Where are all the Ron Paul people coming from?

The Oregon Poll ^ | 9-20-7

[Petronski]

Over the last two days The Oregon Poll was seen by almost 400 "unique visitors," most of them in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. The majority of these people came from these two links on the web.

ronpaulforums.com

stormfront.org

[lormand]

dragnet2 is using diversionary tactics.

It is usually seen in one of the last stages of the Paulistinian breakdown.

[trisham]

fred is an admitted non practicing armchair Christian - recently changed his denomination from episcopal (liberal) to baptist....so to say he has a firm grasp of Gods plan for Israel and how that relates to a Jewish state and regional middle east politics is laughable

*************

I can find nothing to support the above assertion. If you cannot supply documentation of this charge, I repectfully request that this post be removed.

[AndreaThorn]

*****10. His moonbat conspiracy theory that there are plans to build a “superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.”******

I was wary about this, but I’m starting to think that 2+2 does indeed equal 4, especially when I watched the Value Voters debate and saw that Phyllis Schafly appeared to be on board with the NAFTA / NAU line of thought.

She’s been around a long, long time and is a long respected leader of Republican women. I don’t agree with her (or anybody) on everything, but I do at least give her the courtesy of stopping and listening.

[mnehring]

What he was doing was an elementary school level debate tactic. You ask several questions in which you know the poster will agree and you are leading that person to a specific point you want. All of these small questions result in something like Wouldn't you agree then that XX is right about XX.
It's an old tactic, you cause the person to make several agreeing statements on simple items to a point where if you don't agree with their final conclusion you are in a corner and have to go back several levels in order to restate something. You've then lost credibility.

[tacticalogic]

Nutjob seems to have this wierd idea that because he’s a US Congressman, the Constitution places limits on what issues he is and isn’t authorized to legislate in that capacity. If we can run him out of office we can discourage any of the rest of them from getting that idea.

[lormand]

I’m disappointed that my posts were somehow not highlighted in the article. I coulda had my 15 minutes of fame on a website seen by 15 star wars freaks.

[George W. Bush]

What a lame setup. Maximum of 56 people voted in this poll.

This thread ranks up there with the most dishonest and malicious threads about RP we've seen yet. Isn't it strange how so many folks like NRO and Fox News and the others never manage to detect all this raging antisemitism from Ron Paul? Yet, some puny online poll of nobodies is, here at FR, evidence of, what, the Brownshirts on the march.

Of course, the hatred for RP becomes competitive with each Paul-hater needing to outdo the others, leading them to ever greater excesses. And facts and the actual record RP has compiled have no bearing on this glorious character assassination crusade.

[mnehring]

I suggest you look into Phyllis Schlafly’s history. She is very right and very conservative about a lot of things, but she also has had a track record of being wrong about these types of conspiracies. She has been warning of some sort of conspiracy or another since the 60s, and as each one doesn’t happen, she changes the name of the player.

It is sad, but Schlafly has the track record on conspiracies about equal to Pat Robertson.

[Suzy Quzy]

ANTI-WAR Lefty kids....there is not one person over 27 that would actually support Ron Paul....he’s CRAZY.

[mnehring]

That’s not completely true. There are a lot of good conservatives who support Paul because they are so desperate for a return to Constitutional values, they will follow anyone who says the word Constitution more than twice in a sentence.

I don’t doubt, for example, EEE and GWBs sincerity, I just believe they’ve attached their cart to, what they thought was a Constitutional horse, is actually a mule.

[tacticalogic]

don’t doubt, for example, EEE and GWBs sincerity, I just believe they’ve attached their cart to, what they thought was a Constitutional horse, is actually a mule.

I'd have more confidence in that analysis if you didn't consistently demonstrate an inability to recognize a cart when you see one, much less make judgements about what's pulling it.

[lormand]

"This thread ranks up there with the most dishonest and malicious threads about RP we've seen yet. Isn't it strange how so many folks like NRO and Fox News and the others never manage to detect all this raging antisemitism from Ron Paul? Yet, some puny online poll of nobodies is, here at FR, evidence of, what, the Brownshirts on the march."

Hyperbole Alert

Using those words here somehow stoke olfactory memories of a ZOT attack from the past.

[dangus]

Not “non-practicing,” “non-church-going.” As a Catholic fan of Benedict XVI, I could say that we only ever had one church-going president (tweak!), and he desecrated the Eucharist by receiving it outside of a state of grace, but we’ve had several who live up to the requirements of their sect. Neither Reagan or Thompson attended church regularly. But both were from sects (Presbyterian and Church of Christ) which rejected the necessity of church attendance. So just because someone’s sect of Christianity doesn’t require the same adherences, doesn’t mean someone isn’t adherent to Christianity.

Let me know when Thompson espouses defends abortion, or divorces three wives.

Incidentally, Thompson hasn’t ever been Episcopal, and he’s only Baptist in the sense that sometimes he DOES attend services at a Baptist church.

