask for is an honest vote.

Don't you find it a little odd that out of the focus group, not one thought whiney Paul won?

He didn't fair very well in Texas, his home state, did he?

Whiney may have a few fooled, but it won't do him any good. So, I encourage you to support him for a third party bid once he is embarrassed in the actual selection of the nominee.

CyberPastor said...

Lew, It is more than obvious that the Pauliac's have their online presence in high gear, but you are correct about there being no way that the Republican Party is going to back the guy. Some of the others should learn a little about his online abilities though. Too bad for him you can't run the country from a computer! And good for us that he won't even be an afterthought in a few months.

Lew Waters said...

So true, cyberpastor, so true.

Stephen said...

I don't see why you think it was a dishonest vote. Paul supporters are more engaged and watch Paul whenever he's on TV. We're all watching the debate and we vote. I doubt that can be said of the other candidates.

Lew Waters said...

Stevie, if the scientific polling refelcted the same numbers, I'd say they were more honest.

Do you honestly expect people to buy that random scientific polling skips whiney Pauls supporters?

Stephen said...

No, I don't. The way you misunderstand polling mirrors your politics.

The telephone polls reflect a general sample of voters. The debate polls do not. It's heavily favored towards the people who are the most engaged. Since Ron Paul supporters are more engaged, it's natural we'd outperform other candidates even if they have more supporters.

Lew Waters said...

Sorry, Stevie, but I'm not buying that crap.

I say it's crap because I am one that receives these polls often and responds. Every single time they are broke down to account for supporters, party and such.

I will grant that you all are "involved," but that is only a reflection of whiney Pauls supporters, not the overall voters who will select.

In other words, stacking the online and call in polls.

I'd be willing to wager a bet, if I had the proof, that many who texted Fox this evening did not even watch the debate. I have seen whiney Paul forums where they call is sent out to everyone they know. I posted a link to one such in one of the previous threads here.

Don't be too shocked and disappointed when he fails to gather votes besides your own in the actual primaries. Don't blame Diebold, either. We are past that canard.

Stephen said...

To say the vote is dishonest is to assume that Paul's supporters did something other than vote to win. That's just not the case.

Some Paul supporters think that the online polls are proof that he has more support than other candidates and that there's a mainstream media conspiracy. I think that's stupid.

But when I compare their ignorance to yours, I don't see much difference.

Stephen said...

There's no doubt that some people didn't watch the debate and voted. I bet more of them are Paul supporters than not. But if you think Paul supporters are just sitting around waiting for a message to vote... why do you think they're not sitting around waiting to watch Paul on TV?

All the Paul supporters I know wait in anticipation to hear him speak.

Lew Waters said...

You are just fooling yourself, Stevie. Asking others who may not have even watched the debate to call in is stacking and is dishonest.

I might be ignorant, but I'm not stupid.

Lew Waters said...

Like I said, Stevie, the polling that really matters will be the final selection next year. I hope you all won't be too disappointed and do something drastic when Whiney doesn't even come close.

Stephen said...

If I could wager, and we could prove it, I'd put money that Paul had more supporters watching than any other candidate.

My roommate watches every single minute of the debates. He was never interested in politics before. He though Paul was a "nutcase" the first time he heard him talk. Now he watches every single minute, of every single debate.

Stephen said...

I know he has a lot to overcome in the polls. It's not impossible for him, but close.

I'm much more interested in Paul's domestic policy than his foreign policy. My litmus test for Hunter would be his support of making it impossible for me to play cards online.

My rights come from God, not Hunter. He should get his hands off.

Stephen said...

The best evidence that you're wrong is how Paul has done in so many straw polls. He has a ton of first place finishes where you have to show up. He's gotten as high as 77% of the vote.

Of course 77% wouldn't reflect the population, but it would reflect how engaged Ron Paul supporters are.

Lew Waters said...

Good for you on getting your roomie to fall in behind whiney, Stevie. Too bad it will all be for naught.

My litmus test for anyone is fighting the threat facing our country and then, maybe your right to play cards online. Whiney fails miserably when it comes to America's security, that is why he will never see the GOP nomination, no matter how often online polls and all in polls are stacked.

When scientific polling comes closer to call in polling, maybe thinking people will believe he has that much support. But not until.

Our rights may come God, but God also requires us to obey rulers, as is stated in Mark 12:17, Titus 3:1 and 1Peter 2:13

If you really desire to bring God and the Bible into this, maybe you better study up a bit on it first.

Lew Waters said...

Stevie, since you think straw polls, where people have to pay to cast their vote, is reflective of his massive support, why not share with us how he did in his home state of Texas?

If you don't know, just say so and I will supply you with that info too.

Stephen said...

Without looking it up, I think he got third. The straw poll wasn't near his district (he's not a statewide figure) and the rules were very strict on who could vote.

I think YOU need help reading between the lines. I've not once said he had massive support. I only said his supporters are more engaged. There's mountains of evidence for that. Just like all your other points, this one is also absent.

And I wasn't referring to the bible when I brought up God, I was referring to the declaration.

And I find your philosophy of "obeying" rulers completely unamerican.

