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

votefraud.org ^ | Jim Condit Jr.

[untrained skeptic]

Well.....it might be fun for Paul dectractors but even his strongest critics admit that he has nothing to do with encouraging this complaint, precisely the opposite.

That is a very valid point.

However, Dr. Paul does appear to attract more than his share of such people as supporters.

All candidates seem to attract some fanatical supporters that seem a bit divorced from reality, and sampling the actions of a few of them hardly makes them representative of Dr. Pauls supporters as a whole.

However, in my opinion Dr. Paul does attract more of these people because of his views on the issues.

[untrained skeptic]

Your suggestion that a Wikipedia article is more accurate reflection of his voting record is laughable. Captain Kirk’s argument that his voting record reflects is belief in State’s rights is a much better approach, though it really doesn’t explain a considerable number of votes in that list. It is a least a rational argument.

[nonliberal]

I wandered over to his tent at the straw poll out of morbid curiosity and observed the collection of wierdos he had assembled.

Ron Paul has some good points, and everyone is misconstruing his position on 9-11, but his supporters and Brownback's supporters are the nuts that the nuts call nuts.

[traviskicks]

I’ve just not found that site to be particularly useful in rating candidates. For example it calls republicans who vote against teachers unions and increasing school funding as having an ‘anti education’ record, which to me is actually a pro education record. It gives one liners that don’t tell the whole story, which I think is better given in the Wikipedia article. Just my opinion. :)

Ya, and I do think states rights and consitutional issues explain a good portion of votes that on the surface one might disagree with.

Then again, there are somethings I strongly disagree with RP over, such as the earnmarks explanations... doesn’t fly with me, but it is impossible to agree with someone 100%, you just gotta take the best you can get. :)

[philman_36]

Do you honestly think if we pull out of Iraq now, things are going to be wonderful there?
Hell no! It is, after all, Iraq.
Is that REALLY what you are trying to say?
No, what I'm trying to say is that rampant speculation on just what is going to happen after we leave through comparing Iraq to SE Asia is BS and fear mongering and/or emotion tugging to promote our continued presence.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to the news out of Iraq lately.
Bzzzzzt! Try again.
And "paying attention to the news out of Iraq" hardly allows you to KNOW what is going to happen in Iraq after we leave. All that does is tell you what is going on now, not what will happen in the future.

[RedRover]

And in Breaking News...claims of Iowa straw poll fraud continue.

[George W. Bush]

And in Breaking News...claims of Iowa straw poll fraud continue.

It wasn't put here by supporters of Ron Paul. It's a flamebait thread that doesn't even correctly identify who actually filed the ridiculous court case in Iowa. This Condit was a bit player, not that the actual party in the case was much better than him.

[RedRover]

My post wasn’t a dig at Paul supporters. A Freeper had asked me about the rules for threads that are classified in the sidebars. I was just pointing out to her that there don’t seem to be clear rules.

[George W. Bush]

I’m not sure there are any sidebar rules these days. No discernible system of classification like we once had. Just keep watching the sidebar, you’ll see what I mean.

[RedRover]

It’s perplexing. Thanks.

[MEGoody]

No, what I'm trying to say is that rampant speculation on just what is going to happen after we leave through comparing Iraq to SE Asia is BS and fear mongering and/or emotion tugging to promote our continued presence.

So are you saying we should just pull out and to heck with trying to determine what is likely to happen if we do?

And "paying attention to the news out of Iraq" hardly allows you to KNOW what is going to happen in Iraq after we leave.

So you think that what is going on there now provides no indication of what will occur if we pull out now?

Are you a supporter of Ron Paul? Do you believe your thinking is indicative of his reasoning?

[wideawake]

Speaking of hoaxes, did you ever repudiate the lie you told about David Duke's endorsment of Ron Paul, or are you still telling that lie?

David Duke's official website still speaks glowingly of Ron Paul. That truth has not changed.

BTW, how'd your boy Rudy do in the straw poll?

Yawn. I am not a Giuliani supporter. A Giuliani nomination would be a disaster for the GOP. A Paul nomination would demonstrate that GOP membership had fallen off 99% between 2004 and 2008.

