RON PAUL DEFRAUDED BY IOWA STRAW POLL PROCESS -- Part I (LAUGH ALERT)

votefraud.org ^ | Jim Condit Jr.

[George W. Bush]

Ahem. Five threads, if you count the "Day in the life" thread.

Everyone knows she's engaged. Again, I don't think any of those were Breaking News or Front Page.

Were our positions reversed, this is where you'd likely mock me...but I'll just say...Bonne nuit, monsieur.

The point was that no one had reported on an impending White House marriage and its political effect for Bush. And it was not in Breaking News. Or visible elsewhere in our main sidebar.

You don't read very well for someone who claims to be an editor. I notice that your line of reasoning is oblique. You repeatedly fail to read what is written very plainly, then you respond to some other point, make more smarmy comments, write little summaries to misrepresent the views of others while hoping they won't discover them, then get angry when such amateurish tricks are exposed.

So I am, of course, still mocking you.

So, tell me, mighty editor of a nationally known trade journal: who exactly is the primary mover in this little non-story over some crackpots challenging the use of privately owned voting machines in an Iowa fundraising straw poll, an entirely private event to which election laws cannot apply? I've yet to see anyone on this thread who actually understands who was actually behind this charade. Hint: it wasn't Condit who only filed a foolish and inept declaration with the court. The actual court case, such as it was, was filed by others whose relationship with Condit is not fully known.

Or is that beyond the scope of professional editors, to check and to know if a story is reported completely and accurately?

I thought it was fun to see how long such a stupid thread would drag on before someone here finally figured it out. But I can see now it was never going to happen if someone didn't at least point the Paul-haters in the right direction.

Au revoir.

[Mr. Silverback]

You don't read very well for someone who claims to be an editor.

That's a heck of a shot from a guy now claiming that "nada, nothing, zero, zilch" mens something other than "no threads."

So, tell me, mighty editor of a nationally known trade journal: who exactly is the primary mover in this little non-story over some crackpots challenging the use of privately owned voting machines in an Iowa fundraising straw poll, an entirely private event to which election laws cannot apply? I've yet to see anyone on this thread who actually understands who was actually behind this charade.

It was Elvis, working on behalf of the Bilderburgers. To comment further I would have to send you a decoder ring.

[George W. Bush]

That's a heck of a shot from a guy now claiming that "nada, nothing, zero, zilch" mens something other than "no threads."

I was posting about a White House wedding, the first in decades. Your threads were only about the engagement announcement.

Again, you reveal your lack of reading comprehension skills.

It was Elvis, working on behalf of the Bilderburgers. To comment further I would have to send you a decoder ring.

I see. You still don't grasp that Condit is a wingnut and had no relevance to the court case in Ames.

[MEGoody]

Just because something happened once doesn't mean it's going to happen again.

Do you honestly think if we pull out of Iraq now, things are going to be wonderful there? Is that REALLY what you are trying to say?

what proof do you have that allows you to KNOW what is going to happen?

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to the news out of Iraq lately.

[MEGoody]

Okay. Then veterans don't deserve any honor or deference from you (and many others).

:::rolls eyes:::: Copy and paste where I ever said that. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never did.

Is your huge, non-logical leap an example of the type of 'thinking' we can expect from Ron Paul, or is it just you?

No wonder there are so few vets left at FR.

No veteran of good character is going to say that serving in the military gives anyone a free pass for the rest of their life to do and say whatever they like. In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about - not giving Kerry a pass just because he served. So please, get a clue.

[George W. Bush]

No veteran of good character is going to say that serving in the military gives anyone a free pass for the rest of their life to do and say whatever they like. In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about - not giving Kerry a pass just because he served. So please, get a clue.

So veterans deserve respect for their service from you only if they agree with your political opinions? And otherwise, throw them to the sharks?

[Mr. Silverback]

I see. You still don't grasp that Condit is a wingnut and had no relevance to the court case in Ames.

The condor flies at night. My suitcase has been handled by an elephant. (That will make sense when you get the decoder ring. Allow six weeks for delivery, those Ovaltine people work at glacial speed. I promise neither message is a crummy commercial.)

[Mr. Silverback]

So veterans deserve respect for their service from you only if they agree with your political opinions? And otherwise, throw them to the sharks?

Where the heck do you get off criticizing anyone for their reading comprehension skills when you get that out of this?

No veteran of good character is going to say that serving in the military gives anyone a free pass for the rest of their life to do and say whatever they like. In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about - not giving Kerry a pass just because he served. So please, get a clue.

There's absolutely nothing in MEGoody's posting history that justifies your interpretation.