Lew Waters said...

Stevie, do you even know what you think? Or, is it just blind faith in whiney Paul?

Funny about his home state straw poll, which he didn't receive the astronomically lop-sided results and which you admit that voting rules were "very strict." Couldn't stack that one, uh?

Here are the results for you,“Duncan Hunter doubled the totals of the next-closest candidate, garnering 534 of approximately 1,400 votes cast. Fred Thompson came in second with 266 votes, and Paul rounded out the top three with 217 votes.
Here are all the results:
Duncan Hunter: 534
Fred Thompson: 266
Ron Paul: 217
Mike Huckabee: 83
Rudy Giuliani: 78
Mitt Romney: 61
Ray McKinney: 28
John Cox: 10
John McCain: 8
Sam Brownback: 6
Tom Tancredo: 6
Hugh Cort: 3”

http://www.townhall.com/blog

Odd that would say, "The straw poll wasn't near his district (he's not a statewide figure)," yet he is to be considered a National Figure by online and call-in polls.

BTW, it was quite distance from Hunter and Thompson's districts too, I do believe.

"I've not once said he had massive support."

Yet, by stacking online and call-in polls, we are to believe he has? You make so little sense, Stevie.

You said, "My rights come from God, not Hunter." No mention of any Declaration. Don't bring in God unless you can back it up by His Word.

I'll have to remember that following scriptures in regards of what they say about rulers is "unAmerican." So much for "God and Country" from the Pauliacs, eh?

Have a great day, Stevie.

Stephen said...

You're getting worse and worse. I've consistently said Ron Paul doesn't have the kind of support the debate polls show. When are you going to hear that?

Bottomline. Paul doesn't have a ton of support, but his support is louder. Figure it out. It's not that difficult to understand.

Why do you think I said he was not a statewide figure, Lew? Because you implied he should have done better in his home state. Can't you connect the dots on your own?

Apparently not, since you can't figure out how I was talking about the declaration. Let me point it out to you...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Got it now Lew?

Let me connect some more dots for you. If you were to "obey" rulers, there would have been no revolution. No America.

Got it now Lew?

Maybe you could benefit from another quote...

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

...I guess you think the Bible would disagree with that.

Lew Waters said...

Stevie, Stevie, Stevie, what am I going to do with you?

You said, ” I've consistently said Ron Paul doesn't have the kind of support the debate polls show.”

On September 19, you said, “We're up to 6% in New Hampshire among Republicans. 10% among Independents. And his ads are just starting to appear. Paul gets more of the democratic vote than any other repub, more of the black vote than any other repub, more of the indepentent vote than any other repub, and would retain the social conservatives. He's the only one that stands a chance against Hill.”

Last night you said, “Paul attracts support from all corners. Not just anti-war, leftists, or 9/11 truthers... but also traditional Republicans who refuse to vote for a Democrat. Namely Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee.” And, “The best evidence that you're wrong is how Paul has done in so many straw polls. He has a ton of first place finishes where you have to show up.”

This discussion would go a whole lot better if you could make up your mind.

As to the American Revolution and the Bible, you really shouldn’t try to debate something you haven’t a clue about. Obedience to rulers and governments doesn’t mean complete and total submission. See, you read between the lines.

Even the Bible lists examples of revolution against tyrants and does give other scriptures to guide us. Try Romans 13:4; Exodus 1; Isaiah 10:1 – 4 and II Chronicles 23 might also be of interest to you.

You see, Stevie boy, as Jefferson noted, God given rights are the basis for revolution, if need be. By your account, we need not obey traffic laws, submit to judges in court or pay taxes, all unscriptural stands.

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

He ended it with “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States,……” (partial quote, for brevity).

Any idea who the “Supreme Judge of the World” is, Stevie? Any idea why the Founding Fathers “appealed” to the “Supreme Judge of the World?”

I find it quite ironic that you Pauliacs wave the constitution about, but aren’t willing to defend it.

Like I said, Stevie, you really should learn the Bible before you attempt to use it. It’s actually quite an insightful book.

Incidentally, since you also whine “My litmus test for Hunter would be his support of making it impossible for me to play cards online. My rights come from God, not Hunter. He should get his hands off.”

Please show me where I said Hunter grants you any rights at all. I don’t recall advocating Hunter in this discussion at all, just on the main page of the blog.

If you really desire to gamble with cards, drop by my neck of the woods, we have several card houses and maybe a casino or two soon.

It is quite telling about you that with our country at war, facing the most brutal and vicious enemy we ever have, abortions skyrocketing, liberties being stripped away ever so gradually and even more, all you care about is gambling.

Very telling.

Lew Waters said...

Incidentally, Stevie, since you have your panties in a twist over online card gambling, are you aware that it is still completely legal, provided your state regulates it? Why not lobby your state legislature to set it up in your area?

Stephen said...

Lew, it's amazing how I consistently have to break things down for you to their simplest levels. You couldn't catch on to my reference to the declaration until I quoted it for you, and now I have to explain the difference between 6-10% and 39%.