[Youngstown]

These idiots don't speak for Ron Paul, but they do undermine his campaign with their foolishness.

AGREED!

The particular individual who wrote this article, Jim Condit, Jr., has for years caused much greater damage and dissension in the realm of religion - and ironically regarding a vote count as well.

Dr. Paul's focus on the U.S. Constitution is paralled in the religious sphere by Roman Catholics' adherence to the unchanging teaching of Christ and of His Church. The fact that that teaching was changed after 1958 and during Vatican 2 by the various conciliar 'popes' necessitates one to fall back on the admonition of St. Paul and reject the new teachings and teachers as no longer being part of the Faith or of the Church:

Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Galatians, Chapter 1, Verses 8-9:
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

What Condit and his friends do in the religious realm to confuse this clear teaching with their incredible foolishness, is to instead assert that another individual, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Venice, was instead elected pope in the 1958 Conclave but "surreptiously" and invalidly forced to resign by the nefarious powers that be.

The following web site is either Condit's, or of a former associate of his, and the parallels of the assertions of fraud against Siri versus his assertions of fraud against Dr. Paul are uncanny:

The Pope In Red

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

David Duke's official website still speaks glowingly of Ron Paul. That truth has not changed.

Oh really? It appears that Duke just 'spreads the love around'.

Incidentally, the link maintains that Tancredo is quoted in the article as having heard that Duke endourses him.

Now, are you ready to repudiate your false claims?

[George W. Bush]

Interesting connection between Condit and those who promote the Pope Siri idea.

These people are conspiracy-mongers. Fake popes, tampered voting machines, 9/11 Trutherism, and hatred of Israel.

It's unfortunate that these people are even supporting Ron Paul as he has no interest in their bizarre and characteristic obsessions.

Condit himself was not the prime mover in the Iowa court case, ridiculous as it was. The real culprit appears to be this Schulz from another group with many of the same obsessions: We The People Foundation - Update 2007-08-15.

It's Schulz and this We The People Foundation that were behind that stupid Iowa court "case".

Oh, well, now Diebold has spun off it's voting machines division to try to sell it and avoid all the lawsuits. And Sequoia Systems machines have also been orphaned by their corporate parent for the same reason. No one wants to buy them (and their liabilities). Diebold's spinoff has a new name and Sequoia will probably change its name too.

To Condit, Schulz and these others, no doubt it will only be proof of yet another deeper conspiracy. Perhaps Jews and antipopes are behind it all. Or the CIA if they're not too busy blowing up our skyscrapers this week.

Of course, they are right about paperless poorly-designed voting machines being a terrible idea, ripe for abuse. But if you want good info on the topic, visit Black Box Voting for much better info that isn't tainted with Trutherism, anti-Israel conspiracy, and antipopery. Notice that BlackBoxVoting had absolutely nothing to do with the "case" in Ames. The kooks robbed some info from Black Box and then spun it into their own crazy attention-whoring court stunt.

[George W. Bush]

It appears that Duke just 'spreads the love around'. Incidentally, the link maintains that Tancredo is quoted in the article as having heard that Duke endorses him.

Well, that David Duke must be awfully fickle! Or else the bilge spewed by these Paul-haters is being exposed for what it is. I'm going with the latter.

Now, are you ready to repudiate your false claims?

Given how dishonest they've been throughout, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[wideawake]

Now, are you ready to repudiate your false claims?

I stand by my original claim: David Duke is a Ron Paul booster.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

I stand by my original claim: David Duke is a Ron Paul booster.

your "original claim" was that David Duke endoursed Ron Paul for president.

That has now been proven to be incorrect. You already knew that there was no endoursment from Duke, yet continued to insist that there was such an endoursment.

Are you now willing to repudiate your false claims?

[George W. Bush]

I stand by my original claim: David Duke is a Ron Paul booster.

Prove it in direct quotes from Duke or his writings.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I stand by my original claim: David Duke is a Ron Paul booster.

Apparently, he's also quite the Tom Tancredo booster.

Would you like to explain to Jim Robinson why, on a Conservative website, you feel it necessary to smear a good man like Tom Tancredo as some kind of Neo-Nazi?

I mean, just following your perverted illogic to its conclusion...