[MEGoody]

So veterans deserve respect for their service from you only if they agree with your political opinions? And otherwise, throw them to the sharks?

LOL Go back and actually read what I said, honey. Slowly this time, so you understand it.

[George W. Bush]

There's absolutely nothing in MEGoody's posting history that justifies your interpretation.

Except his own recent comments. It's part of a larger pattern here. Look at the attacks on McStain and his service. It's not some isolated event or about Kerry alone. Hence, it is relevant to what I said about the loss of many FR vets to our forum. In the meantime, people throw rocks at the only candidates who did serve and cling with joyous abandon to the candidates who pointedly avoided service. Like Rudy/Mitt/Fred. Apparently, avoiding military service is a prime qualification for being commander-in-chief these days.

I think many people at FR don't like vets unless they join the latest little chorus line. I recall when Colonel David Hackworth was a great hero around here because he offered some token resistance to the . Every little written bowel movement he emitted was Front Page news. In the end, he turned out to be a lib and then you all hated him. Some of us tried to tell people that there were strong indications that he wasn't what they thought he was. But I guess he sold a few books and made some money off some media appearances and then everyone trashed him.

Of course, the most recent incident was the Matt Sanchez incident. What a hero he was! Until the full story came out. What a sad little event that was. And yet, he did serve honorably despite his lurid past before military service and he was in fact being abused by the Lefties on campus for his military service. Another vet loved and now hated by so many of those who just love "the troops".

Sure, we love the troops. It's the vets that don't fare so well, it seems. But even the DUmmies and the libs all claim the same, don't they?

I'm proud to support Ron Paul, a combat flight surgeon who served honorably and who served beyond his Air Force commitment in the Texas Air Guard. He actually cares about the troops during their service and even after they become vets. Of course, that's probably a strike against him around here any more.

[George W. Bush]

In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about...

It is high irony indeed that you would bring up Jerome Corsi who was probably the single most effective organizer and leader of the Swift Boat crew. Yet another veteran (and a former FReeper) who gets trashed around here. I think any article written by him is automatically pulled these days.

But, hey, we love the troops. At least, until they become vets and actually say something we don't like or agree with.

[xzins]

In the meantime, people throw rocks at the only candidates who did serve and cling with joyous abandon to the candidates who pointedly avoided service.

Duncan Hunter has stellar credentials as a veteran. Additionally, he has not shrunk from having his son also serve.

I think he's far and away the best candidate in the race. However, I don't think he'll compete unless he gets a huge infusion of cash. It's the same for Congressman Paul.

Their chances of winning are remote.

[George W. Bush]

Duncan Hunter has stellar credentials as a veteran. Additionally, he has not shrunk from having his son also serve.

Absolutely. And a very good Armed Service Committee chairman for years. I think we have to credit his son for his own military service though. I doubt Duncan exerted any pressure to get his son to enlist though no doubt the Hunter household discussed the military needs of this country routinely given Duncan's position in Congress.

[MEGoody]

Except his own recent comments

First, I'm a 'her'.

Second, it's a shame you feel driven to try to twist and turn what I have said in an effort to make it sound like something other than what I have clearly stated. I have no idea why you wish to be so dishonest.

Hence, it is relevant to what I said about the loss of many FR vets to our forum.

I'll say again, no veteran of good character would think it a good idea to give someone a pass for the rest of their lives on all they do and say just because they served in the military at one point in their lives.

I'm proud to support Ron Paul

Then I have to tell you, your attempts at misrepresenting what I've said don't reflect well on your candidate.

[George W. Bush]

Then I have to tell you, your attempts at misrepresenting what I've said don't reflect well on your candidate.

I think that your comments and the thinking behind them speak very plainly for themselves. I'm content to let readers judge for themselves.

[MEGoody]

I think that your comments and the thinking behind them speak very plainly for themselves.

I agree. And they don't communicate what you've tried to claim.

I'm content to let readers judge for themselves.

The reader who has commented clearly disagreed with your claims about what I said. So I guess that settles it.

[George W. Bush]

The reader who has commented clearly disagreed with your claims about what I said. So I guess that settles it.

You mean that one of your Paul-hating cronies chimed in on cue.

[MEGoody]

You mean that one of your Paul-hating cronies chimed in on cue.

Call him what you will, no one else has 'chimed in', not even your Paul-loving cronies. So that settles that.

[George W. Bush]

So that settles that.

Not at all. But I can see why you'd want to end the "discussion" so you could slink away claiming victory.

[MEGoody]

Not at all.

LOL I see. . .so even though you claimed you were going to let the reader judge, you've backpeddaled on that.

Well, feel free to keep yammering. It just gives the readers more to judge with.