My statement: "I've consistently said Ron Paul doesn't have the kind of support the debate polls show."

When I checked, that support was 39% from the texting poll.

#1: "We're up to 6% in New Hampshire among Republicans." That's not 39%.

#2: "10% among Independents." That's not 39%.

#3: "Paul gets more of the democratic vote than any other repub, more of the black vote than any other repub, more of the indepentent vote than any other repub," How many of these groups show up in the republican polls?

#4: "and would retain the social conservatives." I didn't say he was their first choice (so he doesn't get their vote in the polls), but they wouldn't have to worry about the things that Guiliani, Romney and McCain are worrying about.

#5: "He's the only one that stands a chance against Hill.” Does this refer to his standing in the polls? Nope. It does refer to my position that whichever candidate is more anti-war will win in 08.

#6: “Paul attracts support from all corners. Not just anti-war, leftists, or 9/11 truthers... but also traditional Republicans who refuse to vote for a Democrat. Namely Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee.” You wouldn't deny the first three would you? I'm from the last position, so that's a fact.

#7: “The best evidence that you're wrong is how Paul has done in so many straw polls. He has a ton of first place finishes where you have to show up.”

Funny that you'd throws this in here... since I was using it to demonstrate that Paul is capable of getting far more votes in a poll than he actually gets from the general population. Kind of supports my original statement, doesn't it?

I wish I could reply to the rest of your comments now, but it'll have to wait until the morning. A deadline looms.

Lew Waters said...

Still spinning, Stevie?

You can play your “break it down” game all you wish, you are here to convince me and anyone else that watches that Paul is the man for America. You insinuate that he has lots of support and then try to spin it down to it’s his supporters. No Duh!!!

From Zogby,

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.? %
Clinton (D) 50%
Kucinich (D) 49%
Gravel (D) 47%
Paul (R) 47%
Brownback (R) 47%
Tancredo (R) 46%
McCain (R) 45%
Hunter (R) 44%
Giuliani (R) 43%
Romney (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 42%
Thompson (R) 41%
Dodd (D) 41%
Biden (D) 40%
Obama (D) 37%
Huckabee (R) 35%
Richardson (D) 34%
Not sure 4%

That is from just shy of 10,000 likely voters. He drew the highest unfavorable numbers of all the Republican candidates from Republican likely voters. Spin

You say that saying “God” means the Declaration of Independence.

It’s little wonder that you support a whiney nincompoop like Ron Paul, you’re two peas in a pod.

Incidentally, show me where in the Bible, Declaration of Independence or our Constitution you are granted a “right” to offshore online gambling.

Better yet, pull your head back out into the sunlight and look about you. Your boy isn’t going to get the nod.

Stephen said...

Lew, you're increasingly demonstrating how much of a waste of my time you are.

I clearly set forth my position, that 39% is not representative of Ron Paul's actual support... and you try and tell me that's not really my position while posting several quotes from me... the highest of which I said his support was 10%!!!

Then when I SHOW you that I never held the position you claim I did, you tell me I'm spinning! Do you even read my comments?!

At least allow me the decency to have my own position. Until the morning (when you get a lesson in US Gov).

Lew Waters said...

Stevie, I am a patient man with the mentally deprived, but even I have limits.

Funny you claim I am such a “waste of your time,” yet it is you who repeatedly returns to my blog, not me to any of yours. Obviously I am not a waste of your precious time or you wouldn’t bother with me.

Lame son, really lame.

How is it I am depriving you of your own position when it is you visiting my site? I go to no Ron Paul sites, ya’ll come here. Or, does that fact escape you?

You show me nothing except your banally blind worship of a whiney politican who would let our country be destroyed. But, you think he would allow you to gamble offshore on the internet, so he is wonderful.

What a maroon.

Do us all a favor, finish school and learn some communication skills. Perhaps then you might be able to make a coherent comment.

Don’t think for a minute that you will teach me anything about the US Government. First, you must know a little yourself, which you obviously do not.

I’d quote you W.C. Fields, but that too would go right over your head.

Stephen said...

Lew, you wouldn't be a waste of time if you could read my arguments, understand them like a reasonable person would, and respond with a counter argument.

Instead you try and tell me what my position is, and argue (poorly) against something I'm not even saying.

So now that I've discovered you are a waste of my time, this probably will be my last post.

My point about Internet gambling was to demonstrate what Hunter thinks the role of government is. He thinks it's ok to tinker with my liberties. I find restricting even the trivial ones to be unacceptable.

"...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Jefferson's definition of liberty... "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Lew Waters said...

Stevie, need I remind you once again that it is you who continually visits here in your banal effort at proving yourself right. It ain’t working, son!

I know what your position is, Whiney Paul does no wrong and America needs a whiner that wishes to plunge us backwards leading us. No thanks.

Since I am such a “waste of your time,” by all means, feel free to stop dropping by. Remember, I do not force you to come by nor do I waste my time at any of your places.

You are convincing no one and just speaking to hear your gums rattle. You may think you are saving face once proven to be just another braindead moron, but only to other braindead Pauliacs.

Like I said last time, recall W.C. Fields. He said it best.