[dangus]

>> The formal statement of the warrant is to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation (”marque”, meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party (”reprisal”), not necessarily a nation, to a degree and in a way that was proportional to the original offense. It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy. <<

Declaring outright war is not superior from a civil-liberties’ perspective, but much more dangerous. The President has powers in times of war that neither the President nor Congress did not feel were necessary in several recent conflicts. To somehow quibble that a war is not legal because Congress only issued a resolution of war, rather than a declaration of war is to say that the President is impelled to suspend civil liberties whenever we must act to defend ourselves from foreign misbehavior. That is preposterous, and Paul’s implicit and accidental implication of such establishes that far from being the sole voice of reason and intellect he makes himself out to be, he is a dangerous fool.

Paul has provided a perspective which is valuable to have in the House on many issues, but it is a good thing that he will never be a serious candidate.

[JTN]

Oh, I see. Now it's the earmarks that Ron Paul submitted, then voted against. He's a hypocrite, then, and a "moderate conservative."

You can save your breath. When I saw mnehrling's constant posting on the earmark issue, plus his adamant support for Fred Thompson, I showed him this excerpt from the Club for Growth, and asked when he would be withdrawing his support:

Thompson was fiercely protective when it came to his own earmarks. His congressional website boasts of the federal dollars he was able to "snag" for his Tennessee constituents, including $25 billion in highway funds; $70 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; $2 million for the Tennessee River; and $23 million for the Spallation Neutron Source project. Thompson felt so strongly about preserving funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, he fought to exempt funds for the TVA from the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, carving out a new category of "constitutional pork." And though Thompson supported and voted for the presidential line-item veto, he fought vehemently to undo President Clinton's veto of two Tennessee projects.

In response to this, mnehrling said "The difference is Thompson doesn’t make him out to be the champion of anti-earmarks. I’m not harping on Paul’s earmarks per say, but the fact he says one thing but does another."

This is also nonsense. Thompson does indeed make himself out to be, in mnehrling's words "the champion of anti-earmarks".

He made a point of talking about pork barreling spending and the budget. Thompson said that Republicans "lost the advantage" in budgetary issues because they also over spent and did not do anything to get the budget under control. He said, "We went to drain the swamp and became the alligators."

He singled out Tom Coburn and John McCain as two senators he thought were principled on budgetary issues. When I mentioned Democratic Senator Kent Conrad as another budget hawk, he acknowledged that but said Senator Conrad was just as insistent as anyone else in bringing pork back to his home state.

Senator Thompson said it was too hard to change the system when the accomplishments were so minor and the setbacks were so large. To be clear, I didn't bring up the budget issue, he did. It seemed to be his primary source of frustration with his time in the Senate.

However, as you can see, mnehrling has not withdrawn his support for Fred Thompson. The earmark issue, in spite of his harping on the subject over and over again, is something he doesn't care about at all. To him, it's just a tool to try to use against Ron Paul.

[tabsternager]

“They like Ron paul for his anti-semitism.”

What has Paul said or done that’s anti-semitic?

[CougarGA7]

Neither, but here in New Mexico we did have an election for sheriff decided by a coin flip.

[George W. Bush]

Hyperbole Alert Using those words here somehow stoke olfactory memories of a ZOT attack from the past.

Not at all.

This entire thread about "page views" and "originating site" is just about the stupidest and most web-ignorant rant yet.

For instance, many people use the Firefox web browser. It allows the use of browser extensions. One of the top five extensions for it is called FasterFox. Among other network tweaking functions, its main attraction is dynamic preloading of links. This makes it rather hated by webmasters and by ISPs because it automatically pre-fetches all links on every page you visit.

What this means is that a single link posted at FR or at St*rmfr*nt could easily result in most of the 400 page views recorded from those two sites. So it is the browser pre-fetching those pages, not that some FReeper or St*rmfr*nter actually clicked on the link themselves.

Like I said, this thread is just plain ignorant. The fact that you don't know about this tells us a lot about the quality of your opinions on anything having to do with web traffic.

Fasterfox :: Firefox Add-ons

I use Firefox but not the FasterFox extension because I think it makes you kind of a bandwidth hog and there are times when it can actually slow down your browsing. However, there are a number of other FReepers that I know of who do use FasterFox.

Undoubtedly, St*rmfr*nt has received a number of "page views" from FR as a result of this thread, something their webmaster obviously noticed, judging by what people are posting here. And some of those are undoubtedly being caused because some FReepers are using FasterFox to pre-load every link on this thread.

[Badeye]

Wow.

Just wow. Stormfront? Those clowns back Ron Paul?

Sheesh, and here I thought it was just harmless kooks, and those who use contrarianism to fill the void left by not having any creativity....(chuckle)

WOW.

[Badeye]

Great question. Without reading down the thread further, I predict you’ll get the same response I got when I asked why Ron Paul won’t tell us who he voted for in the 2000 and 2004 races, only that he didn’t vote for Bush.

If a man can’t tell the difference between Al Gore and George Bush, he’s not a ‘conservative’ he’s a kook. A cranky one at that.